[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 46 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S3536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1973. A bill to amend section 2511 of title 18, United States 
Code, to revise the consent exception to the prohibition on the 
interception of oral, wire, or electronic communications; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                   the telephone privacy act of 1998

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Chafee, 
Hollings, Boxer, Torricelli, and Wellstone, to introduce the Telephone 
Privacy Act of 1998. The issue of telephone privacy thrusts itself into 
the news every so often. I have introduced similar legislation twice 
before, because these concerns have been with us since Alexander Graham 
Bell installed the first party line.
  In the early '80s Charles Wick was the head of USIA. He freely 
admitted that he had recorded more than eighty conversations with then 
President Reagan and former President Carter, cabinet members and many 
others. None of those people knew that Mr. Wick had recorded their 
conversations. I was absolutely appalled to learn that such conduct is 
perfectly legal. I have been trying to correct that gap in the law ever 
since.
  Usually, we hear about this issue after some incident where an 
unsuspecting person has suffered harsh personal consequences after a 
private conversation has been recorded and disseminated. The Speaker of 
the House himself was recently recorded by a third party while speaking 
on a cellular phone. If that call had been made on an ordinary phone, 
any party to the call could have recorded it without informing the 
Speaker or anyone else--and it would have been perfectly legal. He 
could have broadcast it on the evening news and published the 
transcript in the New York Times. This should be repugnant to almost 
everyone and yet it is all quite legal. My two previous efforts to make 
such conduct illegal failed. I believe that in the present environment 
a majority of our people think it is time to correct this abomination.
  Sixteen states have outlawed the taping of phone conversations 
without the consent of all parties to the call, but the federal law has 
not caught up with those states. Until a bill like mine becomes law, 
recording of personal conversations will be legal, so long as one party 
to the conversation is aware of such recording.
  How many Americans are aware that it is legal for the private 
telephone conversations of any person in this country to be monitored 
and even recorded without his or her consent? Indeed, how many Senators 
know?
  Americans cherish their privacy as nothing else. One of the reasons 
the President's popularity is so high is people believe his privacy and 
the First Lady's privacy has been unfairly invaded.
  How many times have we heard a recording on television or read a 
transcript in the newspaper where one of the parties makes some 
embarrassing revelation, confident that the conversation is 
``private,'' never suspecting that he or she was being recorded?
  I am not talking about authorized law enforcement surveillance. I'm 
not talking about calls to 911. I'm not talking about employers who 
must monitor calls made by employees in the course of their duties and 
my bill makes no change in the law regarding Caller ID technologies. My 
bill would also allow victims of phone threats to record 
threatening calls. This bill retains all of the existing exceptions to 
the law that allow our law enforcement agencies and intelligence 
gathering agencies to carry out their important duties unimpeded.

  I want to emphasize that the only change this bill is intended to 
make to the status quo is this: subject to existing exceptions, under 
my bill, the interception of wire and electronic communications will be 
permitted only where all parties have consented, rather than allowing 
only one party to make that determination. Existing penalties for 
violations of the law will remain unchanged.
  The current law leaves a huge hole in the rights of telephone users. 
We have tolerated that gap for many years, but those have been years in 
which communications technology has exploded. In 1998, the technology 
to intercept and record telephone calls and other wire communications 
is available to almost everyone--you can do it with an ordinary 
answering machine. Much of our lives is now conducted over the 
telephone. Too much of our privacy is at risk. Too much mischief can be 
made to allow this flaw in our right to privacy any longer.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1973

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Telephone Privacy Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF CONSENT EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION ON 
                   INTERCEPTION OF ORAL, WIRE, OR ELECTRONIC 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 2511(2)(d) of title 18, United States Code, shall 
     be revised to read as follows:
       ``(d)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a 
     person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, 
     oral, or electronic communication where all parties to the 
     communication have given prior consent to such interception 
     unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of 
     committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the 
     Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
       ``(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (i), a person may 
     intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where 
     such person is party to the communication and the 
     communication conveys threats of physical harm, harassment or 
     intimidation.''
                                 ______