[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 82 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4884-H4891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR
1999, 2000, AND 2001
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 3303) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice
for fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001; to authorize appropriations for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to carry out certain programs administered
by the Department of Justice, to amend title 28 of the United States
Code with respect to the use of funds available to the Department of
Justice; and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3303
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 ``Department of Justice
Appropriation Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1999, 2000, and
2001''.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1999, 2000,
AND 2001
Subtitle A--Specific Provisions
SEC. 101. SUMS AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED.
There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years
1999, 2000, and 2001, to carry out the activities of the
Department of Justice (including any bureau, office, board,
division, commission, or subdivision thereof), the following
sums:
(1) For General Administration, salaries and expenses:
$238,085,000 for fiscal year 1999, $249,989,000 for fiscal
year 2000, and $262,489,000 for fiscal year 2001.
(2) For Administrative Review and Appeals: $144,863,000 for
fiscal year 1999, $152,106,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$159,712,000 for fiscal year 2001, for administration of
pardon and clemency petitions and for immigration related
activities.
(3) For the Office of Inspector General: $34,610,000 for
fiscal year 1999, $36,341,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$38,158,000 for fiscal year 2001, which shall include--
(A) not to exceed $10,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of
a confidential character, to be expended under the direction
of the Attorney General, and to be accounted for solely on
the certificate of the Attorney General; and
(B) funds for the purchase, lease, maintenance, and
operation of motor vehicles without regard to the general
purchase price limitation.
(4) For General Legal Activities: $485,506,000 for fiscal
year 1999, $509,781,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$535,270,000 for fiscal year 2001, which shall include--
(A) not less than $4,000,000 for each fiscal year for the
investigation and prosecution of denaturalization and
deportation cases involving alleged Nazi war criminals; and
(B) not to exceed $20,000 for each fiscal year to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a
[[Page H4885]]
confidential character to be expended under the direction of
the Attorney General and to be accounted for solely on the
certificate of the Attorney General.
(5) For the Antitrust Division: $102,845,000 for fiscal
year 1999, $107,987,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$113,386,000 for fiscal year 2001.
(6) For United States Attorneys: $1,106,993,000 for fiscal
year 1999, $1,162,343,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$1,220,460,000 for fiscal year 2001.
(7) For the Federal Bureau of Investigation: $3,014,654,000
for fiscal year 1999, $3,164,679,000 for fiscal year 2000,
and $3,322,913,000 for fiscal year 2001, which shall
include--
(A) not to exceed $14,146,000 for each fiscal year--
(i) for construction, acquisition, or renovation of
buildings (including equipment for such buildings) and sites,
by purchase or as otherwise authorized by law;
(ii) for conversion or extension of federally owned
buildings; and
(iii) for preliminary planning and design of projects;
to remain available until expended; and
(B) not to exceed $70,000 for each fiscal year to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character to be
expended under the direction of the Attorney General and to
be accounted for solely on the certificate of the Attorney
General.
(8) For the United States Marshals Service: $529,143,000
for fiscal year 1999, $554,785,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$582,525,000 for fiscal year 2001, which shall include--
(A) not to exceed $6,300,000 for each fiscal year--
(i) for construction, acquisition, or renovation of
buildings (including equipment for such buildings) and sites,
by purchase or as otherwise authorized by law;
(ii) for conversion or extension of federally owned
buildings; and
(iii) for preliminary planning and design of projects;
to remain available until expended; and
(B) $10,000,000 for each fiscal year for administrative
expenses of the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation
System to remain available until expended.
(9) For the Drug Enforcement Administration: $1,193,102,000
for fiscal year 1999, $1,252,358,000 for fiscal year 2000,
and $1,314,994,000 for fiscal year 2001, which shall
include--
(A) not to exceed $8,000,000 for each fiscal year--
(i) for construction, acquisition, or renovation of
buildings (including equipment for such buildings) and sites,
by purchase or as otherwise authorized by law;
(ii) for conversion or extension of federally owned
buildings; and
(iii) for preliminary planning and design of projects;
to remain available until expended;
(B) not to exceed $70,000 for each fiscal year to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character to be
expended under the direction of the Attorney General and to
be accounted for solely on the certificate of the Attorney
General or the Deputy Attorney General; and
(C) not to exceed $15,000,000 for each fiscal year for
diversion control.
(10) For the Immigration and Naturalization Service:
$2,727,490,000 for fiscal year 1999, $2,839,756,000 for
fiscal year 2000, and $2,981,544,000 for fiscal year 2001,
which shall include--
(A) not to exceed $118,170,000 for each fiscal year--
(i) for construction, acquisition, or renovation of
buildings (including equipment for such buildings) and sites,
by purchase or as otherwise authorized by law;
(ii) for conversion or extension of federally owned
buildings; and
(iii) for preliminary planning and design of projects;
to remain available until expended;
(B) not to exceed $50,000 for each fiscal year to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character to be
expended under the direction of the Attorney General and to
be accounted for solely on the certificate of the Attorney
General; and
(C) not to exceed $4,000,000 for each fiscal year to
establish and operate--
(i) a district office in Memphis, Tennessee, for the States
of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Kentucky, and the portion of the
State of Mississippi north of the city of Jackson;
(ii) a district office in San Jose, California, for the
counties of Monterey, Santa Clara, San Benito, and Santa Cruz
of the State of California;
(iii) a suboffice in Nashville, Tennessee, for the counties
of Anderson, Blount, Campbell, Cannon, Carter, Cheatham,
Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Cumberland, Davidson, DeKalb,
Dickson, Fentress, Grainger, Greene, Hamblen, Hancock,
Hawkins, Houston, Humphreys, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson,
Knox, Loudon, Macon, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Overton,
Pickett, Putnam, Roane, Robertson, Rutherford, Scott, Sevier,
Smith, Stewart, Sullivan, Sumner, Trousdale, Unicoi, Union,
Washington, White, Williamson, and Wilson of the State of
Tennessee; and
(iv) a district office in Charlotte, North Carolina, for
the States of North Carolina and South Carolina.
(11) For Fees and Expenses of Witnesses: $95,000,000 for
fiscal year 1999, $99,750,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$104,738,000 for fiscal year 2001, which shall remain
available until expended and which shall include not to
exceed $6,000,000 for each fiscal year for planning,
construction, renovation, maintenance, remodeling, and repair
of buildings, and the purchase of equipment incidental
thereto, for protected witness safesites.
(12) For Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement:
$304,014,000 for fiscal year 1999, $319,215,000 for fiscal
year 2000, and $335,176,000 for fiscal year 2001, for
expenses not otherwise provided for, for the investigation
and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime
drug trafficking, except that any funds obligated from
appropriations authorized by this paragraph may be used under
authorities available to the organizations reimbursed from
such funds.
(13) For the Federal Prison System, including the National
Institute of Corrections: $4,508,480,000 for fiscal year
1999, $4,733,900,000 for fiscal year 2000, and $4,970,595,000
for fiscal year 2001.
(14) For the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission:
$1,335,000 for fiscal year 1999, $1,402,000 for fiscal year
2000, and $1,472,000 for fiscal year 2001.
(15) For the Community Relations Service: $8,899,000 for
fiscal year 1999, $9,344,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$9,812,000 for fiscal year 2001.
(16) For the Assets Forfeiture Fund: $23,000,000 for fiscal
year 1999, $24,150,000 for fiscal year 2000, and $25,358,000
for fiscal year 2001, as may be necessary for the payment of
expenses as authorized by section 524 of title 28, United
States Code.
(17) For Support of United States Prisoners in Non-Federal
Institutions: $450,858,000 for fiscal year 1999, $473,401,000
for fiscal year 2000, and $497,072,000 for fiscal year 2001,
which shall remain available until expended. Such sums may be
expended to reimburse appropriate health care providers for
the care, diagnosis, and treatment of United States prisoners
and individuals adjudicated in Federal courts as not guilty
by reason of insanity, but only at rates that do not exceed
the actual cost of such care, diagnosis, and treatment. Not
to exceed $20,000,000 for each fiscal year shall remain
available until expended for the purpose of entering into
contracts for only the reasonable and actual cost to assist
the government of any State, territory, or political
subdivision thereof for purposes of renovating, constructing,
and equipping any facility that confines Federal detainees,
in accordance with regulations to be issued by the Attorney
General comparable to the regulations issued under section
4006 of title 18, United States Code.
(18) For the United States Parole Commission: $7,621,000
for fiscal year 1999, $8,002,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$8,402,000 for fiscal year 2001.
SEC. 102. FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES.
Notwithstanding section 4129 of title 18, United States
Code, not to exceed $3,266,000 for fiscal year 1999, and not
to exceed $3,429,000 for fiscal year 2000, and not to exceed
$3,601,000 for fiscal year 2001, of the funds available to
Federal Prison Industries may be used for--
(1) administrative expenses; and
(2) services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code;
to be computed on an accrual basis in accordance with the
current prescribed accounting system of Federal Prison
Industries. Such funds shall be exclusive of depreciation,
payment of claims, and expenditures that such accounting
system requires to be capitalized or charged to the cost of
commodities acquired or produced (including selling and
shipping expenses) and expenses incurred in connection with
acquisition, construction, operation, maintenance,
improvement, protection, or disposition of facilities and
other property of Federal Prison Industries.
Subtitle B--General Provisions
SEC. 151. APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEYS; REDUCTION OF CERTAIN LITIGATION
POSITIONS.
(a) Appointments Required.--Not later than September 30,
2000, the Attorney General may exercise authority under
section 542 of title 28, United States Code, to appoint 200
assistant United States attorneys in addition to the number
of assistant United States attorneys serving on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Selection of Appointees.--Individuals first appointed
under subsection (a) shall be appointed from among attorneys
who are incumbents of 200 full-time litigation positions in
divisions of the Department of Justice and whose official
duty station is at the seat of Government.
(c) Termination of Positions.--Each of the 200 litigation
positions that become vacant by reason of an appointment made
in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) shall be
terminated at the time the vacancy arises.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
years 1999 and 2000 to carry out this section.
TITLE II--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROGRAMS
SEC. 201. AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACT OF 1994.
(a) Expeditious Deportation for Denied Asylum Applicants.--
Section 130005(c) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (8 U.S.C. 1158 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end,
[[Page H4886]]
(2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon, and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(6) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
(b) Amendments to Violence Against Women Act of 1994.--
Section 40114 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat 1910) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon, and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) $500,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(5) $500,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
(c) Improving Border Controls.--Section 130006(a) of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (8
U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon, and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(6) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
(d) Expanded Special Deportation Proceedings.--Section
130007(d) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (8 U.S.C. 1252 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end.
(2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon, and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(6) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
(e) Training Programs.--Section 40152(c) of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
13941(c)) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2), and
inserting the following:
``(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(2) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
(f) Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program.--
Section 240001(d) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14181(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon, and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) $900,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(5) $900,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
(g) Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Program.--Section
220002(h) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14171(h)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon, and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) $750,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(5) $750,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
(h) Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement
Assistance Act.--Section 40295(c)(1) of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
13971(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(2) in subparagraph (C) by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon, and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(E) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
SEC. 202. AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH
PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1214) is amended--
(1) in section 819(b) by striking ``for fiscal'' and all
that follows through ``section'', and inserting ``to carry
out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000'', and
(2) in section 821 by striking ``not more than $10,000,000
for fiscal year 1997'' and inserting ``$10,000,000 for fiscal
year 1999 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000''.
SEC. 203. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER PROPERTY OF MARGINAL VALUE.
Section 524(c)(9)(B) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``year 1997'' and inserting ``years 1999
and 2000''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``Such transfer shall be subject to satisfaction by the
recipient involved of any outstanding lien against the
property transferred.''.
SEC. 204. COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE.
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47
U.S.C. 1001-1021) is amended--
(1) in section 108(c)(3) by striking ``on or before January
1, 1995'' and inserting ``before October 1, 2000'',
(2) in section 109--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in the heading by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2000'', and
(ii) by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and inserting
``October 1, 2000'',
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in the heading by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2000'',
(ii) in paragraph (1)--
(I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking
``January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``October 1, 2000'', and
(II) in subparagraph (J) by striking ``January 1, 1995''
and inserting ``October 1, 2000'', and
(iii) in paragraph (2) by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2000'', and
(C) in subsection (d)--
(i) in the heading by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2000'', and
(ii) by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and inserting
``October 1, 2000'',
(3) in section 110 by striking ``and 1998'' and inserting
``1998, 1999, and 2000'', and
(4) in section 111(b) by striking ``on the date that is 4
years after the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting
``October 1, 2000''.
SEC. 205. CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE.
Section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)) is amended by striking subparagraphs (A)
through (F) and inserting the following:
``(A) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
``(B) $800,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
``(C) $850,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
TITLE III--PERMANENT ENABLING PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. PERMANENT AUTHORITY.
(a) Amendment.--Chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 530B. Authority to use available funds
``(a) Permitted Uses.--Except to the extent provided
otherwise by law applicable to funds available to carry out
the activities of the Department of Justice (including any
bureau, office, board, division, commission, or subdivision
thereof) and in addition to authority provided in subsections
(a) and (b) of section 524 of this title, the Attorney
General may use such funds as follows:
``(1) General permitted uses.--Such funds may be used for
the following:
``(A) The purchase, lease, maintenance, and operation of
passenger motor vehicles, or police-type motor vehicles for
law enforcement purposes, without regard to general purchase
price limitation for the then current fiscal year.
``(B) The purchase of insurance for motor vehicles, boats,
and aircraft operated in official Government business in
foreign countries.
``(C) Services of experts and consultants, including
private counsel, as authorized by section 3109 of title 5,
and at rates of pay for individuals not to exceed the maximum
daily rate payable from time to time under section 5332 of
title 5.
``(D) Not to exceed $200,000 for each fiscal year for
official receptions and representation expenses, in
accordance with distributions, procedures, and regulations
established by the Attorney General.
``(E) Unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character,
to be expended under the direction of the Attorney General
and accounted for solely on the certificate of the Attorney
General.
``(F) Miscellaneous and emergency expenses authorized or
approved by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney
General, the Associate Attorney General, or the Assistant
Attorney General for Administration.
``(G) In accordance with procedures established and
regulations issued by the Attorney General--
``(i) attendance at meetings and seminars;
``(ii) conferences and training; and
``(iii) advances of public moneys under section 3324 of
title 31.
Travel advances of such funds to law enforcement personnel
engaged in undercover activity shall be considered to be
public money for purposes of section 3527 of title 31.
``(H) For the conduct of its activities, including for
contracting with individuals for personal services abroad,
except that such individuals shall not be regarded as
employees of the United States for the purpose of any law
administered by the Office of Personnel Management.
``(I) Payment of interpreters and translators who are not
citizens of the United States, in accordance with procedures
established and regulations issued by the Attorney General.
``(2) Specific permitted uses.--
``(A) Aircraft and boats.--Funds available for United
States Attorneys, for the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
for the United States Marshals Service, for the Drug
Enforcement Administration, and for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service may be used for the purchase, lease,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft and boats, for law
enforcement purposes.
``(B) Payment of rewards; purchase of evidence.--Funds
available for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for the
Drug Enforcement Administration, for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, and for the Federal Prison System may
be used for the payment of rewards, for the purchase of
evidence, and for payment for information in connection with
law enforcement.
``(C) Purchase of ammunition and firearms; firearms
competitions.--Funds available for United States Attorneys,
for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for the United
States Marshals Service, for the Drug Enforcement
Administration, and for the Immigration and Naturalization
Service may be used for--
``(i) the purchase of ammunition and firearms; and
``(ii) participation in firearms competitions.
``(3) Uniforms.--Funds available for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and for the Federal Prison System may
be used for expenses or allowances for uniforms as authorized
by section 5901 of title 5 but without regard to the general
purchase price limitation for the then current fiscal year.
[[Page H4887]]
``(4) Fees and expenses of witnesses.--Funds available for
Fees and Expenses of Witnesses may be used for expenses,
mileage, compensation, and per diem in lieu of subsistence,
of witnesses as authorized by law (including advances of
public money), but no witness may be paid more than 1
attendance fee for any 1 calendar day.
``(5) Federal bureau of investigation.--(A) Funds available
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation may be used for the
conduct of its activities, including for--
``(i) expenses necessary for the detection and prosecution
of crimes against the United States;
``(ii) protection of the person of the Attorney General;
``(iii) investigations regarding official matters under the
control of the Department of Justice and the Department of
State, as may be directed by the Attorney General;
``(iv) the confidential lease of surveillance sites for law
enforcement purposes; and
``(v) acquisition, collection, classification, and
preservation of identification and other records and their
exchange with, and for the official use of, the duly
authorized officials of the Federal Government, of States, of
cities, and of such other institutions, as authorized by law,
such exchange to be subject to cancellation if dissemination
is made outside the receiving departments or related
agencies.
``(B)(i) The Federal Bureau of Investigation may establish
and collect fees for the processing of noncriminal employment
and licensing fingerprint records. Such fees shall represent
the full cost of furnishing the service.
``(ii) Such fees collected shall be credited to the
Salaries and Expenses, Federal Bureau of Investigation
appropriation without regard to section 3302(b) of title 31
and, to the extent specified in appropriations Acts, shall be
available until expended for salaries and other expenses
incurred in processing such records.
``(iii) No fee shall be assessed in connection with the
processing of requests for criminal history records by
criminal justice agencies for criminal justice purposes or
for employment in criminal justice agencies.
``(6) Immigration and naturalization service.--Funds
available for the Immigration and Naturalization Service may
be used for the administration and enforcement of laws
relating to immigration, naturalization, and alien
registration, including for--
``(A) acquisition of land as sites for enforcement fences,
and construction incidental to such fences;
``(B) cash advances to aliens for meals and lodging en
route;
``(C) refunds of maintenance bills, immigration fines, and
other items properly returnable, except deposits of aliens
who become public charges and deposits to secure payment of
fines and passage money; and
``(D) expenses and allowances incurred in tracking lost
persons, as required by public exigencies, in aid of State or
local law enforcement agencies.
``(7) Federal prison system.--Funds available for the
Federal Prison System may be used for the conduct of its
activities, including for--
``(A) the administration, operation, and maintenance of
Federal penal and correctional institutions, including inmate
medical services and inmate legal services, within the
Federal prison system;
``(B) planning, acquisition of sites, and construction of
new facilities, including--
``(i) the purchase and acquisition of facilities, and
remodeling and equipping of such facilities, for penal and
correctional institutions; and
``(ii) the payment of United States prisoners for work
performed in the activities described in this subparagraph;
which shall remain available until expended;
``(C) construction of buildings at prison camps and
acquisition of land as authorized by section 4010 of title
18;
``(D) the labor of the United States prisoners performed in
the construction, remodeling, renovating, converting,
expanding, planning, designing, maintaining, or equipping of
prison buildings or facilities; and
``(E) the purchase and exchange of farm products and
livestock.
``(b) Related Provisions.--
``(1) Limitation of compensation of individuals employed as
attorneys.--None of the funds available to the Attorney
General may be used to pay compensation for services provided
by an individual employed as an attorney (other than an
individual employed to provide services as a foreign
attorney in special cases) unless such individual is duly
licensed and authorized to practice as an attorney under
the law of a State, a territory of the United States, or
the District of Columbia.
``(2) Reimbursements paid to governmental entities.--Funds
available to the Attorney General that are paid as a
reimbursement to a governmental unit in the Department of
Justice, to another Federal entity, or to a unit of State or
local government may be used under the authority applicable
to such unit or such entity that receives such
reimbursement.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
31 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``530B. Authority to use available funds.''.
SEC. 302. PERMANENT AUTHORITY RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF
LAWS.
(a) Amendment.--Chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code,
as amended by section 301, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 530C. Report on enforcement of laws
``(a) Report Required.--The Attorney General shall transmit
a report to each House of the Congress in any case in which
the Attorney General--
``(1) establishes a policy to refrain from enforcing any
provision of any Federal statute whose enforcement is the
responsibility of the Department of Justice, because of the
position of the Attorney General that such provision is not
constitutional; or
``(2) determines that the Department of Justice will
contest, or will refrain from defending, in any judicial,
administrative, or other proceeding, any provision of any
Federal statute, because of the position of the Attorney
General that such provision is not constitutional.
``(b) Deadline for Report.--Any report required by
subsection (a) shall be transmitted not later than 30 days
after the Attorney General establishes the policy specified
in subsection (a)(1) or makes the determination specified in
subsection (a)(2). Each such report shall--
``(1) specify the provision of the Federal statute
involved:
``(2) include a detailed statement of the reasons for the
position of the Attorney General; and
``(3) in the case of a determination specified in
subsection (a)(2), indicate the nature of the proceeding
involved.
``(c) Declaration.--In the case of a determination
specified in subsection (a)(2), the representative of the
Department of Justice participating in the proceeding shall
make a declaration in such proceeding that the position of
the Attorney General on the constitutionality of the
provision of the Federal statute involved is the position of
the executive branch of the Federal Government.''.
``(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by
section 301, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``530C. Report on enforcement of laws.''.
SEC. 303. PROTECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Section 533(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``or the person of the Attorney General'' before
the semicolon at the end.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 401. REPEALERS.
(a) Open-Ended Authorization of Appropriations for National
Institute of Corrections--Chapter 319 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking section 4353; and
(2) in the table of sections for such chapter by striking
the item relating to section 4353.
(b) Open-Ended Authorization of Appropriations for United
States Marshals Service.--Section 561 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by striking subsection (i).
SEC. 402. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 542(c)(5) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``Fund'' the 2nd place it appears and
inserting ``Fund,''.
SEC. 403. APPLICABILITY OF TITLE III.
The amendments made by title III shall not apply with
respect to funds available for any fiscal year ending before
fiscal year 1999.
SEC. 404. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed to modify or supersede the application or
operation of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 601-
619).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr.
Faleomavaega) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
General Leave
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 3303.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3303,
the Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act for fiscal
years 1999, 2000 and 2001. This important bipartisan legislation, which
I introduced with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in March,
is a comprehensive 3-year authorization of the Justice Department's
activities and programs.
On April 29, 1998, the Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill
as amended by voice vote.
As you know, authorization is the process by which Congress creates,
amends and extends programs in response to national needs. It is
perhaps the most important oversight tool that Congress can employ.
Through authorization, legislative committees establish program
objectives and they set
[[Page H4888]]
ceilings on the amounts that may be appropriated for them. Once a
Federal program has been authorized, the Committee on Appropriations
recommends the actual budget authority, which allows Federal agencies
to enter into obligations and actually spend the money that is
authorized.
With respect to the Department of Justice, the law requires that all
money appropriated must first be authorized by an act of Congress.
Notwithstanding this obligation to authorize, Congress has not properly
reauthorized the department's activities since 1979. Since that time,
several attempts have failed, either because of bad timing or because
the reauthorization bills were loaded with controversial amendments.
This 19-year failure to properly reauthorize the department has
forced the appropriations committees in both houses to reauthorize and
appropriate money. This reauthorization money endeavor is both an
attempt to improve the efficiency of the department and an opportunity
to reaffirm the authority and responsibility of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Let me say, the passage of this bill today does not mean the end of
the Committee on the Judiciary's oversight of the department. To the
contrary, it is my intention that, with the assistance of recently
approved additional staff and resources, the committee will take an
even closer look at the operations and policies of the department in
the coming months.
Let me briefly summarize H.R. 3303. The bill contains four titles.
Title I authorizes appropriations to carry out the work of the
various components of the department for fiscal years 1999, 2000 and
2001. Title I largely adheres to the department's budget request for
fiscal year 1999 by providing nearly $15.5 billion, and it would
authorize a 5 percent increase for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
The proposed increases for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, though an
approximation of the department's actual budgetary requirements, are
the result of consultations with the department and an analysis of the
historical trend. I have a high degree of confidence that the H.R. 3303
appropriation authorizations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 are
accurate.
Section 151 of title I would authorize, but not require, the Attorney
General to transfer 200 lawyers from among the six litigating divisions
at Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. to the U.S.
Attorneys. The provision is intended to raise the productivity of
Washington-based lawyers who litigate criminal and civil cases for the
department across the Nation by moving them to the field.
Title II reauthorizes for two additional years a number of successful
programs whose authorizations will expire at the end of fiscal year
1998. These reauthorized programs will, for example, expedite the
deportation of aliens who have been denied asylum, combat violence
against women, and fund specialized training for and equipment to
enhance the capability of metropolitan fire and emergency service
departments to respond to terrorist attacks.
Section 204 of title II would amend the Communications Assistance for
Law Enforcement Act, also known as CALEA, by changing the effective
date for purposes of compliance enforcement and the grandfathering of
telecommunications carrier equipment facilities and services. This
amendment does not alter the substance or effect of CALEA, and it
enjoys widespread bipartisan support.
Title III would grant permanent authorization for certain inherent
and non-controversial functions of the department. The department has
requested permanent authorizing authority in the past, and proposed
authority has appeared in several reauthorization bills since the last
reauthorization in 1979.
Title III largely mirrors the language of these earlier bills, except
to the extent it has been updated to meet the changing needs of Federal
law enforcement in the 1990s. I believe the department should have, for
example, permanent authority to purchase aircraft and police-type motor
vehicles, as well as firearms, ammunition and uniforms, for its
employees. This permanent authority would be subject to available
appropriations.
Title IV would, among other things, repeal the permanent open-ended
authorization of the United States Marshals Service. The service's
permanent authorization is an anomaly among the department's components
that immunizes it from congressional scrutiny. It should be subject to
the same oversight that other department components of the departments
are.
H.R. 3303 would grant the Marshals Service narrower permanent
authority in line with the permanent authority to be granted the rest
of the department.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3303 reaffirms the role of Congress in the
oversight of the Justice Department. Through this reauthorization
endeavor and our continuing oversight, we will enhance the department's
efficiency and increase public confidence in all of its many missions.
I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this important
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,
for bringing this legislation to the floor. I do want to state that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking Democrat of the
committee, is necessarily not here with us because of transportation
problems from his home district.
Mr. Speaker, this bill marks the first time in 19 years that the
Committee on the Judiciary has sought to reauthorize the Department of
Justice. In putting this legislation together, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I principally relied on the recommendations of
the Department of Justice. It was a rare opportunity for bipartisan
participation, and the bill was voted on out of committee by voice
vote.
The responsibilities of the Department of Justice are wide-ranging
and the department, by and large, has done a good job in enforcing laws
to protect American citizens.
{time} 1415
Not only does the department have the responsibilities of
apprehending, prosecuting, and incarcerating criminal offenders, it
must also uphold the civil rights of all Americans, enforce the laws to
protect the environment, ensure competition of business in the private
sector by fighting potential monopolies, fight against fraud,
terrorism, and drug trafficking, and enforce the immigration and
naturalization laws.
Mr. Speaker, the department has been extremely successful in reducing
the incidence of violent crime, particularly in the area of hate
crimes, in reducing juvenile violence, and enforcing our laws at the
border to prevent migrant trafficking.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an important piece of legislation,
and certainly deserves the full support of the Members of this House.
Again, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, for his
leadership on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3303.
Mr. Speaker, yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank our friend from
American Samoa for stepping in when the Committee on the Judiciary was,
on our side, temporarily absent. I appreciate his doing this and
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to oppose this bill. I am not going to
support it very enthusiastically, but I do not expect my lack of
enthusiasm seriously to disturb anybody at this point. But I do take
the floor to make the point that I am disappointed that we are making
so little progress on the reform of the prison industry system.
We have a paradox in this country. We have strong laws against the
importation of goods that are made by prison labor overseas, and many
of the Members who are concerned about human rights point to prison
labor as an example of a violation of human rights.
But for some reason that principle appears to dissolve when it hits
salt
[[Page H4889]]
water. It is a very important principle for us overseas, but for
reasons I have not been able to discover, because no one who supports
the policy will tell me, we ignore it domestically. We employ prison
labor.
I am in favor of prisoners being usefully employed. I am in favor of
whatever rehabilitative effects come from prison labor. But I do not
understand that part of the rehabilitation of prisoners is sending them
out to take orders. Prisoners do not do a great deal of marketing.
Indeed, there have even been concerns to the extent to which they have
been able to do some telemarketing.
I say that because I am very much in favor of inmates being given
useful work, but it does not seem to me that we should be selling their
product in competition with things made by citizens and others working
in the free market.
The current prison labor system not only sends some things out into
competition, but reserves certain areas of that market for prison labor
and does not even allow the free market to compete. That seems to me
wholly inappropriate. We would object if this was done internationally.
An insistence on reforming these sets of rules which lock out free
enterprise from the prison labor system in fact unites the National
Federation of Independent Businesses and the AFL-CIO.
I have worked with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and others to try to reform
that system. I believe we could have a system in which prisoners are
employed, but in which they do not get this competitive advantage over
others.
Indeed, I believe we should be exploring the extent to which we can
have prisoners make things and give them away, donate them to various
groups that are insufficiently funded to be in the market. That is, I
think there is a demand in day care centers, in homeless shelters and
in other places so that furniture, clothing, curtains, things that are
made in prison industries could in fact be distributed. I hope we will
look at this.
Many of us have been frustrated, and I and others have been pushing
for a look at this. When this bill came up in committee we raised the
issue, and offered an amendment tentatively, and withdrew it because we
were assured by the chairman of the subcommittee there would be some
progress.
The progress has been very slow. I am pleased that we now have a
hearing set up for this week on alternatives. There is a bill that the
subcommittee chairman has drafted that many of us who have been trying
to change the system do not like. We have our own version.
I hope that we will, after this hearing, be able to proceed to some
committee consideration of this, ultimately getting it to the floor. We
are late in the year. I do not have high hopes that we are going to
pass a bill this year, but why should this bill be any different? We
are not passing a lot of anything this year.
On the other hand, I would hope we would get a fair enough start in
this process so we could assure people who are concerned that we are
serious about that and that, frankly, realistically, early next year we
would be dealing on the floor with some legislation.
I see the chairman there. Mr. Speaker, I ask the subcommittee
chairman, who I see approaching the microphone. I hope he would give me
some assurance.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has very cordially been
involved with us in trying to move a product towards the floor and
ultimately get a chance for it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am
reaching the point where I am behaving more cordially than I feel.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker,
we always understand that, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank).
At any rate, as the gentleman well stated, we do have a hearing set
this Thursday. It would be my hope that when we get back from the
recess that we will have at least one more hearing, and then mark the
bill up in subcommittee. I, as the gentleman, do not know the progress
that will be made all the way through, but it would be nice to have
that bill through the Committee on the Judiciary, and maybe the whole
House would be able to vote on a product with the gentleman.
I share with him, and want to put it on the record, I share with the
gentleman that the current structure of the Federal prison industries
is not appropriate. I do not think the mandatory source rule is a good
idea to continue. I do think we may differ on some of the details, but
we need to find a way to have prisoners not only meaningfully engaged
in work, but find some way where labor and small business can
participate.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. I wonder if the
chairman of the full committee might indicate what his view is on what
the chairman of subcommittee has just said.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I associate myself completely with the remarks of the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the chairman of the full
committee.
Mr. Speaker, given the importance of this and the fact that we are
making some progress, I thank my friend from American Samoa. I look
forward to our being able to begin the serious process of making some
changes in the prison system.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3303, the
Department of Justice Authorization Act. I would like to comment
briefly on provisions in Section 204 (Communications Assistance).
The original purpose of the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) was to preserve the government's
ability, pursuant to a court order, to intercept communications which
utilized advanced telecommunications technology, while protecting the
privacy of communications and without impeding the introduction of new
technology, features, and services. CALEA was intended to refine the
telecommunication's industry's existing duty to cooperate in the
conduct of electronic surveillance and to establish procedures based on
public accountability and industry standard-setting.
CALEA permitted the telecommunications industry itself to develop
technical standards to implement the requirements of the Act, and
established a process for the Attorney General to identify law
enforcement's capacity requirements for electronic surveillance.
Unfortunately, these standards have been delayed due to a dispute over
their breadth and scope, and are now under review by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). CALEA also required the FBI, on behalf
of the Attorney General, to issue its notice of electronic surveillance
capacity in 1995. However, this notice was not provided to the industry
until March, 1998.
The Act requires the federal government to reimburse
telecommunications carriers for their just and reasonable costs to
develop and implement the assistance capability requirements of CALEA.
Existing carrier networks were to be ``grandfathered'' unless the
government agreed to pay for their retrofitting. Increases in carrier
network capacity to accommodate law enforcement's electronic
surveillance needs were to be paid for by the government. To date,
however, virtually no funds have been expended to implement CALEA.
Mr. Speaker, delays in the implementation of CALEA have prevented the
telecommunications industry and law enforcement from complying with its
provisions. It is appropriate to recognize the effect of the delays of
the implementation of CALEA by moving both its effective and
``grandfather'' dates. H.R. 3303 recognizes the reality of the delays
of implementing this important crime-fighting legislation and gives
both the telecommunications industry and law enforcement additional
time to prepare for CALEA's implementation.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, section 204 of H.R. 3303 contains an
amendment to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(Public Law 103-414), commonly referred to as ``CALEA.'' Specifically,
the provisions would extend the authorization for the Attorney General
to provide reimbursements to certain telecommunications carriers that
comply with the provisions of CALEA.
CALEA was enacted into law at the end of the 103rd Congress. The
purpose of the law is sound: prevent the curtailment of legal wiretaps
by our nation's law enforcement community as communications technology
advances.
[[Page H4890]]
The digital age and digitalization of the telecommunications industry
makes legal interception of communications more difficult and time
consuming. In addition, making digital telecommunications equipment
capable of wiretapping is costly and complex as much of the equipment
must be altered or modified. CALEA was intended to set up a mechanism
whereby the Federal government would reimburse telecommunications
carriers for certain qualifying equipment costs caused by complying
with the provisions of CALEA.
It is clear that there has been significant disagreement between
portions of the U.S. Government and the telecommunications industry
regarding the implementation of CALEA. I am hopeful that all parties
can work out any differences. I ask that everyone involved redouble
their efforts to come to an acceptable resolution. I am hopeful that
Congress does not have to revisit this issue again, but we will if
necessary.
Section 204 is a simple extension of the authorization of the
Attorney General to provide payments to telecommunications carriers
with certain qualifications beyond the original statutory deadline.
Without this provision, much of the initial $500,000 provided for under
the bill would not be authorized to be disbursed. To date, only about
$100,000 has been disbursed by the Attorney General. It is important
that all of the tools designed to foster telecommunications equipment
compliance with the goals of CALEA be available to the relevant
parties.
Under an agreement worked out in the 103rd Congress, jurisdiction
over issues contained in CALEA are split between the House Committees
on the Judiciary and Commerce. While title II of CALEA contains
provisions relating to jurisdiction common to the House Judiciary
Committee and title III of the law contains provisions common to the
Commerce Committee's jurisdiction, title I contains provisions that are
traditionally shared between the two committees. As section 204 is an
amendment to title I of CALEA, specifically section 110, it falls
within the shared jurisdiction category.
I will not object to section 204 of H.R. 3303 and I will not seek a
referral of the bill to the Commerce Committee because this important
provision should move forward as quickly as possible. However, I plan
to continue to closely monitor the implementation of the CALEA
provisions. Further, the Commerce Committee intends to fully exercise
its rights and jurisdiction over CALEA matters in the future,
especially if this issue or other CALEA-related matters need further
Congressional attention.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the United States Department
of Justice is the premier law enforcement institution in the world.
With more than 108,000 employees, the Department has primary
responsibility for protecting American citizens from crime, ensuring
the healthy competition of businesses in our free enterprise system,
safeguarding the consumer, and for enforcing our nation's drug,
immigration and naturalization laws.
The Justice Department does an outstanding job in carrying out its
mission. DOJ's accomplishments are impressive. They have taken us one
step closer to answering the concerns of all Americans--to make our
streets safer, eliminate the scourge of drugs, reduce youth violence,
strengthen our borders against illegal immigration, protect our
environment, ensure our civil rights, combat violence against women,
and ensure equal justice for all.
Last year, the national violent crime rate dropped for the fifth year
in a row, marking the longest period of decline in 25 years.
Between 1994 and 1995, violent crime dropped 12.4 percent--the
largest drop since the Department's survey of such statistics began in
1973.
The juvenile violent crime arrest rate increased 69 percent between
1987 and 1994. Between 1994 and 1996, the violent crime rate decreased
by 11.9 percent.
The COPS program has awarded grants to increase the number of police
on the streets by 57,500, more than halfway to the goal of 100,000
community police officers by the year 2000.
The Department of Justice awarded grants totalling $184.6 million for
Violence Against Women programs and $46 million to 336 communities to
help make police organizations more responsive to domestic violence.
The Department of Justice has deported criminal aliens in record
numbers. Last year, over 37,000 criminal aliens were deported.
DOJ continues to play a lead role in the enforcement of the nation's
civil rights laws, which define and prohibit unlawful discrimination in
a wide rage of areas, including employment, housing, voting, and
education.
I am pleased that Chairman Hyde has sought to rekindle the
relationship between this Committee and the Justice Department and I
congratulate him on the efforts he has made to work in cooperation with
DOJ in drafting H.R. 3003, the legislation reauthorizing the Department
of Justice.
As I review this legislation there are two points upon which I would
like to comment. The first is funding for the Department over the next
three years. The Department of Justice has expanded rapidly over the
last 15 years. In 1981, DOJ had a budget of $2.3 billion. In response
to DOJ's growing responsibilities in enforcing the nation's criminal
and civil laws, the Department's budget request for Fiscal Year 1999
has increased exceeds $20 billion.
H.R. 3303 reflects that request and authorizes a 5 percent increase
in each of the Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. This will allow the
Department to expand as necessary to fulfill its role as the nation's
premier law enforcement agency.
Secondly, I was pleased to see the reauthorization of the Rural
Domestic Violence and Child Adult Enforcement Assistance Act. As an
advocate for women's and children's issues, I strongly support
reauthorization of these important programs.
Domestic violence is a horror and tragedy that should have no place
in our society, but instead it is an all too common reality. Domestic
violence is a public and personal health problem that affects the lives
of millions of women and their families. Two million to four million
women each year become victims of violence at the hands of an
intimate--a husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend. There is a
20-30% lifetime risk for a woman to be battered.
In 1995, almost 1 million children--2,700 a day--were abused or
neglected. This number was up almost 25 percent since 1990. The number
of children seriously injured by abuse nearly quadrupled between 1986
and 1993, according to interviews with child-serving professionals.
Reauthorizing the Rural Domestic Violence and Child Adult Enforcement
Assistance Act is critical in our nation's battle to stamp out the
abuse of these most vulnerable of its citizens.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that we were able to
work in a bipartisan manner to include my amendment to this legislation
to extend some of the deadlines for telecommunications carriers to
comply with requirements under the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA). I offered this amendment at full Judiciary
Committee markup, where it garnered support from Members on both sides
of the aisle, but withdrew it with assurances from Crime Subcommittee
Chairman McCollum that he would introduce and push for enactment of
legislation to address these and other issues related to CALEA. We have
yet to see action on CALEA-related legislation, so it is necessary to
address the matter in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the CALEA implementation process has not gone as
Congress had expected when CALEA was enacted in 1994. While all
parties--the Administration, the telecommunications industry, and
privacy and civil liberties organizations--have negotiated in good
faith, clearly a resolution is not close at hand.
In fact, the parties have now petitioned the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to break the impasse.
Certainly, all involved can share some of the blame, but I do not
think that the telecommunications industry and our civil liberties
should be made to suffer for the lack of an agreement. My amendment
merely creates a ``safety valve'' to remove the pressure from the
impending October 1 deadline, and recognizes the reality of the delays
in the negotiating process. The Justice Department has already admitted
that CALEA-compliant solutions will not be ``available'' from
manufacturers until 1999-2001, regardless of what transpires. It is not
fair to punish industry for failing to provide this technology faster
than even the Justice Department has deemed possible.
Therefore, like Congressman Barr's bill (H.R. 3321), my amendment
postpones deadline for compliance with CALEA from this October until
October 1, 2000. This should provide the parties and the FCC time to
come to an agreement, and to test and deploy agreed-upon solutions.
It is also unfair to force industry to pay for recent upgrades made
to their ``embedded base'' that do not conform to nonexistent CALEA
standards. The original Act provided that all upgrades made after
January 1, 1995 would be the responsibility of telecommunications
carriers, and they would bear the cost of modifying their equipment to
conform with CALEA after that date. It has obviously been necessary for
industry to upgrade their equipment in the last three and a half years,
and no one in Congress believed that so much time would be necessary to
complete this process. Therefore, it is not appropriate to place the
cost burden of anticipated equipment modifications on
telecommunications companies and their customers.
My amendment, also like the Barr bill, would grandfather in all
equipment deployed and installed before October 1, 2000. Industry would
be responsible for retrofitting noncompliant equipment installed after
that date.
This is a narrow fix to an immediate and critical problem. If an
agreement is not
[[Page H4891]]
reached by October 1, industry would be liable for fines and for the
costs of upgrading much of their equipment. The FBI has been using this
as a bargaining tool in their discussions with industry and civil
liberties groups, but this is not the atmosphere in which these
discussions were supposed to take place.
This amendment will merely give a reprieve to the negotiators, and
allow for a full and deliberate resolution of this critical issue.
Congress will have greater leeway to monitor the FCC's attempts to
break the impasse and to ratify or alter any proposed compromise. Even
with enactment of this provision, many other contentious issues will
remain, but this legislation is not the proper vehicle for resolving
those issues.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we were able to include my amendment in
this important legislation, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues on continued efforts to implement CALEA.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act for Fiscal Years,
1999, 2000, and 2001. As the original author of the CALEA
Implementation Amendment of 1998, H.R. 3321, the Department of Justice
Appropriation Authorization Act, H.R. 3003, contains language in
Section 204 which embodied the principles of my bill. I believe it is
incumbent on us in Congress to recognize the delays that have occurred
in the implementing of the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (CALEA), by extending the time for compliance, and to
clarify the ``grandfathered'' status of existing telecommunication
network equipment facilities and services during the time period the
CALEA-compliant technology is developed.
The purpose of CALEA is to preserve the federal government's ability,
pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept
communications involving advanced telecommunication technologies, while
protecting the privacy of communications and without impeding the
introduction of new technologies, features, and services. CALEA further
defined the telecommunication industry's duty to cooperate in the
conduct of electronic surveillance, and to establish procedures based
on public accountability and industry standard setting.
CALEA necessarily involved a balancing of interests of the
telecommunications industry, law enforcement, and privacy groups. The
law allowed the telecommunication industry to develop standards to
implement the requirements of CALEA and establish a process for the
U.S. Attorney General to identify capacity requirements for electronic
surveillance. The law required the federal government to reimburse
carriers their just and reasonable costs incurred in modifying existing
equipment, services or features necessary to comply with the assistance
capability requirements of the law. The CALEA law also required the
federal government pay for delays in the implementation of the law that
have prevented the telecommunication industry and law enforcement from
complying with its provisions.
The development and adoption of industry technical standards have
been delayed, and these standards are now being challenged before the
Federal Communications Commission by both law enforcement and privacy
groups. The release of the federal government's capacity notice for
electronic surveillance needs was over two and a half years late. It is
clear form the telecommunication's equipment manufacturers that no
CALEA-compliant technology will be available for purchase and
implementation by telecommunication carriers by the effective date,
currently set for October 25, 1998. Further, since the enactment of
CALEA, substantial changes have occurred in the telecommunication
industry, such as the enactment of the Telecommunication Act of 1996,
which resulted in many new entrants in the industry and other changes
in the competitive marketplace. Finally, during the four year,
``transition period'' initially contemplated by Congress for the
implementation of CALEA, the telecommunication industry has installed
and continued to deploy technology and equipment which is not compliant
with assistance capacity requirements of CALEA, since ``CALEA
technology'' has not been fully developed or designed into such
equipment.
Mr. Speaker, House of Representatives Report No. 103-827 makes it
clear the Federal Government intended to bear the costs of CALEA
implementation during the four-year transition period between the
enactment and the effective dates. Congress recognized it was much more
economical to design new telecommunications switching equipment,
features, and services the necessary assistance capability
requirements, rather than to retrofit such equipment, features, and
services after the fact. Congress recognized some retrofitting would
nonetheless be necessary, provided that carriers would be in compliance
with CALEA absent a commitment by law enforcement to reimburse the full
and reasonable costs of carriers for such modifications to their
existing equipment.
The Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act recognizes
during the four year transition virtually no federal government funds
have been expended to reimburse the telecommunication industry for its
implementation costs of CALEA. During the first year transition period,
virtually all telecommunications carrier equipment which has been
installed or deployed is based on pre-CALEA technology and does not
include those features necessary to implement the assistance capacity
requirements of CALEA.
It is therefore necessary to extend the time of compliance to enable
the industry to complete the standard setting and development processes
required to implement CALEA in an economical and efficient fashion, and
to recognize existing telecommunications carrier equipment, features,
and services should be grandfathered during the interim.
On the completion of the development of CALEA compliant-technology,
the federal government can decide which carrier equipment it chooses to
retrofit at Federal Government expense and the manufacturers can then
design CALEA capabilities and services to be deployed in carrier
networks in the future.
Thus, it is necessary to move both the effective and the
``grandfather'' dates of CALEA to recognize the delays in CALEA
implementation and to ensure its implementation continues as intended
by Congress.
Mr. Speaker, it is also necessary to clarify the meaning of several
terms in the cost reimbursement provisions of CALEA. The use of the
terms ``installed'' and ``deployed'' in CALEA are intended to make
clear Congress intended separate and distinct meanings of these terms
as they are used in CALEA. The term, ``installed,'' refers to equipment
actually in place and operable to the network of carriers. The term,
``deployed,'' relates to equipment, facilities or services that are
commercially available within the telecommunication industry, to be
utilized by a carrier whether or not equipment, facilities or services
were actually installed or utilized within the network of the carrier.
The term, ``deployed,'' is also intended to refer to technology
available to the industry.
The use of these terms recognizes Congress clearly intended to
retrofit the federal government expenses, or grandfather the existing
networks of carriers to the extent they were installed or deployed
prior to the development of CALEA-compliant technology based on
industry standards developed to meet assistance capacity requirements
of CALEA. The terms, ``significantly upgraded'' or ``otherwise
undergoes major modifications,'' were intended to mean the carriers'
obligations to assume the costs of implementing CALEA technology in a
particular network switch, is not triggered until a particular network
switch is fundamentally altered, such as by upgrading or replacing it
with a new fundamentally altered switch technology. For example,
changing from digital to asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) switching
technology.
Thus, once CALEA-compliant technology is developed and can be
designed into switches deployed in carrier networks, the costs of such
deployment shift to the industry. Prior to that time, however, existing
carrier networks are ``grandfathered'' unless retrofitted at federal
government expense as intended by Congress. In addition, switch
upgrades or modifications performed by carriers to meet federal or
state regulatory mandates or other requirements, such as number
portability requirements, are not to be considered a ``significant
upgrade'' or a ``major modification'' for purposes of CALEA.
Mr. Speaker, these provisions should make clear that existing carrier
networks are grandfathered, unless retrofitted at federal government
expense. The effective date for compliance with CALEA has been extended
for approximately two years to provide additional time for industry
development of CALEA-compliant technology in response to industry
technical standards to meet the assistance capacity requirements of
CALEA.
I support this important legislation and ask my colleagues to support
the Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, H.R. 3303.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3303, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________