[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1974-E1975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3694, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 7, 1998

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report. Specifically, I would like to address Section 604 which gives 
law enforcement officials multipoint wiretap authority.
  As a former special agent of the FBI, I know from personal experience 
that the court-authorized interception of communications is one

[[Page E1975]]

of our most effective tools in our battle against crime. Existing law 
requires law enforcement officials seeking a court order for a wiretap 
to specify the telephone to be intercepted. Unfortunately, the modern 
day criminal too often is aware of this limitation and uses different 
phones in different locations to carry out his illicit activity. By 
simply walking down the street to a local pay telephone, an individual 
suspected of criminal activity can thwart the reasonable investigative 
efforts of the law enforcement community.
  To solve this growing problem, the multipoint wiretap provision of 
the Intelligence Authorization Act allows law enforcement officials to 
obtain court authorization to tap the phones that a person under 
suspicion actually uses. Thus, if a suspected drug trafficker uses a 
stolen cellular telephone rather than the phone in his/her residence, 
the law enforcement community would still be able to gather evidence of 
wrong-doing. To ensure that these new court-ordered authorizations do 
not infringe upon the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans, the 
Conference Report includes a provision that prohibits the activation of 
a tap unless it is reasonable to presume that the person under 
suspicion is about to use or is using a given telephone. This is a 
dramatic step forward for privacy rights because, under current law, 
once a tap is authorized it is active for the duration of the court 
order. Innocent Americans could have their conversations monitored if 
they use a phone also used by a criminal suspect. Under this new 
provision, the tap would only be operational when a suspect is involved 
in a conversation.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend the leadership of 
Chairman Porter Goss and ranking member Norm Dicks for their efforts on 
this provision. I would also like to commend Congressman Bill McCollum 
for his tireless efforts on this issue as well. I believe that a 
balance has been reached that gives the law enforcement community more 
effective tools to protect American citizens while also further 
protecting the privacy rights of our constituents. I urge the adoption 
of the Conference Report.

                          ____________________