[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 30 (Thursday, February 25, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H800-H806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WIRELESS PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 77 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 77

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 514) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 
     to strengthen and clarify prohibitions on electronic 
     eavesdropping, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
     4(a) of rule XIII are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Commerce. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. Each section of the bill shall be considered as read. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose and in 
     clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be 
     considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 77 is an open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 514, the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act, a bill 
that will improve wireless communication privacy and make it more 
difficult for scanners to be altered for unlawful purposes. H. Res. 77 
is a wide-open rule providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Commerce.
  The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 4(a) of Rule 13 which requires a 3-day 
layover for committee reports, and the rule provides that each section 
of the bill shall be considered as read.
  H. Res. 77 further allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
to accord priority in recognition to those Members who have preprinted 
their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their 
consideration. The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole to postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the 
voting time on any postponed question provided voting time on the first 
in any series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the 
rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as 
is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, when an American citizen picks up his telephone, we want 
to believe that the right to privacy is protecting us. Unfortunately, 
the rapid advance of technology permits the interception of phone calls 
rather easily, and relatively simple modifications to devices can 
provide anyone with an electronic stocking device. The bill before us 
today is designed to ensure that the current penalties for intercepting 
and divulging communications are strengthened.
  It is important to note that many consumers are not even aware that 
current penalties even exist, and current law unfortunately encourages 
a relaxed attitude among those who casually intercept communications. 
As a result, this bill will improve the enforcement of privacy laws by 
increasing penalties

[[Page H801]]

for violators and encouraging the use of warning labels by the 
manufacturers of scanners and parts.
  The bill also addresses the concern that current prohibitions on the 
manufacture of scanners capable of receiving cellular frequencies do 
not extend to other wireless technology such as personal communications 
and paging services. In addition, current statutes require both 
interception and divulgence of communications to trigger a violation, 
which again engenders a relaxed attitude among those that intercept 
communications. To fix the weakness in the current statute, H.R. 514 
will protect privacy and provide effective enforcement mechanisms.
  A point of concern has been made about police, fire and other 
emergency service communications, and I do believe that the assistance 
of the emergency service personnel should not be interrupted. It is my 
understanding that language in the committee report will explain that 
nothing in the bill is intended to interfere with the lawful reception 
of these emergency communications.
  Finally, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson) for her hard work in drafting this legislation. She has played 
an instrumental role in guiding this bill through the committee process 
and deserves special recognition for leadership on this issue. I 
certainly expect that her management of this bill on the House floor 
today will ensure its passage with the support of an overwhelming 
majority of Members.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 514 will directly improve wireless communications 
privacy, and this legislation was approved by the Committee on Commerce 
without amendment by voice vote. We will have ample time to discuss the 
merits of the bill during the general debate later today.
  This is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it so that 
we may proceed with general debate and consideration of this bipartisan 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today will be the last day of service of 
my aide on the Committee on Rules Thomas Bantle who came with me from 
our hometown in 1986, and during those years Tom has served with great 
distinction in my office and for the people of the 28th congressional 
district. But also during the time that I was the Chair of the 
Organization, Study and Review Committee, he had a great impact on the 
rules of the House, and I want to thank him for the great service that 
he is given me with integrity and faithfulness and wish him the very 
best in his new post.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I rise in 
support of this open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 514, 
the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act.
  Similar legislation passed the House in the 105th Congress by a vote 
of 414 to 1. While the Senate took no action on the bill, the need for 
this kind of privacy protection requires us to move ahead this year in 
the hopes that the legislation can soon become law.
  Mr. Speaker, current legislation provides protection for some older 
technology wireless communications, but this bill extends that 
protection to newer technology including digital wireless 
communication. In addition, the bill requires the Federal 
Communications Commission to step up its enforcement actions against 
the violations of the newly-expanded privacy laws. H.R. 514 also 
prohibits the manufacture or modification of off-the-shelf radio 
scanners that could intercept digital cellular telephone 
communications, and this updates federal law to deal with the changes 
in technology since the 1986 Electronic Communications Protection Act 
became law.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of this legislation might stop some of the 
predatory practices that threaten the privacy of millions of cellular 
conversations placed each and every day. I urge support of this open 
rule, and I support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 77 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 514.

                              {time}  1057


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 514) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to strengthen and 
clarify prohibitions on electronic eavesdropping, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are here to protect the privacy of the near 68 
million Americans who use wireless telecommunications services and the 
countless millions who will use those services in the future.
  Privacy is important to all of us.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson) for introducing H.R. 514 and for shepherding this important 
bill through the Subcommittee on Telecommunications of the Committee on 
Commerce. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey), and his staff, again for the excellent cooperation and 
again the bipartisan spirit that our committee so often shows in these 
telecommunication issues and other matters before our committee.
  We begin our review of this issue in the 105th Congress. Two years 
ago the Subcommittee on Telecommunications held a hearing on wireless 
privacy. What our Members learned at that hearing was astonishing. Off-
the-shelf scanners can be easily modified to turn them into electronic 
stalking devices.

                              {time}  1100

  With the clip of a wire, a scanner can pick up a cellular 
conversation in a nearby vicinity. In fact, we actually did that. I 
demonstrated the soldering of a small wire and within 3 minutes 
converted a scanner, a legal scanner, into an illegal listening device; 
and my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), helped 
with the demonstration by making a private telephone conversation.
  We picked it up in the committee room, with his consent in advance, 
and we listened to him as he plotted an overthrow of the committee, a 
coup d'etat, and we demonstrated in fact how easy it was to listen in 
on somebody's private conversation.
  I want everyone to know that we thwarted that coup d'etat, and we 
have been good friends ever since.
  What our Members indeed learned was that privacy was deeply at risk 
in America, and although current law and FCC rules prohibit such 
eavesdropping, the technology was readily available to intercept 
cellular phone calls.
  We also learned at the hearing that some people believed that the 
present law did not prohibit them from modifying legal scanners to turn 
them into eavesdropping devices. In fact, a whole modification industry 
had developed. It was openly advertising in print media and over the 
Internet, complete with easy-to-follow instructions on how to listen in 
on neighbors.
  H.R. 514 was introduced to crack down on those modification scanners 
and to prevent a new scanning market from developing for new digital 
wireless services. The bill prohibits the modification of legal 
scanners for that purpose. It requires the FCC to adopt regulations 
that extend current protections, this is very important, to the new 
digital service, such as the personal communication services; 
protecting the paging and specialized mobile

[[Page H802]]

services, the new digital so-called secure communications, to make sure 
they remain secure.
  What our Members discovered was a residual belief out there, 
harkening to the early days of radio, that because the airwaves are a 
public good, all communications traversing over them are public as 
well. We discovered an almost right-to-listen mentality, and that 
mentality is directly inconsistent with cellular users' expectations 
and, of course, would hamper the growth of wireless communication 
services that promise so much good for our personal and our 
professional lives.
  Our Members were disturbed by such a callousness for privacy of 
communications, an intent on establishing the policy that, regardless 
of the media, private communications deserved to remain private. H.R. 
514, therefore, provides that interception alone of wireless 
communications is illegal. Current provisions in the Communications Act 
provide that an interception without divulgence is legal. In other 
words, eavesdropping alone is not illegal under the Communications Act 
today.
  Divulgence alone is also prohibited. Existing Communications Act 
provisions prohibit a person from divulging an intercepted 
communications, wireless communication. While we abhor electronic 
stalking and the violation of privacy rights divulgence brings, we did 
not intend to punish unintentional behavior. We therefore prohibit in 
H.R. 514 only intentional interception.
  The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who has done such a 
great job on this bill, will offer an amendment today that will clarify 
that our intent is only to punish divulgence that is in fact 
intentional. The unintentional divulgence will not be punished. I thank 
her in advance for her efforts to safeguard the consumers' privacy, 
while ensuring that first amendment freedoms of the press and of free 
speech are not in fact hampered by our bill.
  When we first began our examination 2 years ago, we were dismayed 
that the FCC, the most likely enforcer of violations against scanning 
abuses, was deferring to the FBI and the Justice Department for 
enforcement. These law enforcement agencies obviously have serious 
crimes to investigate, so often eavesdropping and divulgence of private 
communications violations was simply not pursued. We were surprised to 
hear this, despite the fact that one of our witnesses at our hearings 2 
years ago, the FBI official in charge of the TWA crash investigation on 
Long Island, told us that FBI agents were unable to use their cellular 
phones during that investigation because the press was scanning and 
then divulging their intercepted calls when writing articles about the 
investigation, in fact hampering their ability to find what happened in 
that awful plane crash.
  This illegal interception and divulgence of communications over 
commercial cellular services was hampering a major FBI investigation. 
Because of the current lack of aggressive enforcement, the bill now 
requires that the FCC, regardless of what other enforcement agencies 
are doing, that they must investigate alleged violations and in fact 
take action to prevent them.
  H.R. 514 leaves undisturbed legitimate uses of scanners. Let me say 
it again for all Members. This bill does not affect the legitimate 
scanner, the legal scanner such as those that are used for public 
safety channels or listening to NASCAR communications for automobile 
races. Legal scanners, not modified to listen to your cellular phone, 
are legal today, will remain legal tomorrow. The bill only seeks to 
prohibit the interception of communications for services that are 
exclusively allocated for commercial service, for which consumers have 
the expectation of privacy. We believe we have successfully balanced a 
number of competing concerns, and I ask all Members to vote for this 
very good bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), for bringing this bill to the floor today 
and to thank him and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for the 
way in which the minority have been treated on this excellent 
bipartisan legislation.
  We have crafted this bill over a couple-of-year period, and it 
reflects that very close consultation between majority and minority 
that has always characterized the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, 
Trade and Consumer Protection. And I want to particularly single out 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for her work on this 
legislation. She has helped us to fine-tune it in her brief time here 
on the committee, and she is the lead sponsor here today, and I want to 
thank her for her work on this legislation.
  The bill that we have before us today offered by the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) is essentially the same wireless scanner 
legislation that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved 
last session. No action was taken on that legislation in the Senate, 
and so we return early this session, under the leadership of the 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and 
the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) to approve it 
again in the hopes that the other body will do likewise.
  There is a very important amendment that the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) has crafted, which I think should be included. 
This legislation modifies the wireless scanner prohibitions contained 
in the Communications Act and updates them to address digital wireless 
technologies. The legislation clarifies our intention that legally 
protected conversations should not be readily available to scanner 
enthusiasts who buy scanners for entertainment or for other interests, 
but they should not be able to eavesdrop on their neighbors. It leaves 
available those public frequencies utilized often by police and fire 
and emergency service personnel for scanner hobbyists to continue 
listening in on.
  It ensures that everyday wireless conversations, legally protected 
conversations, are not easily picked up and listened to.
  The bill on the floor this morning has four main parts.
  First, the bill extends current scanner receiver manufacturing 
restrictions to prevent the manufacture of scanners that are capable of 
intercepting communications in frequencies allocated to new wireless 
communications, namely personal communications services and protected 
paging and specialized mobile radio services.
  Second, the bill prohibits the modification of scanners and requires 
the Federal Communications Commission to strengthen its rules to 
prevent the modification of scanning receivers. This is very important, 
because committee records from this year and last year make clear that 
some entities are restoring scanners that comply with the Federal 
Communications rules so that these scanners can obtain protected 
frequencies.
  Third, the bill makes it illegal to intentionally intercept or 
divulge the content of radio communications.
  Finally, penalties are increased for violations; and the legislation 
requires the Commission to move expeditiously on investigations of 
alleged violations.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we point out that digital 
cellular, the next generation of cellular services, and digital 
personal communications services are less susceptible to unauthorized 
eavesdropping than analogue cellular that most people in our country 
have been using over the last decade. Yet, digital cellular and PCS are 
not completely immune from eavesdropping because, in a never-ending 
saga of technical one-upmanship, the equipment for intercepting digital 
calls and converting digital conversations is becoming more available 
and more affordable.
  Currently, such digital scanners remain vastly more expensive and 
complex than existing off-the-shelf scanners that intercept analogue 
communications. However, one of the purposes of the bill is to prevent 
a market from developing for less expensive digital scanners by clearly 
prohibiting the authorization of such scanners by the Federal 
Communications Commission.
  In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, consumers will best be protected 
through a combination of the scanner provisions we are poised to 
approve today and the implementation of encryption technology so that 
consumers can encode their own conversations

[[Page H803]]

and their own private data. For this reason, we must make sure that the 
United States encryption policy avails consumers of the opportunity to 
utilize the best, most sophisticated technology, so that they can help 
to protect themselves, and I urge the wireless industry to help make 
these encryption technologies available to consumers in an affordable 
way.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I want to again commend the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bliley), because the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I 
and the other Members on our side feel that we were very fairly 
treated. We feel it is a good piece of legislation. We compliment the 
chairman, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and all 
involved in it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a new, extremely bright new 
voice, on our committee and the author of the legislation.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, almost 70 million Americans have cellular 
or digital phones or those new PCS phones that have everything on them 
from caller IDs to voice messaging and paging all in one little phone 
that can fit in someone's pocket.
  In America, 1997 was a milestone year. That was the first year in 
American history that more cordless and cell phones were sold than hard 
wire phones to hang on our walls or set on our telephone tables at 
home.
  People expect the calls that we make on those little phones in our 
pockets to be private, because we are used to it. We are used to it on 
the hard line phones in our homes and in our offices, and we have a 
right to expect the same thing on the ones that more and more people 
are carrying with them, are using in their car, sometimes dangerously, 
or in restaurants or outside office buildings or walking down the 
street or on the subway. They expect privacy, and we need to give it to 
them.
  While the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) were here in Washington busy with their 
soldering irons and plotting coup d'etats in the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications Trade and Consumer Protection, I was back in New 
Mexico in my home State.
  I am not really a technology person, but shortly after my baby was 
born, I heard voices coming from her room and went in there and found 
that the baby monitor was picking up the conversations of my neighbor, 
and while that is not exactly on point it proved to me how easy it is 
for technology to inadvertently pick up the private conversations of 
someone that thought that conversation and had a right to believe that 
conversation should be private.
  The law in privacy has loopholes, and technology has outstripped our 
privacy protection laws. I would note that it was the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in 1992 who wrote the original law here that 
covers cell phones, but it needs to be expanded today, and that is what 
this bill is all about.
  We should not have companies in America advertising scanners that can 
be easily modified to pick up private conversations. There should not 
be a business for that in America, and this bill would eliminate that 
kind of business. The bill updates scanner manufacturing bans so that 
new frequencies, including digital and PCS phones are covered, in 
addition to cell phones. It prohibits the modification of scanners to 
intercept calls.

                              {time}  1115

  So there is no more messing around in the hearing room.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes it illegal to intentionally intercept calls or 
to intentionally divulge the content of private calls, and it increases 
the penalties for violators and requires the FCC to investigate 
violations, instead of just referring them over to somebody else who is 
overburdened as it is.
  I think it is also important to make clear what this bill does not 
do, because I think it can be confusing, especially for those of us who 
are not really used to dealing with some of these telecommunications 
widgets. There are a lot of people who listen to the police and fire 
departments on the scanners because they are volunteer firefighters or 
just because they like to. They like to know what is going on in their 
town and where they can help. There are also ham operators that enjoy 
their hobby, and they provide a public service, and that is okay.
  It is okay now, and it will continue to be okay with this bill. Those 
are public service and amateur radio frequencies, and people should be 
able to listen to them and to use them. Just to make it perfectly 
clear, we have added report language to the bill that makes this intent 
very clear to the FCC. There will be no interference with those rights 
and public frequencies and the ability to have scanners for public 
service and fire and police.
  Mr. Chairman, I will also have an amendment that clarifies that those 
who unintentionally divulge information that they do not know comes 
from an illegally intercepted conversation are not penalized. One 
should not be held accountable for something if they had no intention 
or no knowledge, and we will clarify that with an amendment in a few 
minutes here.
  Of course, we also have to be sensitive to the needs of law 
enforcement agencies and national security; and the bill also, by 
cross-reference to Title 18 in the Criminal Code, makes clear that the 
procedures that exist now for fighting terrorism and drug traffickers 
and other criminal acts remain as they always have been.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Bliley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), as well as 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for working on this bill for so long and 
tolerating some of the tweaking that we have been doing to it. Their 
staffs have been very cooperative, and I think we have a good, solid 
piece of legislation that is supported by both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate particularly the prompt action of the 
gentleman from Louisiana in bringing this to the floor today. This bill 
will give Americans privacy they expect and they deserve, and I thank 
him for his leadership.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson) on behalf of all of us on the committee for the excellent 
job on this bill, and I look forward to working with her on many other 
high-tech issues as we learn them together.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who is not only the chairman of 
our Committee on Commerce but the chairman of what we consider to be 
the most important committee in the House of Representatives.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, the House considered and passed 
the first of a couple of wireless bills and, like its brother of 
yesterday, the bill before us today both increases the usefulness of 
wireless services for our constituents and promotes an important public 
interest.
  H.R. 514 will increase the privacy of the 70-odd million subscribers 
of wireless services in this country. The bill outlaws modifications of 
off-the-shelf scanners to intercept personal wireless communications, 
not communications over shared frequencies where the parties expect to 
be heard, like in NASCAR racing, boating or police or fire channels, 
but of private communications enabled by commercial services where 
users have an expectation of privacy.
  Mr. Chairman, I remember a hearing in the last Congress when the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member put on a 
demonstration of just how easy it is to take an off-the-shelf scanner 
and modify it. Nobody has the right to listen to private communication 
merely because one has the technical expertise to intercept. This bill 
will outlaw such interception and force the FCC to deal with electronic 
stalking as a serious breach of our privacy rights enforceable under 
this new law.
  The bill will also prevent the development of a market for next 
generation digital scanners, so that from the get-go digital wireless 
service will remain private.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico

[[Page H804]]

(Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), as 
well as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), ranking member 
of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), 
ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to also single out again the work of the staff 
who have always, as I said, toiled long hours to help us bring bills 
like this, complex in nature, technical in nature, to the floor.
  I want to again acknowledge and thank Andy Levin and Colin Crowell, 
and from the majority, Tricia Paoletta, Mike O'Rielly, Cliff Riccio and 
Luke Rose for their excellent work on this bill and for our entire 
committee and subcommittee.
  Again, I say thanks for the work of the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Bliley) in helping us to move this legislation to the floor, 
as well as to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their excellent 
cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this 
opportunity to address this important bill, H.R. 514, that will extend 
our federal privacy protections to protect the users of wireless 
technologies.
  Many historians would agree, that it is our country's long tradition 
of innovation and ingenuity that made us, and keeps us, a superpower. 
However, the rewards of innovation do not always come without a price.
  First, there is the cost of developing the innovation. Our government 
often participates in that innovation through agencies and programs 
like NASA, the Science Foundation (NSF), and the Advanced Technology 
Program (ATP).
  Second, new technologies often have hidden costs. One example is the 
Y2K problem, which manifested itself in part because technology 
developers did not believe that their products would still be in use in 
the 21st century.
  Third and unfortunately, because the law is sometimes unable to 
adjust quickly enough to these rapidly-changing technologies, there are 
other costs that come about because of fraudulent or criminal activity. 
This bill addresses one such problem that has developed because of the 
rise in the use of wireless technologies, such as cellular phones.
  With the demand for wireless technologies growing at a near-
exponential rate, we have seen the development of technologies that are 
capable of intercepting wireless transmissions, and in some instances, 
decoding those transmissions. That means that with a simply modified 
scanner, an individual with criminal intentions could readily listen 
into cellular phone conversations undetectably.
  Furthermore, there are some scanners that even have the ability to 
decode the digital transmissions that up until now were a strong 
selling point for high-end cellular phones. Many of the purchasers of 
digital phones, in fact, purchased them in part because they felt that 
their conversations and cellular phone profiles are more secure than 
with the use of analog technology.
  This bill works to better protect those consumers, and in fact, all 
consumers of wireless technologies, by making it illegal to 
intentionally intercept or disclose any wireless communication. By 
criminalizing both behaviors, we will be protecting all consumers from 
the fraudulent misuse of their conversations and transmissions.
  It is our responsibility as a Congress to preserve the principles put 
forth in our Constitution. I feel that this bill is a logical extension 
of the Right of Privacy recognized by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. 
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and I support this bill as a result.
  I urge all of you to vote in favor of this bill, and to further 
protect our citizens from high-tech fraud.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, and in 
support of the Wilson amendment. The passage of this legislation will, 
as does so much of the legislation we pass, move our nation yet another 
step close to a national police state by further expanding a federal 
crime and empowering more federal police--this time at the Federal 
Communications Commission. Despite recent and stern warnings by both 
former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese III and current U.S. Supreme 
Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Congress seems compelled 
to ride the current wave of federally criminalizing every human misdeed 
in the name of saving the world from some evil rather than to uphold a 
Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which 
the nation is protected from totalitarianism.
  Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited 
powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas 
for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For 
every issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of 
the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the 
people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. 
The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating ``The powers not 
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by 
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people.'' Our nation's history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution 
is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No 
serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the 
Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there 
will be those who will hand their constitutional ``hats'' on the 
interstate commerce or general welfare clauses, both of which have been 
popular ``headgear'' since the plunge into New Deal Socialism.
  Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional 
protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal 
criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal 
crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high 
seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period 
of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was 
concurrently a federal and state crime). ``Concurrent'' jurisdiction 
crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and eavesdropping 
today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The 
fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ``person be 
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or 
limb . . .'' In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the 
same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 
1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government 
and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine 
of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the 
federal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one 
will be subject to being tried twice for the same crime. Despite the 
various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national 
police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
  The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized 
criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less 
effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those 
who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the 
Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the 
integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via 
the tenth amendment. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision 
for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not 
self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. 
There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one 
another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the 
same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
  It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well 
as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, 
independent jurisdictions--it is called competition and governments 
must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have 
obsessed so much over the notion of ``competition'' in this country we 
harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to 
every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider 
of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to 
provide values as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free 
market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private 
marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further centralize government, 
the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary 
exchange.
  As government becomes more centralized, it becomes much more 
difficult to vote with one's feet to escape the relatively more 
oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample 
opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away 
from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law 
makes such mobility less and less practical.
  For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further 
and unconstitutional centralization of police power in the national 
government and, accordingly, H.R. 514.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by section, and each section shall be considered read.

[[Page H805]]

  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that has been 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows 
another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question 
shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       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 ``Wireless Privacy Enhancement 
     Act of 1999''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. COMMERCE IN ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING DEVICES.

       (a) Prohibition on Modification.--Section 302(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 302a(b)) is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: 
     ``, or modify any such device, equipment, or system in any 
     manner that causes such device, equipment, or system to fail 
     to comply with such regulations''.
       (b) Prohibition on Commerce in Scanning Receivers.--Section 
     302(d) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 302a(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Equipment Authorization Regulations.--
       ``(1) Privacy protections required.--The Commission shall 
     prescribe regulations, and review and revise such regulations 
     as necessary in response to subsequent changes in technology 
     or behavior, denying equipment authorization (under part 15 
     of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part 
     of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of--
       ``(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies that are 
     allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications 
     service or the personal communications service;
       ``(B) readily being altered to receive transmissions in 
     such frequencies;
       ``(C) being equipped with decoders that--
       ``(i) convert digital domestic cellular radio 
     telecommunications service, personal communications service, 
     or protected specialized mobile radio service transmissions 
     to analog voice audio; or
       ``(ii) convert protected paging service transmissions to 
     alphanumeric text; or
       ``(D) being equipped with devices that otherwise decode 
     encrypted radio transmissions for the purposes of 
     unauthorized interception.
       ``(2) Privacy protections for shared frequencies.--The 
     Commission shall, with respect to scanning receivers capable 
     of receiving transmissions in frequencies that are used by 
     commercial mobile services and that are shared by public 
     safety users, examine methods, and may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary, to enhance the privacy of 
     users of such frequencies.
       ``(3) Tampering prevention.--In prescribing regulations 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider 
     defining `capable of readily being altered' to require 
     scanning receivers to be manufactured in a manner that 
     effectively precludes alteration of equipment features and 
     functions as necessary to prevent commerce in devices that 
     may be used unlawfully to intercept or divulge radio 
     communication.
       ``(4) Warning labels.--In prescribing regulations under 
     paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider requiring labels 
     on scanning receivers warning of the prohibitions in Federal 
     law on intentionally intercepting or divulging radio 
     communications.
       ``(5) Definitions.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     `protected' means secured by an electronic method that is not 
     published or disclosed except to authorized users, as further 
     defined by Commission regulation.''.
       (c) Implementing Regulations.--Within 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall prescribe amendments to its regulations for 
     the purposes of implementing the amendments made by this 
     section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  The Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION OR PUBLICATION OF 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     605) is amended--
       (1) in the heading of such section, by inserting 
     ``INTERCEPTION or'' after ``UNAUTHORIZED'';
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, United 
     States Code, no person'' and inserting ``No person'';
       (3) in the second sentence of subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``intentionally'' before ``intercept''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``and divulge'' and inserting ``or 
     divulge'';
       (4) by striking the last sentence of subsection (a) and 
     inserting the following: ``Nothing in this subsection 
     prohibits an interception or disclosure of a communication as 
     authorized by chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code.'';
       (5) in subsection (e)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``fined not more than $2,000 or''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or fined under title 18, United States 
     Code,'' after ``6 months,''; and
       (6) in subsection (e)(3), by striking ``any violation'' and 
     inserting ``any receipt, interception, divulgence, 
     publication, or utilization of any communication in 
     violation'';
       (7) in subsection (e)(4), by striking ``any other activity 
     prohibited by subsection (a)'' and inserting ``any receipt, 
     interception, divulgence, publication, or utilization of any 
     communication in violation of subsection (a)''; and
       (8) by adding at the end of subsection (e) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) Notwithstanding any other investigative or 
     enforcement activities of any other Federal agency, the 
     Commission shall investigate alleged violations of this 
     section and may proceed to initiate action under section 503 
     of this Act to impose forfeiture penalties with respect to 
     such violation upon conclusion of the Commission's 
     investigation.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson

  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Wilson:
       Page 5, strike lines 14 and 15 and insert the following:
       (B) by striking ``communication and divulge'' and inserting 
     ``communication, and no person having intercepted such a 
     communication shall intentionally divulge'';
       (4) in the fourth sentence of subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``intercepted, shall''; and
       (B) by striking ``thereof) or'' and inserting ``thereof); 
     or (B)'';

       Page 5, line 16, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 5, line 21, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 6, line 1, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 6, line 5, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       Page 6, line 10, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.

  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, concern was raised during the 
consideration of this bill by several folks who were concerned about 
first amendment rights. It was a drafting point, but it needed to be 
fixed in order to make it perfectly clear. We do not want to make it a 
crime to divulge or publish information that someone does not know came 
from an intercepted cell call. That would criminalize unintentional 
acts.
  Mr. Chairman, say a reporter gets a scoop from a source, not knowing 
that it came from an intercepted call, for example. We do not want that 
to be a crime, even if the interception is a crime. But we do wish to 
prohibit people divulging information that they know was illegally 
intercepted, even if they were not the ones that actually intercepted 
the call. If we did not do that, that would be a loophole to drive a 
truck through.
  How could that happen? Let us say I am illegally monitoring cell 
calls, whether for pleasure or just systematically, and I intercept a 
cell call of a builder who is talking over his phone who talks about 
information on a bid that he is going to give on a job. I give it to my 
buddy, and my buddy divulges it to another builder or divulges it 
publicly. It should be a crime to divulge that information if one knows 
that it came from an intercepted call. It should be a crime for me to 
do it or for my buddy to do it, if he knows that I have been scanning 
those calls.
  This amendment makes that clarification, that it is a crime to 
intentionally intercept. It is a crime to intentionally divulge. It is 
not a crime to divulge it if one does not know where the information 
came from. It sounds a little bit confusing, but this amendment will 
protect first amendment rights while criminalizing eavesdropping and 
those who are a part of eavesdropping schemes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important clarifying amendment which 
will protect innocent people from being swept up in a statute which is 
clearly aimed at wrongdoers. I want to congratulate the gentlewoman 
from New

[[Page H806]]

Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for this important refinement, which I think at 
the point of enforcement is going to be very helpful to law enforcement 
officials because it will make it quite clear what it was that Congress 
intended. I would urge all Members to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to the bill?
  If there are no further amendments, under the rule the committee now 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Young of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 514) to 
amend the Communications Act of 1934 to strengthen and clarify 
prohibitions on electronic eavesdropping, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 77, he reported the bill back to the House 
with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 403, 
nays 3, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 28]

                               YEAS--403

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     Hinchey
     McDermott
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Ackerman
     Bonior
     Capps
     Davis (VA)
     Dickey
     Eshoo
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Goodling
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kolbe
     Lee
     Livingston
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rogan
     Royce
     Rush
     Towns
     Waters
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1147

  Mr. HINCHEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 28, I was traveling with the 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa and was unavoidably absent for the 
vote on H.R. 514. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, regrettably I was unavoidably detained for 
rollcall vote 28. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________