[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 145 (Friday, October 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13051-S13054]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, and Mr. Hatch):

[[Page S13052]]

  S. 1769. A bill to continue reporting requirements of section 2519 of 
title 18, United States Code, beyond December 21, 1999, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


     CONTINUED REPORTING OF INTERCEPTED WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC 
                           COMMUNICATIONS ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to 
continue and enhance the current reporting requirements for the 
Administrative Office of the Courts and the Attorney General on the 
eavesdropping and surveillance activities of our federal and state law 
enforcement agencies.
  For many years, the Administrative Office (AO) of the Courts has 
complied with the statutory requirement, in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2519(3), to 
report to Congress annually the number and nature of federal and state 
applications for orders authorizing or approving the interception of 
wire, oral or electronic communications. By letter dated September 3, 
1999, the AO advised that it would no longer submit this report because 
``as of December 21, 1999, the report will no longer be required 
pursuant to the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995.''
  The AO has done an excellent job at preparing the wiretap reports. We 
need to continue the AO's objective work in a consistent manner. If 
another agency took over this important task at this juncture and the 
numbers came out in a different format, it would immediately generate 
questions and concerns over the legitimacy and accuracy of the contents 
of that report. In addition, it would create difficulties in comparing 
statistics from prior years going back to 1969 and complicate the job 
of Congressional oversight. Furthermore, transferring this reporting 
duty to another agency might create delays in issuance of the report 
since no other agency has the methodology in place. Finally, federal, 
state and local agencies are well accustomed to the reporting 
methodology developed by the AO. Notifying all these agencies that the 
reporting standards and agency have changed would inevitably create 
more confusion and more expense as law enforcement agencies across the 
country are forced to learn a new system and develop a liaison with a 
new agency.
  The system in place now has worked well and should be continued. We 
know how quickly law enforcement may be subjected to criticism over 
their use of these surreptitious surveillance tools and we should avoid 
aggravating these sensitivities by changing the reporting agency.
  The bill would update the reporting requirements currently in place 
with one additional reporting requirement. Specifically, the bill would 
require the wiretap report to include information on the number of 
orders in which encryption was encountered and whether such encryption 
prevented law enforcement from obtaining the plaintext of 
communications intercepted pursuant to such order.
  Encryption technology is critical to protect sensitive computer and 
online information. Yet, the same technology poses challenges to law 
enforcement when it is exploited by criminals to hide evidence or the 
fruits of criminal activities. A report by the U.S. Working Group on 
Organized Crime titled, ``Encryption and Evolving Technologies: Tools 
of Organized Crime and Terrorism,'' released in 1997, collected 
anecdotal case studies on the use of encryption in furtherance of 
criminal activities in order to estimate the future impact of 
encryption on law enforcement. The report noted the need for ``an 
ongoing study of the effect of encryption and other information 
technologies on investigations, prosecutions, and intelligence 
operations. As part of this study, a database of case information from 
federal and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies should be 
established and maintained.'' Adding a requirement that reports be 
furnished on the number of occasions when encryption is encountered by 
law enforcement is a far more reliable basis than anecdotal evidence on 
which to assess law enforcement needs and make sensible policy in this 
area.
  The final section of this bill would codify the information that the 
Attorney General already provides on pen register and trap and trace 
device orders, and require further information on where such orders are 
issued and the types of facilities--telephone, computer, pager or other 
device--to which the order relates. Under the Electronic Communications 
Privacy Act (``ECPA'') of 1986, P.L. 99-508, codified at 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 3126, the Attorney General of the United States is required to 
report annually to the Congress on the number of pen register orders 
and orders for trap and trace devices applied for by law enforcement 
agencies of the Department of Justice. As the original sponsor of ECPA, 
I believed that adequate oversight of the surveillance activities of 
federal law enforcement could only be accomplished with reporting 
requirements such as the one included in this law.
  The reports furnished by the Attorney General on an annual basis 
compile information from five components of the Department of Justice: 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United 
States Marshals Service and the Office of the Inspector General. The 
report contains information on the number of original and extension 
orders made to the courts for authorization to use both pen register 
and trap and trace devices, information concerning the number of 
investigations involved, the offenses on which the applications were 
predicted and the number of people whose telephone facilities were 
affected.
  These specific categories of information are useful, and the bill we 
introduce today would direct the Attorney General to continue providing 
these specific categories of information. In addition, the bill would 
direct the Attorney General to include information on the identity, 
including the district, of the agency making the application and the 
person authorizing the order. In this way, the Congress and the public 
will be informed of those jurisdictions using this surveillance 
technique--information which is currently not included in the Attorney 
General's annual reports.
  The requirement for preparation of the wiretap reports will soon 
lapse. I therefore urge prompt action on this legislation to continue 
the requirement for submission of the wiretap reports and to update the 
reporting requirements for both the wiretap reports submitted by the AO 
and the pen register and trap and trace reports submitted by the 
Attorney General.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1769

       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 ``Continued Reporting of 
     Intercepted Wire, Oral, and Electronic Communications Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Section 2519(3) of title 18, United States Code, 
     requires the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts to transmit to Congress a full and 
     complete annual report concerning the number of applications 
     for orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire, 
     oral, or electronic communications. This report is required 
     to include information specified in section 2519(3).
       (2) The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 
     provides for the termination of certain laws requiring 
     submittal to Congress of annual, semiannual, and regular 
     periodic reports as of December 21, 1999, 4 years from the 
     effective date of that Act.
       (3) Due to the Federal Reports Elimination Act and Sunset 
     Act of 1995, the Administrative Office of United States 
     Courts is not required to submit the annual report described 
     in section 2519(3) of title 18, United States Code, as of 
     December 21, 1999.

     SEC. 3. CONTINUED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Continued Reporting Requirements.--Section 2519 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(4) The reports required to be filed by subsection (3) 
     are exempted from the termination provisions of section 
     3003(a) of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 
     1995 (Public Law 104-66).''.
       (b) Exemption.--Section 3003(d) of the Federal Reports 
     Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-66) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (31), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (32), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(33) section 2519(3) of title 18, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 4. ENCRYPTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 2519(1)(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``and (iv)'' and

[[Page S13053]]

     inserting ``(iv) the number of orders in which encryption was 
     encountered and whether such encryption prevented law 
     enforcement from obtaining the plain text of communications 
     intercepted pursuant to such order, and (v)''.

     SEC. 5. REPORTS CONCERNING PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE 
                   DEVICES.

       Section 3126 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the period and inserting ``, which report shall 
     include information concerning--
       ``(1) the period of interceptions authorized by the order, 
     and the number and duration of any extensions of the order;
       ``(2) the offense specified in the order or application, or 
     extension of an order;
       ``(3) the number of investigations involved;
       ``(4) the number and nature of the facilities affected; and
       ``(5) the identity, including district, of the applying 
     investigative or law enforcement agency making the 
     application and the person authorizing the order.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY:
  S. 1772. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to foster family and school partnerships for promoting 
children's educational achievement through strengthening family 
involvement and providing professional development to school staff, and 
to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for parenting 
education programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


               family and school partnership act of 1999

  S. 1773. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to increase student involvement, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


             youth and adult school partnership act of 1999

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are rapidly coming to the end of the 
session. This Congress has a lot of unfinished business left in far too 
many areas: Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drug, guns, juvenile 
justice, and education. Today I want to take a few minutes to talk 
about one of America's top priorities, education. Today I am going to 
be introducing, a little bit later, and describing several bills that 
will improve education in America. We are about to start our biggest 
debate on education in 5 years as we begin the work on the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act.
  If the past few weeks are any indication, I am very concerned that in 
this critical education debate our children are going to be the losers, 
and that would really be a shame. Education has long been a bipartisan 
issue, but somehow in this Congress partisanship has too often pushed 
progress aside.
  Two weeks ago, I tried to help our schools continue a very successful 
initiative to hire more teachers so there would be fewer kids in each 
of our classrooms. Just 1 year ago, this initiative was announced as a 
bipartisan issue and leaders on both sides of the aisle claimed credit 
for this national effort to reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3. 
But now, a year later, this amendment has been defeated on a party line 
vote.
  Parents and teachers want real solutions. They want real investments. 
They want a real commitment to our schools. I believe we can do what is 
right for education in this Congress. When we listen to parents and 
educators and students, a vision for improving our schools based on 
their real needs is clear. I believe we must first establish the 
following principles: We need to ensure that all children have an equal 
opportunity to learn. We need to elevate the teaching profession 
through better pay and greater respect. We need to hold educators 
accountable for students' progress. And we need to invest more money in 
public education.
  This plan is built on a partnership among Federal, State and local 
officials, working together to help all our students. It starts with 
making the school work for our students. That means making sure the 
school buildings are safe and secure and modern. That is why I am an 
original cosponsor of the School Modernization Act, so kids do not have 
to learn in crumbling schools or overcrowded classrooms.
  It means making sure the teachers have the training and professional 
development they need to give our kids the best. That is why I am an 
original cosponsor of the Public Schools Education Excellence Act. A 
section of that act that I wrote called Teacher Technology Training 
will make sure all educators know the best ways to use technology to 
teach our children.
  It means making sure education does not stop when the school bell 
rings. We need to give our kids safe and educational things to do when 
the schoolday is over and parents are still at work. And it means 
making sure there are, at most, 18 students in each classroom instead 
of 30. We know in smaller classes kids get the time and attention they 
need. That is why I wrote and I am going to continue to fight for the 
Class Size Reduction and Teacher Quality Act, to give schools the money 
they need to reduce our class sizes, particularly in the younger 
grades.
  Everyone wants smaller classes. When you ask experts in education, 
they tell you that, based on their research, smaller classes make a big 
difference. When you ask teachers what makes the biggest difference, 
the answer is smaller classes. And when you ask parents, Do you want 
your child in a class of 30 or 18? the answer is clear; they want 
smaller classes. Smaller classes help kids learn the basics and improve 
classroom discipline. Parents, teachers, and experts all want smaller 
classes.
  Last year, this Congress promised schools we would fund smaller class 
sizes for 7 years. This year, schools across the country are taking 
advantage of that program. But here we are, just 1 year later, and that 
commitment is fading. Last week, I released a letter signed by 38 
Senators, Senators who are going to stand up for class size reduction. 
The President said if this Congress does not fund class size reduction, 
he will veto the bill. Last week, 38 Senators said they would stand 
with him and back up that veto.
  Let me say to my colleagues, if you shortchange class size, the 
President will veto your bill. If you try to override that veto, we 
will stand together to make sure our kids get the smaller classes they 
deserve, the ones we promised them 1 year ago, a promise made by both 
parties to all of our kids.
  I have other ideas on how we can help our students. As we begin 
discussing our Nation's Federal education law, I will introduce 
legislation to assure that all segments of our school community--
teachers, students, and families--play their role in improving 
education.
  To help teachers, my legislation will give us the tools to recruit 
the world's finest educators; to retain educators by improving 
professional development and creating career ladders so that our best 
teachers will not leave the classroom but will have the opportunity to 
continue to grow professionally; to make sure all teachers can use the 
tools of technology to boost student achievement.
  It will reward and recognize great educators. It will offer a 
meaningful financial bonus for States to improve teacher pay. And it 
will require educators to meet the same high standards we expect of our 
students.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to help students by creating more 
meaningful roles for students in their schools and communities, finding 
the best examples of students and adults working together and rewarding 
those efforts and sharing those ideas with all schools, and showing the 
link between student involvement and student achievement.
  Because we know parents and families are a child's first and best 
teachers, I am also introducing legislation that will invite families 
into our schools, train teachers, and administrators in the best ways 
to involve parents, and invest in family involvement at newer and 
higher levels.
  It will use technology to make it easier for parents to stay informed 
and involved in their child's education. Borrowing from an example in 
my home State of Washington, it will build on the success of parent 
cooperative preschools which use local community colleges as a vehicle 
to improve parent involvement and school readiness for young kids.
  I have talked with parents in my State, and it has become clear they 
want to be involved in their child's education. Too often, though, 
their jobs prevent them from being involved. That is why I introduced 
my Time for Schools Act. Which lets parents take up to 24 hours of 
unpaid leave off work each year to attend academic events at school and 
be involved in their child's education. That is the type of real-

[[Page S13054]]

world solution that will help our parents.
  Those are all parts of the comprehensive vision for improving 
education. I believe this plan will help prepare America for the next 
century. It is based on what we know works and has real money to back 
it up.
  All too often, the debates on education begin with talk about how bad 
our public schools are. Everyone will hear that our schools are in 
shambles. I believe our schools are not failing, but if we let this 
Congress cut education funding, we will be failing our public schools.
  Most of our public schools are doing a good job. Some are not, but 
they are all facing more and more challenges with fewer resources than 
ever before. We have to recognize those challenges and prepare our 
schools and our children for the future.
  Today, I hear a lot of talk about bureaucracy. I hear our schools are 
trapped by red tape. I was a school board member, and I know what it is 
like to fill out forms and, yes, we should reduce paperwork. That is 
why the class size reduction application is only one page, is available 
online, and takes just a few minutes to fill out. Less paperwork is 
good. But somehow some people have convinced themselves that if there 
are fewer forms, our kids will magically get the resources they need. 
Fewer forms will not buy a textbook or build a classroom. It takes 
resources and support, and it takes real dollars. Reducing bureaucracy 
sounds good, but it means nothing if it is only as good as the paper on 
which it is written.

  I hear a lot of talk about flexibility. That sounds great. I support 
flexibility because I know that principals and local school boards 
understand their own needs best. But we cannot forget right now that 
the Federal Government sets money aside for specific programs, like for 
homeless children or gifted children, money to help our schools become 
safe and drug free. That money is targeted for special needs which we 
as a country believe are important, and those Federal funds do a lot of 
good because they are seven times more targeted than other education 
funds. That money ensures that every American child gets a good 
education.
  But the plans I hear about tell schools, ``Do whatever you want with 
the money.'' At the same time, those plans start cutting the amount of 
money available to schools, and then our kids are the losers. When that 
dollar is no longer attached to a specific need, like making our 
schools safe after Columbine, or meeting the needs of a child who is 
behind or a child who is gifted, it is a lot easier to cut that money.
  Now schools think they have a choice, but they really have fewer 
options because there is less money available than there was the day 
before. When schools have choice with less money, national priorities 
and protections lose out.
  Suddenly that choice does not sound so good. Suddenly that choice is 
not liberating; it is limiting, and that is wrong because some of our 
kids are going to be left behind when a bill promising some version of 
flexibility makes schools choose between children. Let's not forget 
that we have already passed a better version of school flexibility 
called Ed-Flex earlier this year. Let's see how that serves our 
children before we try more risky approaches.
  We cannot forget why the Federal Government got involved in 
education. Thirty years ago, when education was left to States and 
localities alone, some kids got left behind. So the Federal Government 
set a basic safety net for all children. These are the targeted funds 
that some plans would put into a block grant and then cut.
  The Federal Government does two other vital things: It helps us meet 
national priorities, such as teaching technology or reducing class 
size, and it also helps students meet their potential and achieve at 
their highest levels. When this Congress ignores the reasons why we 
have a Federal partner in education, we are left with false choices 
that fail our children.
  Our country deserves a real choice. We must offer real plans, real 
money to improve our schools, not false choices and not funding cuts. I 
urge my colleagues to listen to the American people. We should treat 
education like a priority and do right by all of our children.

                          ____________________