[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 47 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2813-S2814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a 
message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1769) to the 
reporting requirements of section 2519 of title 18, United States Code, 
beyond December 21, 1999, and for other purposes,
  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives;
       Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1769) entitled 
     ``An Act to continue the reporting requirements of section 
     2519 of title 18, United States Code, beyond December 21, 
     1999, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following 
     amendments:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN REPORTS FROM AUTOMATIC 
                   ELIMINATION AND SUNSET.

       Section 3003(a)(1) of the Federal Reports Elimination and 
     Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note) does not apply to 
     any report required to be submitted under any of the 
     following provisions of law:
       (1) The following sections of title 18, United States Code: 
     sections 2519(3), 2709(e), 3126, and 3525(b).
       (2) The following sections of title 28, United States Code: 
     sections 522, 524(c)(6), 529, 589a(d), and 594.
       (3) Section 3718(c) of title 31, United States Code.
       (4) Section 9 of the Child Protection Act of 1984 (28 
     U.S.C. 522 note).
       (5) Section 8 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized 
     Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997f).
       (6) The following provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968: sections 102(b) (42 U.S.C. 
     3712(b)), 520 (42 U.S.C. 3766), 522 (42 U.S.C. 3766b), and 
     810 (42 U.S.C. 3789e).
       (7) The following provisions of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act: sections 103 (8 U.S.C. 1103), 207(c)(3) (8 
     U.S.C. 1157(c)(3)), 412(b) (8 U.S.C. 1522(b)), and 413 (8 
     U.S.C. 1523), and subsections (h), (l), (o), (q), and (r) of 
     section 286 (8 U.S.C. 1356).
       (8) Section 3 of the International Claims Settlement Act of 
     1949 (22 U.S.C. 1622).
       (9) Section 9 of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2008).
       (10) Section 13(c) of the Act of September 11, 1957 (8 
     U.S.C. 1255b(c)).
       (11) Section 203(b) of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands 
     Restitution Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1989c-2(b)).
       (12) Section 801(e) of the Immigration Act of 1990 (29 
     U.S.C. 2920(e)).
       (13) Section 401 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
     of 1986 (8 U.S.C. 1364).
       (14) Section 707 of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1691f).
       (15) Section 201(b) of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000aa-11(b)).
       (16) Section 609U of the Justice Assistance Act of 1984 (42 
     U.S.C. 10509).
       (17) Section 13(a) of the Classified Information Procedures 
     Act (18 U.S.C. App.).
       (18) Section 1004 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(42 U.S.C. 
     2000g-3).
       (19) Section 1114 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 
     1978 (12 U.S.C. 3414).
       (20) Section 11 of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 
     1938 (22 U.S.C. 621).
       (21) The following provisions of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978: sections 107 (50 U.S.C. 1807) and 
     108 (50 U.S.C. 1808).
       (22) Section 102(b)(5) of the Department of Justice and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (28 U.S.C. 533 
     note).

     SEC. 2. ENCRYPTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Section 2519(2)(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``and (iv)'' and 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)''.
       (b) The encryption reporting requirement in subsection (a) 
     shall be effective for the report transmitted by the Director 
     of the Administrative Office of the Courts for calendar year 
     2000 and in subsequent reports.

     SEC. 3. 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.''.
       Amend the title so as to read ``An Act to exempt certain 
     reports from automatic elimination and sunset pursuant to the 
     Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, and for 
     other purposes.''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is today 
considering for final passage S. 1769, as amended by the House. I 
introduced S. 1769 with Chairman Hatch on October 22, 1999 and it 
passed the Senate on November 5, 1999. This bill will 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. The House amendment is the text of H.R. 3111, a bill to 
exempt from automatic elimination and sunset certain reports submitted 
to Congress that are useful and helpful in informing the Congress and 
the public about the activities of federal agencies in the enforcement 
of federal law. I am also glad to support this amendment.
  For many years, the Administrative Office (AO) of the Courts has 
complied with the statutory requirement, in 18 U.S.C. 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,

[[Page S2814]]

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.'' I 
commend the AO for alerting Congress that their responsibility for the 
wiretap reports would lapse at the end of this year, and for doing so 
in time for Congress to take action. The date upon which this reporting 
requirement was due to lapse was extended in the FY 2000 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, H.R. 3194, until May 15, 2000--only a few short 
weeks away.
  AO has done an excellent job of 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 with a new system and develop a liaison 
with a new agency.
  The system in place now has worked well and we should avoid any 
disruptions. 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 and methodology on little to no notice. I appreciate, 
however, the AO's interest in transferring the wiretap reporting 
requirement to another entity. Any such transfer must be accomplished 
with a minimum of disruption to the collection and reporting of 
information and with complete assurances that any new entity is able to 
fulfill this important job as capably as the AO has done.

  S. 1769 would update the reporting requirements currently in place 
with one additional reporting requirement. Specifically, the bill would 
require the wiretap reports prepared beginning in calendar year 2000 to 
include information on 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.
  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 S. 1769 would codify the information that the 
Attorney General already provides on pen register and trap and trace 
device orders, and would 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.O. 99-508, codified at 
18 U.S.C. 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 S. 1769 
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 and 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 so I am delighted to see the Congress take 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. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the Senate concur in the 
amendments of the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________