[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 121 (Tuesday, October 3, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8697-H8699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CHILD SEX CRIMES WIRETAPPING ACT OF 2000

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3484) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that 
certain sexual crimes against children are predicate crimes for the 
interception of communications, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3484

       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 ``Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping 
     Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS IN 
                   THE INVESTIGATION OF SEXUAL CRIMES AGAINST 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Child Pornography.--Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``section 2252A 
     (relating to material constituting or containing child 
     pornography),'' after ``2252 (sexual exploitation of 
     children),''.
       (b) Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity.--Section 
     2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 3 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (o);
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (o) the following:
       ``(p) a violation of section 2422 (relating to coercion and 
     enticement) or section 2423 (relating to transportation of 
     minors) of this title, if, in connection with that violation, 
     the sexual activity for which a person may be charged with a 
     criminal offense would constitute a felony offense under 
     chapter 109A or 110, if that activity took place within the 
     special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United 
     States; or''; and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (p) as paragraph (q).

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE 
                   PROVISION.

       Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the first paragraph (p); and
       (2) by inserting ``or'' at the end of paragraph (o).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3484, which was introduced by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime, together with the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson).
  This bill is intended to assist Federal law enforcement agencies to 
better investigate crimes against children. The Committee on the 
Judiciary reported the bill favorably by voice vote.
  Under current law, law enforcement agencies may only seek court 
authority to use a wiretap to investigate a limited number of crimes 
commonly called ``wiretap predicates.'' While many crimes involving the 
sexual exploitation of children are already wiretap predicates, a few 
are not. With the rise of the Internet, sexual predators often attempt 
to lure their child victims by engaging in conversations with them in a 
chat room, then traveling to meet the child or asking the child to 
travel to them.
  Oftentimes, the predators will send child pornography to the child in 
order to lower the child's natural defense to the sexual advances of 
adults. Fortunately, all of these acts are crimes under Federal law, 
and law enforcement agencies have been using these statutes with 
increasing frequency in order to catch and punish these predators 
before they inflict physical harm on a child.
  But even when law enforcement agencies obtain a court order to 
monitor the predator's Internet conversation with the child, they do 
not have the authority under current law to monitor the predator's 
telephone conversations with the child or with potential co-
conspirators. Of course, many times some part of the predator's attempt 
at seduction of the child will occur over the telephone. If law 
enforcement officials cannot monitor the calls, they may be unable to 
act to stop him before he physically harms the child. For that reason, 
this legislation is necessary.
  This bill would address this shortcoming in the law by adding three 
title 18 crimes as new wiretap predicates. I point out to my colleagues 
that nothing in the bill would change the requirement in current law 
that a judge must approve each wiretap request before the wiretap is 
activated.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more precious and worthy of protection 
than a child. I believe we should do everything in our power to catch 
sexual predators before they harm our children. This bill, H.R. 3484, 
will ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the tools to do 
that.
  The Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury both 
support this bill.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3484, which 
would add to the already lengthy list of predicate offenses for which 
wiretap may be issued. While I am prepared to support some extension of 
Federal wiretap authority in these kinds of cases, I believe the 
present bill goes too far in extending law enforcement's authority to 
use a tool recognized to be so invasive of the rights of citizens in a 
free society that it can only be made available

[[Page H8698]]

for use under circumstances specifically approved by Congress.
  Currently, congressionally approved wiretap authority dates back to 
the 1968 crime bill. The primary intent of the provision was to permit 
a limited use of electronic surveillance of organized crime and 
gambling groups, and it was envisioned as a tool of last resort even 
under those circumstances.
  The limited approach to authorizing wiretap authority was appropriate 
because what we are talking about is permitting law enforcement 
officials to engage in the unseemly acts of secretly eavesdropping on 
our phone conversations, conversations which include primarily private 
content, most of which will have nothing to do with criminal activity. 
Unfortunately, since 1968, the act has been amended over a dozen times 
and now includes over 50 predicate crimes for which wiretap may be 
obtained.
  Regrettably, a number of those predicates involve rather minor 
offenses such as false statements on a passport application. In 
justifying further expansion of wiretap authority, the argument now 
goes, if we amended the wiretap authority to add ``X,'' we should 
certainly amend it to add ``Y,'' which is a much more serious offense. 
As a result, wiretaps are becoming routine, rather than an 
extraordinary procedure to be used only as a last resort. Given the 
level of effectiveness of today's technology, wiretaps have the 
potential of being even more invasive.
  At issue today is whether we should add three new crimes to the 
wiretap predicate offensive list: Criminal Code Section 2252A, relating 
to material constituting or containing child pornography; section 2422, 
relating to coercion and enticement; and section 2423, relating to 
transportation of minors.
  Now, while I certainly support enforcement of these provisions, I do 
not believe that they should all be predicate offenses for wiretaps. 
The way the bill is presented to us, it is all or nothing.
  First, it is clear from the list of already existing sex crime 
offenses that much of the more serious activity for which proponents of 
the legislation are seeking to justify wiretap extension are already 
covered by wiretap authority or other confiscation authority and 
investigatory techniques. For example, sexual exploitation of children 
is already a crime that is a wiretap predicate.
  While I appreciate the majority's willingness to limit sections 2422 
and 2423 to sexual activity which would constitute a Federal felony, 
the bill still includes the overly broad provisions contained in 
sections 2252A and 2423(b) as predicate offenses.
  Section 2252A includes, among other things, computer-generated 
depictions of child pornography. Now, the suspicion that someone may be 
generating filthy depictions on a home computer should not justify 
listening in to their private phone conversations. Now section 2423(b) 
makes it an offense to travel with the intent or thought of committing 
any sex crime.
  Thus pursuant to H.R. 3484, the bill before us, law enforcement would 
be able to get a wiretap where it learns that an 18-year-old is 
traveling from Washington, D.C. to Northern Virginia to have sex with 
his 17-year-old girlfriend. Now, I do not think that we have a 
compelling need to authorize government officials to listen into 
personal phone conversations when they suspect that such activity may 
be planned.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated earlier, wiretap authority is so 
invasive of the rights of citizens in a free society that it must be 
made available only as a last resort. The more serious criminal 
activity for which proponents of the legislation are seeking to justify 
wiretap extension are mostly covered by wiretap authority or other 
confiscation authority and investigatory techniques already.
  Further, certain provisions of the bill are overly broad or simply 
involve conduct not serious enough to warrant the extraordinary 
invasion of privacy involved in wiretap authority.
  As a result, I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to 
vote no on H.R. 3484.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
for his work on this. It has been a pleasure in the Subcommittee on 
Crime to serve with him. I did want to respond, simply as a Federal 
prosecutor, I have had experience in requests for wiretap authority. 
All I can say is that the Department of Justice, from my experience, 
uses it very, very rarely.
  One of the reasons is that, in order to have wiretap permission, one 
has to get authorization at a very, very high level in the Department 
of Justice. So there are a number of tools to screen the overuse of 
wiretap authority. Then, secondly, there are numerous protections in 
it, such as one has to go to a Federal judge. For those reasons, it is 
not something that is a routine law enforcement tool, as it should not 
be.
  I think that the gentleman from Virginia is absolutely correct. This 
should be a tool that should be reserved for the very difficult cases 
and not just used in a routine fashion. That is something that we 
certainly share, and I hope that the Department of Justice will always 
maintain that view of wiretap authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson), who has really been the pusher behind this legislation, 
an extraordinary advocate for children.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) for their leadership and help in bringing this issue and this 
bill to the floor.
  As I learned from meetings with Customs Service agents, students, 
parents and teachers, predators lurk no longer just around the 
playground. They lurk in every computer. I was born and raised in 
Chicago, not in the suburbs, but in Chicago. I played in the streets 
and in the alleys of my neighborhood. Yet, I felt safe. I felt safe 
because I was taught that, if I did not go certain places, I would be 
safe. We were taught by our parents, do not go here. Do not go there. 
Stay within these parameters. Because we were taught about the dangers 
around us, we were safe.
  Now we have to teach our kids about the dangers that lurk on the 
Internet so they too can enjoy the wonderful resources the Internet can 
make available to them but enjoy those resources in safety.
  Twenty-five million kids ages 10 to 17 use the Internet. The risks 
are very high, and protections for our children need to be even higher.
  During one visit to Connecticut, a Customs agent entered a chat room 
camouflaged as a teenage girl and within minutes was solicited by no 
less than five individuals seeking information about what she looked 
like, where she lived, what she liked to do, all under the guise of 
being her friend.
  Such contacts have led to agreements between children and adults to 
meet, to meet the new friend. They have led to sexual abuse. But, 
fortunately, in Connecticut so far, none of these encounters have led 
to abduction and murder.
  The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates that 
there are over 10,000 Web sites maintained by pedophiles. There are 
even more child pornography sites with as much as 80 percent of it 
coming from other countries.
  One of the chat rooms I was shown was named, this was just on the 
list, named ``infant rape and torture.'' Times have changed. The 
dangers are all around us. We must change our laws to arm our 
investigators with the power they need to protect our children.
  This legislation would create several new predicate offenses for 
which a Federal agent can seek permission to wiretap a suspect. While I 
respect the concerns that have been raised on the floor here, our bill 
is essential if these kids are to be protected from those in the 
Internet who would seek them out, befriend them, and arrange to meet 
them in places through which they can sexually assault them or, as has 
happened, and will happen more and more often, lead to their harm and 
sometimes to their murder.
  Our bill simply modernizes the statute. The officers would still have 
to present their case to a judge. So I urge support of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H8699]]

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3484, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________