[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 21, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2676-H2680]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD SEX CRIMES WIRETAPPING ACT OF 2002
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 1877) 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. 1877
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 2002''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS IN
THE INVESTIGATION OF SEXUAL CRIMES AGAINST
CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``2251 and 2252'' and inserting ``2251,
2251A, 2252, and 2252A''; and
(2) by inserting ``section 2423(b) (relating to travel with
intent to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile),'' after
``motor vehicle parts),''.
(b) Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity.--Section
2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (q);
(2) by inserting after paragraph (q) the following:
``(r) a violation of section 2422 (relating to coercion and
enticement) and section 2423(a) (relating to transportation
of minors) of this title, if, in connection with that
violation, the intended sexual activity would constitute a
felony violation of chapter 109A or 110, including a felony
violation of chapter 109A or 110 if the sexual activity
occurred, or was intended to occur, within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
regardless of where it actually occurred or was intended to
occur; or''; and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (r) as paragraph (s).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1877, the bill
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1877, the Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 2002,
will help protect our children from the growing threat of sexual
predators by assisting law enforcement officers in thwarting those
predators who are intent on sexually abusing children. To do so, the
bill amends title 18, United States Code, section 2516 to authorize the
interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications in the
investigation of: (1) the selling and buying of a child for sexual
exploitation under title 18, United States Code, section 2251A; (2)
child pornography under title 18, United States Code, section 2252A;
(3) the coercion and enticement to engage in prostitution or other
illegal sexual activity under title 18, United States Code, section
2422; and (4) the transportation of a minor or traveling to meet a
minor with intent to engage in a sexual act with the minor under title
18, United States Code, section 2423.
Technology has precipitated a significant increase in sexual
exploitation crimes against children. In fact, child pornography was
nearly extinct until the increased use of the Internet provided a new
medium where the viewers, producers and traders are virtually
anonymous. The Internet provided these depraved individuals with new
access to their victims. In 2000, a U.S. Customs Service representative
testified before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security of the Committee on Judiciary that the Customs Service had
seen a dramatic rise in child exploitation investigations. During
fiscal year 1999, these types of investigations increased 36 percent,
and in 2000 the number rose an alarming 81 percent.
Additionally, the growth of international travel has helped sexual
predators to exploit children throughout the world. According to a 2002
Congressional Research Service report, trafficking in people,
especially women and children, for prostitution and forced labor is one
of the fastest growing areas of international criminal activity.
According to that report, under conservative estimates the scope of the
problem involves more than 700,000 victims per year worldwide. We must
do more to prevent children and women from being forced into
prostitution, the sex tourism industry, and other sexually exploitative
criminal markets.
The goal of H.R. 1877 is to provide law enforcement with the tools
necessary to prevent the ultimate harm these depraved individuals plan
for the innocent children they target. Wiretaps are key to stopping
those crimes before the predators can physically harm children. I urge
my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1877, the Child Sex Crimes
Wiretapping Act. I believe the bill represents an unnecessary expansion
of Federal wiretap authority, a procedure so pervasive of the rights of
citizens in a free society that it can only be made available for use
under circumstances specifically approved by Congress.
The current congressionally approved wiretap authority dates back to
the 1968 crime bill. The primary intent of the law was to permit a
limited use of electronic surveillance of organized crime syndicates,
but even under those circumstances, as a tool of last resort.
[[Page H2677]]
Since that time the act has been amended over a dozen times to meet the
demands of law enforcement officials for more power to eavesdrop on our
citizens. We now have over 50 predicate crimes for which wiretap
authority may be obtained. Regrettably, a number of these predicates
involve relatively minor criminal activity. But now the argument goes
that if we amended the wiretap authority to add one crime, we should
certainly amend it to add another. As a result, the wiretaps are
becoming a routine rather than an extraordinary procedure used as a
last resort.
Eavesdropping on conversations from a household or a pay phone or a
cell phone is a very intrusive law enforcement activity. Once a
wiretap, or a bug, is in place, it captures all conversations, innocent
as well as criminal. Estimates I have seen indicate that over 80
percent of the information obtained by wiretaps is innocent
information, often involving family members and others who are not even
targets of the investigation.
As Members will remember from the debate after September 11, some
wiretaps are the so-called roving wiretaps where bugs can be placed on
any phone the target uses, at his home, at his workplace, at the pay
phone on the corner, at his neighbor's house or country club, and many
innocent people will have their private, unrelated conversations
listened in on by government employees.
At a hearing on this bill in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security, an FBI witness testified about certain
successful investigations in which wiretap authority would have been
helpful. Given the intrusive nature and many innocent individuals and
conversations it will necessarily ensnare, it is not enough
justification for it to be merely helpful to law enforcement. It ought
to be necessary.
Even without this expansion, the use of wiretap authority is rapidly
growing. For example, in 1980, 81 Federal wiretaps were issued. In
1999, 601. That is 81 to 601 wiretaps were issued. Most of the crimes
covered by this bill also involve activities that are State crimes.
Indeed, over 98 percent of all criminal prosecutions are conducted at
the State level. Each State can authorize wiretaps and most do.
However, the total number of all State wiretaps amounts to almost the
same number as the Federal wiretaps, 749 in the whole country in State
wiretaps to 601 Federal wiretaps in 1999. The fact that a few States
have chosen not to authorize wiretaps at all and the limited number of
State wiretaps that are authorized as compared to the number of Federal
wiretaps attests to the level of concern citizens have with law
enforcement officials having power over their private conversations.
Mr. Speaker, as we address this bill, we see that much of the
activity for which the proponents of the legislation are seeking to
justify this wiretap authority is already covered by Federal wiretap
authority. Moreover, most, if not all, of the activity under the
sections added by H.R. 1877 for wiretap authority are covered by the
general wiretap authority in the Federal law for crimes against child
exploitation. And all of it is already covered by e-mail, fax and other
electronic eavesdrop authority and investigatory techniques. And so,
Mr. Speaker, to understand the impact of the legislation, we have to
focus on those crimes not currently covered under present law which
will be covered by additions under this bill.
One provision allows wiretap when probable cause exists that a person
is producing sexually explicit computer-generated images of children.
This very month, the Supreme Court said that computer-generated images
of children that are not obscene and do not involve real children are
not criminal. This bill would allow wiretaps for those situations.
Wiretaps should be used only in extraordinary situations. We certainly
should not be adding wiretap authority to investigate something that is
not even a crime.
I attempted improvements to the bill in committee by offering
amendments to limit the application to its stated objective of
protecting children. One amendment which was not adopted would have
limited the extension of wiretap authority to cases involving actual as
opposed to virtual children in keeping with the recent Supreme Court
decision. That was not adopted. Another limited the application of the
act to cases involving children as opposed to adults. There is
absolutely no justification in a bill purportedly designed to protect
children to authorize wiretap authority for the FBI to listen in on
garden-variety adult prostitution cases. Prostitution is actually legal
in some places. Yet under Federal law it is a felony punishable by up
to 10 years in prison to persuade, induce or entice or attempt to, or
to conspire to have someone cross a State line to engage in this legal
activity. If this bill becomes law, the FBI will be able to wiretap
conversations to determine if there is such persuasion, enticement or
inducement or attempt or conspiracy.
There are other situations involving consensual activities involving
high school students that we see routinely on prom night which would
provide a Federal wiretap under this bill.
With such shortcomings, Mr. Speaker, this bill should not be on the
suspension calendar but should be fully debated and open to amendment.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this motion to suspend the rules so that
the bill may be considered under regular rules of order subject to full
debate and amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the author of the bill.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
important legislation. I thank the chairman for bringing it forward.
Passage of this bill is not an effort to just be helpful to the FBI.
It is a necessary tool that the FBI must have if they are to track down
these predators and to reduce the threat to our children. The threat to
our children is real. The need to address it is urgent.
{time} 1115
In talking with Ernie Allen, president and CEO of the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, he tells a compelling story. In
visiting a classroom, he and a reporter asked the children, How many of
you have been approached sexually on the Internet? Every single hand
went up. And then the kids were asked, And how many of you told your
parents? Not a single hand went up.
The children are terrified. They are afraid to tell their parents
because this threat is so both nebulous and mysterious. They are
frightened by it but think they are protected by the computer and don't
need to tell their parents. In fact these criminals are very clever,
weedle information from children, earn their trust, and then they are
vulnerable kids also are afraid that their parents will deny them
access to the computer if they acquaint their parents with the dangers
that lurk there.
Our children need our protection. These conversations on the Internet
that lure and entice them lead them to telephone conversations that set
up meetings. Just yesterday, a 13-year-old girl in my home State, a
beautiful young woman, an honor student, a cheerleader, was found
murdered. She met her murderer online. He lured her from her home,
sexually abused her and killed her.
This is real. It is present, and all of our children are experiencing
it. In 1999, and this is old data now, one in five children reported
having been sexually solicited on the Internet. That is 5 million
children. Today we believe this is the most under-reported crime in the
Nation.
It is just simply a terrible situation, it is urgent, and if our FBI
agents are not able to track the conversation they spot beginning on
the Internet when it transfers to the telephone, which it always does
before meeting, then they are weakened in their ability to prevent the
sexual molestation and possible murder of our children.
They just want the same tools that the predators have. That is all.
They want to be able to interrupt those conversations before the
meeting takes place or be there when the meeting takes place, and they
want the evidence off the tape recording of the wiretap to use in court
because it is tangible, and it will protect many of our children from
having to testify.
Mr. Speaker, this is a long-overdue bill. I appreciate the concern of
those
[[Page H2678]]
who are worried about extending wiretap authority; but this is a
concrete, demonstrated need that the courts have to approve. I urge
support of this legislation.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, cases of kidnapping and murder can already be predicates
for a wiretap.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of this legislation that will help to protect our Nation's children. We
need to give law enforcement, the FBI, the tools that they need to
crack down on child sex crimes.
This particular wiretapping act will add four additional crimes for
which law enforcement officials may seek wiretapping authority. These
crimes include selling or buying a child for sexual exploitation, child
pornography, coercing or enticing a child for prostitution, and
transporting minors to engage in prostitution or traveling with the
intent to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile.
Recent news reports, my colleague cited one, but you read about them
every day where young children are enticed or the Internet is used in
some way to traffic women and children; and it is something we need to
crack down on. There are some estimates that the number of victims that
are in trafficking now worldwide is over 700,000.
This exploitation of young children into sex trafficking is a tragic
human rights offense. Sex tour operators such as Big Apple Oriental
Tours in New York City provide a full-service travel package over the
Internet, including air fare, hotel and entertainment for their
customers. We must act to stop this growing industry.
Under this legislation, law enforcement will be better able to
protect innocent children from the predators who would exploit them and
destroy their childhood. I am also pleased to note that this
legislation does not weaken the strict limitations on obtaining
wiretaps; rather, the bill expands the areas for which the wiretap can
be acquired, while requiring the law enforcement officials do not
intercept noncriminal conversations. Our interest is in prosecuting
sexual predators, not innocent citizens.
The Internet has revolutionized the ways in which people communicate,
not only with their friends and family but with people and businesses
around the world. Unfortunately, with great advances in technology come
new dangers and new means for criminals to target their victims.
The statistics are startling. In 2001, one in five children was
solicited over the Internet for sexual purposes, and we must expand the
options available to law enforcement to find these sexual predators.
I must tell you that I feel very strongly about this bill. I am proud
to be the lead Democrat on it. I have a 14-year-old daughter; and many
times on the Internet she is approached, as is practically every young
person on the Internet. It has met with tragedy in many cases.
We must act. This bill does protect the rights of people. We are only
going after sexual predators. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank
the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate that the House is considering
H.R. 1877, the Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 2002, before May 25,
the National Missing Children's Day. This bill will provide law
enforcement officials with the tools they need to prevent or punish
sexual exploitation of children.
Federal law authorizes the use of wiretaps to stop some sex crimes
against children, but not others. This is clearly a gap in our current
law. The interception of oral communications through wiretaps
significantly enhances investigations and can prevent children from
being harmed.
This bill authorizes wiretaps to investigate the selling and buying
of children for sexual exploitation, child pornography, coercing and
enticing children into prostitution, and the transportation of minors
to engage in sexual activity. These are serious crimes that require a
serious response.
With 24 million children surfing the Internet, child molesters have
easy access to a large number of potential victims. The American
Medical Association released a study last summer that surveyed children
who regularly used the Internet. The study found nearly one in five
children surveyed received an unwanted sexual solicitation online just
in the last year. Technology is making it more and more difficult for
law enforcement officials to protect our children from pedophiles. This
is why we need to authorize the use of wiretaps by law enforcement
officials to fight this growing threat against our children.
Wiretaps will significantly enhance law enforcement capabilities to
prevent the sexual exploitation of children. This is the goal of H.R.
1877.
Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the few of my colleagues who might have
concerns about this bill.
This bill does create new wiretap predicates. But those crimes will
be treated like any other wiretap predicate. This in no way changes the
strict limitations on how and when wiretaps may be used.
Congress enacted Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 that outlines what is and is not permissible with
regard to wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. Title III
restrictions go beyond Fourth Amendment constitutional protections and
include a statutory suppression rule to exclude evidence that was
collected in violation of Title III. Except under limited
circumstances, it is unlawful to intercept oral, wire and electronic
communications. Accordingly under the Act, Federal and state law
enforcement may use wiretaps and electronic surveillance under strict
limitations. Congress created these procedures to allow limited law
enforcement access to private communications and communication records
for investigations while protecting Fourth Amendment rights. In
addition to these restrictions, Congress has only provided authority to
use a wiretap in investigations of specifically enumerated crimes,
commonly called ``wiretap predicates.''
H.R. 1877 adds new predicates but does not affect the procedures on
wiretap use.
Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2516 requires that the Department of Justice
authorize all applications for Federal wiretaps and the principal
prosecuting attorney of any state or any political subdivision must
apply for wiretaps by state law enforcement officials.
Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518 also sets strict procedures for the use of
a wiretap. Section 2518(1) requires the application to be made under
written oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction.
Section 2518(1)(b) requires that the application set forth ``a full and
complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the
applicant, to justify his belief that an order should be issued. . .
.'' These facts should include, among other things, the details ``as to
the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be
committed'' and ``the identity of the person, if known, committing the
offense and whose communications are to be intercepted.''
Section 2518(3) also includes requirements that the Judge believe (1)
``there is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing,
has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in
section 2516 of [title 18];'' (2) there is probable cause for belief
that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained
through such interception; and (3) normal investigative procedures have
been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to
succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.
Additionally, law enforcement is required ``to minimize the
interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception
[that is non-criminal conversations] under this chapter, and must
terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective.'' The Department
of Justice's U.S. Attorney's Manual--Title 9 of the Criminal Resource
Manual provides the minimization requirements to obtain a court order.
The affidavit ``must contain a statement affirming that monitoring
agents will minimize all non-pertinent interceptions in accordance with
Chapter 119 of Title 18, United States Code, as well as additional
standard minimization language and other language addressing any
specific minimization problems (e.g., steps to be taken to avoid the
interception of privileged communications, such as attorney-client
communications) in the instant case. (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(5) permits
non-officer government personnel or individuals acting under contract
with the government to monitor conversations pursuant to the
interception order. These individuals must be acting under the
supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer
[[Page H2679]]
when monitoring communications, and the affidavit should note the fact
that these individuals will be used as monitors pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2518(5).)''
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for both his leadership and his kindness in yielding me
time. I also thank the sponsors of this legislation and the chairman
and ranking member of the committee, both for the timeliness of this
legislation moving, the chairman of the subcommittee; and I rise to
support this legislation on one large key word, and that word is
``deterrence.''
I hope as we move the legislation through this body that the concerns
of the ranking member are addressed and considered. But I believe that
the deterrent factor is a must. It is key. It is an absolute.
What struck me most, Mr. Speaker, was the testimony that I heard in
our hearings that child predators often gain the confidence of children
on the Internet and then set up meetings by telephone. In a recent
report it has been noted that 40 hours of a child's time is taken up
with electronic kinds of equipment; only 17 hours are taken up with the
interaction with the child's parent; and maybe 30 hours or more in
school.
Clearly we have a predator's paradise, with the Internet being the
enticing instrument and then the telephone nailing it down. What a
tragedy.
Might I add to my colleague from Connecticut's outrage, in reading a
headline, ``Man confesses to killing girl he met on the Internet.''
This did happen in Danbury, Connecticut. Investigators found the body
of a missing 13-year-old girl Monday after she met a man over the
Internet and told them where to look. The U.S. Attorney identified the
man as a 25-year-old individual who had confessed to killing the girl,
Christina Long. She was last seen Friday at a Danbury shopping center.
Relationships developed over the Internet, and then, as we might
expect, and might speculate, might I say, nailed down the coffin nail
by a phone call as to where to meet me. This beautiful young girl is
now dead. Thousands upon thousands have access to the Internet, our
very innocent children; and thousands upon thousands of predators,
vicious and violent as they are, are utilizing the Internet and then
the telephone.
I would offer to say that this legislation gives law enforcement an
additional tool, if you will, along with other law enforcement
agencies, to monitor these telephone calls, overcoming a legal barrier
now facing crime fighters in tapping these phone calls, geared
specifically to sexual activities with respect to a minor.
I would hope as this legislation makes it way, we will consider the
issue that deals with extraneous conversation and individuals not
engaged in these terrible, heinous acts. We are a Nation of laws, Mr.
Speaker. It is important to recognize the rights and privileges, the
civil liberties and due process of others not engaged in criminal
activity; but this is a vital tool that will assist in fighting these
heinous and horrific sexual crimes.
H.R. 1877 would add certain sexual crimes against children to the
list of offenses for which wiretaps and other interceptions of
communications can be authorized. Implementing the bill could result in
more successful investigations and prosecutions in cases involving such
crimes.
It is not always easy, Mr. Speaker, to have someone stand up and say
``I did it.'' Our children are under attack. They are under siege.
These sexual crimes are prolific, and they are all over the Nation.
What a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, to have this young girl as an example of
the violence that happens over the Internet. What a tragedy to
recognize that our children are before these electronic media entities,
meaning whether it is the CDs or whether or not it is the boom box or
whether or not it is the Internet, for more than 40 hours of their life
a week without an adult attending to them or counseling with them or
participating with them on the Internet. That means there is ample
opportunity to entice our young girls and young boys.
Let me conclude by saying in my own district just a few weeks ago a
person from Detroit, Michigan, enticed a 12-year-old to leave his home
in Texas; and by the time they were found through the Internet, they
were halfway back to Michigan, enticing the 12-year-old for sexual
activities, terrible sexual activities as relates to a minor.
This legislation will begin the deterrence, and I hope as it makes
its way through this House and makes its way through the Senate, we
will be concerned as well about the issues of due process and privacy.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Crime, I heard testimony during the hearings that child predators often
gain confidence of children on the Internet and then set up meetings by
telephone. The new authority in the legislation would give power to the
FBI or other law enforcement agencies to monitor those telephone calls,
overcoming a legal barrier now facing crime fighters in tapping those
phone calls. This bill would have more than a deterrent affect it would
also contain enforcement muscle.
Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1877 could be
subject to criminal fines, the federal government might collect
additional fines if the bill is enacted. Collections of such fines are
recorded in the budget as governmental receipts (revenues), which are
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO expects that
any additional receipts and direct spending would be negligible because
of the small number of cases involved. CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 1877 would not result in any significant cost to the federal
government. Enacting H.R. 1877 could affect direct spending and
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill,
but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant. H.R.
1877 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the
budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
H.R. 1877 would add certain sexual crimes against children to the
list of offenses for which wiretaps and other interceptions of
communications can be authorized. Implementing the bill could result in
more successful investigations and prosecutions in cases involving such
crimes. CBO expects that any increase in costs for law enforcement,
court proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant
because of the small number of cases likely to be affected. Any such
additional costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated
funds. The bill would add four crimes to a list of those that qualify
for wiretaps or other electronic monitoring--child pornography,
enticing children to engage in illicit sex, transporting children to
engage in sex and selling or purchasing children for prostitution or
other sexual exploitation.
The bill amends the Federal criminal code to authorize the
interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications in the
investigation of child pornography, felony coercion and enticement to
engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity. As the Chair
of the Children's Caucus and a mother I rise to support the passage of
H.R. 1877.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it was in the first week in which I operated
as an assistant district attorney in Dauphin County in Pennsylvania
when I had the duty of supervising an investigation and a court setting
for a case evolving from wiretapping; and it happened to be a sex case,
although not one involving children. That is when I learned for the
first time in on-the-job training that no wiretap will be used in court
or is usable in court if it is not predicated by a court order. So the
judge has the ability to look over and has oversight on every single
phase of the reaching out to the telephone wires by a wiretap.
This I think is the answer to the concern of the gentleman from
Virginia when he relates that it should be more than helpful to the law
enforcement agencies, but absolutely necessary in his description of
when a wiretap should be used.
{time} 1130
I say to him that it is the court which will decide whether it is
merely helpful or necessary. It is when the court determines the
necessity of the wiretap that it finally signs into the ability of the
law enforcement to use that wiretap.
So with all of the advances made over the years from that first week
of my incumbency as an assistant district
[[Page H2680]]
attorney, with the cell phones and now the vast Internet, what is
attempted by this bill is to keep up with the pace of the technology.
But then it still falls back on the ancient, now ancient prospect of a
court-reviewed request for a wiretap. So all of the safeguards, the
greatest one of all, meaning the review by the court, is still in
place; and yet we are now in a position if we pass this bill to expand
the authority of the law enforcement community.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend my colleague, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for taking on a very difficult
issue. It is very easy for all of us to stand here and talk about how
we will do anything to protect our children. We are parents and we are
grandparents; and of course we are concerned about predators and
placing our children at risk, and we know that the Internet opens up
opportunities that we never dreamed of.
However, I am taking the floor today to say to my colleague that I
appreciate the very difficult work of trying to focus us on the fact
that there is a Constitution and that there are hard-won gains in civil
rights and civil liberties that we must always be reminded of. This is
very tough work, and we do not have all of the answers. But we do have
some Members of this Congress who are courageous enough to talk about
what it means to live in a free society and what it means to live in a
police state where one is being wiretapped, where one is under
surveillance, where one is being wiretapped and one is not even aware
of it because we keep expanding and expanding and expanding the ability
to be wiretapped and to have our citizens under surveillance.
Let me remind all of my colleagues, even though this bill is going to
pass, and it is going to pass almost with every Member of Congress
supporting it, because we wish to show that we want to protect our
children, let us not forget that when those people came to the shores
from Britain, they came because they wanted to get out from under
tyranny. They wanted to get away from the fact that they could not
speak and they could not be free from being under police watch all of
the time.
So I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his attempts
to at least keep us focused.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Much of what is in the bill is already covered by present law.
Obviously, conspiracy, kidnapping, and murder is already covered. There
are some provisions that are helpful; there are also some that I think
are very loosely drawn. For example, legal adult activity is covered as
a predicate for wiretap. If one is calling into an area where
prostitution is legal, that may be a crime, a Federal crime here in
Washington, D.C., but not in Nevada. There is activity covered by this
bill which was declared legal by the Supreme Court just this month as a
predicate for a Federal wiretap. Consensual activities by young high
school students is a predicate to a Federal wiretap.
This bill is not narrowly drawn; and, therefore, we should not
suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard an impassioned plea about civil rights.
This is about civil rights for children. It is about protecting minors
who cannot protect themselves from the sexual exploitation over the
Internet.
There are some in this House that do not believe that wiretaps are
proper at any time. I respect that position, even though I disagree
with it. But I think we ought to make it clear in the legislative
history of this bill that under the law, law enforcement is authorized
to use a wiretap to intercept wire or electronic communications that
may provide evidence of a crime under 18 U.S.C. section 2516, and that
no wiretap, regardless of the crime that is being investigated, can
legally be done in this country without a court order.
So that provides the protection against unmitigated, unrestrained
surveillance by wiretaps of citizens by law enforcement.
This is a good bill. It is a bill that has bipartisan support. It is
a bill that plugs a loophole in our present laws, and it ought to
become the law of the United States of America. The House can do so by
suspending the rules in just a few minutes, and I urge my colleagues to
support this motion.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today, I voted against H.R. 1877, the
Child Sex Wiretapping Act. Let me be clear in that I do support the
goals of the bill which seek to provide law enforcement with the tools
necessary to apprehend those who sexually exploit children. It is clear
that persons who use the Internet or any other means for the sexual
exploitation of children deserve to have the full force of the law
brought against their activity. My concern, however, is that the
measure before us sweeps too broadly and will unduly burden the
legitimate rights of Americans.
There are provisions of the bill that allow wiretapping where
consenting adults engage in activity that, although questionable, may
in fact be legal. The protection of children is of paramount
importance, but in protecting children, we should not impugn the
potentially legitimate rights of many of our Nation's citizens.
We have already granted the Justice Department, the FBI and other
police authorities unprecedented authority to wiretap in our efforts to
combat the war on terrorism. I argue that wiretap authority already
exists for child sexual exploitation. These same authorities also
possess the power to intercept e-mail and other electronic
communications. Furthermore, States already have the authority to
wiretap for the crimes specified in the bill.
We are living in a trying time and we should take every precaution
before granting any additional power to police authorities. I fear that
Congress will give away many of the freedoms we cherish. As such, Mr.
Speaker, I voted against this measure.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1877, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________