[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.

                          ____________________