[House Report 105-162]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    105-162
_______________________________________________________________________


 
   LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY ADVERTISEMENT CLARIFICATION ACT OF 1997

                                _______
                                

  June 26, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. McCollum, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1840]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1840) to provide a law enforcement exception to the 
prohibition on the advertising of certain electronic devices, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1840, the ``Law Enforcement Technology Advertisement 
Clarification Act of 1997,'' provides a narrow exception to the 
prohibition on advertisement of electronic devices primarily 
designed for interception. Under Sec. 2512 of title 18, United 
States Code, it is unlawful to advertise in interstate or 
foreign commerce ``any electronic, mechanical or other device 
knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device 
renders it primarily useful for the purpose of surreptitious 
interception.'' Unfortunately, the broad restriction against 
advertisements also applies to advertisements sent to 
legitimate law enforcement users.
    H.R. 1840 creates an exception to Sec. 2512, to permit the 
advertisement of devices designed for surreptitious 
interception to an agency of the United States, a State, or a 
political subdivision thereof which is duly authorized to use 
such devices. This bill will allow companies which manufacture 
electronic devices to mail information about their equipment to 
law enforcement agencies.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Section 2512 of title 18, United States Code, prohibits the 
advertisement of any electronic, mechanical or other device, 
``primarily useful for the purpose of surreptitious 
interception of wire, oral or electronic communications.'' This 
section was drafted with the intention of ``significantly 
curtailing the supply of devices * * * whose principal use is 
likely to be for wiretapping or eavesdropping.'' \1\ The 
Committee report listed several examples of devices which would 
fall under this prohibition, including microphones designed as 
wristwatches, cuff links, tie clips, fountain pens or cigarette 
packs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 94-95 (1968).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, legitimate law enforcement users were swept 
along with this prohibition on advertisements. Because of the 
restriction under Sec. 2512, companies which manufacture 
devices designed for wiretapping are not permitted to advertise 
the sale of their products to police departments. These 
companies are aware of cases in which a defendant was charged 
and convicted for violation of Sec. 2512, and although they 
would like to make the law enforcement community aware of their 
products, they do not wish to risk criminal sanctions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See, e.g., United States v. Ron Wynn, 633 F. Supp. 595 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Law enforcement officers, particularly undercover officers, 
often use devices which would fall under the definition of a 
device ``primarily designed for surreptitious interception.'' 
It is a strange anomaly in the law that police departments have 
the authority to use electronic intercepts, but they may not 
receive mailings about improvements to such equipment. This 
exception is particularly significant since electronic 
interception equipment is frequently updated and improved.
    As an example, police officers and informants often use 
body microphones to record criminal activity. Covert devices 
are critical for the collection of evidence, yet many 
experienced criminals are aware of traditional attempts to 
disguise body transmitters. These transmitters have been 
miniaturized, and can now be disguised in some common facade 
unfamiliar to criminals. By not allowing companies which 
manufacture intercept equipment to advertise to police 
departments, police officers' lives are unnecessarily put at 
risk.
    H.R. 1840 will provide relief to companies which 
manufacture electronic interception equipment, by allowing them 
to advertise the availability of their products to agencies of 
the United States, States, or political subdivisions, so long 
as the recipient of the mailing is duly authorized to use such 
devices. The Committee appreciates the extensive input of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation in drafting this legislation, 
to ensure that the bill was crafted as narrowly as possible 
while still achieving the intended effect.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H.R. 1840.

                        Committee Consideration

    On June 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 
session and ordered reported the bill H.R. 1840, without 
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present. On June 18, 
1997, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported 
favorably the bill H.R. 1840 without amendment by voice vote, a 
quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    There were no recorded votes.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 1840, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 23, 1997.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1840, the Law 
Enforcement Technology Advertisement Clarification Act of 1997.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1840--Law Enforcement Technology Advertisement Clarification Act 
        of 1997

    Current law prohibits the advertisement of certain 
electronic intercepting devices. H.R. 1840 would permit such 
advertisements if they are sent to a domestic provider of 
electronic or wire communication service or to a government 
agency authorized to use the intercepting device.
    CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would have no 
significant impact on the federal budget. H.R. 1840 would not 
affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures do not apply. This bill contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and would impose no costs 
on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. 
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine for Paul N. Van 
de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

                         Section 1. Short Title

    This section states that the short title of this bill is 
the ``Law Enforcement Technology Advertisement Clarification 
Act of 1997.''

    Sec. 2. Exception To Prohibition On Advertising Certain Devices

    This section amends Sec. 2512 of title 18, United States 
Code, to clarify that it shall not be unlawful to advertise for 
sale any device primarily designed for surreptitious 
interception, provided the device is mailed, carried or sent in 
interstate or foreign commerce to a domestic provider of wire 
or electronic communication service, or to an agency of the 
United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof. Any 
person or organization receiving such advertisements must be 
duly authorized to use such electronic devices.

                              Agency Views

    No agency views were received on H.R. 1840.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

              SECTION 2512 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

 Sec. 2512. Manufacture, distribution, possession, and advertising of 
wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices prohibited

    (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (3) It shall not be unlawful under this section to 
advertise for sale a device described in subsection (1) of this 
section if the advertisement is mailed, sent, or carried in 
interstate or foreign commerce solely to a domestic provider of 
wire or electronic communication service or to an agency of the 
United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof 
which is duly authorized to use such device.