9 October 1998 Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html Excerpt from House debate. See full debate: http://jya.com/hr3694-yak.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: October 7, 1998 (House)] CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3694, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 [Snip] Mr. DICKS. [Snip] I think maybe our finest hour was on the question of encryption, an issue which still has not been resolved, but I must say that I felt very proud of the fact that we had a strong majority vote out of our committee. I think we sent a very powerful message about the importance of this technology, and of the challenge that law enforcement and our intelligence agencies have in dealing with it, and why it is so important for this Congress to be very, very careful how we proceed so we do not undermine law enforcement and national security. [Snip] Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. I wish to express my appreciation for this bill, for the conference report, for all the work that has been done, and for everybody who has put a lot of time in on it. It authorizes funding for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities for this coming year. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, I am pleased to say the report continues the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and of my subcommittee to put more eyes and ears on the streets around the world to detect, penetrate, and disrupt the movement of drugs to our cities, the planning of terrorists against our citizens, the shipment of nuclear components to rogue states, and the actions of Nations against our interests abroad. What this country faced during the Cold War was fundamentally a single military threat from the combined forces of the Warsaw Pact. Today, standing on the rubble of the Berlin Wall, we face new transnational threats that in many cases arise in smaller, poorer, and more often obscure capitals and cities in Latin America, the Near East, and Africa. Drug cartels reach out from the coca fields of southern Colombia and the poppy fields of Burma to poison our cities. Terrorist networks run from rural Afghanistan to Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, the Balkans, and even New York to kill our citizens and threaten our peace. Decisions taken in Tehran, Baku, T'Blisi, and Ashgabat may affect the exploitation of the vast oil fields of the Caspian Sea, and through that, the world's economy. It is not enough to know how badly our cities are being poisoned by cocaine and heroin from Latin America and East Asia. It is not enough to know how large a crater was left behind by terrorists in Africa. It is not enough to document how adversely our interests might be affected by the route of a pipeline through central Eurasia. Rather, we must know the plans and intentions of those behind the transnational threats and the concerns that touch our country, its citizens, and its interests. We must know all of this before it is too late for us to act. We need to know the who, the where, and the how of drug shipments coming to Miami, New York and San Diego; of a truck bomb to be left in the front of an embassy in Africa; of a plan for hostile control of oil from the Caspian sea. For that we must have the eyes and ears of our case officers, and technology, on the streets where these threats originate. No amount of logic or divination by our analysts back here in Washington can pick up the launch of a drug boat in the Caribbean or the Eastern Pacific, or the fusing of a bomb intended for a U.S. embassy. That must be done by the brave men and women of the intelligence community, on the front lines of this national endeavor. That Mr. Speaker is where they must be if the U.S. is to move away from being reactive to the transnational threats to becoming proactive in our efforts to frustrate and hinder as best we can future catastrophes. With that, I would like to speak to one particular portion of the bill which has given pause to some of our Members this morning. That concerns a very minor change but a very significant change in the law dealing with wiretaps. As the terrorist threat has grown, it has become apparent that we have had a problem, as people decide to evade a wiretap that is ordered by a court, and they decide to go to other phones than the stationary phone in the single court order that is presented, where you have just a single phone you are allowed to tap. We have had a lot of debate about this issue. In this bill there is a provision that I think is very refined that goes to the issue. We have a provision in this bill that simply changes the law to say that a court, when it goes about considering whether to order a wiretap that allows, as it can now do, somebody to be followed and every phone they use to be tapped, rather than simply a stationary phone in the order, and the current law allows that, but instead of requiring the court to find an intent, a specific criminal intent to evade the tap, that instead we may reach the conclusion, the judge may reach the conclusion that the person is evading the tap by the circumstances that are presented, because the intent is very hard to prove a lot of times. There is no expansion of more phones that can be tapped. In fact, there is a narrowing of that. In fact, in our provision we narrow it so now, if this becomes law, once somebody leaves an area where a phone is, let's say he is on a street corner and walks away from a phone booth and somebody is following him along, figuring out what he is doing, that phone cannot be tapped anymore. We cannot tap a phone to listen in on anybody's conversation except the person who is indeed the person being suspected of whatever it is that we are tapping their phone on. This is a very minor change. No Member should mistake this as some major addition to the wiretap laws. It is not. I would encourage everybody to vote for this bill. It is a very important bill. [Snip] Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, the distinguished chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time for me to do something that I do not like to do and, that is, to rise in opposition to this bill. Comments were made earlier that there was a minor change to the electronic surveillance or wiretapping legislation. The change that is contained in this bill is neither minor nor inconsequential. It represents a fundamental shift in wiretapping procedures in this country. Back in 1996, Mr. Speaker, we debated extensively provisions almost identical to these that are found in section 604 of this conference report. After extensive debate, this House defeated the expanded powers that were sought by the executive branch. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this changes Federal wiretapping laws in a way that allows the government to seek a court order in any case, not limited to foreign intelligence surveillance, in any case that a Federal wiretap order is sought to provide that the wiretap follow the person no matter what phone that person uses. No longer would the standard be if you have grounds to tap and grounds to obtain a court order, you tap a particular person's phone, and if that person moves to another phone, you either have to provide a showing that they are deliberately trying to thwart or you have to then get another court order. This is a very important civil liberty and privacy right. The government, however, under this legislation if this bill passes would be able to ``issue an order authorizing the interception of all communications made by a particular person regardless of what telephone he may use.'' That is language from the conference report. To argue with a straight face that that is a minor change to our electronic surveillance or wiretap laws is disingenuous. This is a significant change. It needs to be debated fully. I urge that this not be allowed to stand. I rise in opposition to this conference report, Mr. Speaker. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the author of the provision, but I would also point out before I do that any Members who wish to read the section in question, it is section 604, published yesterday in the Congressional Record of the House on page H9530, and I think it is very clear, and the safeguards that are necessary I think are equally clear. Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Members that this is truly a minor change in the wiretap laws. It is designed to combat terrorism. Current law does permit multipoint, or roving wiretaps. Current law does permit this. Court approval is still required under this bill. Probable cause of criminal activity is still required for any wiretap. Current law requires the court to find intent to evade wiretap before allowing the tap of whatever phone is used by the suspect as opposed to a specific phone. But you can have it if that intent is proven. The bill simply changes this. It permits the court-ordered wiretap that follows the criminal terrorist suspect to whatever phone he uses if the court determines his actions show he is trying to evade the tap, not requiring the specific criminal intent which has been very hard to do. The bill also protects innocent people by limiting the tap of any phone to only those times when the criminal or terrorist suspect actually is using that phone. This is a very minor change. It is a change allowing the court to follow the suspect as it is doing now with the simple showing that there is an evasion effort by the criminal suspect rather than having to prove the technical intent which is almost impossible now to prove. That is all that this does. I urge a vote for the authorization bill. [Snip] Mr. GOSS. [Snip] With regard to those concerned about the matter that was brought up by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) I have read the safeguards that are in the bill; I think they are adequate. Again, if something egregious comes out of this, obviously we are prepared to resolve it. [Snip] Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Barr of Georgia Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with instructions. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report? Mr. BARR of Georgia. He is, Mr. Speaker. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. DICKS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will please state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. DICKS. It is my understanding that this bill was taken up in the Senate yesterday. If that is true, can there be a motion to recommit? The SPEAKER pro tempore. One moment. The Chair will examine the official papers. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have now been informed by staff that the bill was not taken up yesterday, so I withdraw my objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Barr of Georgia moves to recommit the Intelligence Authorization Conference bill to the Committee on Conference with instructions to the managers on the part of the House to remove section 604. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule XV, the Chair announces the he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of passage. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 148, nays 267, not voting 19, as follows: [Roll No. 486] YEAS--148 Abercrombie Aderholt Bachus Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (WI) Bartlett Becerra Bonilla Bonior Bryant Burton Camp Campbell Cannon Cardin Carson Chabot Chenoweth Christensen Clayton Clyburn Coburn Conyers Cooksey Cox Coyne Crapo Cubin Cummings Davis (IL) Deal DeFazio Delahunt DeLay Doggett Doolittle Duncan [[Page H9740]] Ehrlich Emerson English Ensign Everett Filner Ford Fossella Furse Gillmor Goode Goodlatte Gutknecht Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hostettler Inglis Istook Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jenkins Johnson (WI) Jones Kanjorski Kilpatrick Kingston Klink Largent Lee Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Lofgren Lucas Maloney (CT) Manzullo Matsui McDade McGovern McInnis McIntosh McKinney Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Metcalf Mica Mink Mollohan Moran (KS) Myrick Neal Neumann Ney Norwood Owens Pappas Parker Pastor Paul Payne Petri Pickering Pitts Pombo Radanovich Rangel Redmond Riley Rivers Rohrabacher Royce Ryun Salmon Sanders Sanford Scarborough Schaffer, Bob Scott Sensenbrenner Serrano Smith (MI) Smith, Linda Snowbarger Stark Stearns Stokes Sununu Talent Thompson Thornberry Thurman Tiahrt Torres Towns Traficant Velazquez Wamp Waters Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weller Whitfield Wilson Yates NAYS--267 Ackerman Allen Archer Armey Baesler Baker Baldacci Barrett (NE) Barton Bass Bateman Bentsen Bereuter Berman Berry Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Bliley Blumenauer Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bono Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bunning Burr Buyer Callahan Calvert Canady Capps Castle Chambliss Clement Coble Collins Combest Condit Cook Costello Cramer Crane Cunningham Danner Davis (FL) Davis (VA) DeGette DeLauro Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dingell Dixon Dooley Doyle Dreier Dunn Edwards Ehlers Engel Eshoo Etheridge Evans Ewing Farr Fawell Fazio Foley Forbes Fowler Fox Frank (MA) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gekas Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gilman Gonzalez Gordon Goss Granger Green Greenwood Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hamilton Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hefner Hinojosa Hobson Hoekstra Holden Hooley Horn Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Jefferson John Johnson (CT) Johnson, E.B. Johnson, Sam Kaptur Kasich Kelly Kennedy (RI) Kildee Kim King (NY) Kleczka Klug Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich LaHood Lampson Lantos Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Lowey Luther Maloney (NY) Manton Markey Mascara McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McDermott McHale McHugh McIntyre McNulty Meehan Menendez Millender-McDonald Miller (CA) Miller (FL) Minge Moakley Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Nadler Nethercutt Northup Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Oxley Packard Pallone Pascrell Paxon Pease Pelosi Peterson (MN) Pickett Pomeroy Porter Portman Price (NC) Quinn Rahall Ramstad Regula Reyes Riggs Rodriguez Roemer Rogan Rogers Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanchez Sandlin Sawyer Saxton Schaefer, Dan Schumer Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Shimkus Shuster Sisisky Skaggs Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (OR) Smith (TX) Smith, Adam Snyder Spence Spratt Stabenow Stenholm Strickland Stump Stupak Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thune Tierney Turner Upton Vento Visclosky Walsh Waxman Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Wexler Weygand Wicker Wise Wolf Woolsey Wynn Young (AK) Young (FL) NOT VOTING--19 Andrews Clay Fattah Goodling Graham Kennedy (MA) Kennelly Kind (WI) LaFalce Martinez McCrery McKeon Peterson (PA) Poshard Pryce (OH) Roukema Solomon Souder White {time} 1215 Messrs. COMBEST, KOLBE, FORBES, HUTCHINSON, SHADEGG, TAYLOR of Mississippi, NADLER, MILLER of California, REYES and OBEY and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Messrs. KINGSTON, REDMOND, WELLER, ADERHOLT BRYANT, SALMON, BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado, HILLIARD, DELAHUNT, CRAPO, THOMPSON, JACKSON of Illinois, SERRANO, FOSSELLA, DOGGETT, PICKERING, YATES, FORD and McGOVERN and Mrs. THURMAN, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mrs. CLAYTON, and Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the motion was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.