16 July 1999. Thanks to q/depesche and EPIC. Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "q/depesche" To: quintessenz-list@quintessenz.at Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:56:36 +0200 Subject: ENFOPOL-Parallelgesetz CALEA wieder verschoben [US] q/depesche 99.7.16/1 ENFOPOL-Parallelgesetz CALEA wieder verschoben [US] Die seit 1994 immer wieder verschobene Deadline zur Einf�hrung der elektronischen �berwachung von Mobiltelefonie wurde auf Druck der US-Industrie ein weiteres Mal hinausger�ckt. Juni 2000 ist der neue Termin, wobei es nu gerf�hrlich wird. Der Staat schiesst� 500 Millionen USD zu, um alle Netzwerke abh�rtauglich zu machen. -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- [5] House Extends Deadline for Wiretap Law Compliance ======================================================================= The House of Representatives approved legislation on July 13 that will make it easier for telecommunications companies to comply with the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).� The controversial 1994 "digital telephony" law requires the companies to design their systems to more easily facilitate electronic sur- veillance.� The new legislation (H.R. 916) would allow companies to recoup more of the expenses that they incur to make their networks compliant with law enforcement requirements.� CALEA authorizes $500 million in federal funds to reimburse telecommunications firms make the required changes. The bill approved by the House would change the compliance date for companies to be in compliance with the CALEA requirements to June 30, 2000.� It would also set June 30, 2000, as the date after which the companies cannot submit expenses to the government for required infrastructure changes.� The original cut-off date was Jan. 1, 1995. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has introduced similar language in the Senate. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the telecommunications industry and privacy advocates (including EPIC) are involved in a pending proceeding before the Federal Communications Commission which will finalize the technical requirements for CALEA compliance.� The FCC is likely to announce its decision soon. Additional information on CALEA is available at: http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/#DT -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� q/depesche ist distributed by http://www.netsphere.at handicrafters of mailing-lists & more -.-. --.- -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� COMMENTS mailto: harkank@quintessenz.at SUBSCRIBE http://www.quintessenz.at UNSUBSCRIBE mailto: majordomo@quintessenz.at body: unsubscribe quintessenz-list yourmail@ddress.at -.-. --.- -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� -.-. --.-� -.-. --.- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: July 13, 1999 (House)] [Page H5375-H5383] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr13jy99-72] TITLE 9 TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 916) to make technical amendments to section 10 of title 9, United States Code, as amended. The Clerk read as follows: H.R. 916 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. VACATION OF AWARDS. Section 10 of title 9, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by indenting the margin of paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a) 2 ems; (2) by striking ``Where'' in such paragraphs and inserting ``where''; (3) by striking the period at the end of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) and inserting a semicolon and by adding ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3); (4) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and (5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``Where an award'' and inserting ``If an award'', by inserting a comma after ``expired'', and by redesignating the paragraph as subsection (b). SEC. 2. COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001-1021) is amended-- (1) in section 102, by adding at the end the following: ``(9) The term `installed' means equipment, facilities, or services that are operable and commercially available for use anywhere within a telecommunications carrier's network. ``(10) The term `deployed' means equipment, facilities, or services that are commercially available anywhere within the telecommunications industry and capable of being installed or utilized in a telecommunications carrier's network, whether or not such equipment, facilities, or services were actually installed or utilized within the carrier's network. ``(11) The term `significantly upgraded or otherwise undergoes a major modification' means a material and substantial change in the configuration of a telecommunications carrier's network, including the installation of hardware or software that fundamentally alters the equipment, facilities, or services of that network, but does not include the upgrade of switching equipment or other modifications made in the ordinary course of business or made so as to comply with Federal or State law or regulatory requirements.''; (2) in section 107(a), by striking paragraph (3); (3) in section 108(c)(3), by striking ``on or before January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``before June 30, 2000''; (4) in section 109-- (A) in subsection (a)-- (i) in the heading strike ``January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``June 30, 2000''; and (ii) by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``June 30, 2000''; (B) in subsection (b)-- (i) in the heading strike ``January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``June 30, 2000''; and (ii) in paragraph (1)-- (I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``June 30, 2000''; and (II) in subparagraph (J), by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``June 30, 2000''; and (iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``June 30, 2000''; (C) in subsection (d)-- (i) in the heading strike ``January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``June 30, 2000''; and (ii) by striking ``January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``June 30, 2000''; (5) in section 110, by striking ``and 1998'' and inserting ``1998, 1999, and 2000''; and (6) in section 111(b), by striking ``on that date that is 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``no earlier than June 30, 2000''. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas). General Leave Mr. GEKAS. 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 the bill under consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as part of the Record, I submit two specific letters that have to do with this legislation determining the jurisdiction for our committee. House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, July 12, 1999. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hyde: It is my understanding that you intend to bring H.R. 916, a bill to make technical corrections to section 10, of title 9, United States Code, before the House under the Suspension calendar in the near future. While H.R. 916 was not referred to the Committee on Commerce upon its introduction, it is my further understanding that you intend to bring up a manager's amendment which contains provision substantially similar to section 204 of H.R. 3303 as it passed the House in the 105th Congress (amending title I of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq.)) which falls within the jurisdiction of our two committees pursuant to Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Because of the importance of this legislation, I recognize your desire to bring it before the House in an expeditious manner and will not object to its consideration under the Suspension calendar. By agreeing to permit this bill to come to the floor under these procedures, however, the Commerce committee does not waive its subject-matter jurisdiction over the aforementioned provisions. In addition, the Commerce Committee reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this or similar legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request by the Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 916 or similar legislation. I request that you include this letter and your response as part of the Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Tom Bliley, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, July 13, 1999. Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding your Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 916. I agree that portions of the bill are within your committee's Rule X jurisdiction and that you would be entitled to conferees on those issues should this bill go to conference. I also agree that these letters will be placed in the record. Thank you again for your cooperation. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is exemplary of something that we lawyers have, over the centuries, complained that a misplaced comma can sometimes so alter a provision in the law that it can wreak havoc in the courts of justice and in our communities. Such a mistake of a misplaced comma was made, and it was brought to our attention through a constituent of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who in the arbitration laws of our codes found that a misplaced comma could throw out of whack an interpretation of a particular section. So the bill before us is simply a technical correction to make sure that that misplaced comma is placed correctly. This is not one of the most momentous bills we have ever had in front of the House of Representatives, but it does emphasize that a technical correction from time to time is absolutely necessary if we are to do business properly in the Congress of the United States. Similarly, in the telecommunications field another technical correction is one that we require and which will be embodied in this bill. It is the enforcement act of 1994, which we call CALEA, the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, also [[Page H5376]] very important. But the grand-fathering certain provisions becomes very important as a technical correction, and we offer that along with the misplaced commas as the reason for our appearance here today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 916, as amended. As reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. 916, makes purely technical revisions to section 10 of title 9 of the United States Code, that correct some typographical flaws that has long evaded detection. Section 10 enumerates several grounds for vacating an arbitrator's award, but the fifth clause is obviously not a ground for vacating an award, but rather the beginning of a new sentence. The bill simply corrects this error. H.R. 916 also revises some compliance dates and related provisions in the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (``CALEA''), Public Law 103-414. CALEA was enacted to preserve the government's ability, pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept communications involving advanced technologies (such as digital or wireless transmissions) and services (such as call forwarding, speed dialing, and conference calling). It is also intended to protect the privacy of communications and without impeding the introduction of new technologies, features, and services. In the constantly evolving environment of digital telecommunications, the need for law enforcement to retain it ability to use court authorized electronic intercepts is even greater. Nevertheless, it appears that the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the telecommunications industry have been unable after several years of discussions and negotiations to resolve certain differences regarding compliance with CALEA. As a result, implementation of the act has been delayed. This delay accordingly necessitates these revisions. They chiefly consist of replacing H.R. 916's effective date with one that takes into account this delay in CALEA's implementation. The act's grandfather provisions are likewise revised. Further, the bill defines certain terms that the Act failed to include and, hopefully, with their addition, will assist the parties involved in the implementation of CALEA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and concur with the description of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) of its purpose and effect. This misplaced comma was actually brought to our attention by a State Supreme Court justice of the New York State Supreme Court in my district who pointed out the obvious intent of Congress was very clear, but the comma and the paragraph were in the wrong place, and so this changes that. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the courts have misinterpreted the law, but why tempt them to do so by not correcting this comma? In addition, the technical change to the CALEA bill that is in this bill, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, is also a technical change that extends several effective dates until the FCC and the FBI can work out certain technical standards that they are working out; and the minority has been consulted on this, and we certainly have no objection to it. It is a technical extension. We are in support of it. So I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the H.R. 916. During the 105th Congress I introduced as the original author the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) Implementation Amendment of 1998 (H.R. 3321). Section 2, of H.R. 916 embodies the principles of this legislation I introduced in 1998. Last year, the House of Representatives passed the Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, 2000, and 2001, which included language to deal with this important issue. However, the United States Senate did not act on this legislation. I believe it is incumbent on us in Congress to recognize the delays that have occurred in the implementation of CALEA, passed by Congress and signed into law in 1994, by extending the time for compliance, and to clarify the ``grandfathered'' status of existing telecommunication network equipment, facilities, and services during the time period the CALEA-compliant technology is developed. Fundamentally, the purpose of CALEA is to preserve the federal government's ability, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept communications involving advanced telecommunication technologies, while protecting the privacy of communications; and without impeding the introduction of new technologies, features, and services. CALEA further defined the telecommunication industry's duty to cooperate in the conduct of electronic surveillance, and to establish procedures based on public accountability and industry standard setting. CALEA necessarily involved a balancing of interests of the telecommunications industry, law enforcement, and privacy groups. The law allowed the telecommunication industry to develop standards to implement the requirements of CALEA, and establish a process for the U.S. Attorney General to identify capacity requirements of electronic surveillance. The law required the federal government to reimburse carriers their just and reasonable costs incurred in modifying existing equipment, services or features deemed necessary to comply with the assistance capability requirements of the law. The CALEA law also required the federal government pay for delays in the implementation of the law that have prevented the telecommunication industry and law enforcement from complying with its provisions. The development and adoption of industry technical standards have been much delayed, and these standards are now being challenged before the Federal Communications Commission by both law enforcement and privacy groups. The release of the federal government's capacity notice for electronic surveillance needs was over two and a half years late. It is clear from telecommunications equipment manufacturers, that no CALEA-compliant technology will be available for purchase and implementation by telecommunication carriers by the effective date. Further, since the enactment of CALEA, substantial changes have occurred in the telecommunication industry, such as the enactment of the Telecommunication Reform Act of 1996, which resulted in many new entrants in the industry and other changes in the competitive marketplace. Finally, during the four year, ``transition period'' initially contemplated by Congress for the implementation of CALEA, the telecommunication industry has installed, and continues to deploy, technology and equipment which is not compliant with assistance capacity requirements of CALEA, since ``CALEA technology'' has not been fully developed or designed into such equipment. Mr. Speaker, House of Representatives Report No. 103-827 makes it clear the federal government intended to bear the costs CALEA implementation during the four-year transition period between enactment and effective dates. Congress recognized it was much more economical to design new telecommunications switching equipment, features, services the necessary assistance capability requirements, rather than to retrofit existing equipment, features, and services. Congress recognized some retrofitting would nonetheless be necessary, provided that carriers would be in compliance with CALEA, absent a commitment by law enforcement to reimburse the full and reasonable costs of carriers for such modifications to their existing equipment. The Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act for 1999 recognizes during the four year, CALEA transition, virtually no federal government funds have been expended to reimburse the telecommunication industry for its implementation costs of CALEA. During the first year transition period, virtually all telecommunications carrier equipment which had been installed or deployed, is based on pre-CALEA technology and does not include those features necessary to implement the assistance capacity requirements of CALEA. It is therefore necessary to extend the time of compliance. This step is absolutely essential, to enable the industry to complete the standard-setting and development processes required to implement CALEA in an economical, efficient and reasonable fashion. This approval also recognizes existing telecommunications equipment, features, and services should be grandfathered during the interim. On the completion of the development of CALEA compliant-technology, the federal government can then decide which carrier equipment it chooses to retrofit at federal government expense, and the manufacturers can then design CALEA capabilities and services to be deployed in carrier networks in the future. Thus, it is necessary to move both the effective and the ``grandfather'' dates of CALEA to recognize the delays in CALEA implementation and to ensure its implementation continues as intended by Congress five years ago. Mr. Speaker, it is also necessary to clarify the meaning of several terms in the cost reimbursement provisions of CALEA. The use of the terms `installed' and `deployed' in CALEA, are intended to make clear Congress intended separate and distinct meanings for these terms as they are used in CALEA. The term, ``installed,'' refers to equipment actually in place and operable to the network of carriers. [[Page H5377]] The term ``deployed,'' relates to equipment, facilities or services that are commercially available within the telecommunication industry, to be utilized by a carrier whether or not equipment, facilities or services were actually installed or utilized within the network of the carrier. The term, `deployed,' is also intended to refer to technology available to the industry. The use of these terms recognizes Congress clearly intended to reimburse the telecommunications carriers with federal government expenses, or grandfather the existing networks of carriers to the extent they were installed or deployed prior to the development of CALEA-compliant technology. This decision was based on industry standards developed to meet assistance capacity requirements of CALEA terms, ``significantly upgraded'' or ``otherwise undergoes major modifications.'' These terms were intended to mean the carriers' obligations to assume the costs of implementing CALEA technology in a particular network switch, is not triggered until a particular network switch is fundamentally altered, such as by upgrading or replacing it with a new fundamentally altered switch technology. For example, changing from digital to asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) switching technology. Thus, once CALEA-compliant technology is developed and can be designed into, or deployed in, carrier networks, the costs of such deployment shift to the industry. Prior to that time, however, existing carrier networks are ``grandfathered'' unless retrofitted at federal government expense as intended by Congress. In addition, switch upgrades or modifications performed by carriers to meet federal or state regulatory mandates or other requirements, such as number portability requirements, are not to be considered a ``significant upgrade'' or a ``major modification'' for purposes of CALEA. Mr. Speaker, these provisions should make clear that existing carrier networks are grandfathered, unless retrofitted at federal government expense. The effective date for compliance with CALEA has been extended for approximately two years to provide additional time for industry development of CALEA-compliant technology, in response to industry technical standards to meet the assistance capacity requirements of CALEA. I support this important legislation and ask my colleagues to support H.R. 916. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from New York and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 916, as amended. The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed. The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to make technical amendments to section 10 of title 9, United States Code, and for other purposes.''. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________