27 July 1997
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[DOCID: f:h1840rh.txt]


                                                  Union Calendar No. 96
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1840

                          [Report No. 105-162]

   To provide a law enforcement exception to the prohibition on the 
               advertising of certain electronic devices.

_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 1997

 Mr. McCollum introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             June 26, 1997

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
   To provide a law enforcement exception to the prohibition on the 
               advertising of certain electronic devices.

    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 ``Law Enforcement Technology 
Advertisement Clarification Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISING CERTAIN DEVICES.

    Section 2512 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(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.''.
                                     





                                                  Union Calendar No. 96

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1840

                          [Report No. 105-162]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To provide a law enforcement exception to the prohibition on the 
               advertising of certain electronic devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 26, 1997

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[DOCID: f:hr162.105]
From the House Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]

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.

                                <greek-d>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


