16 July 1999. Thanks to q/depesche and EPIC.
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html

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

From: "q/depesche" <depesche@quintessenz.at>
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.


                          ____________________
