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.

