99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–468

CHILD SEX CRIMES WIRETAPPING ACT OF 2002

MAY 16, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1877] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1877) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that 

certain sexual crimes against children are predicate crimes for the 

interception of communications, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 6

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 6

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 6

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 8

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 8

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 8

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 8

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 9

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 10

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 11

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 13

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 2002’’. 

2

1 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520. 2 Charles Doyle & Gina Stevens, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping, 

at 6 (2001). 3 18 U.S.C. § 2510–2520. 4 18 U.S.C. § 2511. 5 18 U.S.C. § 2518. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF 

SEXUAL CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘2251 and 2252’’ and inserting ‘‘2251, 2251A, 2252, and 

2252A’’; and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘section 2423(b) (relating to travel with intent to engage in 

a sexual act with a juvenile),’’ after ‘‘motor vehicle parts),’’. 

(b) TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY.—Section 2516(1) of title 18, 

United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph (q); 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (q) the following: 

‘‘(r) a violation of section 2422 (relating to coercion and enticement) and section 2423(a) (relating to transportation of minors) of this title, if, in connection 

with that violation, the intended sexual activity would constitute a felony violation of chapter 109A or 110, including a felony violation of chapter 109A or 110 

if the sexual activity occurred, or was intended to occur, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of where it actually occurred or was intended to occur; or’’; and 

(3) by redesignating paragraph (r) as paragraph (s).

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1877 will assist law enforcement officials in investigating 

certain sex crimes that may involve children. The bill will amend 

18 U.S.C. § 2516 to authorize the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications in the investigation of: (1) the selling and 

buying of a child for sexual exploitation under 18 U.S.C. § 2251A; 

(2) child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A; (3) the coercion and 

enticement to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity 

under 18 U.S.C. § 2422; and (4) the transportation of minors to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity and travel with 

intent to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2423. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

WIRETAP AUTHORITY AND LIMITATIONS

Congress enacted title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

Safe Streets Act of 1968 1, as amended, that outlines what is and 

is not permissible with regard to wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping.2 Title III restrictions go beyond Fourth Amendment constitutional protections and include a statutory suppression rule to 

exclude evidence that was collected in violation of title III.3 Except 

under limited circumstances, it is unlawful to intercept oral, wire 

and electronic communications.4 Accordingly under the act, Federal 

and State law enforcement may use wiretaps and electronic surveillance under strict limitations.5 Congress created these procedures to allow limited law enforcement access to private communications and communication records for investigations while protecting Fourth Amendment rights. In addition to these restrictions, 

Congress has only provided authority to use a wiretap in investigaVerDate May 13 2002 01:53 May 17, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX pfrm17 PsN: HR468
3

6 18 U.S.C. § 2516. 7 18 U.S.C. 2516 (1)(‘‘The Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney 

General, or any Assistant Attorney General, any acting Assistant Attorney General, or any Deputy Assistant Attorney General or acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal 

Division specially designated by the Attorney General, may authorize an application....’’) 8 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2). 9 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(b). 10 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (emphasis added). 11 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5). 

tions of specifically enumerated crimes, commonly called ‘‘wiretap 

predicates.’’ 6

H.R. 1877 ADDS NEW PREDICATES BUT DOES NOT AFFECT THE

PROCEDURES ON WIRETAP USE

H.R. 1877 would add four new wiretap predicates under section 

2516 of title 18 that relate to sexual exploitation crimes against 

children. This bill in no way changes the strict limitations on how 

and when wiretaps may be used. 

18 U.S.C. § 2516 requires that the Department of Justice authorize all applications for Federal wiretaps 7 and the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or any political subdivision must 

apply for wiretaps to a State court judge of competent jurisdiction 

as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510.8

18 U.S.C. § 2518 also sets strict procedures for the use of a wiretap. Section 2518(1) requires the application to be made under 

written oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction. 

Section 2518(1)(b) requires that the application set forth, among 

other things, ‘‘a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify his belief that 

an order should be issued . . .’’ These facts should include, among 

other things, the ‘‘details as to the particular offense that has been, 

is being, or is about to be committed’’ and ‘‘the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications 

are to be intercepted.’’ 9

Section 2518(3) also includes requirements that the Judge believe (1) ‘‘there is probable cause for belief that an individual is 

committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in section 2516 of [title 18];’’ (2) there is probable 

cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception; and (3) normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.10 Additionally, law enforcement is required ‘‘to minimize 

the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception [that is non-criminal conversations] under this chapter, and 

must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective.’’ 11

THE NEED FOR ADDING FOUR NEW WIRETAP PREDICATES

While some crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children 

are already wiretap predicates, others are not. H.R. 1877 would 

close the gap in this key investigative tool used to protect children. 

The interception of communications through the use of wiretaps 

significantly enhances law enforcement ability to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. The goal of H.R. 1877 is to provide law 

enforcement with the tools necessary to prevent the ultimate harm 

planned for the targeted children. 

4

Many of the witnesses who testified on cybercrime issues before 

the Subcommittee on Crime, which was recently renamed the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, have also 

specifically warned the Subcommittee about the increasing threat 

of predators to children due to the increased use of computers and 

the Internet. Computer technology and 24 million children using 

the Internet has afforded child molesters with easy access to potential victims and new opportunities to carry out their depraved 

crimes. 

The FBI has testified that computer technology is becoming the 

technique of choice for pedophiles and other sex predators and 

these unthinkable crimes are becoming more and more prevalent. 

Many of these crimes begin on the Internet—where predators engage children in conversations within ‘‘chat rooms’’ or send pornography to them to lower their natural defenses to the advances of 

adults. Through these acts, a predator attempts to entice the child 

to travel to meet them, or offer to travel themselves to meet the 

child, with the intent to engage in sexual activities with the child. 

Often such Internet conversations are continued on the telephone. 

On May 24, 2001, before the Subcommittee, the Deputy Attorney 

General for Criminal Justice of the State of Texas testified:

Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems is that computer 

criminals are targeting the most vulnerable of our society—

children. While the Internet has revolutionized the ways in 

which the world communicates, there is an equally awesome 

dark side. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

child pornography was virtually extinct prior to the advent of 

the Internet. However, with increased Internet usage in America and the world there has been an alarming increase in child 

pornography cases. According to the U.S. Postal Service, 40 

percent of the offenders who have been arrested with child pornography downloaded from the Internet have sexually assaulted minors. The National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children and the Crimes Against Children Research Center’s 

June 2000 report entitled ONLINE VICTIMIZATION: A REPORT ON

THE NATION’S YOUTH presents startling and disturbing results. 

Based on interviews with a nationally representative sample of 

1,501 youths ages 10 to 17 who use the Internet regularly, the 

report found:

• Approximately one in five children received a sexual solicitation or approach over the Internet in the last year.

• One in thirty-three received an aggressive sexual solicitation—a solicitor who asked to meet them somewhere; called 

them on the telephone; sent them paper mail, money, or 

gifts.

• One in four children had an unwanted exposure on the Internet to pictures of naked people or people having sex in the 

last year.

• One in seventeen children was threatened or harassed.

• Approximately one quarter of the children who reported 

these incidents were distressed by them.

• The interviewed children reported less than 10 percent of the 

sexual solicitations and only 3 percent of the unwanted expoVerDate May 13 2002 01:53 May 17, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX pfrm17 PsN: HR468
5

12Fighting Cyber Crime—Hearing 1 of 3: Efforts by State and Local Officials, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary (May 24, 2001) statement of Deputy Attorney General 

McCaul, Criminal Justice, State of Texas citing (David Finklehor, Kimberly J. Mitchell, & Janis 

Wolak, Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation’s Youth (The National Center For Missing 

and Exploited Children 2000) (June 2000)). 13Fighting Cyber Crime—Hearing 1 of 3: Efforts by State and Local Officials, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary (May 24, 2001). 14Fighting Cyber Crime—Hearing 2 of 3: Efforts by Federal Law Enforcement Officials, Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary (June 12, 2001). 15Francis T. Miko & Grace Parks, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Trafficking in Women and Children: The U.S. and International Response at 3 (2002). 16Francis T. Miko & Grace Parks, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Trafficking in Women and Children: The U.S. and International Response at 3 (2002). 

sure episodes to law enforcement, the Internet Service Provider, or a hotline.

• Only about 25 percent of the youth sexually solicited or approached told a parent and only 40 percent of those who experienced unwanted exposure to sexual material told a parent.

• Only 17 percent of youth and approximately 10 percent of 

parents could name a specific authority (such as the FBI 

CyberTipline, or an Internet service provider) to which they 

could make a report, although more said they had ‘‘heard of’’

such places.

• In households with Internet access, one third of parents said 

they had filtering or blocking software on their computer at 

the time they were interviewed.12

At that hearing, the Chairman for the National District Attorneys’ Association testified that ‘‘[n]othing is as truly revolting and 

heartbreaking as to get into hidden files on a computer disk only 

to find movies and still photos of a small child being brutalized, degraded and scarred for life. The demand for these images is an 

international scandal, which starts each time with one child who 

needs the protection of local police and prosecutors.’’ 13

At the second cybercrime hearing on June 12, 2001, the Assistant 

Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department 

of Justice testified that ‘‘one of the most disturbing facets of 

cybercrime is the exploitation and abuse of children, whether 

through distribution of child pornography over the Internet or 

through the horrific conduct of sexual predators who operate online.’’ 14

In 2000, a U.S. Customs Service representative testified before 

the Subcommittee that the U.S. Customs Service has seen a dramatic rise in child exploitation investigations. During fiscal year 

1999, its investigations increased 36 percent and in 2000 it rose an 

alarming 81 percent. The U.S. Customs Service also found a growing trend that those who download child pornography tend to molest children. Often those who trade in child pornography also arrange and travel to meet minors. 

Additionally, the growth in international travel has helped to exploit children throughout the world. The ‘‘[t]rafficking in people, especially women and children, for prostitution and forced labor is 

one of the fastest growing areas of international criminal activity.’’ 15 Conservative estimates hold the scope of the problem to involve more than 700,000 victims per year world-wide.16 The chilVerDate May 13 2002 01:53 May 17, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX pfrm17 PsN: HR468
6

dren and women are forced into prostitution, the sex tourism industry and other sexually exploitative criminal markets. 

The Federal crimes that punish the acts which sex predators 

commonly use to entice children into engaging in sex with them are 

not currently wiretap predicates. Yet many times, some aspect of 

the interaction between the predator and the child will occur over 

the telephone. If law enforcement is unable to monitor the predator’s conversation with the child they are put at a disadvantage in 

their effort to apprehend the predator before he meets with and 

physically harms the child. H.R. 1877 would fill this gap in the investigative resources available to law enforcement during these investigations. 

Under current law, law enforcement officials are authorized to 

seek court-authorized wiretaps when the investigation indicates a 

violation of certain limited statutory provisions dealing with the exploitation of children. Current law, however, does not authorize the 

use of court-authorized wiretaps to investigate cases involving the 

selling and buying of a child for sexual exploitation under 18 

U.S.C. § 2251A; ‘‘child pornography’’ under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A; coercion or enticement into prostitution or other illegal sexual activities 

under 18 U.S.C. § 2422; and the transportation of minors to engage 

in prostitution or other illegal activities and travel with intent to 

engage in a sexual act with a juvenile under 18 U.S.C. § 2423. Law 

enforcement is therefore at a disadvantage in gathering evidence 

leading to the apprehension of these predators before they physically harm their victims. The bill will add these four crimes as 

new wiretap predicates. 

The Committee believes that law enforcement officials should be 

given every appropriate tool with which to protect children from 

those who seek to harm them. Accordingly, the Committee favorably reports this bill. 

HEARINGS

The Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime held one hearing on 

H.R. 1877, the ‘‘Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 2001,’’ on 

June 21, 2001. Testimony was received from three witnesses: the 

Honorable Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.); Deputy Assistant Director 

Francis A. Gallagher of Criminal Investigative Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and James Wardwell, Detective Bureau of the New Britain Police Department, New Britain, Connecticut. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On June 21, 2001, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1877, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On April 24, 2002, the 

Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the 

bill H.R. 1877 without amendment by 20–4 vote, a quorum being 

present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

1. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott on the addition of 

wiretap authority for law enforcement officials investigating violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. Mr. Scott’s amendment would have reVerDate May 13 2002 01:53 May 17, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX pfrm17 PsN: HR468
7

quired that wiretap authority for section 2422 would only be allowed in cases involving a minor. The amendment failed by voice 

vote. 

2. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to require law enforcement to prove that the child pornography contained visual depictions that were of an identifiable child. The amendment failed 

by a rollcall vote of 6–15.

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Gekas .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Bryant .........................................................................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Barr ............................................................................................................. X

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Graham .......................................................................................................

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X

Ms. Hart ............................................................................................................

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Conyers .......................................................................................................

Mr. Frank ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X

Total ................................................................................................ 6 15

3. Final passage. The motion to report favorably the bill H.R. 

1877 was adopted. The motion was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 

20–4.

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Gekas .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X

8

ROLLCALL NO. 2—Continued

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Bryant .........................................................................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Barr ............................................................................................................. X

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Graham .......................................................................................................

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X

Ms. Hart ............................................................................................................

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Frank ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Baldwin ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X

Total ................................................................................................ 20 4

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 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. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The bill is intended to fill the gap in the investigative resources 

available to law enforcement and to assist law enforcement in preventing sex predators who target children from inflicting additional 

harm on children. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 

expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 1877, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

9

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, April 30, 2002. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 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. 1877, the Child Sex 

Crimes Wiretapping Act of 2001. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DAN L. CRIPPEN, Director.

Enclosure.

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 1877—Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 2001. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1877 would not result in 

any significant cost to the Federal Government. Enacting H.R. 

1877 could affect direct spending and receipts; therefore, pay-asyou-go procedures would apply to the bill, but CBO estimates that 

any such effects would not be significant. H.R. 1877 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of 

State, local, or tribal governments. 

H.R. 1877 would add certain sexual crimes against children to 

the list of offenses for which wiretaps and other interceptions of 

communications can be authorized. Implementing the bill could result in more successful investigations and prosecutions in cases involving such crimes. CBO expects that any increase in costs for law 

enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not be 

significant because of the small number of cases likely to be affected. Any such additional costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1877 could 

be subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government might collect 

additional fines if the bill is enacted. Collections of such fines are 

recorded in the budget as governmental receipts (revenues), which 

are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO expects that any additional receipts and direct spending would be 

negligible because of the small number of cases involved. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. This estimate was approved by Peter 

H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 8, of the Constitution. 

10

17 535 U.S.l, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002). 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. 

Section 1 of the bill states the short title of the act as the ‘‘Child 

Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 2002.’’

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS IN

THE INVESTIGATION OF SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN. 

Section 2 of the bill adds four sections of title 18 to the list of 

wiretap predicates in section 2516 of title 18 of the United States 

Code. While some crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children are already wiretap predicates, the Committee recognizes that 

the few that are not should be included as wiretap predicates. The 

bill would authorize the interception of wire, oral, or electronic 

communications in the investigation of the selling and buying of a 

child for sexual exploitation under title 18 U.S.C. § 2251A, ‘‘child 

pornography’’ under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, coercion and enticement to 

engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity under 18 

U.S.C. § 2422, and transportation of minors to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity and travel with intent to engage 

in a sexual act with a juvenile under 18 U.S.C. § 2423. 

The Committee believes that these crimes against children are 

just as serious as the crimes that are already wiretap predicates 

and that law enforcement must have adequate investigative tools 

in these cases as well. Law enforcement need this important tool 

to counter the proliferation of sexual exploitation crimes against 

children. 

The Committee is aware of the United States Supreme Court’s 

April 16, 2002 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 17 decision regarding the definition of child pornography in 18 U.S.C. 2256(8). In that 

decision, the Supreme Court held that the portions of the definition 

of child pornography that prohibited completely computer generated visual depictions of children or visual depictions of young 

adults that were advertised to be children engaging in sexually explicit activity were overbroad and unconstitutional. The Supreme 

Court did not rule that section 2252A, which covers computer generated pictures that contain real children was unconstitutional. 

That provision of the law was not challenged or considered by the 

Court. 

As it currently stands after the Ashcroft decision, a pedofile or 

child pornographer cannot be charged with violating the child pornography laws if the child pornography was wholly generated from 

a computer. This means that the prosecutor will have to prove that 

the material is a real child. It will be the job of law enforcement 

to determine whether child pornography contains real children or 

computer generated children to prosecute child pornographers and 

child molesters. Wiretaps will assist law enforcement in making 

this determination. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision makes 

the need for court authorized wiretaps for these crimes all the more 

necessary. 

It is the Committee’s view that the law should not make it more 

difficult for police to fight child pornography and sexual exploitation crimes against children than to fight other crimes. After the 

11

Ashcroft decision, it is even more important that Congress enact 

this legislation. 

Section 2 also limits the wiretap predicates for 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 

and 2423(a) to activities that constitute felonies and Federal 

crimes. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) 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 (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

PART I—CRIMES 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 119—WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL 

COMMUNICATIONS 

* * * * * * *

§ 2516. Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications 

(1) The Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate 

Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General, any acting 

Assistant Attorney General, or any Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General or acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division specially designated by the Attorney General, may authorize an application to a Federal judge of competent jurisdiction 

for, and such judge may grant in conformity with section 2518 of 

this chapter an order authorizing or approving the interception of 

wire or oral communications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a Federal agency having responsibility for the investigation 

of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of—

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) any offense which is punishable under the following 

sections of this title: section 201 (bribery of public officials and 

witnesses), section 215 (relating to bribery of bank officials), 

section 224 (bribery in sporting contests), subsection (d), (e), (f), 

(g), (h), or (i) of section 844 (unlawful use of explosives), section 

1032 (relating to concealment of assets), section 1084 (transmission of wagering information), section 751 (relating to escape), section 1014 (relating to loans and credit applications 

generally; renewals and discounts), sections 1503, 1512, and 

1513 (influencing or injuring an officer, juror, or witness genVerDate May 13 2002 01:53 May 17, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX pfrm17 PsN: HR468
12

erally), section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations), 

section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law enforcement), 

section 1751 (Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, 

kidnapping, and assault), section 1951 (interference with commerce by threats or violence), section 1952 (interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire), section 1959 (relating to violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity), section 

1954 (offer, acceptance, or solicitation to influence operations of 

employee benefit plan), section 1955 (prohibition of business 

enterprises of gambling), section 1956 (laundering of monetary 

instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary 

transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 659 (theft from interstate shipment), section 664 

(embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), section 1343 

(fraud by wire, radio, or television), section 1344 (relating to 

bank fraud), sections ø2251 and 2252¿ 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 

2252A (sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312, 2313, 

2314, and 2315 (interstate transportation of stolen property), 

section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or 

motor vehicle parts), section 2423(b) (relating to travel with intent to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile), section 1203 (relating to hostage taking), section 1029 (relating to fraud and 

related activity in connection with access devices), section 3146 

(relating to penalty for failure to appear), section 3521(b)(3) 

(relating to witness relocation and assistance), section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), section 38 

(relating to aircraft parts fraud), section 1963 (violations with 

respect to racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations), section 115 (relating to threatening or retaliating against a Federal official), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), a felony violation of section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse), 

section 351 (violations with respect to congressional, Cabinet, 

or Supreme Court assassinations, kidnapping, and assault), 

section 831 (relating to prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials), section 33 (relating to destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle facilities), section 175 (relating to biological weapons), section 1992 (relating to wrecking trains), a 

felony violation of section 1028 (relating to production of false 

identification documentation), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 

1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1541 (relating to passport 

issuance without authority), section 1542 (relating to false 

statements in passport applications), section 1543 (relating to 

forgery or false use of passports), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passports), or section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse 

of visas, permits, and other documents); 

* * * * * * *

(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical 

weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B 

of this title (relating to terrorism); øor¿

13

(r) a violation of section 2422 (relating to coercion and enticement) and section 2423(a) (relating to transportation of minors) of this title, if, in connection with that violation, the intended sexual activity would constitute a felony violation of 

chapter 109A or 110, including a felony violation of chapter 

109A or 110 if the sexual activity occurred, or was intended to 

occur, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of 

the United States, regardless of where it actually occurred or 

was intended to occur; or

ø(r)¿ (s) any conspiracy to commit any offense described in 

any subparagraph of this paragraph. 

* * * * * * *

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. [Presiding.] The Committee will be 

in order. 

[Intervening business.] 

The next item on the agenda is H.R. 1877, the ‘‘Child Sex Crimes 

Wiretapping Act of 2001.’’

[The bill, H.R. 1877, follows:]

14

1

I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1877

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that certain sexual crimes

against children are predicate crimes for the interception of communications, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 2001

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr.

GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. ENGLISH, Ms. NORTON, and Ms.

HART) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that

certain sexual crimes against children are predicate

crimes for the interception of communications, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Sex Crimes

5 Wiretapping Act of 2001’’.


I1877.AAB
15

2

•HR 1877 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMU2 NICATIONS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF SEX3 UAL CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN.

4 (a) CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.—Section 2516(1)(c) of

5 title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘sec6 tion 2252A (relating to material constituting or containing

7 child pornography),’’ after ‘‘2252 (sexual exploitation of

8 children),’’.

9 (b) TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIV10 ITY.—Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, as

11 amended by section 3 of this Act, is amended—

12 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

13 (o);

14 (2) by inserting after paragraph (o) the fol15 lowing:

16 ‘‘(p) a violation of section 2422 (relating to

17 coercion and enticement) or section 2423 (relat18 ing to transportation of minors) of this title, if,

19 in connection with that violation, the sexual ac20 tivity for which a person may be charged with

21 a criminal offense would constitute a felony of22 fense under chapter 109A or 110, if that activ23 ity took place within the special maritime and

24 territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or’’;

25 and


I1877.AAC
16

3

•HR 1877 IH

1 (3) by redesignating paragraph (p) as para2 graph (q).

3 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT ELIMINATING DUPLICA4 TIVE PROVISION.

5 Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking the first paragraph (p); and

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

9 (o).

Æ


I1877.AAD
17

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security, for a motion. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security reports favorably the bill H.R. 1877 

with the single amendment in the nature of a substitute and moves 

its favorable recommendation to the full House. 

[The amendment follows:]

18 H.L.C.

SUBCOMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF

A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 1877

S6301

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Sex Crimes

3 Wiretapping Act of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMU5 NICATIONS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF SEX6 UAL CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18,

8 United States Code, is amended—

9 (1) by striking ‘‘2251 and 2252’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2252A’’; and

11 (2) by inserting ‘‘section 2423(b) (relating to

12 travel with intent to engage in a sexual act with a

13 juvenile),’’ after ‘‘motor vehicle parts),’’.

14 (b) TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIV15 ITY.—Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

16 amended—

17 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

18 (o);


A1877.AAB
19

2

H.L.C.

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (o) the fol2 lowing:

3 ‘‘(p) a violation of section 2422 (relating to

4 coercion and enticement) and section 2423(a)

5 (relating to transportation of minors) of this

6 title, if, in connection with that violation, the

7 intended sexual activity would constitute a fel8 ony violation of chapter 109A or 110, including

9 a felony violation of chapter 109A or 110 if the

10 sexual activity occurred, or was intended to

11 occur, within the special maritime and terri12 torial jurisdiction of the United States, regard13 less of where it actually occurred or was in14 tended to occur; or’’.


A1877.AAC
20

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the bill will be 

considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute which the 

Members have before them will be considered as read and open for 

amendment at any point and be considered as the original text for 

purposes of amendment. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1877, the ‘‘Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping 

Act of 2001,’’ protects our Nation’s most vulnerable children. It was 

introduced by our colleague from Connecticut, Nancy Johnson. 

While the Supreme Court’s recent decision affects the underlying 

definition of child pornography, it does not alter the necessity for 

this legislation. If anything, it strengthens the need for this bill. 

Wiretapping may be the only way for law enforcement officials 

to determine whether an actual child is depicted in the materials 

before they take their case to court. 

Last year, the Subcommittee on Crime heard testimony on the 

need for H.R. 1877. This bill will assist law enforcement officials 

in investigating certain sex crimes that usually involve children. 

Because of advances in computer technology, as well as 24 million 

children who regularly use the Internet, child molesters have easy 

access to potential victims and new opportunities to ply their trade. 

The FBI has testified that computer technology is becoming the 

technique of choice and that those types of crimes are increasing. 

In 2000, the U.S. Customs Service testified before the Subcommittee on Crime that it has seen a dramatic rise in child exploitation investigations. During fiscal year 1999, its investigations 

increased 36 percent, and in 2000 they rose an alarming 81 percent. 

The American Medical Association released a study last summer 

on children who regularly use the Internet. The study found that 

nearly 1 in 5 children surveyed received an unwanted sexual solicitation online in the last year, yet few reported the action to police. 

We cannot ignore this growing problem. 

Law enforcement officials must have the tools necessary to deal 

with these crimes. Often, child molesters use the Internet to make 

initial contact with a child. They then convince the child to go offline and use a telephone to set up meetings with the children. 

Current Federal criminal law authorizes law enforcement officials to wiretap some child sexual exploitation crimes but not others. The interception of oral communications through wiretaps significantly enhances investigations. H.R. 1877 will eliminate this 

gap in our criminal law. This bill will provide Federal law enforcement officials with a consistent application of the laws regarding 

its investigations. 

The bill adds four crimes that deal with child pornography: the 

enticement of children to engage in illicit sex; the transportation of 

children to engage in sex; and selling and purchasing children for 

sexual exploitation. 

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott? 

21

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you 

in this markup of H.R. 1877, the ‘‘Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping 

Act.’’ While I’m pleased that some of the limitations we developed 

when the bill was considered in the last Congress were retained in 

the bill, I believe that the present bill still represents an unnecessary expansion of Federal wiretap authority, a procedure so 

invasive of the rights of citizens in a free society that it can only 

be made available for use under circumstances specifically approved by Congress. 

Current congressionally approved wiretap authority dates back 

to the 1968 crime bill. The primary intent of the law was to permit 

a limited use of electronic surveillance of organized syndicates, but 

as a tool—but only as a tool of last resort even under those circumstances. Since that time, the act has been amended over a 

dozen times to meet the demand by law enforcement for more 

power over citizens—over private activities of citizens. Now we 

have over 50 predicate crimes for which wiretap authority may be 

obtained. 

Once a wiretap or bug is in place, it captures all conversations, 

innocent as well as criminal. Estimates I’ve seen indicate that more 

than 80 percent of the information obtained by wiretaps is innocent 

information, often involving family members and others who are 

not even the target of the investigation. 

In 1980, when the crime rate was substantially higher than it 

has been in recent years, 81 Federal wiretaps were issued. In 1999, 

601 Federal wiretaps were issued. Moreover, all the activities covered by the current bill would involve activities which are State 

crimes where there is State wiretap authority. The fact that a few 

States have chosen not to authorize wiretaps and the limited number of State wiretaps that are authorized compared to the number 

of Federal wiretaps attests to the level of concern citizens have in 

giving law enforcement such power over their private conversations. 

Approximately 98 percent of all criminal prosecutions are conducted at the State level. Moreover, the total annual number of all 

State wiretaps is approximately the same as the Federal wiretaps, 

749 State wiretaps, 601 Federal in 1999. 

So, Mr. Chairman it’s clear that much of the more serious activity for which the proponents of the legislation are seeking to justify 

wiretap extensions are already covered by wiretap authority under 

State laws. 

Mr. Chairman, there is one specific problem with the legislation 

that has occurred just in the last couple of days, and that is, with 

the recent Supreme Court decision regarding computer-generated 

images of children not being the same as real children, that part 

of the wiretap authority needs to be revisited. 

So, Mr. Chairman, while we want to vigorously enforce laws 

against child abuse and exploitation, I do not believe the case is 

made for the level of extension of wiretap authority sought in H.R. 

1877. If we’re going to extend it to the provisions listed in the bill, 

we should do so only to the extent necessary to get to the purported 

objects of the bill, prosecuting sex crimes against children, so I’ve 

prepared several amendments that I’ll offer during the markup to 

make sure we limit it to authority involving actual crimes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

22

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members may 

insert opening statements in the record at this point. 

Are there amendments? The gentleman from New York. 

Mr. NADLER. I don’t have an amendment. I have a question. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman strikes the last word 

and recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. I just have a simple question. The bill, I think, 

would enable—would grant wiretap authority to determine—to investigate alleged crimes in the nature of electronic portrayals of 

child sex, and that underlying predicate felony was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Has the bill been changed to reflect that? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, let me consult with staff here for a 

second. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, to respond to the gentleman from 

New York, it’s our understanding that Section 2252A——

Mr. NADLER. I can’t hear the gentleman. 

Mr. SMITH. I’m sorry? 

Mr. NADLER. I said I couldn’t hear you. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. To respond to the gentleman from New York, 

it’s our understanding that Section 2252A covers morphed images 

that might include partially computer-generated but partial use of 

an actual child and, therefore, is still constitutional. 

Mr. NADLER. But it would not cover——

Mr. SMITH. In other words, as long as a real child’s involved, it’s 

going to be constitutional. The Supreme Court, as the gentleman——

Mr. NADLER. It would not cover a purely computer-generated—

investigation of a purely computer-generated image? 

Mr. SMITH. That’s correct. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman from Virginia 

have an amendment? The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1877 offered by Mr. Scott. Page 2, line 4, after 

the parentheses, insert ‘‘against a minor.’’

[The amendment follows:]


1877S1.eps
23

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this limits the wiretap authority to 

the title of the bill that it would be to help assist prosecutions of 

those who commit crimes against minors. Not all offenses under 

those sections include a minor, even attempted acts such as attempted to—attempting to entice someone to travel by bus to engage in an illegal sexual act would be covered. No basis has been 

suggested for why a wiretap is necessary in these cases, so I would 

urge my colleagues to support the amendment which would limit 

the use of wiretap authority to those involving minors. 

I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, while this amendment does not adversely affect investigations for sexual exploitation of a minor, it 

could inhibit investigations of such crimes as a sex slave trade, and 

the gentleman from Virginia may not be aware of that. 

According to a March 2002 Congressional Research Service report, ‘‘The trafficking in people for prostitution and forced labor is 

one of the fastest growing areas of international criminal activity 

and one that is of increasing concern to the U.S. and the international community. The overwhelming majority of those trafficks 

are women and children. More than 700,000 people are believed to 

be trafficked each year worldwide, some 50,000 to the United 

States. Trafficking is now considered the third largest source of 

profits for organized crime behind only drugs and weapons, generating billions of dollars annually.’’ Mr. Chairman, trafficking victims are raped, starved, forced into 

drug use, and denied medical care. Law enforcement officials must 

be given every tool available, including wiretapping, to investigate 

and stop this trafficking. In addition, the current list of crimes that 

law enforcement is allowed to investigate with wiretaps do not 

have qualifiers. Under this amendment, some crimes in Section 

2422 qualify and others do not. We need to have some consistency. 

If the underlying law is too broad, then we should examine that, 

but we should not hamper law enforcement officials by narrowing 

the criminal code. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek recognition? 

Ms. WATERS. Strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. I would like to speak in support of the gentleman 

from Virginia’s amendment. It’s easy to expand wiretapping authority, and certainly since 9/11 we’ve been doing a considerable 

amount of that. 

This is the kind of legislation that would try and, I suppose, signal to the public that we’re getting tough on people who would exploit children and that we’re going to do something about a certain 

kind of computer imaging that could be harmful to children at the 

same time that we go through these lightweight attempts to prove 

24

how we’re protecting children. We have the greatest scandal in this 

country going on right now in the Catholic Church. Everybody is 

mute. I haven’t heard anybody say one word. Have you found a 

way to expand wiretapping into an area where thousands of children have been harmed and the numbers are rising each day, and 

they are over at the Vatican trying to decide whether or not they 

should be reporting what they know and when they know it? The 

Pope and the cardinals are in a big discussion, the moral authorities of the world are in a big discussion about whether or not they 

should support sex crimes that are being committed by people of 

the cloth. 

Give me a break. This is not real. This is absolutely not real. 

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentlewoman yield for a minute? 

Ms. WATERS. No, I don’t think so. This is my day to just kind 

of let it all out. No, I will not yield. I simply want to draw to the 

attention of those who come in with these kinds of bills that you’re 

just taking up everybody’s time. The Supreme Court has ruled on 

this. And I don’t know how much more wiretapping you can do, but 

let’s get real and get at what we can do to make a Federal crime 

molestation of children who place their—the parents and the children place their trust in people that are supposed to be of high 

moral authority. If you want to get real about protecting children, 

let’s do something real, and let’s not continue to come in with this 

kind of legislation that causes us to sit here for hours pretending 

that we are in some kind of serious debate about protecting children again. You don’t even give recognition to the fact that the Supreme Court just said this is silly, don’t do this, it’s unconstitutional. 

Again, I guess this is election year, and this kind of stuff plays 

well in Timbuktu somewhere. But——

Mr. SCOTT. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. WATERS.—let’s not do this—no, I don’t want to yield. Let me 

just finish, even to my colleague. 

I am profoundly disturbed about what is happening to children 

and what we have learned about what is happening in the Catholic 

Church. Those of us who are strict constructionists of law, et 

cetera, can say but those are not Federal crimes, it’s up to the 

States to decide about reporting. 

Well, no. When we want to, we forget about States’ rights. We 

find ways to federalize everything that we want to federalize. If the 

gentleman wants to withdraw this namby-pamby little piece of 

nothing legislation and talk about some real federalizing of crimes 

against children, I want to work with you. I want to be law and 

order on this. I want to be as conservative as you can get. Who 

would want to take me up on that offer? If you don’t, let’s just stop 

this farce. 

Now I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. I move to strike the last word and yield to Mr. Scott. 

25

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to say 

that the gentleman from Texas talked about some very serious offenses, but the sections we’re talking about also include illegal but 

consensual acts of prostitution. That is not the kind of offense for 

which you ought to authorize a Federal wiretap. If States want to 

get into that, that would be a State decision, but not Federal, making a Federal case. We want to limit Federal wiretapping to serious 

cases, and this amendment would at least limit it to those against 

a minor which would focus on serious offenses and not on things 

that the Federal Government ought not be using wiretap authority 

and Federal investigations for. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. WATT. Reclaiming my time, I certainly agree with Mr. Scott 

and think we should pass his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

acknowledge the concern, I think the legitimate concern, of many 

of the groups who have stood in the doorway of protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the people of this Nation and that we 

should pride ourselves and the underlying purpose and instructions 

of the Fourth Amendment, the right to reasonable search and seizure. 

I think the amendment of the gentleman, for those who may be 

supportive of this legislation—I happen to be one of those. I am 

completely cognizant of sometimes the hypocrisy of what we do 

here and the difficulty of balancing the rights of individuals to try 

to make sense out of some kind of legislation. I believe there should 

be a Federal statement on the heinousness of sex crimes with children and as it relates to the new electronic tool. 

But what his legislation does, for those who are serious about 

only referring this to children, it qualifies the language to ensure 

that it deals with a minor because that’s who we’re trying to protect, minors that may be solicited, minors who get on Greyhound 

buses, minors who are picked up by people like one of the constituents of mine who was picked up by a lady that drove in from Detroit and got him halfway out of the State on the basis of electronic 

communication and other type activity. 

So I think that a reasonable attempt by Mr. Scott—I know his 

opposition, and I respect him for it. This is a very good amendment 

that confines us to what many of us would like to be confined to, 

and that is protecting children. 

I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. Those in favor 

will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

26

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 1877 offered by Mr. Scott. Page 1, line 10, after 

‘‘2252A,’’ insert ‘‘violations involving an identifiable minor.’’

[The amendment follows:]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes in support of his amendment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fairly straightforward. We’re trying to limit the wiretap—Federal wiretap authority to very serious crimes for which you need probable cause of a 

very serious crime to get a wiretap. Last week, the Supreme Court 

said that one of the code sections as a predicate to getting a wiretap isn’t even a crime. This would limit the wiretap authority to 

at least those violations which constitute a crime. Otherwise, without this amendment, you will be allowing wiretap authority not 

only on frivolous crimes—not serious crimes, but you’ve got wiretap 

authority when it isn’t even a crime. I would hope that this amendment would be adopted. 

I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognize. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require law 

enforcement officials to prove that the image is a real child and not 

computer-generated prior to using the investigative tool of a wiretap to help make that very determination. 

This amendment would change Section 2252A covering the transporting, transmission, mailing, receiving, and distribution of child 

pornography. A wiretap is an investigative tool that requires law 

enforcement officials to demonstrate probable cause that a crime is 

being or is about to be committed. Under the law, law enforcement 

officials are authorized to use a wiretap to intercept wire, oral, or 

electronic communications that may provide evidence of a crime 

under 18 U.S.C. 

After the Supreme Court case last week, a child pornographer 

cannot be charged with violating the child pornography laws if the 

child pornography was wholly generated by a computer. This 

means that the prosecutor will have to prove a real child is inVerDate May 13 2002 01:53 May 17, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR468.XXX pfrm17 PsN: HR468

1877S2.eps
27

volved. Law enforcement officials must prove that there is probable 

cause to suspect that an ongoing crime or that the suspect is about 

to commit a crime. A wiretap is authorized when an interception 

of a wire, oral, or electronic communication may provide or has provided evidence of a predicate crime. A wiretap is an investigative 

tool used by law enforcement to collect evidence and prevent future 

crimes. 

Why would we want to make it more difficult for police to fight 

child pornography than to fight other crimes? We cannot expect 

law enforcement personnel to prove the case before gathering the 

evidence. If law enforcement has a wiretap on a suspected child 

pornographer and that pornographer states that he is only using 

computer-generated images, the police would have to shut down 

the wiretap. 

After the Supreme Court case, it is even more important that we 

do not pass this amendment. Law enforcement officials must determine whether child pornography uses real children or computergenerated children before prosecuting child pornographers. Wiretaps will assist law enforcement in making this very determination. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the——

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Just briefly, it seems to me that we are treading in 

an area that the Supreme Court just recently gave us some guidance, and it seems to me that Mr. Scott’s amendment seeks to 

make the underlying bill comply with the recent Supreme Court 

decision. So perhaps I could give Mr. Scott—yield to Mr. Scott to 

comment on implications of this in light of the recent Supreme 

Court decision in this area. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The 

gentleman from Texas I think has indicated that you can’t even allege probable cause that a crime is being committed before you 

want to go on a fishing expedition. You’re using a section that has 

been found not to even be a crime, and you’re going to use that section to authorize a Federal wiretap to go searching around to see 

if you can see whether crimes are being committed. 

The predicate that we usually require is that you’ve got probable 

cause that a crime is being committed. This—without this amendment, you’re getting a wiretap because you think people are doing 

something you don’t like them to do that isn’t even a crime. And 

so we wanted—we are trying to limit Federal wiretap authority to 

serious crimes. Here you have a situation where the Supreme 

Court just told you this week that what is alleged in that section 

isn’t even a crime, and you’re still trying to use it to get a Federal 

wiretap, and I think that violates the——

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCOTT.—entire principle of limiting wiretap authority to serious crimes. 

Mr. WATT. I’ll yield if you can explain to me how you can authorize a wiretap using as a predicate for the—for the wiretap a law 

28

which the Supreme Court has now said is unconstitutional. How 

can you do that? 

Mr. SMITH. Let me make two points, and I’ll—— Mr. WATT. I’ll yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. SMITH.—directly to your question. The first point is that I 

know the gentleman from Virginia used the word, I think, ‘‘fishing’’ and ‘‘searching.’’ But we’re not changing probable cause. You still 

have to have probable cause before you can get a—— Mr. WATT. For what, though? If you don’t have an underlying—— Mr. SMITH. Right, and in this case—— Mr. WATT. If you don’t have an underlying criminal violation and 

the Supreme Court has said this is not a criminal violation, how 

can you be on anything other than a fishing expedition? 

Mr. SMITH. A couple of responses, if the gentleman will continue 

to yield. 

Mr. WATT. I’ll yield. 

Mr. SMITH. First of all, I’m sure you’re familiar with the Supreme Court decision. It did not declare 2252A unconstitutional. If 

anything, it clarified for us the need for us to make sure that a real 

child, an actual child is involved in the crime. 

Mr. WATT. But isn’t that exactly what Mr. Scott’s amendment 

does? 

Mr. SMITH. What it does—— Mr. WATT. Isn’t that exactly what his amendment does? It says ‘‘involving an identifiable minor.’’ Mr. SMITH. I’d like to respond if the gentleman would let me. 

What Mr. Scott’s amendment does is to prevent us from finding 

out—because we can’t use the wiretap after probable cause, it prevents us from finding out whether a real child has been used or 

not. It makes it much difficult to prosecute child pornography as 

defined by the Supreme Court. I don’t understand why we would 

want to make it more difficult to determine whether a child pornographer is using a real child or not. That’s all we’re——

Mr. WATT. It’s not—I don’t—— Mr. SMITH.—talking about using the wiretap for. 

Mr. WATT.—think it’s a question of whether we want to make it 

more or less. We must act within the confines of the law. We can’t 

just sit here in the Judiciary Committee, of all places, and say we 

would like for it to be less difficult for police. It’s our responsibility 

to act within the confines of the law, and this amendment seems 

to me to make us act within those confines. 

Now, we may not like that. I’d be the first to grant you, you may 

not think that that’s—you probably don’t like the Supreme Court’s 

decision, but the Supreme Court has ruled on this—— Mr. SMITH. This isn’t——

Mr. WATT.—there is no other court above the United States Supreme Court in this country——

Mr. SMITH. If the gentleman will yield, this is not an attempt to 

get around the Supreme Court decision by any means at all. It’s 

actually an attempt to live within the Supreme Court decision and 

be able to determine whether or not the image generated has used 

a real child or has been computer-generated. We’re also not trying 

to change probable cause. All we’re doing is expanding the number 

of crimes that can be detected by using a wiretap. 

29

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time—— Mr. SMITH. We’re not changing the probable cause itself. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER.—has expired. The question is on the 

second amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no. 

The noes appear to have it—— Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia? 

Mr. SCOTT. I’d ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A recorded vote is ordered. Those in 

favor of the Scott amendment will, as your names are called, answer aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas? 

Mr. GEKAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas, no. Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bryant? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Barr? 

Mr. BARR. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barr, no. Mr. Jenkins? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Graham? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Hart? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Frank? 

30

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. Pass. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, pass. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there Members who wish to cast 

and change their votes? The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. 

31

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? If not, the clerk will—— Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 6 ayes and 15 nays. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? If not, the question is on the 

Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those 

in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. The Chair notes 

the presence of a reporting quorum. 

The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 1877 

favorably—— Mr. SMITH. I’d like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER.—as amended by the nature of a substitute. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The aye appears to have it. The aye has—— Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I’d like a recorded vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And a recorded vote is ordered. 

Those in favor of reporting H.R. 1877 favorably will, as your names 

are called, answer aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will call the 

roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas? 

Mr. GEKAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas, aye. Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bryant? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Barr? 

Mr. BARR. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barr, aye. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Graham? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

32

The CLERK. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, aye. Ms. Hart? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Frank? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, aye. Ms. Baldwin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there Members in the room who 

wish to cast or change their votes? The gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. 

33

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? If not, the clerk will report—Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. Goodlatte just walked into the room. The gentleman from Virginia? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. How is the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, you’re recorded as an aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? The clerk will try again. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 20 ayes and 4 nays. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the motion to report favorably 

is agreed to. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to 

move to go to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming 

changes. All Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House 

rules, in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental, or 

minority views.

Æ