[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 95 (Monday, July 15, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4580-H4584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CYBER SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2002
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 3482) to provide greater cybersecurity, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3482
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Cyber Security Enhancement
Act of 2002''.
TITLE I--COMPUTER CRIME
SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO
CERTAIN COMPUTER CRIMES.
(a) Directive to the United States Sentencing Commission.--
Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28,
United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the
United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if
appropriate, amend its guidelines and its policy statements
applicable to persons convicted of an offense under section
1030 of title 18, United States Code.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the
Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy
statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses
described in subsection (a), the growing incidence of such
offenses, and the need for an effective deterrent and
appropriate punishment to prevent such offenses;
(2) consider the following factors and the extent to which
the guidelines may or may not account for them--
(A) the potential and actual loss resulting from the
offense;
(B) the level of sophistication and planning involved in
the offense;
(C) whether the offense was committed for purposes of
commercial advantage or private financial benefit;
(D) whether the defendant acted with malicious intent to
cause harm in committing the offense;
(E) the extent to which the offense violated the privacy
rights of individuals harmed;
(F) whether the offense involved a computer used by the
government in furtherance of national defense, national
security, or the administration of justice;
(G) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect
of significantly interfering with or disrupting a critical
infrastructure; and
(H) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect
of creating a threat to public health or safety, or injury to
any person;
(3) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives and with other sentencing guidelines;
(4) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating
circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally
applicable sentencing ranges;
(5) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing
guidelines; and
(6) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes
of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18,
United States Code.
SEC. 101A. STUDY AND REPORT ON COMPUTER CRIMES.
Not later than May 1, 2003, the United States Sentencing
Commission shall submit a brief report to Congress that
explains any actions taken by the Sentencing Commission in
response to this Act and includes any recommendations the
Commission may have regarding statutory penalties for
offenses under section 1030 of title 18, United States Code.
SEC. 102. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION.
(a) In General.--Section 2702(b) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6);
(3) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (A); and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if
the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency
involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any
person requires disclosure without delay of communications
relating to the emergency.''.
(b) Reporting of Disclosures.--A government entity that
receives a disclosure under this section shall file, no later
than 90 days after such disclosure, a report to the Attorney
General stating the subparagraph under which the disclosure
was made, the date of the disclosure, the entity to which the
disclosure was made, the number of customers or subscribers
to whom the information disclosed pertained, and the number
of communications, if any, that were disclosed. The
[[Page H4581]]
Attorney General shall publish all such reports into a single
report to be submitted to Congress one year after enactment
of the bill.
SEC. 103. GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION.
Section 2520(d)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``or 2511(2)(i)'' after ``2511(3)''.
SEC. 104. INTERNET ADVERTISING OF ILLEGAL DEVICES.
Section 2512(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or disseminates by electronic means''
after ``or other publication''; and
(2) by inserting ``knowing the content of the advertisement
and'' before ``knowing or having reason to know''.
SEC. 105. STRENGTHENING PENALTIES.
Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(2) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (4),
by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (5),'' before
``a fine under this title'';
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4)(C)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or
attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in
violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title
or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
``(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or
attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of
subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or
imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.''.
SEC. 106. PROVIDER ASSISTANCE.
(a) Section 2703.--Section 2703(e) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``, statutory
authorization'' after ``subpoena''.
(b) Section 2511.--Section 2511(2)(a)(ii) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, statutory
authorization,'' after ``court order'' the last place it
appears.
SEC. 107. EMERGENCIES.
Section 3125(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) by striking the comma at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) an immediate threat to a national security interest;
or
``(D) an ongoing attack on a protected computer (as defined
in section 1030) that constitutes a crime punishable by a
term of imprisonment greater than one year;''.
SEC. 108. PROTECTING PRIVACY.
(a) Section 2511.--Section 2511(4) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (b); and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
(b) Section 2701.--Section 2701(b) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, or in furtherance of
any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States or any State'' after
``commercial gain'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``5 years'';
(3) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``two years'' and
inserting ``10 years''; and
(4) so that paragraph (2) reads as follows:
``(2) in any other case--
``(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than one year or both, in the case of a first offense under
this paragraph; and
``(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under this
subparagraph that occurs after a conviction of another
offense under this section.''.
(c) Presence of Officer at Service and Execution of
Warrants for Communications and Customer Records.--Section
3105 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``The presence of an officer is not
required for service or execution of a search warrant
directed to a provider of electronic communication service or
remote computing service for records or other information
pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service.''.
TITLE II--OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE; DIRECTOR.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is hereby established within the
Department of Justice an Office of Science and Technology
(hereinafter in this title referred to as the ``Office'').
(2) Authority.--The Office shall be under the general
authority of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Justice Programs, and shall be independent of the National
Institute of Justice.
(b) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director,
who shall be an individual appointed based on approval by the
Office of Personnel Management of the executive
qualifications of the individual.
SEC. 202. MISSION OF OFFICE; DUTIES.
(a) Mission.--The mission of the Office shall be--
(1) to serve as the national focal point for work on law
enforcement technology; and
(2) to carry out programs that, through the provision of
equipment, training, and technical assistance, improve the
safety and effectiveness of law enforcement technology and
improve access to such technology by Federal, State, and
local law enforcement agencies.
(b) Duties.--In carrying out its mission, the Office shall
have the following duties:
(1) To provide recommendations and advice to the Attorney
General.
(2) To establish and maintain advisory groups (which shall
be exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)) to assess the law enforcement
technology needs of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies.
(3) To establish and maintain performance standards in
accordance with the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113) for, and test
and evaluate law enforcement technologies that may be used
by, Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
(4) To establish and maintain a program to certify,
validate, and mark or otherwise recognize law enforcement
technology products that conform to standards established and
maintained by the Office in accordance with the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-113). The program may, at the discretion of the Office,
allow for supplier's declaration of conformity with such
standards.
(5) To work with other entities within the Department of
Justice, other Federal agencies, and the executive office of
the President to establish a coordinated Federal approach on
issues related to law enforcement technology.
(6) To carry out research, development, testing, and
evaluation in fields that would improve the safety,
effectiveness, and efficiency of law enforcement technologies
used by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies,
including, but not limited to--
(A) weapons capable of preventing use by unauthorized
persons, including personalized guns;
(B) protective apparel;
(C) bullet-resistant and explosion-resistant glass;
(D) monitoring systems and alarm systems capable of
providing precise location information;
(E) wire and wireless interoperable communication
technologies;
(F) tools and techniques that facilitate investigative and
forensic work, including computer forensics;
(G) equipment for particular use in counterterrorism,
including devices and technologies to disable terrorist
devices;
(H) guides to assist State and local law enforcement
agencies;
(I) DNA identification technologies; and
(J) tools and techniques that facilitate investigations of
computer crime.
(7) To administer a program of research, development,
testing, and demonstration to improve the interoperability of
voice and data public safety communications.
(8) To serve on the Technical Support Working Group of the
Department of Defense, and on other relevant interagency
panels, as requested.
(9) To develop, and disseminate to State and local law
enforcement agencies, technical assistance and training
materials for law enforcement personnel, including
prosecutors.
(10) To operate the regional National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Centers and, to the extent necessary,
establish additional centers through a competitive process.
(11) To administer a program of acquisition, research,
development, and dissemination of advanced investigative
analysis and forensic tools to assist State and local law
enforcement agencies in combating cybercrime.
(12) To support research fellowships in support of its
mission.
(13) To serve as a clearinghouse for information on law
enforcement technologies.
(14) To represent the United States and State and local law
enforcement agencies, as requested, in international
activities concerning law enforcement technology.
(15) To enter into contracts and cooperative agreements and
provide grants, which may require in-kind or cash matches
from the recipient, as necessary to carry out its mission.
(16) To carry out other duties assigned by the Attorney
General to accomplish the mission of the Office.
(c) Competition Required.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided by law, all research and development carried out by
or through the Office shall be carried out on a competitive
basis.
(d) Information From Federal Agencies.--Federal agencies
shall, upon request from the Office and in accordance with
Federal law, provide the Office with any data, reports, or
other information requested, unless compliance with such
request is otherwise prohibited by law.
(e) Publications.--Decisions concerning publications issued
by the Office shall rest solely with the Director of the
Office.
(f) Transfer of Funds.--The Office may transfer funds to
other Federal agencies or provide funding to non-Federal
entities through grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts
to carry out its duties under this section.
(g) Annual Report.--The Director of the Office shall
include with the budget justification materials submitted
to Congress in support of the Department of Justice budget
for each fiscal year (as submitted
[[Page H4582]]
with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code) a report on the activities
of the Office. Each such report shall include the
following:
(1) For the period of 5 fiscal years beginning with the
fiscal year for which the budget is submitted--
(A) the Director's assessment of the needs of Federal,
State, and local law enforcement agencies for assistance with
respect to law enforcement technology and other matters
consistent with the mission of the Office; and
(B) a strategic plan for meeting such needs of such law
enforcement agencies.
(2) For the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which
such budget is submitted, a description of the activities
carried out by the Office and an evaluation of the extent to
which those activities successfully meet the needs assessed
under paragraph (1)(A) in previous reports.
SEC. 203. DEFINITION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY.
For the purposes of this title, the term ``law enforcement
technology'' includes investigative and forensic
technologies, corrections technologies, and technologies that
support the judicial process.
SEC. 204. ABOLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE; TRANSFER OF
FUNCTIONS.
(a) Transfers From Office Within NIJ.--The Office of
Science and Technology of the National Institute of Justice
is hereby abolished, and all functions and activities
performed immediately before the date of the enactment of
this Act by the Office of Science and Technology of the
National Institute of Justice are hereby transferred to the
Office.
(b) Authority To Transfer Additional Functions.--The
Attorney General may transfer to the Office any other program
or activity of the Department of Justice that the Attorney
General, in consultation with the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House
of Representatives, determines to be consistent with the
mission of the Office.
(c) Transfer of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Any balance of appropriations that the
Attorney General determines is available and needed to
finance or discharge a function, power, or duty of the Office
or a program or activity that is transferred to the Office
shall be transferred to the Office and used for any purpose
for which those appropriations were originally available.
Balances of appropriations so transferred shall--
(A) be credited to any applicable appropriation account of
the Office; or
(B) be credited to a new account that may be established on
the books of the Department of the Treasury;
and shall be merged with the funds already credited to that
account and accounted for as one fund.
(2) Limitations.--Balances of appropriations credited to an
account under paragraph (1)(A) are subject only to such
limitations as are specifically applicable to that account.
Balances of appropriations credited to an account under
paragraph (1)(B) are subject only to such limitations as are
applicable to the appropriations from which they are
transferred.
(d) Transfer of Personnel and Assets.--With respect to any
function, power, or duty, or any program or activity, that is
transferred to the Office, those employees and assets of the
element of the Department of Justice from which the transfer
is made that the Attorney General determines are needed to
perform that function, power, or duty, or for that program or
activity, as the case may be, shall be transferred to the
Office.
(e) Report on Implementation.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General
shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report on the implementation of this title.
The report shall--
(1) identify each transfer carried out pursuant to
subsection (b);
(2) provide an accounting of the amounts and sources of
funding available to the Office to carry out its mission
under existing authorizations and appropriations, and set
forth the future funding needs of the Office;
(3) include such other information and recommendations as
the Attorney General considers appropriate.
SEC. 205. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIONS TECHNOLOGY
CENTERS.
(a) In General.--The Director of the Office shall operate
and support National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Centers (hereinafter in this section referred to
as ``Centers'') and, to the extent necessary, establish new
centers through a merit-based, competitive process.
(b) Purpose of Centers.--The purpose of the Centers shall
be to--
(1) support research and development of law enforcement
technology;
(2) support the transfer and implementation of technology;
(3) assist in the development and dissemination of
guidelines and technological standards; and
(4) provide technology assistance, information, and support
for law enforcement, corrections, and criminal justice
purposes.
(c) Annual Meeting.--Each year, the Director shall convene
a meeting of the Centers in order to foster collaboration and
communication between Center participants.
(d) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the
Congress a report assessing the effectiveness of the existing
system of Centers and identify the number of Centers
necessary to meet the technology needs of Federal, State, and
local law enforcement in the United States.
SEC. 206. COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE.
Section 102 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3712) is amended in subsection (a)(5)
by inserting ``coordinate and'' before ``provide''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.R. 3482.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, our society has become technologically dependent.
Computers and related technologies have improved every aspect of our
lives, our health care, our education, and our security. Unfortunately,
this same technology has also facilitated terrorist and criminal
activity alike. At the stroke of a key, someone can cause millions of
dollars of damage to our economy as well as threaten our national
security and the public's safety.
This threat is not new; but after the September 11 attacks, the risks
are greater. Even prior to the attacks, the Committee on the
Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security was
working on legislation to improve Federal law to protect the Nation
from cybercrime and cyberterrorism.
Last summer, the subcommittee held three hearings on the growing
threat of cybercrime and cyberterrorism. Those hearings highlighted the
fact that cybercrime knows no borders or restraints and can
substantially harm the American people and our economy.
The law enforcement officials and private industry representatives at
the hearings agreed that better coordination, cooperation and
information-sharing were needed as well as stronger penalties for
cyberattacks.
The U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which the Committee on the Judiciary adopted
much of H.R. 2915, an earlier cybersecurity bill introduced by the
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith), and began to improve the
Nation's cybersecurity, this bill, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act
of 2002, continues that work.
The bill strengthens penalties to better reflect the seriousness of
cyberattacks, assists State and local law enforcement through better
grant management, accountability and dissemination of technical advice
and information, helps protect the Nation's critical infrastructure,
and enhances privacy protections.
On May 8, the Committee on the Judiciary reported this bill favorably
by voice vote. The bill as introduced and reported out of committee
contained an authorization for the National Infrastructure Protection
Center within the Department of Justice.
Since that time, it appears that the center will be transferred out
of the Department of Justice into the new Department of Homeland
Security proposed in H.R. 5005. Accordingly, the committee has removed
that authorization to be consistent with H.R. 5005 in this amended
version of H.R. 3482. The bill also contains a few technical changes as
well.
H.R. 3482, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, is designed to
increase the cybersecurity of our Nation against criminal and terrorist
attacks. As one of the most technologically advanced nations in the
world, we must deal with a new vulnerability, the interconnectedness of
our Nation's economy and national security. I urge Members to support
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4583]]
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in support of H.R. 3482, the Cyber
Security Act of 2002. I support the concept of allowing internal
service providers to give information to law enforcement officials when
emergency threat of death or serious bodily injury exists.
In general, information held by an ISP is private information which
is entitled to protection as such. In fact, we have worked very hard to
ensure that the privacy of Internet users and providers have been
secured. This is a new way that America provides its information and
communication; and, therefore, we believe the privacy issues are
extremely important.
{time} 1415
Under current law, an ISP is authorized to release information to law
enforcement officials when the ISP reasonably believes an immediate
danger exists. For an ISP to reasonably believe an immediate danger
exists, an assessment of relevant information must be made. However, if
the FBI presents information which an ISP believes, if true, would
present a threat of death or serious bodily injury, the ISP dispatcher
on duty should not have to wake up the corporate general counsel to
assess the information to determine if it can be reasonably believed,
particularly as relates to saving lives. If there is time to do all
that, there is time to go to a magistrate or judge and get a search
warrant. Accordingly, I would support changing ``reasonably believed''
to ``believes in good faith'' as the bill does.
I appreciate the adjustments Subcommittee Chairman Smith made to the
bill to address concerns that we had with the bill and Ranking Member
Scott had with the bill, including adding a reporting requirement for
law enforcement officials to report on their use of the provision
during the year following enactment so that we can see how it is being
used. This is in keeping with the balance that I think is important in
fighting terrorism and providing law enforcement officers with the
tools that they need, as well as balancing the rights of Americans. It
is one thing to use this emergency authority for genuine emergencies
involving threats to life or safety. It is another thing to use it in a
calculated manner to get around the regular requirement of obtaining a
warrant from a detached magistrate or judge before being given access
to private information. Since the subscriber may never know of the
access by law enforcement to his or her private information, there will
be no way to know if they are assessing information erroneously or
improperly. With this particular requirement, providing this
information in the year following, this will help determine that. With
the reporting requirement, we should be able to assess whether this
provision is being used as contemplated and not abused.
With this understanding of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I support it and
urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to join Chairman Sensenbrenner in support of H.R.
3482, the Cyber Security Act of 2001.
I support the concept of allowing Internet Service Providers (ISP) to
give information to law enforcement officials when an emergency threat
of death or serious bodily injury exists. In general, information held
by an ISP in private information which is entitled to protection as
such. Under current law, an ISP is authorized to release information to
law enforcement officials when the ISP ``reasonably believes'' an
immediate danger exists. For an ISP to ``reasonably believe'' an
immediate danger exists, an assessment of relevant information must be
made. However, if the FBI presents information which an ISP believes,
if true, would present a threat of death or serious bodily injury, the
ISP dispatcher on duty shouldn't have to wake up the corporate general
counsel to assess the information to determine if it can be reasonably
believed. If there is time to do all that, there is time to go to a
magistrate or judge and get a search warrant. Accordingly, I support
changing ``reasonably believes'' to ``believes in good faith'', as the
bill does.
I appreciate the adjustments Subcommittee Chairman Smith made to the
bill to address concerns I had with the bill, including adding a
reporting requirement for law enforcement officials to report on their
use of the provision during the year following enactment, so that we
can see how it is being used. It is one thing to use this emergency
authority for genuine emergencies involving threats to life or safety,
it is another thing to use it in a calculated manner to get around the
regular requirement of obtaining a warrant from a detached magistrate
or judge before being given access to private information. Since the
subscriber may never know of the access by law enforcement to his or
her private information, there will be no way to know if they are
accessing information erroneously or improperly. With the reporting
requirement, we should be able to assess whether this provision is
being used as contemplated, and not abused.
With this understanding of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I support it and
urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, many people think of cybercrime simply as a form of
vandalism involving hacking or planting viruses. Cybercrime is much
more than this. It can devastate our businesses, economy and national
infrastructure. Cybercrime also includes child pornography, which
terrorizes our children and our families. Criminals use computer
technology to steal life savings and the identities of unsuspecting
individuals. These attacks threaten the lives and the livelihoods of
many innocent victims.
Mr. Speaker, a crime is still a crime, whether it occurs on the
Internet or on the street. We are in a war against terrorism. According
to a recent newspaper article, ``Unsettling signs of al Qaeda's aims
and skills in cyberspace have led some government experts to conclude
that terrorists are at the threshold of using the Internet as a direct
instrument of bloodshed.''
The article stated, ``Most significantly, perhaps, U.S. investigators
have found evidence in the logs that mark a browser's path through the
Internet that al Qaeda operators spent time on sites that offer
software and programming instructions for the digital switches that run
power, water, transport and communication grids.''
Cybercrimes and cybercriminals know no borders. As long as there is
technology, cybercrime will exist. We must improve our Nation's
cybersecurity and strengthen our criminal laws to prevent, deter and
respond to such attacks.
This legislation, H.R. 3482, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of
2002, increases penalties to better reflect the seriousness of
cybercrime, enhances Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts
through better coordination, and assists State and local law
enforcement officials through better grant management, accountability
and dissemination of technical advice and information. The Information
Technology Association of America stated that the bill is important for
strengthening guidelines on sentencing people who are convicted of
cybercrimes. The Information Technology Industry Council concluded that
the bill will remove obstacles to information-sharing between the
public and private sectors to strengthen Internet security.
Mr. Speaker, we must protect our Nation and our economy from the
growing threat of cyberattacks. Penalties and law enforcement
capabilities must be able to prevent and deter cybercriminals. Until we
secure our cyberinfrastructure, a few keystrokes and an Internet
connection is all one needs to disable the economy or endanger lives. A
mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb. That is why I
urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the
Committee on Science.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong supports of H.R. 3482, the Cyber
Security Enhancement Act of 2002. I want to thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith), the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security chairman, for his excellent work in bringing this bipartisan
bill to the floor. I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), Judiciary chairman, former chairman of the
Committee on Science, where he received
[[Page H4584]]
his best training. From his years of service on the Committee on
Science, the gentleman from Wisconsin understands that research and
development are critical weapons in the war on terrorism as well as our
fight against all forms of crime. We know that the next war, the
current war, the ongoing war, is going to be won as much in the
laboratory as on the battlefield.
Mr. Speaker, title I of the legislation enhances penalties for
cybercrime and allows for better cooperation between law enforcement
and the private sector to investigate cybercrime. This is critical.
However, in the interest of time, I will limit my comments to title II
of the bill before the House today.
Title II establishes an Office of Science and Technology within the
Office of Justice Programs at the Justice Department. It is a needed
step forward in our fight against all forms of crime and terrorism. I
have said repeatedly, the war on terrorism, like the Cold War, will be
won in the laboratory as much as on the battlefield. That means that,
as in the Cold War, we must properly organize our government to put the
most into and get the most out of our academic, government and industry
laboratories. Criminal use of technology, specifically information
technology, is now commonplace. We rely on computers, the Internet,
cell phones and pagers every day. But so, too, do the criminals and
terrorists.
Increasingly criminals are becoming more and more sophisticated.
Online fraud, identity theft, child pornography, computer intrusions,
hacking and introduction of viruses are all on the rise. Unfortunately,
U.S. law enforcement is often ill-equipped to counter this criminal
high tech trend. It is particularly true for State and local law
enforcement that often lack the resources, training and expertise to
effectively use advanced information technology to stop crime.
Currently the Justice Department does support the development of new
technologies, mostly through the National Institute of Justice, to
serve the needs of law enforcement and corrections agencies, but the
effort as it stands today is unfocused and limited.
That is why I have sought for over 3 years to establish an office for
science and technology within the Department of Justice with the
mission of improving the technical capabilities of law enforcement at
all levels. The bill before us today would do just that. Let me also
note that this bill would not create a new bureaucracy. In fact, the
Congressional Budget Office has scored this bill as revenue-neutral.
Rather, the bill would transfer existing assets within the Justice
Department to give the agency an improved science and technology
capability to better respond to threats posed by technically savvy
criminals and terrorists. This is a commonsense proposition. U.S. law
enforcement agencies traditionally do not have research and development
capabilities like those found in the military. Rather than creating a
new R&D infrastructure for law enforcement, we must find ways to help
law enforcement gain access to the scientific expertise found in our
colleges and universities as well as our defense and national
laboratories.
H.R. 3482 does this by explicitly authorizing DOJ's existing network
of regional technology assistance centers, the National Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Centers. These centers are able to leverage
existing defense capabilities in sensitive areas such as information
security, chemical, biological and nuclear security to provide Federal,
State and local law enforcement access to the best technologies
available to meet these emerging threats.
In my home district, one such center is leading the Nation in the
fight against cybercrime and all forms of crime. This is the National
Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, Northeast Region,
located at the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate at
Rome, New York. A prominent example of the center's work was the
establishment of the highly successful Utica Arson Strike Force in
1997. In less than a year, the city went from worst to first in the
Nation in the rate of arson convictions. Leveraging the high tech
expertise of the Air Force research laboratory, the center was able to
create affordable technology tools for the Utica task force's use.
While the track record of the center and others around the Nation is
impressive, the amount of resources available for technical assistance
is meager. The entire center system, as well as the science and
technology function within the Department of Justice, needs a clear
congressional mandate and an adequate budget. This bill would bring
needed focus to R&D in support of law enforcement and establish the
Office of Science and Technology as a key liaison between DOJ and other
Federal research agencies.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Science recently heard testimony from a
distinguished panel of the National Academy of Sciences about the need
for greater science and technology investment to combat terrorism. For
this reason, the Committee on Science unanimously approved the creation
of an under secretary for research and development in the proposed
Homeland Security Department. The bill before us today is consistent
with this vision. As we move forward in this process, I hope to forge a
close working partnership between DOJ's Office of Science and
Technology and the new Homeland Security Department.
I look forward to working with Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Smith
and all members of the Committee on the Judiciary to ensure appropriate
coordination of effort to help combat terrorism and to ensure that more
and more State and local first responders have access to first-rate
scientific and technological expertise.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. I rise to support this legislation. I just want to make
note that this legislation has provided a reporting requirement placed
in the bill to help address the concerns, making sure that the
legislation is used properly. I would have liked to have added
additional safeguards dealing with the unreasonable search and seizure,
but I believe that the reporting requirement will go a long ways to
addressing that concern, and I would ask my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3482,
the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002.
This resolution achieves several goals. The act will serve as a
national focal point for science and technology and it will also aid in
the development and dissemination of cyber law enforcement and
technology.
Moreover, it will make technical assistance available to Federal,
State, and local law enforcement agencies which is increasingly
critical for our national security and infrastructure.
Crimes of fraud in computers with protected information or computers
used by the Federal Government are addressed in the legislation.
A program will be established and maintained to certify, validate,
and mark, or otherwise recognize law enforcement technology products
that conform to standards set by the National Infrastructure Protection
Center.
The National Infrastructure Protection Center will operate for
regional national law enforcement and corrections technology centers
and, to the extent necessary, establish additional centers through a
competitive process.
This bill further provides that law enforcement agencies utilize and
establish forensic technology, and technologies that support the
judicial process.
The use of these forensic tools will assist State and local law
enforcement agencies in combating cybercrime. In addition, penalties
will increase for violations where the offender knowingly causes death
or serious bodily injury.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to support this measure as it addresses
the growing and increasingly visible problem of cybercrime.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3482, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________