[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 149 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6978-S6979]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3642.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3642) to clarify the scope of the Economic 
     Espionage Act of 1996.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will 
pass this simple, commonsense legislation to clarify a provision of the 
Economic Espionage Act and thereby help protect American businesses and 
American jobs.
  The Economic Espionage Act makes it a crime to, among other things, 
steal a trade secret knowing that the theft will hurt the owner. This 
is an important protection for American businesses, which often choose 
trade secret protection over other forms of intellectual property 
protection.
  A recent decision of the Second Circuit in United States v. Aleynikov 
casts doubt on the reach of the statute. A jury in that case found the 
defendant guilty of stealing computer code from his employer. The court 
overturned the conviction, holding among other things that the trade 
secret did not meet the interstate commerce prong of the statute, even 
though the defendant had copied the stolen code from his office in New 
York to a server in Germany; downloaded the code to his home computer 
in New Jersey; then flew to his new job in Illinois with the stolen 
source code in his possession; and the code was used in interstate 
commerce.
  The court held that the Economic Espionage Act provision applies only 
to trade secrets that are part of a product that is produced to be 
placed in interstate commerce. Because the company's proprietary 
software was neither placed in interstate commerce, nor produced to be 
placed in interstate commerce, the law did not apply--even though the 
stolen source code was part of a financial trading system that was used 
in interstate commerce every day.
  The clarifying legislation that the Senate will pass today corrects 
the court's narrow reading to ensure that our federal criminal laws 
adequately address the theft of trade secrets related to a product or 
service used in interstate commerce. It is a straightforward fix, but 
an important one, as we work to ensure that American companies can 
protect the products they work so hard to develop, so they may continue 
to grow and thrive. I urge the House to act quickly to pass this 
commonsense legislation.

[[Page S6979]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related 
to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 3642) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

                                S. 3642

       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 ``Theft of Trade Secrets 
     Clarification Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

       Section 1832(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or 
     included in a product that is produced for or placed in'' and 
     inserting ``a product or service used in or intended for use 
     in''.

                          ____________________