[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 27255-27256]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             H.R. 2816, THE COMPUTER CRIME ENFORCEMENT ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing the 
Computer Crime Enforcement Act, which is now headed to President 
Clinton for his signature into law. I introduced the Senate version of 
this bill, S. 1314, on July 1, 1999, with Senator DeWine and is now 
also co-sponsored by Senators Robb, Hatch and Abraham. This legislation 
also passed the Senate as part of H.R. 46, the Public Safety Officer 
Medal of Valor Act. I thank my colleagues for their hard work on the 
Computer Crime Enforcement Act, especially Representative Matt Salmon, 
the House sponsor.
  The information age is filled with unlimited potential for good, but 
it also creates a variety of new challenges for law enforcement. A 
recent survey by the FBI and the Computer Security Institute found that 
62 percent of information security professionals reported computer 
security breaches in the past year. These breaches in computer security 
resulted in financial losses of more than $120 million from fraud, 
theft of information, sabotage, computer viruses, and stolen laptops. 
Computer crime has become a multi-billion dollar problem.
  The Computer Crime Enforcement Act is intended to help states and 
local agencies in fighting computer crime. All 50 states have now 
enacted tough computer crime control laws. They establish a firm 
groundwork for electronic commerce, an increasingly important sector of 
the nation's economy.
  Unfortunately, too many state and local law enforcement agencies are 
struggling to afford the high cost of enforcing their state computer 
crime statutes.
  Earlier this year, I released a survey on computer crime in Vermont. 
My office surveyed 54 law enforcement agencies in Vermont--43 police 
departments and 11 State's attorney offices--on their experience 
investigating and prosecuting computer crimes. The survey found that 
more than half of these Vermont law enforcement agencies encounter 
computer crime, with many police departments and state's attorney 
offices handling 2 to 5 computer crimes per month.
  Despite this documented need, far too many law enforcement agencies 
in Vermont cannot afford the cost of policing against computer crimes. 
Indeed, my survey found that 98 percent of the responding Vermont law 
enforcement agencies do not have funds dedicated for use in computer 
crime enforcement. My survey also found that few law enforcement 
officers in Vermont are properly trained in investigating computer 
crimes and analyzing cyber-evidence.
  According to my survey, 83 percent of responding law enforcement 
agencies in Vermont do not employ officers properly trained in computer 
crime investigative techniques. Moreover, my survey found that 52 
percent of the law enforcement agencies that handle one

[[Page 27256]]

or more computer crimes per month cited their lack of training as a 
problem encountered during investigations. Without the necessary 
education, training and technical support, our law enforcement officers 
are and will continue to be hamstrung in their efforts to crack down on 
computer crimes.
  I crafted the Computer Crime Enforcement Act, S. 1314, to address 
this problem. The bill would authorize a $25 million Department of 
Justice grant program to help states prevent and prosecute computer 
crime. Grants under our bipartisan bill may be used to provide 
education, training, and enforcement programs for local law enforcement 
officers and prosecutors in the rapidly growing field of computer 
criminal justice. Our legislation has been endorsed by the Information 
Technology Association of America and the Fraternal Order of Police. 
This is an important bipartisan effort to provide our state and local 
partners in crime-fighting with the resources they need to address 
computer crime.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time 
and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any 
statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 2816) was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________