[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12811-12816]
[From the U.S. 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 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''.

[[Page 12812]]

     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 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--

[[Page 12813]]

       (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.

[[Page 12814]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  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 2002.
  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 is 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.

[[Page 12815]]

  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 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 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 way 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.

[[Page 12816]]

  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.

                          ____________________