99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–497

CYBER SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2002

JUNE 11, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3482] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

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

(H.R. 3482) to provide greater cybersecurity, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 6

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 7

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 8

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 8

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 9

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 9

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 9

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 9

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 9

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 11

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 11

Agency Views ........................................................................................................... 21

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 27

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 32

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002’’. 

2

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. 

3

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. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION CENTER. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall establish and maintain a National 

Infrastructure Protection Center (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘Center’’) to serve as a national focal point for threat assessment, warning, investigation, 

and response to attacks on the Nation’s critical infrastructure for both physical and 

cyber sources. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 to carry out this section, $125,000,000. 

SEC. 105. 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. 106. 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. 107. 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. 108. 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. 109. 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.’’. 

4

(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 warrant under section 2703 when the 

provider of electronic communications service or remote computing service produces 

the information required in the warrant.’’. 

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 used by the Office in accordance with the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–113), which may, in the discretion of the Office, allow for supplier 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 

5

(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—

(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 

6

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’’.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 3482, the ‘‘Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002,’’ would 

increase penalties for cybercrimes to better reflect the seriousness 

of the crime; enhance law enforcement efforts through better coordination; provide the authority and resources for the National Infrastructure Protection Center to serve as a national focal point for 

7

threat assessment, warning, investigation, and response to attacks 

on the nation’s critical infrastructure from both physical and cyber 

sources; and make the Office of Science and Technology an independent office to serve as the national focal point for law enforcement science and technology and to assist in the development and 

dissemination of law enforcement technology, and to make technical assistance available to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Since the beginning of the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security has examined the need 

for legislation to update and improve Federal law to protect the nation from cyber-crime and -terrorism. 

On May 24, 2001, the Subcommittee heard from three State and 

local officials on law enforcement efforts and needs to fight 

cybercrime, expressing views from the police, the prosecutors and 

the State governments. The witnesses were Michael T. McCaul, the 

Texas Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Justice; the Honorable Joseph I. Cassilly, the State’s Attorney for Harford County, 

Maryland and Chairman of the Cyber Crime Committee for the 

National District Attorneys Association; and Ronald R. Stevens, the 

Senior Investigator for the Bureau of Criminal Investigation for the 

New York State Police, Computer Crime Unit. All three testified 

with regard to the need for better resources, training, standards, 

and equipment. 

On June 12, 2001, officials from three Federal agencies testified 

before the Subcommittee. The witnesses were Michael Chertoff, the 

Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division for the Department of Justice; Thomas T. Kubic, the Deputy Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigative Division for the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation; and James A. Savage, Jr., the Deputy Special 

Agent in Charge of the Financial Crimes Division for United States 

Secret Service. These three witnesses agreed that Federal laws regarding the processes and procedures to investigate and prosecute 

cybercrime were outdated in certain areas. 

Alan Davidson, Associate Director at the Center for Democracy 

and Technology (CDT), a Washington, DC, non-profit group interested in civil liberties and human rights on the Internet and other 

new digital media, also testified. He urged the Subcommittee to 

consider privacy issues when drafting new legislation and updating 

the law. At a February 12, 2002 legislative hearing on H.R. 3482, 

the ‘‘Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002,’’ Mr. Davidson testified that the ‘‘[Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)] commends this Committee for holding this hearing, and for the relatively measured approach taken in H.R. 3482. We agree that computer crime and security is a serious problem that requires serious 

Government response.’’ On June 14, 2001, representatives from the business community 

testified about the problems they face with cybercrime. The hearing 

focused on the efforts and concerns of private industry with regard 

to this issue. The witnesses agreed that sharing information was 

key to successfully addressing and preventing cybercrime. Additionally, the witnesses urged Congress to examine stricter penalties 

for cybercrime. 

8

1Pub. L No. 107–56. 

The three hearings highlighted the growing threat of cybercrime 

and cyberterrorism against our citizens and our nation and the definitive need for legislation. Criminals use computers and other 

types of technology to target the income and well-being of American citizens, the nation’s economy, America’s national security, 

and our critical infrastructure. 

On September 20, 2001, H.R. 2915, ‘‘the Public Safety and Cyber 

Security Enhancement Act of 2002’’ was introduced to address the 

concerns brought forth in the hearings. Most of H.R. 2915 was 

adopted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act 1, the anti-terrorism bill, 

that was enacted in October 26, 2001. There remained some additional issues that were not addressed. 

H.R. 3482, ‘‘the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002,’’ responds to the previous hearings and ongoing discussions with law 

enforcement, industry, and academia representatives and the need 

to address issues not covered in the USA PATRIOT Act. 

While technology has improved the standard of living for the 

United States and her citizens, it has also assisted criminals and 

terrorists with their nefarious activities. Terrorists and high-tech 

vandals use computers and other technology to terrorize and harass businesses, private citizens and the Government, which costs 

the taxpayers millions. For example, hackers are invading the privacy of our citizens’ homes to program personal computers into 

‘‘zombie computers.’’ These zombie computers are then used for the 

denial-of-service attacks that bombard a target site with nonsense 

data. In February 2000, a denial-of-service attack on Yahoo and 

other companies cost millions of dollars. These types of attacks not 

only threaten our economy, but also our public safety. An attack on 

an emergency service network could prevent prompt responses to 

people in life threatening situations, causing injury or death. 

The protection of our national security, critical infrastructure 

and economic base is essential. The terrorist attacks on September 

11th severely affected our economy and demonstrated a need to 

evaluate and improve our security. A terrorist or criminal cyber attack could further harm our economy and critical infrastructure. It 

is imperative that the penalties and law enforcement capabilities 

are adequate to prevent and deter such attacks. 

HEARINGS

The Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime held 1 day of hearings 

on H.R. 3482 on February 12, 2002. Testimony was received from 

four witnesses: John G. Malcolm, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division of the Department of Justice; Susan Kelley 

Koeppen, Corporate Attorney, Microsoft Corporation; Clint Smith, 

Vice President and Chief Network Counsel of WorldCom; and Alan 

Davidson, Staff Counsel, Center for Democracy and Technology. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On February 26, 2002, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 

session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3482, as 

amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 1, 2002, 

the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 

9

the bill H.R. 3482, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, by voice vote, a quorum being present.

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

There were no recorded votes on H.R. 3482.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

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

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The bill is intended to improve the ability of Federal, State and 

local law enforcement efforts to deter, prevent and resolve cyber attacks carried out by terrorists and other criminals. The bill will implement accountability in the management of grants for technology 

investment at the State and local levels through assessments and 

better Federal grant management. Additionally, the bill will improve the protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure from 

cyber and physical attacks.

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

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

expenditures.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

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

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

the bill, H.R. 3482, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 22, 2002. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3482, the Cyber Security 

Enhancement Act of 2002. 

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

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

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DAN L. CRIPPEN, Director.

Enclosure

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

10

H.R. 3482—Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002. 

SUMMARY

H.R. 3482 would authorize the appropriation of $125 million for 

fiscal year 2003 for the National Infrastructure Protection Center 

(NIPC) in the Department of Justice. The bill also would establish 

new federal crimes and would increase penalties for unauthorized 

use of computers and related offenses. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3482 would cost $125 

million over the 2003–2004 period, subject to appropriation of the 

authorized amount. Enacting the bill also would affect direct 

spending and receipts, but CBO estimates that any such effects 

would not be significant. Because the bill would affect direct spending and receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. 

H.R. 3482 would impose reporting requirements on State and 

local government agencies that receive certain disclosures from providers of electronic communication services. Such a requirement 

would constitute an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates that the 

cost of complying with these new reporting requirements would not 

likely be significant, and would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($58 million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation). Overall, the bill would benefit State, local, and tribal governments by providing technological assistance and training materials 

to State and local law enforcement agencies. H.R. 3482 contains no 

new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3482 is shown in the following table. CBO assumes that the amounts authorized for the 

NIPC will be appropriated by the start of fiscal year 2003. We expect that outlays will occur somewhat more slowly than the historical rate of spending for this program because of the increase in 

funding compared to the 2002 level. The costs of this legislation fall 

within budget function 750 (administration of justice).

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending for NIPC Under Current Law 

Budget Authority 1 90 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays 75 25 0 0 0 0

Proposed Changes 

Authorization Level 0 125 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays 0 88 38 0 0 0

Spending for NIPC Under H.R. 3482

Authorization Level 90 125 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays 75 113 38 0 0 0

1. The 2002 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the National Infrastructure Protection Center. 

Enacting H.R. 3482 could increase collections of criminal fines for 

unauthorized use of computers and other offenses. CBO estimates 

that any additional collections would not be significant. Criminal 

11

fines are recorded as receipts and deposited in the Crime Victims 

Fund, then later spent. 

PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act specifies pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending and receipts. These procedures would apply to H.R. 3482 because it would affect both direct spending and receipts, but CBO 

estimates that the annual amount of such changes would not be 

significant. 

ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

H.R. 3482 would impose reporting requirements on State and 

local government agencies that receive certain disclosures from providers of electronic communication services. Such a requirement 

would constitute an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

UMRA. CBO estimates that the cost of complying with these new 

reporting requirements would not likely be significant, and would 

not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($58 million in 

2002, adjusted annually for inflation). Overall, the bill would benefit State, local, and tribal governments by providing technological 

assistance and training materials to State and local law enforcement agencies. 

ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR

H.R. 3482 contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (226–2860) 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Angela Seitz 

(225–3220) 

Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226–2960) 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Peter H. Fontaine 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

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

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Sec. 1. Short Title. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cyber Security Enhancement Act 

of 2002.’’

12

2 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept 

and Obstruct Terrorism. Pub. L. No. 107–56. 

TITLE I—COMPUTER CRIME

Sec. 101. Amendment of Sentencing Guidelines relating to Certain 

Computer Crimes. 

This section would direct the United States Sentencing Commission to review, and if appropriate amend, the Federal sentencing 

guidelines to provide a wider range of criteria for sentencing of 

those convicted for cybercrimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The Committee is concerned that the sentencing guidelines do not adequately account for the serious nature of computer crimes. Computer crimes can cost businesses millions of dollars, can harm the 

nation’s economy, threaten public safety, and violate the privacy of 

individuals. 

Recognizing the growing threats posed by cybercrime, Congress, 

in the USA PATRIOT Act,2 increased maximum penalties for certain violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 that can threaten lives as well 

as national security. Additionally, the USA PATRIOT Act added 

three new violations under section 1030 where the offense involved 

an attack on computers used by the Government in furtherance of 

national defense, national security, or the administration of justice. 

This section of the bill reflects those changes. 

This section of the bill also reflects the enhanced penalties for 

cybercrime under H.R. 3482. In section 106, the bill enhances the 

maximum penalty for cybercrimes where an offender of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1030 knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death 

or serious bodily injury through a cyber attack. This section also 

covers the grave threat that cyber attacks pose to critical infrastructures. 

The Committee believes that the United States Sentencing Commission must review the guidelines to ensure that they appropriately reflect the grievous nature of cyber attacks. The Committee believes that these new guidelines will allows judges to better account for the seriousness of a computer crime. Judges will be 

able to consider, among other things, the level of sophistication of 

the offense, whether the defendant acted with malicious intent to 

cause harm in committing the offense, and the extent to which the 

privacy rights of the victims of the crime were violated. 

This section also requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to 

submit by May 1, 2003, to Congress a brief report that explains 

any actions taken by the Sentencing Commission in response to 

this act. 

Sec. 102. Emergency Disclosure Exception. 

Under current law, communication providers are prohibited from 

disclosing electronic stored communications unless the disclosure is 

under a specified exception. One of those exceptions, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2702(b)(6)(C), provides that a communication service provider 

may disclose a communication to a law enforcement agency if the 

provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information without delay. Communication 

providers expressed concern to the Committee that the standard 

13

was too difficult for them to meet and that, as a result, providers 

may not disclose information relating emergencies, such as a biological terrorist attack, to the appropriate Government officials. 

This section would amend the current law to allow communications providers to disclose communications to a Federal, State or 

local government entity in emergency situations. The provider 

could only disclose communications that relate to the emergency if 

the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency exists and 

that the emergency involves a danger of death or serious physical 

injury which requires disclosure without delay. 

Specifically, this section would make three changes to current 

law to enhance cooperation with law enforcement and communications providers. First, it would change the legal standard for providers to determine whether there is an emergency from ‘‘reasonable’’ to ‘‘good faith.’’ Second it would remove the requirement that 

a provider determine what is or is not an immediate danger. Third, 

the provision would allow the provider to disclose the information 

to any Government entity, such as the Centers Disease Control 

(CDC), as well as to law enforcement. 

Based upon the testimony presented to the Subcommittee on 

Crime at the February 12, 2002 hearing, the Committee believes 

that changing the standard for providers from reasonable to good 

faith is an appropriate and a necessary change. As Susan Koeppen 

testified, providers are concerned that ‘‘communications providers 

or Internet Service Providers may be unnecessarily constrained in 

making decisions in good faith to disclose information in an emergency situation involving the danger of death or serious physical 

injury which requires immediate disclosure of that information.’’ She went on to testify that section 102 made ‘‘several improvements to existing law that will enable such providers to make decisions promptly and without hesitation in emergency situations.’’ The Committee finds that certain emergencies may make it more 

appropriate for a provider to call the CDC or a hospital instead of, 

or in addition to, law enforcement, and thus the notification restriction should not be limited to law enforcement. 

Additionally, the word ‘‘immediate’’ is not needed. The language 

of the bill requires that the provider, in good faith, believes (1) that 

there is an emergency, (2) that emergency involves danger of death 

or serious physical injury, and (3) that the emergency requires disclosure of the communications without delay. The American Heritage College dictionary defines ‘‘emergency’’ as ‘‘a serious situation 

or occurrence that happens unexpectedly and demands immediate 

action.’’

Furthermore, the provider must have a good faith belief that the 

information should be disclosed without delay. 

Accordingly, the Committee believes Congress should not add an 

additional ‘‘immediate’’ requirement that makes the provider determine whether or not the danger itself is immediate. For example, 

if someone plans to bomb an elementary school next week, then the 

communications provider should be able to disclose that information and not have to guess whether an action which is to occur a 

week later constitutes ‘‘an immediate’’ danger or not. In such a 

case, law enforcement may need all the time it can get to locate 

the perpetrator and prevent the crime. Another example is where 

an individual sends an e-mail to another person describing an upVerDate May 23 2002 01:19 Jun 13, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR497.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR497
14

3 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984), quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 

338,348 (1974), quoted with approval in Illinois v. Krull, 480 340, 347 (1987); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 12–4 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 446 (1976). 4Prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, victims of a computer trespasser attack 

were not able to authorize law enforcement to intercept the trespassers communications. Rather 

law enforcement would have had to go to get a court order to help the owners of systems providing communication services protect their own systems. The USA PATRIOT Act amended the 

law to clarify that law enforcement may intercept such communications when authorized by the 

victims. 

coming terrorist attack he or she is planning, but does not put a 

date on the attack. A terrorist attack would clearly constitute an 

emergency that threatens life or limb, but the timing of the attack 

may not be evident. The attack could be planned for tomorrow or 

for a year from now. It is clear that there is a danger, but the immediacy of that danger is unclear. 

Accordingly, this section changes current law to reflect the fact 

that if a provider, in good faith, believes there is an emergency, the 

provider should not be held liable. The Committee would note that 

section 102 of this bill does not change the standard or lower the 

standard for law enforcement behavior. This section, instead, requires that a communications provider must have a ‘‘good faith’’ belief that there is an emergency involving danger of death or serious 

physical injury to any person that requires disclosure without 

delay. This section is aimed at protecting providers who in good 

faith attempt to assist law enforcement with an emergency situation. 

This section does not reduce the standard under which law enforcement must act. If police abuse that standard, there are appropriate consequences. The courts have applied a judicially created 

exclusionary rule for years. As the Supreme Court stated the rule 

exists as a ‘‘judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth 

amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect....’’ 3

Any criminal evidence that is secured, directly or indirectly, in 

violation of the Fourth amendment, may not be admitted against 

a defendant in a criminal proceeding. A police officer who makes 

a false claim to a communications provider that there is an emergency that authorizes the disclosure of information under section 

102 of the Cyber Security Enhancement Act has conducted an illegal search and seizure. The police officer must have a reasonable 

belief to make such a claim and if she or he does not, the evidence 

would be subject to the existing judicially created exclusionary rule. 

Finally, this section would require Government officials to report 

quarterly to the Attorney General for the first year after enactment 

of the bill. At the end of that year, the Attorney General would 

send a report on the quarterly reports to Congress. This is a one 

time reporting requirement for the Attorney General. 

Sec. 103. Good Faith Exception. 

This section would update the ‘‘good faith reliance’’ defense in 18 

U.S.C. § 2520(d) so that the new computer trespasser law 4 created 

in section 217 of the USA PATRIOT Act is also covered. Current 

law provides that a communications provider that relies in good 

faith on a court order or other listed authorization has a complete 

defense against civil or criminal action brought under this chapter 

or any other law. It appears that the current defense, as written, 

15

5Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, H.R. 2975, H. Rep. 

No. 107–236, Part 1. 

would not cover a provider acting in good faith under the new computer trespasser law to assist law enforcement. 

This section clarifies that communications providers, who assist 

law enforcement officials under the new computer trespasser are 

covered. This language was included in the House version of the 

PATRIOT Act 5 that was reported unanimously out of Committee. 

The final version of the USA PATRIOT Act, however, adopted the 

Senate language that did not include this provision. 

This section simply clarifies that communications providers assisting law-enforcement under this section will continue to be covered by the good faith reliance defense under 18 U.S.C. § 2520. 

Sec. 104. National Infrastructure Protection Center. 

This section authorizes the Attorney General to establish and 

maintain a National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) to 

serve as a national focal point for threat assessment, warning, investigation, and response to attacks on the nation’s critical infrastructure from both physical and cyber sources. This section authorizes the appropriation of $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2003. 

The Committee believes that information sharing is a key to protecting the security of the nation. The NIPC facilitates information 

sharing to protect the critical infrastructure of the nation. It was 

created in 1998, but it was not authorized. In addition to working 

with Federal, State and local Government officials, NIPC works 

with private sector infrastructure owners and operators. 

The Committee believes that the war on terrorism demands additional efforts to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure. By authorizing NIPC, the Congress demonstrates its support for this important task. 

Sec. 105. Internet Advertising of Illegal Devices. 

Section 105 was included to address a statutory loophole that allows for the distribution of advertisements of illegal interception 

devices through contemporary means of communication. This section would amend 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(c) to make the language technology neutral and close the existing loophole to further protect privacy. Under current law, 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(c) prohibits the advertisement of illegal interception devices in any magazine, newspaper, handbill, or other publication. The current law, however, 

does not mention advertising such devices on the Internet. This 

section would correct that loophole and ensure consistent treatment 

among advertising mediums by amending 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(c) to 

include the advertisements disseminated by electronic means. 

Sec. 106. Increased Penalty. 

This section amends 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c) to allow for criminal 

penalties to be increased if the offender knowingly or recklessly 

causes or attempts to cause death or serious bodily injury through 

a cyber attack. When a terrorist or other criminal attacks a computer system that, for instance, controls the 9–1–1 telephone systems, and causes a death or deaths, the current 10-year prison 

term may not be enough. This section provides the flexibility for a 

16

6 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (7)(a)(ii). 

more severe punishment when the computer crime is severe. The 

Committee believes that cyber attacks can pose a serious threat to 

life and limb and that the penalties should reflect that threat. 

Sec. 107. Provider Assistance. 

This section would ensure that providers of communications remain covered under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(e), a ‘‘no cause of action provision,’’ which protects providers from law suits when they legally assist law enforcement with an investigation under the new emergency disclosure exception created in section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Under current law, there is a ‘‘no cause of action [protection] against providers disclosing information . . . in accordance 

with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, or certification 

under [chapter 121].’’ Section 107 would add information disclosed 

under ‘‘statutory authorization,’’ to cover providers that contact authorities in emergency situations. This language was previously included in the House version of the PATRIOT Act that was reported 

unanimously out of Committee. The final version of the USA PATRIOT Act, however, adopted the Senate language that did not include this provision. 

This section would also ensure that providers of communications 

remain covered under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a)(ii), another ‘‘no cause 

of action’’ provision which protects providers from law suits when 

they are legally assisting law enforcement with an investigation 

under the new computer trespasser provision, § 2511(2)(i), created 

in the USA PATRIOT Act. 

Sec. 108. Emergencies. 

This section amends 18 U.S.C. § 3125(a)(1) to expand when law 

enforcement may use pen registers and trap and trace devices in 

an emergency situation. Law enforcement uses pen registers and 

trap and trace devices to provide information about the source or 

destination of a communication without capturing the content of 

the communication. This is the least invasive method of surveillance of electronic communications and is indispensable to investigations. Trap and trace devices can identify, for example, the 

source of phone calls placed by a kidnapper in order to identify his 

whereabouts. In ordinary circumstances, any attorney for the Government may obtain a pen/trap order by certifying to a court that 

the information collected will be relevant to a criminal investigation. In an emergency, law enforcement authorities may install a 

pen/trap device for forty-eight hours while court authorization is 

sought. 

This amendment expands the list of situations during which an 

emergency pen/trap can be used by adding immediate threats to 

national security interests and ongoing attacks on protected computers. Under current law, threats to national security interests already justify the emergency use of a full-content wiretap—a much 

more invasive tool than a pen/trap.6

The Committee notes that this section in no way changes the 

limitations under current law on the emergency use of this authority. Those limitations are: (1) a Government official authorizing an 

emergency pen/trap must determine that there are grounds upon 

17

7 18 U.S.C. § 3125(a)(2). 8 18 U.S.C. § 3125(b). 9 18 U.S.C. § 3125(c). 10See 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)-(d). 

which a court could enter a pen/trap order; 7 (2) emergency authorization lasts only forty-eight hours, within which time a court order 

must be obtained for the surveillance to continue; 8 and (3) it is a 

violation of the statute to fail to apply for an order within fortyeight hours of installation or use of the device.9

Sec. 109. Protecting Privacy. 

Section 109(a) would amend 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(b) to raise the 

penalties for a person who illegally intercepts cell-phone conversations. Under current law, § 2511(4)(b) provides lesser penalties for 

certain wiretap violations. For example, while most illegal wiretapping constitutes a 5-year felony, the statute punishes first time 

offenders who intercept a cellular phone call with a mere fine. The 

requirement that violations be committed intentionally 10 ensures 

that mere inadvertent overhearing of a brief portion of a communication is not criminalized. The Committee believes that the special penalty scheme for cell phone violations should be eliminated 

and that all wire interceptions should be treated equally. Therefore, this section makes the statutory maximum penalty for all 

such offenses the same regardless of the technology used. 

Section 109(b) amends 18 U.S.C. § 2701 to increase penalties for 

a person who invades the privacy of another person’s stored communications. Under current law, subsection 2701(b) defines the 

penalties when an individual invades the privacy of others by accessing communications in ‘‘electronic storage.’’ Such privacy invasions include, for example, the reading of an e-mail stored on an 

e-mail server awaiting delivery to its recipient. Thus, a system administrator for a company would violate this provision if, outside 

of his regular duties, he used his access to the computer system to 

read the CEO’s e-mail and use the information contained in those 

e-mails for his own financial gain. 

The Committee believes that this section is necessary because 

current law punishes what are often very significant privacy invasions as misdemeanors. Under current law, where the invasion of 

privacy occurs for commercial gain or advantage or malicious destruction, the maximum penalty is 1 year imprisonment for first 

time offenders. Violators without these mental states receive a 

maximum of 6 months in jail. The current penalty structure, in 

which all first-time offenses are misdemeanors, does not adequately 

reflect the seriousness of the offense. According to the Department 

of Justice, few (if any) prosecutions have been brought for this violation, limiting the deterrent effect of the statute. In addition, in 

order to qualify for the enhanced penalty provision, a violator must 

have the intent to cause damage or to benefit financially from the 

action. This list of aggravating mental states does not include those 

who violate the statute in furtherance of any criminal or tortious 

act. 

The amendments to 2701(b) raise the maximum criminal penalties to 5 years where the actor has the aggravating mental state 

(ten years for repeat offenders) and to 1 year for other violations 

(five years for repeat offenders). The amendments would assure 

18

11 United States v. Bach, No. 01–221, (PAM/ESS) 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21853 (D. Minn. Dec. 

14, 2001). 

that individuals who violate this section in furtherance of some 

other criminal or tortious act are appropriately punished. The Committee believes this change in the law will provide judges with the 

flexibility and discretion to impose more serious penalties for more 

serious crimes. 

Section 109(c) amends 18 U.S.C. § 3105, a 1917 provision, to clarify that a law enforcement officer does not need to be present for 

a warrant to be serviced or executed under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Due to the nature of electronic communications, much of this information is in the possession of Internet Provider Services (ISPs) and law enforcement officials often 

serve such warrants over facsimile machines and are not present 

at the site of the ISP. In a recent child pornography case, a Minnesota Federal district court, in U.S. v. Bach,11 however, ruled that 

this procedure was an unreasonable search and seizure. The Court 

found that a police officer had to be present at the time. This subsection makes it clear that a police officer does not have to be 

present at the time a warrant is served under ECPA. 

TITLE II—OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Sec. 201. Establishment of Office; Director. 

This section establishes the Office of Science and Technology 

(OST) as an independent office. The office will be under the general 

authority of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and shall no longer be housed in the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). 

The mission of the OST is to provide State and local law enforcement access to new technologies and to help develop those new 

technologies. Currently, OST is housed in NIJ, which was created 

in 1968, in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to 

support Federal criminal justice research. The mission of NIJ is to 

improve police work and the judicial system and to gain a better 

understanding of criminal behavior. NIJ was created when technology was not the overriding priority. Today, technology is a priority and the establishment of OST as an independent office will 

ensure that technology is treated as a priority. 

The Committee believes that there is a need for a real reform of 

the OJP programs and the way those programs are managed. The 

change proposed by this bill is part of a larger restructuring process. It will help the OJP to focus the necessary resources on the 

development of technology and hard science research. 

At hearings held on reforming OJP, the former Assistant Attorney General for OJP, Laurie Robinson, testified that this is one 

area OJP really needs to reorganize. States need to have a more 

clear direction as to how and where to obtain technology grants. 

This section will assist that process. Additionally, the Committee 

believes that this change will help focus at OJP on the important 

area of technology research and at the same time maintain the core 

functions for which NIJ was established. 

Today, the duties of NIJ are to:

• [research] the nature and impact of crime and delinquency;

19

12http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/about.htm (June 6, 2002).

• [develop] applied technologies, standards and tools for criminal justice practitioners;

• [evaluate] existing programs and responses to crime;

• [test] innovative concepts and program models in the field;

• [assist] policymakers, program partners, and justice agencies; and

• [disseminate] knowledge to many audiences.12

NIJ would continue to carry out all of its functions except for the 

development of applied technologies, standards, and tools. These 

would be the responsibilities of OST. Additionally, one of the NIJ’s 

responsibilities is to evaluate existing programs. To avoid a conflict 

of interest and allow NIJ to evaluate the work of OST, it makes 

sense to transfer OST outside of NIJ. This change will allow NIJ 

to maintain its integrity as an independent evaluator of OJP. 

Sec. 202. Mission of Office; Duties. 

This section establishes the mission and duties of OST to serve 

as the national focal point to improve law enforcement technology 

and to make technical assistance available to Federal, State, and 

local law enforcement agencies. This section was modified by the 

Committee with regard to subsections (3) and (4) to clarify that 

OST may use input from industry in developing technology standards; however, the Committee does not intend this modification to 

prevent OST from independently developing whatever standards it 

deems appropriate for law enforcement technology and equipment. 

This section requires the Office to award research and development work on a competitive basis. Additionally, it requires the Director of the OST to provide to Congress a needs assessment for 

Federal, State and local law enforcement and a strategic plan for 

meeting those needs. 

Sec. 203. Definition of Law Enforcement Technology. 

This section defines ‘‘law enforcement technology’’ to include 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. 

This section transfers OST and all of its assets and personnel out 

of the NIJ within OJP to be a separate office within OJP. The Attorney General shall have the authority under this section to transfer any other program or activity he or she determines is appropriate for this office and provide a report to Congress on its implementation after 1 year. The Committee believes that the Attorney 

General should review all law enforcement technology programs 

within the Department, including such programs as the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). 

Sec. 205. National Law Enforcement And Corrections Technology 

Centers. 

This section requires the Director of the OST to operate and support National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology CenVerDate May 23 2002 01:19 Jun 13, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR497.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR497
20

ters. These centers support research, development, and implementation of technology to assist law enforcement. This bill will require 

the Director of the OST to make recommendations regarding the 

effectiveness of the centers and the need for additional centers. 

Presently, OST uses the existing National Law Enforcement and 

Corrections Technology Centers as one of the primary mechanisms 

to accomplish its mission. Currently, there are five regional centers 

and one national office. 

Sec. 206. Coordination with Other Entities within Department of 

Justice. 

This section provides that the Assistant Attorney General shall 

coordinate the activities of the various bureaus whose functions relate to technology programs. In several hearings regarding the operations of OJP, it became apparent that the lack of coordination 

among the various bureaus and offices at OJP creates confusion 

and unnecessary duplication. The Committee believes that requiring more coordination among the various offices will increase efficiency and effectiveness of the programs.

21

AGENCY VIEWS


Agency1.eps
22


Agency2.eps
23


Agency3.eps
24


Agency4.eps
25


Agency5.eps
26


Agency6.eps
27

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

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

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

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

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * *

PART I—CRIMES 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS 

* * * * * * *

§ 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) 

of this section is—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3)(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more 

than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after 

a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and 

(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more 

than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(7) of this section which occurs 

after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an 

attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; øand¿

(4)(A) except as provided in paragraph (5), a fine under 

this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, 

in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under that subsection; 

(B) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 

5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection 

(a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable 

under that subsection; 

(C) except as provided in paragraph (5), a fine under this 

title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, in the 

case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(i) or (a)(5)(A)(ii), 

or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under either 

subsection, that occurs after a conviction for another offense 

under this sectionø.¿; and

28

(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.

* * * * * * *

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

COMMUNICATIONS 

* * * * * * *

§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited 

(1) * * *

(2)(a)(i)***

(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, 

landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide 

information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized 

by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to 

conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified 

person, has been provided with—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the 

information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and 

specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other 

specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or 

surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or 

surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished 

a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for 

the civil damages provided for in section 2520. No cause of action 

shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic 

communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, 

custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter. 

* * * * * * *

(4)(a)***

ø(b) If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) of this 

subsection and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purVerDate May 23 2002 01:19 Jun 13, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR497.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR497
29

poses of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under paragraph (a) is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using 

modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been 

withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication, then— ø(i) if the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone 

handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service 

communication or a paging service communication, and the 

conduct is not that described in subsection (5), the offender 

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one 

year, or both; and 

ø(ii) if the communication is the radio portion of a cellular 

telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication 

that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset 

and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication, the offender shall 

be fined under this title.¿

ø(c)¿ (b) Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection 

that consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 2512. Manufacture, distribution, possession, and advertising of wire, oral, or electronic communication 

intercepting devices prohibited 

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, 

any person who intentionally—

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) places in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other 

publication or disseminates by electronic means any advertisement of—

(i) any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing 

the content of the advertisement and knowing or having 

reason to know that the design of such device renders it 

primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications; or 

* * * * * * *

§ 2520. Recovery of civil damages authorized 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) DEFENSE.—A good faith reliance on— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

30

(3) a good faith determination that section 2511(3) or 

2511(2)(i) of this title permitted the conduct complained of; 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 121—STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS 

* * * * * * *

§ 2701. Unlawful access to stored communications 

(a) * * *

(b) PUNISHMENT.—The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—

(1) if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial 

advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain, or in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act 

in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or 

any State—

(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not 

more than øone year¿ 5 years, or both, in the case of a first 

offense under this subparagraph; and 

(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not 

more than øtwo years¿ 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and 

ø(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more 

than six months, or both, in any other case.¿

(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.

* * * * * * *

§ 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or 

records

(a) * * *

(b) EXCEPTIONS FOR DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATIONS.— A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a communication—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the 

service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service; øor¿

(6) to a law enforcement agency—

(A) if the contents—

(i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and 

(ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; 

or

31

(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act 

of 1990; or 

ø(C) if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious 

physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information without delay.¿

(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.

* * * * * * *

§ 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or 

records 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A PROVIDER DISCLOSING INFORMATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER.—No cause of action shall lie in 

any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication 

service, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons 

for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance 

with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter. 

* * * * * * *

PART II—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 205—SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 

* * * * * * *

§ 3105. Persons authorized to serve search warrant 

A search warrant may in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction or by an officer authorized by law 

to serve such warrant, but by no other person, except in aid of the 

officer on his requiring it, he being present and acting in its execution. The presence of an officer is not required for service or execution of a warrant under section 2703 when the provider of electronic 

communications service or remote computing service produces the 

information required in the warrant.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 206—PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE 

DEVICES 

* * * * * * *

§ 3125. Emergency pen register and trap and trace device installation 

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any 

investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the 

32

Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, any Assistant Attorney General, any acting Assistant Attorney General, or any Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision 

thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, who reasonably 

determines that— (1) an emergency situation exists that involves— (A) immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury 

to any person; øor¿

(B) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized 

crimeø,¿;

(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;

* * * * * * *

SECTION 102 OF THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND 

SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968

DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

SEC. 102. (a) The Assistant Attorney General shall— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) coordinate and provide staff support to coordinate the 

activities of the Office and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and 

* * * * * * *

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

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

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. [Presiding.] The Committee will be 

in order. 

When the Committee last recessed, the Judicial Improvement 

Act had been favorably reported. 

The next item on the agenda is H.R. 3482, the ‘‘Cyber Security 

Enhancement Act of 2001.’’ The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

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

Terrorism, and Homeland Security, for a motion. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

33

Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security reports favorably the bill H.R. 3482 with a single amendment in the nature of a substitute and moves its favorable recommendation to the full House. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the bill will be 

considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And the 

Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute, which the 

Members have before them, will be considered as read and considered as the original text for purposes of amendment. 

[The amendment follows:] 

34 H.L.C.

SUBCOMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF

SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 3482

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cyber Security En3 hancement Act of 2002’’.

4 TITLE I—COMPUTER CRIME

5 SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RE6 LATING TO CERTAIN COMPUTER CRIMES.

7 (a) DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SEN8 TENCING COMMISSION.—Pursuant to its authority under

9 section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in ac10 cordance with this section, the United States Sentencing

11 Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend its

12 guidelines and its policy statements applicable to persons

13 convicted of an offense under section 1030 of title 18,

14 United States Code.

15 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out this section,

16 the Sentencing Commission shall—

17 (1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and

18 policy statements reflect the serious nature of the of19 fenses described in subsection (a), the growing inci20 dence of such offenses, and the need for an effective


AI3482.AAB
35

2

H.L.C.

1 deterrent and appropriate punishment to prevent

2 such offenses;

3 (2) consider the following factors and the extent

4 to which the guidelines may or may not account for

5 them—

6 (A) the potential and actual loss resulting

7 from the offense;

8 (B) the level of sophistication and planning

9 involved in the offense;

10 (C) whether the offense was committed for

11 purposes of commercial advantage or private fi12 nancial benefit;

13 (D) whether the defendant acted with ma14 licious intent to cause harm in committing the

15 offense;

16 (E) the extent to which the offense violated

17 the privacy rights of individuals harmed;

18 (F) whether the offense involved a com19 puter used by the government in furtherance of

20 national defense, national security, or the ad21 ministration of justice;

22 (G) whether the violation was intended to

23 or had the effect of significantly interfering

24 with or disrupting a critical infrastructure; and


AI3482.AAC
36

3

H.L.C.

1 (H) whether the violation was intended to

2 or had the effect of creating a threat to public

3 health or safety, or injury to any person;

4 (3) assure reasonable consistency with other

5 relevant directives and with other sentencing guide6 lines;

7 (4) account for any additional aggravating or

8 mitigating circumstances that might justify excep9 tions to the generally applicable sentencing ranges;

10 (5) make any necessary conforming changes to

11 the sentencing guidelines; and

12 (6) assure that the guidelines adequately meet

13 the purposes of sentencing as set forth in section

14 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.

15 SEC. 101A. STUDY AND REPORT ON COMPUTER CRIMES.

16 Not later than May 1, 2003, the United States Sen17 tencing Commission shall submit a brief report to Con18 gress that explains any actions taken by the Sentencing

19 Commission in response to this Act and includes any rec20 ommendations the Commission may have regarding statu21 tory penalties for offenses under section 1030 of title 18,

22 United States Code.

23 SEC. 102. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION.

24 Section 2702(b) of title 18, United States Code, is

25 amended—


AI3482.AAD
37

4

H.L.C.

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

2 (5);

3 (2) by striking subparagraph (C) of paragraph

4 (6); and

5 (3) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the

6 end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘or’’ at the

7 end of subparagraph (A);

8 (4) by striking the period at the end of para9 graph (6) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

10 (5) by inserting after paragraph (6) the fol11 lowing:

12 ‘‘(7) to a governmental entity, if the provider,

13 in good faith, believes that an emergency involving

14 danger of death or serious physical injury to any

15 person requires disclosure of the information without

16 delay.’’.

17 SEC. 103. GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION.

18 Section 2520(d)(3) of title 18, United States Code,

19 is amended by inserting ‘‘or 2511(2)(i)’’ after ‘‘2511(3)’’.

20 SEC. 104. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION CEN21 TER.

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall estab23 lish and maintain a National Infrastructure Protection

24 Center (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘Cen25 ter’’) to serve as a national focal point for threat assessVerDate May 23 2002 01:19 Jun 13, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR497.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR497

AI3482.AAE
38

5

H.L.C.

1 ment, warning, investigation, and response to attacks on

2 the Nation’s critical infrastructure for both physical and

3 cyber sources.

4 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

5 are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 to

6 carry out this section, $125,000,000.

7 SEC. 105. INTERNET ADVERTISING OF ILLEGAL DEVICES.

8 Section 2512(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code,

9 is amended—

10 (1) by inserting ‘‘or disseminates by electronic

11 means’’ after ‘‘or other publication’’;

12 (2) by inserting ‘‘knowing the content of the

13 advertisement and’’ before ‘‘knowing or having rea14 son to know’’;

15 (3) by inserting ‘‘or transmitted’’ after ‘‘trans16 ported’’; and

17 (4) by inserting ‘‘or communication’’ after ‘‘for18 eign commerce’’.

19 SEC. 106. STRENGTHENING PENALTIES.

20 Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States Code, is

21 amended—

22 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

23 (3);


AI3482.AAF
39

6

H.L.C.

1 (2) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (C) of

2 paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘except as provided in

3 paragraph (5),’’ before ‘‘a fine under this title’’;

4 (3) by striking the period at the end of para5 graph (4)(C) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

6 (4) by adding at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly

8 causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury

9 from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i),

10 a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more

11 than 20 years, or both; and

12 ‘‘(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly

13 causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in

14 violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this

15 title or imprisonment for any term of years or for

16 life, or both.’’.

17 SEC. 107. PROVIDER ASSISTANCE.

18 (a) SECTION 2703.—

19 (1) Section 2703(e) of title 18, United States

20 Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, statutory author21 ization’’ after ‘‘subpoena’’.

22 (2) Section 2703(f) of title 18, United States

23 Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol24 lowing:


AI3482.AAG
40

7

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(3) REMEDIES.—If a provider of wire or elec2 tronic communication services or a remote com3 puting service intentionally fails to comply with a re4 quest under this subsection, the requesting govern5 mental entity may obtain appropriate relief in a civil

6 action, in addition to any other remedy or cause of

7 action that entity may have.’’.

8 (b) SECTION 2511.—Section 2511(2)(a)(ii) of title 18,

9 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, statutory

10 authorization,’’ after ‘‘court order’’ the last place it ap11 pears.

12 (c) SECTION 2706.—

13 (1) Section 2706(a) of title 18, United States

14 Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘requesting or’’ after

15 ‘‘entity’’ the first place it appears.

16 (2) Section 2706(b) of title 18, United States

17 Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘assembling or’’ after

18 ‘‘person or entity’’.

19 SEC. 108. EMERGENCIES.

20 Section 3125(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code,

21 is amended—

22 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

23 (a);

24 (2) by striking the comma at the end of sub25 paragraph (b) and inserting a semicolon; and


AI3482.AAH
41

8

H.L.C.

1 (3) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(C) an immediate threat to a national se3 curity interest; or

4 ‘‘(D) an ongoing attack on a protected

5 computer that constitutes a crime punishable by

6 a term of imprisonment greater than one

7 year;’’.

8 SEC. 109. PROTECTING PRIVACY.

9 (a) SECTION 2511.—Section 2511(4) of title 18,

10 United States Code, is amended—

11 (1) in paragraph (a), by striking ‘‘paragraph

12 (b) of this subsection or’’;

13 (2) by striking paragraph (b); and

14 (3) by redesignating paragraph (c) as para15 graph (b).

16 (b) SECTION 2701.—Section 2701(b) of title 18,

17 United States Code, is amended—

18 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, or in fur19 therance of any criminal or tortious act in violation

20 of the Constitution or laws of the United States or

21 any State’’ after ‘‘commercial gain’’;

22 (2) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘one year’’

23 and inserting ‘‘5 years’’;

24 (3) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘two

25 years’’ and inserting ‘‘10 years’’; and


AI3482.AAI
42

9

H.L.C.

1 (4) so that paragraph (2) reads as follows:

2 ‘‘(2) in any other case—

3 ‘‘(A) a fine under this title or imprison4 ment for not more than one year or both, in the

5 case of a first offense under this paragraph;

6 and

7 ‘‘(B) a fine under this title or imprison8 ment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the

9 case of an offense under this subparagraph that

10 occurs after a conviction of another offense

11 under this section.’’.

12 TITLE II—OFFICE OF SCIENCE

13 AND TECHNOLOGY

14 SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE; DIRECTOR.

15 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established

17 within the Department of Justice an Office of

18 Science and Technology (hereinafter in this title re19 ferred to as the ‘‘Office’’).

20 (2) AUTHORITY.—The Office shall be under the

21 general authority of the Assistant Attorney General,

22 Office of Justice Programs, and shall be independent

23 of the National Institute of Justice.

24 (b) DIRECTOR.—The Office shall be headed by a Di25 rector, who shall be an individual appointed based on apVerDate May 23 2002 01:19 Jun 13, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR497.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR497

AI3482.AAJ
43

10

H.L.C.

1 proval by the Office of Personnel Management of the exec2 utive qualifications of the individual.

3 SEC. 202. MISSION OF OFFICE; DUTIES.

4 (a) MISSION.—The mission of the Office shall be—

5 (1) to serve as the national focal point for work

6 on law enforcement technology; and

7 (2) to carry out programs that, through the

8 provision of equipment, training, and technical as9 sistance, improve the safety and effectiveness of law

10 enforcement technology and improve access to such

11 technology by Federal, State, and local law enforce12 ment agencies.

13 (b) DUTIES.—In carrying out its mission, the Office

14 shall have the following duties:

15 (1) To provide recommendations and advice to

16 the Attorney General.

17 (2) To establish and maintain advisory groups

18 (which shall be exempt from the provisions of the

19 Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)) to

20 assess the law enforcement technology needs of Fed21 eral, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

22 (3) To establish and maintain performance

23 standards in accordance with the National Tech24 nology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

25 (Public Law 104–113) for, and test and evaluate


AI3482.AAK
44

11

H.L.C.

1 law enforcement technologies that may be used by,

2 Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

3 (4) To establish and maintain a program to

4 certify, validate, and mark or otherwise recognize

5 law enforcement technology products that conform

6 to standards used by the Office in accordance with

7 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

8 Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–113), which may, in

9 the discretion of the Office, allow for supplier dec10 laration of conformity with such standards.

11 (5) To work with other entities within the De12 partment of Justice, other Federal agencies, and the

13 executive office of the President to establish a co14 ordinated Federal approach on issues related to law

15 enforcement technology.

16 (6) To carry out research, development, testing,

17 and evaluation in fields that would improve the safe18 ty, effectiveness, and efficiency of law enforcement

19 technologies used by Federal, State, and local law

20 enforcement agencies, including, but not limited to—

21 (A) weapons capable of preventing use by

22 unauthorized persons, including personalized

23 guns;

24 (B) protective apparel;


AI3482.AAL
45

12

H.L.C.

1 (C) bullet-resistant and explosion-resistant

2 glass;

3 (D) monitoring systems and alarm systems

4 capable of providing precise location informa5 tion;

6 (E) wire and wireless interoperable com7 munication technologies;

8 (F) tools and techniques that facilitate in9 vestigative and forensic work, including com10 puter forensics;

11 (G) equipment for particular use in

12 counterterrorism, including devices and tech13 nologies to disable terrorist devices;

14 (H) guides to assist State and local law en15 forcement agencies;

16 (I) DNA identification technologies; and

17 (J) tools and techniques that facilitate in18 vestigations of computer crime.

19 (7) To administer a program of research, devel20 opment, testing, and demonstration to improve the

21 interoperability of voice and data public safety com22 munications.

23 (8) To serve on the Technical Support Working

24 Group of the Department of Defense, and on other

25 relevant interagency panels, as requested.


AI3482.AAM
46

13

H.L.C.

1 (9) To develop, and disseminate to State and

2 local law enforcement agencies, technical assistance

3 and training materials for law enforcement per4 sonnel, including prosecutors.

5 (10) To operate the regional National Law En6 forcement and Corrections Technology Centers and,

7 to the extent necessary, establish additional centers

8 through a competitive process.

9 (11) To administer a program of acquisition,

10 research, development, and dissemination of ad11 vanced investigative analysis and forensic tools to as12 sist State and local law enforcement agencies in

13 combating cybercrime.

14 (12) To support research fellowships in support

15 of its mission.

16 (13) To serve as a clearinghouse for informa17 tion on law enforcement technologies.

18 (14) To represent the United States and State

19 and local law enforcement agencies, as requested, in

20 international activities concerning law enforcement

21 technology.

22 (15) To enter into contracts and cooperative

23 agreements and provide grants, which may require

24 in-kind or cash matches from the recipient, as nec25 essary to carry out its mission.


AI3482.AAN
47

14

H.L.C.

1 (16) To carry out other duties assigned by the

2 Attorney General to accomplish the mission of the

3 Office.

4 (c) COMPETITION REQUIRED.—Except as otherwise

5 expressly provided by law, all research and development

6 carried out by or through the Office shall be carried out

7 on a competitive basis.

8 (d) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Fed9 eral agencies shall, upon request from the Office and in

10 accordance with Federal law, provide the Office with any

11 data, reports, or other information requested, unless com12 pliance with such request is otherwise prohibited by law.

13 (e) PUBLICATIONS.—Decisions concerning publica14 tions issued by the Office shall rest solely with the Direc15 tor of the Office.

16 (f) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—The Office may transfer

17 funds to other Federal agencies or provide funding to non18 Federal entities through grants, cooperative agreements,

19 or contracts to carry out its duties under this section.

20 (g) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Director of the Office

21 shall include with the budget justification materials sub22 mitted to Congress in support of the Department of Jus23 tice budget for each fiscal year (as submitted with the

24 budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31,


AI3482.AAO
48

15

H.L.C.

1 United States Code) a report on the activities of the Of2 fice. Each such report shall include the following:

3 (1) For the period of 5 fiscal years beginning

4 with the fiscal year for which the budget is

5 submitted—

6 (A) the Director’s assessment of the needs

7 of Federal, State, and local law enforcement

8 agencies for assistance with respect to law en9 forcement technology and other matters con10 sistent with the mission of the Office; and

11 (B) a strategic plan for meeting such

12 needs of such law enforcement agencies.

13 (2) For the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year

14 for which such budget is submitted, a description of

15 the activities carried out by the Office and an eval16 uation of the extent to which those activities success17 fully meet the needs assessed under paragraph

18 (1)(A) in previous reports.

19 SEC. 203. DEFINITION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TECH20 NOLOGY.

21 For the purposes of this title, the term ‘‘law enforce22 ment technology’’ includes investigative and forensic tech23 nologies, corrections technologies, and technologies that

24 support the judicial process.


AI3482.AAP
49

16

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 204. ABOLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND

2 TECHNOLOGY OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

3 JUSTICE; TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

4 (a) TRANSFERS FROM OFFICE WITHIN NIJ.—The

5 Office of Science and Technology of the National Institute

6 of Justice is hereby abolished, and all functions and activi7 ties performed immediately before the date of the enact8 ment of this Act by the Office of Science and Technology

9 of the National Institute of Justice are hereby transferred

10 to the Office.

11 (b) AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER ADDITIONAL FUNC12 TIONS.—The Attorney General may transfer to the Office

13 any other program or activity of the Department of Jus14 tice that the Attorney General, in consultation with the

15 Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Com16 mittee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives,

17 determines to be consistent with the mission of the Office.

18 (c) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—Any balance of appropria20 tions that the Attorney General determines is avail21 able and needed to finance or discharge a function,

22 power, or duty of the Office or a program or activity

23 that is transferred to the Office shall be transferred

24 to the Office and used for any purpose for which

25 those appropriations were originally available. Bal26 ances of appropriations so transferred shall—


AI3482.AAQ
50

17

H.L.C.

1 (A) be credited to any applicable appro2 priation account of the Office; or

3 (B) be credited to a new account that may

4 be established on the books of the Department

5 of the Treasury;

6 and shall be merged with the funds already credited

7 to that account and accounted for as one fund.

8 (2) LIMITATIONS.—Balances of appropriations

9 credited to an account under paragraph (1)(A) are

10 subject only to such limitations as are specifically

11 applicable to that account. Balances of appropria12 tions credited to an account under paragraph (1)(B)

13 are subject only to such limitations as are applicable

14 to the appropriations from which they are trans15 ferred.

16 (d) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL AND ASSETS.—With

17 respect to any function, power, or duty, or any program

18 or activity, that is transferred to the Office, those employ19 ees and assets of the element of the Department of Justice

20 from which the transfer is made that the Attorney General

21 determines are needed to perform that function, power,

22 or duty, or for that program or activity, as the case may

23 be, shall be transferred to the Office.

24 (e) REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later than

25 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the


AI3482.AAR
51

18

H.L.C.

1 Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the

2 Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judici3 ary of the House of Representatives a report on the imple4 mentation of this title. The report shall—

5 (1) identify each transfer carried out pursuant

6 to subsection (b);

7 (2) provide an accounting of the amounts and

8 sources of funding available to the Office to carry

9 out its mission under existing authorizations and ap10 propriations, and set forth the future funding needs

11 of the Office;

12 (3) include such other information and rec13 ommendations as the Attorney General considers ap14 propriate.

15 SEC. 205. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CORREC16 TIONS TECHNOLOGY CENTERS.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office shall

18 operate and support National Law Enforcement and Cor19 rections Technology Centers (hereinafter in this section

20 referred to as ‘‘Centers’’) and, to the extent necessary, es21 tablish new centers through a merit-based, competitive

22 process.

23 (b) PURPOSE OF CENTERS.—The purpose of the

24 Centers shall be to—


AI3482.AAS
52

19

H.L.C.

1 (1) support research and development of law

2 enforcement technology;

3 (2) support the transfer and implementation of

4 technology;

5 (3) assist in the development and dissemination

6 of guidelines and technological standards; and

7 (4) provide technology assistance, information,

8 and support for law enforcement, corrections, and

9 criminal justice purposes.

10 (c) ANNUAL MEETING.—Each year, the Director

11 shall convene a meeting of the Centers in order to foster

12 collaboration and communication between Center partici13 pants.

14 (d) REPORT.—Not later than 12 months after the

15 date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall trans16 mit to the Congress a report assessing the effectiveness

17 of the existing system of Centers and identify the number

18 of Centers necessary to meet the technology needs of Fed19 eral, State, and local law enforcement in the United

20 States.

21 SEC. 206. COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN

22 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

23 Section 102 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

24 Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3712) is amended in subVerDate May 23 2002 01:19 Jun 13, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR497.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR497

AI3482.AAT
53

20

H.L.C.

1 section (a)(5) by inserting ‘‘coordinate and’’ before ‘‘pro2 vide’’.


AI3482.AAU
54

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Smith, to strike the last word. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

H.R. 3482, the ‘‘Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002,’’ will 

strengthen penalties to better reflect the seriousness of 

cyberattacks. It will assist State and local law enforcement through 

better grant management, accountability, and dissemination of 

technical advice and information; will help protect the Nation’s critical infrastructure; and will enhance privacy protections. H.R. 3482 

was approved by the Subcommittee on a voice vote. 

Last summer, the Subcommittee on Crime held three hearings on 

the growing threat of cybercrime and cyberterrorism. In fact, the 

Subcommittee held more hearings on the subject of cybercrime 

than any other issue. Cybercrime knows no borders or restraints 

and can harm the Nation’s economy and endanger the public’s 

health and safety. 

Cybercrime is a growing concern, but many are reluctant to report it. A recent survey conducted by the FBI and the Computer 

Security Institute revealed most corporations and Government 

agencies had been victims of computer hackers, but they rarely report these security breaches to authorities. 

While nearly 90 percent of the respondents detected breaches in 

the last year, only 34 percent reported the attacks. Common forms 

of attack included denials of services, viruses and worms, financial 

fraud, and Web site defacement. 

But businesses and Government agencies aren’t the only victims. 

Last year, Mr. Chairman, nearly 10,000 Americans reported losing 

$18 million on online scams. Law enforcement officials and private 

industry representatives agree that better coordination, cooperation, and information sharing are needed, as well as stronger penalties for cyberattacks. 

In this legislation, penalties are strengthened by directing the 

United States Sentencing Commission to review and, if appropriate, amend its guidelines to provide a wider range of criteria in 

sentencing cybercrimes. It also increases penalties for those who 

cause or attempt to cause death or serious bodily injury through 

cyberattacks. 

This bill contains provisions that protect Internet service providers who, for example, share information about potential terrorist 

attacks when they legally assist law enforcement officers under the 

new USA PATRIOT Act. 

Finally, the bill helps protect the Nation’s critical infrastructure 

by providing State and local law enforcement personnel access to 

new technologies through better grant management and accountability. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members may 

insert opening statements in the record at this point in time. 

And since there are no Members from the minority present, without objection, we will set this bill temporarily aside, because I 

know that there are some amendments that the minority wishes to 

offer. 

Well, I see the gentleman from Virginia present. 

55

Are there amendments? 

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have—— Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman from Texas, the 

Subcommittee Chair, have an amendment? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that 

my amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Already been given—the gentleman 

from Texas has an amendment at the desk. 

The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

3482. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment 

will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The amendment follows:]

56 H.L.C.

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF SUBSTITUTE TO

H.R. 3482

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cyber Security En3 hancement Act of 2002’’.

4 TITLE I—COMPUTER CRIME

5 SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RE6 LATING TO CERTAIN COMPUTER CRIMES.

7 (a) DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SEN8 TENCING COMMISSION.—Pursuant to its authority under

9 section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in ac10 cordance with this section, the United States Sentencing

11 Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend its

12 guidelines and its policy statements applicable to persons

13 convicted of an offense under section 1030 of title 18,

14 United States Code.

15 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out this section,

16 the Sentencing Commission shall—

17 (1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and

18 policy statements reflect the serious nature of the of19 fenses described in subsection (a), the growing inci20 dence of such offenses, and the need for an effective


A3482.AAB
57

2

H.L.C.

1 deterrent and appropriate punishment to prevent

2 such offenses;

3 (2) consider the following factors and the extent

4 to which the guidelines may or may not account for

5 them—

6 (A) the potential and actual loss resulting

7 from the offense;

8 (B) the level of sophistication and planning

9 involved in the offense;

10 (C) whether the offense was committed for

11 purposes of commercial advantage or private fi12 nancial benefit;

13 (D) whether the defendant acted with ma14 licious intent to cause harm in committing the

15 offense;

16 (E) the extent to which the offense violated

17 the privacy rights of individuals harmed;

18 (F) whether the offense involved a com19 puter used by the government in furtherance of

20 national defense, national security, or the ad21 ministration of justice;

22 (G) whether the violation was intended to

23 or had the effect of significantly interfering

24 with or disrupting a critical infrastructure; and


A3482.AAC
58

3

H.L.C.

1 (H) whether the violation was intended to

2 or had the effect of creating a threat to public

3 health or safety, or injury to any person;

4 (3) assure reasonable consistency with other

5 relevant directives and with other sentencing guide6 lines;

7 (4) account for any additional aggravating or

8 mitigating circumstances that might justify excep9 tions to the generally applicable sentencing ranges;

10 (5) make any necessary conforming changes to

11 the sentencing guidelines; and

12 (6) assure that the guidelines adequately meet

13 the purposes of sentencing as set forth in section

14 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.

15 SEC. 101A. STUDY AND REPORT ON COMPUTER CRIMES.

16 Not later than May 1, 2003, the United States Sen17 tencing Commission shall submit a brief report to Con18 gress that explains any actions taken by the Sentencing

19 Commission in response to this Act and includes any rec20 ommendations the Commission may have regarding statu21 tory penalties for offenses under section 1030 of title 18,

22 United States Code.

23 SEC. 102. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION.

24 Section 2702(b) of title 18, United States Code, is

25 amended—


A3482.AAD
59

4

H.L.C.

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

2 (5);

3 (2) by striking subparagraph (C) of paragraph

4 (6); and

5 (3) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the

6 end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘or’’ at the

7 end of subparagraph (A);

8 (4) by striking the period at the end of para9 graph (6) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

10 (5) by inserting after paragraph (6) the fol11 lowing:

12 ‘‘(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental

13 entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an

14 emergency involving danger of death or serious phys15 ical injury to any person requires disclosure without

16 delay of communications relating to the emer17 gency.’’.

18 SEC. 103. GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION.

19 Section 2520(d)(3) of title 18, United States Code,

20 is amended by inserting ‘‘or 2511(2)(i)’’ after ‘‘2511(3)’’.

21 SEC. 104. NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION CEN22 TER.

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall estab24 lish and maintain a National Infrastructure Protection

25 Center (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘CenVerDate May 23 2002 01:19 Jun 13, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR497.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR497

A3482.AAE
60

5

H.L.C.

1 ter’’) to serve as a national focal point for threat assess2 ment, warning, investigation, and response to attacks on

3 the Nation’s critical infrastructure for both physical and

4 cyber sources.

5 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

6 are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 to

7 carry out this section, $125,000,000.

8 SEC. 105. INTERNET ADVERTISING OF ILLEGAL DEVICES.

9 Section 2512(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code,

10 is amended—

11 (1) by inserting ‘‘or disseminates by electronic

12 means’’ after ‘‘or other publication’’; and

13 (2) by inserting ‘‘knowing the content of the

14 advertisement and’’ before ‘‘knowing or having rea15 son to know’’.

16 SEC. 106. STRENGTHENING PENALTIES.

17 Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States Code, is

18 amended—

19 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

20 (3);

21 (2) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (C) of

22 paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘except as provided in

23 paragraph (5),’’ before ‘‘a fine under this title’’;

24 (3) by striking the period at the end of para25 graph (4)(C) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and


A3482.AAF
61

6

H.L.C.

1 (4) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly

3 causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury

4 from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i),

5 a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more

6 than 20 years, or both; and

7 ‘‘(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly

8 causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in

9 violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this

10 title or imprisonment for any term of years or for

11 life, or both.’’.

12 SEC. 107. PROVIDER ASSISTANCE.

13 (a) SECTION 2703.—Section 2703(e) of title 18,

14 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, statutory

15 authorization’’ after ‘‘subpoena’’.

16 (b) SECTION 2511.—Section 2511(2)(a)(ii) of title 18,

17 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, statutory

18 authorization,’’ after ‘‘court order’’ the last place it ap19 pears.

20 SEC. 108. EMERGENCIES.

21 Section 3125(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code,

22 is amended—

23 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

24 (a);


A3482.AAG
62

7

H.L.C.

1 (2) by striking the comma at the end of sub2 paragraph (b) and inserting a semicolon; and

3 (3) by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(C) an immediate threat to a national se5 curity interest; or

6 ‘‘(D) an ongoing attack on a protected

7 computer (as defined in section 1030) that con8 stitutes a crime punishable by a term of impris9 onment greater than one year;’’.

10 SEC. 109. PROTECTING PRIVACY.

11 (a) SECTION 2511.—Section 2511(4) of title 18,

12 United States Code, is amended—

13 (1) by striking paragraph (b); and

14 (2) by redesignating paragraph (c) as para15 graph (b).

16 (b) SECTION 2701.—Section 2701(b) of title 18,

17 United States Code, is amended—

18 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, or in fur19 therance of any criminal or tortious act in violation

20 of the Constitution or laws of the United States or

21 any State’’ after ‘‘commercial gain’’;

22 (2) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘one year’’

23 and inserting ‘‘5 years’’;

24 (3) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘two

25 years’’ and inserting ‘‘10 years’’; and


A3482.AAH
63

8

H.L.C.

1 (4) so that paragraph (2) reads as follows:

2 ‘‘(2) in any other case—

3 ‘‘(A) a fine under this title or imprison4 ment for not more than one year or both, in the

5 case of a first offense under this paragraph;

6 and

7 ‘‘(B) a fine under this title or imprison8 ment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the

9 case of an offense under this subparagraph that

10 occurs after a conviction of another offense

11 under this section.’’.

12 TITLE II—OFFICE OF SCIENCE

13 AND TECHNOLOGY

14 SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE; DIRECTOR.

15 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established

17 within the Department of Justice an Office of

18 Science and Technology (hereinafter in this title re19 ferred to as the ‘‘Office’’).

20 (2) AUTHORITY.—The Office shall be under the

21 general authority of the Assistant Attorney General,

22 Office of Justice Programs, and shall be independent

23 of the National Institute of Justice.

24 (b) DIRECTOR.—The Office shall be headed by a Di25 rector, who shall be an individual appointed based on apVerDate May 23 2002 01:19 Jun 13, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR497.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR497

A3482.AAI
64

9

H.L.C.

1 proval by the Office of Personnel Management of the exec2 utive qualifications of the individual.

3 SEC. 202. MISSION OF OFFICE; DUTIES.

4 (a) MISSION.—The mission of the Office shall be—

5 (1) to serve as the national focal point for work

6 on law enforcement technology; and

7 (2) to carry out programs that, through the

8 provision of equipment, training, and technical as9 sistance, improve the safety and effectiveness of law

10 enforcement technology and improve access to such

11 technology by Federal, State, and local law enforce12 ment agencies.

13 (b) DUTIES.—In carrying out its mission, the Office

14 shall have the following duties:

15 (1) To provide recommendations and advice to

16 the Attorney General.

17 (2) To establish and maintain advisory groups

18 (which shall be exempt from the provisions of the

19 Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)) to

20 assess the law enforcement technology needs of Fed21 eral, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

22 (3) To establish and maintain performance

23 standards in accordance with the National Tech24 nology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

25 (Public Law 104–113) for, and test and evaluate


A3482.AAJ
65

10

H.L.C.

1 law enforcement technologies that may be used by,

2 Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

3 (4) To establish and maintain a program to

4 certify, validate, and mark or otherwise recognize

5 law enforcement technology products that conform

6 to standards used by the Office in accordance with

7 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

8 Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–113), which may, in

9 the discretion of the Office, allow for supplier dec10 laration of conformity with such standards.

11 (5) To work with other entities within the De12 partment of Justice, other Federal agencies, and the

13 executive office of the President to establish a co14 ordinated Federal approach on issues related to law

15 enforcement technology.

16 (6) To carry out research, development, testing,

17 and evaluation in fields that would improve the safe18 ty, effectiveness, and efficiency of law enforcement

19 technologies used by Federal, State, and local law

20 enforcement agencies, including, but not limited to—

21 (A) weapons capable of preventing use by

22 unauthorized persons, including personalized

23 guns;

24 (B) protective apparel;


A3482.AAK
66

11

H.L.C.

1 (C) bullet-resistant and explosion-resistant

2 glass;

3 (D) monitoring systems and alarm systems

4 capable of providing precise location informa5 tion;

6 (E) wire and wireless interoperable com7 munication technologies;

8 (F) tools and techniques that facilitate in9 vestigative and forensic work, including com10 puter forensics;

11 (G) equipment for particular use in

12 counterterrorism, including devices and tech13 nologies to disable terrorist devices;

14 (H) guides to assist State and local law en15 forcement agencies;

16 (I) DNA identification technologies; and

17 (J) tools and techniques that facilitate in18 vestigations of computer crime.

19 (7) To administer a program of research, devel20 opment, testing, and demonstration to improve the

21 interoperability of voice and data public safety com22 munications.

23 (8) To serve on the Technical Support Working

24 Group of the Department of Defense, and on other

25 relevant interagency panels, as requested.


A3482.AAL
67

12

H.L.C.

1 (9) To develop, and disseminate to State and

2 local law enforcement agencies, technical assistance

3 and training materials for law enforcement per4 sonnel, including prosecutors.

5 (10) To operate the regional National Law En6 forcement and Corrections Technology Centers and,

7 to the extent necessary, establish additional centers

8 through a competitive process.

9 (11) To administer a program of acquisition,

10 research, development, and dissemination of ad11 vanced investigative analysis and forensic tools to as12 sist State and local law enforcement agencies in

13 combating cybercrime.

14 (12) To support research fellowships in support

15 of its mission.

16 (13) To serve as a clearinghouse for informa17 tion on law enforcement technologies.

18 (14) To represent the United States and State

19 and local law enforcement agencies, as requested, in

20 international activities concerning law enforcement

21 technology.

22 (15) To enter into contracts and cooperative

23 agreements and provide grants, which may require

24 in-kind or cash matches from the recipient, as nec25 essary to carry out its mission.


A3482.AAM
68

13

H.L.C.

1 (16) To carry out other duties assigned by the

2 Attorney General to accomplish the mission of the

3 Office.

4 (c) COMPETITION REQUIRED.—Except as otherwise

5 expressly provided by law, all research and development

6 carried out by or through the Office shall be carried out

7 on a competitive basis.

8 (d) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Fed9 eral agencies shall, upon request from the Office and in

10 accordance with Federal law, provide the Office with any

11 data, reports, or other information requested, unless com12 pliance with such request is otherwise prohibited by law.

13 (e) PUBLICATIONS.—Decisions concerning publica14 tions issued by the Office shall rest solely with the Direc15 tor of the Office.

16 (f) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—The Office may transfer

17 funds to other Federal agencies or provide funding to non18 Federal entities through grants, cooperative agreements,

19 or contracts to carry out its duties under this section.

20 (g) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Director of the Office

21 shall include with the budget justification materials sub22 mitted to Congress in support of the Department of Jus23 tice budget for each fiscal year (as submitted with the

24 budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31,


A3482.AAN
69

14

H.L.C.

1 United States Code) a report on the activities of the Of2 fice. Each such report shall include the following:

3 (1) For the period of 5 fiscal years beginning

4 with the fiscal year for which the budget is

5 submitted—

6 (A) the Director’s assessment of the needs

7 of Federal, State, and local law enforcement

8 agencies for assistance with respect to law en9 forcement technology and other matters con10 sistent with the mission of the Office; and

11 (B) a strategic plan for meeting such

12 needs of such law enforcement agencies.

13 (2) For the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year

14 for which such budget is submitted, a description of

15 the activities carried out by the Office and an eval16 uation of the extent to which those activities success17 fully meet the needs assessed under paragraph

18 (1)(A) in previous reports.

19 SEC. 203. DEFINITION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TECH20 NOLOGY.

21 For the purposes of this title, the term ‘‘law enforce22 ment technology’’ includes investigative and forensic tech23 nologies, corrections technologies, and technologies that

24 support the judicial process.


A3482.AAO
70

15

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 204. ABOLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND

2 TECHNOLOGY OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

3 JUSTICE; TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

4 (a) TRANSFERS FROM OFFICE WITHIN NIJ.—The

5 Office of Science and Technology of the National Institute

6 of Justice is hereby abolished, and all functions and activi7 ties performed immediately before the date of the enact8 ment of this Act by the Office of Science and Technology

9 of the National Institute of Justice are hereby transferred

10 to the Office.

11 (b) AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER ADDITIONAL FUNC12 TIONS.—The Attorney General may transfer to the Office

13 any other program or activity of the Department of Jus14 tice that the Attorney General, in consultation with the

15 Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Com16 mittee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives,

17 determines to be consistent with the mission of the Office.

18 (c) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—Any balance of appropria20 tions that the Attorney General determines is avail21 able and needed to finance or discharge a function,

22 power, or duty of the Office or a program or activity

23 that is transferred to the Office shall be transferred

24 to the Office and used for any purpose for which

25 those appropriations were originally available. Bal26 ances of appropriations so transferred shall—


A3482.AAP
71

16

H.L.C.

1 (A) be credited to any applicable appro2 priation account of the Office; or

3 (B) be credited to a new account that may

4 be established on the books of the Department

5 of the Treasury;

6 and shall be merged with the funds already credited

7 to that account and accounted for as one fund.

8 (2) LIMITATIONS.—Balances of appropriations

9 credited to an account under paragraph (1)(A) are

10 subject only to such limitations as are specifically

11 applicable to that account. Balances of appropria12 tions credited to an account under paragraph (1)(B)

13 are subject only to such limitations as are applicable

14 to the appropriations from which they are trans15 ferred.

16 (d) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL AND ASSETS.—With

17 respect to any function, power, or duty, or any program

18 or activity, that is transferred to the Office, those employ19 ees and assets of the element of the Department of Justice

20 from which the transfer is made that the Attorney General

21 determines are needed to perform that function, power,

22 or duty, or for that program or activity, as the case may

23 be, shall be transferred to the Office.

24 (e) REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later than

25 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the


A3482.AAQ
72

17

H.L.C.

1 Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the

2 Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judici3 ary of the House of Representatives a report on the imple4 mentation of this title. The report shall—

5 (1) identify each transfer carried out pursuant

6 to subsection (b);

7 (2) provide an accounting of the amounts and

8 sources of funding available to the Office to carry

9 out its mission under existing authorizations and ap10 propriations, and set forth the future funding needs

11 of the Office;

12 (3) include such other information and rec13 ommendations as the Attorney General considers ap14 propriate.

15 SEC. 205. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CORREC16 TIONS TECHNOLOGY CENTERS.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office shall

18 operate and support National Law Enforcement and Cor19 rections Technology Centers (hereinafter in this section

20 referred to as ‘‘Centers’’) and, to the extent necessary, es21 tablish new centers through a merit-based, competitive

22 process.

23 (b) PURPOSE OF CENTERS.—The purpose of the

24 Centers shall be to—


A3482.AAR
73

18

H.L.C.

1 (1) support research and development of law

2 enforcement technology;

3 (2) support the transfer and implementation of

4 technology;

5 (3) assist in the development and dissemination

6 of guidelines and technological standards; and

7 (4) provide technology assistance, information,

8 and support for law enforcement, corrections, and

9 criminal justice purposes.

10 (c) ANNUAL MEETING.—Each year, the Director

11 shall convene a meeting of the Centers in order to foster

12 collaboration and communication between Center partici13 pants.

14 (d) REPORT.—Not later than 12 months after the

15 date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall trans16 mit to the Congress a report assessing the effectiveness

17 of the existing system of Centers and identify the number

18 of Centers necessary to meet the technology needs of Fed19 eral, State, and local law enforcement in the United

20 States.

21 SEC. 206. COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN

22 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

23 Section 102 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

24 Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3712) is amended in subVerDate May 23 2002 01:19 Jun 13, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR497.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR497

A3482.AAS
74

19

H.L.C.

1 section (a)(5) by inserting ‘‘coordinate and’’ before ‘‘pro2 vide’’.


A3482.AAT
75

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And without objection, this amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered the original 

text for purposes of amendment. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute at the suggestion of legislative counsel. This amendment makes only a few 

discrete changes to the bill. 

First, section 102 is amended at the request of the Center for Democracy and Technology. The amendment clarifies that if a communication provider believes in good faith that a life-threatening 

emergency exists and discloses electronically stored information relating to the emergency to a Federal, State or local government official, then the provider will not be held liable. 

Second, section 105 is amended technically to clarify that dissemination by electronic means is another form of publication. 

Third, section 107 is amended to strike the reimbursement provisions in the remedies section. Neither industry nor the Department 

of Justice have been able to agree on the nature of the problem 

here or on a solution. It will be better to request a study by the 

General Accounting Office on both the issue of compliance by communication providers and preserving records and the issue of reimbursement by the Government entities that request the providers’

compliance. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment strengthens the bill and 

urge my colleagues to support it. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there any amendments to this 

new amendment in the nature of a substitute? 

The gentleman from Virginia. 

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

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. Is the clerk clear which amendment to report? 

Mr. SCOTT. I just have one. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

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

substitute to H.R. 3482, offered by Mr. Scott. On page 4, at the end 

of section 102, insert the following new subsection: (c) Reporting of 

disclosures——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. 

[The amendment follows:]

76

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the gentleman from Virginia is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m pleased to join you in convening this markup of the 

cybersecurity act of 2001. And generally, I support the concept of 

allowing Internet service providers to give information to law enforcement officials when there is an emergency—of death or serious 

bodily injury. 

Under the current law, an ISP can only release information if it 

reasonably believes that immediate danger exists. And I support 

that change, too—believe it’s in good faith. 

If the FBI presents information that the ISP believes, if true, 

could present a threat of death or serious injury, the ISP dispatcher on duty shouldn’t have to wake up the corporate counsel 

to determine what to do. They ought to give up the information. If 

there’s time to do all the—check with the corporate counsel, then 

the FBI could have just gone to the magistrate or judge and gotten 

a search warrant. 

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the bill. This amendment clarifies 

one part of it. It’s been, as I understand it, worked with staff, requiring reporting disclosures, so that the Attorney General will report each year how often these procedures are used, so we have 

some handle on what we’re dealing with. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Is it the intent of the amendment that this publication would be the number but not necessarily the entities that 

disclose? There’d be anonymity, a compilation, or not? 

Mr. SCOTT. It says the number of customers or subscribers, not 

the name of the customer or subscriber. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, it says: report to the Attorney General, stating the subparagraph under which the disclosure was made. 


3482S.eps
77

I think it’s ambiguous. I want to make sure—I think it’s fine to 

have a compilation, but if we have the individual entities, I think 

it would be a deterrent. 

Mr. SCOTT. The intent is the number of customers or subscribers 

whom the information disclosed pertained, the number of communications. Where it says ‘‘entity,’’ that’s the Government entity. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay, thank you very much. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I’m going to express a couple of concerns about this amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask the gentleman from Virginia—and I will say that I 

haven’t seen this amendment until right now, and it comes as a 

surprise to me—that it seems to me—a couple of the concerns that 

I had would be, first of all, unfunded mandates, in the sense that 

we’re adding burdens to State and local governments to compile all 

this information. And I sort of have a Constitutional objection to 

that. 

It also seems that we’re setting a precedent here in requiring reports that might impose a burden on the Administration and just 

add to the bureaucracy rather than solving any particular problem. 

And I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do. But as I 

recall, if the gentleman is trying to find out whether there’s been 

an abuse of the process or whether there’s been violations of an individual’s civil liberties and so forth, that just reporting the items 

that the gentleman has in this amendment is not going to necessarily disclose that. And so what I would like to do is to work 

in good faith with the gentleman to refine the language, so that we 

can—if the gentleman—and it’s a worthy goal—try to ferret out 

any abuse by law enforcement officials without overreaching. 

Mr. SCOTT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. I’d be happy to yield. 

Mr. SCOTT. This anticipates that if a Government entity takes 

advantage of the section, within 90 days, they’ll report that fact to 

the Attorney General. And the Attorney General shall publish a 1-

year summary, a single report, not an annual report, a single report, so that we can get a handle on what happened during the 

first year of the use of this section. 

It is not anticipated that this section would be used very often, 

so there shouldn’t be—if there is in fact an administrative burden, 

that means it is being used a lot more than you and I anticipate 

that it would be used. 

But we just say that, if the Government entity gets information, 

they’ll just let the Attorney General know, and the Attorney General will wrap it up in one report and publish it, so it should not 

be a burden. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, it may not be as much of a burden as it would 

be if they were doing these reports on a regular basis. 

78

Mr. Chairman, I think I am not going to object to this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it, with the understanding, 

I might say, if I may engage the gentleman from Virginia in a colloquy, that he is not going to seek to do this in future years; this 

will be a one-time evaluation of the process. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, the expectation is that, if things go well, you 

would not need to. But if there is abuse—you would have to pass 

a new law to get an additional—additional reports. So, I mean, the 

thing essentially sunsets itself. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Okay, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to acknowledge that my colleague from Virginia is acting in good faith and not trying to increase the burden on the Government, and I won’t object to this. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Scott amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

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

Are there further amendments? 

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania. 

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the Subcommittee amendment in the 

nature of a substitute to H.R. 3482, offered by Ms. Hart, Mr. Berman, and Ms. Lofgren. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. 

[The amendment follows:]

79

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My amendment is also sponsored by Mr. Berman and Ms. 

Lofgren. It addresses an ambiguity in the current law for warrants 

issued under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The 

amendment also addresses issues we raised in the passage of the 

USA PATRIOT Act. It would clarify that a law enforcement officer 

does not need to be present for a warrant executed under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. 

With increased communications through e-mail and other activities on the Internet, acquiring access to this information is essential for any successful investigation. Much of this information is in 

the hands of a third party ISP, and law enforcement must obtain 


3482H.eps
80

this information directly from that ISP. While the ECPA search 

warrants are issued by neutral magistrates, they are not generally 

executed like traditional search warrants. Law enforcement officials do not routinely enter the ISP’s centers; rather, the ISP accepts the warrant, assigns it to network technicians to search for 

the requested information, then delivers that information in a suitable format to the officer. 

Recently, though, a Michigan Federal district court, in U.S. v. 

Bach, ruled that an officer must actually be present during the execution of the ECPA search warrants. That really does change what 

practice has been. 

The court had applied a provision originally passed in 1917, 

which is intended to require officers to be present during the execution of coercive, physical search. Not only has this notion never before been recognized by a court, but it raises a variety of additional 

problems that my amendment would seek to resolve. 

First, the 1917 provision was designed to protect privacy, but application of that provision to the ECPA warrant actually hinders 

individual privacy. If an officer is required to be present during the 

execution of that warrant, they will have access to all information, 

including the information of additional consumers who aren’t 

named in that warrant, that is, that the ISP’s technician has to review to fill the requirements of the warrant. The court’s ruling actually harms the privacy rights of individuals. 

Second, requiring that an officer be present raises a variety of 

practical problems for the execution of the warrant. Investigations 

will be halted until a law enforcement officer arrives at each location. More than one ISP may have relevant information, and that 

information may be stored in more than one location, meaning that 

an officer must be at each location. This is a drain on the resources 

of law enforcement agencies. 

Third, the requirement imperils any pending case where a law 

enforcement official has acquired information from an ISP without 

meeting the requirement established by that court. 

Finally, this amendment is practical, as it puts into law established and very workable practice. A large ISP may receive as 

many as 500 requests a month for what is fairly straightforward 

information. 

To require law enforcement to be present when each amendment 

is executed is not practical. 

The amendment clarifies, again, that an officer need not be 

present during the execution of a warrant granted under the 

ECPA. It helps law enforcement, it helps ISPs, and most importantly, it protects the private information of the consumers that are 

involved with that ISP. 

And I ask for the support of the amendment, and I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly supportive of this 

amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Berman and 

Ms. Hart, for co-sponsoring it. 

81

And I think this is a perfect example of how laws created long 

ago for the off-line world really don’t make any sense in the online 

world. It doesn’t make a lot of sense that law enforcement that 

should be present in a physical search, because they have, potentially, a role to play, would have to be present, overlooking a technician’s should and, for the most part, not even understanding, 

probably, what that technician is doing. 

So I think this does no harm and certainly does a lot of good in 

being efficient. And I strongly support the amendment and thank 

the gentlelady for taking the lead on this, and would yield additional time to Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I’ll be very 

brief, because I think the author of the amendment described it 

quite completely and well. 

It’s a direct result of a court interpretation, and it’s somewhat 

counterintuitive, because while you might normally want to think 

that it makes sense to have an officer serve the warrant, when 

you’re dealing with the ISPs, they’re getting thousands of warrants, 

so it’s very inefficient in terms of time. But it also raises some privacy concerns, because it allows that officer to have access to communications that are outside the scope of the investigation. 

So both from an efficiency point of view and a privacy point of 

view, I think this amendment is appropriate and urge its passage. 

And I yield back to the gentlelady. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, to avoid asking 

for an additional 5 minutes, I would also like to praise the underlying bill, the provision establishing the National Law Enforcement 

Corrections Technology Center. 

Recently, I had occasion to try and discover, or at least have validated, a technology that is being deployed for biometrics. And 

there’s a lot of technology in Silicon Valley; this is a technology 

that is not coming out of Silicon Valley. In fact, it’s licensed to a 

firm in Massachusetts—having to do with iris scans. And it looks 

to be the cheapest and most reliable form of biometrics. 

And yet, we would not want to deploy it without some kind of 

assessment or validation from a disinterested party. I asked NIST 

to take a look at the technology and to tell me whether or not it 

was as good as it appeared and was claimed. 

But I would just like to note that the establishment of this National Law Enforcement Corrections Technology Center in the underlying bill is an excellent advance to make sure that we are deploying the right technology in law enforcement as well as other security agencies. 

So not only will this amendment make the execution of warrants 

tech-friendly, the underlying bill also improves it. 

And I yield back my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

82

If there are no further amendments, the Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. The question is on the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute as amended. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. 

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

3482 favorably as amended by the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute. 

All in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the motion to 

report favorably is agreed to. 

Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to 

conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is 

directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and all 

Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House rules, in 

which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority 

views.

Æ