Immed from Page 3 100 being dropped to get a city contractor's Teanco. hey were licensed for everywhere In linols, except Chica- Why? Because it is takes longer to do it the Chicago way. So at a time when housing is scarce and the trend is toward AND THAT IS STILI. another reason he should he fired Now I'm going to say something that might hurt the may. or feelings, but I just have to do it, even on a Sunday. Mayer Bossy, nothing I've said here is news to you. You know all about it. If you don't, then you don't have the smarts to be in your job. But I'm sure you have the smarts. And I think I know why you would prefer not to unk He's a union boss. And the tradition in this town is that City Well, I have to point out that there are 3 million Chicagoani So take a chance. Show some of these plucked chickens that United States Department of Justice ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CRIMINAL DIVISION 976 Honorable Robert F. Drinan Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the House Judiciary Committee House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Drinan : I have been following with interest the reports of the Subcommittee's recent actions with respect to the Criminal Code Reform effort and am pleased to note that, in general, significant progress appears to have been made. - There is, however, a vital area in which the Subcommittee's draft continues to cause great concern namely the area of public corruption. Senator Percy recently placed into the Congressional Record the first report to Congress (enclosed herewith) on the operations of the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, which has the responsibility for administering present federal statutes addressed to criminal conduct involving corruption by federal, state, and local governmental officials. The Senator commended, justifiably in my view, the work of the Section, and stressed that detecting and prosecuting public corruption at all levels of government should continue to be one of the highest priorities of the federal criminal justice system. That view is shared by myself, by the Attorney General, and by the Administration. The report of the Section shows that Departmental efforts in this important area have dramatically increased since 1970 and that last year 91 federal officials, 56 state officials and 127 local officials were convicted of corruption offenses. With regard to state and local officials, these convictions almost all refleet successful prosecutions under one or a combination of four existing federal criminal statutes. These are (1) the "under color of official right" branch of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, (2) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statutes (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., through the inclusion of governmental entities in the definition of "enterprise", (3) the bribery provisions of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 1952, and (4) the "honest and faithful public servant" concept embodied in the mail and wire fraud laws, 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1343. What is profoundly disturbing both to me and the Department of Justice is the fact that, in its present form, the Subcommittee draft of a new criminal code would either eliminate or make harmful changes in all four of these crucial statutes. There is no valid reason for weakening the federal ability to combat governmental corruption by state and local public servants. The urgency of federal involvement is underscored by the fact that, for obvious reasons, states and localities themselves are frequently disabled from conducting an effective investigation and prosecution of such corruption offenses. The intolerable consequence of removing federal authoritity to prosecute corrupt state and local government officials is that in many such instances there will be no investigation or prosecution of their crimes. We strongly urge, therefore, that at a minimum, the Subcommittee bill be amended to reinstate the four present federal statutes that have been utilized so successfully by the Department in recent years or to provide equally comprehensive substitutes. It should be noted that these four provisions differ in their scope and focus and that a retention of only some of the provisions will create gaps in the present coverage of federal criminal anti-corruption statutes that would undermine enforcement efforts in this priority area. Beyond that, thought should be given to ways of strengthening, not weakening, the federal capacity to vindicate such crimes which, as Senator Percy observed, threaten the core of our system of government by "undermin[ing] both the ability of Government to function effectively, and the faith that the citizenry places in it." What is crucial, however, is that the Subcommittee not eliminate or substantially curtail our ability to pursue one of our major enforcement priorities public corruption. I would welcome having an opportunity in the coming weeks to address the Subcommittee in a comprehensive way on the draft when the Subcommittee has completed its initial markup phase. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It is my understanding, from talking with Mr. REFLIN, that it would be unlikely that he would be prepared to go ahead with the amendment tomorrow. Mr. STENNIS. Yes. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Of course, that might be possible tomorrow, but if that were not possible, he would be as-sured that the amendment could be carried over until Thursday. Mr. STENNIS. Yes. I do not object to Its being carried over, but I would like the agreement to provide that it would be called up Thursday morning if not before, so as to assure handling of the bill on Thursday. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That was my understanding, that Thursday morning would be the agreed time, yes. Mr. President, before the Chair puts the question on the request, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk ill call the roll The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I est unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, if the request is agreed to, it is with the understanding that the Senate will resume consideration of the energy legislation on Wednesday. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request temporarily. DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill S. 932. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presdent, what is the pending business? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin to the energy bill ADJOURNMENT Mr. ROSERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment for 2 seconds. There being no objection, the Senate, at 5:34 pm on Monday, November 5. 1979, adjourned until 5:34:02 pm, the same day. APTER ADJOURNMENT MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1979 The Senate met at 5:34:02 pm, pursuant to adjournment, and was called to order by Hon. PAUL E. TSONCAS, & Senator from the State of Massachusetts THE JOURNAL SENATE I ask unanimous consent that the readMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, ing of the Journal of the proceedings be dispensed with The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a brief period for the transaction of routine morning business not to exceed beyond 1 minute, that Senators may speak in that I minute, that no resolu tions come over under the rule, that a call of the calendar under rule VII and VIII be dispensed with and that no action under rule XIV transpire... objection? If not, it is so ordered The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, in March of 1976, the public integrity section was created within the Department of Justice. Its purpose was to consolidate and coordinate Federal efforts against corruption of public officials. Last year, in the Ethics in Government Act, the Congress expressed its strong support for the work being done by the public integrity section. At my request, this act Included a requirement that the Attorney General report annually to Coagress on the activities and operations of this section... The first report includes a complete list of public corruption cases from March 1976 through June 1979 in which indictments were returned, and for which the public integrity section itself had full or shared responsibility. Additionally, the Attorney General also submitted to the Congress a report compiled by the public integrity section which out lines the Federal prosecutions of corrupt public officials from 1970 to 1978, which were carried out by both the public integrity section and the individual US. attorneys offices. I ask unanimous consent that portions of these reports be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered See exhibit 15 November 5, 1979 the citizenry places in it. The above sta tistics indicate that the public integrity section and the individual U.S. attorneys' offices are performing an important and necessary function in a vicgorus manner. I commend the 28 attorneys on the public integrity section staff and particularly the section chief, Thomas H. Henderson, Jr., for their efforts. EXHIEIT 1 REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY" SECTION INTRODUCTION Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 28 U.S.C. 1 529, requires the At torney General to "report to Congress on the activities and operations" of the Public Integrity Section. This report is submitted in fulfillment of that requirement. Because this is the first such report, we have set forth the matters handled by the Public Integrity Ecotion since it was formed in March, 1976. In the future, the annual report will include matters handled during the preceding year. 1. Background. The Publle Integrity Section was created as part of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division in March, 1576 for the purpose of consolidating the responsibility for a tionwide coordination of the Federal efforts egainst ocial corruption at all levels of Government. The Section is responsible for coordinating enforcement of all Federal statutes dealing with bribery, occists of interest and raiscellaneous ofenses in offices that are committed by ofcers or employees of the three branches of the Federal Government. In addition, the Section shares with the United States Attorneys responibility for the Pederal Government's recent prosecutive inl tiatives in the area of local corruption through utilization of relatively new prosecutive theories under the Hobbs Act (18 US.C. 1951), the Federal mall fraud statute (18 U.S.C. 1341) and the Racketeering IC30ence and Corrupt Organizations statutes (18 U.SC. 1951-1958). Finally, the Section Eas responsibility for coordinating enforcement of all Federal criminal lars dealing with election irregularities and fraud, politietstion of the Federal Service and Federal proama the Federal Eection Campaign Act, and assorted statutes dealing with elections Lad lobbying The Section is also charged with educating United States Attorney and FBI pervaze in investigative and prosecutive techniques, with developing efecture prosecure theories and with attaining nationwide standards for Federal prosecutions 2alast elected or ap pointed public oficials who abuse the truss bestowed on them by the public they serve The Section was formed in March, 1978 under the direction of Ection Chief Thomas H. Henderson, Jr. with eight attorneys. The Section has gradually expanded to 28 attor neys and remains under the experienced leadership of Mr. Henderson 11. Operations The Section is primarily an enforcement unit with the capacity to receive an al tion and follow it through investigation, tal and appeal Many matters are referred directly to the Section by Federal agencies, investigative agencies or from within the CT. inal Division A large number of casOS AT referred to the Section by Caited States Attorneys who are unable to handle the matter because of a cons or because of insu cleat manpower or expertise. In addition to the cares handled exaltres by the Pubile Integrity Section many cases are banord Jointy with United States Attorney of with the Section's role ranging from provid rising the United States Attorney a ben prod ing lead attorneys to the Section simply a lems arise. 90-231 0 - 82 -- 37 TABLE XI-FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS OF CORRUPT PUBLIC OFFICIALS, CONVICTIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS, 1976–78 ILLINOIS TAKES THE LEAD IN COMBATTING COMPUTER CRIME Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, over the last several years, I have become concerned with the rapid growth of computer crime in the United States. Thus, it was my great pleasure to join with my colleague, Senator RIBICOFF, in June 1977 in introducing S. 1766, the Federal Com puter Systems Protection Act. This is the first Federal legislation specifically designed to prohibit the misuse of computers owned or controlled by the US Government, financial institutions, or corporations operating in or affecting in terstate commerce. Although that measure did not become law in the 95th Congress, hearings on the bill were held in June 1978 in the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, ably chaired by Senator BIDEN. In the 96th Congress, we have again introduced the measure, now 8. 240, with certain re visions suggested by the Department of Justice. Senator BIDEN, and with other members We have continued to work closely with of the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, particularly Senator HATCH and Senator LAXALT. We all want to make certain that S 240 accurately and effectively reflects the Federal Government's vital interest in stopping computer crime, and in protecting the integrity of the business and financial transactions of this country. I believe we have been successful in that regard. I look forward to early consideraCommittee so that the Senate will have tion of this measure by the full Judiciary the opportunity to take a firm and necessary step in the fight against white collar crime. The legislation originates from a study released in March 1977 by the Govern mental Affairs Committee which revealed the insuficient security of Government computers and the absence of adequate protection in our Federal laws against computer crune. Prosecutors have found 20th century crimes with 19th century themselves hamstrung trying to fight statutes. We are moving closer and closer to becoming a cashless society. In so doing. the potential for fraud and abuse through manipulation of computers becomes an ever greater threat. Huge sums of money are already lost each year as a result of computer crimes, with estimates ranging from $100 million to more than $3 billion And the chances of getting caught are minimal. A few States have begun to take action. I am proud to say that Illinois is among them. The Illinois State Legislature has recently passed and Governor Thompson has signed a computer crime law. In many of its provisions, It is similar to. S. 240. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Illinois act be printed in the |