[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 154 (Thursday, November 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11617-S11618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 1666. A bill to prevent terrorist hoaxes and false reports; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise to introduce the Anti-Terrorist 
Hoax and False Report Act of 2001. The bill would provide a new tool 
for law enforcement to deal with the problem of serious hoaxes and 
malicious false reports relating to the use of weapons of mass 
destruction, or biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. These so-
called ``hoaxes'' inflict both mental and economic damage on victims. 
They drain away scarce law enforcement resources from the investigation 
of real terrorist activity. They interrupt vital communication 
facilities. Finally, they feed a public fear that the vast majority of 
law abiding Americans are working hard to dispel.
  Federal, State, and local law enforcement already have statutes which 
they have been using aggressively to prosecute those who have taken 
advantage of these times to perpetrate hoaxes about anthrax 
contamination. Existing statutes create serious penalties for threats 
to use biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, for sending any 
threatening communication through the mail, or for making a willful 
false statement to federal authorities.
  For example 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 175, 229, 2332a, and 831 all have 
their own threat provisions punishable by up to life imprisonment. In 
addition, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 876 makes it a five year felony to mail a 
threatening communication of any type; and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 makes it 
a five year felony to willfully make any false statement, or even 
willfully omit a material fact in a matter under the jurisdiction of a 
federal agency.
  In a recent Subcommittee hearing of the Judiciary Committee, James T. 
Caruso, the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counter-terrorism 
Division, stated that there are at least 11 Federal hoax cases which 
have actually been charged under existing statutes since September 11, 
2001. Just last week a Federal conviction was obtained in Oakland, 
California under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 175, which carries a statutory maximum 
penalty of life imprisonment, for an anthrax hoax which occurred back 
in January of 1999. Thus, existing Federal statutes are already being 
employed to prosecute these cases when Federal prosecution is 
appropriate. In addition, numerous State provisions are available and 
are being used to prosecute these cases at the State and local level.
  Indeed, current Federal threat laws do not require that the defendant 
have either the intent or present ability to carry out a threat, which 
enables prosecutors to use such laws to prosecute these serious hoaxes. 
At the same terrorism hearing, Deputy Assistant Director Caruso made it 
clear that authorities are able to prosecute even ``non-credible'' 
threats under current Federal laws. However, while they carry high 
penalties, including a maximum of life imprisonment, at the same 
hearing James Reynolds, from the Department of Justice's Section on 
Terrorism and Violent Crime, indicated that these statutes can 
sometimes be awkward when applied in the hoax context.
  What this bill provides, is a well tailored statute that deals 
specifically with the problem of biological, chemical, mass 
destruction, and nuclear ``hoaxes'', that is, actions taken with the 
malicious intent to deceive the victim. For instance, it gives 
prosecutors a means to distinguished between a person who is actually 
threatening to use anthrax on a victim on one hand, and a person who 
never intends to use it, but truly wants the victim or the police to 
think they have done so, on the other. In the later case the statute 
creates a new five year felony.
  The bill requires that the defendant act ``knowingly and 
maliciously,'' so that we do not federalize juvenile pranks or the 
misguided though innocent spreading of rumors. For instance, a local 
prosecutor in Chicago recently placed an envelope containing sugar on a 
colleague's desk. He was administratively punished by being forced to 
resign from his job. In Utah, a disabled miner was charged locally 
because he put sugar and Nesquik into a junk mail envelope. In Anne 
Arundel County, MD, two juveniles were arrested after they placed 
powder in an envelope and did not even mail it, but it was found by 
someone else and reported, engendering an unintended emergency 
response. In Ohio, a security guard ``super-glued'' a telephone in a 
county welfare building, and when the glue left a powdery residue it 
caused a anthrax scare. In Williamsport, PA a firefighter is being 
prosecuted locally on a felony charge for claiming that he received a 
letter containing white powder at his home. These types of incidents do 
not merit a lengthy term in Federal prison. As the examples I have 
listed above demonstrate, we have appropriately serious ways to deal 
with cases when Federal criminal prosecution is not needed.
  Indeed, law enforcement agencies or private companies of the conduct 
``readiness testing'' so that they will be able to deal with serious 
chemical or biological weapon threats. For instance, three weeks ago a 
Kentucky sheriff conducted such a readiness drill by leaving an 
envelope filled with crushed aspirin on a desk at a county courthouse 
in order to test the response. Requiring a malicious mens rea will 
ensure also that we do not criminalize or chill this type of admirable 
proactive effort. In sum, malicious acts deserve Federal felony 
prosecution; innocent bad judgment and juvenile behavior do not, and 
neither do laudable efforts by police and private actors to preserve 
readiness for biological or chemical attack.
  Another provision in the bill would provide for mandatory restitution 
to any victim of these crimes, including the costs of any and all 
government response to the hoax. An earlier Administration proposal, 
offered during the debate over the terrorism bill, would have limited 
such restitution to only the federal government. As we know all too 
well from recent events, however,

[[Page S11618]]

it is state and local authorities, along with private victims, who are 
often the first responders and primary victims when these incidents 
occur. This bill would provide a mechanism so that they too can be 
reimbursed for their expenses.
  For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce this legislation 
and I urge its swift enactment into law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1666

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Anti Terrorist Hoax and 
     False Report Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. HOAXES, FALSE REPORTS, AND RESTITUTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 41 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 880 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 881. Terrorist Hoaxes and False Information

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly and maliciously 
     imparts, conveys, or communicates information or material, 
     knowing the information or material to be false or 
     fraudulent, and under circumstances in which such information 
     or material may reasonably be believed and is reasonably 
     likely to cause any response by a Federal, State, or local 
     government agency, concerning the existence of activity that 
     would constitute a violation of section 175, 229, 2332a, or 
     831 of this title, shall be fined under this title or 
     imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(b) Restitution.--Notwithstanding and in addition to 
     sections 3663, or 3663A of this title and any other civil or 
     criminal penalty authorized by law, the court shall order--
       ``(1) restitution to all victims of an offense under 
     subsection (a), including any losses suffered by a victim as 
     a proximate result of the offense; and
       ``(2) the defendant to reimburse all Federal, State, and 
     local government, entities for any expenses incurred in 
     response to the offense to protect public health or 
     safety.''.
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 41 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at 
     the end the following:

``881. Terrorist hoaxes and false information.''.
                                 ______