[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 25 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S879-S880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Whitehouse, and 
        Ms. Klobuchar):
  S. 2552. A bill to amend section 875(c) of title 18, United States 
Code, to include an intent requirement; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

[[Page S880]]

  

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Interstate 
Threats Clarification Act, which is a necessary bill to clarify the 
``level of intent'' required to convict someone for making threats to 
injure or kidnap another person.
  I would like to thank Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, and Klobuchar for 
cosponsoring the bill.
  In June 2015, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Elonis v. United 
States, a case involving a man who was convicted for posting on 
Facebook ``crude, degrading, and violent'' threats against his co-
workers, ex-wife, law enforcement personnel, and a kindergarten class.
  The man started posting the violent and threatening posts after his 
wife of nearly 7 years left him and took with her their two young 
children.
  The threats made over Facebook caused his ex-wife to feel ``extremely 
afraid'' for her life, leading her to obtain a restraining order 
against him.
  But that did not stop the man, who then posted on Facebook to 
communicate to his ex-wife that she ``[f]old up your [restraining 
order] and put it in your pocket / Is it thick enough to stop a 
bullet?''
  That same month, he continued to make violent posts, including one 
that indicated that ``[e]nough elementary schools in a ten mile radius 
to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined / And hell 
hath no fury like a crazy man in a Kindergarten class.''
  After viewing the posts, an FBI agent and another investigator 
visited the man at his home, where he was ``polite but uncooperative.'' 
After they left, he posted the following:

       Little Agent lady stood so close
       Took all the strength I had not to turn the b**** ghost
       Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat
       Leave her bleedin' from her jugular in the arms of her 
     partner.

  The post went on to threaten what would happen if he was visited 
again by the agent, including the possible use of explosives.
  Due to these threats and others, the man was convicted for making 
threats to inflict bodily harm under Section 875(c) of Title 18.
  This law prohibits the transmission of a communication that contains 
a threat to injure or kidnap another person.
  The man appealed, saying the lower court did not apply the correct 
level of intent for a conviction.
  When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court overturned the 
conviction.
  The Court found that the law requires the government to prove some 
type of ``wrongful'' intent by the man--``negligence'' was not enough 
for a criminal conviction under this law.
  The Court's opinion, however, left significant ambiguity regarding 
what the government must prove for a conviction under the statute.
  The Supreme Court simply did not specify the exact ``level of 
intent'' required for a conviction.
  Justice Alito highlighted the problem of the ambiguity in his partial 
dissent, stating, ``[a]ttorneys and judges are left to guess'' as to 
the level of intent required.
  This ambiguity has left judges and prosecutors in the dark about what 
the law requires, and has raised concerns among domestic violence 
victims because prosecutors and judges may now be hesitant to fully 
enforce the law.
  This is why Congressional action is necessary.
  The Interstate Threats Clarification Act solves this ambiguity.
  It clarifies that, under Section 875(c) of Title 18, the Government 
has three options to obtain a conviction. It can prove that a defendant 
either intended, had knowledge, or recklessly disregarded the risk, 
that the communication would be reasonably interpreted as a threat.
  This is exactly what Justice Alito said would be sufficient in his 
opinion.
  As Justice Alito stated when analyzing the statute in the context of 
the case, ``[s]omeone who acts recklessly with respect to conveying a 
threat necessarily grasps that he is not engaged in innocent conduct.''
  I agree.
  Someone who posts violent and crude threats to harm or kidnap judges, 
domestic violence victims, vulnerable members of society, military 
personnel, and law enforcement personnel, must be held accountable for 
their reckless conduct.
  This bill clarifies for judges and attorneys alike the proof required 
to convict those who make such threats to injure or kidnap such 
persons.
  I also appreciate the work done by a coalition of domestic violence 
organizations that have worked with me on the bill, including the 
National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Domestic Violence Legal 
Empowerment and Appeals Project, the National Center for Victims of 
Crime, the American Association of University Women, Futures Without 
Violence, Jewish Women International, Legal Momentum, National Alliance 
to End Sexual Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 
the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the National Resource 
Center on Domestic Violence.
  I also appreciate the strong support for the bill from law 
enforcement, including the National District Attorneys Association, the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association.
  This bill is necessary to clarify Federal law about criminal threats 
and ensure that those who send them are prosecuted. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.

                          ____________________