Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003

Mr. President, I am proud to be reintroducing the FBI Reform Act of 2003 with Senator Patrick Leahy. This reform bill is designed to address the accountability problems that have plagued the FBI for years. For almost a decade, I have been engaged in FBI oversight, and during that time, I have seen numerous scandals and coverups. I am pleased to see that Director Mueller is committed to changing the culture of the FBI. He is making good strides toward overcoming past bad policies and procedures at the Bureau. However, Congress also has a role to play in this overhaul of the FBI.

A little over a year ago, a bill similar to this one was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. Since then, a number of the provisions of that bill were enacted in separate legislation. However, some of the most important provisions of that bill--provisions protecting whistleblowers, creating a Security Career Program and Counterintelligence Polygraph Program, and ending the double standard for discipline of senior FBI executives--have yet to be taken up by the full Senate. These provisions are needed to maintain America's confidence in the FBI.

When I was growing up, I was surrounded by a generation that believed the FBI could do no wrong. Yet today at a time when we rely on the FBI to protect us from acts of catastrophic terrorism that endanger the lives of the American people, a time when the need for confidence in the FBI is at its greatest, Americans' trust and confidence in the FBI has been shaken. Do not get me wrong, the majority of FBI agents and especially those who are posted all over the heartland of this country, are honorable, hard working Federal servants who are doing a great job of protecting us from harm. However, there are a few bad apples that must be dealt with because their actions give the Bureau a black eye. The spy cases of Robert Hanssen and Chinese espionage in Los Angeles have highlighted internal security problems. Retaliation against agents like John Roberts, Frank Perry, and Patrick Kiernan, who did their duty investigating internal wrongdoing and spoke the truth to Congress, highlight continuing cultural hostility to criticism. This bill goes a long way to address these systemic problems and shore up trust and confidence in the FBI in the wake of these concerns.

While Congress sometimes follows a hands-off approach to the FBI, the Judiciary Committees hearings and other oversight activities over the last 2 or 3 years have highlighted the actions that Congress needs to take to do its part in reforming the Bureau. The hearings that spurred this legislation demonstrated the need to extend adequate whistleblower protections to the FBI, enhance the Bureau's internal security program, end the double-standard for discipline, and modernize the FBI's information technology systems. These and additional management issues the committee has explored are reflected in this bill. As the Patriot Act has increased the FBI's powers, as the American people have increased their reliance on the FBI to stop terrorism, and as we continue to increase the FBI's funding, it is time for Congress to take action with a more hands-on approach. Let me provide some more detail about the most important provisions of the FBI reform bill.

First, title I of the bill contains much needed protections for FBI whistleblowers. As my colleagues know, I have long held that good government requires that the brave men and women who blow the whistle on wrongdoing be protected. It is my strong belief that disclosures of wrongdoing by whistleblowers are an integral part of our system of checks and balances. However, although whistleblowers play a critical role in ensuring that waste, fraud, and abuse are brought to light and that public health and safety problems are exposed, the same whistleblower protection laws that apply to almost all other Federal employees do not currently apply to the FBI. In fact, it is a violation for FBI agents to report problems to Congress. That restriction leaves patriotic, loyal FBI employees with little recourse. This bill will fix that problem.

I truly believe that reform at the FBI will only occur when FBI employees feel free to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Without adequate whistleblower protections, I am concerned that agents, such as Coleen Rowley and others, who speak out about abuses and problems at the FBI will be subject to retaliation. Thus, this bill finally gives FBI whistleblowers the same rights and protections that other Federal employees currently possess. When this bill is passed, FBI employees who are retaliated against for blowing the whistle will be able to avail themselves of all the protections afforded by the Whistleblower Protection Act.

In order to enhance internal security at the FBI, title II of the bill requires the FBI to establish a career security program and ensure that appropriate management tools and resources are devoted to that task. Modeled after the Department of Defense Acquisition Career Program, security professional career development requirements would bring the FBI into line with the other Federal agencies that handle top secret intelligence. This bill establishes and defines the Career Security Program and sets out the framework for career development and training in internal security. With the development of a Career Security Program, the FBI can meet the challenges of espionage, information technology vulnerability, and the threat of direct terrorist attack.

This bill requires the Attorney General to establish policies and procedures for career management of FBI security personnel. It directs the Director of the FBI to appoint a Director of Security who would chair a security career program board that would advise in the management of hiring, training, education, and career development. The bill also requires the FBI Director to designate certain positions as security positions. The bill requires that career paths to senior positions be published, and it ensures that all FBI personnel would have the opportunity to acquire the education, training and experience needed for senior security positions. Moreover, in order to ensure that security professionals gain the stature that special agents enjoy, the bill provides that special agents would not have preference for security positions and security positions could not be restricted to special agents unless the Attorney General makes a special determination.

Furthermore, the bill would direct that education, training, and experience requirements be established for each position and that before assignment as a manager or a deputy manager of a significant security program, a person would have to complete an accredited security program management course and have at least 6 years security experience, including 2 years in a similar program.

In addition to the Security Career Program, the bill will also enhance security through the creation of an FBI counterintelligence polygraph program. The program would consist of the periodic screening of employees and contractors who have access to sensitive information or restricted data. While the program recognizes the value of polygraph screening, it also provides safeguards for those subject to polygraph examination. The bill directs that the program have procedures to address false positives, ensure quality control, requires that no adverse personnel action could be taken solely by reason of physiological reaction on an exam without further investigation, and provides that employees would have prompt access to unclassified reports of their exams that relate to adverse personnel action. Thus, title III provides increased security while at the same time protecting employee rights.

Title IV requires the Attorney General to report on the legal authority for the FBI's programs and activities. This report will help the FBI focus on its most important duty--preventing terrorism--by cutting back on the FBI's jurisdiction, which has become cumbersome and unwieldy. Currently, the FBI investigates over 300 different Federal offenses, which are divided between violent crime, white collar crime, organized crime, drugs, national security, and civil rights. In many of these areas, there are instances of concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction with other Federal law enforcement agencies who specialize in investigating these crimes.

The FBI needs to scale back on the broad range of investigations which are duplicated by other Federal and State agencies. The Bureau needs to completely jettison some of these areas and in other areas, the Bureau could simply take a secondary role, allowing another agency to take the lead. In order to assist the FBI in scaling back its jurisdiction, this bill directs the Attorney General to report to Congress on the legal authority for FBI programs and activities, identifying those that have express statutory authority and those that do not. The bill also requires the Attorney General to recommend what criminal statutes for which he believes the FBI should have investigative responsibility.

Additionally, there exists a gross inequality in the way Senior Executive Service, SES, employees of the FBI and rank and file agents are disciplined. SES employees are often given a slap on the wrist for an infraction, whereas the rank and file agents are often punished to the letter of the law. Title V of the bill attempts to address this double standard. The bill attempts to address the double standard by providing some flexibility in how SES employees can be punished. The Senate Judiciary Committee has heard repeatedly that this inflexibility is one of the main causes for the inequality in punishment at the FBI. Under the current

system, the minimum suspension that an SES employee can receive is 14 days. This means that the FBI's management is often left with the choice of either an overly harsh penalty or no penalty at all. Often they decide not to impose any meaningful disciplinary action.

In order to attempt to remedy this problem our bill lifts the 14-day minimum suspension for SES disciplinary cases to provide for additional options in disciplining senior executive employees. Hopefully, this change will help to remedy this double standard. In addition, our bill would require the Office of Inspector General to submit to the Judiciary Committees of both houses, for 5 years, annual reports by the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility on its investigations, recommendations, and their disposition including an analysis of whether any double standard is being employed.

Finally, title VI of the bill attempts to provide further enhancement to security at the Department of Justice as a whole. This title would implement recommendations of the Webster Commission for enhancing security at the DOJ. It requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on the manner by which the Department plans to improve protection of security information at the DOJ. Moreover, this title authorizes funds to meet the demands for increased security at the DOJ. Also, the bill would authorize funds for the DOJ Office of Intelligence Policy and Review to help meet the increased demands to combat terrorism, process applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, participate effectively in counterespionage investigations, provide policy analysis and oversight on national security matters, and enhance computer and telecommunications security.

Mr. President, I say to my fellow colleagues, it is time we acted on the reforms in this bill. It has been almost a year since this bill passed unanimously out of committee. Let's act to reform the FBI and help maintain America's trust and confidence in the Bureau.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to take this time to talk about the reauthorization of welfare reform, the reform launched a half dozen years ago. The authorization for those reforms has expired once, has been renewed for a year, and will expire again at the end of this year.

When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, he said a number of things for which he is remembered. He said: It is the economy, stupid. And it is always the economy, stupid, as far as I am concerned. But he also said we ought to change welfare as we know it. And we have.

Welfare reform was very much needed in the mid-1990s. A lot of people who ended up on welfare stayed there for long periods of time. And one of the reasons why they stayed there for so long was because they and their families were better off being on welfare than not. If people on welfare went to work, they lost some things. They lost maybe health care for their kids, eligibility for food stamps, nutritional support for their families, affordable housing. They certainly had to pay more for affordable housing.

And what would they gain by going to work and getting off welfare? The right to pay taxes: State income taxes, Federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and others. After losing those certain things and gaining the right to pay those taxes, they would have to deal with the costs included in childcare. Who is going to take care of my kids? How will I pay for it? How will I get to work? Is there transportation? Is there transit? Do I have a car? Is it a working car? If I don't, how do I get one or pay for it or maintain it?

The reforms adopted in 1996 were actually endorsed by the National Governors Association which served as a catalyst for the adoption of Federal law. There were a number of principles that underscored or underwrote that welfare reform initiative of the mid-1990s. The first was work first. We should not place emphasis on finding people for jobs that may not exist. We ought to help people to go to work first.

The second principle was, work ought to pay more than welfare. People actually ought to be better off because somebody in that family is going to work every day.

The third principle was really a tough love principle. There ought to be limits on the amount of time that people could be on welfare. States could make it more stringent but a 5-year cap on the amount of time people spent on welfare should be the law of the land. We should have a tough love approach. There ought to be a certain toughness in what we are doing.

People should show up for job interviews. They should take the jobs offered. They should not be able to walk away from the jobs. If they do those kinds of things, they would face, in a number of States, the likelihood of being sanctioned for their refusal or inability to go to work and continue to work.

We also said that we realize there are some people on welfare who will never come off. For reasons physiological, they are going to be dependent forever. We allowed the States to recognize some percentage-- I think 20 percent--of the caseload of people who will not go to work.

We said that it might be a smart idea to have a rainy day fund, in case the economy falls off a cliff or we have a lot more people who show up and need a welfare payment. So we provided for a rainy day fund.

Finally, we said there are really four critical elements that need to be addressed in order for people to get off welfare and stay off welfare for an extended period of time. No. 1, there had to be a job to go to. No. 2, they have to have a way to get to the job. No. 3, there has to be health care for the kids. If the kids get sick, parents are not going to go to work. There has to be minimal health care for the family. People will not go to work if there is nobody to take care of their kids. So there needs to be some assistance given for childcare.

By most standards, the welfare reforms we began a half dozen years ago are regarded as a success. The rolls are down by roughly half across the country, including Delaware. Many families who used to be on welfare are now working and those families are, for the most part, better off. In those families where somebody is going to work every day, that parent sets an example for their children that there is an expectation to go to work, that there is dignity with work, and we are expected to be self-aligned and self-sufficient, if we are psychologically able to do that.

I have heard the old adage, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Some people said that about the welfare reforms to be adopted in 1996--that they were not broke and we ought not to fix them. Other people said we ought to change it substantially, which is what we did in 1996. Some would like to go back to a situation that existed prior to that time. Others would like to go to an even tougher love arrangement, with the emphasis on toughness and not a whole lot of love involved.

Rather than saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it, I think the better approach is to say this: If it is not perfect, make it better. The reforms we adopted 6 years ago can be improved upon and we can make it better.

I want to talk about a proposal Senator Nelson and I will be offering. As former Governors of our States, we believe it will build on the changes adopted in 1996. It would make the system better and make it one that is more likely to help people get off welfare and stay off for an extended period of time, and hopefully forever.

When we adopted the welfare reforms of 1996, we decided to take welfare, which had been an entitlement program, and make it a block grant program. I believe it provided that $16.5 million would be distributed to States in block grants and States could apportion that money out, to be used for a variety of things, including cash welfare payments, childcare assistance, health care, and other things. They could also use the money for transportation assistance. We put a 5-year limit on the amount of time people, under Federal law, could be eligible for welfare benefits. We also said in that law that we want States to eventually increase their work participation rates.

If you look at the welfare caseload, the percentage of people doing work or work-like activities, we wanted that to increase so by 2002 the work participation would have gone up 50 percent from wherever it started. That is where it is today; the work participation rate is 50 percent.

We give a credit to States that moved people off of welfare since the mid to late 1990s. So if they have moved people off welfare, States can get a credit toward the work participation rate, with the 50-percent mandate.

As it turned out, when they moved half of the people off of the welfare rolls and the work participation rate is 50 percent effectively by moving people off welfare to work, in most of the States we have eliminated de facto the work participation rate. Most States have a zero work participation rate as a result.

Our bill changes that in a couple of ways. It gradually raises from 50 percent to 70 percent, in 5-percent increments each year, the work participation rate, so that by 2008, today's rate would go up to 70 percent.

We provide for something called an employment credit. The employment credit provides a credit to States against its work participation rate for doing a couple of things. One, for moving people to work. Two, they get bonus credit for moving people to work at better paying jobs. Also, States can earn partial credit against the work participation rate if people are doing at least 16 hours of core work activities.

Under the current Federal law, a workweek for people who have kids over the age of 6 is 30 hours in order to count toward the work participation rate. Under current law, if a person has a child under 6, they need to be working 20 hours in order to count toward the States' work participation requirement.

Senator Nelson and I would change that a little bit. We say that-- there is one thing we don't change. If you have a child under the age of 6, it is still 20 hours. If they are over the age of 6, we expect them to be working 32 hours, 8 of which can be activities other than core work activities. An example would be assistance for substance abuse, or anything that is deemed to be eliminating the barrier toward employment. If a person doesn't have a high school degree, they can be working toward their GED, and that counts as part of that 8 hours. But 24 hours of the 32 would have to be a core work activity. I will give you some examples: private sector work, public sector work, community service, and vocational education.

Senator Nelson and I also made a modification with respect to education and training. Under current law, vocational education counts up to--I believe you count it toward your work participation rate for 12 months. We make that 24 months. We put in a cap. If you had 100 people on your caseload, no more than 30 percent of that 100 people who are involved in vocational education training or postsecondary can be counted toward a State's work participation rate. We extend from 12 months to 24 months those who are participating in vocational credit.

If you want people to go to work, you have to make sure there is help on the childcare side. If we are going to raise the hours, we expect the people to do work or work-like activities. If we are going to raise the work participation rate, we have to provide additional assistance. There is an extra $6 billion that we provide for childcare over the 5- year period.

In addition, we raise the social service block grant to a fully authorized level over a 5-year period of time. On the transportation side, as I mentioned earlier, unless people can get to work--we can have all the caps and participation rates we want but unless people can get to work, they are not going to be able to get off welfare and stay off of welfare.

In our legislation, we provide under current law where States can use the TANF block grant for transportation assistance. We provide authorizing language for another $15 million in authorization for transportation. If you live in a rural area and there is no transportation, States can help people buy cheaper but working cars to get where they need to go.

We make a change with respect to transitional health care. Under current law, if I am on welfare and then I go to work, I lose my health care. I can get 12 months of transitional assistance from Medicaid. We raise that. We give States the discretion to raise that to 24 months.

I see Senator Grassley has risen to speak. I will finish my remarks. I say this to him. I appreciate very much his effort in leading the Finance Committee. Senator Nelson and I have actually been privileged to be Governors of our States--8 years apiece--at the time we launched welfare reform. We learned a lot from those experiences. We think it is germane to the debate that is coming soon in the next steps in welfare reform. We hope to be part of the debate--maybe not in your committee but certainly when we get the bill to the floor. As much as I understand what is taking shape here, I think there are common elements in what Senator Grassley is seeking to do and what Senator Nelson and I propose to do. We look very much forward to engaging with the chairman in the work he is doing now and with that which is going to be brought to the floor later this year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill that Senator Nelson and I are introducing be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, with my friend the senior Senator from Iowa, the FBI Reform Act of 2003.

This legislation stems from the lessons learned during a series of Judiciary Committee hearings on oversight of the FBI that I chaired beginning in June 2001. The important changes which are being made under the FBI's leadership after the September 11 attacks and the new powers granted the FBI by the USA PATRIOT Act have resulted in FBI reform becoming a pressing matter of national importance.

Since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks later that fall, we have relied on the FBI to detect and prevent acts of catastrophic terrorism that endanger the lives of the American people and the institutions of our country. The men and women of the FBI are performing this task with great professionalism at home and abroad. We have all felt safer as a result of the full mobilization of the FBI's dedicated Special Agents, its expert support personnel, and its exceptional technical capabilities. We owe the men and women of the FBI our thanks.

For decades the FBI has been an outstanding law enforcement agency and a vital member of the United States intelligence community. As our hearings and recent events have shown, however, there is room for improvement at the FBI. To fully rise to its current challenges, the FBI must face and understand the mistakes of the past and make the changes needed to ensure that they are not repeated. In meeting the international terrorist challenge, the Congress has an opportunity and obligation to strengthen the institutional fiber of the FBI based on lessons learned from recent problems the Bureau has experienced.

This view is not mine alone. When FBI Director Mueller testified at his confirmation hearings in July 2001, he forthrightly acknowledged ``that the Bureau's remarkable legacy of service and accomplishment has been tarnished by some serious and highly publicized problems in recent years. Waco, Ruby Ridge, the FBI lab, Wen Ho Lee, Robert Hanssen and the McVeigh documents--these familiar names and events remind us all that the FBI is far from perfect and that the next director faces significant management and administrative challenges.'' Since then, the Judiciary Committee has forged a constructive partnership with Director Mueller to get the FBI back on track.

Congress sometimes has followed a hands-off approach about the FBI. But with the FBI's new increased powers, with our increased reliance on the Bureau to prevent terrorism, and with the increased funding provided by the Congress should come increased scrutiny and accountability. Until the Bureau's problems are resolved and new challenges overcome, we should be taking a hands-on approach.

Indeed our hearings and other oversight activities have highlighted tangible steps the Congress should take in an FBI Reform bill as part of this hands-on approach. Among other things, these hearings demonstrated the need to extend whistleblower protection, end the double standard for discipline of senior FBI executives, and enhance the FBI's internal security program to protect against espionage as occurred in the Hanssen case.

Director Mueller once said it is ``critically important'' that he ``hears criticisms of the organization . . . in order to improve the organization.'' I could not agree more. More than ever, the FBI must be open to new ideas, to criticism from within and without, and to facing up to and learning from past mistakes.

During the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the Leahy-Grassley FBI Reform Act of 2001. Unfortunately, our bipartisan efforts were stymied by an anonymous Republican hold, which prevented the bill from being considered on the floor. While we did eventually succeed in passing three of the bill's important reform provisions as part of the Department of Justice authorization act, other needed reforms were senselessly blocked. These reforms, which remain as important and urgent as ever, are included in the bill we introduce today.

There are five key elements of our bill.

First, it strengthens whistleblower protection for FBI employees and protects them from retaliation for reporting wrongdoing.

Second, it addresses the issue of a double standard for discipline of senior executives by eliminating the disparity in authorized punishments between Senior Executive Service members and other Federal employees.

Third, it establishes an FBI Counterintelligence Polygraph Program for screening personnel in exceptionally sensitive positions with specific safeguards.

Fourth, it establishes an FBI Career Security Program, which would bring the FBI into line with other U.S. intelligence agencies that have strong career security professional cadres whose skills and leadership are dedicated to the protection of agency information, personnel, and facilities.

And fifth, it requires a set of reports that would enable Congress to engage the Executive branch in a constructive dialogue building a more effective FBI for the future.

The FBI Reform Act is designed to strengthen the FBI as an institution that has a unique role as both a law enforcement agency and a member of the intelligence community. As the Judiciary Committee continues its oversight work and more is learned about recent FBI performance, additional reforms may prove necessary. Especially important will be the lessons learned from the attacks of September 11, the anthrax attacks, and implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and other counterterrorism measures.

We need to help the FBI become as effective, as accountable and as agile as the American people need it to be to counter the threat of terrorism on our shores.

Strengthening the FBI cannot be accomplished overnight, but with this legislation, we take an important step into the FBI's future.

Mr. President, the National Women's Business Council provides Congress, the Small Business Administration, and the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise with independent advice and policy recommendations to foster women's business ownership. Now many of my colleagues may not know a great deal about the Council, its members, and what they do. But I can tell you that as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, the Council's advice is very helpful as we develop legislation that affects small businesses throughout the country.

The Council has broad latitude to address nearly any issue that it considers to be important for women in business. Whether it relates to health insurance, the economy, or fiscal policies, the Council brings a unique and valuable perspective. Women make up 46 percent of the Nation's executive, administrative and managerial occupations and head up 7.1 million sole proprietorships. The National Women's Business Council is their voice.

The Council's independent voice is the key to its success and influence. The structure of the Council helps to maintain that independence. The Council has 15 members. The Chair is appointed by the President and must be a prominent businesswoman. Six members come from women's business organizations, including representatives of women's business center sites. The remaining eight members are political appointees, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. These political slots are appointed by the SBA Administrator based upon the recommendations of the Chair and Ranking Members of the Senate Business and Entrepreneurship Committee and the House Small Business Committee. All of these ``party-affiliated'' members must be small business owners.

This bipartisan balance in the Council's membership helps to ensure that any policy recommendations or positions the Council takes will reflect the needs of women in business and not the political agenda of one political party over another. Certainly, the political balance is not completely even because the Chair is appointed by the President, but the Democrats have a strong voice with four members on the Council. That will only be true, however, as long as the Democratic seats are filled.

Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. Vacancies on the Council are supposed to be filled no later than 30 days after a seat becomes open. However, over the past two years, the SBA has routinely failed to meet this 30-day statutory deadline. The Council Chair was vacant from May 29, 2001 to May 21, 2002, a period of 11 months and 22 days. As a result, the Council could not even meet.

Vacancies in the party-affiliated seats hurt the Council's independence. Of the party-affiliated seats reserved for the President's party, one seat was vacant for three months; two were vacant for a period of seven months; and another went vacant for 21 months. Two of the seats reserved for Democrats remained vacant for nearly two years, another seat was vacant for seven months, and the fourth seat remains vacant today. In the past, these

vacancies have not been filled in a manner consistent with maintaining a bipartisan balance and the independence of the Council. Let me give you an example.

In February of this year the Council announced its support for Association Health Plans. This is an important issue for many small businesses and for the economy on the whole. At the time, the Council had three Republican members and no Democrats. Regardless of what opinion you may have of the Association Health Plans issue, the Council's position can be dismissed by some as being political because of the partisan imbalance on the Council at the time it made its endorsement. Instead of being an unquestioned resource for Congress and policy makers to rely on, the Council faces potential criticism that it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for one party over another.

Today, I am introducing legislation to protect the independence of the Council. The National Women's Business Council Independence Preservation Act of 2003 will ensure that the Council maintains its value as an advisor to Congress and the Administration. This measure simply requires that vacancies in the party-affiliated seats be filled evenly so that the Council maintains a bipartisan balance. This will help to ensure that the Council's policy advice is free from any partisan taint.

My legislation also ensures accountability by requiring the SBA Administrator to report to Congress on vacancies that remain unfilled for more than 30 days. The report must cite the reasons for the vacancies, what is causing any delays in filling the positions, whether nominees were available for consideration, at what stage in the vetting process nominees are, whether there are any objections to the nominees and what those objections are, an estimate for when the vacancies will be filled, and any other relevant information relating to the vacancies.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003.'' This bill would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to, make it a Federal crime to knowingly make a hoax report, involving a biological, chemical, nuclear weapon, or other weapon of mass destruction. Likewise, this bill would make it a criminal offense to knowingly send such a hoax weapon to another.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, our Nation has witnessed a number of terror hoax reports. This in turn has triggered an equally large number of reports of suspected biological agents. No part of the Nation has been spared, and my home State of Delaware has had several hundred reports of possible biological agents. The FBI has reported to Congress the staggering statistics involving these bioterrorism hoaxes and other reports of suspected biological agents. Prior to September 11, the FBI had responded to about 100 cases involving potential use of ``weapons of mass destruction,'' 67 of which involved alleged biological weapons. Since mid-September 2001, however, that number has increased by 3,000 percent.

The good news is that most of these reports were either hoaxes or reports made by well-meaning people whose suspicions were raised. The bad news is that any hoax reports were made in the first place, triggering panic on the part of the public, and often forcing the Federal, State, and local governments to waste valuable time and resources responding to them. In one particularly egregious case, it has been reported that an employee of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection falsely reported to security that he had found a yellowish-white powder on his desk with the misspelled label ``ANTHAX.'' The employee, a 48-year-old solid waste management analyst, knew the material was not toxic, it was determined to be coffee creamer, but persisted in the false account. Eight hundred State employees were evacuated from the building for 2 days while law enforcement officials tested the building, at a cost of $1.5 million in lost worker's time, another $40,000 in decontamination costs, and an undisclosed amount of money spent on rescue and law enforcement. The employee is being charged in Federal court--not for the hoax report, but for lying to Federal officials after the fact.

Indeed, the Justice Department reported to Congress that there is a gap in the existing Federal law regarding the prosecution of bioterrorism hoaxes. That is, while it is a crime to threaten to use, for example, anthrax as a weapon against another person, it is not a crime to make a hoax anthrax report. Accordingly, the Justice Department has repeatedly asked Congress to enact legislation which specifically addresses hoaxes which involve purported biological substances, as well as chemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Just this month, the Justice Department stated in testimony, ``changes in title 18 to expand the reach of the law to prohibit conduct resulting in such hoaxes would provide prosecutors with an appropriate tool to respond to these situations.''

We should answer the call and act now to give law enforcement the tools they need to combat these despicable crimes. The Federal interest is indisputable, as States and localities are simply not equipped with the expertise or resources to evaluate and respond to these hoaxes. A comprehensive prohibition on such false reports is necessary to preserve scarce and vital Federal resources.

Accordingly, as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims' Rights, I introduce a bill today which contains both criminal provisions and civil penalties for the hoax reporting of bioterrorism incidents. My bill simply says that if you knowingly engage in conduct--such as deliberately sending baking powder through the mail to your congressman or calling 911 to falsely report the presence of anthrax in a public building--that is likely to create the false impression concerning the presence of anthrax, or other similar things, that you have committed A Federal offense, punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Moreover, such a person may be fined the greater of either $10,000 or the amount of money expended by the government to respond to the false information. Finally, such a person may also be ordered to reimburse the government if costs were incurred in responding to the false hoax. Let me be clear--this bill will not target innocent mistakes or people who make a report concerning a suspected substance; it is aimed, rather, at deliberate hoax reports by those who know they are spreading false information.

I have said many times on the floor of this body that the terrorist win if they succeed in sowing seeds of panic into our daily lives. We cannot and will not let that happen. Similarly, we will not let these hoaxers get away with words and deeds which have the same effect. I urge my colleagues to support the Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003.