U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–205 PDF 2003

ANTI-HOAX TERRORISM ACT OF 2003

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1678

JULY 10, 2003

Serial No. 44

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

JAY APPERSON, Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Counsel 

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Counsel 

KATY CROOKS, Counsel 

PATRICIA DEMARCO, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 10, 2003

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of California .......................................................................................................... 3

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 4

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Thaddeus McCotter, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Michigan 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12

The Honorable Susan Brooks, United States Attorney, Southern District of 

Indiana, United States Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14

The Honorable James McMahon, Superintendent, New York State Police 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 17

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19

Mr. Danny Hogg, Target of War-Time Hoax, Uncle of U.S. Serviceman 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Article from the Arizona Daily Sun Entitled, ‘‘Flag rallies behind 

troops,’’March 30, 2003 ........................................................................................ 6

Article from the Arizona Daily Sun Entitled, ‘‘Prank call sends Flag man 

scurrying for information about ‘dead’ nephew, April 1, 2003 ......................... 9

Letter dated April 18, 2003 to Mr. Hogg from his Nephew, Jeremy ................... 34

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from the Honorable Mark Green, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Wisconsin, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 38

(1)

ANTI-HOAX TERRORISM ACT OF 2003

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble (Chair 

of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Bobby Scott, the Ranking Member from Virginia, 

is on his way, so we will go ahead and commence; and then, when 

he comes, he will have his opening statement. 

Today, we are here to consider whether certain hoaxes should be 

crimes. The question with which this Subcommittee and the Congress must always grapple is when does conduct constitute such a 

threat of harm to society that it must be made a crime? 

The hearing will demonstrate that the hoaxes to make people believe they have been attacked by terrorists or that military personnel have been harmed constitutes such conduct. These jokes are 

no laughing matter, I think we will all agree. They can and have 

caused death. 

At a November 7, 2001, hearing before this Subcommittee, the 

Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified on H.R. 3209, the ‘‘Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act of 2001,’’ and described how these types of hoaxes threaten the health and safety 

of the American public and the national security of the entire Nation. That bill was bipartisan and unanimously supported in the 

107th Congress in the House with a vote of 423–0. I believe the 

Senate did not address that bill. This Subcommittee will soon consider that bill, which was reintroduced by Lamar Smith, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, and is now H.R. 1678. 

The legislation makes it a felony to perpetrate a hoax relating to 

biological, chemical, nuclear and weapons of mass destruction attacks. This bill will help protect the public and our Nation’s security by deterring and punishing those who perpetrate such hoaxes. 

I believe, from reading the testimony, that this legislation should 

be expanded to cover hoaxes against military families. Our country 

is engaged in a long and dangerous war against terrorism at home 

and abroad. As a result, we remain on alert for terrorist acts and 

concerned for the safety of our military brothers and sisters abroad. 

Taking full advantage of these heightened concerns, some have 

played upon the public’s apprehension with hoaxes designed to terrorize and devastate the targets of the hoax. 
2

A hoax of terrorism and a hoax convincing Americans their loved 

ones in the military have been killed, captured or are missing is 

designed to terrorize and instill fear into the public and the specific 

target of the hoax. The witnesses will testify about the trauma 

caused by these hoaxes. 

A believable hoax relating to a terrorist attack can be life-threatening and can cause the Government to react. A hoax causing a 

hospital to be evacuated, for example, can cost lives. A hoax causing a business to shut down can cost jobs. And a hoax causing law 

enforcement to respond could cost public safety. 

With regard to a hoax designed to convince a mother or an uncle 

that their loved one has been killed in action or captured causes 

anguish beyond comprehension and distracts our military men and 

women in harm’s way. As we will hear today, these distractions are 

deadly. 

The testimony will also demonstrate the need for legislation to 

close a glaring gap under Federal law. Congress has previously recognized the danger of a hoax that makes the public believe lives 

are at risk. For example, it is a felony to perpetrate a hoax that 

a bomb is on an airplane under 18 USC 35. It is also a felony to 

communicate a threat of personal injury to another, whether it is 

a hoax or not, over interstate commerce. 

The current rash of hoaxes which current law does not always 

cover demonstrate that the law must be updated. The Committee 

on the Judiciary addressed the terrorism hoaxes in the last Congress, but, as I said previously, the bill died in the Senate. These 

hoaxes threaten the public safety and health, further diminish the 

already overburdened resources of law enforcement and emergency 

responders, distract our military and harm the Nation’s morale and 

economy. I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses 

today. 

I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from 

Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you for convening the hearing on H.R. 1678, the Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act of 

2003. 

False alarms are a problem at any time. They can cause the 

senseless waste not only of scarce public and private resources but 

they can actually endanger life and property by tying up those resources when a genuine emergency arises. Mr. Chairman, during 

the anthrax crisis of 2001, one modest-sized jurisdiction in my district estimated that it spent over $70,000 tracking down anthrax 

scares, all of which fortunately proved to be false alarms. 

The false alarms are deliberate. Whether they are misguided 

pranks that are someone’s bizarre notion of humor or deliberate or 

reckless hoaxes aimed at wreaking havoc, these societal and direct 

costs occur and those perpetrating them should be held accountable 

for their actions. 

Of course, accountability should conform to established notions of 

accountability. There is a difference between being misguided and 

being intentionally reckless or deliberately indifferent, and any effort to hold a person liable for the consequences of their actions 

should conform to these established notions of accountability and 

proportionality. I think we came close to these standards in the 
3

107th Congress with H.R. 3209 which passed the House unanimously, and I am pleased to see that we are starting with that bill 

as we proceed with the legislation today. No similar bill passed the 

Senate, so the policies under H.R. 3209 did not become law. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony by witnesses 

for an update on the kinds of pranks or dangerous hoaxes that we 

have been experiencing since we passed the bill last year and with 

working with you and my colleague, the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Schiff, the chief Democratic sponsor of the bill, in ensuring 

that we have a bill this year that conforms to our ideas of making 

the perpetrators accountable and having proportional penalties for 

those acts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to that testimony. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Normally, in our Committee we restrict opening statements to 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member, but the distinguished gentleman from California is an original cosponsor with Mr. Lamar 

Smith, and Mr. Schiff has requested to make a brief opening statement. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing today and for giving me the opportunity to make a brief 

opening statement. I would also like to extend my appreciation to 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lamar Smith, for introducing this 

bill and for his leadership on the issue. 

Our communities continue to struggle each day to meet the demands of our citizens and prepare for potential terrorist attacks. 

They are working around the clock to improve the protocols and to 

respond swiftly and safely in the event of such an attack. But our 

communities are doing all of this with very limited resources. Each 

time a threat is identified, authorities move into action, don protective gear, bolster hospital staffing, coordinate local, State and Federal offices and call upon additional law enforcement personnel to 

respond. 

These reports from our citizens are critical. We want to encourage people to continue to be vigilant and report suspicious activity. 

A false alarm, however, is a false alarm; and every time a suspected threat turns out to be a hoax, it costs the taxpayers an enormous amount. 

In my State of California, we have not been immune to hoaxes. 

In Los Angeles, a man phoned in an anthrax threat because he 

wanted to avoid appearing in bankruptcy court that day. His hoax 

call succeeded in shutting down the court and the courthouse and 

cost taxpayers $600,000. 

In my own district, a recent e-mail plagued the City of San Gabriel earlier this year. According to news reports, e-mails identifying several well-known Chinese restaurants as hotbeds of the 

SARS virus circulated wildly in the local community. The San Gabriel Police Department reportedly received about 50 calls a day inquiring into this hoax. Our policemen and firefighters have to be 

protecting our community. They cannot afford to be responding to 

these type of hoaxes. 

In addition to closing down the very functioning of Government, 

it is a tremendous waste of precious resources, resources that could 

otherwise go into prevention and training. The manpower that is 
4

required to respond is wasted, and the funding that is used or 

could be used to hire additional law enforcement personnel is simply wasted. 

While millions of dollars are going into the effort to combat terrorism, really billions of dollars, we don’t have, frankly, even a single dollar to waste. We cannot allow reports that come from hoaxes 

to clog up the investigation of potentially life-threatening dangers. 

Our citizens need to be acutely aware that hoaxes have consequences. It shakes our sense of security, and the fear that many 

citizens are struggling to cope with continues to grow as a result 

of these hoaxes. 

There are financial consequences, and there are community consequences. There must be criminal consequences as well. This is 

why I have joined my colleague from Texas in introducing this bill, 

H.R. 1678. It would create criminal and civil penalties for falsely 

reporting chemical, biological and nuclear threats. This would include threats that are in written or verbal form as well as those 

communicated through physical actions. It is legislation that 

should not be necessary but regrettably is certainly needed now. 

Those who would prey on the fears of the American public should 

be punished. 

Equally disturbing are the reports of hoaxes targeting families of 

U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq. I am interested to hear from our panelists on this issue. As I look at the language of the bill, it may 

need to be expanded to deal with these terrible, tragic hoaxes that 

are being perpetrated on the family members of those that are 

serving this country. We simply cannot allow these hoaxes to go 

unchallenged. We don’t have a minute to waste, not a dollar to 

waste and not a single investigator to waste. The time is right. 

I want to thank the Chairman again for his leadership and 

thank again my colleague from Texas. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. COBLE. Since we have established generosity with opening 

statements, I detect the distinguished gentleman from Texas who 

is the primary sponsor, Mr. Lamar Smith. Would you like to be recognized, Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. I would, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I really want to be recognized just to express my 

appreciation to you for your work on this bill and also for having 

the hearing that we are about to begin today. I am not a Member 

of this Subcommittee, so I especially appreciate your indulgence. 

I do want to say this is a bill, as has already been pointed out, 

that Congressman Adam Schiff and I introduced last year and that 

we introduced this year. With your help, Mr. Chairman, we will be 

able to push it all the way into law. If we do that, I have mixed 

feelings because I, as Chairman of this Subcommittee in the last 

Congress, was not able to do it; and if you are able to do it, that 

will perhaps not be good by comparison. 

Mr. COBLE. If the gentleman would suspend, you could always 

blame your Ranking Member for that. I say that tongue in cheek. 

Mr. SMITH. Actually I did as you did and have received much 

support from the Ranking Member on this particular issue. 

In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I should say that I was fortunate 

to have served with Bobby Scott in the last Congress with him as 
5

the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee; and I know you feel 

the same way this year as well. 

I want to say, also, as far as the bill goes and the reason for introducing it last year, it was to address a loophole in the law that 

was actually called to my attention by the Chief Counsel of the 

Subcommittee, Jay Apperson. I appreciate his doing so, for the reasons that you and the other Members have already mentioned 

today. 

Very briefly, just to add sort of one more description to what we 

are trying to do here, it is illegal under current law to perpetrate 

a hoax where there is an explicit threat involved. You can’t, for instance, make a call to an airplane and say I have planted a bomb 

on an airplane. However, the loophole in today’s law is that where 

there is no explicit threat, for instance, where someone might send 

an envelope of white powder through the mail or leave it at a business establishment and thereby close down the business establishment or shut down the hospital or have other consequences, that 

is the exception to the current law. That is the loophole that this 

bill endeavors to close for the reasons that have been given today. 

It will save lives, it will save expenses, and that is why we need 

to punish individuals who take advantage of that particular loophole. That is why I think this bill is necessary. 

Mr. Chairman, I will just say again I appreciate your leadership 

on this particular piece of legislation and hope that you are more 

successful than I was in the last Congress. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman; and, for the record, I share 

your high favorable opinion of the gentleman from Virginia. 

We are blessed with a very fine panel today and the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Jeff Flake, has requested permission to introduce a constituent. I believe, Mr. Hogg, you reside in 

Flagstaff. 

Mr. HOGG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Home of Northern Arizona, I believe. 

So I will now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Arizona to introduce Mr. Hogg. 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chairman. Although Mr. Hogg is not a 

constituent, he is a member—a fellow citizen from Arizona. I wish 

I had Flagstaff as a place as well as Snowflake and all the communities up north. 

But I want to take this opportunity to introduce Danny Hogg. He 

has been a resident for 23 years of Flagstaff. He is employed as a 

fireman at the Flagstaff airport. He is the father of two and the 

proud uncle of Army Sergeant Wayne Jeremy Hogg. He will be presenting compelling testimony today about a horrible hoax that was 

perpetrated on him and his family. His family has been through a 

lot because of this. I am particularly pleased that this hearing is 

going on today, and I thank him for coming and making the sacrifice to come here and talk about it. 

I would like also at this time to submit for the record two newspaper articles from the Arizona Daily Sun dated March 30, 2003, 

and April 1, 2003. 

I thank the Chairman again. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection, they will be made a part of the 

record. 
6

[The information referred to follows:]
7
8
9
10
11

Mr. COBLE. Our presumed first witness was to have been Representative Thaddeus McCotter, who was elected to the Congress 

in 2002 to represent the 11th District of Michigan. Congressman 

McCotter has been serving the 11th District of Michigan for over 

a decade as a Schoolcraft Community College trustee, a Wayne 

County commissioner, a Michigan State senator and now as the 

district’s U.S. representative. Mr. McCotter was graduated cum 

laude from the University of Detroit in 1987 where he later earned 

a law degree prior to being admitted to the State Bar of Michigan 

in 1991. Congressman McCotter will testify, if he does in fact appear, about the need for legislation to address the problem of wartime hoaxes. 

Our second witness today is United States Attorney susan 

Brooks of the Southern District of Indiana. Ms. Brooks has an 

amazing story to tell. Her office received an envelope filled with 

white paper with a note attached that indicated the paper was anthrax. Ms. Brooks was appointed by the President and confirmed 

by the Senate on October 12, 2001. In 1991, she was named as an 

Influential Woman of Indianapolis by the Indianapolis Business 

Journal/The Indiana Lawyer. She was also named by the Indianapolis Business Journal as Who’s Who in Law in 2002. Ms. Brooks 

will testify about her experience prosecuting hoax cases. 

It is good to have you, Mr. McCotter. I introduced you in 

absentia, and I gave you a nice introduction which I hope will be 

to your satisfaction. 

The Honorable James McMahon serves as superintendent of the 

New York State Police. He joined the New York State police in 

1966. Mr. McMahon has a distinguished career in which he has supervised a number of high-profile events. He was promoted to 

major in 1986 and to deputy superintendent/field commander in 

1991. In 1994, he was reappointed to lead the Division of State Police and reconfirmed on June 13, 1995. He will testify about New 

York’s experience with terrorism hoaxes and its effect on the State 

and its citizens. 

Mr. Superintendent, we formerly had a Member of this House 

Judiciary Committee who served as a New York City policeman, 

Fred Heineman. Did you ever know him? 

Mr. MCMAHON. The name, yes. 

Mr. COBLE. He lives in Raleigh, NC, now. 

Of course, our final witness, Mr. Danny Hogg, has already been 

introduced. 

It is good to have all of you with us. 

We try to operate here, folks, as we have previously advised you, 

on the 5-minute rule. When the red light illuminates in your eyes, 

Mr. McMahon, we may have to dispatch one of your police officers 

to haul you away, but the red light will be your warning that the 

5 minutes have expired. We would appreciate your adhering as 

close to that as you can. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. McCotter, we will start with you. 
12

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THADDEUS McCOTTER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MICHIGAN 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be submitting written testimony for the consideration of the Committee. 

I am here today because I want to thank the Committee for its 

interest in this and its willingness to address the issue. I think 

that anything I can say in support of what seems to me to be an 

obvious remedy to this solution would diminish upon the time that 

other people have to talk about it, especially family members who 

have been hurt by what is in many ways an unconscionable, almost 

unbelievable act. So I would thank the Committee for having me 

and I would eagerly await the other testimony. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection, your written statement will be 

made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCotter follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THADDEUS MCCOTTER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman and my fellow colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing to discuss the problem of terrorism hoaxes and—of particular concern to me—hoaxes against the service families as their brave relatives serve overseas. In April of this year, as hostilities were continuing during the liberation of Iraq, 

media reports began to surface about a disturbing trend of harassing phone calls 

being placed to service families. 

A spouse or other family member of a soldier, sailor, airmen, or Marines, would 

hear on the end a caller claiming to be from the Red Cross, the Department of Defense, or the government, and inform them—falsely—their loved one had been taken 

prisoner, injured, or killed while on duty in Iraq. 

There was no solicitation, no financial scam—simply a horrifying hoax. Incidents 

were reported in Delaware, Alabama, California, and my home state of Michigan. 

With two of my own relatives serving in our military, I was outraged and disturbed at these abusive calls—none of us can fathom the perpetrators’ depravity. 

Causing these family members unnecessary pain and grief is a cruel act against 

them and all of the families who really are missing or have lost a loved one. 

These calls go far beyond any high school prank. They are interfering with the 

U.S. military and should be on their way to becoming a federal offense. 

I introduced a bill, H.R. 1771, amending the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit individuals from knowingly misinforming the relative of a member of the 

Armed Forces of the United States their family member is deceased, injured or 

missing due to an event associated with the military service. 

The bill received positive words from those most impacted by these calls. 

‘‘H.R. 1771 is an important step in protecting the families from devastating information that no family wants to receive,’’ said Julia Pfall, Executive Director of the 

National Military Family Association. ‘‘It is incomprehensible that people are taking 

advantage of the vulnerable state that families of deployed service members are in 

this time of war, thus making this legislation necessary.’’

The Red Cross is responsible for maintaining a communications network to inform 

those in the service and on duty of emergencies back home, including the joyous 

news of soldiers becoming new fathers. These hoax calls posed a direct threat to the 

credibility of this network, which is why the Red Cross has also indicated their support for my bill: 

‘‘As the organization required by the Department of Defense to provide emergency 

communication services to military personnel on issues such as the death or serious 

illness of a family member back home, the American Red Cross is committed to preventing these hoaxes,’’ said American Red Cross President and Chief Executive Officer (and retired Rear Admiral) Marsha Johnson Evans. 

‘‘H.R. 1771 provides an important solution to this problem.’’

Mr. Chairman, I recognize my efforts take a slightly different tack from the Title 

18 which falls within your jurisdiction. 

However, we both share a common goal—protecting the brave men and women 

who wear the uniform and the families who love them. 
13

I am anxious to work with you and your colleagues here on this distinguished 

panel so together we can put in place lasting solutions to give these families every 

assurance they are free from this kind of harassment. 

I applaud your efforts and look forward to working with you.

Mr. COBLE. Ms. Brooks, glad to have you with us. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN BROOKS, UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. BROOKS. Good afternoon, Chairman Coble and Members of 

the Subcommittee. It is an honor for me to appear before this Subcommittee to testify about the need for the creation of a Federal 

hoax statute. 

My name is Susan Brooks. I am the United States Attorney for 

the Southern District of Indiana. I became the U.S. Attorney in October of 2001, barely 1 month after the tragic events of 9/11. U.S. 

Attorneys’ offices all across the country, working hand in hand 

with the FBI and joint terrorism task forces, were thrust into investigations involving the terrorists of 9/11 as well as the anthrax 

incidents in New York, Washington, D.C., and Florida. 

These horrific crimes combined to create a fear in this country 

unlike one that this generation has ever experienced. Therefore, 

when individuals commit hoaxes for the sole purpose of perpetrating fear, a separate criminal charge is warranted. 

Federal prosecutors need necessary tools to bring these individuals to justice. Currently, our laws are such that those who perpetrate hoaxes either face minimal penalties or face potential life 

imprisonment. When acts of terror turn out to be hoaxes and our 

State and local partners have invested in significant resources, 

they expect us to act with statutes that have teeth, punishment 

that fits the crime. 

For instance, on three separate occasions in October of 2001, 

David Jones placed a white powdery substance on the counter in 

a restroom at the Hoosier Heartland Travel Center located off I-69 

outside of Muncie, Indiana. He was an employee. On the final occasion, he wrote a warning on the restroom door that anthrax was 

present. Each incident required law enforcement personnel to go to 

the scene, and the truck stop closed for a period of time. 

My Assistant U.S. Attorney charged this individual with a violation of imparting and conveying false information, causing that 

truck stop to be made unworkable or hazardous. Use of this statute 

involving interstate transportation facilities was very creative, yet 

clearly it was a hoax case. And that was the specific statute that 

we really needed to really prosecute this case. 

We have prosecuted other hoax cases under the statute of mailing of threatening communications. In one case, the defendant sent 

three letters in October of 2001 to three different Federal Government agencies. Each letter contained a white powdery substance 

with an enclosed letter that read, ‘‘You die now!’’ State health labs 

across this country were so backed up that the anxiety that those 

office personnel suffered during the wait for the results is unthinkable. 

The sentencing guidelines range from as low as 10 to 18 months 

in this type of case. Yet if the AUSA had charged the crime of 
14

threatening the use of weapons of mass destruction, an individual 

could possibly be facing up to a potential life sentence, which is far 

too draconian for the crime. So we need more tools. 

On October 7, 2001, again less than 1 month after 9/11, Brian 

Seifert, a computer data recovery specialist, called the FBI and indicated he received a computer disk from an unknown person of 

Middle Eastern origin. The disk contained a text message hidden 

in a computer graphic file called steganography. Unknown persons 

were planning to drive fuel tanker trucks into churches, schools, 

synagogues and shopping malls. The timing and location of the intended attacks was unknown. The hidden message was a call to 

arms, rather than an express threat to a specific target. But, given 

the nature of the statement coming less than 30 days after 9/11, 

the FBI both locally and nationally devoted extensive resources to 

determine the validity of the threat. 

Finally, after multiple interviews by authorities, he admitted he 

lied about the source of the computer files. After we concluded that 

it was a hoax, the only crime we had to punish him with was a 

violation of title 18, section 1001, for making that false statement 

to a Federal agent or agency. He sent the FBI on a wild goose 

chase. It was exceptionally expensive to the taxpayers both in investigative resources and also in U.S. Attorney Office expenses. 

The harm from this type of conduct is just as great, whether or 

not the language used to perpetrate the hoax constitutes a threat. 

In many cases, a hoax may present law enforcement with what appears to be a credible risk of a terrorist attack, which then distracts them from pursuing legitimate leads to terrorist organizations. 

All of these cases would have been difficult if not impossible to 

prosecute if only relatively slight changes in the facts were made. 

If Seifert had not made the statements to the FBI, if Jones had not 

spread the powder at a truck stop and if Panko had not included 

the threatening language in the letters, it would have been very 

difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute any of these offenders. 

Changes in Title 18 to expand the reach of the law to prohibit 

conduct resulting in such hoaxes would provide prosecutors with 

the appropriate tool. Such legislation would be particularly helpful 

if it prohibited hoaxes involving all crimes that terrorists are likely 

to commit. It is not possible for us to predict with certainty what 

those future terrorist hoaxes would look like. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about this important 

issue, and I welcome further questions. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Brooks. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brooks follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN BROOKS

Good afternoon Chairman Coble and Members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor 

for me to appear before this Subcommittee to testify about the need for the creation 

of a federal hoax statute. My name is Susan Brooks. I am the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. 

I became the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana on October 16, 2001, barely one month after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. The 

work of United States Attorney’s Offices changed dramatically in the aftermath of 

the terrorist attacks. US Attorney Offices all across the country, working hand in 

hand with the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Forces, were thrust into investigations 

involving the terrorists of September 11th and the need to find potential future ter-
15

rorists. These were not routine or ‘‘normal’’ investigations for our offices. Then in 

October, 2001, individuals across the east coast died or fell ill from exposure to anthrax. Congressional offices fell victim to anthrax attacks. All of these horrific 

crimes combined to create a fear in this country unlike one this generation had ever 

experienced. Therefore, when individuals commit acts for the sole purpose of perpetrating fear in the lives of others, a separate criminal charge addressing this unimaginable fear is warranted. 

Federal prosecutors need the necessary tools to bring to justice individuals who 

perpetrate hoaxes. Currently our laws are such that those who perpetrate hoaxes 

either face minimal penalties or face potential life imprisonment where they can be 

prosecuted at all under Federal statutes. Federal prosecutors and federal law enforcement have worked harder than ever to reach out to our State and local prosecutors and law enforcement agencies in the spirit of cooperation with the goal of preventing future acts of terrorism. When acts of terror turn out to be hoaxes and our 

partners have invested significant resources investigating, they rightfully expect us 

to act with statutes that have teeth to ensure the punishment fits the crime. 

For instance, on three separate occasions in October 2001, during the same time 

period where individuals were dying from actual anthrax attacks, David Jones 

placed a white powdery substance on the counter in a restroom at the Hoosier 

Heartland Travel Center located off of busy Indiana Highway I–69 just outside of 

Muncie, Indiana. Jones was employed at the Travel Center. On the final occasion, 

Jones wrote a warning on a door inside the restroom that anthrax was present. 

After each incident, Jones brought it to the attention of other employees or encouraged others to call out law enforcement when the powder was discovered by someone else. He later admitted that he placed the powder on the counter each time, 

first using laundry soap on October 11, crushed aspirin on October 24 and ingredients from the capsules of an herbal remedy on October 26, 2001. He wrote the anthrax threat the third time. Each incident required law enforcement personnel to 

go to the scene, and this busy truck stop closed for a period of time during the investigation. In this particular case, due to the timing of the anthrax scares around the 

country, the Indiana State Police asked federal prosecutors to assist. They wanted 

to send a message across the State of Indiana that these types of hoaxes would not 

be tolerated. The Assistant United States Attorney responsible for prosecuting terrorism cases charged this individual with a violation of Title 18 Section 35, for imparting and conveying false information concerning an attempt of the commission 

of a federal criminal act, that is, causing the truck stop, which engages in interstate 

commerce, to be made unworkable, unusable or hazardous. Use of this obscure statute involving interstate transportation facilities was very creative yet this clearly 

was a hoax case. Because there was no specific statute on point, this AUSA used 

whatever tool she could find to make our point. 

We have prosecuted other cases in the Southern District of Indiana that in my 

opinion were classic hoax cases but instead were brought under the statute which 

criminalizes the mailing of threatening communications, in violation of Title 18, 

United States Code, Section 876. In one case, a fugitive under indictment, sent three 

letters on October 23, 2001, again during the national anthrax scare, to three different federal government agencies. Mr. Panko sent one to the FBI Indianapolis office, one to the Defense Security Services in Indianapolis and one to the COPS office 

here in Washington DC. Each letter contained white powdery substance with an enclosed letter that read ‘‘You die now!’’ The clerical staff who opened those letters 

lost sleep for many nights I’m sure. At least the Washington DC office of COPS had 

their mail irradiated prior to receiving it. The other office personnel were not so fortunate and were not certain as to what material fell from the envelopes. Emergency 

management teams and hazmat teams were called to investigate. The powders were 

sent to Indiana State Department of Health laboratory for analysis. Labs were so 

backed up all across the country that the anxiety that those office personnel suffered during the wait for the results is unthinkable. How do we adequately prosecute and punish those who cause this fear? The sentencing guideline ranges for 

this crime of mailing threatening communications range from as low as 10 months 

to 18 months in this case, yet if the AUSA had charged the crime of threatening 

the use of weapons of mass destruction, which anthrax clearly is, the defendant 

would be facing a potential sentence of up to life, which is far too draconian for this 

crime. We need some more tools. 

The disruption of government and the use of government resources to investigate 

these cases are extensive, particularly during times of actual terrorist attacks, 

whether foreign or domestic. In the case of Brian Seifert, an individual now serving 

a twenty two month sentence for lying to a federal agency, the amount of government resources spent on this investigation are unbelievable. On October 7, 2001, 

again less than one month after 9/11, Seifert, a computer data recovery specialist, 
16

called the FBI and indicated that he received a computer disk from an unknown 

person. The disk contained a statement that unknown persons were planning to 

drive fuel trucks into churches, schools, synagogues and shopping malls. Both the 

timing and location of the intended attacks were unstated. Seifert initially indicated 

to the FBI that an unidentified male of apparently Middle Eastern origin came to 

his business and wanted assistance opening a data file. Seifert indicated that over 

the next two days he uncovered the statement as a text message hidden in a computer graphic file. This process is called steganography. The ‘‘container’’ file or 

image that was initially seen was an image of an American flag. However, the 

‘‘steg’d’’ or hidden files were three graphic images of Koranic verses and a text file 

containing the statement about the fuel trucks being driven into Jewish or Christian 

schools or shopping malls. It was a ‘‘call to arms’’ rather than an express threat to 

a specific target. Given the nature of the statement, coming less than 30 days after 

the terrorist attack, the FBI, both locally and nationally, devoted numerous resources to determine the validity of the threat. For instance, the FBI locally set up 

surveillance at Seifert’s place of business in the event the unknown male would return. The FBI attempted without success to locate security cameras in the area to 

determine if one had captured a photo of the man Seifert said was the source. 

Seifert indicated the man drove a late model Lexus or Mercedes so all information 

was obtained regarding the registrations of such cars in a multi-county area. Items 

this individual purportedly touched were collected and sent to the FBI laboratory 

for fingerprint analysis. Databases were searched to determine whether this threat 

or any part of it, was uncovered elsewhere in the country. Finally, after multiple 

interviews by authorities, Seifert admitted that he lied about the source of the computer files. However, he then told multiple stories about the source of the computer 

files during FBI interviews, and the FBI had to determine the veracity of each story. 

Through time consuming forensic examinations of his own home computers as well 

as his other computers at his place of business, the FBI concluded that he had 

wiped data from his home computer and that he had downloaded software to prevent the forensic recovery of data through the use of file wiping technology. 

The FBI had to follow any and all leads regarding this hidden message. The consequences of a failure to investigate this type of allegation were unthinkable. This 

particular individual, Brian Seifert, had assisted local law enforcement in the past 

with investigations involving computers, therefore when this so-called ‘‘friend’’ of 

law enforcement brings to law enforcement’s attention the serious allegations of a 

future terrorist attack plan, the resources devoted were immeasurable. However, 

after the FBI came to the conclusion that this was a hoax, our office believed that 

the only crime we could prove was a violation of Title 18 Section 1001 or making 

a false statement to a federal agent or agency. The penalties available under a 1001 

violation did not come close to reflecting the seriousness of Seifert’s conduct or the 

subsequent investigation that ensued to ensure the safety of our citizens. 

Although Seifert agreed to plead guilty to a Section 1001 violation, the government had to vigorously argue that his sentencing guideline range should be increased by three levels for the ‘‘substantial interference with the administration of 

justice.’’ This enhancement is proper when there has been ‘‘unnecessary expenditure 

of substantial governmental . . . resources.’’ Fortunately we were able to demonstrate to the Court that the enhancement was justified. 

The hoax perpetrated in this case was specifically targeted at the FBI and federal 

law enforcement agencies. Seifert sent the FBI on a ‘‘wild goose chase’’ both in Indiana and across the country, that was exceptionally costly to the taxpayers, both in 

law enforcement investigative expenses, as well as US Attorney office expenses, 

such as the cost of the computer expert witness hired in this case for approximately 

$30,000, as well as the time of the two AUSAs who put this case together. The 

equally egregious part of this hoax was that it targeted innocent men of Middle 

Eastern descent. The FBI had to follow any and all leads regarding this hidden message allegedly delivered by a man of Middle Eastern descent driving a late model 

Lexus or Mercedes. 

The harm from this type of conduct is just as great whether or not the language 

used to perpetuate the hoax constitutes a threat. In many cases, a hoax may present 

law enforcement with what appears to be a credible risk of a terrorist act which 

then distracts them from pursuing legitimate leads to terrorist organizations or 

other criminal activity which may come to them in a less certain method. 

All of these cases would be difficult or impossible to prosecute if only relatively 

slight changes were made in the way in which the offenders committed the offenses. 

If Seifert had not made statements to the FBI, if Jones had not spread the powder 

at an interstate truck stop, if Panko had not included threatening language in his 

letters to federal agencies, then it would have been very difficult to prosecute any 

of these offenders. A fair conclusion to draw from these cases is that situations may 
17

commonly arise where the present state of the law too narrowly focuses on the preparation and sending of threatening communications. The language used by the 

maker of the threat should not entirely control the result. Prosecutors need a tool 

to address the equally damaging situation where conduct falls short of being a 

threat, yet nevertheless was engaged in with the intent to cause substantial interference with law enforcement and public activities. To this end, 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. Such 

legislation would be particularly helpful if it prohibited hoaxes involving all crimes 

that terrorists are likely to commit, since it is not possible to predict with certainty 

what future terrorist hoaxes would look like. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about this important issue. I welcome any 

questions that you may have.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. McMahon. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES McMAHON, 

SUPERINTENDENT, NEW YORK STATE POLICE 

Mr. MCMAHON. Chairman Coble and distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to 

speak before you concerning H.R. 1678. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. McMahon, if you would suspend just a minute, 

I failed to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Florida and 

the distinguished gentleman from Indiana. Good to have you all 

with us. 

Mr. McMahon, if you will continue. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you. I hope my remarks will be of assistance to you. 

As you indicated, I am a career trooper in the New York State 

Police. The New York State Police has over 4,500 sworn members. 

In many rural and suburban areas of New York State, troopers are 

the primary policing agency; and, in essence, they are the local police in those areas. 

In my 37 years with the New York State Police, I have investigated and supervised or otherwise been familiar with numerous 

false reports of threats to the safety and well-being of people and/

or institutions. Unfortunately, over the last few years, I have seen 

these calls escalate significantly. This increase, it would appear, 

came as a result of two tragic incidents. 

The first apparent trigger was the Columbine school incident in 

Littleton, Colorado, in 1999. Immediately after that tragedy, we 

saw in New York State a dramatic increase in hoaxes involving 

schools. The resultant fear level in parents, students and school 

personnel was tremendous; and often parents would not send their 

children back to school for days afterwards. The cost in terms of 

the emergency service response, disruption of school business and 

the emotional strain to students, teachers and parents was enormous. 

The second tragedy that spawned an increase in the number of 

hoax calls regarding public safety threats were the post-September 

11, 2001, terrorism scares related to anthrax or other biological 

agents. Anthrax threats escalated hoax calls to a new level, both 

from the standpoint of the response required by emergency and 

public health personnel as well as the fear generated in the public. 

This heightened response and fear factor occurred for two reasons. In the first case, the threat was perceived as real. Several 

deaths relating to anthrax had already gained national attention as 
18

well as the anthrax mailings that were received here at the Capitol. So the public was extremely frightened by a national threat 

that was not only invisible but was capable of being dispensed and 

circulated through the air and ventilation systems or the United 

States mail. 

The other factor that caused emergency first responders difficulty 

is that we were dealing with an unknown and dealing with a 

threat that, until the World Trade Center attacks, police and other 

emergency responders had not considered or had really prepared 

for—that is, the potential of someone using a biological agent as a 

weapon against society or as the substance of hoax calls to alarm, 

threaten or disrupt society. It is important to note that the threats 

or suspicious packages that turned out to be hoaxes were and are 

handled as if they were legitimate threats and a huge amount of 

emergency resources are expended. 

As an example of a typical hoax incident, let me illustrate just 

one isolated case handled by the New York State Police in October, 

2001. This case occurred in Halfmoon, New York, a town just north 

of Albany. A 47-year-old man returned home to his residence to 

find an envelope tucked in the front door with the word ‘‘anthrax’’ written across it. The man called the State Police and wisely did 

not open the envelope following the State Police guidelines that we 

heavily promoted in the press and other media. 

The State Police spent over 30 staff hours handling the case. In 

addition, a special hazardous materials team assisted, along with 

two volunteer fire departments and an ambulance corps with emergency medical personnel. The cost of the State Police was over 

$1,500 in salary alone. The hazardous material team cost was 

$800. The cost of volunteer services could not be calculated. 

Congressman Scott, I think, talked about the loss of business. 

Most of the volunteers leave their businesses to respond to these, 

so that cost is very hard to calculate. The New York State Department of Health took control of the envelope and on a priority basis 

expended approximately $4,000 to test the substance, which, incidentally, turned out to be sugar. Parenthetically, I would also note 

that the responding hazardous material team was almost involved 

in a very serious motor vehicle accident responding to the scene. 

This case was just one of close to 700 biological hazard report incidents that occurred in New York State during the period of October through December, 2001. Most of these incidents were hoaxes. 

A few of them were actual anthrax cases, mostly in the New York 

City area. 

While the cost in terms of dollars and cents, especially to small 

localities, cannot be overlooked, I don’t think that I can overemphasize the magnitude of the fear factor in these cases. Certainly never 

in my almost four decades of police work have I witnessed such a 

high level of concern on the part of the public. Fortunately, these 

hoaxes have declined. This legislation, however, is necessary to 

send a clear message to those who would perpetrate the sick, misguided hoaxes which I submit are acts of terrorism in and of themselves. 

Thank you once again for your gracious invitation. I will be 

happy to answer questions at the conclusion. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. McMahon. 
19

[The prepared statement of Mr. McMahon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES W. MCMAHON

Chairman Coble and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. 

I would like to thank you for the invitation to speak before you this afternoon in 

relation to H.R. 1678. It is an honor to appear before you, and I hope that my presence and remarks will be of assistance to you. 

I have been Superintendent of the New York State Police for over 9 years and 

a member of this organization for over 37 years. The New York State Police is a 

full service police agency with over 4,500 sworn officers, assigned to over 200 stations, and having statewide jurisdiction. While in larger metropolitan areas, routine 

police matters are generally handled by local municipal departments, the State Police often work closely with local or county police agencies on significant cases. In 

many rural and suburban areas, the New York State Police is the primary police 

agency and Troopers therefore are, in essence, the local police officer. 

In my 37 years with the New York State Police, I have investigated, supervised, 

or otherwise been familiar with, numerous false reports of threats to the safety and 

well-being of people and/or institutions. These false threat hoaxes usually consist of 

bomb threats or letter bomb hoaxes, usually directed at schools, malls, government 

office buildings, or other public gathering areas. 

Unfortunately, over the last few years I have seen these calls escalate significantly. This increase, it would appear, came as a result of two tragic incidents. 

The first apparent trigger was the Columbine School incident in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999. Immediately after this tragedy we saw in New York State a dramatic 

increase in hoaxes involving schools. The resultant fear level in parents, students, 

and school personnel was tremendous. The slightest threat, even something perhaps 

scribbled on a bathroom wall or desk could result in full evacuation of the school, 

and a full police response and evaluation of the situation. Often, parents would not 

send their children back to school for days afterward. The cost, in terms of the emergency service response, disruption of school business, and the emotional strain to 

students, teachers, and parents was enormous. 

The second tragedy that spawned an increase in the number of hoax calls regarding public safety threats were post September 11th terrorism scares relating to anthrax or other biological agents. 

Anthrax threats escalated hoax calls to a new level, both from the standpoint of 

the response required by emergency and public health personnel, as well as the fear 

generated in the public. 

This heightened response and fear factor occurred for two reasons. In the first 

case, the threat was perceived as real—several deaths related to anthrax had already gained national attention, as well as the anthrax mailings that were received 

here at the Capitol. So the public was extremely frightened by an actual threat that 

was not only invisible, but was dispensed and circulated through the air and ventilation systems. 

The other factor that caused emergency first responders difficulty is that we were 

dealing with an unknown, and dealing with a threat that until the World Trade 

Center attacks, police and other emergency responders had not considered or had 

really prepared for, that is, the potential of someone using a biological agent as a 

weapon against society. 

Exacerbating the fear factor and the intricacy of the emergency response was the 

fact that these responders were not readily equipped with the knowledge or the 

equipment to handle biological agents. 

Within the New York State Police, we had to rapidly acquire equipment such as 

respirators, protective clothing, and sealed transport containers, to handle these 

items and engage in coordinated efforts with fire, medical, and health department 

personnel to work out proper protocols for decontamination, evacuation, handling, 

transport, and testing of packages suspected of containing anthrax or other biological agents. Many similar local departments are still unequipped to properly handle 

this threat. The enormous costs associated with acquisition of equipment were 

joined by a substantial increase in training costs associated with the use of that 

equipment and proper handling and response techniques. 

Of course, the threats that turned out to be hoaxes, were handled as if they were 

legitimate threats and a huge amount of emergency resources were expended. 

As an example of a typical hoax incident, let me illustrate just one isolated case 

handled by the New York State Police in October of 2001. This case occurred in 

Halfmoon, New York, a town just north of Albany. A 47-year-old man returned 

home to his residence to find an envelope stuck in the front door with the words 

‘‘Anthrax’’ written across it. The man called the State Police and wisely did not open 
20

the envelope, following the State Police guidelines that we heavily promoted in the 

press and other media. The State Police spent over 30 staff hours handling the case. 

In addition, a special hazardous materials team assisted, along with two volunteer 

fire departments who sent 20 firefighters, and an ambulance corp with emergency 

medical personnel. The cost to the State Police was over $1500 in salary alone. 

The New York State Department of Health took control of the envelope and, on 

a priority basis, expended approximately $4,000 to test the substance, which, incidentally, turned out to be sugar and was deposited at the residence by an acquaintance who owed the resident some money. Parenthetically, I would also note that the 

responding hazardous material team was almost involved in a serious motor vehicle 

accident responding to the scene. 

This case was just one of close to 700 biological hazard reported incidents that 

occurred in New York State during the period October through December, 2001. The 

New York State Health Department Laboratory tested over 1,000 samples relating 

to these cases for suspected bio/chemical threat, of which only 23 samples proved 

positive for Anthrax. These positive samples were related to a few New York City 

incidents. Most of the cases were either hoaxes or innocent mistakes. The cost, both 

in terms of financial impact to towns, cities, and the state, as well as the disruption 

to business and emotional fear factor was huge. While the costs, in terms of dollars 

and cents, especially to small localities cannot be overlooked, I don’t think that I 

can overemphasize the magnitude of the fear factor in these cases. Certainly, never 

in my almost four decades of police work, have I witnessed such a high level of concern on the part of the public. 

Fortunately, these hoaxes have declined. This legislation, however, is necessary 

to send a clear message to those who would perpetrate the sick, misguided hoaxes, 

which I submit, are acts of terrorism in and of themselves. 

Thank you once again for your gracious invitation. I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Danny Hogg. 

STATEMENT OF DANNY HOGG, TARGET OF WAR-TIME HOAX, 

UNCLE OF U.S. SERVICEMAN 

Mr. HOGG. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, Members of 

the Subcommittee, my name is Danny Hogg. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the wartime hoax that my family and 

I experienced. 

On the morning of March 29, 2003, I attended a ‘‘Support Your 

Troops’’ rally at a local park in Flagstaff, Arizona. While at the 

rally, a reporter for the local newspaper, the Arizona Daily Sun, 

took pictures of me and asked me why I was there. I told him I 

was there to support my nephew, Wayne Jeremy Hogg, who was 

stationed in Iraq and to my knowledge was on his way to Baghdad. 

He told me to look in the newspaper the next morning. 

On the morning of Sunday, March 30, 2003, I was at my brotherin-law’s home when my son told me that Jeremy had died. He had 

just received a phone call that Jeremy had been killed a couple of 

days ago. This coincided with the report 2 days earlier of four people being killed in El Nasaria in the push into Baghdad from the 

3rd Infantry Division, possibly a maintenance company. He said 

that the person was from Jeremy’s unit and that they had talked 

about a reunion after the war. At that point, my son hung up and 

came to get me. 

I immediately went home and called my mother, Jeremy’s grandmother, to see if she had heard anything about this. She told me, 

no, what is going on? I told her that we had received a phone call 

that Jeremy had been killed, which upset her. I told her not to believe it until I talked to David, my brother, and Jeremy’s father. 

I then called my brother and asked him if he had heard anything 
21

about Jeremy. He said he hadn’t. I told him that I had received the 

call, which also upset him. 

I said, David, we need to find out what’s going on. I told David 

that I would call a phone number that I had taken off of MSNBC 

about what to do to find out about the troops. My brother at that 

point called Fort Huachuca, the major military institution in Arizona. When I contacted the MSNBC number, they told me that 

they do not notify the status of loved ones over the phone, that 

they come to your house. They gave me the number to Fort Stewart, Georgia, which is where Jeremy is stationed. I called my brother and gave him the number to Fort Stewart. 

I then went to the store, and the clerk told me that I was a celebrity. I asked him why, and he told me to look at the front page of 

the paper. I looked at the paper, and the caption under my picture 

on the front page read, ‘‘Danny Hogg waves an American flag in 

support of his nephew Wayne Hogg during the ’Support Our 

Troops’ rally.’’ at this point, I figured where they had gotten the 

name Wayne, as I referred to him as Jeremy. 

I went home and called my mother and then my brother and told 

them that it was a hoax. My brother said that he had contacted 

Fort Stewart and they stated that no one in his unit had been injured or killed. This gave us reassurance. I then had figured where 

they had gotten the name Wayne. 

I then tried to contact the Department of Homeland Security and 

could find no number. I tried the Flagstaff office of the FBI and no 

one answered. I then found the number of the Phoenix office of the 

FBI and called them. They told me that unless I could prove that 

it was an out-of-State call they had no jurisdiction and I needed to 

call my local law enforcement agency. The Coconino County Sheriff’s Department told me that they could not do anything, but they 

took a report and told me that there was a State statute covering 

harassing and hoax phone calls. They told me if it happened again 

to give them a call. 

I then tried to call Qwest phone company to see if I could find 

the phone number of the caller, as I wanted to find out who made 

the phone calls so I could press charges through the State laws. I 

have an older-style caller ID and the phone has to ring twice for 

the number to register and my son had picked up the phone on the 

first ring, so the number did not register on my caller ID. I could 

not get through to talk to a person with Qwest. 

I called my brother, and he had been contacted by Fort 

Huachuca, and they stated that they had talked to his commander, 

and they said that he was fine. They were going to try to get us 

a phone call later in the day. 

All this started at approximately 9 a.m. We had reassurance 

from the commander by 2 p.m. I called my work and took off for 

the day and then told them what had happened and would let 

them know when I had word on what was happening. By this time, 

we knew it was a hoax. 

I then called everyone else quoted in the newspaper article and 

asked them if they had received similar phone calls. I told them 

about my phone call and warned them if they received a similar 

call not to believe it. The military comes to your house in uniform 

to let you know the status of your loved ones. I then figured that 
22

I would get ahold of as many people as possible to let them know 

what had happened to my family so, hopefully, what happened to 

my family would not happen to another. 

By 9 p.m., my brother received a phone call from Jeremy saying 

that he was fine and that the Army would like to know who had 

made the phone call as they would like to prosecute. 

I then contacted the newspaper and asked if they would print my 

story. They printed a story on April 1, 2003. The headlines read: 

Prank Call Sends Flag Man Scurrying for Information About Dead 

Nephew. 

The morning of April 1, 2003, I received phone calls from numerous television stations asking if I would be willing to do an interview. I said yes. I did two video interviews with television stations 

and three phone interviews with television stations. I did interviews with stations as far away as Georgia. I have relatives that 

live in other States that stated they had seen my story on CNN in 

their States. I felt that I had done the right thing getting the information to as many people as possible via the news media. 

I would like to thank the military for the reassurance given us 

on the 30th of March, 2003. At no time in the history of the United 

States could someone have received a phone call from their loved 

one in such a timely manner up to and including a phone call from 

my nephew. I received a letter from Jeremy dated the 18th of 

April, 2003. 

While reading the letter, I found out that someone had died 

bringing Jeremy the satellite phone so he could call us. This is a 

quote from my nephew’s letter: I have seen things words can’t describe and done things I don’t want to do. I lost some friends out 

here. Loading their bodies on the truck was the worst feeling in the 

world. One guy died bringing me a satellite phone so I could call 

Dad to let him know I was alive. It made me think of Saving Private Ryan. Was it worth his life and the risk of three others to 

bring me a phone? I know it was a relief to all of you to hear I 

was okay. Now I feel I must make my life worth his. I don’t know 

if I can do that. 

As a result of this ordeal, my family has been put in an upheaval 

that is unimaginable. My mother, my brother, my sister and everybody in my family were placed in terror and immeasurable pain. 

My niece even went into premature labor. My nephew is still in 

Baghdad and has been shot in the chest. The bullet was stopped 

by a bulletproof vest. He has suffered from a broken hand and has 

received shrapnel in his hand. 

I would like to see this legislation be approved so other families 

would have some sort of recourse should this happen again. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Hogg. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hogg follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANNY HOGG

Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, members of the Subcommittee, my name 

is Danny Hogg. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the war-time hoax 

that my family and I experienced. 

On the morning of March 29, 2003, I attended a ‘‘Support Your Troops’’ rally at 

a local park in Flagstaff, Arizona. While at the rally, a reporter for the local newspaper, the Arizona Daily Sun, took pictures of me and asked me why I was there. 
23

I told him I was there to support my nephew, Wayne Jeremy Hogg, who was stationed in Iraq and to my knowledge was on his way to Baghdad. He told me to look 

in the newspaper the next morning. 

On the morning of Sunday, March 30, 2003, I was at my brother-in-law’s home 

when my son told me that Jeremy had died. He had just received a phone call that 

Jeremy had been killed a couple of days ago. This coincided with a report two days 

earlier of four people being killed in El Nasaria in the push into Baghdad from the 

3rd Infantry Division, possibly a maintenance company. He said that the person was 

from Jeremy’s unit and they had talked about a reunion after the war. At that 

point, my son hung up the phone and came to see me. 

I immediately went home and called my mother (Jeremy’s grandmother) to see 

if she had heard anything about this. She told me ‘‘No, what is going on?’’ I told 

her that we had just received a phone call that Jeremy had been killed, which upset 

her. I told her not to believe it until I talked to David, my brother and Jeremy’s father. I then called my brother and asked him if he had heard anything about Jeremy. He said he hadn’t. I told him that I had received the phone call, which upset 

him also. 

I said ‘‘David, we need to find out what is going on.’’ I told David that I would 

call a phone number that I had taken off of MSNBC about what to do to find out 

about the troops. My brother at that point called Fort Huachuca (the major military 

installation in Arizona). When I contacted the MSNBC number, they told me that 

they do not notify the status of loved ones over the phone, that they come to your 

house. They gave me the number to Fort Stewart, Georgia, which is where Jeremy 

is stationed. I called my brother and gave him the number to Fort Stewart. 

I then went to the store and the clerk told me I was a celebrity. I asked him why 

and he told me to look at the front page of the paper. I looked at the paper and 

the caption under my picture on the front page read ‘‘Danny Hogg waves an American flag in support of his nephew Wayne Hogg during the ‘Support Our Troops’ rally.’’ At this point, I figured where they had gotten the name Wayne, as we refer 

to him as Jeremy. 

I went home and called my mother, and then brother, and told them that it was 

a hoax. My brother said he had contacted Fort Stewart and they stated that no one 

in his unit had been injured or killed. This gave us reassurance. I then had figured 

where they had gotten the name Wayne. 

I then tried to contact the Department of Homeland Security and I could find no 

number. I tried the Flagstaff Office of the FBI and no one answered. I then found 

the number to the Phoenix office of the FBI and called them. They told me that unless I could prove that it was an out-of-state call, they had no jurisdiction and I 

needed to call my local law enforcement agency. The Coconino County Sheriff’s Department told me that they could not do anything, but they took a report and told 

me that there was a state statute covering harassing and hoax phone calls. They 

told me that if it happened again to give them a call. 

I then tried to call Qwest Phone Company to see if I could find the phone number 

of the caller, as I wanted to find out who made the phone call so I could press 

charges through the state laws. I have an older style caller ID and the phone has 

to ring twice for the phone to register and my son had picked up the phone on the 

first ring, so the number did not register on my caller ID. I could not get through 

to talk to a person with Qwest. I called my brother and he had been contacted by 

Fort Huachuca and they stated they had talked to his commander and they said 

that he was fine. They were going to try to get us a phone call later in the day. 

This all had started at approximately 9:00 AM. We had reassurance from the commander by 2:00 PM. I called my work and took off the day and I told them what 

had happened and I would let them know when I had word on what was happening. 

By this time, we knew it was a hoax. I then called everyone else quoted in the newspaper article and asked them if they had received similar phone calls. I told them 

about my phone call and warned them if they received a similar phone call, not to 

believe it. The military comes to your house in uniform to let you know the status 

of your loved ones. I then figured that I would get a hold of as many people as possible to let them know what had happened to my family so hopefully what happened 

to my family would not happen to another. By 9:00 PM, my brother received a 

phone call from Jeremy saying that he was fine and that the Army would like to 

know who made the phone call, as they would like to prosecute. 

I then contacted the newspaper and asked if they would print my story. They 

printed a story on April 1, 2003. The headlines read, ‘‘Prank call sends Flag man 

scurrying for information about ‘dead’ nephew.’’ The morning of April 1, 2003, I received phone calls from numerous television stations asking if I would be willing 

to do an interview. I said yes. I did two video interviews with television stations 

and three phone interviews with television stations. I did interviews with stations 
24

as far away as Georgia. I have relatives that live in other states that stated they 

had seen my story on CNN in their states. I felt I had done the right thing getting 

the information to as many people as possible via the news media. I would like to 

thank the military for the reassurance given to us on the 30th of March, 2003. At 

no time in the history of the United States could someone have received a phone 

call from their loved one in such a timely manner up to and including a phone call 

from my nephew. I received a letter from Jeremy dated the 18th of April, 2003. 

While reading the letter, I found out that someone had died bringing Jeremy the 

satellite phone so that he could call us. This is quote from my nephew’s letter: ‘‘I 

have seen things words can’t describe and done things I don’t want to. I lost some 

friends out here loading their bodies on the truck was the worst feeling in the world. 

One guy died bringing me a satellite phone so I could call dad to let him know I 

was alive. It made me think of Saving Private Ryan. Was it worth his life and the 

risk of three others to bring me a phone? I know it was a relief to all of you to hear 

I was OK. Now I feel I must make my life worth his. I don’t know if I can do that.’’

As a result of this ordeal, my family had been put in an upheaval that is unimaginable. My mother, my brother, my sister and everybody in my family were placed 

in terror and immeasurable pain up. My niece even went into premature labor. My 

nephew is still in Baghdad and has been shot in the chest. The bullet was stopped 

by a bullet proof vest. He has suffered from a broken hand and has received shrapnel in his hand. 

I would like to see this legislation be approved so other families have some sort 

of recourse should this happen to them. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. McMahon, my first cousin is a retired State 

trooper in North Carolina. You as a law enforcement officer, you, 

Mr. Hogg, as a firefighter, you two represent America’s finest. Good 

to have all of you with us. 

Ms. Brooks, we impose the 5-minute rule upon us, too, so if you 

all will keep your questions brief and we may have a second round. 

As a U.S. attorney, Ms. Brooks, what types of charges are you 

using to prosecute hoax cases not specifically covered by Federal 

law? 

Ms. BROOKS. The types of——

Mr. COBLE. I know sometimes you have to make it fit. 

Ms. BROOKS. That is exactly right. 

In the first case that I talked about, we used title 18, section 35, 

which was imparting and conveying a threat to an interstate transportation facility. So that was what we used in that particular case. 

We also use mailing threatening communications, title 18, section 

876. Those have been the primary charges that we have brought 

against these individuals. 

But then, finally, in the last case with the individual who 

brought the computer disk to the FBI, only because he brought it 

to the FBI and lied about it we were able to charge him with a violation of 18, section 1001 or lying to a Federal agent. If he had 

taken that disk to the news media or to some other source, not to 

a Federal agency and didn’t talk with the FBI about it, we couldn’t 

have charged him with anything. 

Mr. COBLE. In your statement, Ms. Brooks, you indicate that the 

hoax legislation should cover hoaxes involving all crimes. I have 

the fear that this may well be overbroad. Clarify for me, if you will, 

do you mean that we should actually cover any crime likely to be 

committed by a terrorist such as theft, for example, identity theft 

or visa fraud that on its face probably would not cause unimaginable fear? Or, rather, do you think it should apply only to crimes 

likely to be committed by terrorists that could cause unimaginable 

fear? 
25

Ms. BROOKS. I do believe that it needs to be more relevant to 

those that cause unimaginable fear such as those crimes that are 

listed in title 18, section 2332(b), which lists various different 

crimes that fall under the definition of acts of terrorism. So those 

types of crimes are those that we are trying to rectify the situation. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Hogg, before I forget and as an aside, is your 

nephew doing well now as far as you know? 

Mr. HOGG. We talked to him about a week and a half ago. He 

is still in Baghdad, and I am not sure exactly when he is coming 

home. He is doing well. He is in a safe and secure area, to my 

knowledge. 

Mr. COBLE. Good. Glad to hear that. 

Mr. McMahon, since September 11, terrorist attacks on New 

York may well be likely. I mean, these folks are going to come 

back, I have the fear, and I fear it may be next by water port or 

harbor. How have you all addressed this ongoing threat in a general way? I am sure it has been costly in doing it. 

Mr. MCMAHON. It has been extremely costly. Governor Pataki 

has used the State Police and the National Guard really as mobile 

forces to augment local law enforcement, including New York City 

like you said, especially at port areas, tunnels, bridges. In a recent 

Agent Orange on the commuter trains, we had troopers riding on 

the commuter trains coming in from both upstate New York and 

from Long Island into New York City. 

A northern border initiative, we have over 400 miles of border 

with our Canadian neighbors to the north. The governor has augmented Federal resources on that by us hiring an additional 120 

troopers, many of them working with Customs and Border Patrol 

at the 17 border crossings that lead into it. But these border crossings, the bridges, the tunnels—as you said, the ports are certainly 

potential targets. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. McCotter, have you had an occasion to have 

firsthand knowledge of any hoaxes that have erupted in your district? 

Mr. MCCOTTER. We have not been contacted about it, but it has 

been occurring in Michigan and throughout other areas. 

Again, what Mr. Hogg has expressed is the best way to put it, 

the pain and suffering that people go through. It would be very 

much akin to anyone in this country being told that their children 

were injured or killed or that their spouse had been injured or 

killed or someone that they cared about deeply. To sane, thinking 

people this is something that is unconscionable as well as almost 

inconceivable, and yet it is occurring. 

Again, I want to reiterate my great gratitude to this Committee 

for asking me here to help with this and your willingness to deal 

with this issue. 

Mr. COBLE. Good to have you with us. 

The other day I read an article about a person who was described 

as deriving much pleasure out of humiliating others. It is difficult 

for me to relate to that. It is equally difficult for me to relate to 

how people can get some sort of kick or thrill out of disseminating 

hoax messages that inevitably inflict harm upon the recipient. 

Yes, sir, Mr. McCotter. 
26

Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And there is the practical 

problem that the military faces when families are the victims of 

such vile acts. Families need information about their loved ones 

overseas or in a combat zone. This could be, if unchecked, a method 

by which terrorists use to help slow down military operations of the 

United States. 

Mr. COBLE. Indeed it could. 

The red light is in my eyes now. I now recognize the gentleman 

from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. 

Ms. Brooks, you indicated some of the problems you have to go 

through because of the limited jurisdiction criminal law that we 

have on the Federal level because most crime statutes are local and 

State. Can you give us some reaction to the problem we may have 

under the Lopez decision if this bill were to pass? You indicated, 

for example, that you had to have the FBI as the Federal nexus. 

Does this create enough of a Federal nexus to get past the Lopez 

decision? 

Ms. BROOKS. I’m sorry, I am not familiar with the Lopez decision. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is the one that said you couldn’t have a gunfree zone, having guns near schools. The court said that there is 

no Federal nexus there and so you couldn’t pass a Federal statute. 

The ones that you spoke to, that you had to have the Federal 

nexus, he sent it to an FBI agent, for example, that gave you the 

Federal nexus spoke to that very issue. 

Ms. BROOKS. I believe the type of crimes that this statute is trying to address, crimes involving biological attacks, nuclear attacks, 

chemical attacks or any of those acts of terrorism that are enumerated under 2332(b), those are crimes that are rightfully investigated and belong to the national Government. Those are not the 

types of crimes that our State and local counterparts are prepared 

to investigate and prosecute. Because of the nature of the crimes, 

because they are biological, chemical, nuclear, we believe that those 

are really national in nature. 

Mr. SCOTT. You deal with the Federal sentencing guidelines. 

Ms. BROOKS. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. This statute allows for a punishment up to 5 years. 

The sentencing guidelines will presumably give you some guidance 

as to who ought to get the 5 and who ought to get less. If there 

is clearly a joke, no harm intended but a bad joke, can the sentencing guidelines be descriptive enough so that those who are 

committing heinous acts can get the 5 years and those who are 

more of the pranks, no-harm-intended kind of thing, although harm 

was involved, be accommodated? 

Ms. BROOKS. I believe that this statute does adequately cover 

that, in part because there are civil remedies as well as the criminal remedies covered under this proposed statute; and the sentencing guidelines often build into the guidelines numerous factors 

that the Commission takes into account that I am certain the bill 

comes up with to make certain that those who really perpetrate the 

most heinous, rather beyond the more minor jokes, that those will 

be really dealt with more severely. So I believe that the Sentencing 
27

Commission will be able to come up with numerous factors that 

will be able to take that into consideration. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned the civil actions that are allowed in 

the legislation. The civil action appears to limit your recovery to expenses. Do you have the bill before you? 

Ms. BROOKS. I do. 

Mr. SCOTT. Page 2, line 15, appears to limit the recovery to those 

expenses. Usually, if you have violated a criminal law and you are 

liable to expenses, noneconomic damages, punitive damages and 

everything else, do you see that language as limiting and possibly 

denying recovery for, say, punitive damages? 

Ms. BROOKS. I am sorry, the bill that I have before me, line 15 

on page 2, is a criminal violation line, so I am not certain that we 

have the same——

Mr. SCOTT. The last part under civil action, 1037(b), civil action. 

Ms. BROOKS. I believe——

Mr. SCOTT. It would be the last couple of words in that section. 

Ms. BROOKS. Are you referring to ‘‘is liable in a civil action to 

any party incurring expenses incident?’’. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

Ms. BROOKS. I am sorry. Would you repeat your question? 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you limited just to expenses? Usually, you can 

get punitive damages if you violate a criminal code against somebody. 

Ms. BROOKS. The reimbursement that is set forth here——

Mr. SCOTT. Under part C. 

Ms. BROOKS.—under part C does refer to all of the expenses incident to that emergency. That is correct. That is all that this currently sets forth. I do not read that it does set forth any treble 

damages or any punitive damages. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. The reimbursement section allows the court to order 

reimbursement. It says it shall order the defendant to reimburse 

for expenses. Will you have a problem if we gave the court the discretion? Some expenses may be more than any individual could 

possibly pay if his prank went totally awry. 

Ms. BROOKS. I believe that is something certainly that the Department of Justice would like to work with the Committee on with 

respect to any technical amendments. We certainly would be willing to work with the Committee on that language, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you. Thanks to our colleague, Mr. McCotter, 

who is a good friend. I thank you for bringing to our attention, Mr. 

Hogg and Ms. Brooks, about some of the specific issues that come 

up and some of the harm that is caused, which is devastating. 

The bill in front of us doesn’t get to the horrible tragedy in the 

Hogg family case. The bill that was proposed last year may or may 

not deal with the Brian Seifert case that Ms. Brooks described, because I am not sure that fuel, regular gasoline, is considered a biological, a chemical or nuclear weapon under the subsections that 

are referred to in the bill in front of us. So I suppose that we are 

having hearings to talk about how to expand the nature of the per-
28

ceived terrorism hoaxes, and I guess we come to some very difficult 

line-drawing problems. 

Mr. Scott suggested that the Lopez case prohibits Feds from regulating safety around school zones because presumably States have 

the ability and capability, the primary obligation to do that under 

the Constitution. I happen to agree with that decision. Every weekend in Florida we have people that yell jokingly or otherwise that 

there are sharks in the water. We have people that pretend that 

they are drowning. More than once we have had lifeguards busy 

paying attention to a hoax when another crisis occurred. The question is when these things rise to the level of a Federal crime. Because while some offenses most of us have engaged in can be considered juvenile hoaxes, even juvenile hoaxes can cause great harm 

to families and people. 

One of the questions I have, and I guess with respect to New 

York probably the best example we have—I am glad the superintendent is here—I mean threatening to use a blowtorch to the 

bridge cables which was a potential target—that is not covered by 

the bill in front of us. Shutting down the Lincoln Tunnel, for example, is the type of disaster—we have got theme parks in my community. But every large community has stadiums and the threats 

around there. So the problem we are going to get into is this huge 

line-drawing problem, of where should we as a Federal Government get in and punish people at the level of a Federal crime for 

a hoax? 

I have to agree that lying to the family whose son or daughter 

is serving in the military probably ought to be a Federal crime. I 

happen to believe that the bill that was passed last year out of the 

House ought to be passed at a minimum in the version it is in. 

What maybe Mr. McMahon and maybe Ms. Brooks and maybe 

Thad would want to comment on generally is where we ought to 

be thinking about drawing the line. The bill before me I am perfectly prepared to support, but it doesn’t get to any of the issues 

that you described today. I want to know how far we are going to 

go in terms of turning pranks and hoaxes into Federal crimes. 

Mr. MCMAHON. You bring a point up I wanted to bring up, Congressman. In the last 2 weeks in New York there has been two incidents that I think this bill wouldn’t cover. They deal with bomb 

threats and explosions, one being in the Holland Tunnel and one 

on Tuesday on the Peace Bridge that connects the Province of Ontario with the City of Buffalo, one of the five top border crossings 

in the country. The hoax call said that there was a bomb and there 

was going to be an explosion in these areas. The reports—the way 

I read this legislation, unless it said that it was going to be a dirty 

bomb, that it had some kind of nuclear implications, it wouldn’t be 

covered. 

On the Peace Bridge now, you are talking interstate commerce. 

You are talking countries. That bridge was closed from 5:30 to 8:30 

in rush hour on a weeknight. It is—the U.S. Government and Canadian government have the authority on the bridge. Response was 

from Customs, Border Patrol, the State police and several other police agencies with bomb dogs that go out there. 
29

Mr. FEENEY. I am going to let each of you answer this, but my 

time runs out in a second. I want to give you one last hypothetical 

for all of you to address. 

Shutting down Chicago O’Hare Airport, whether you do it with 

a threat of a nuclear threat or just the typical bomb you could 

make in your garage, has the same potential impact, so judging it 

by the harm doesn’t get to my question. Where does the Federal 

crime begin and where does it end? 

And after the witnesses are done, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Well, I think—to answer your question so it gets 

to both ends, I think prior to 9/11 I wouldn’t have said you needed 

a Federal crime here, but I think you do now because you are going 

to have jurisdictions that are Federal and they should have the 

laws to work with. Most of the time we are working together, State 

and local, now on the joint terrorist task forces on these issues, and 

I think that this law needs to be on a Federal level. Some States 

have laws, some don’t. 

Governor Pataki under his legislation has created in certain 

areas a D felony, which is up to 7 years for these kind of hoaxes. 

There is no civil liability in that, which there is in this law. I think 

it is very important for these people to put that especially to small 

communities, fire departments, smaller police departments with 

the amount of money that it costs them to respond to these type 

of incidents. There has got to be something to curtail them. 

Ms. BROOKS. What you were talking about, Congressman, is the 

need to make sure we are including conduct beyond threatening 

language. Because not everything has an explicit threat attached 

to it. It could just be the conduct. For instance, an individual showing up with a hoax device strapped on to their person, they are not 

saying anything. They just might be standing there with something 

that looks like a detonator in their hand. So we need to make sure 

that we are including language that gets to situations where the 

conduct is equally as threatening and that we know it is going to 

cause substantial interference with the public. 

ATF—I spoke with the resident agent in charge yesterday of the 

Indianapolis office—indicates that he does not believe—his name is 

Jeffrey Groh. He does not believe that we sufficiently cover hoax 

devices in our language as well; and he would like to ensure that 

hoax devices are included in any language that might be proposed. 

But I think what Mr.—Superintendent McMahon is referring to, 

the civil reimbursement costs as well can be substantial. In the 

Seifert case, well over $100,000 in Federal resources were expended. So while Superintendent McMahon talks about in the hundreds and sometimes in the thousands, which can be significant, in 

this particular case well over hundreds of thousands was spent on 

one hoax case; and I believe that if the State and local law enforcement officers really look to the Federal Government, as I said, to 

try and put some teeth behind some of our laws—because some of 

our State laws are not strong enough and they are not getting sufficient penalties in the State court where they believe that we 

would in the Federal court system. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The distinguished lady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 
30

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member, and I thank the witnesses who are here. 

I am going to probably ask some of the questions that might 

have been answered in your statements. Because of activity and 

legislative debate on the floor of the House, I was detained and so 

did not hear all of your testimony. 

But if you would—Mr. Hogg, first of all, thank you for being 

here. I know that may be difficult to have to summarize for me the 

very difficult situation that you went through, but I think it is very 

important that you were willing to be here today and, as well, very 

important for you to share this information because hearings are 

instructive and they provide you with the added information to 

make the legislation work. 

And might I just say, before you begin, it is interesting that we 

are having this hearing dealing with hoaxes and the issues of terrorism because in the backdrop of this hearing is the very threat 

that any day a terrorist act could occur in the United States. We 

have a responsibility to sort of decipher the hoaxes in the backdrop 

of individual rights of individuals, individual rights of people who, 

though we may not like it, may be perpetrating a joke; and we 

have to be fair in that instance. But I think what your testimony— obviously, you are suggesting or your testimony will suggest that 

there are times when it is certainly not a joke and certainly warrants our action; and if you could just summarize for me what occurred to you, what happened to you. 

Mr. HOGG. I went to a ‘‘Support Our Troops Rally,’’ and I had 

made the front page of the paper, and there was a caption underneath it that gave my name and my nephew’s name. And the next 

day I—the only thing I can figure out is somebody looked up my 

name in the phone book and got my number. They called my son 

and told him that my nephew had died, which started a snowball 

rolling, me getting ahold of my family members, trying to find out 

and upsetting them, all the way up to us getting ahold of the military installations to try and find out if we could find out what was 

going on with my nephew, up to and including my nephew getting 

a cell phone—or a satellite phone to call home. On the way to bring 

him the satellite phone, one of the soldiers was killed bringing the 

satellite phone to him. It pretty much ended up somebody gave me 

a phone call which started a snowball rolling and got everybody in 

my family upset. 

Then, once we found out it was a hoax, I tried everything I could 

to get the word out to other people so they would not believe a 

phone call and stuff; and I went to as many news agencies as 

would hear me, and stuff, and did interviews, both phone and video 

interviews, and tried to get the information out as clearly as I possibly can. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Was the perpetrator ever caught or any name 

left with respect to this? 

Mr. HOGG. No, ma’am. There’s no idea who did it or why they 

did it. What they did was irresponsible and just totally unnecessary. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I would assume there is an ongoing investigation still trying to find the individual or—— Mr. HOGG. No, ma’am. There isn’t. 
31

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the letter that we have before us is the 

letter from your nephew. 

Mr. HOGG. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. Let me just say that, more than our 

deepest concern and sympathy, because that is, obviously, an outrageous effort, as I look at this legislation I guess I think one of 

the important things that we need to do is to make sure that it is 

carefully crafted to ensure that incidences that have not come to 

our attention—this is unique since this legislation was written— would still comfortably fit, while we still do not grab a fisherman’s 

net around the very poor practical joker, because there will always 

be practical jokers amongst us and they certainly have rights of innocence. 

So I would like to—and I thank you very much for helping me 

with that. I’d like to ask both Mr. McMahon and Ms. Brooks, how 

do you think this legislation crafts that very fine line? Thank you, 

Mr. Hogg. 

Ms. BROOKS. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

The legislation does permit and I think in any situation where 

a Federal prosecutor might be contemplating Federal charges there 

is prosecutorial discretion, and we look at all of the facts after the 

investigation has been completed to determine what is the appropriate charge, what is the appropriate penalty, what is the most 

readily provable offense. So I think that in some sense some prosecutor discretion as well is permitted in this particular draft that 

I have. There is civil action that is permitted as well, which would 

not rise to the level of seriousness of criminal action, and so I believe that we would be able to—this statute would cover those circumstances. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So would you think that the fine line would 

be at the time that the prosecutor decides to prosecute one, whether or not this can be classified or factually a practical joke or is it 

going to be at the time of sentencing? Because my concern with— I think I heard you say the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Because 

when we have mandatory sentencing, of course, by the time it gets 

to the court, prosecution and conviction, then the judge is committed to the mandatory sentence. And I want to protect Mr. Hogg, 

long range, as he symbolizes what kind of tragedy may occur where 

someone’s evil mind will create. But, also, there is a fine line on 

expression, freedom of expression, and as well this whole question 

of whether devices signify speech, which is what you had been 

speaking about earlier, that someone wanted to cover devices. 

I would like to ask the Chairman unanimous consent for an additional 1 minute. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Ms. BROOKS. I believe that that is what—and I will defer to Superintendent McMahon, because we rely on the investigators who 

are investigating the matter before we decide to bring these types 

of charges. So we would take a whole host of things into consideration before we would decide to bring this type of violation. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. McMahon. 

Mr. MCMAHON. I would agree. We would be—it would be based 

on our investigation. 
32

What I testified to was that after 9/11 with the anthrax scares 

I have never seen the fear level on hoax calls as I had, and we have 

had numerous calls. You know, prior to 9/11 or really prior to Columbine, we would get—a hoax call might be where you talk about 

a joke, would be kids during exam week trying to get out of going 

to school or something maybe. I think 9/11 changed the tone. Anthrax changed it. Most of these cases are not being done by youth. 

They are being done by adults who should know better if it is a 

joke. 

But the fear level that they are causing now is really substantial 

and I think needs to be addressed accordingly on that. I think this 

gives the prosecutor based on the investigation the leeway to look 

at that. But I think there really has to be a clear message sent that 

this is—I mean, besides the fear level to the individuals who may 

end up with white powder on them, whether it is anthrax or not, 

but closing buildings, closing Government facilities that go along 

with it, I don’t see the joke in it, especially after 9/11. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Congressman—— Ms. BROOKS. If I could just add, within the last 24 hours, the 

U.S. Attorneys Office in the Southern District of Indiana received 

an anthrax hoax letter. I have been U.S. Attorney for over 18 

months and we had not received such a letter, and I found it incredibly eerie that our office received such a letter yesterday at 

about this time. 

And the individual or the individual, once all of the emergency 

personnel came to our offices Superintendent McMahon talked 

about earlier, from the police department to the fire department to 

the county health department, all had to come to our office, and 

when they got there, the name on the return address happened to 

be a State prisoner that they were very familiar with. But until all 

of those folks had shown up and until someone recognized that, the 

mail personnel who handled that letter and all of the other attorneys and other office staff personnel who handled that letter, we— every one waited with baited breath, not certain as to what we had 

in our mail room. 

I really believe that having that type—and we were very fortunate because, even though it is still going to be tested and it takes 

a good 48 hours for those cultures to be tested and to determine 

whether or not they are positive or not, only because we know that 

this individual has done this many, many times, do we have some 

sense of security. But I believe that the sense of fear and the lack 

of security that these types of incidents really perpetrate is what 

currently the law is really not addressing. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It has been exacerbated by 9/11 and what we 

are presently in. 

Mr. Chairman, can I just ask an inquiry? Do you—the Ranking 

Member and yourself have a schedule for the markup of this legislation? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No, not known to me. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would like to be able to work further with 

this Committee on the issues that Mr. Hogg brought up. And, Congressman McCotter, we appreciate very much your leadership. But 

so that we can have protection Mr. Hogg would need, because I notice his was geared around military, but it may be that there are 
33

some other issues that should be utilized, law enforcement, et 

cetera. 

Mr. COBLE. I think I would permit that, Mrs. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would like to be able to do that along with 

trying to respect—not respect but recognize that there are probably 

unhealthy practical jokers around as well. 

Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the lady. 

Mr. McCotter, your body language told me that I cut you off earlier. Did you want to be heard additionally? 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if it’s acceptable to you. 

Mr. COBLE. All right. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. In relation to the hoaxes with the military, the 

questions about Federal nexus should not be a problem. Obviously, 

it is the United States military—and I think that it also provides 

some insight into what type of standard that you are looking at in 

the larger context of what this Committee is trying to do. Because 

you are dealing not with the subjective standard of a joke, which 

is what the person who perpetrates it is thinking, but is something 

so vicious that it is absolutely unreasonable for any reasonable person to believe there was any intent other than mass societal disruption or extreme personal emotional distress on the part of the 

victim. So I think that you have some pretty good guidelines. And 

in the overarching context of nexus, again, the Lopez decision will 

delineate what you can do, but it will also give a guide to what you 

could be able to do, and I look forward to working with this Committee in whatever capacity you deem acceptable. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, H.R. 1678 does not presently cover hoaxes on 

military families; and I presume, Mr. McCotter, you are suggesting 

that the bill be expanded to cover those situations, is that correct? 

Mr. MCCOTTER. I would be extremely grateful for the Committee 

to do that. 

Mr. COBLE. I think furthermore, folks, the information that was 

enlisted concerning the hoax devices, I think we need to maybe, 

Mr. Scott, look—and Mrs. Jackson Lee—look into that more thoroughly as well. 

Mr. Hogg, I have a copy of an 18 April, 2003, letter addressed 

to you by your nephew; and without objection that will be made a 

part of the record. 

Mr. HOGG. Thank you, sir. 

[The information referred to follows:]
34
35

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Scott, did you want to say anything else? 

Mr. SCOTT. No, Mr. Chairman. We have just—just going over the 

bill, there are a couple of technical things I think we need to discuss between now and the time we mark the bill. 

Mr. COBLE. Sounds good. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Folks, you all have contributed very significantly to this issue 

today. We thank you for being here. 

Now, Madam Attorney—Madam U.S. Attorney, you may not be 

able to respond to this, but I am advised that you had a very terrifying occurrence that crossed your path recently. Can you share 

that with us? It may be of help to the Subcommittee. 

Ms. BROOKS. Well—and, Mr. Chairman, approximately 24 hours 

ago we did have a letter that was delivered to our mail room, and 

our mail personnel did open the letter. Another envelope dropped 

from the letter that had ‘‘anthrax’’ written on the letter. She did 

the appropriate things, followed the procedures that the office security personnel had put into place. She shut the door and called for 

assistance. Unfortunately, there were individuals roaming in the 

halls right outside that mail room where the mail slots were. 

The emergency personnel were called. The police department arrived first. The fire personnel arrived, and then the Marion County 

health department arrived. 

And upon arrival that is when we learned that—but it took some 

time for all of these various personnel to get there and for someone 

to recognize that the individual’s name that was on this particular 
36

letter was an inmate at a State institution who has sent numerous 

letters to various officials. And it is—and so they were very familiar with the individual. But that gave us some assurance then that, 

because it had come from a State institution and he had done this 

on numerous occasions, we felt better, that we thought that it probably then was not anthrax. 

However, the State Department of Health is still going to be 

doing the testing. It will be 48 hours before it is confirmed that it 

is not anthrax, and the FBI and the Federal Protective Services are 

going—are involved in this investigation and will continue, hopefully, to pursue the appropriate charges. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, we of the Subcommittee very much appreciate 

you all being with us today. 

This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 1678, the ‘‘AntiHoax Terrorism Act of 2003.’’ The record will remain open for 1 

week, so if you all have additional contributions to make feel, free 

to contact us. 

Again, thank you for your presence today; and the Subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(37)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
38Æ