[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 15 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S440-S445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 2976. A bill to designate as wilderness certain land and inland
water within the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in the State of
Michigan, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
[[Page S441]]
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator
Stabenow the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and
Recreation Act, which would permanently protect 32,557 acres within the
extraordinarily beautiful Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
located in the Michigan counties of Leelanau and Benzie. This
legislation reflects the 2008 National Park Service wilderness
proposal, which was the result of a lengthy public process beginning in
2006, and culminating in broad public support for the proposal. The
wilderness designation improves upon a 1981 recommendation by ensuring
that access to recreational areas is provided while protecting lands in
their natural condition.
While there currently are no areas in the Lakeshore formally
designated as wilderness, the National Park Service has been managing
30,903 acres as wilderness since 1982, when an amendment to the park's
enabling legislation required the Park Service to manage land
recommended as wilderness in 1981 in this manner ``until Congress
determines otherwise.'' The legislation I am introducing today would
modify somewhat which areas would be managed as wilderness to ensure
visitors continue to have access to these lands. The bill specifically
excludes developed county roads and State highways from the wilderness
area such that access is not impeded for recreation and other purposes.
Several areas for boat launching and historic structures have also been
excluded from the wilderness designation. Even with these exclusions,
the overall acreage that would be designated as wilderness is slightly
more than the area currently managed as wilderness because Sleeping
Bear Plateau would be protected. Importantly, the wilderness
designation would still allow hunting and fishing, trail-use, and
camping at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Also, motor boats
would still be allowed in Lake Michigan, and boaters would be allowed
to beach their craft on beaches adjacent to the wilderness area.
The bill was carefully crafted to ensure that the wilderness
designation would apply only to areas currently undeveloped and
possessing natural characteristics and values. There are five areas
that would be designated as wilderness by this legislation. Most of
North and South Manitou Islands would be designated as wilderness, with
some exclusions for boat launching, roads, and historic structures.
Wilderness would also be designated in the north, central, and southern
parts of the Lakeshore on the mainland. In the mainland areas there are
also exclusions for roads and recreational and historic features.
The dramatic dunes, sandy beaches, steep bluffs, forests, inland
lakes, agricultural lands, and historic structures of Sleeping Bear
Dunes National Lakeshore embody the rich natural and cultural history
of Michigan. This wilderness designation would ensure that current and
future generations will be able to enjoy solitude and recreation in
these treasured areas. Even as the Sleeping Bear dunes are ever-
changing as they are sculpted by the wind, it is critical that we
protect these and other natural assets from being altered by
development. I hope we can have prompt consideration of this bill by
the Senate.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Webb, Mr. McCain,
Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Collins, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Corker,
Mr. Kyl, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Johanns, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Thune):
S. 2977. A bill to prohibit the use of Department of Justice for the
prosecution in Article III courts of the United States of individuals
involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about this
administration's decision to try the 9/11 conspirators and the
Christmas bomber in our civilian criminal justice system.
Prosecuting the five 9/11 conspirators currently detained at the
Guantanamo Bay detention facility, as well as the Christmas bomber,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in article III criminal court indicates a
disturbing tendency by this administration to make terrorism a law
enforcement priority rather than an intelligence priority. It a mistake
to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem alone, a mistake that
is only compounded by the fact that the intelligence community was not
even consulted before they were prevented from gathering any
intelligence from Abdulmutallab, a member of a terrorist organization
sworn to be at war with America. As the 9/11 Commission found:
An unfortunate consequence of this superb investigative and
prosecutorial effort was that it created an impression that
the law enforcement system was well equipped to cope with
terrorism.
As we know from an examination of events before 9/11, law enforcement
means alone cannot eliminate the threat from al-Qaida.
After Abdulmutallab failed to detonate an explosive device on
Northwest flight 253, he was taken into custody by law enforcement.
Other than the Federal Bureau of Investigation, no member of the
intelligence community--in particular, the Central Intelligence
Agency--had the opportunity to question Abdulmutallab and gather
intelligence. The Department of Justice should have foreseen that a
dedicated terrorist, intent on committing suicide and harming
Americans, would not be willing to cooperate with U.S. law enforcement,
especially after being informed of his rights under our criminal code,
including the right to remain silent. Without consulting the
intelligence community, the Department of Justice limited the tools
used to gather intelligence and potentially prevent future terrorist
attacks.
The administration is returning to the idea that terrorism can be
investigated by the FBI and prosecuted rather than relying on our
intelligence community and military to disrupt attacks. The United
States should not revert to the days where we waited for an attack to
occur, then investigated it and prosecuted it. We must work actively to
disrupt terrorist attacks before they take the lives of Americans. We
must work actively to deny terrorist safe havens and financing. The
most successful way to disrupt and deny terrorist activity is through
the intelligence we gather on individuals prior to a criminal or
terrorist act occurring or from those individuals after they have made
such an attempt.
Treating these terrorists as common criminals will put our
communities in danger, toll the taxpayers, and cause the government to
miss valuable intelligence collection opportunities. For example,
bringing the five 9/11 conspirators to New York City is estimated to
cost over $200 million per year just in enhanced security. This does
not include the cost to millions of New Yorkers and businesses who will
have to adjust their way of life to accommodate these trials.
Meanwhile, this will allow terrorists to mock our justice system and
use it as a stage to espouse their jihadist beliefs and expose our
intelligence sources and methods. We have already seen Zacarias
Moussaoui use his trial in Virginia to spout al-Qaida propaganda and to
try to portray himself as a martyr. Meanwhile, terrorism trials during
the 1990s in our criminal courts exposed sensitive and classified
information to, among others, Osama bin Laden, including the fact that
the U.S. intelligence community was targeting his communications.
Let me be clear. These are not common criminals, and they should not
be treated as such. The five terrorists responsible for planning and
organizing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks--including self-
proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--should not be
entitled to receive the same legal treatment as our Constitution gives
to common criminals in this country. These terrorists committed an act
of war, an act that led us to an armed conflict in Afghanistan, where,
today, more than 8 years later, our troops are still battling al-Qaida.
These terrorists should face justice through the military commission
process for the atrocities they committed--the same process that had
already charged these five terrorists and began over a year ago; the
same process that KSM already pleaded guilty under but that the
President abolished as soon as he took office.
[[Page S442]]
For these reasons, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators, today, in
introducing legislation that would prohibit funding for the prosecuting
of the 9/11 conspirators in our U.S. criminal article III courts.
Under his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, along with
the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the
President has the authority--and the responsibility--to detain the 9/11
conspirators and Abdulmutallab because of their actions on behalf of
al-Qaida, and to pursue trial by military commission--an option the
President determined appropriate for other terrorits, such as Abd al-
Rahim al-Nashiri, who was responsible for the USS Cole bombing.
Instead, by prosecuting Abdulmutallab and the 9/11 conspirators in
criminal court, and Nashiri and others by military commission, it
creates the impression that terrorists are rewarded with the full
complement of rights and privileges of an American if they attack
defenseless civilians at home, but not if they attack our government or
military interests abroad. This will only further incentivize
terrorists to attack our homeland.
As the attempted terrorists attack on Christmas Day illustrates, al-
Qaida does not need further incentive to attack America. They are
focused on and engaged in harming Americans here and abroad. As such,
it is critical that our intelligence community have every opportunity
to gain information so we can stay one step ahead of any related
terrorists threats. Obtaining intelligence first rather than affording
constitutional rights to a foreign terrorist is an obvious solution.
Treating members of al-Qaida the same as we treat others captured on
the battlefield is another.
____
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 2978. A bill to extend the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act,
to extend the trade preferences made available to Haiti under that Act,
to encourage foreign investment in Haiti, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation
to help encourage Haitian economic development, by promoting U.S.-
Haitian trade and investment. The legislation, the Renewing Hope for
Haitian Trade and Investment Act of 2010, would in part renew
provisions of U.S. trade law that are currently scheduled to expire and
which have been critical to the growth of the Haitian apparel sector,
which sustains tens of thousands of jobs in Haiti.
Apparel is a core industry sector in Haiti, accounting for an
estimated 25,000 jobs and 75-80 percent of Haiti's export earnings.
The devastating January 12 earthquake in Haiti caused widespread
damage to the industry. The damage has caused transportation and
assembly production bottlenecks, and compounded existing challenges
such as lack of industrial space, poor road and port conditions,
unreliable electricity, and the high cost of capital.
As of January 2010, Haiti's apparel industry is reportedly running at
50 percent of capacity as a result of the earthquake. Producers hope to
increase production to 70 percent of capacity in the next 4-6 weeks,
depending on improvements to electricity and water supplies.
Most apparel imports from Haiti come into the U.S. free of duties,
because of provisions in the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act,
CBTPA. Unfortunately, these provisions expire in September of this
year. This expiration is dampening interest in placing additional
apparel orders, so it is critical that Congress extend this important
program, and do so expeditiously. The Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade
and Investment Act of 2010 would extend CBTPA for an additional 3
years.
Increasingly, producers are using a new program called the
Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement, HOPE,
program to send Haitian apparel to the U.S. free of duty. While
utilization of this program, which began in 2006, is growing, it faced
early challenges and has since been amended. The amendments have been
helpful, but extending this program would help send a signal to
potential investors to go into Haiti and build the factories that will
employ hundreds or thousands more Haitian workers. The Renewing Hope
for Haitian Trade and Investment Act would ``restart the clock'' on the
HOPE program and extend it through 2022.
Furthermore, a challenging investment climate and cumbersome Customs
procedures for moving goods in and out of Haiti are imposing
significant challenges to private-sector Haitian producers. The
Renewing Hope for Haitian Trade and Investment Act would help in these
areas, too.
Over the past few weeks, I have reached out to a broad group of
stakeholders in order to identify the near-term challenges that face
Haiti's apparel production industry. We focused on identifying short-
term constraints that exist because of the January earthquake. I look
forward to continuing to work with these stakeholders going forward in
order to ensure quick passage of a bill that has a maximum amount of
consensus between U.S. and Haitian producers, non-governmental
organizations, and others.
I would particularly like to acknowledge the leadership of Senator
Bill Nelson on this proposal. His keen understanding of Haiti and how
U.S. trade laws work to help Haitian economic development was critical
to constructing this legislation. I look forward to working with
Senators Nelson, Baucus, Grassley, and Chairmen Rangel and Levin on
this proposal and other ideas to spur Haiti's economy. Each of these
members is a vociferous champion of Haitian economic development,
promoted in part by thoughtful trade and investment policies.
I encourage all my colleagues to join in supporting this critical
legislation to help Haitians who were flattened both economically and
literally by last month's earthquake get back on their feet.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Kaufman):
S. 2979. A bill to amend title 18, United States Cose, to provide
accountability for the criminal acts of Federal contractors and
employees outside the United States, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past year, President Obama has
been working hard to restore America's credibility in the world and our
reputation for justice and our commitment to the rule of law. A key
component of that important mission is ensuring accountability for
American contractors and employees overseas. Accountability is crucial,
not just for our image abroad and our diplomatic relations, but for
ensuring our national security.
To restore accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal
laws reach serious misconduct by American government employees and
contractors wherever they act. Today, I join with Senator Kaufman to
introduce the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA, to
accomplish this important and common sense goal.
Tragic events in Iraq in 2007 made clear the need to strengthen the
laws providing for jurisdiction over American government employees and
contractors working abroad. In September 2007, Blackwater security
contractors working for the State Department shot more than 20 unarmed
civilians on the streets of Baghdad, killing at least 14 of them, and
causing an international incident with the Iraqi government.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, conducted a full-scale
criminal investigation of the Blackwater shootings, and prosecutors
brought indictments against five contractors. Last month, a Federal
district judge dismissed all the charges because of an order from the
past administration immunizing Blackwater contractors under Iraqi law
and immunity commitments by the prior administration to obtain the
testimony of some. Although the Justice Department is expected to
appeal the dismissals, this could mean that those who perpetrated this
act will not be held accountable. I believe that, had jurisdiction for
these offenses been clear, FBI agents would have been on the scene
immediately, which could well have prevented the problems that have
plagued the case.
Other incidents have made all too clear that the Blackwater case was
not an isolated incident of contractor misconduct, and accountability
for U.S. Government contractors and employees is essential. Private
security contractors have been involved in violent
[[Page S443]]
incidents in Iraq, including other shooting incidents in which
civilians have been seriously injured or killed. In these cases too,
there have not been prosecutions.
Last fall, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jamie
Leigh Jones, a young woman from Texas who took a job with Halliburton
in 2005 when she was 20 years old. In her first week on the job, she
was drugged and gang-raped by co-workers. When she reported this
assault, her employers moved her to a locked trailer, where she was
kept by armed guards and denied even access to a phone.
Only after pleading with her captors was she eventually given use of
a phone. She called her father, who contacted her Congressman, who in
turn contacted the State Department. State Department officials were
able to free her. Ms. Jones testified about the arbitration clause in
her contract that prevented her from suing Halliburton for this
outrageous conduct, and Congress has moved to change the civil law to
prevent that kind of injustice. Today we seek to fix the outdated
criminal laws that have also contributed to the failure to bring those
who perpetrated this heinous crime to justice.
Unfortunately, many other women have encountered similar abuse and
have similarly seen their attackers escape any accountability. Also
last year, we learned that contractors hired to secure the American
Embassy in Afghanistan engaged in various forms of outrageous conduct
but there, too, there have been no prosecutions. It is time to correct
this injustice.
I worked with Senator Sessions and others in 2000 to pass the
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, and then again to
amend it in 2004, so that U.S. criminal laws would extend to all
members of the U.S. military, to those who accompany the military, and
to all contractors who support the Defense Department mission overseas.
We wanted to make sure that all contractors working alongside the U.S.
military or protecting U.S. interests overseas were held to the same
standard that they would be at home. We pay these contractors with
taxpayers' money, they represent the U.S. overseas, and they should be
held to the same standards as our military.
In 2007, I worked with then-Senator Obama and with Senators Sessions
and Specter on further legislation which would have amended MEJA to
make sure that all security contractors, not just those supporting the
Defense Department, are accountable under U.S. law.
Today, we introduce a bill that would finally address this issue in a
comprehensive way, establishing clearly that all U.S. Government
employees and contractors who commit crimes while working abroad can be
charged and tried in the United States under U.S. law. The State
Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and numerous
other Government agencies have employees, and in recent years, more and
more private contractors, working abroad. There must be accountability
for all of these people who represent our Government overseas. In those
instances where the local justice system may be less fair, this
explicit jurisdiction will also protect Americans by providing the
option of prosecuting them in the U.S., rather than leaving them
subject to hostile and unpredictable local courts.
Not only will this bill help to provide justice in cases where there
has been none, it will improve our national security by allowing
prosecution of those who undermine our efforts to create stability and
improve foreign relations. By ensuring accountability in cases of
wrongdoing against citizens of the host country, as in the Blackwater
case, we will increase international trust and cooperation, including
from those countries most essential to our counter-terrorism and
national security efforts. The current lack of accountability reduces
international confidence in our military and our Government, which
undermines our national defense. Moreover, the talented men and women
we need to advance our national security efforts will be more likely to
step forward and serve if we stamp out the lawless atmosphere in places
like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The legislation we introduce today would further increase
accountability by providing additional resources and creating new units
to investigate wrongdoing by contractors and employees abroad and by
calling on the Attorney General and the Justice Department's Inspector
General to report to Congress on investigations under this bill.
In the past, legislation in this area has been bipartisan. I hope it
will be again. Senator Kaufman and I are willing to work to address any
concerns with this legislation and to ensure that it promises justice
in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, our national security.
Congressman Price is introducing a companion bill in the House. I hope
that we will be able to rapidly pass this important reform into law.
As we seek to restore our Nation's historic role as one of
responsible leadership in the world, we must ensure that the values
that brought us to that leadership are firmly in place. One of those
great American values is the rule of law. No one should be above the
law, certainly not American employees and contractors representing this
great nation throughout the world. This common sense bill would promote
the rule of law throughout the world and make us stronger in the
process. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will join us.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2979
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Civilian Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction Act (CEJA) of 2010''.
SEC. 2. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CRIMINAL ACTS OF FEDERAL
CONTRACTORS AND EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES.
(a) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Over Federal Contractors
and Employees.--Chapter 212A of title 18, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by transferring the text of section 3272 to the end of
section 3271, redesignating such text as subsection (c) of
section 3271, and, in such text, as so redesignated, by
striking ``this chapter'' and inserting ``this section'';
(2) by striking the heading of section 3272; and
(3) by adding after section 3271, as amended by this
subsection, the following new sections:
``Sec. 3272. Offenses committed by Federal contractors and
employees outside the United States
``(a) Whoever, while employed by or accompanying any
department or agency of the United States other than the
Armed Forces, knowingly engages in conduct (or conspires or
attempts to engage in conduct) outside the United States that
would constitute an offense enumerated in subsection (c) had
the conduct been engaged in within the United States or
within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States shall be punished as provided for that
offense.
``(b) No prosecution for an offense may be commenced
against a person under this section if a foreign government,
in accordance with jurisdiction recognized by the United
States, has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person for the
conduct constituting the offense, except upon the approval of
the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General (or a
person acting in either such capacity), which function of
approval may not be delegated.
``(c) The offenses covered by subsection (a) are the
following:
``(1) Any offense under chapter 5 (arson) of this title.
``(2) Any offense under section 111 (assaulting, resisting,
or impeding certain officers or employees), 113 (assault
within maritime and territorial jurisdiction), or 114
(maiming within maritime and territorial jurisdiction) of
this title, but only if the offense is subject to a maximum
sentence of imprisonment of one year or more.
``(3) Any offense under section 201 (bribery of public
officials and witnesses) of this title.
``(4) Any offense under section 499 (military, naval, or
official passes) of this title.
``(5) Any offense under section 701 (official badges,
identifications cards, and other insignia), 702 (uniform of
armed forces and Public Health Service), 703 (uniform of
friendly nation), or 704 (military medals or decorations) of
this title.
``(6) Any offense under chapter 41 (extortion and threats)
of this title, but only if the offense is subject to a
maximum sentence of imprisonment of three years or more.
``(7) Any offense under chapter 42 (extortionate credit
transactions) of this title.
``(8) Any offense under section 924(c) (use of firearm in
violent or drug trafficking crime) or 924(o) (conspiracy to
violate section 924(c)) of this title.
``(9) Any offense under chapter 50A (genocide) of this
title.
``(10) Any offense under section 1111 (murder), 1112
(manslaughter), 1113 (attempt to
[[Page S444]]
commit murder or manslaughter), 1114 (protection of officers
and employees of the United States), 1116 (murder or
manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or
internationally protected persons), 1117 (conspiracy to
commit murder), or 1119 (foreign murder of United States
nationals) of this title.
``(11) Any offense under chapter 55 (kidnapping) of this
title.
``(12) Any offense under section 1503 (influencing or
injuring officer or juror generally), 1505 (obstruction of
proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees),
1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations), 1512
(tampering with a witness, victim, or informant), or 1513
(retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant) of
this title.
``(13) Any offense under section 1951 (interference with
commerce by threats or violence), 1952 (interstate and
foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering
enterprises), 1956 (laundering of monetary instruments), 1957
(engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from
specified unlawful activity), 1958 (use of interstate
commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire), or
1959 (violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity) of this
title.
``(14) Any offense under section 2111 (robbery or burglary
within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction) of this
title.
``(15) Any offense under chapter 109A (sexual abuse) of
this title.
``(16) Any offense under chapter 113B (terrorism) of this
title.
``(17) Any offense under chapter 113C (torture) of this
title.
``(18) Any offense under chapter 115 (treason, sedition,
and subversive activities) of this title.
``(19) Any offense under chapter 118 (war crimes) of this
title.
``(20) Any offense under section 401 (manufacture,
distribution, or possession with intent to distribute a
controlled substance) or 408 (continuing criminal enterprise)
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841, 848), or
under section 1002 (importation of controlled substances),
1003 (exportation of controlled substances), or 1010 (import
or export of a controlled substance) of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 960),
but only if the offense is subject to a maximum sentence of
imprisonment of 20 years or more.
``(d) In this section:
``(1) The term `employed by any department or agency of the
United States other than the Armed Forces' means--
``(A) employed as a civilian employee, a contractor
(including a subcontractor at any tier), an employee of a
contractor (or a subcontractor at any tier), a grantee
(including a contractor of a grantee or a subgrantee or
subcontractor at any tier), or an employee of a grantee (or a
contractor of a grantee or a subgrantee or subcontractor at
any tier) of any department or agency of the United States
other than the Armed Forces;
``(B) present or residing outside the United States in
connection with such employment;
``(C) in the case of such a contractor, contractor
employee, grantee, or grantee employee, such employment
supports a program, project, or activity for a department or
agency of the United States other than the Armed Forces; and
``(D) not a national of or ordinarily resident in the host
nation.
``(2) The term `accompanying any department or agency of
the United States other than the Armed Forces' means--
``(A) a dependant of--
``(i) a civilian employee of any department or agency of
the United States other than the Armed Forces; or
``(ii) a contractor (including a subcontractor at any
tier), an employee of a contractor (or a subcontractor at any
tier), a grantee (including a contractor of a grantee or a
subgrantee or subcontractor at any tier), or an employee of a
grantee (or a contractor of a grantee or a subgrantee or
subcontractor at any tier) of any department or agency of the
United States other than the Armed Forces, which contractor,
contractor employee, grantee, or grantee employee is
supporting a program, project, or activity for a department
or agency of the United States other than the Armed Forces;
``(B) residing with such civilian employee, contractor,
contractor employee, grantee, or grantee employee outside the
United States; and
``(C) not a national of or ordinarily resident in the host
nation.
``(3) The term `grant agreement' means a legal instrument
described in section 6304 or 6305 of title 31, other than an
agreement between the United States and a State, local, or
foreign government or an international organization.
``(4) The term `grantee' means a party, other than the
United States, to a grant agreement.
``(5) The term `Armed Forces' has the meaning given the
term `armed forces' in section 101(a)(4) of title 10.
``Sec. 3273. Regulations
``The Attorney General, after consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the
Director of National Intelligence, shall prescribe
regulations governing the investigation, apprehension,
detention, delivery, and removal of persons described in
sections 3271 and 3272 of this title.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of chapter 212A of
such title is amended to read as follows:
``CHAPTER 212A--EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES OF
CONTRACTORS AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Table of sections.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 212A of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 3272 and
inserting the following new items:
``3272. Offenses committed by Federal contractors and employees outside
the United States.
``3273. Regulations.''.
(2) Table of chapters.--The item relating to chapter 212A
in the table of chapters at the beginning of part II of such
title is amended to read as follows:
``212A. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Over Offenses of Contractors and
Civilian Employees of the Federal Government............3271''.....
SEC. 3. INVESTIGATIVE UNITS FOR CONTRACTOR AND EMPLOYEE
OVERSIGHT.
(a) Establishment of Investigative Units for Contractor and
Employee Oversight.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of any other
departments or agencies of the Federal Government responsible
for employing contractors or persons overseas--
(A) shall assign adequate personnel and resources through
the creation of units (to be known as ``Investigative Units
for Contractor and Employee Oversight'') to investigate
allegations of criminal offenses under chapter 212A of title
18, United States Code (as amended by section 2(a) of this
Act), and may authorize the overseas deployment of law
enforcement agents and other government personnel for that
purpose; and
(B) shall include in the regulations prescribed under
section 3273 of title 18, United States Code (as added by
section 2(a) of this Act), provisions setting forth
responsibility for the investigation of any incident in
which--
(i) a weapon is allegedly discharged unlawfully by a
person, while employed by or accompanying any department or
agency of the United States other than the Armed Forces; or
(ii) a person or persons are killed or seriously injured,
or property valued greater than $10,000 is destroyed, as a
result of conduct by a person, while employed by or
accompanying any department or agency of the United States
other than the Armed Forces.
(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to limit any authority of the Attorney General
or any Federal law enforcement agency to investigate
violations of Federal law or deploy personnel overseas.
(b) Responsibilities of Attorney General.--
(1) Investigation.--The Attorney General shall have
principal authority for the enforcement of chapter 212A of
title 18, United States Code (as so amended), and shall have
the authority to initiate, conduct, and supervise
investigations of any alleged offenses under such chapter.
(2) Arrest.--The Attorney General may designate and
authorize any person serving in a law enforcement position in
the Department of Justice or any person serving in a law
enforcement position in any other department or agency of the
Federal Government, including a member of the Diplomatic
Security Service of the Department of State or a military
police officer of the Armed Forces, to arrest outside the
United States, in accordance with applicable international
treaties, any person described in section 3271 or 3272 of
title 18, United States Code (as so amended), if there is
probable cause to believe such person committed an offense or
offenses in such section 3271 or 3272.
(3) Prosecution.--The Attorney General may establish such
procedures the Attorney General considers appropriate to
ensure that Federal law enforcement agencies refer offenses
under section 3271 or 3272 of title 18, United States Code
(as so amended), to the Attorney General for prosecution in a
uniform and timely manner.
(4) Assistance on request of attorney general.--
Notwithstanding any statute, rule, or regulation to the
contrary, the Attorney General may request assistance from
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, or the head
of any other Executive agency to enforce section 3271 or 3272
of title 18, United States Code (as so amended). The
assistance requested may include the following:
(A) The assignment of additional personnel and resources to
an Investigative Unit for Contractor and Employee Oversight
established by the Attorney General under subsection (a).
(B) An investigation into alleged misconduct or arrest of
an individual suspected of alleged misconduct by agents of
the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of State
present in the nation in which the alleged misconduct occurs.
(5) Annual report.--Not later than one year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for
five years, the Attorney General shall, in consultation with
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, submit
to Congress a report containing the following:
[[Page S445]]
(A) The number of offenses under chapter 212A of title 18,
United States Code (as so amended), received, investigated,
and referred for prosecution by Federal law enforcement
authorities during the previous year.
(B) The number of prosecutions under chapter 212A of title
18, United States Code (as so amended), including the nature
of the offenses and any dispositions reached, during the
previous year.
(C) The number, location, and any deployments of
Investigative Units for Contractor and Employee Oversight to
investigate offenses under chapter 212A of title 18, United
States Code (as so amended), during the previous year.
(D) Such recommendations for legislative or administrative
action as the Attorney General considers appropriate to
enforce chapter 212A of title 18, United States Code (as so
amended), and the provisions of this section.
(c) Executive Agency.--In this section, the term
``Executive agency'' has the meaning given that term in
section 105 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Immediate Effectiveness.--This Act and the amendments
made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Implementation.--The Attorney General and the head of
any other department or agency of the Federal Government to
which this Act applies shall have 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act to ensure compliance with the
provisions of this Act.
SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall
be construed to limit or affect the application of
extraterritorial jurisdiction related to any other Federal
law.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
For each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General such
sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Thune):
S. 2981. A bill to reevaluate and redirect the stimulus; to the
Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague
Senator Thune to introduce the Reevaluate and Redirect the Stimulus Act
of 2010 that would require the Obama Administration's Office of
Management and Budget, OMB, to make proposals to redirect stimulus
funds approved in last year's $787 billion American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. Although I supported the stimulus and favor the
continuation of pro-growth policies, given that the federal deficit for
Fiscal Year 2009 was a staggering $1.4 trillion and that the
Congressional Budget Office announced on January 26 that it is
projecting a baseline deficit of $6.047 trillion over the next 10
years, Congress must do more to pair the resources targeted for job
creation with reductions in other areas.
Before I describe the provisions of the legislation I am introducing
today, I must say that it is regrettable that I feel compelled to offer
a bill at all. The fact is, I wrote a letter last December 11 to OMB
Director Peter Orszag urging him to analyze unobligated funds in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to determine whether they should
be reprogrammed to offset the cost of future stimulus legislation.
Although my letter requested a response by January 1, the
administration, who is solely responsible for distributing stimulus
spending, has declined to do so. The Administration also opted against
including any related proposals in its just-released Fiscal Year 2011
Budget. I find it inconceivable that there are no funds that should be
redirected, and thus the Administration has concluded that every dollar
we approved last February is working precisely as intended.
Additionally, I am particularly concerned by proposals to pay for
additional stimulus by reducing the authorization level for the
Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, as the House did last December.
The fact is that further stimulus spending claimed to be offset by
reducing TARP's authorization level would still increase the deficit
relative to simply not using additional TARP funds at all.
Despite OMB's inattention to my request, the administration and
Congress both remain accountable to ensure that each dollar we spend on
stimulus either creates jobs at a greater rate or protects displaced
individuals at a lower cost than competing policies on the table. To
the degree that either the tax or spending proposals President Obama
has or that members of Congress want to pursue are more beneficial than
proceeding to obligate funds still available in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, the administration and Congress should assess the
possibility of redirecting those resources. We simply cannot afford to
be poor fiscal stewards and engage in wasteful spending that will rob
future generations of prosperity.
To fulfill this fundamental obligation, the legislation I am offering
today would make it a statutory requirement for OMB, within the next 15
days, to provide Congress with a list of provisions from the stimulus
for which there remain funds that have not yet been obligated. Second,
OMB would be required to provide Congress with a list of programs
included in the stimulus with remaining unobligated funds that it
recommends be redirected toward more effective programs to either
assist the displaced, or spur job creation. Once Congress receives the
administration's proposals, all Members, as well as the appropriate
Congressional committees, can evaluate their suitability with an eye
toward using them as offsets for forthcoming legislation.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation
and help to swiftly make it law. The administration and Congress must
work together to address our tremendous budget deficit and insist that
every dollar we spend promotes its objective. Given that it oversees
stimulus spending and has the capacity to evaluate whether programs are
working as intended, it is only appropriate that the administration
complete the first step of this process and provide Congress with a
list of spending that could be redirected. Once it does so, I will
certainly insist that Congress discharge its responsibility of
carefully evaluating the administration's proposals. Individuals
seeking relief from the recession that has so ravaged our economy
expect nothing less as it is unfair to waste dollars that could be more
beneficial elsewhere, and future generations who will have to repay
today's deficits will thank us as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2981
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Reevaluate and Redirect the
Stimulus Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. OMB CERTIFICATION.
Not later 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (referred
to in this Act as the ``Director'') shall provide to
Congress--
(1) a list of programs that have unobligated stimulus funds
provided under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of
2009 and the amounts that are unobligated; and
(2) a list of stimulus funds that remain unobligated that
the Director recommends be redirected toward more effective
programs to either assist displaced workers or spur job
creation in 2010 with a breakdown of the amounts of
unobligated funds that could be reprogrammed by program.
____________________