[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16198-16202]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           MILITARY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3380) to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish 
Federal jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the United States 
by persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces, or by members 
of the Armed Forces who are released or separated from active duty 
prior to being identified and prosecuted for the commission of such 
offenses, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3380

       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 ``Military Extraterritorial 
     Jurisdiction Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL JURISDICTION.

       (a) Certain Criminal Offenses Committed Outside the United 
     States.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after chapter 211 the following new chapter:

         ``CHAPTER 212--MILITARY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

``Sec.
``3261.  Criminal offenses committed by certain members of the Armed 
              Forces and by persons employed by or accompanying the 
              Armed Forces outside the United States.
``3262.  Arrest and commitment.
``3263.  Delivery to authorities of foreign countries.
``3264.  Limitation on removal.
``3265.  Initial proceedings.
``3266.  Regulations.
``3267.  Definitions.

     ``Sec. 3261. Criminal offenses committed by certain members 
       of the Armed Forces and by persons employed by or 
       accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States

       ``(a) Whoever engages in conduct outside the United States 
     that would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment 
     for more than 1 year if the conduct had been engaged in 
     within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of 
     the United States--
       ``(1) while employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces 
     outside the United States; or
       ``(2) while a member of the Armed Forces subject to chapter 
     47 of title 10 (the Uniform Code of Military Justice),

     shall be punished as provided for that offense.
       ``(b) No prosecution 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 such 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) Nothing in this chapter may be construed to deprive a 
     court-martial, military commission, provost court, or other 
     military tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction with respect to 
     offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war 
     may be tried by a court-martial, military commission, provost 
     court, or other military tribunal.
       ``(d) No prosecution may be commenced against a member of 
     the Armed Forces subject to chapter 47 of title 10 (the 
     Uniform Code of Military Justice) under this section unless--
       ``(1) such member ceases to be subject to such chapter; or
       ``(2) an indictment or information charges that the member 
     committed the offense with 1 or more other defendants, at 
     least 1 of whom is not subject to such chapter.

     ``Sec. 3262. Arrest and commitment

       ``(a) The Secretary of Defense may designate and authorize 
     any person serving in a law enforcement position in the 
     Department of Defense

[[Page 16199]]

     to arrest, in accordance with applicable international 
     agreements, outside the United States any person described in 
     section 3261(a) if there is probable cause to believe that 
     such person violated section 3261(a).
       ``(b) Except as provided in sections 3263 and 3264, a 
     person arrested under subsection (a) shall be delivered as 
     soon as practicable to the custody of civilian law 
     enforcement authorities of the United States for removal to 
     the United States for judicial proceedings in relation to 
     conduct referred to in such subsection unless such person has 
     had charges brought against him or her under chapter 47 of 
     title 10 for such conduct.

     ``Sec. 3263. Delivery to authorities of foreign countries

       ``(a) Any person designated and authorized under section 
     3262(a) may deliver a person described in section 3261(a) to 
     the appropriate authorities of a foreign country in which 
     such person is alleged to have violated section 3261(a) if--
       ``(1) appropriate authorities of that country request the 
     delivery of the person to such country for trial for such 
     conduct as an offense under the laws of that country; and
       ``(2) the delivery of such person to that country is 
     authorized by a treaty or other international agreement to 
     which the United States is a party.
       ``(b) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, shall determine which officials of a 
     foreign country constitute appropriate authorities for 
     purposes of this section.

     ``Sec. 3264. Limitation on removal

       ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), and except for 
     a person delivered to authorities of a foreign country under 
     section 3263, a person arrested for or charged with a 
     violation of section 3261(a) shall not be removed--
       ``(1) to the United States; or
       ``(2) to any foreign country other than a country in which 
     such person is believed to have violated section 3261(a).
       ``(b) The limitation in subsection (a) does not apply if--
       ``(1) a Federal magistrate judge orders the person to be 
     removed to the United States to be present at a detention 
     hearing held pursuant to section 3142(f);
       ``(2) a Federal magistrate judge orders the detention of 
     the person before trial pursuant to section 3142(e), in which 
     case the person shall be promptly removed to the United 
     States for purposes of such detention;
       ``(3) the person is entitled to, and does not waive, a 
     preliminary examination under the Federal Rules of Criminal 
     Procedure, in which case the person shall be removed to the 
     United States in time for such examination;
       ``(4) a Federal magistrate judge otherwise orders the 
     person to be removed to the United States; or
       ``(5) the Secretary of Defense determines that military 
     necessity requires that the limitations in subsection (a) be 
     waived, in which case the person shall be removed to the 
     nearest United States military installation outside the 
     United States adequate to detain the person and to facilitate 
     the initial appearance described in section 3265(a).

     ``Sec. 3265. Initial proceedings

       ``(a)(1) In the case of any person arrested for or charged 
     with a violation of section 3261(a) who is not delivered to 
     authorities of a foreign country under section 3263, the 
     initial appearance of that person under the Federal Rules of 
     Criminal Procedure--
       ``(A) shall be conducted by a Federal magistrate judge; and
       ``(B) may be carried out by telephony or such other means 
     that enables voice communication among the participants, 
     including any counsel representing the person.
       ``(2) In conducting the initial appearance, the Federal 
     magistrate judge shall also determine whether there is 
     probable cause to believe that an offense under section 
     3261(a) was committed and that the person committed it.
       ``(3) If the Federal magistrate judge determines that 
     probable cause exists that the person committed an offense 
     under section 3261(a), and if no motion is made seeking the 
     person's detention before trial, the Federal magistrate judge 
     shall also determine at the initial appearance the conditions 
     of the person's release before trial under chapter 207 of 
     this title.
       ``(b) In the case of any person described in subsection 
     (a), any detention hearing of that person under section 
     3142(f)--
       ``(1) shall be conducted by a Federal magistrate judge; and
       ``(2) at the request of the person, may be carried out by 
     telephony or such other means that enables voice 
     communication among the participants, including any counsel 
     representing the person.
       ``(c)(1) If any initial proceeding under this section with 
     respect to any such person is conducted while the person is 
     outside the United States, and the person is entitled to have 
     counsel appointed for purposes of such proceeding, the 
     Federal magistrate judge may appoint as such counsel for 
     purposes of such hearing a qualified military counsel.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `qualified 
     military counsel' means a judge advocate made available by 
     the Secretary of Defense for purposes of such proceedings, 
     who--
       ``(A) is a graduate of an accredited law school or is a 
     member of the bar of a Federal court or of the highest court 
     of a State; and
       ``(B) is certified as competent to perform such duties by 
     the Judge Advocate General of the armed force of which he is 
     a member.

     ``Sec. 3266. Regulations

       ``(a) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall prescribe 
     regulations governing the apprehension, detention, delivery, 
     and removal of persons under this chapter and the 
     facilitation of proceedings under section 3265. Such 
     regulations shall be uniform throughout the Department of 
     Defense.
       ``(b)(1) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with 
     the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall 
     prescribe regulations requiring that, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, notice shall be provided to any person employed 
     by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States 
     who is not a national of the United States that such person 
     is potentially subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the 
     United States under this chapter.
       ``(2) A failure to provide notice in accordance with the 
     regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) shall not defeat 
     the jurisdiction of a court of the United States or provide a 
     defense in any judicial proceeding arising under this 
     chapter.
       ``(c) The regulations prescribed under this section, and 
     any amendments to those regulations, shall not take effect 
     before the date that is 90 days after the date on which the 
     Secretary of Defense submits a report containing those 
     regulations or amendments (as the case may be) to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.

     ``Sec. 3267. Definitions

       ``As used in this chapter:
       ``(1) The term `employed by the Armed Forces outside the 
     United States' means--
       ``(A) employed as a civilian employee of the Department of 
     Defense (including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of 
     the Department), as a Department of Defense contractor 
     (including a subcontractor at any tier), or as an employee of 
     a Department of Defense contractor (including a subcontractor 
     at any tier);
       ``(B) present or residing outside the United States in 
     connection with such employment; and
       ``(C) not a national of or ordinarily resident in the host 
     nation.
       ``(2) The term `accompanying the Armed Forces outside the 
     United States' means--
       ``(A) a dependent of--
       ``(i) a member of the Armed Forces;
       ``(ii) a civilian employee of the Department of Defense 
     (including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the 
     Department); or
       ``(iii) a Department of Defense contractor (including a 
     subcontractor at any tier) or an employee of a Department of 
     Defense contractor (including a subcontractor at any tier);
       ``(B) residing with such member, civilian employee, 
     contractor, or contractor employee outside the United States; 
     and
       ``(C) not a national of or ordinarily resident in the host 
     nation.
       ``(3) The term `Armed Forces' has the meaning given the 
     term `armed forces' in section 101(a)(4) of title 10.
       ``(4) The terms `Judge Advocate General' and `judge 
     advocate' have the meanings given such terms in section 801 
     of title 10.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part II 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 211 the following new 
     item:

``212.  Military extraterritorial jurisdiction..............3261''.....

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3380.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3380, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction 
Act of 1999, was introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss) last year, together with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
  The bill as it is reported from the Committee on the Judiciary today 
is the product of close collaboration between the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and 
the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott). It also reflects the input of the 
Departments of Justice and Defense, the American Civil Liberties Union 
and the National Education Association. I am pleased to represent to

[[Page 16200]]

the Members that the bill is supported by both the Defense and Justice 
Departments, as well as the ACLU and the NEA.
  H.R. 3380 would amend Federal law to establish Federal criminal 
jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the United States by 
persons employed by or accompanying the United States Armed Forces. It 
would also establish Federal criminal jurisdiction over offenses 
committed outside the United States by members of the Armed Forces, but 
who are not tried for those crimes by military authorities and later 
cease to be the subject of military control. This bill fills the 
jurisdiction gap in the law that has allowed rapists, child molesters 
and a variety of other criminals to escape punishment for their crimes. 
This bill fills that gap and will help to ensure that persons who 
commit crimes while accompanying our Armed Forces abroad will be 
punished for their crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support it. The Committee on the 
Judiciary ordered the bill reported favorably by voice vote late last 
month.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the original sponsor of the 
legislation. I would like to commend the gentleman for his leadership 
in this effort.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
leadership on this and for his cooperation in bringing this bill to the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, which fixes a 
loophole in the law and is critical to enforcing justice and assisting 
America's military leaders in maintaining order and discipline among 
our Armed Forces.
  In many cases, when a crime is committed by an American civilian who 
accompanies our military overseas, they may be subject to prosecution 
by the foreign government, or subject to provisions of an international 
agreement which governs how these cases are handled. However, too many 
times there are instances where American civilians attached to a 
military unit commit crimes outside the United States but cannot be 
prosecuted because the foreign governments decline to take any action 
and U.S. military or civilian law enforcement agencies lack the 
appropriate authority to prosecute these criminals. As a result, 
military commanders can only issue minor administrative sanctions as a 
punishment for serious crimes like rape, arson, or murder.
  Let me give you just a couple of examples of the problem our military 
faces. In one instance, a Department of Defense teacher raped a minor 
and videotaped the event. The host country chose not to prosecute, and 
our government did not have jurisdiction to prosecute the teacher.
  In another case, the son of a contract employee in Italy committed 
various crimes, including rape, arson, assault and drug trafficking. 
Again, because of a lack of jurisdiction to prosecute, as a punishment 
for these criminal acts the son could only be barred from the base.
  Finally, an Air Force employee molested 24 children ages 9 to 14. 
However, because the host country refused to prosecute, the only 
recourse was again to bar this individual from the base. Certainly 
these flimsy punishments do not match the seriousness of the crimes 
these individuals committed.
  For several decades, Congress has been urged to close this 
jurisdictional gap. In fact, 20 years ago the General Accounting Office 
reported that in 1977, foreign countries hosting American troops and 
civilians refused to prosecute 59 cases of serious crimes such as rape, 
manslaughter, arson, robbery and burglary.
  Today we have almost a quarter of a million civilian employees and 
dependents deployed with our military overseas. As we have drawn down 
our military services, civilian employees and contractors have played 
increasingly important roles in supporting our contingency operations. 
As this trend continues unabated, crimes that fall into this 
jurisdictional gap continue to go unpunished.
  In 1995, Congress directed the Departments of Defense and Justice to 
review this issue and make recommendations on the appropriate way to 
extend criminal jurisdiction to civilians accompanying the Armed Forces 
overseas. Our bill is built on the hard work and efforts of the 
advisory committee established by the Departments of Defense and 
Justice which studied this issue very thoroughly. We have worked on a 
bipartisan basis with the Departments in drafting this important 
legislation to ensure that crimes are punished.
  Furthermore, the courts have encouraged Congress to close the 
jurisdictional gap in the law. In one case an enlisted soldier was 
accompanied by her husband and stepdaughter on a tour of duty in 
Germany. Upon returning to the United States, the daughter gave birth 
to a child and revealed that the stepfather was in fact the baby's 
father. The man was charged with sexual abuse of a minor, but the case 
was ultimately dismissed because the Court of Appeals found that the 
statute could only be applied to a crime committed within the United 
States. A lack of jurisdiction allowed this crime to go unpunished and 
justice to be avoided.
  Mr. Speaker, it is high time that we give our government the ability 
to hold citizens accountable for all criminal offenses. H.R. 3380 will 
finally close this legal loophole, that allows some criminals outside 
the United States to avoid prosecution and prevents justice from being 
served.

                              {time}  2100

  This bill will create a new Federal law that would apply Federal 
criminal statutes to crimes which are committed overseas by employees 
or dependents of members of the Armed Forces, persons employed by the 
Department of Defense, or contractors or subcontractors of the Armed 
Forces.
  The bill would preclude prosecution against a person if a foreign 
government prosecutes the defendant or if the defendant is subject to 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  Department of Defense law enforcement personnel would be authorized 
to arrest alleged criminals and would deliver them as soon as 
practicable to United States civilian law enforcement officials or to 
law enforcement personnel of a foreign country.
  Finally, the bill places limits on the power of law enforcement 
personnel to remove arrested persons from the country in which they are 
arrested or found and ensure that the due process rights of the accused 
are protected.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the leadership of Senator Jeff 
Sessions of the great State of Alabama, who sponsored the original bill 
and brought this issue to the forefront. I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the coauthor of this bill with 
me, along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), in working together to craft a thorough and comprehensive 
approach to address this problem.
  As I said earlier, this has been a true bipartisan effort and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has been very helpful in coming 
together with us on the language and I want to thank him on the floor 
tonight and commend him for his very dedicated service here.
  We must continue our commitment to enforcing the law and reducing 
crime. I strongly believe that now is the time for Congress to act to 
close the loophole that allows civilian criminals to escape prosecution 
of their crimes, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 
3380, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdictional Act.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for the bill; and I want to 
express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) and the chief patron of the bill, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Chambliss), for their hard work and bipartisan and cooperative 
approach in developing this bill; and also to the staff of the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the National 
Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the 
ACLU who helped us craft this bill.

[[Page 16201]]

  The cooperative effort applied to this bill is a model for openness 
and collaboration which I would hope we would see more of in this body.
  The bill closes a loophole in the current law which allows some 
individuals to escape responsibility for criminal acts committed 
outside of the United States. Civilian employees, contractors and 
dependent family members of both civilian and military personnel who 
commit criminal acts while connected to overseas military operations 
are not covered by either the Military Code of Justice, because they 
are not in the military, nor by the Federal Criminal Code because the 
acts were committed outside of the United States, as was in the example 
that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) mentioned; nor are 
recently discharged enlisted personnel whose crimes are not prosecuted 
prior to discharge.
  Now, these crimes are technically subject to prosecution in the 
foreign country, but those who are attached to the military and commit 
a crime on a military base are generally not prosecuted by the foreign 
government who see this as a United States military problem, and they 
generally do not intervene. The bill fixes this problem by extending 
Federal criminal jurisdiction to these situations.
  It is my position that a United States citizen attached to military 
bases abroad who commits serious criminal offenses while living on a 
military base should be held no less accountable than they would if 
they had committed such an offense in the United States. It is also my 
position that those individuals accused of such offenses are entitled 
to no less due process and other constitutional protections than they 
would receive if the offense had been committed in the United States.
  This bill, as structured, effectively holds criminals responsible for 
acts and provides decent due process protection so that innocent people 
charged with a crime are considered for bail prior to trial and have a 
reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. For that reason, Mr. 
Speaker, and with thanks to the cooperative effort of those who worked 
on this bill with me, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the original co-sponsor 
of H.R. 3380 the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999, 
introduced by my friend and colleague Representative Saxby Chambliss 
last year. The bill as it is reported from the Judiciary Committee 
today is the product of close collaboration between Mr. Chambliss, 
myself, and the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Representative Scott, together with the majority and minority staffs of 
the Subcommittee on Crime. It also reflects the input of the 
Departments of Justice and Defense, the American Civil Liberties Union, 
and the National Education Association, and I am please to announce 
that the bill is supported by both the Defense and Justice Departments 
as well as the ACLU and the NEA.
  H.R. 3380 was introduced on November 16, 1999. The Crime Subcommittee 
held a hearing on the bill on March 30, 2000. On May 11, the 
Subcommittee reported the bill favorably, as amended, by voice vote. On 
June 27, the Committee on the Judiciary ordered the bill reported, by 
voice vote. The report on the bill, House Report 106-778, was filed on 
July 20, 2000.
  H.R. 3380 would amend Federal law to establish Federal criminal 
jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the United States by 
persons employed by or accompanying the United States Armed Forces. It 
would also establish Federal criminal jurisdiction over offenses 
committed outside the United States by members of the Armed Forces but 
who are not tried for those crimes by military authorities and later 
cease to be subject to military control.
  When members of the military, and the civilians accompanying them, 
commit crimes overseas, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the 
nations where those crimes occurred. Military members are also subject 
to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and 
when they commit crimes overseas they are usually prosecuted by the 
military. Surprisingly, the nations that host Americans personnel often 
choose not to prosecute civilians who commit crimes within their 
territories. This is most often the case when Americans commit crimes 
against other Americans or their property. These civilians often go 
unpunished because there is no Federal jurisdiction covering their 
criminal conduct in most cases. For most crimes, Federal (and state) 
criminal jurisdiction stops at our nation's borders and so, persons who 
commit these crimes overseas cannot be prosecuted under American law. 
Further, if military members are discharged before their crimes are 
discovered, they too are beyond the reach of a military court martial. 
Each year, numerous incidents of rape, sexual abuse, aggravated 
assault, robbery, drug distribution, and a variety of fraud and 
property crimes committed by American civilians abroad go unpunished 
because host nations choose to waive jurisdiction over them.
  Clearly, no crime, especially violent crimes and crimes involving 
significant property damage, should go unpunished when it is committed 
by persons employed by or accompanying our military abroad. In most, if 
not all cases, the only reason why these people are living in a foreign 
country is because our military is there and they have some connection 
to it. It is clear that the government has an interest in ensuring that 
they are punished for any crimes they commit there. Just as 
importantly, as many of the crimes going unpunished are committed 
against American victims and American property, the government has an 
interest in using its law to punish those who commit these crimes.
  In addition to the moral justification in punishing these acts, 
punishing them will also have a beneficial effect on the functioning of 
the military. As a Defense Department witness testified at the hearing 
on H.R. 3380 held by the Subcommittee on Crime. ``The inability of the 
United States to appropriately pursue the interests of justice and hold 
its citizens criminally accountable for offenses committed overseas has 
undermined deterrence, lowered morale, and threatened good order and 
discipline in our military communities overseas. In addition, the 
inability of U.S. authorities to adequately respond to serious 
misconduct within the civilian component of the U.S. Armed Forces, 
presents the strong potential for embarrassment in the international 
community, increases the possibility of hostility in the host nation's 
local community where our forces are stationed, and threatens 
relationships with our allies.'' In my mind, it is time for Congress to 
address these problems by enacting this legislation at this time.
  H.R. 3380 will close the jurisdictional gap in existing law by 
extending Federal criminal jurisdiction to cover American personnel who 
engage in conduct outside the United States that would constitute an 
offense had it been committed within the special maritime and 
territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The extended criminal 
jurisdiction would apply to two groups of people: first, to persons 
employed by or who are accompanying the Armed Forces outside of the 
United States and second, to persons who are members of the Armed 
Forces at the time they committed criminal acts but thereafter cease to 
be subject to UCMJ jurisdiction without having been tried by courts-
martial.
  The bill defines the phrase ``accompanying the Armed Forces outside 
the United States'' to mean those persons who are dependents of members 
of the Armed Forces, civilian employees of a military department or the 
Department of Defense, or a DoD contractor or subcontractor, or an 
employee of a DoD contractor or subcontractor. As used in the bill, the 
term ``dependents'' also includes juveniles who are dependents of such 
persons. In all cases, however, the dependent must reside with the 
military member, employee, contractor or contractor employee and not be 
a national of or ordinarily resident in a host nation in order for 
United States jurisdiction to apply. The bill will bring within the 
scope of the new crime both American citizens and nationals, as well as 
persons who are nationals of other countries, provided those persons 
are not nationals of or ordinarily resident in the host nation. The 
bill also defines the phrase ``employed by the Armed Forces outside the 
United States'' to mean civilian employees of the Defense Department, 
DoD contractors or subcontractors, or employees of a DoD contractor or 
subcontractor.
  The bill prohibits a prosecution under the new law statute if a 
foreign government has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person for the 
conduct constituting the offense in accordance with jurisdiction 
recognized by the United States, but allows the Attorney General or the 
Deputy Attorney General to waive this provision in appropriate cases. 
The bill further provides that the Secretary of Defense may designate 
and authorize persons serving ``in law enforcement position'' in the 
Department of Defense to arrest those who are subject to the new 
statute when there is probable cause to believe that the person engaged 
in conduct that constitutes an offense under the new statute. Persons 
arrested by DoD personnel are to be delivered ``as soon as 
practicable'' to the

[[Page 16202]]

custody of civilian law enforcement authorities of the United States 
for removal to the United States for criminal proceedings. The bill 
also provides that the Secretary of Defense is to prescribe regulations 
governing the apprehension, detention, delivery, and removal of persons 
under the new chapter.
  Finally, because this legislation will address the unusual 
circumstance in which a person who is not in the United States will be 
required to stand trial in this country, the bill restricts the power 
of military and civil law enforcement officials to forcibly remove from 
a foreign country a person arrested for, or charged with, a violation 
of section 3261. The bill prohibits the removal of the person to the 
United States or to any foreign country other than a country in which 
the person is believed to have committed the crime or crimes for which 
they have been arrested or charged, except for several situations in 
which the limitation on removal does not apply. For example, the bill 
does not prohibit the government from removing a defendant to the 
United States if a Federal judge orders the defendant to appear at a 
detention hearing or to be detained pending trial, as ordered by a 
judge. In fact, judges are given the discretion to order the defendant 
to be removed at any time. The bill also allows Defense Department 
officials to remove the defendant from the place where he or she is 
arrested if the Secretary of Defense determines that military necessity 
requires it. In such an event, however, the defendant may only be 
removed to the nearest United States military installation outside the 
United States that is adequate to detain the person and facilitate the 
initial proceedings described in the bill.
  In order to allow most defendants to remain in the country where they 
are arrested, or where they are located when charged with a violation 
of section 3261, until the time of trial, the bill enacts novel 
provisions that allow for certain of the initial proceedings that may 
take place in a Federal criminal case to be conducted by telephone or 
even video teleconferencing. The bill allows Federal judges to conduct 
the initial appearance in that matter. As a practical matter, because 
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that the initial 
appearance be held without unnecessary delay after a person is 
arrested, conducting that appearance by telephone or video 
teleconferencing may be the only way to satisfy this requirement. If a 
detention hearing will be held in that case, and if the defendant 
requests, that hearing also may be conducted by telephone or other 
means that allows voice communication among the participants.
  These removal provisions reflect the input of the Departments of 
Justice and Defense, as well as the ACLU and the NEA. I want to thank 
their representatives for working so closely with the majority and 
minority staffs of the Subcommittee on Crime in order to resolve 
concerns over this aspect of the bill.
  Today, following consideration of H.R. 3380, I understand that the 
House will take the bill S. 768 from the desk and move it to its 
immediate consideration. This bill is similar to H.R. 3380, at least in 
purpose, and was introduced in the other body by Senator Jeff Sessions 
of Alabama. It passed the other body by voice vote on July 1, 1999. 
Pursuant to an agreement between Senator Sessions, Representative 
Chambliss, and myself, following the passage of H.R. 3380 the House 
will amend S. 768 by striking the text of that bill as it passed the 
other body and insert the text of H.R. 3380 as it was passed by the 
House. The House will then pass, S. 768, and send that bill, as amended 
to the other body for passage. In short, the bill that will be signed 
into law will be numbered S. 768 but will contain the text of H.R. 3380 
as passed here today.
  I want to thank Representative Chambliss for his leadership on this 
important issue and Representative Scott for all of the work that he 
and his staff have put in on this bill. I also want to thank several of 
the representatives of the Department of Defense and Justice who have 
spent a great deal of time working with the staff of the Subcommittee 
on Crime on this bill and whose input has been invaluable in developing 
the legislation. From the Department of Justice, Mr. Roger Pauley, 
Director for Legislation, Office of Policy and Legislation. From the 
Department of Defense: Mr. Robert Reed, Associate Deputy General 
Counsel; Brigadier General Joseph Barnes, Assistant Judge Advocate 
General, U.S. Army; Colonel David Graham, Chief International and 
Operational Law Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General; Colonel 
Donald Curry, Special Assistant for Legal Issues and Installations, 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense--Legislative Affairs; 
Lieutenant Colonel Ronald Miller, Deputy Chief, International and 
Operational Law Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General, U.S. 
Army; Lieutenant Colonel Denise Lind, Criminal Law Division, Office of 
The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army; Major (promotable) Gregory 
Baldwin, Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief, Legislative Liaison, 
U.S. Army.
  Finally, I want to thank the members of the staff of the Subcommittee 
on Crime who have worked so hard to craft this legislation: Glenn 
Schmitt, Chief Counsel; Rick Filkins, Counsel; Bobby Vassar, Minority 
Counsel; Iden Martyn, Minority DOJ Detailee. I know Mr. Scott joins me 
in thanking all of them for their hard work.
  The issue of crimes committed by persons who accompany our Armed 
Forces abroad has been the subject of bills introduced in Congress for 
over 40 years. It's high time we acted to fix this problem. H.R. 3380 
will do just that. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3380, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________