[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 994-999]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 995]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 996]]

  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 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 counterterrorism 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.

[[Page 997]]

  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 commonsense 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 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

[[Page 998]]

     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:
       (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

[[Page 999]]

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.

                          ____________________