[Senate Report 107-176]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 443
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-176
_______________________________________________________________________
AMENDING THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978 (5 U.S.C. APP.) TO
ESTABLISH POLICE POWERS FOR CERTAIN INSPECTOR GENERAL AGENTS ENGAGED
IN OFFICIAL DUTIES AND PROVIDE AN OVERSIGHT MECHANISM FOR THE EXERCISE
OF THOSE POWERS
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 2530
AMENDING THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978 (5 U.S.C. APP.) TO ESTABLISH
POLICE POWERS FOR CERTAIN INSPECTOR GENERAL AGENTS ENGAGED IN OFFICIAL
DUTIES AND PROVIDE AN OVERSIGHT MECHANISM FOR THE EXERCISE OF THOSE
POWERS
June 25, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-010 WASHINGTON : 2002
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel
John N. Wanat, Congressional Fellow
Richard A. Hertling, Minority Staff Director
William ``Bill'' M. Outhier, Minority Chief Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for Legislation..............................1
III. Legislative History and Committee Consideration..................4
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
V. Regulatory Impact Statement......................................8
VI. CBO Cost Estimate................................................8
VII. Changes to Existing Law..........................................9
Calendar No. 443
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-176
======================================================================
AMENDING THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978 (5 U.S.C. APP.) TO ESTABLISH
POLICE POWERS FOR CERTAIN INSPECTOR GENERAL AGENTS ENGAGED IN OFFICIAL
DUTIES AND PROVIDE AN OVERSIGHT MECHANISM FOR THE EXERCISE OF THOSE
POWERS
_______
June 25, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2530]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2530) to amend the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to establish police powers for certain
Inspector General agents engaged in official duties and provide
an oversight mechanism for the exercise of those powers,
reports favorably thereon without an amendment and recommends
that the bill do pass.
I. Purpose and Summary
S. 2530 provides specific statutory authority for the
Attorney General to grant certain law enforcement powers to
presidentially-appointed Federal inspectors general (IGs) and
their investigative personnel. The purposes of the bill are to
alleviate administrative burdens, to provide additional
oversight of the use of law enforcement authority by IGs, and
to ensure that criminal investigations are not interrupted by
lapses in the current deputation process. S. 2530 is nearly
identical to S. 3144 which was reported out of Committee during
the 106th Congress.
II. Background and Need for Legislation
A. HISTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY FOR INSPECTORS GENERAL
Criminal investigators for the Offices of Inspectors
General (OIGs) covered by S. 2530 (with the exception of those
in the Inspector General's Office for the Tennessee Valley
Authority as discussed below) have been exercising law
enforcement authorities for many years under designations as
Special Deputy U.S. Marshals. Beginning in the mid-1980s the
U.S. Marshals Service within the Department of Justice approved
these deputations on a case-by-case basis. However, as the role
of IGs has evolved, the need for such appointments became so
consistent and the volume of requests so large that ``blanket''
deputations evolved. Since 1995, virtually all criminal
investigators in the offices of the twenty-three covered IGs
have exercised law enforcement authorities in cases under
office-wide deputations. These deputations are renewed
periodically.
Each time that an OIG receives a blanket deputation, it
enters into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Department of Justice and the FBI. These MOUs specify the
training and operational requirements by which the deputized
agents must abide. Failure to follow the guidelines contained
in the MOUs could result in rescission of the deputation for
the OIG.
Currently, there are approximately 2,800 criminal
investigators in the offices of presidentially-appointed IGs.
According to annual reports filed by the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency, over the last five years the IGs
achieved more than 25,000 successful criminal prosecutions and
obtained more than $12 billion in investigative recoveries
(money accrued to the federal government as a result of
investigations). In addition, IGs were responsible for more
than 35,000 suspensions and debarments of individuals or
companies from doing business with the federal government
during the same period.
B. PROBLEMS WITH THE DEPUTATION PROCESS
Lack of oversight. Because the deputation is renewed
periodically, the Attorney General and the FBI are provided
with the opportunity at the time of renewal to make a
determination whether each specific IG office continues to
require law enforcement authority. However, hearing testimony
before the Committee indicates that each review is cursory.
Beyond the renewal process, there is no current review of the
use of the IGs' law enforcement authority.
Delays in the renewal process. Periodic renewal of law
enforcement authority can result in delays during the renewal
process which could endanger ongoing criminal investigations.
Administrative burden on the U.S. Marshals Service. One of
the reasons for the lack of proper oversight of use of the law
enforcement authority by the IGs is the extensive burden placed
on the U.S. Marshals Service. There are approximately 2,800
qualified IG agents currently deputized. Testimony before the
Committee during a hearing held in the 106th Congress revealed
that it is not possible for the Marshals Service to maintain
proper oversight over all of the deputized agents in the OIGs.
C. NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
In short, S. 2530 would codify the law enforcement
authority now exercised by qualified agents within certain OIGs
(authority to, under certain circumstances, (i) carry a firearm
while engaged in official duties; (ii) make an arrest without a
warrant while engaged in official duties; and (iii) seek and
execute search and arrest warrants). It would also ensure that
the current rules that govern the exercise of that authority
remain in place. In addition, it would provide moreoversight of
the exercise of that authority than currently exists in the deputation
process by requiring periodic peer reviews that would result in reports
submitted to the relevant IG and the Attorney General. It would further
provide the Attorney General the authority to suspend or rescind law
enforcement authority if an office failed to comply with guidelines or
no longer needed the authority.
S. 2530 would specifically address the following issues:
Additional oversight. S. 2530 requires that the OIGs listed
in the statute collectively enter into a MOU, in consultation
with the Attorney General, to establish an external review
process for ensuring that adequate internal safeguards and
management procedures continue to exist within each office and
any OIGs that later receive the authority. The results of the
periodic peer reviews shall be communicated in writing to the
applicable IG and to the Attorney General.
The Attorney General would also be required to promulgate
guidelines which shall govern the exercise of law enforcement
powers established in S. 2530. Historically, the FBI has been
involved in drafting the guidelines contained in the MOUs that
have governed the grant of authority by deputation. The
Committee expects that the Attorney General will continue to
consult with the Director of the FBI when promulgating
guidelines pursuant to S. 2530. The Committee expects that the
guidelines promulgated pursuant to S. 2530 will, at a minimum,
contain the requirements in the existing MOUs. Specifically,
the guidelines should provide training and operational
requirements. The operational guidelines should include
requirements for notification, referral, coordination, and
adherence to the Attorney General guidelines on General Crimes,
Racketeering Enterprise, and Domestic Security/Terrorism
Investigations and Attorney General guidelines on sensitive
investigative techniques, including undercover operations and
sensitive targets.
The Attorney General would retain the authority to suspend
or rescind law enforcement authority upon determining that the
work of an IG office is no longer hampered without the
authority, available assistance from other law enforcement
agencies is sufficient to meet its law enforcement needs,
adequate internal safeguards and management procedures do not
exist to ensure proper exercise of its authority, or that an
OIG has not complied with the guidelines promulgated pursuant
to S. 2530. The peer-review process established under S. 2530
should provide the Attorney General with more information to
make such a determination than is now available under the
deputation process.
Elimination of delays in the renewal process. Because there
will no longer be a need to renew each deputation, there will
no longer be any potential danger that the renewal process will
interrupt an ongoing criminal investigation.
Administrative burden on the U.S. Marshals Service. S. 2530
would end the deputation process currently in place and
therefore remove the existing burden on the U.S. Marshals
Service.
Increased need in light of recent measures by the FBI to
refocus its efforts on counterterrorism. The role of IGs is
even more important in light of the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. The Department of Justice and the FBI are
currently refocusing their priorities and resources on
counterterrorism. As a result, it is clear that other law
enforcement agencies will be called on to play an increased
role in handling certain law enforcement matters that the FBI
previously would have handled. IGs are and will continue to be
an important part of that effort. S. 2530 will provide
stability and oversight to help carry out that goal.
Putting IGs on par with other federal law enforcement
agents. S. 2530 would eliminate the fragmented exercise of law
enforcement powers that currently exists among the various
federal law enforcement agencies. All agents who exercise law
enforcement authority under the current MOUs must first attend
and successfully complete the basic criminal investigator
training program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center. Included in the basic criminal investigator program is
a curriculum for firearms training. Except for the FBI, DEA and
the United States Postal Inspectors, this is the basic training
program that all other federal criminal investigators (e.g. the
United States Secret Service, the United States Customs
Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and the Firearms,
United States Marshals Service--which have statutory law
enforcement authority) attend. As a result, IG agents and
agents from these law enforcement agencies are frequently
included in the same training classes and undergo firearms
training together.
Analogy to other recent legislation. In the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001 (PL 106-398),
Congress provided statutory authority to civilian agents
operating within the military services to execute warrants and
make arrests. These agents exercise law enforcement authority
within agency-specific jurisdiction and operate under
guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General. In S. 2530,
Congress would be extending similar authority to similarly
situated agents within the various covered OIGs.
III. Legislative History and Committee Consideration
On July 19, 2000 the Committee held a hearing to consider a
legislative proposal to grant statutory law enforcement
authority to presidentially-appointed IGs. The witnesses were
the Honorable Joshua Gotbaum, Executive Associate Director and
Controller of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget; the
Honorable Gaston L. Gianni, Jr., Inspector General for the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Vice Chair of the
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency; the Honorable
Patrick E. McFarland, Inspector General of the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management; the Honorable Kenneth Mead, Inspector
General for the U.S. Department of Transportation; and Nicholas
M. Gess, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of
Justice. In addition, Committee staff conducted numerous
interviews with interested parties. On September 27, 2000, the
Committee considered the legislative proposal and, by unanimous
voice vote, ordered it reported as an original bill. The Senate
did not consider the legislation prior to the end of the
Congress.
Committee staff continued to talk with interested parties,
and S. 2530 was introduced on May 16, 2002. At its May 22,
2002, business meeting, the Committee once again considered
this legislative proposal and, by unanimous voice vote, ordered
it reported. Present for the vote were Senators Levin, Akaka,
Durbin, Carper, Dayton, Thompson, Cochran, Bennett and
Lieberman.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1(a) of the bill amends the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (IG Act), 5 U.S.C. App., by adding a new subsection
6(e) to that Act. The new subsection 6(e) establishes a
statutory basis for the exercise of law enforcement powers by
IG investigative personnel of the type they now are provided
administratively through United States Marshals Service
deputations.
Enumeration of law enforcement powers and their
limitations. Paragraph (1) of the new subsection 6(e) of the IG
Act provides that the Attorney General may authorize eligible
IG personnel to:
(A) Carry a firearm while engaged in official duties
authorized under the IG Act or another statute, or as
expressly authorized by the Attorney General;
(B) Make an arrest without a warrant while engaged in
official duties authorized under the IG Act or another
statute, or as expressly authorized by the Attorney
General, for any offense against the United States
committed in their presence, or for any felony
cognizable under the laws of the United States if they
have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed or is committing such felony;
and
(C) Seek and execute warrants for arrest, search of a
premises, or seizure of evidence issued under the
authority of the United States upon probable cause to
believe that a violation has been committed.
These law enforcement powers may be granted to IGs who are
appointed by the President under section 3 of the IG Act, their
subordinate Assistant IGs for Investigations, and special
agents supervised by their Assistant IGs for Investigations.
The term ``special agent'' is used to refer to individuals in
the Office of Personnel Management official occupational
classification ``Series 1811 Criminal Investigator.''
The authority does not extend to Assistant IGs for Audit or
other IG audit personnel. Existing authorities in the IG Act
have been adequate for the conduct of auditing activities,
without the need for the law enforcement powers covered by
subsection 6(e). Nor does the authority extend to IGs who are
appointed by their agency heads. There have been legislative
proposals to convert agency-appointed IGs to presidentially-
appointed status and to create additional presidentially-
appointed IG positions in federal organizations that do not now
have an IG. Any new presidentially-appointed IG would be
eligible for Attorney General authorization of law enforcement
powers under subsection 6(e), regardless of whether their
office was established before or after enactment of this bill.
The law enforcement powers under subparagraphs (1)(A) and
(B) are restricted to eligible agents ``while engaged in
official duties.'' This limitation continues the current
``blanket deputation'' MOU prohibition against carrying
firearms and making arrests while agents are on leave or
otherwise off-duty.
Paragraph (1) makes clear that it supplements authority
otherwise provided by the IG Act. It is not intended to limit
in any way IG powers already established by the Act. By the
same token, the bill does not expand the investigative
jurisdiction of any IG. Law enforcement powers are authorized
only for investigative activities within the scope of the IG
Act or other statute, or as expressly authorized by the
Attorney General.
Attorney General determination of need. Paragraph (2) of
subsection 6(e) establishes standards for the Attorney
General's initial determination of whether IGs have needs
sufficient to justify the grant of law enforcement powers. The
standards require that all of the following conditions be met:
(A) An IG office is significantly hampered in the
performance of its responsibilities by the lack of such
powers;
(B) Assistance from other law enforcement agencies is
insufficient to meet the need for such powers; and
(C) Adequate internal safeguards and management
procedures exist to ensure the proper exercise of such
powers.
These standards are derived from the Attorney General's
1984 Guidelines for Legislation Involving Federal Criminal Law
Enforcement Authority, which have been applied by the executive
branch since 1984 to evaluate any request for new federal
statutory law enforcement powers for existing or proposed
federal entities.
The term ``initial determination'' is used to signify that
the Attorney General's review is a single event for each OIG,
and that there will not be a periodic Attorney General
reauthorization process. The lack of periodic review and
reauthorization is a significant distinction between the bill
and the current deputation process.
Exemption of deputized IG offices from determination of
need. Paragraph (3) of subsection 6(e) exempts from the
requirement for an Attorney General initial determination of
need the specified 23 OIGs that now exercise law enforcement
powers through blanket deputation. These offices have already
met the standards of section 6(e)(2), discussed above. In
addition, the Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley
Authority is exempted. The TVA OIG has been elevated to
presidentially-appointed status and currently has individual
agents that exercise law enforcement authority based on
individual deputations as opposed to an office-wide blanket
deputation.
Guidelines for the exercise of law enforcement powers.
Paragraph (4) requires the Attorney General to promulgate, and
revise as appropriate, guidelines to govern the exercise of the
law enforcement powers granted under subsection 6(e). Attorney
General guidelines currently govern the 23 deputized OIGs since
they are incorporated into the MOU negotiated as part of the
deputation process. The intent of paragraph (4) is, in essence,
is to carry forward the current guidelines.
Suspension or rescission of law enforcement powers.
Paragraph (5) of subsection 6(e) requires the Attorney General
to suspend or rescind law enforcement powers of any OIG that no
longer satisfies the eligibility requirements of paragraph (2)
or that has not complied with the guidelines promulgated under
paragraph (4).
Exemptions from judicial review. Paragraph (6) of
subsection 6(e) precludes judicial review of determinations by
the Attorney General under paragraph (2) or (5). Department of
Justice oversight of the exercise of law enforcement powers by
IGs is an executive branch administrative process. It is not
intended to create third party rights or to raise issues
appropriate for litigation.
External reviews. Paragraph (7) of subsection 6(e) requires
the IGs that already have been granted law enforcement powers
through deputation to establish a periodic external review
process to ensure that they have adequate internal safeguards
and management procedures for the exercise of these powers. The
same review process is to apply to any OIG that later receives
such powers under subsection 6(e). The external review process
will be conducted by members of the IG community. It must be
established within 180 days following the enactment of the
bill. The review process is to be developed in consultation
with the Attorney General, who shall be provided a copy of the
MOU that establishes it. The results of each review shall be
communicated to the applicable IG and to the Attorney General.
Limitation on the scope of section 6(e). Paragraph (8) of
subsection 6(e) provides that none of its provisions shall
limit the exercise of law enforcement powers established
pursuant to statutory or other authority, including Marshals
Service special deputations. Specific case and matter special
deputation remains available for IG agents, at the discretion
of the Department of Justice, and may be used for agents or
offices not authorized to exercise law enforcement powers under
subsection 6(e), for operations beyond the scope of subsection
6(e), and for operations between the date of enactment of the
bill and authorization of OIGs under subsection 6(e). Some
agencies have agency-specific statutory law enforcement powers
which will not be affected by subsection 6(e). For example, the
Defense Criminal Investigative Service of the Department of
Defense and the IG at the Department of Agriculture exercise
law enforcement powers established by agency-specific statutes.
Promulgation of initial guidelines. Subsection 1(b) of the
bill contains additional provisions governing the guidelines
promulgated by the Attorney General under section 6(e)(4) of
the IG Act as they relate to the memoranda of understanding
that now govern the exercise of law enforcement powers by the
23 IG offices referred to in paragraph 6(e)(3). It requires
that the Attorney General promulgate guidelines for these
offices not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
the bill. It further requires that the guidelines include, at a
minimum, the operational and training requirements in the
memoranda of understanding governing these offices. Finally,
subsection 1(b) provides that the current MOU will remain in
effect until the guidelines under section 6(e)(4) have been
promulgated. The TVA OIG does not currently exercise law
enforcement under a MOU. Because it is the intent of the
Committee that the exercise of statutory law enforcement
authority should not begin until the Attorney General has
promulgated guidelines, it is expected that the TVA OIG will
not exercise authority described in paragraph (2) of subsection
6(e) (except pursuant to its individual deputations) until
those guidelines have been promulgated.
Effective dates. Subsection 1(c)(1) provides that the
provisions of subsection (a) of the bill, which add section
6(e) of the IG Act, shall become effective 180 days after the
date of enactment of the bill. Subsection 1(c)(2) provides that
subsection 1(b) of the bill, dealing with the initial Attorney
General guidelines, shall take effect on the date of enactment.
V. Regulatory Impact Statement
Pursuant to paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered the
regulatory impact that would be incurred in carrying out the
bill. The Committee finds that enactment of the bill will not
have significant regulatory impact.
VI. CBO Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 29, 2002.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2530, a bill to
amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to
establish police powers for certain inspector general agents
engaged in official duties and provide an oversight mechanism
for the exercise of those powers.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 2530--A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.) to establish police powers for certain Inspector General
agents engaged in official duties and provide an oversight
mechanism for the exercise of those powers
The bill would amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to
allow investigative agents in offices of federal inspectors
general to exercise certain law enforcement powers, such as
carrying a firearm and seeking and executing warrants for
arrests. Investigative agents have exercised such powers
through special deputation by the U.S. Marshals Service. The
legislation would codify those powers and remove the
responsibility for authorizing and overseeing the use of such
powers from the Marshals Service. Under the bill, the
individual inspector general (IG) offices would be responsible
for supervising and controlling the day-to-day use of the law
enforcement powers, with the Attorney General providing
additional oversight. In addition, the bill would require IG
offices to enter into an interagency memorandum of
understanding to establish a process of periodic peer reviews
of the use of the law enforcement powers by each office.
CBO estimates that implementing this bill would have no
significant effect on federal spending because the bill would
codify powers already exercised by IG offices, and replace one
system of review and oversight with another. S. 2530 could
affect direct spending because some IG offices operate within
agencies that have direct spending authority; therefore pay-as-
you-go procedures would apply. CBO estimates, however, that any
effect on direct spending would be negligible. The bill
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not
affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. The estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VII. Changes to Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. 2530, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE V--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES APPENDIXES
* * * * * * *
INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978
* * * * * * *
SEC. 6. AUTHORITY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL; INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE FROM
FEDERAL AGENCIES; UNREASONABLE REFUSAL; OFFICE
SPACE AND EQUIPMENT
* * * * * * *
(e)(1) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by
this Act, each Inspector General appointed under section 3, any
Assistant Inspectors General for Investigations under such an
Inspector General, and any special agent supervised by such an
Assistant Inspector General may be authorized by the Attorney
General to--
(A) carry a firearm while engaged in official duties
as authorized under this Act or other statute, or as
expressly authorized by the Attorney General;
(B) make an arrest without a warrant while engaged in
official duties as authorized under this Act or other
statute, or as expressly authorized by the Attorney
General, for any offense against the United States
committed in their presence of such Inspector General,
Assistant Inspector General, or agent, or for any
felony cognizable under the laws of the United States
if such Inspector General, Assistant Inspector General,
or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed or is committing
such felony; and
(C) seek and execute warrants for arrest, search of a
premises, or seizure of evidence issued under the
authority of the United States upon probable cause to
believe that a violation has been committed.
(2) The Attorney General may authorize exercise of the
powers under this subsection only upon an initial determination
that--
(A) the affected Office of Inspector General is
significantly hampered in the performance of
responsibilities established by this Act as a result of
its lack of such powers;
(B) available assistance from other law enforcement
agencies is insufficient to meet the need for such
powers; and
(C) adequate internal safeguards and management
procedures exist to ensure proper exercise of such
powers.
(3) The Inspector General offices of the Department of
Commerce, Department of Education, Department of Energy,
Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, Department
of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State,
Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury,
Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency for International
Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Personnel Management, Railroad Retirement Board, Small Business
Administration, Social Security Administration, and the
Tennessee Valley Authority are exempt from the requirement of
paragraph (2) of an initial determination of eligibility by the
Attorney General.
(4) The Attorney General shall promulgate, and revise as
appropriate, guidelines which shall govern the exercise of the
law enforcement powers established under paragraph (1).
(5) Powers authorized for an Office of Inspector General
under paragraph (1) shall be rescinded or suspended upon a
determination by the Attorney General that any of the
requirements under paragraph (2) is no longer satisfied or that
the exercise of authorized powers by that Office of Inspector
General has not complied with the guidelines promulgated by the
Attorney General under paragraph (4).
(6) A determination by the Attorney General under paragraph
(2) or (5) shall not be reviewable in or by any court.
(7) To ensure the proper exercise of the law enforcement
powers authorized by this subsection, the Offices of Inspector
General described under paragraph (3) shall, not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this subsection,
collectively enter into a memorandum of understanding to
establish an external review process for ensuring that adequate
internal safeguards and management procedures continue to exist
within each Office and within any Office that later receives an
authorization under paragraph (2). The review process shall be
established in consultation with the Attorney General, who
shall be provided with a copy of the memorandum of
understanding that establishes the review process. Under the
review process, the exercise of the law enforcement powers by
each Office of Inspector General shall be reviewed periodically
by another Office of Inspector General or by a committee of
Inspectors General. The results of each review shall be
communicated in writing to the applicable Inspector General and
to the Attorney General.
(8) No provision of this subsection shall limit the
exercise of law enforcement powers established under any other
statutory authority, including United States Marshals Service
special deputation.