II 113th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 1386 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES July 30, 2013 Mr. Menendez (for himself and Mr. Corker ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations A BILL To provide for enhanced embassy security, and for other purposes.

1. Short title; table of contents (a) Short title This Act may be cited as the Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty Embassy Security, Threat Mitigation, and Personnel Protection Act of 2013 . (b) Table of contents The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Definitions. TITLE I—Funding authorization and transfer authority Sec. 101. Capital Security Cost Sharing Program. Sec. 102. Immediate threat mitigation. Sec. 103. Language training. Sec. 104. Foreign affairs security training. Sec. 105. Transfer authority. TITLE II—Contracting and other matters Sec. 201. Local guard contracts abroad under diplomatic security program. Sec. 202. Disciplinary action resulting from unsatisfactory leadership in relation to a security incident. Sec. 203. Management and staff accountability. Sec. 204. Security enhancements for soft targets. Sec. 205. Reemployment of annuitants. TITLE III—Expansion of the marine corps security guard detachment program Sec. 301. Marine Corps Security Guard Program. TITLE IV—Reporting on the implementation of the Accountability Review Board recommendations Sec. 401. Department of State implementation of the recommendations provided by the Accountability Review Board convened after the September 11–12, 2012, attacks on United States Government personnel in Benghazi, Libya. Sec. 402. Designation and reporting for high threat, high risk facilities. TITLE V—Accountability Review Boards Sec. 501. Sense of Congress. Sec. 502. Provision of copies of Accountability Review Board reports to Congress. Sec. 503. Changes to existing law. 2. Definitions In this Act: (1) Appropriate congressional committees The term appropriate congressional committees means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. (2) Facilities The term facilities encompasses embassies, consulates, expeditionary diplomatic facilities, and any other diplomatic facilities, not in the United States, including those that are intended for temporary use. I Funding authorization and transfer authority 101. Capital Security Cost Sharing Program (a) Authorization of appropriations There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2014 for the Department of State $1,383,000,000, to be available until expended, for the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program, authorized by section 604(e) of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (title VI of division A of H.R. 3427, as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106–113 ; 113 Stat. 1501A–453; 22 U.S.C. 4865 note). (b) Sense of congress on the capital security cost sharing program It is the sense of Congress that— (1) the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program should prioritize the construction of new facilities and the maintenance of existing facilities in high threat, high risk areas in addition to addressing immediate threat mitigation as set forth in section 102; and (2) all United States Government agencies are required to pay into the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program a percentage of total costs determined by interagency agreements, in order to address immediate threat mitigation needs and increase funds for the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program for fiscal year 2014, including to address inflation and increased construction costs. (c) Restriction on construction of office space Section 604(e)(2) of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (title VI of division A of H.R. 3427, as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106–113 ; 113 Stat. 1501A–453; 22 U.S.C. 4865 note) is amended by adding at the end the following: A project to construct a diplomatic facility of the United States may not include office space or other accommodations for an employee of a Federal agency or department if the Secretary of State determines that such department or agency has not provided to the Department of State the full amount of funding required by paragraph (1), except that such project may include office space or other accommodations for members of the United States Marine Corps. Funding appropriated for Overseas Contingency Operations for Worldwide Security Upgrades shall be considered to be part of the Department of State’s Capital Security Cost Sharing Program payment, and, subject to annual appropriations, shall be subject to the funding requirements in paragraph (1). . 102. Immediate threat mitigation (a) Allocation of authorized appropriations In addition to any funds otherwise made available for such purposes, the Department of State shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law except as provided in subsection (d), use $300,000,000 of the funding provided in section 101 for immediate threat mitigation projects, with priority given to facilities determined to be high threat, high risk pursuant to section 402. (b) Allocation of funding In allocating funding for threat mitigation projects, the Secretary of State shall prioritize funding for— (1) the construction of safeguards that provide immediate security benefits; (2) the purchasing of additional security equipment, including additional defensive weaponry; (3) the paying of expenses of additional security forces, with an emphasis on funding United States security forces where practicable; and (4) any other purposes necessary to mitigate immediate threats to United States personnel serving overseas. (c) Transfer The Secretary may transfer and merge funds authorized under subsection (a) to any appropriation account of the Department of State for the purpose of carrying out the threat mitigation projects described in subsection (b). (d) Use of funds for other purposes Notwithstanding the allocation requirement under subsection (a), funds subject to such requirement may be used for other authorized purposes of the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program if, not later than 15 days prior to such use, the Secretary certifies in writing to the appropriate congressional committees that— (1) high threat, high risk facilities are being secured to the best of the United States Government’s ability; and (2) the Secretary of State will make funds available from the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program or other sources to address any changed security threats or risks, or new or emergent security needs, including immediate threat mitigation. 103. Language training (a) In general Title IV of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 ( 22 U.S.C. 4851 et seq. ) is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 416. Language requirements for diplomatic security personnel assigned to high threat, high risk posts (a) In general Diplomatic security personnel assigned permanently to, or who are serving in, long-term temporary duty status as designated by the Secretary of State at a high threat, high risk post should receive language training described in subsection (b) in order to prepare such personnel for duty requirements at such post. (b) Language training described Language training referred to in subsection (a) should prepare personnel described in such subsection— (1) to speak the language at issue with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on subjects germane to security; and (2) to read within an adequate range of speed and with almost complete comprehension on subjects germane to security. . (b) Authorization of appropriations There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to carry out this section. (c) Inspector general review The Inspector General of the Department of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors shall, at the end of fiscal years 2014 and 2015, review the language training conducted pursuant to this section and make the results of such reviews available to the Secretary of State and the appropriate congressional committees. 104. Foreign affairs security training (a) Sense of congress It is the sense of Congress that— (1) Department of State employees and their families deserve improved and efficient programs and facilities for high threat training and training on risk management decision processes; (2) improved and efficient high threat, high risk training is consistent with the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) recommendation number 17; (3) improved and efficient security training should take advantage of training synergies that already exist, like training with, or in close proximity to, Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams (FAST), special operations forces, or other appropriate military and security assets; and (4) the Secretary of State should undertake temporary measures, including leveraging the availability of existing government and private sector training facilities, to the extent appropriate to meet the critical security training requirements of the Department of State. (b) Authorization of appropriations There is authorized to be appropriated for the Department of State $100,000,000 for improved high threat, high risk security training, including— (1) expanding existing government training facilities; and (2) utilizing other government or private sector facilities to meet critical security training requirements. (c) Additional authorization of appropriations (1) In general There is authorized to be appropriated $350,000,000 for the acquisition, construction, and operation of a new Foreign Affairs Security Training Center, subject to the certification requirement in paragraph (2). (2) Required certification Not later than 15 days prior to the obligation or expenditure of any funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1), the President shall certify to the appropriate congressional committees that the acquisition, construction, and operation of a new Foreign Affairs Security Training Center is necessary to meet high threat security training requirements. (3) Effect of certification If the certification in paragraph (2) is made— (A) up to $100,000,000 of the funds authorized to be appropriated under subsection (b) shall also be authorized for the purposes set forth in paragraph (1); or (B) up to $100,000,000 of funds available for the acquisition, construction, or operation of Department of State facilities may be transferred and used for the purposes set forth in paragraph (1). (d) Use of funds appropriated under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 Of the funds appropriated to the Department of State under title XI of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5), $54,545,177 is to remain available until September 30, 2016, for activities consistent with subsections (b) and (c). 105. Transfer authority Section 4 of the Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926 ( 22 U.S.C. 295 ) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections: (j) (1) In addition to exercising any other transfer authority available to the Secretary of State, and subject to subsection (k), the Secretary may transfer to, and merge with, any appropriation for embassy security, construction, and maintenance such amounts appropriated for any other purpose related to diplomatic and consular programs on or after October 1, 2013, as the Secretary determines are necessary to provide for the security of sites and buildings in foreign countries under the jurisdiction and control of the Secretary. (2) Any funds transferred under the authority provided in paragraph (1) shall be merged with funds in the heading to which transferred, and shall be available subject to the same terms and conditions as the funds with which merged. (k) Not later than 15 days before any transfer of funds under subsection (j), the Secretary shall notify the Committees on Foreign Relations and Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Appropriations of the House of Representatives. . II Contracting and other matters 201. Local guard contracts abroad under diplomatic security program (a) In general Section 136(c)(3) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 ( 22 U.S.C. 4864(c)(3) ) is amended to read as follows: (3) in evaluating proposals for such contracts, award contracts to technically acceptable firms offering the lowest evaluated price, except that— (A) the Secretary may award contracts on the basis of best value (as determined by a cost-technical tradeoff analysis); and (B) proposals received from United States persons and qualified United States joint venture persons shall be evaluated by reducing the bid price by 10 percent; . (b) Report Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that includes— (1) an explanation of the implementation of paragraph (3) of section 136(c) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, as amended by subsection (a); and (2) for each instance in which an award is made pursuant to subparagraph (A) of such paragraph, as so amended, a written justification and approval, providing the basis for such award and an explanation of the inability to satisfy the needs of the Department of State by technically acceptable, lowest price evaluation award. 202. Disciplinary action resulting from unsatisfactory leadership in relation to a security incident Section 304(c) of the Diplomatic Security Act (22 U.S.C. 4834 (c)) is amended— (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and moving such subparagraphs, as so redesignated, 2 ems to the right; (2) by striking recommendations and inserting the following: “ recommendations .— (1) In general Whenever ; and (3) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph: (2) Certain security incidents Unsatisfactory leadership by a senior official with respect to a security incident involving loss of life, serious injury, or significant destruction of property at or related to a United States Government mission abroad may be grounds for disciplinary action. If a Board finds reasonable cause to believe that a senior official provided such unsatisfactory leadership, the Board may recommend disciplinary action subject to the procedures in paragraph (1). . 203. Management and staff accountability (a) Authority of Secretary of State Nothing in this Act or any other provision of law shall be construed to prevent the Secretary of State from using all authorities invested in the office of Secretary to take personnel action against any employee or official of the Department of State that the Secretary determines has breached the duty of that individual or has engaged in misconduct or unsatisfactorily performed the duties of employment of that individual, and such misconduct or unsatisfactory performance has significantly contributed to the serious injury, loss of life, or significant destruction of property, or a serious breach of security, even if such action is the subject of an Accountability Review Board's examination under section 304(a) of the Diplomatic Security Act ( 22 U.S.C. 4834(a) ). (b) Accountability Section 304 of the Diplomatic Security Act ( 22 U.S.C. 4834 ) is amended— (1) in subsection (c), by inserting after breached the duty of that individual the following: or has engaged in misconduct or unsatisfactorily performed the duties of employment of that individual, and such misconduct or unsatisfactory performance has significantly contributed to the serious injury, loss of life, or significant destruction of property, or the serious breach of security that is the subject of the Board's examination as described in subsection (a), ; (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection: (d) Management accountability Whenever a Board determines that an individual has engaged in any conduct addressed in subsection (c), the Board shall evaluate the level and effectiveness of management and oversight conducted by employees or officials in the management chain of such individual. . 204. Security enhancements for soft targets Section 29 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 ( 22 U.S.C. 2701 ) is amended in the third sentence by inserting physical security enhancements and after Such assistance may include . 205. Reemployment of annuitants Section 824(g) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 ( 22 U.S.C. 4064(g) ) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking to facilitate the and all that follows through Afghanistan, if and inserting to facilitate the assignment of persons to high threat, high risk posts or to posts vacated by members of the Service assigned to high threat, high risk posts, if ; (2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows: (2) The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on the incurred costs over the prior fiscal year of the total compensation and benefit payments to annuitants reemployed by the Department pursuant to this section. ; and (3) by adding after paragraph (3) the following paragraphs: (4) In the event that an annuitant qualified for compensation or payments pursuant to this subsection subsequently transfers to a position for which the annuitant would not qualify for a waiver under this subsection, the Secretary may no longer waive the application of subsections (a) through (d) with respect to such annuitant. (5) The authority of the Secretary to waive the application of subsections (a) through (d) for an annuitant pursuant to this subsection shall terminate on October 1, 2019. . III Expansion of the marine corps security guard detachment program 301. Marine Corps Security Guard Program (a) In general Pursuant to the responsibility of the Secretary of State for diplomatic security under section 103 of the Diplomatic Security Act (22 U.S.C. 4802), the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall— (1) develop and implement a plan to incorporate the additional Marine Corps Security Guard personnel authorized pursuant to section 404 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 ( Public Law 112–239 ; 10 U.S.C. 5983 note) at United States embassies, consulates, and other facilities; and (2) conduct an annual review of the Marine Corps Security Guard Program, including— (A) an evaluation of whether the size and composition of the Marine Corps Security Guard Program is adequate to meet global diplomatic security requirements; (B) an assessment of whether Marine Corps security guards are appropriately deployed among facilities to respond to evolving security developments and potential threats to United States interests abroad; and (C) an assessment of the mission objectives of the Marine Corps Security Guard Program and the procedural rules of engagement to protect diplomatic personnel under the Program. (b) Reporting requirement Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for three years, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an unclassified report, with a classified annex as necessary, that addresses the requirements set forth in subsection (a)(2). IV Reporting on the implementation of the Accountability Review Board recommendations 401. Department of State implementation of the recommendations provided by the Accountability Review Board convened after the September 11–12, 2012, attacks on United States Government personnel in Benghazi, Libya (a) Report required Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an unclassified report, with a classified annex, on the implementation by the Department of State of the recommendations of the Accountability Review Board convened pursuant to title III of the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 ( 22 U.S.C. 4831 et seq. ) to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11–12, 2012, killings of four United States Government personnel in Benghazi, Libya. (b) Content The report required under subsection (a) shall include the following elements: (1) An assessment of the overall state of the Department of State’s diplomatic security to respond to the evolving global threat environment, and the broader steps the Department of State is taking to improve the security of United States diplomatic personnel in the aftermath of the Accountability Review Board Report. (2) A description of the specific steps taken by the Department of State to address each of the 29 recommendations contained in the Accountability Review Board Report, including— (A) an assessment of whether implementation of each recommendation is complete or is still in progress ; and (B) if the Secretary of State determines not to fully implement any of the 29 recommendations in the Accountability Review Board Report, a thorough explanation as to why such a decision was made. (3) An enumeration and assessment of any significant challenges that have slowed or interfered with the Department of State’s implementation of the Accountability Review Board recommendations, including— (A) a lack of funding or resources made available to the Department of State; (B) restrictions imposed by current law that in the Secretary of State’s judgment should be amended; and (C) difficulties caused by a lack of coordination between the Department of State and other United States Government agencies. 402. Designation and reporting for high threat, high risk facilities (a) Report required Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a classified report, with an unclassified summary, evaluating Department of State facilities that the Secretary of State determines to be high threat, high risk in accordance with subsection (c). (b) Content For each facility determined to be high threat, high risk pursuant to subsection (a), the report submitted under such subsection shall also include— (1) a narrative assessment describing the security threats and risks facing posts overseas and the overall threat level to United States personnel under chief of mission authority; (2) the number of diplomatic security personnel, Marine Corps security guards, and other Department of State personnel dedicated to providing security for United States personnel, information, and facilities; (3) an assessment of host nation willingness and capability to provide protection in the event of a security threat or incident, pursuant to the obligations of the United States under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, done at Vienna April 24, 1963, and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done at Vienna April 18, 1961; (4) an assessment of the quality and experience level of the team of United States senior security personnel assigned to the facility, considering collectively the assignment durations and lengths of government experience; (5) the number of Foreign Service Officers who have received Foreign Affairs Counter Threat training; (6) a summary of the requests made during the previous calendar year for additional resources, equipment, or personnel related to the security of the facility and the status of such requests; (7) an assessment of the ability of United States personnel to respond to and survive a fire attack, including— (A) whether the facility has adequate fire safety and security equipment for safehavens and safe areas; and (B) whether the employees working at the facility have been adequately trained on the equipment available; (8) for each new facility that is opened, a detailed description of the steps taken to provide security for the new facility, including whether a dedicated support cell was established in the Department of State to ensure proper and timely resourcing of security; and (9) a listing of any high-threat, high-risk facilities where the Department of State and other government agencies’ facilities are not collocated including— (A) a rationale for the lack of collocation; and (B) a description of what steps, if any, are being taken to mitigate potential security vulnerabilities associated with the lack of collocation. (c) Determination of high threat, high risk facility In determining what facilities constitute high threat, high risk facilities under this section, the Secretary shall take into account with respect to each facility whether there are— (1) high to critical levels of political violence or terrorism; (2) national or local governments with inadequate capacity or political will to provide appropriate protection; and (3) in locations where there are high to critical levels of political violence or terrorism or national or local governments lack the capacity or political will to provide appropriate protection— (A) mission physical security platforms that fall well below the Department of State’s established standards; or (B) security personnel levels that are insufficient for the circumstances. (d) Inspector general review and report The Inspector General for the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall, on an annual basis— (1) review the determinations of the Department of State with respect to high threat, high risk facilities, including the basis for making such determinations; (2) review contingency planning for high threat, high risk facilities and evaluate the measures in place to respond to attacks on such facilities; (3) review the risk mitigation measures in place at high threat, high risk facilities to determine how the Department of State evaluates risk and whether the measures put in place sufficiently address the relevant risks; (4) review early warning systems in place at high threat, high risk facilities and evaluate the measures being taken to preempt and disrupt threats to such facilities; and (5) provide to the appropriate congressional committees an assessment of the determinations of the Department of State with respect to high threat, high risk facilities, including recommendations for additions or changes to the list of such facilities, and a report regarding the reviews and evaluations undertaken pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (4) and this paragraph. V Accountability Review Boards 501. Sense of Congress It is the sense of Congress that— (1) the Accountability Review Board mechanism as outlined in section 302 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act ( 22 U.S.C. 4832 ) is an effective tool to collect information about and evaluate adverse incidents that occur in a world that is increasingly complex and dangerous for United States diplomatic personnel; and (2) the Accountability Review Board should provide information and analysis that will assist the Secretary, the President, and Congress in determining what contributed to an adverse incident as well as what new measures are necessary in order to prevent the recurrence of such incidents. 502. Provision of copies of Accountability Review Board reports to Congress Not later than 2 days after an Accountability Review Board provides its report to the Secretary of State in accordance with title III of the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 ( 22 U.S.C. 4831 et seq. ), the Secretary shall provide copies of the report to the appropriate congressional committees for retention and review by those committees. 503. Changes to existing law (a) Membership Section 302(a) of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act (22 U.S.C. 4832(a)) is amended by inserting one of which shall be the Inspector General of the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, after 4 appointed by the Secretary of State, . (b) Staff Section 302(b)(2) of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act (22 U.S.C. 4832(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: Such persons shall be drawn from bureaus or other agency sub-units that are not impacted by the incident that is the subject of the Board’s review. .