Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2014/07/23.asp
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 02:05:40
Document Index: 291237792

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 78', '§ 7', '§ 3261', '§ 1030', '§ 1028', '§ 1028', '§ 1029', '§ 1037', '§ 1039', '§ 2511', '§ 2701', '§ 1809', '§ 1827', '§ 2340', '§ 2441', '§ 1030', '§ 2520', '§ 2707', '§ 1810', '§ 1828']

TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,679, July 23, 2014.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014, Alert No. 2,679.
Sen. Leahy and Rep. Price Reintroduce Bill to Expand Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction
7/14. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S 2598 [LOC | WW], the "Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2014', or "CEJA", a bill to broadly expand U.S. extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction over federal contractors and employees. Rep. David Price (D-NC) introduced the companion bill in the House, HR 5096 [LOC | WW], on July 14.
One significant aspect of these bills is the extent to which they would exempt crimes related to surveillance, cyber intrusion, and intelligence, and any crimes conducted by intelligence agency contractors and employees.
The bills are, in part, a reaction to actions in Iraq by Blackwater in 2007. But, the bills maintain pre-Snowden views of surveillance and hacking.
Related bills have been introduced in many Congresses. Sen. Leahy introduced S 2979 [LOC | WW], the "Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2010", in the 111th Congress on February 2, 2010. He introduced S 1145 [LOC | WW], the "Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2011", in the 112th Congress on June 6, 2011. Rep. Price introduced the related bills in the House. See, HR 4567 [LOC | WW] in the 111th Congress, and HR 2136 [LOC | WW] in the 112th Congress.
Basically, criminal laws only apply to crimes committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the prosecuting nation. If one person punches another person in France, then France, but not other countries, have jurisdiction to prosecute, even though other countries have laws that criminalize assault.
The U.S. has aggressively asserted extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction for specific crimes. For example, U.S. telecom companies can be prosecuted in the U.S. for bribing foreign telecom regulators in foreign countries, under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1. The just introduced bill, however, would broadly assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over a wide range of crimes committed by federal contractors and employees, and others.
The U.S. has long exercised criminal jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel, regardless of location, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Such jurisdiction is usually exclusive, pursuant to status of forces agreements with foreign governments. The U.S. has also long exercised criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., such as at U.S. embassies and on board U.S. registered ships (18 U.S.C. § 7).
Also, in 2000 the Congress enacted the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 3261-3267) to extend U.S. jurisdiction to Department of Defense (DOD) contractors and employees abroad. The Congress in 2004 amended this statute to also cover contractors whose mission "relates to supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas".
Sen. Leahy stated that the U.S. "has huge numbers of Government employees and contractors working overseas, but the legal framework governing them is unclear and outdated. To promote accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal laws reach serious misconduct by U.S. government employees and contractors wherever they act. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act accomplishes this important and common sense goal by allowing United States contractors and employees working overseas who commit specific crimes to be tried and sentenced under U.S. law." See, Congressional Record, July 14, 2014, at Page S4456.
Rep. Price (at right) stated in a release that "We have seen the peril of allowing firms such as Blackwater to operate in a legal no-man's land -- a few bad actors can put our international relationships at risk and undermine the missions we ask our military and diplomatic personnel to complete. The bottom line is: if contractors working on behalf of the United States commit crimes abroad, DOJ should be able to prosecute them."
The just introduced bill would cover all U.S. contractors and employees, not just those whose work supports the mission of the DOD. The U.S. would have jurisdiction even if the act were not a crime in that foreign country. However, the bill would not reach defendants who are citizens of that foreign country.
The bill also states that is would not cover crimes which that foreign country prosecutes. But, then it adds an exception that nullifies the rule: the U.S. may bring a redundant prosecution "upon the approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General".
However, the bill would not extend extraterritorial jurisdiction to all crimes. It contains a huge list of crimes, and categories of crimes. But, it leaves out some crimes.
Notably, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030) which contains the criminal ban on cyber intrusions, is not on the list. Nor is identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028), aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A), access device fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029), fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail (18 U.S.C. § 1037), or fraud and related activity in connection with obtaining confidential phone records information of a covered entity (18 U.S.C. § 1039).
The bill would also exempt illegal wiretaps and bugs (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and unlawful access to stored communications (18 U.S.C. § 2701).
The bill would also exempt the criminal prohibitions contained in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). See for example, 50 U.S.C. § 1809 and 50 U.S.C. § 1827.
Almost any criminal activity that is related surveillance, intrusions into information systems, and intelligence gathering is excluded. (Torture (18 U.S.C. § 2340A) and war crimes (18 U.S.C. § 2441) are included.)
The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC), which Sen. Leahy chairs, last held a hearing on this subject on May 25, 2011. See, SJC web page with hyperlinks to prepared testimony and video.
Lanny Breuer (at right), who was then the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ's Criminal Division, testified at that hearing that "It is essential that any legislation include a statutory carve-out to ensure that the legislation does not impose criminal liability on authorized intelligence activities of the United States Government. The absence of an explicit exemption for authorized intelligence activities conducted abroad would negatively impact the United States' ability to conduct such activities." See, prepared testimony.
Sen. Leahy stated on July 14, 2014 that his just introduced bill "has been carefully crafted to ensure that the intelligence community can continue its authorized activities unimpeded."
Sen. Leahy used the word "authorized". First, this word is distinct from the word "legal". Second, the bill would not extend extraterritorial jurisdiction to intelligence related crimes, whether or not they are authorized by federal agencies.
Also, in addition to not including crimes that might arise out of activities that are in the the nature of surveillance, cyber intrusions and intelligence gathering, the bills also apply a blanket exemption for all intelligence activities and operations.
The bills provide that "Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall apply to the authorized intelligence activities of the United States Government." Thus, for example, if a contractor or employee of the CIA were authorized to conduct arson, bribery, assault, torture, illegal drug sales, which are listed in the bills, that contractor or employee would still not be subject to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Finally, it might be noted that some statutes that impose criminal liability also provide parallel private rights of action, such as the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2520), Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2707) and FISA (50 U.S.C. § 1810 and 50 U.S.C. § 1828).
Neither Sen. Leahy nor Rep. Price discussed the impact that their bills would have on private civil actions brought in a federal District Court against federal contractors and employees who have violated U.S. surveillance or hacking related laws abroad.
The Senate bill was referred to the SJC. All of the cosponsors are Democrats: Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM).
The House bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC). Rep. Price is not a member. The House bill has no original cosponsors.
House Rejects Rare Earths Bill
7/23. The House rejected HR 1022, the "Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act of 2014", by a vote of 260-143. See, Roll Call No. 435. This bill was considered under suspension of the rules, which meant that a two thirds majority was required for passage.
This bill pertains to current and forthcoming shortages or unavailability of certain critical elements, including rare earth elements that are used to make components for many information and communications technology (ICT) products.
The bill would instruct the Department of Energy (DOE) to have a plan, a hub, and an information center. The DOE would be tasked with monitoring the situation, hosting conferences, dispensing information, offering encouragement, and spending money on ineffective subsidies and research. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $75,000,000 over five years.
The extraction and refining of these critical elements is conducted by the private sector. The manufacture of ICT products is conducted by the private sector. This bill would do little to enable or incent the private sector to produce more critical elements in the U.S.
This bill would not impose any mandates affecting the extraction, refining, or use of critical elements. It would not give the DOE, or any other federal agency, any new rulemaking or adjudicatory powers.
This bill would not affect foreign or trade policy. The U.S. (along with Japan and the European Union) filed complaints with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in March of 2012 against the People's Republic of China regarding its rare earths export policies. The WTO ruled in favor of the U.S., Japan and EU on March 26, 2014. See, story titled "WTO Rules in Rare Earths Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,640, April 8, 2014.
This bill would do nothing to remove the main obstacle to greater production of critical materials in the U.S. -- inability of mining companies to obtain mineral extraction permits from administration agencies in a timely manner. Agencies effectively block mining by continuous delays in the permit application process.
The House passed a bill last September that would have the effect of facilitating domestic mining and extraction of rare earths. HR 761 [LOC | WW], the "National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013" would set a time limit of 30 months for government review of permit applications for strategic and critical minerals projects. Other provisions of the bill are directed at facilitating final determinations on the merits in a timely manner. See, story titled "House Passes Rare Earths Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,604, September 24 2013.
The floor managers of HR 1022 did not explain during floor consideration why this bill was considered under suspension of the rules. This procedure is frequently used. Although, it is mostly used for items that are not controversial, and for which obtaining a two thirds majority is no obstacle to passage.
No amendments can be considered under this procedure. However, a bill can be considered under the simple majority rule with no amendments made in order. In rare cases the House leadership brings a bill to the floor under suspension of the rules with the understanding that there is opposition, and the bill should not be passed without the two thirds majority.
Democrats voted 182-1 for this bill. Republicans voted 78-142.
There was little debate on the House floor on July 23. Only three members who support the bill spoke in favor. None of its opponents spoke.
The vote gives the House Democrats the opportunity to assert that that have done something to address the availability of rare earth materials and other critical elements going into the November elections. Most of the House Democrats voted against HR 761.
The Obama administration is pursuing many policy goals for which it cannot obtain the requisite statutory authority from the Republican controlled House, and the nearly balanced Senate. President Obama's method of pursuing some of his policy goals has been promulgation of rules in the absence of, or contrary to, statutory authority, or to regulate by executive order. While this bill would not give the DOE or President any new powers, rejection of this bill deprives the Obama administration of the opportunity to write rules or executive orders that purport to implement this bill. Although, none of the Representatives who voted against this bill went to the House floor to state that this was their reason for voting against the bill.
The bill also provides for federal subsidization of wasteful projects, such as recycling rare earths from used products. Many rare earths are used in very small quantities in a very large number of devices, causing the costs to exceed the benefits. Although, no one went to the House floor to offer this as a reason for voting no.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) introduced this bill on March 6, 2013. It was referred to the House Science Committee (HSC). However, neither the HSC, nor any of its Subcommittees, approved this bill. The House Republican leadership brought this bill to the House floor without any committee having reported it. Also, the House Republican leadership, by bringing this bill up under suspension of the rules, deprived members of the opportunity to offer amendments. While some Representatives might have objected to the procedure under which the bill was considered, none went to the House floor to offer this objection.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) stated in the House that "Growth in demand for rare earths in a volatile market warrants particular attention and concern. China currently produces more than 90 percent of the global supply of rare earths. This is a result of a deliberate and decades-long strategy to develop its geologic reserves, undercut market prices, and drive out competition. Testimony before the Science, Space, and Technology Committee indicated that China has manipulated the market in recent years. It has reduced its export quotas and increased levies on rare earth oxides. This has caused wild price swings, market instability, and supply uncertainty." See, Congressional Record, July 23, 2014, at Page H6594.
Rep. Smith continued that "This behavior is a potential threat to the United States' ability to acquire many rare earths".
Rep. Swalwell (at right) also spoke in support of this bill. He pointed out that lithium is a critical element. "The cell phones, laptops, and other mobile devices upon which we all greatly rely and use--not to mention the energy storage systems for many commercial aircraft -- all require lithium to function effectively. To make these products here in America and not cede leadership across the world, we need to have access to lithium."
He continued that "One country, China, has recognized the importance of these rare earth elements, and it has put vast amounts of resources into becoming the world's leading supplier of them. As a result, China is currently responsible for the mining and distribution of 97 percent of rare earth elements. Predictably, China hasn't been shy about using this monopoly as leverage against its international competitors. In fact, just a few years ago, China temporarily cut off rare earth supplies to Japan, the European Union, and the United States, further highlighting the potential consequences of relying so heavily upon a single nation for rare earth production and driving up the costs for American manufacturers."
He represents a district that is home to two DOE laboratories that would benefit from this bill -- the Sandia National Laboratory in Livermore, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, also in Livermore.
Rep. Swalwell issued a release after the vote in which he blamed "threats and falsehoods made by extreme right-wing groups, Heritage Action and Club for Growth".
The Club for Growth issued a release before the vote on July 22 which it stated that "Through this bill, government intervention in the private sector will only increase". It added that "rather than add another layer of bureaucracy and another layer of crony capitalism onto the federal government, we should be cutting wasteful programs and reducing government intervention in the private sector."
See also, July 22 release of Heritage Action, urging the Congress instead to open up lands with rare earth deposits to commercial extraction.
• Sen. Leahy and Rep. Price Reintroduce Bill to Expand Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction
• House Rejects Rare Earths Bill
• OSTP Seeks Comments on Rare Earths
9:30 AM. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing titled "The Federal Trade commission and Its Section 5 Authority: Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury". The witnesses will be Michael Daugherty (LabMD), David Roesler (Open Door Clinic of Greater Elgin),
Gerard Stegmaier (Goodwin Procter), and Woodrow Hartzog (Samford University). See, notice. Location: Room 2154, Rayburn Building.
10:15 AM. The House Commerce Committee (HCC) will hold a hearing titled "Legislative Hearing on the Anti-Spoofing Act, the LPTV and Translator Act, and the E-LABEL Act". The witnesses will be Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH), Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), Louis Libin (Advanced Television Broadcast Alliance), and
Harold Feld (Public Knowledge). Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.
1:00 PM. The US Telecom will host a webcast program titled "We Want to Do Big Data, But Where Do We Start?". The speaker will be Tamara Dull (SAS). Free. See, notice.
TIME CHANGE. 2:00 PM. 1:30 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee" will hold a hearing titled "Copyright Remedies". The witnesses will be David Bitkower (DOJ's Criminal Division), Steven Tepp (Sentinel Worldwide), Matt Schruers (Computer and Communications Industry Association), Sherwin Siy (Public Knowledge), Nancy Wolff (Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard). Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (SHSGAC) will hold a business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of S __, a yet to be introduced bill titled the "Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Authorization Act of 2014". See, HR 3283 [LOC | WW], an IPAWs bill pending in the House. The House Homeland Security Committee (HHSC) approved it on April 30, 2014. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.
3:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will hold a hearing titled "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: The America Invents Act and Beyond, Domestic and International Policy Goals". The witnesses will be __. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
OSTP Seeks Comments on Rare Earths
7/22. The Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that requests comments regarding critical and strategic materials.
The deadline to submit comments is August 31, 2014. See, FR, Vol. 79, No. 140, July 22, 2014, at Pages 42560-42561.
The OSTP seeks comments from "industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to demand, supply and supply chain structure, R&D, and technology transitions related to raw materials (including, but not limited to, minerals and gases) used in the U.S. economy." (Parentheses in original.)
The OSTP asks "What materials will be particularly important, , and of concern (due to availability, price, etc.) to your technologies and/or your industry over the next 5 years?"
It also asks, among other things, for comments on "supply chains", and "vulnerabilities in the supply chain", including reliance on foreign sources.
This notice does not reference any industry sectors, any of the materials critical to them, or any of their problems in obtaining those materials.
However, one category of materials not named by the notice, but at which the notice is directed, is rare earth materials (REMs).
The rare earth elements from which REMs are made are Scandium, Yttrium, Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodymium, Promethium, Samarium, Europium, Gadolinium, Terbium, Dysprosium, Holmium, Erbium, Thulium, Ytterbium, and Lutetium. See, periodic table.
Rare earth elements are located in many locations, including in the U.S. The U.S. was once a leading producer of REMs. However, almost all of the world's supply of REMs now comes from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
On September 18, 2013, the Republican controlled House passed HR 761 [LOC | WW], the "National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013", a bill that would have the effect of facilitating domestic mining and extraction of REMs. Republicans voted unanimously for the bill. Most Democrats voted against the bill. The Democratic controlled Senate has taken no action on the bill.
See also, story titled "House to Take Up Rare Earths Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,601, September 16, 2013, and story titled "House Passes Rare Earths Bill" in in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,604, September 24 2013.