we find that 18 U.S.C. § 2251A applies extraterritorially to reach Frank’s conduct. 1. Congress intended 18 U.S.C. § 2251A to apply extraterritorially Section 2251A requires that in the course of the prohibited conduct, the defendant or minor “travel[J in ... interstate or foreign commerce,” making plain Congress’s intent that the statute sweep broadly and apply extraterritorially. 18 U.S.C. § 2251A(c)(l) (emphasis added); see, e.g., United States v. Hill, 279 F.3d 731, 739 (9th Cir.2002) (inclusion of a “travel in interstate or foreign commerce” provision “makes plain the intent of Congress to apply the law internationally” and “strongly suggests that Congress intended to cast a broad net and apply the statute to all offen d States v. Strevell, 185 Fed.Appx. 841, 843 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, extraterritorial application is
holding that the title of the statute engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places and the requirement that the defendant travel in foreign commerce evinced congressional intent to apply the statute extraterritorially holding that  924c applies extraterritorially in a bombing plot where the charges were predicated on 18 usc  844i which the court held to apply extraterritorially holding that the language and history of  2423c undercuts any argument that the statute does not apply extraterritorially holding that the language of the statute and the courts duty to apply the statute as written requires the court to interpret the statute to apply when the prisoner is sentenced without regard to the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated after the sentencing holding that  924c applies extraterritorially where the underlying substantive criminal statutes apply extraterritorially