[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26288-26293]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2740, MEJA EXPANSION AND 
                        ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 702 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 702

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2740) to require accountability for 
     contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 
     10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 2740 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous

[[Page 26289]]

     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Sutton) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SUTTON. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time 
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SUTTON. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H. Res. 702 provides for consideration of H.R. 2740, the Military 
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act Expansion and Enforcement Act of 
2007, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for 
3 amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
bill which helps to address 1 of the most disturbing and pressing 
issues to come before the Congress this year, the lack of oversight and 
accountability of contractors abroad and here at home. And it is vital 
that we are passing the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act today to 
address at least 1 of these critical issues.
  Currently, there are estimated to be at least 180,000 contractors 
working in Iraq under contracts awarded by the Department of Defense, 
the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, 
and other Federal agencies. Yet under current law, only contractors 
working for the Department of Defense can be held responsible for 
crimes they commit while working in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere 
throughout the world.
  At present, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, 
leaves felonies committed by contractors working for other Federal 
Departments unpunished. This is unfair and unacceptable, and this 
Congress must act to ensure that justice is not a selective American 
principle.
  Our current law has given private mercenary armies like Blackwater 
USA free rein to do as they please without fearing the repercussions. 
And as we have seen, that unbridled freedom from any accountability has 
resulted in sometimes egregious criminal behavior. But under the MEJA 
Expansion and Enforcement Act, Federal contractors working for every 
Department and agency will be held responsible for criminal acts. It 
will also direct the FBI to establish units to investigate crimes 
committed by contract personnel operating abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, it simply makes no sense to hold contractors to a 
different standard than American citizens living at home or even the 
brave soldiers who risk their lives every day in Iraq. It is a travesty 
of justice that we allow private armies to evade punishment for serious 
crimes, especially considering we have prosecuted our soldiers for the 
very similar actions.

                              {time}  1045

  In a recent incident that has received significant scrutiny, 
Blackwater guards were involved in a September 16 shootout in Baghdad 
that left 11 Iraqis dead and a number wounded. This event spurred such 
a tremendous public outcry that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had 
to apologize to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.
  And we have learned from reports compiled by Blackwater themselves 
that since 2005, its employees have been involved in at least 195 
incidents in Iraq that involved the firing of shots by Blackwater 
guards. Blackwater's contract with the State Department stipulates that 
Blackwater may only engage in defensive use of force. However, in the 
vast majority, over 80 percent, of these shooting incidents, 
Blackwater's own reports revealed that its guards fired the first 
shots. In one incident that has recently come to our attention, 
Blackwater guards shot a civilian bystander in the head. In another, 
State Department officials report that Blackwater sought to cover up a 
shooting that killed a seemingly innocent bystander.
  Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, and despite numerous 
instances where the military has found probable cause that a crime has 
been committed and has referred the case to the Justice Department, 
there has been only one successful prosecution of a civilian contractor 
for wrongdoing.
  Without fear of reprisal, these reckless contractors have operated 
with no regard for the private property of innocent Iraqi citizens. In 
a November 2005 incident, a Blackwater motorcade collided with 18 
different vehicles. Written statements from team members were 
determined to be invalid, and a Blackwater contractor on the mission 
stated his tactical commander ``openly admitted giving clear direction 
to the primary driver to conduct these acts of random negligence for no 
apparent reason.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen the number of contractors increase 
exponentially as the Bush administration has placed an unnecessary 
strain on our Armed Forces through the war in Iraq. In 2001, Blackwater 
had less than $1 million in Federal contracts. By 2006, that figure had 
grown to over half a billion dollars, an increase of more than 80,000 
percent. Today, there are approximately 180,000 Federal contractors in 
Iraq alone, a number greater than the American military presence. 
Because of the President's policy of escalation in Iraq, we have become 
more reliant on these contractors to protect American interests there. 
For every Blackwater mercenary the United States Government hires to 
protect embassy officials, Blackwater charges $1,222 per day, which is 
over six times more than the cost of an equivalent American soldier.
  Mr. Speaker, the lack of oversight of Federal contractors committing 
crimes overseas is an example of how the system of Federal contracting 
is broken. Earlier this year, this Congress got off to a strong start 
by passing H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act which 
helped restore integrity to the contracting process. I am also proud to 
be the sponsor of H.R. 2198, the Contractor Accountability Act, which 
will require the head of every agency and department to ensure that 
every Federal contract recipient is fulfilling their obligations after 
they are awarded that contract. It requires that every Federal agency 
and department awarding contracts submit a report on the status of 
those contracts to Congress. This is the type of oversight and 
accountability that is necessary to ensure that the problems that are 
happening in Iraq with Federal contractors and here at home can finally 
be put to an end.
  Today, with the passage of the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act, we 
are addressing a critical loophole in our contracting crisis by 
ensuring that those contractors who commit crimes are held accountable 
for their actions. What we seek to do today is simple but important. 
The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act will hold Federal contractors 
operating overseas to the same standards we hold ourselves and to which 
we hold our brave troops. And let's be clear. This bill does not 
prevent contractors from using force if the situation calls for it. Our 
bill simply allows contractors to be punished for committing acts of 
murder and other felonies. Nobody should be immune from the law. This 
legislation will ensure that no one, even if he is a private contractor 
in Iraq, is.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying this rule provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion and

[[Page 26290]]

 Enforcement Act. This bill is an attempt to ensure that all Federal 
civilian contractors can be prosecuted for crimes they commit abroad. 
The issue before us today is not, Mr. Speaker, a policy decision to 
determine whether or not contractors should be in Iraq, but, rather, 
the issue is whether the principle of current law should be applied to 
civilian contractors.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Forbes, the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security in the Judiciary 
Committee testified before the Rules Committee that while the intent of 
this legislation is right, this bill is very, very poorly drafted. 
During markup of the bill by the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Forbes 
and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee raised concerns with 
Members on the other side of the aisle. Republicans agreed that they 
would work to move this legislation forward because of assurances made 
by the majority members of the committee that their concerns would be 
worked out. Mr. Forbes testified before the Rules Committee that his 
main concerns with the bill were a lack of clear definitions, vague 
language and Federal mandates on the FBI without additional resources.
  Mr. Speaker, a manager's amendment was submitted to the Rules 
Committee and it wasn't until after the Rules Committee amendment 
deadline had passed Monday evening that Mr. Forbes found that none of 
the concerns raised by Republicans were addressed in the manager's 
amendment. At this point, of course, it was too late for Mr. Forbes and 
other Members to submit amendments. Had they tried to submit amendments 
to the Rules Committee past the deadline, they likely would have been 
turned away at the Rules Committee door, just as many Members, 
including myself, have been this Congress.
  Yesterday, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, attempted to provide an 
open rule for consideration of this bill. An open rule would have 
allowed any Member of the House of Representatives an opportunity to 
come forward and amend the bill, and especially those members of the 
Judiciary Committee that felt that they were left out of this process. 
However, the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee rejected this idea on 
a party line vote of 8-4.
  Mr. Dreier then attempted to allow Mr. Forbes to offer an amendment 
on the floor today to make changes to the bill in order to restore the 
commitment that was once made by the Democrat majority. But I am 
disappointed that this attempt was also rejected on a party line vote 
of 8-4.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill was reported by the Judiciary 
Committee over 2 months ago and yet the Democrat majority failed to 
make good on their commitment to address the reasonable and entirely 
justifiable concerns raised by Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, contractor accountability is an issue that should be 
discussed and addressed in a bipartisan manner. But there are 
legitimate concerns with the way this bill was drafted. Unfortunately, 
this rule denies Members, including all Republicans, an opportunity to 
improve the underlying bill. Because the Rules Committee has once again 
chosen to stifle bipartisanship and deliberation by bringing forth this 
restrictive rule, I must urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, House 
Resolution 702.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California, I would just like to say that in the 
process of this bill coming forward, not a single Republican offered an 
amendment in the committee. Though the committee reported the bill by 
voice vote, not a single person voted ``no.'' Only one Republican 
offered an amendment for the floor, and it had nothing to do with the 
scope of the bill and was nongermane.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SUTTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. 
She was in the committee yesterday when Mr. Forbes testified. I would 
hope that the gentlewoman would agree with me that when Mr. Forbes 
testified under questioning from me asking if he felt that he had 
assurances that these issues would be worked out from the time that the 
committee passed the bill out of committee in August until now, and he 
said that he felt that that commitment was a strong commitment, and 
therefore, he didn't offer any amendments.
  Now, would the gentlewoman agree with me that that was what Mr. 
Forbes said?
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for his question.
  I think that the important thing here to look at is there was an 
opportunity for the Republican side to offer amendments, and only one 
was offered yesterday in committee. There was an opportunity, 
obviously, for those to be presented.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlewoman further yield on 
that point?
  Ms. SUTTON. Certainly.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say under questioning when I asked Mr. 
Forbes, because he stated that the deadline had passed when the 
manager's amendment which did not address their concerns was 
introduced, he then, of course, would be prohibited from offering 
amendments. I asked him if there were an opportunity in the next 24 
hours, i.e., from yesterday until today, could they prepare amendments 
to address these concerns, he said, ``Yes.''
  I hope that the gentlewoman will agree with me that that is what he 
said yesterday in front of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SUTTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the reality of this is 
there was an opportunity to offer amendments as explained. Somebody did 
offer an amendment. Unfortunately, that amendment was nongermane.
  At this point I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me time.
  I rise today in strong support not only of this bill but also of 
increased accountability in Iraq. From the outset, this misguided war 
has been characterized by gray areas, gray areas of policy, of 
motivation and of legitimacy. One consequence of these gray areas has 
been the collapse of law and order in Iraq. Many military contractors, 
contractors paid by our government, contribute to the chaos there.
  Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is a first major conflict in which private 
contractors perform tasks typically done by uniformed military. 
Employees from companies like Blackwater provide security for military 
and political figures. They protect buildings. Rumors have swirled that 
they may soon guard military convoys.
  Mr. Speaker, private contractors acting in military roles should be 
held to the same standards as our armed services. They should not have 
free rein to shoot, maim and kill people in the name of security. If 
they act illegally, they must be punished accordingly. This, Mr. 
Speaker, is what law and order means. We cannot convince the world that 
we value peace and security if American contractors are undermining it 
in Iraq. It is hypocritical for us to ask Iraqis to obey the rule of 
law when we do not demand the same from the contractors we are paying. 
Like all of my colleagues, I want our brave young men and women in Iraq 
to be as safe as they can be. The legislation before us today will help 
restore the trust of the Iraqi public and of the international 
community.
  During World War II, only 5 percent of our in-theater forces were 
private contractors. Today, we have just as many contractors in Iraq as 
we do American soldiers, contractors who are not accountable to the 
American people but who are paid for by the American people. Crimes 
committed by these contractors are the reason why this bill is so long 
overdue. It finally holds contractors accountable for their

[[Page 26291]]

actions. But the larger issue is that our men and women in uniform are 
overburdened. Our military is in danger of collapsing under the strain 
of a never-ending war. This is one of the many reasons why we must 
change course in Iraq.
  That, Mr. Speaker, is my objective. It is the objective of a clear 
majority in the House. It is the will of the American people. We must 
do everything we can to increase oversight of contractors. This 
legislation is a step in the right direction.
  I urge my colleagues to take this step today so that in the coming 
days, we can finally change our Nation's course in Iraq.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point once again, the reason 
that there were no Republican amendments that were submitted to the 
Rules Committee is because there was a clear, clear understanding when 
the bill was passed out of the Judiciary Committee that the issues and 
concerns that were raised by the Republicans would be addressed in a 
bipartisan way, and the vehicle by which they would be addressed was a 
manager's amendment, which is a normal process when you bring bills to 
the floor. That commitment was apparently not fulfilled.
  By the time that the manager's amendment was drafted, with the idea 
that supposedly in a bipartisan way these issues would be addressed, it 
was too late for any Republican to offer an amendment because it was 
past the deadline that was put in place by this new majority on the 
Rules Committee. Therefore, there was no chance for Republicans to 
submit any amendments. Therefore, there were no amendments that were 
submitted.
  So I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, that the 
reason that there were no Republican amendments submitted to the Rules 
Committee is because a promise and a commitment was broken between 
August 2 and October 2, yesterday, when we met on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the author 
of the bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to be a resource in this rules 
debate, but not to take on the role of a Rules Committee member. Since 
the gentleman has raised the issue of the kinds of amendments that were 
or were not proposed and the kind of accommodations that were or were 
not made, I think perhaps I can respond in a helpful way.
  The approach that we have taken to this bill has been to invite and 
respond to critiques that various stakeholders might have of the way we 
were approaching this. The gentleman is probably aware we had a 
manager's amendment in committee that accommodated legitimate concerns. 
Perhaps that was one factor producing an approval by the committee 
without dissent. We have a manager's amendment today that is similarly 
taking into account a number of the concerns that have been raised. We 
have been open to suggestions.
  The amendment that the gentleman is referring to, however, the Forbes 
amendment, was not of the character that one would normally include in 
a manager's amendment. I think we have been clear all along that the 
kinds of amendments that would be appropriate for consideration in that 
technical vein would not include amendments that went to the very heart 
of the bill, such as an amendment that would compromise the FBI role in 
the legal regime we are setting up.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding for this exchange, because I think it is important. This issue 
is very, very important because we are talking about ultimately a 
portion of the security of our country, and I think we need to address 
that in a bipartisan way.
  I am simply pointing out, in testimony yesterday in front of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Forbes was given the assurance when the bill left 
the Judiciary Committee, and I don't think that the gentleman is on the 
Judiciary Committee, but he felt that he had a commitment that those 
concerns be addressed.
  Now, having concerns addressed and being totally satisfied are two 
different things. If they weren't satisfied, then you could offer an 
amendment to make the adjustments and you could debate those issues. 
The point I am making is that Mr. Forbes felt that the commitment that 
was given to him to make those adjustments and those concerns were not 
fully addressed; therefore, he didn't submit any amendments to the 
bill. I am not suggesting that all of his concerns should be in the 
manager's amendment; I am simply suggesting that he was denied the 
opportunity, in his mind, to have these concerns addressed.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman will understand that I am not in a position to give the blow-
by-blow account in either the Judiciary Committee or the Rules 
Committee, but I will convey my understanding, because I think it is 
important to do that.
  We are talking here about an amendment that Mr. Forbes wrote, which 
as I understand it would compromise the bill by stripping out the 
requirement for FBI units to be pre-positioned on the ground to 
investigate alleged criminal behavior.
  I am characterizing the amendment because I did not ever have the 
text of the amendment. I don't think anyone did. It was sprung on the 
Rules Committee yesterday. It would seem to me, with all due respect, 
that if there were a concern that the manager's amendment might not be 
adequate, particularly on a matter of this scope, which is way beyond 
the usual scope of a manager's amendment, Mr. Forbes might have 
circulated a draft of a possible amendment, so that it could be 
discussed rationally in the Rules Committee if the manager's amendment 
somehow fell short. My understanding is that this was not done.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I just want to, Mr. Speaker, tell my colleagues that there was 
no Forbes amendment in front of the Rules Committee, so I can't even 
pass judgment whether it addressed the concerns that he had. He did not 
submit an amendment to the Rules Committee. He did not submit an 
amendment to the Rules Committee because he was given the assurances 
that the concerns that were raised when the bill came out of committee 
would be addressed.
  While the gentleman is probably talking about a potential amendment, 
nobody on the Rules Committee saw the amendment, because the amendment 
was not submitted to the Rules Committee because he felt his concerns 
were not addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to clarify that. 
When he talks about the Forbes amendment, there is, or was no Forbes 
amendment in front of the Rules Committee yesterday.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, that is true. It is a 
hypothetical. I am giving my understanding as to the content of that 
amendment. But the point is, I would say this subject matter is not the 
stuff of a potential manager's amendment, and if there was some kind of 
concern about what the manager's amendment would contain, the prudent 
course would have been to have some kind of draft that the gentleman 
and others could have looked at so that the Rules Committee could have 
acted on it intelligently.
  My main point, Mr. Speaker, is to say that our approach to this bill 
all along has been nonpartisan. We have had good bipartisan cooperation 
and

[[Page 26292]]

support every step of the way. We have accommodated in manager's 
amendments, in the committee and here today, the legitimate concerns 
that were raised. I simply want to register the hope that that pattern 
of partisan cooperation can continue as we debate this bill.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to reiterate, without beating this to 
death, that not a single Republican amendment was offered in committee. 
There was opportunity to provide amendments yesterday in the Rules 
Committee. This is an important bill that we need to stay focused on 
the substance of as well.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time it is an honor to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me 
time. I do think the admonition is important to focus on the substance 
of this legislation. The Rules Committee, as she points out, wasn't 
given an alternative and there is nobody in this Chamber, I think, that 
has a better, more well-deserved reputation for being a thoughtful, 
bipartisan Member to try and solve problems than our colleague, the 
primary sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price). I am privileged to be a cosponsor of the legislation with 
him.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for this Chamber to focus on an 
important area of accountability. We have in the newspapers, not just 
this week, we have had accounts going on not just for months, but from 
the outset of this war about the trend to outsource fundamental 
functions that heretofore have been the province of United States 
soldiers. It has had significant consequences. We are now finding, as a 
result of some of the hearings, that there have been repeated instances 
of violence. We are finding that there is no good remedy currently 
under the law. There is basically no clear line of authority to get 
back to be able to exercise the oversight and accountability of the 
security function that has been outsourced.
  What Mr. Price has offered up is a small part of moving in the 
direction that we should have done from the outset. I would hope that 
we can get past the discussion on the rule. I plan on supporting it and 
look forward to a vigorous debate on the floor to open up this question 
of accountability for a war that is outsourced, for costs that are five 
times what an American soldier would do to provide exactly the same 
function. With the American soldier at one fifth the cost of a 
mercenary there is a clear line of authority. If something goes 
sideways, we know what is going to happen.
  Mr. Price has offered up legislation that gets us started in that 
direction. It is a thoughtful, bipartisan, narrowly crafted effort. It 
is not the whole answer, but it moves us in the right direction. I 
would strongly urge that my colleagues support the rule, support the 
underlying bill, and get us moving into an important area of debate, 
accountability and responsibility. Our failure in this area is going to 
have serious consequences for years to come. We are already seeing this 
with the Iraqi Government. We are seeing it in terms of problems on the 
ground. We are seeing questions that are being asked, answers demanded 
by Americans and Iraqis alike. Working together on this bill is a first 
step towards remedying that situation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the previous speaker, my friend from 
Oregon, that the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price), is a very, very thoughtful individual. I have 
worked with him on some issues, and I would agree with that. I think 
Members would also agree with me when I say that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Forbes) is also a very thoughtful individual and somebody 
that you can work with on a bipartisan basis.
  When somebody like Mr. Forbes comes to the Rules Committee and tells 
us that he was given a commitment about concerns that he felt needed to 
be addressed in this legislation and was given the assurances that they 
would be addressed, not necessarily solved but at least be addressed, I 
think you would have to say that he was acting in very good faith. I 
think this sends a very, very strong message for Members that want to 
work in a bipartisan way and then get treated as Mr. Forbes said he was 
treated. I think that is not good for the institution.
  So I just want to, Mr. Speaker, reiterate once again what happened. 
The reason that there were no amendments substantive to the issue of 
the concerns that were submitted by Republicans to the Rules Committee 
is because the ranking member on the subcommittee dealing with this 
issue felt that the commitments that were given to him were not carried 
out. There were no, apparently, discussions of what was going into the 
manager's amendment.
  Again, I am not suggesting Mr. Forbes would have been totally happy, 
but he could have offered an amendment to address those concerns. He 
was denied that opportunity simply, simply because he felt the 
commitment that was given to him when the bill came out of the 
Judiciary Committee was not carried through.
  So it is for that reason, that reason that we probably won't have as 
robust a debate on this issue, and in all likelihood we won't have the 
kind of legislation that needs to go forward in a bipartisan manner on 
something where everybody agrees that the intent of this legislation is 
what everybody agrees on a bipartisan basis needs to happen. I regret 
that. It is for that reason that I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker at this time on my 
side, so I will reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks my colleagues on the Rules 
Committee and I have called for a vote on the previous question and 
will be doing so again today. Why? Because we are concerned that the 
House rules are flawed when it comes to the enforceability of earmarks.
  Republican Leader Boehner has a proposal that will improve the House 
rules and allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity 
and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills. I am asking that my 
colleagues vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the 
rule to allow the House to immediately consider House Resolution 479 
introduced by Republican Leader Boehner.
  By defeating the previous question, the House will still be able to 
consider the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act today, but will also be 
able to address earmark enforceability in order to restore the 
credibility of the House. I am hopeful today will be the day my 
colleagues will defeat the previous question and, in doing so, will 
send a strong message to American taxpayers that this House is serious 
when it comes to earmark transparency.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the previous question and the restrictive rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina on this strong bipartisan bill. The MEJA 
Expansion and Enforcement Act is critical, commonsense legislation to 
hold contractors responsible for criminal behavior, just like we hold 
our troops responsible for crimes when they are committed, and just 
like we hold

[[Page 26293]]

American citizens responsible for following the law.
  Those who argue against this measure seem willing to tolerate 
lawlessness in countries where our military is seeking to restore 
justice. The truth is, every time we see an incident with an Iraqi 
civilian being killed and American contractors escaping accountability, 
our men and women in uniform suffer. They see support from the 
insurgents rise and they lose the trust of the Iraqi people.
  Our troops are not responsible for the strain that the President has 
placed on our Armed Forces which has led to the need for mercenaries to 
carry out missions that our troops capably handle, and it is tragic 
that the troops are targeted for the negligence of private contractors. 
We owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to ensure that contractors 
are held to the same standards of justice as everybody else. Only then 
will we see a true deterrent to vigilante behavior and reckless actions 
by private citizens working overseas for our Federal agencies and 
Departments.
  It is simple, Mr. Speaker. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act 
extends policies that are in place for the Department of Defense to 
contractors for other agencies.
  And let's be clear: Nobody is accusing every single contractor of 
committing the criminal acts we have talked about today. But when a 
contractor does commit a crime, they must be punished and we must have 
consequences to serve as a deterrent. It should not be controversial to 
punish people for committing murder and other felonies. This is a giant 
loophole in our law that is hurting our reputation abroad, hurting our 
troops in the field and is making a mockery of the American sense of 
justice.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 702 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
     enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
     or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________