[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26326-26338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               MEJA EXPANSION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 702 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2740.

                              {time}  1626


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2740) to require accountability for contractors and contract 
personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes, with Mrs. 
Tauscher in the chair.

[[Page 26327]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Forbes) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have never fought a war in 
which private contractors not only outnumber United States troops, as 
they do in Iraq, but perform many tasks that are very similar to those 
historically performed by our troops. A critical difference, however, 
is that these contractors, unlike our troops, are not subject to the 
requirements of military discipline and United States law governing the 
conduct of warfare. Further, they are also immune from Iraqi law.
  As we know, last month contractors working for Blackwater allegedly 
opened fire in a Baghdad neighborhood, killing at least 11 Iraqi 
civilians. A witness told a CNN reporter, ``Each of their 4 vehicles 
opened heavy fire in all directions. They shot and killed everyone in 
cars facing them and people standing on the street.'' Another witness, 
whose youngest son was killed during the attack, likened the event to 
``hell, like a scene from a movie.''
  This latest incident unfortunately evidences the fact that some of 
these contractors are abusing their power with impunity, subject to no 
law whatsoever, domestic or foreign. H.R. 2740 corrects this serious 
gap in current law.
  Specifically, it amends the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction 
Act, known as MEJA, in three critical respects: First, it closes the 
legal gap in current law by making all contractors accountable for 
their actions. MEJA currently only extends U.S. Federal criminal 
jurisdiction to felony crimes committed overseas by contractors working 
on behalf of the Defense Department.

                              {time}  1630

  This measure specifies that the act would apply to all contractors, 
regardless of the agency for which they provide services.
  Second, this measure requires that the Inspector General of the 
Justice Department examine and report on the Department's efforts to 
investigate and prosecute allegations of misconduct committed by 
contractors overseas.
  Since the Iraq war started, the Department has failed to commence a 
single prosecution against a contractor under the Military 
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Sadly, last month's Blackwater 
incident was not the first time contractors have acted abusively 
without any accountability.
  On Monday, we learned that Blackwater was involved in at least 195 
shooting incidents in Iraq since the year 2005. And Blackwater isn't 
the only culpable company. In 2005, armed contractors from the Zapata 
contracting firm allegedly fired indiscriminately not only at Iraqi 
civilians, but also at United States Marines. In 2006, employees of 
Aegis, another security firm, posted a trophy video on the Internet 
that showed them shooting civilians. And employees of Triple Canopy, 
yet another contractor, were fired after alleging that a supervisor 
engaged in a ``joyride shooting'' of Iraqi civilians. These cases, and 
all like them, should be appropriately investigated and prosecuted, if 
warranted.
  Third, H.R. 2740 establishes ground units of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct by 
contractors. Notwithstanding the fact that more than 180,000 
contractors are currently operating in Iraq, there is not a single 
investigative unit located in that country.
  Pursuant to a directive of the administration, FBI agents are 
belatedly being sent to investigate the Blackwater crime scene in many 
instances where the evidence has long disappeared. Without a mandated 
investigating unit, the Justice Department lacks the ability or the 
incentive to respond effectively. And so, to our colleague from North 
Carolina, David Price, the author of H.R. 2740, we fixed that 
shortcoming. And I acknowledge the sponsor for his sustained leadership 
on this important issue of ensuring that those acting in our name will 
be held legally accountable for their conduct.
  This legislation is widely supported, including the Human Rights 
Watch, Human Rights First, the International Peace Operations 
Association, and Amnesty International.
  The need for us remedying the problem described is extremely urgent. 
I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of its swift passage.
  Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairwoman, when I walk into this great body, I understand 
often why our approval ratings are so low with the American people, 
because they tune in and they listen to our debates and they listen to 
us talk about problems, and then they actually read the legislation and 
they look at the proposed solutions and they scratch their heads and 
oftentimes say there's a huge disconnect between the two.
  The other thing that they see is they see Members on this side of the 
aisle and certain Members on that side of the aisle who scratch our 
heads and wonder why we can't come together in a bipartisan manner to 
create solutions that actually work. And this piece of legislation is 
exactly why that isn't able to happen. Because when this bill came 
through the Judiciary Committee, the minority and the majority both 
agreed, it was voted out by voice vote because the intent that you will 
hear discussed today was supported by both the majority and the 
minority. But we were given assurances, and we certainly had the 
expectations, that the absolutely poor drafting of this legislation 
would be corrected before it came to the floor. And we had 
opportunities to do that, Madam Chairwoman, but they didn't happen.
  And so today we have a bill that Members are in somewhat of a 
quandary over how they vote because they can either vote on this bill 
and vote against the bill to send a message to the Senate that it needs 
work and it needs to be corrected, even though they support the intent 
of the bill and hope the Senate will do what we cannot do, and that is, 
correct the poor draftsmanship, or they can vote for the bill because 
they support the intent of the bill, and again, hope springs eternal, 
and hope that the Senate will be able to correct the poor draftsmanship 
and send us back a better bill in conference.
  I am not going to suggest which way they should vote, but let me try 
to correct the disconnect between the problems that are alleged and the 
actual legislation, because it's an intent that's important for us to 
get right, but it's important for us to get right with proper drafting.
  First of all, under MEJA, which was passed under the previous 
majority, let me tell you who was actually covered. Under that bill, 
which is the reach we have to reach out for individuals who may be 
Americans who do stuff that's wrong overseas under contracts at that 
time, every Member of the Armed Forces that was subject to the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice was covered. Every civilian employee of DOD 
was already covered. All the employees of every other Federal agency 
and every provisional authority who was supporting a mission of DOD was 
covered. Every contractor of DOD, covered. All contractors of any 
Federal agency or provisional authority supporting missions, and their 
employees, covered. The dependents of the members of the Armed Forces, 
covered. The dependents of the civilian employees of DOD, covered. And 
the dependents of DOD contractors, all covered under current 
legislation.
  Now, what does this legislation purport to do? What it purports to do 
is to add contractors of other Federal agencies who are not supporting 
DOD missions but who work in, according to the language of the bill, 
close proximity to a contingency operation. Well, Madam Chairman, the 
problem is that we've

[[Page 26328]]

actually reduced some of the jurisdiction as opposed to increased the 
jurisdiction under this particular legislation.
  First of all, there is no defining of what ``close proximity'' 
actually means. And there is no carve-out for those who are supporting 
a DOD mission who might not be in close proximity to a contingency 
operation.
  So, Madam Chairwoman, under the proposed legislation, if we have a 
contractor who was doing something that would have been covered because 
they were in support of a DOD mission, but let's say they were on a 
base in Germany, because they were not in proximity or close proximity 
to an area of contingent operations, under the previous jurisdiction 
they've been covered; under this jurisdiction they would no longer be 
covered. That's something that could have easily been corrected in the 
draftsmanship if we had been given the opportunity to do that prior to 
coming to the floor.
  The second thing, Madam Chairwoman, is when it comes to intelligence 
operations, which will now be brought under this particular bill, there 
is no carve-out under this bill for employees who may be working in 
operations that are involved in intelligence. If they are accused of 
doing a particular criminal act and they are then exposed and the 
linkage is because they're hired to do intelligence activities 
somewhere else, that entire network could then be exposed and the 
security of this country jeopardized, which certainly shouldn't be the 
intent of what we want. Again, that could have easily been corrected if 
we could have just written that in and corrected it before it came 
here.
  The other thing, Madam Chairman, is there is no carve-out for 
residents and nationals of other countries. In the current bill there 
is, but under this particular legislation and the way this bill came to 
the floor, it may not be. We can actually have an employee of a company 
from another country, not even a resident of the United States, who 
could be employed by one of our corporations doing work for the United 
States, and because of the way this bill is drafted, when they say just 
because they're in the employ and they didn't put a scope of employment 
definition in the bill, then even if that person was outside of his 
employment, even if he was off the job, even if he wasn't working then, 
if he committed an act that might be a criminal offense in the United 
States, even if it wasn't a criminal offense in the country in which he 
did it, under this bill there would be jurisdiction, but there are all 
kinds of questions as to whether or not we could pick him up, arrest 
him and detain him.
  The final thing, Madam Chairman, that could have easily been 
corrected and wasn't done is this bill sends the FBI to do these 
investigations in theater of operations, and there is no definition for 
what theater of operations actually is. We are now putting our agents 
in danger to do investigations in areas of military conflict where they 
primarily do investigations domestically at home, but we don't give 
them any funding to do it; we just mandate that they do it. And some of 
the estimates of cost that were given in the committee were as much as 
$5 million just to do the investigations. That means that we will have 
FBI agents that will be doing investigations of employees who could be 
doing illegal activities overseas, but we may be taking them away from 
activities here domestically that they could be protecting American 
citizens here against terrorist activity, against gang activity and 
against things that are going on in the United States, and this bill 
doesn't give a dime of funding to do that.
  So, Madam Chairman, this is a bill, the intent of which is a good 
intent; unfortunately, the draftsmanship is horrible. It is unfortunate 
that we couldn't have worked in a bipartisan way to have corrected 
those issues before they got to the floor.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am now pleased to recognize the 
gentleman from North Carolina, whose interest in this subject matter 
began 3 years before he became chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee, and I am happy to recognize him for as much time as he 
may consume.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I am pleased to rise as the initiator of this legislation to speak in 
favor of a long overdue solution to a problem with serious implications 
for our military and for our national security.
  Put simply, this legislation ensures that the U.S. Government has the 
legal authority to prosecute crimes committed by U.S. contractor 
personnel working in war zones.
  I want to first thank Chairman Conyers and Chairman Bobby Scott for 
their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor today. There 
are many other Members on both sides of the aisle who worked on this 
issue, including the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who held an 
excellent series of hearings last year, and Mr. Waxman, who has focused 
his committee on the issue this year.
  My bill would do two simple things: it would expand the Military 
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, to cover all contractors 
operating in war zones, and it would beef up the Department of 
Justice's enforcement of MEJA.
  Madam Chairman, the word ``accountability'' is used a lot in this 
Chamber. Let me tell you what I think accountability should mean in 
this context. It should mean that we have the tools at our disposal to 
ensure that the criminal behavior of men and women working in our name 
and on our dime does not in any way damage our goals and objectives.

                              {time}  1645

  It should also mean making sure that rogue actors, the bad apples in 
the bunch, are not able to act in ways that endanger our troops or our 
mission without fear of prosecution.
  Our military is the best fighting force in the world today in large 
part because it is structured in a way that demands accountability, 
discipline and unity of action. Military commanders will universally 
tell you that accountability is critical to success because lapses in 
discipline or judgment can lead to defeat on the battlefield or can 
undermine popular support for the mission. So the military goes to 
great lengths to ensure accountability. There is a clear chain of 
command, extensive training on legal and illegal actions in war, and 
perhaps most importantly, clear consequences for violations.
  During the war in Iraq alone, there have been over 60 courts martial 
and hundreds of nonjudicial punishments of military personnel under the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice. There is good reason for this 
accountability. If a military servicemember unlawfully kills an 
innocent civilian or steals property or defiles a cultural icon, it 
contributes to popular outrage against American forces. It makes the 
military's mission more difficult. It undermines our national security. 
It could motivate insurgents and provide fodder for terrorist 
organizations.
  What is more, if we can't ensure the rule of law for our own 
personnel, how can we credibly ask other nations, like Iraq, to uphold 
the rule of law when their own citizens commit crimes?
  Unlike the military, there is no clear chain of command for 
contractors, little in the way of standards for training and vetting 
personnel, and often no legal accountability for misconduct. As the 
recent shooting incident involving Blackwater U.S.A. employees 
demonstrated, contractors can clearly act in ways that have serious 
implications for our national security. If we don't hold contract 
personnel accountable for misconduct as we do for our own military, we 
are not only failing to uphold moral responsibilities, we are 
endangering the men and women of our Armed Forces and we are 
undermining our Nation's credibility as a country that upholds the rule 
of law.
  Now, it may be hard for some of us to believe that this gaping hole 
in the law exists. In fact, as my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) 
has stated, certain contractors, those working under the Department of 
Defense, are already covered by MEJA. But others are not.
  I would like to know what the gentleman from Virginia would say to 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at

[[Page 26329]]

this very moment as she is contemplating what authority she has or can 
piece together to deal with the Blackwater incident of 2 weeks ago, if 
it turns out investigations show that prosecution is warranted? 
Contractors working under the Department of State or USAID, a category 
that includes most armed security contractors, are not now covered 
under this law.
  Now, the law isn't the only problem. We also have seen a serious 
deficiency in enforcement. Even though MEJA does cover DOD contractors, 
I am not aware of a single case of violent contractor misconduct that 
has, in fact, been prosecuted in court. I have been told that MEJA has 
been applied in only one case in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that was a 
defense contractor convicted of child pornography.
  There is nearly universal support for accountability for contractors 
and there is broad support for the approach taken by this bill. Leading 
human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights 
Watch, and Human Rights First support the bill, as do contractor 
associations such as the International Peace Operations Association.
  My bill will improve the law and will improve enforcement. It will 
give our country the ability to hold contractors accountable, which 
will enhance our national security and the safety of our troops, and it 
will ensure that our country remains a model of law and integrity for 
the rest of the world.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I would have responded to the gentleman 
from North Carolina had he yielded to me when he asked me the question 
what I would do that we support the intent of this bill, but it doesn't 
justify writing a poor bill. It doesn't justify taking away existing 
jurisdiction. When we have contractors that are committing bad actions, 
whether they are in Iraq or whether they are in Germany, we want to 
hold them accountable. Why in the world we would draft legislation 
which could reduce that jurisdiction is beyond me.
  I would like, Madam Chairman, to yield at this time 7 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and I 
appreciate the fact that he is supporting this bill but that he is 
trying to point out areas that it could and should be improved, which 
is part of what should happen in the debate in Congress.
  Mr. Price, I appreciate what you are attempting to do. I think your 
motives are where they need to be. I think you are trying to make sure 
that our country is being responsible in dealing with an issue that is 
very serious.
  I do rise in support of this legislation which will provide, 
hopefully, greater accountability for unlawful acts contractors may 
commit abroad. I chaired the National Security, Emerging Threats and 
International Relations Subcommittee of the Government Reform 
Committee, or now the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, and 
the issue of private security contracts was the subject of a hearing we 
held in June of 2006. In addition, the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee held a hearing on security contractors yesterday.
  Private security contractors in Iraq do many of the jobs our military 
used to do and provide incredibly valuable services for our military. 
They build facilities and structures. They build roads and bridges. 
They build waterworks. They provide electricity. They deliver supplies 
to our troops. They are cooks. These are all things the military might 
have done in the past, but we think that is not a good use for the 
military. They also provide security, protective security. That is what 
they do. It is a distortion if the implication is that we have more 
contractors than military, that the contractors who are there are doing 
military work. A lot of them are just building things and guarding 
bases and all the things that I have just mentioned.
  Now, there are several major challenges that have developed as our 
military has increased the use of private security contracting. The 
first problem has to do with the transparency of contractor operations. 
A December 2006 report by Government Accountability Office, GAO, noted 
that the Department of Defense, DOD, ``continues to have limited 
visibility over contractors because information on the number of 
contractors at deployed locations or the services they provide is not 
aggregated by any organization.'' Now, this bill is not dealing with 
that.
  Another problem is that private security contractors do not operate 
under any clear legal authority in foreign countries, which this 
legislation seeks to address. PSCs contracted through DOD are 
accountable under both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and under 
civilian law through the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. 
The majority of private security contractors, however, are not 
contracted through DOD but through other agencies like USAID or the 
Department of Interior.
  Now, regarding the contractor Blackwater U.S.A. which has come under 
scrutiny in recent weeks, these employees do extremely difficult jobs 
under very difficult circumstances. They risk their lives to protect 
Americans who are doing work in Iraq. I want to say it again. These are 
former, in most cases, military personnel, so somehow because they are 
no longer involved in the military, paid by the military, their lives 
don't seem to matter as much in this place.
  Forty-one of Blackwater U.S.A. personnel have died taking a bullet 
for some American. It is amazing to me the number of men in Blackwater 
that have lost their lives and we never hear it on the other side of 
the aisle. Blackwater is evil. That is the way it appears in all the 
dialogue, all the press releases and so on. So when they were before 
our committee yesterday, we asked them a question: How many of the 
people you protected in 2004 were protected? Did any lose their lives 
or were any wounded? None lost their lives or were wounded. In 2005 did 
any lose their lives or were any wounded? None in 2005 lost their lives 
or were wounded. In 2006, we asked, did any of these individual lose 
their lives that they were protecting or were injured? Except for a 
concussion with IEDs, no one. Then in 2007, did any of these 
individuals you protected lose their lives or were injured? No one lost 
their lives. No one was injured.
  But when we asked in 2004, did any of your Blackwater employees lose 
their lives? Yes. We asked in 2005, did any lose their lives? Yes. In 
2006, did any lose their lives? Yes. In 2007, did any lose their lives? 
And the answer was yes. Forty-one of these individuals have lost their 
lives. They have protected USAID employees. They have protected other 
individuals who have to get outside the Green Zone. Yes, they have 
protected Members of Congress. But we are just a small part of their 
responsibility. They would take a bullet for us. And they have. I just 
want to be on record that that is the case.
  It is important that we resolve this issue and that we make sure that 
the lines are clear, but I will just end by saying this. I was going 
into Gaza City, and private contractors employed by USAID took me 
there. A month later, one of these vans was destroyed. I knew all four 
people in this van, and they were killed. A month before, they were 
trying to protect us. They are risking their lives. I would like very 
much if in this debate we could show a little respect for the 41 men 
and women in Blackwater who have lost their lives.
  Finally, I am concerned about poor coordination between military and 
battlefield contractors.
  A June 2006 GAO report found that:

       ``private security providers continue to enter the battle 
     space without coordinating with the U.S. military, putting 
     both the military and security providers at a greater risk 
     for injury.''

  Improved coordination is needed to provide PSCs guidance on rules of 
engagement, equipment needs, communication, and force protection 
expectations.
  I recognize the Administration has some serious and valid concerns 
about this legislation.
  It is concerned the jurisdiction of criminal prohibitions would 
depend on vague notions of ``proximity'' to poorly defined regions, and

[[Page 26330]]

might give rise to litigation on jurisdictional issues.
  It is also concerned that the expansion of extraterritorial 
jurisdiction would create Federal jurisdiction overseas in situations 
where it would be impossible or unwise to extend it.
  Finally, the Administration is concerned about the additional burdens 
it will place on the FBI and Department of Defense.
  In my judgment, the concerns raised by the Administration are items 
we can work on as this much-needed legislation works its way through 
the legislative process.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
because I would like to respond to what our friend from Connecticut has 
just said. I first of all appreciate his high-quality work on 
contracting for a long time and also his support of this bill.
  I do want to respond, though, to what he said about contractors. I 
don't believe the gentleman has ever heard me in a blanket way condemn 
contractors or contracting. In fact, I honor the service and the 
sacrifice of contractors and contracting firms that have worked in the 
war zone.
  Now, there are some bad actors and there are cases that need 
investigation and prosecution. But I would remind the gentleman that, 
in fact, Blackwater and the contractors' association support this bill. 
It is actually a protection for them, because it means they will get 
U.S. justice in the U.S., not justice in some other jurisdiction.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. The bottom line is, Mr. Price, you are totally right. You 
have never been critical of these contractors. I just came from a 
hearing yesterday where everyone seems to be critical.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has 
expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to yield to the chairman 
of the Crime Committee in the Judiciary, Bobby Scott of Virginia, who 
has held hearings extensively on this matter and has worked closely 
with the gentleman from North Carolina. I am very pleased to yield him 
5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
2740, the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007.
  I would like to commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Conyers, and the author of the bill, the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price), for their hard work on this bill.
  We currently have a situation in which many military contractors act 
with impunity and no accountability because they operate outside of the 
jurisdiction of the United States criminal code because they are 
technically outside of the jurisdiction of the United States and 
outside of the Uniform Code of Military Justice because they are not in 
the military.

                              {time}  1700

  In Iraq, our troops have been supplanted by an army of contractors, 
which is estimated at 180,000, an extremely high number by any account. 
Last month we learned of a shooting incident involving a private 
contracting company, Blackwater, in which contractors allegedly shot 
and killed 11 or more innocent Iraqi civilians. Yesterday we learned 
that Blackwater was involved in at least 195 shooting incidents in Iraq 
since 2005. According to at least one report, their employees fired the 
first shots in more than 80 percent of these shooting incidences.
  Madam Chairman, to provide much needed accountability and oversight 
for these contractors, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) 
introduced H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion Enforcement Act of 2007. When 
MEJA was originally signed into law in 2000, it did provide the United 
States Federal Courts with jurisdiction over civilian employees, 
contractors and subcontractors affiliated with the Defense Department 
who commit crimes overseas. The bill was later amended in 2005 to 
include employees of any Federal agency supporting the mission of the 
Department of Defense overseas.
  This bill closes a loophole to make sure that all private security 
contractors, not just those contracted through the Department of 
Defense, are covered, to ensure that they are accountable under United 
States law. This change would update the law to better reflect the 
current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which a large number of 
contractors are present, with contracts written by a variety of 
different government agencies, including the Department of the Interior 
and Department of State.
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 2740 also requires the Inspector General of the 
Justice Department to complete and submit a report about the 
identification and prosecution of alleged abuses in Iraq. This section 
is meant to address the lack of transparency in Department of Justice 
investigations and prosecutions. In some cases, the Army has 
investigated the circumstances behind some cases and found probable 
cause that a crime has been committed and referred the case to the 
Department of Justice for prosecution.
  In one example, unfortunately, 17 pending cases of detainee abuse, 
including the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison by contractors, has remained 
in the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of Virginia for 3 
years. We are not told why these cases against civilian contractors 
have not been prosecuted or why they are being held up. In comparison, 
since the invasion of Iraq, there have been more than four dozen 
courts-martial commenced against uniformed personnel with respect to 
the law of war issues.
  Finally, H.R. 2740 requires that the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
establish an investigative unit to investigate reports of criminal 
misconduct in regions in which contractors are working.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to state for the record that at the 
subcommittee markup of this bill I agreed to work with my distinguished 
colleague from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member, to address 
his concerns in the bill before it reached the full committee. We did 
work together and jointly offered a substitute amendment in the full 
committee that reflected this bipartisan agreement. The bill was then 
reported out of the committee on a voice vote, without further 
amendments. The manager's amendment, which will be offered in a few 
minutes, has additional recommendations from the ranking member.
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 2740 is a necessary bill. It is long overdue. 
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, once again we hear the intent, but why in the world 
we would want to reduce the current jurisdiction that we have, which is 
what we see reflected in this piece of legislation that could have been 
corrected, still is beyond me. If we have a contractor who is having 
employees doing illegal acts in a base in Germany in a mission for DOD, 
we would want to prosecute them every bit as much as we would if they 
were in Iraq. Why we want to reduce that, I just don't understand.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I wanted to stay on the floor, Mr. Price, 
to say to you that I have nothing but admiration for what you are doing 
and how you do it and the quality with which you are doing it, and I 
know you have never disparaged any of the Blackwater employees.
  I just want to say I don't hear compliments, and I just feel 
obligated to come to this House floor and say to you that these are men 
and women who have given their lives for our country and to protect 
other Americans. I want to be on record, and I agree with you that even 
Blackwater itself thinks this legislation is positive, and I want to be 
on record as saying that so that they appreciate what you are 
attempting to do. I just want to add some balance to this debate.

[[Page 26331]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The recognition of the service of 
contractors such as Blackwater is a bipartisan recognition. For those 
of us who have traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq and a number of places 
around the world, we recognize the importance of contractors. So this 
is not an indictment overall of those who serve as asked by the United 
States of America. It is an indictment of the Department of Defense in 
the way these contracts are issued. It is an indictment of the incident 
that allegedly occurred where those Blackwater employees opened fire, 
killing 11 civilians, and each of the four vehicles opened their 
windows and began to blast at what appeared to be innocent civilians, 
even killing a little boy.
  Yes, it did seem like hell. But, frankly, we do understand that their 
role is important. This legislation is fair. It has the parameters of 
helping companies like Blackwater to have order in the midst of, 
sometimes, disorder.
  The legislation requires a report by the DOJ Inspector on Contractor 
Abuses Overseas and also requires the Inspector General of the Justice 
Department to submit a report to Congress. We should not be left out. 
We should be aware of what is going on, primarily because the actions 
of contractors impact not only the soldiers left behind, who then have 
to clean up what they have done, but also the diplomacy of the United 
States of America.
  There is simply no excuse for the de facto legal immunity that our 
government has permitted for tens of thousands of armed private 
individuals working on our country's behalf in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Our soldiers are court-martialed, and our soldiers are sometimes the 
unpleasant beneficiaries of the actions of U.S. contractors.
  The U.S. Government has a responsibility to hold the individuals 
carrying out its work to the highest standards of conduct and to ensure 
that these individuals protect human life and uphold the law. They have 
protected our diplomats. To that we say thank you. This responsibility 
does not disappear simply because such individuals are contractors 
instead of government employees. This legislation is especially timely 
in light of the new report by the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee which documents numerous incidents of wrongdoing by 
Blackwater contractors in Iraq. As we have noted, Blackwater does good 
work. But incidents that have caused havoc need to be addressed. It can 
be addressed through this legislation.
  Then I would simply like to say, as The Washington Post reported, 
Blackwater security contractors in Iraq have been involved in at least 
195 escalation of force incidents since early 2005, including several 
previously unreported killings of Iraqi civilians.
  My friends, this goes over all contractors. I hope that we will move 
forward to ensure that the DoD process is fair and that minority 
contractors can be involved. But this is a very important first step, 
and I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his great 
leadership on these many issues that come before our committee.
  This is an important first step, because there are many contractors 
when you go to Iraq and Afghanistan, and many of them are contractors 
of the Department of Defense. There really is no tallying of who they 
are and what they are doing. In this instance, people are dying. And as 
Blackwater has often said, they are just defending their packages. 
Those packages are diplomats. We want them to defend them, but we would 
suggest that it is an important response to address how they do it.
  The Washington Post article went on to state that according to the 
State Department, in one of the killings, Blackwater personnel tried to 
cover up what had occurred and provide a false report.
  This will stop that. The next step will be to encourage the 
utilization of minority contractors never heard of by the Department of 
Defense. This is a clean way to clean up our backyard and to protect 
all of those who need to be protected. I ask my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2740, the ``Holding 
Security Contractors in War Zones Overseas Accountable Act'' (MEJA 
Expansion and Enforcement Act). This legislation is intended to ensure 
that all private security contractors in war zones overseas will be 
held accountable for criminal offenses committed. Under current law, 
only those contractors who are on contract with the Department of 
Defense are indisputably subject to the jurisdiction of the federal 
courts. This legislation remedies that and other problems.
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 2740 ensures that all U.S. security contractors 
in war zones overseas are held accountable. It does this by closing a 
loophole in current law in order to ensure that all U.S. private 
security contractors in war zones overseas are held accountable for 
criminal behavior. It gives U.S. federal courts jurisdiction over the 
actions by contractors working for any U.S. government agency in areas 
of foreign countries where U.S. military forces are conducting combat 
operations.
  Specifically, the measure subjects employees of all such contractors 
to the same jurisdiction established by the Military Extraterritorial 
Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), which currently only covers members of the 
armed forces, civilian federal employees, and contractors who are on 
contract with the Department of Defense.
  Another important feature of the legislation is the designation of 
the Justice Department as the lead agency in investigating contractor 
behavior. H.R. 2740 creates an FBI ``theater investigative unit'' for 
each theater of operations with which contracted employees are 
involved, to investigate any allegations of criminal misconduct by 
contractors, including reports of fatalities from the use of force by 
contractors. The unit would then refer cases that warrant further 
action to the Attorney General.
  Additionally, the legislation requires a report by the DOJ Inspector 
General on contractor abuses overseas. The bill also requires the 
Inspector General of the Justice Department to submit a report to 
Congress regarding the identification and prosecution of alleged 
contractor abuses overseas. This requirement is intended to address the 
Justice Department's apparent failure to aggressively investigate and 
prosecute crimes committed by contractors over which the department 
already has jurisdiction (such as contractors working for the 
Department of Defense.)
  Madam Chairman, there simply is no excuse for the de facto legal 
immunity that our government has permitted for tens of thousands of 
armed private individuals working on our country's behalf in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The U.S. government has a responsibility to hold the 
individuals carrying out its work to the highest standards of conduct, 
and to ensure that these individuals protect human life and uphold the 
law. This responsibility does not disappear simply because such 
individuals are contractors instead of government employees.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation is especially timely in light of the 
new report by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee which 
documents numerous incidents of wrongdoing by Blackwater contractors in 
Iraq. On September 16, Blackwater security contractors in Baghdad were 
involved in a shooting incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians were killed 
and many others injured. This incident is now under investigation. In 
addition, on October 1, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
released a report on the behavior of Blackwater contractors in Iraq 
which disclosed damaging new information. As the Washington Post (10/2/
07) reported:

       Blackwater security contractors in Iraq have been involved 
     in at least 195 `escalation of force' incidents since early 
     2005, including several previously unreported killings of 
     Iraqi civilians . . .

  The Washington Post article went on to state that according to a 
State Department document, ``in 1 of the killings Blackwater personnel 
tried to cover up what had occurred and provided a false report. In 
another case, the firm accused its own personnel of lying about the 
event. The State Department made little effort to hold Blackwater 
personnel accountable beyond pressing the company to pay financial 
compensation to the families of the dead.''
  Madam Chairman, the misconduct of military contractors working in 
Iraq, Afghanistan, and other foreign countries reflects poorly upon the 
United States and frequently is erroneously attributed by the people of 
the host country to our troops. As you can imagine, such misdirected 
anger and inflamed passion can lead them to take retaliatory actions 
which could imperil the safety of our troops. In my

[[Page 26332]]

view, this is reason alone to support the bill, which I do strongly. I 
urge all my colleagues to join me in closing a loophole and ensure that 
all U.S. security contractors in war zones overseas can be held 
accountable for any criminal acts they commit overseas.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, once again we hear the reasons and the policy reasons 
why we would like to have legislation, but it doesn't suggest why we 
need poorly drafted legislation.
  My good friend from Virginia, for whom I have the utmost respect, 
mentioned that there were 17 pending cases of detainee abuse, including 
some that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But we already have 
jurisdiction for those. This isn't a bill that deals with prosecutorial 
discretion or whether or not we are going to have prosecutors prosecute 
those cases. This is a jurisdictional bill.
  The second thing, my good friend mentioned the fact that some of the 
deficiencies in this bill were corrected by the manager's amendment. 
The only thing the manager's amendment has done is to say with our 
security concerns for our FBI agents, who normally do not do 
investigations in war zones, they do them domestically, we have a 
manager's amendment that says that they can request assistance from the 
Secretary of Defense.
  Madam Chairman, requesting assistance and security and getting it are 
two different things. We had the ability to request bipartisan 
cooperation in redrafting this legislation. It didn't happen.
  So our concern, Madam Chairman, is not again all that we hear in the 
debate about getting at bad apples, but it is why we want to reduce the 
jurisdiction that we currently have for some of those bad apples; and, 
secondly, why we are going to expose and create vulnerabilities for our 
intelligence network and also for our FBI when it is so easily 
corrected, if we could just sit down and do that with the proper 
amendments.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
courtesy, his leadership, that of the subcommittee Chair, and, of 
course, my friend and the lead sponsor of this legislation, the author, 
Mr. Price. I think there is no more conscientious and thoughtful 
legislator, and he has approached this in a very nonpartisan, 
methodical way.
  Madam Chairman, I am concerned as I am listening here. I want to say, 
first of all, that I hope this is the first of a number of provisions 
that we have that deal with the netherworld of contracting and 
outsourcing this war. I think there are lots of opportunities to 
tighten down, to focus, to add accountability. But this is an important 
essential step. It is simple, and it should not be nearly as 
controversial as my friend from Virginia appears to make it.
  First of all, I have heard him about 10 times talk about how somehow 
this is narrowing the scope of MEJA. Look at page 2 of the bill. It 
doesn't take anything away. It adds provisions. It adds provisions.
  The notion somehow that we are not dealing with the problem in 
Germany I think misstates and betrays a lack of understanding about the 
difference between operations in a stable, established country and one 
that is in the theater of military operations. If somebody commits a 
crime in Germany, there will be an opportunity for that government to 
be able to deal meaningfully with it. That is not the case with a rogue 
contractor in Iraq, in a field of battle who shoots somebody and there 
is no established mechanism. It is absolutely apples and oranges.
  I find curious an argument from our friends on the minority side that 
this cost a few million dollars to the FBI and there is no funding 
attached. This is the same party that for the last 11 years out of this 
committee, when they were in charge, had a litany of proposals that 
added costs to the judiciary and the FBI and the corrections system and 
never blinked an eye over burdening them.
  This is a modest adjustment. It is within the scope of their duty. I 
strongly urge its approval.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, once again I scratch my head as I listen. 
The gentleman has just stated on the one hand that the legislation does 
not reduce the jurisdiction and then 30 seconds later he says, oh, but 
there are differences between the bases in Germany and the bases in 
Iraq and it's okay if we don't prosecute the ones in Germany. We can't 
have it both ways.
  Madam Chairman, this significantly does do it. The bottom line on 
this is that we have created a new standard which is proximity to 
contingency operations before we could reach in and get those bad 
actors in Germany and many of the bad actors that were in the 
contingency operation areas.
  I want to emphasize again on the FBI, it's not that we mind the FBI 
doing the work. We want to make sure that they are secure when they do 
it, and give them the funds to do it because they are stretched so thin 
defending us here against terrorists and defending us against gang and 
other criminal activities here, that it makes no sense for us to 
mandate that they would take those resources and spend them overseas 
without giving them the funds to do it.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman 
from Virginia, James Moran, for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee and Mr. Price for bringing this legislation forward. It is 
fully consistent with what the vast majority of this House voted for in 
the report language in the Defense appropriations bill. It needs to be 
done.
  I have to tell you that after talking with so many soldiers in Iraq 
and those who have returned from Iraq, it is desperately urgent that we 
do it because things are out of control.
  The fact is that many of these contractors, not all of them, but too 
many of them are acting with impunity. They tell me that they will work 
all day trying to communicate and working with the people in a village, 
trying to understand their customs and the like and show them respect, 
and then it is undermined by the actions of these security contractors 
who don't understand the language, who don't show the kind of respect 
that our soldiers do, who get paid almost three times what our soldiers 
get paid. It is undermining our mission in Iraq.
  The fact is that this is not what America is about, conducting 
oneself with impunity. America is about equal justice under the law. It 
is about protecting the preciousness of human life, particularly 
innocent life.
  It is not about outsourcing our inherent military functions, giving a 
contractor $1 billion since 2004 and having 200 incidents of misconduct 
reported by that very contractor.
  This legislation is necessary. Let's pass it overwhelmingly. Let's 
send that message to our soldiers.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, once again my good friend from Virginia talks about 
equal justice; we agree. He talks about not acting with impunity; we 
agree.
  That's why this minority when it was the majority passed the MEJA 
legislation in the first place. That is why we have covered the DOD 
contractors, their employees and dependents and the Armed Forces 
members. All of these individuals are already covered at this point in 
time if they are supporting a mission of DOD.
  And we agree, the American people and most people in this House want 
us to reach out and get the bad actors. The only thing that they don't 
want us to do in the process is, one, jeopardize the intelligence 
operations that we could have, which this bill could easily do.
  Number 2, they don't want us to divert resources here from the United 
States in dealing with terrorism and

[[Page 26333]]

gang activities and criminal activities here, or put our FBI agents in 
harm.
  The third thing they don't want us to do is let bad actors do these 
things in Germany and Haiti wherever they may be sent just simply 
because we couldn't get the drafting right.
  That is our point that we have been saying from the beginning. It is 
easy to have equal justice, not let contractors act with impunity, but 
write it in a good, rational basis that can be enforceable and not the 
kind of drafting that we have had brought forward in this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), cochair of the Progressive 
Caucus.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, American contractors in Iraq have lived 
by their own rules for far too long. While American taxpayers fund the 
equipping and training of these private military contractors, companies 
like Blackwater continue to escape accountability to international, 
Iraqi or even American laws.
  Today, the Democratic Congress will put an end to the question of 
whether we are training mercenaries and murderers in place of our 
Nation's warriors. By passing H.R. 2740, we can ensure that contractors 
in Iraq are held accountable under American criminal law. There is no 
excuse to allow private contractors and subcontractors to exist without 
legal accountability.
  Madam Chairman, we must never forget that the way to end the abuses 
by contractors in Iraq is to bring our troops and our military 
contractors, 180,000 of them, home from Iraq as soon as practicable.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, once again we hear the words that we can and we must 
do this, and we agree. The only thing, we must do it with proper 
legislation. Once again, as we pointed out, I don't see how any Member 
of this Congress or many of our citizens across the country want us to 
take individuals who may be employees doing intelligence operations for 
us in any area, and simply because they have an allegation of a 
criminal act that may not even have been criminal in that area, that 
they may be doing it on an undercover basis, that we then have to have 
them exposed which this act could very easily do, and the linkage would 
only be because they were hired to do that particular act; and, 
therefore, expose the entire network in that intelligence operation.
  They are the kinds of things that we could easily correct so that we 
could do this legislation and accomplish the intent of the legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I only have one Member to speak, Mr. Ranking Member. Are 
you prepared to close?
  Mr. FORBES. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, first of all, I am appreciative of all of 
the people who have worked on this legislation. I am appreciative of 
the comments we have had here. I think if we try to pick through the 
apples and the oranges and we look at what we have, we find that the 
intent of what we are trying to do is an intent that is shared by both 
sides of the aisle.
  We don't want bad contractors. We don't want bad actors. We don't 
want people working in the name of the United States anywhere in the 
world that we aren't able to reach out and make sure that they are 
accountable. That's why this Congress previously on two different 
occasions has, one, passed the MEJA legislation and also expanded it. 
That's why we have already reached out and said if you are a member of 
the Armed Forces, we are going to reach out to you under MEJA and make 
sure that we hold you accountable.
  That is why we have already said if you are an employee of DOD, we 
are going to reach out and hold you accountable. That is why we have 
already said if you are a civilian employee of any Federal agency in 
support of a DOD mission, we are going to hold reach out and hold you 
accountable. That is why we have already said if you are a contractor 
of DOD, we are going to reach out and hold you accountable. That's why 
we have said if you are a contractor of any other Federal agency and 
you are in support of a DOD mission, we are going to reach out and hold 
you accountable. That is why we have already said if you are a 
dependent of a member of the Armed Forces, we are going to hold you 
accountable. That is why we have already said if you are a dependent of 
a civilian employee of a DOD contractor, we are going to hold you 
accountable. Or if you are a dependent of a civilian employee of DOD, 
we are going to hold you accountable.
  We do not have a problem, we encourage the reach-out, to hold 
accountable other contractors who might be working for other Federal 
agencies. But we think the wording in this bill, we could do much 
better. We hope that our friends in the Senate will sit down in a more 
bipartisan manner and correct those defects before this bill becomes 
law.
  We believe a reading of the law does narrow the existing jurisdiction 
because we have added a phrase which is a limiter which means that it 
is within the proximity of the contingency operation. To many people 
listening to that debate, it is just words. But to the courts, it is 
litigation over what ``proximity'' means and it is a limiter which we 
believe could allow bad actors who could currently be brought under 
MEJA to escape liability.
  In addition, we are very, very concerned in a world and in a day when 
we know that terrorists are out to get the United States that we not 
limit our intelligence operations. Why in the world we would want to 
expose some of those intelligence operations and the contractors that 
we have to hurting those intelligence networks when we could easily 
correct that is beyond me, especially in a day and age where we know 
that intelligence is so vitally important to the defense and the 
protection and the security of American citizens across the country.
  Finally, Madam Chairman, it is of grave concern to us in what we are 
doing to the FBI, to enforce upon them, whereas before we have given 
them discretion. This is a mandate that they do investigations. It is a 
mandate that they furnish adequate personnel to do that. And to put 
them in a situation in a military conflict where they have to do these 
investigations is a concern for their security.
  The second thing that it is a major concern of is diversion of assets 
that they are currently using in the United States to keep our citizens 
safe, to protect us from terrorists and gang activity, to protect us 
from other criminal activity here. If we are going to mandate that for 
them, at least let's put the funds there and make sure that we do it.
  That is why I simply close the way I began by saying this is a bill 
that individuals will have to determine: Do they just simply want to 
vote for this bill in the hopes, and realizing that hope springs 
eternal, that perhaps the Senate can correct these defects before they 
become law and cast their vote because they agree, as I do, with the 
intent of this bill? Or do they cast a ``no'' vote even though they 
agree with the intent of the bill because they want to make sure that 
they have sent that signal over to our friends in the Senate that they 
want to protect our intelligence networks, protect the FBI, and make 
sure we expand, not decrease, the jurisdiction that we have.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the ranking member of the Crime Committee for 
his insightful remarks, and I now ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Sestak) to conclude and close out the discussion. I remind our 
friends that he was a vice admiral in his former career, and we welcome 
him to close the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 2\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. SESTAK. Madam Chairman, from when I joined up during Vietnam

[[Page 26334]]

to when I retired last year from the military, I always watched with 
respect how when human nature can be at its worst in a war, in actual 
combat, that there were still rules of law that set the boundaries 
beyond which individual actions would be held accountable.
  I also watched during those decades with interest as contractors 
became a more significant and important part of our military and its 
operations. But I viewed with concern the men and the women that we 
began to assign to military security operations in this latest 
conflict.
  I say that because even though I know a number of them and served 
with them, they were now outside those rules of law. I think that this 
bill is an important step within a war zone to take them back within 
the same standards of accountability. I speak to this because there are 
in the military ``forces'' and ``force.'' Our force is lethal. Our 
forces are comprised of individuals, and something we pride ourselves 
out there, which is often indistinguishable from civilians in a country 
we are, is that these forces, lethal on one hand, are also the GI that 
carries that candy bar and puts the ideals of America first and 
foremost.

                              {time}  1730

  So that's why I rise in support of this bill for the accountability 
that it brings, and I believe this is a first good step which should 
have been done earlier. But I also speak in support because it takes us 
another step hopefully towards another action that needs to be taken.
  I remember speaking to the colonel after the four individuals at 
Blackwater were found outside Fallujah, and as they came back and had 
the remains, he said to me, ``If only they had called me, I could have 
told them that that road was not secure that day.''
  And so, as war changes, it is important to bring not just better 
coordination but the accountability of the rule of law which have 
always bound our military well, that there are individual actions which 
cannot be outside those boundaries or they will be held accountable.
  I praise you much for bringing this bill here today.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
2740, the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act. This bill would increase 
accountability for the actions of the estimated 180,000 contractors now 
working in Iraq.
  The September 16 incident in Iraq--in which 17 Iraqis died when 
Blackwater security contractors were accused of shooting at civilians 
indiscriminately--is only the latest in a string of such incidents 
involving Blackwater. This week a House Committee reported that 
Blackwater guards had engaged in 195 shooting incidents since early 
2005, and in over 80 percent of those incidents, the Blackwater guards 
fired first. Several guards testified that Blackwater employees fired 
more often than the report states.
  The good news is that the Defense Department, the State Department, 
and the FBI have all undertaken investigations and are viewing the 
September 16 incident more seriously than they have viewed other such 
incidents in the past--perhaps because of the Iraqi government's threat 
to ban Blackwater from the country.
  But this incident highlights the many problems with private security 
contractors in Iraq. Contracting out inherently governmental security 
functions to private security firms is yet another example of the 
excessive outsourcing that has gone on in the Bush administration--and 
the billions in contract costs and lack of accountability that have 
followed as a result.
  Initially these contractors were brought in to fulfill a temporary 
need, but now that Blackwater and other private firms are very much 
part of the fabric of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, we need to ensure 
that they are held accountable for their actions on the job.
  One of Ambassador Paul Bremer's last actions as head of the Coalition 
Provisional Authority was to issue Order 17, which states that private 
contractors working for the United States or coalition governments in 
Iraq are not subject to Iraqi law. But as we have found, it's not clear 
to what degree they are subject to U.S. law either.
  That's why the law needs to be clarified and expanded. The MEJA 
Expansion and Enforcement Act amends the Military Extraterritorial 
Jurisdiction Act to ensure that all contractors working in war zones--
not just those working for the Department of Defense--are accountable 
under U.S. criminal law, and mandates that the FBI enforce MEJA by 
investigating and prosecuting offenses.
  The point of this legislation is not simply to penalize those private 
security contractors who act as though they are above the law, though 
that would be the direct effect of this bill. The point is also to 
ensure that the actions of these contractors don't jeopardize their own 
safety and the safety of our military men and women in Iraq, who do 
operate under strict rules of engagement and who are held accountable 
for their actions.
  Madam Chairman, I don't mean to diminish the risks faced by these 
contractors day in and day out. I understand that they are often forced 
to make split-second decisions that can mean life or death for 
themselves and for those around them. But as the events of September 16 
have shown, the repercussions of these decisions can be far-reaching. 
There must be accountability and consequences for decisions made--
whether in the middle of a war zone or under other circumstances. 
Private security contractors are not entitled to immunity from our 
laws. That's why I will support this bill today.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 2740

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``MEJA Expansion and 
     Enforcement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. LEGAL STATUS OF CONTRACT PERSONNEL.

       (a) Clarification of the Military Extraterritorial 
     Jurisdiction Act.--
       (1) Inclusion of contractors.--Subsection (a) of section 
     3261 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) while employed under a contract (or subcontract at 
     any tier) awarded by any department or agency of the United 
     States, where the work under such contract is carried out in 
     an area, or in close proximity to an area (as designated by 
     the Department of Defense), where the Armed Forces is 
     conducting a contingency operation,''.
       (2) Definition.--Section 3267 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) The term `contingency operation' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10.''.
       (b) Department of Justice Inspector General Report.--
       (1) Report required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Justice shall submit to Congress a report 
     in accordance with this subsection.
       (2) Content of report.--The report under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) a description of the status of Department of Justice 
     investigations of alleged violations of section 3261 of title 
     18, United States Code, to have been committed by contract 
     personnel, which shall include--
       (i) the number of complaints received by the Department of 
     Justice;
       (ii) the number of investigations into complaints opened by 
     the Department of Justice;
       (iii) the number of criminal cases opened by the Department 
     of Justice; and
       (iv) the number and result of criminal cases closed by the 
     Department of Justice; and
       (B) findings and recommendations about the number of 
     criminal cases prosecuted by the Department of Justice 
     involving violations of section 3261 of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Format of report.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     be submitted in unclassified format, but may contain a 
     classified annex as appropriate.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATIVE UNIT 
                   FOR CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

       (a) Establishment of Theater Investigative Unit.--The 
     Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall ensure 
     that there are adequate personnel through the creation of 
     Theater Investigative Units to investigate allegations of 
     criminal violations of section 3261 of title 18, United 
     States Code, by contract personnel.
       (b) Responsibilities of Theater Investigative Unit.--The 
     Theater Investigative Unit established for a theater of 
     operations shall--
       (1) investigate reports that raise reasonable suspicion of 
     criminal misconduct by contract personnel;
       (2) investigate reports of fatalities resulting from the 
     use of force by contract personnel; and

[[Page 26335]]

       (3) upon conclusion of an investigation of alleged criminal 
     misconduct, refer the case to the Attorney General of the 
     United States for further action, as appropriate in the 
     discretion of the Attorney General.
       (c) Responsibilities of Federal Bureau of Investigation.--
       (1) Resources.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation shall ensure that each Theater Investigative 
     Unit has adequate resources and personnel to carry out its 
     responsibilities.
       (2) Notification.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation shall notify Congress whenever a Theater 
     Investigative Unit is established or terminated in accordance 
     with this section.
       (d) Responsibilities of Other Federal Agencies.--An agency 
     operating in an area, or in close proximity to an area (as 
     designated by the Department of Defense), where the Armed 
     Forces is conducting a contingency operation shall cooperate 
     with and support the activities of the Theater Investigative 
     Unit. Any investigation carried out by the Inspector General 
     of an agency shall be coordinated with the activities of the 
     Theater Investigative Unit as appropriate.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Covered contract.--The term ``covered contract'' means 
     an agreement--
       (A) that is--
       (i) a prime contract awarded by an agency;
       (ii) a subcontract at any tier under any prime contract 
     awarded by an agency; or
       (iii) a task order issued under a task or delivery order 
     contract entered into by an agency; and
       (B) according to which the work under such contract, 
     subcontract, or task order is carried out in a region outside 
     the United States in which the Armed Forces are conducting a 
     contingency operation.
       (2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given the 
     term ``Executive agency'' in section 105 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Contingency operation.--The term ``contingency 
     operation'' has the meaning given the term section 101(13) of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       (4) Contractor.--The term ``contractor'' means an entity 
     performing a covered contract.
       (5) Contract personnel.--The term ``contract personnel'' 
     means persons assigned by a contractor (including 
     subcontractors at any tier) to perform work under a covered 
     contract.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Applicability.--The provisions of this Act shall apply 
     to all covered contracts and all covered contract personnel 
     in which the work under the contract is carried out in an 
     area, or in close proximity to an area (as designated by the 
     Department of Defense), where the Armed Forces is conducting 
     a contingency operation on or after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Immediate Effectiveness.--The provisions of this Act 
     shall enter into effect immediately upon the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Implementation.--With respect to covered contracts and 
     covered contract personnel discussed in subsection (a)(1), 
     the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 
     head of any other agency to which this Act applies, shall 
     have 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act to 
     ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 110-359. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member designated 
in the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to 
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-359.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       Page 5, line 2, insert ``potentially unlawful'' before 
     ``use''.
       Page 5, strike lines 17 through 25 and insert the 
     following:
       (d) Assistance on Request of Attorney General.--In 
     consultation with the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, the Attorney General may request assistance 
     from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, or the head of any other 
     Executive agency, notwithstanding any statute, rule, or 
     regulation to the contrary, including the assignment of 
     additional personnel and resources to a Theater Investigative 
     Unit.
       Page 5, after line 16, insert the following:
       (3) Security.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation shall request security assistance from the 
     Secretary of Defense in any case in which a Theater 
     Investigative Unit does not have the resources or is 
     otherwise unable to provide adequate security to ensure the 
     safety of such Unit. The Director may not request or provide 
     for security for a Theater Investigate Unit from any 
     individual or entity other than the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation or the Secretary of Defense.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 702, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I rise to make three commonsense changes 
to clarify and improve the bill that has been under discussion, and I 
hope that it addresses my friend from Virginia's comments about 
tightening the bill and making it more clear and more specific.
  First of all, we clarify that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is 
to investigate those fatalities resulting from the potentially unlawful 
use of force by contractors in war zones. This will help make it easier 
for an initial examination to confirm claims of self-defense by 
contractors without the need for a protracted and costly investigation 
when it may, in fact, not be warranted.
  Secondly, in response to a suggestion from the minority and the 
administration, the amendment clarifies that the Attorney General is 
authorized to request assistance from other Federal agencies when 
assigning personnel and resources to the FBI investigative units on the 
ground. This would enable the Attorney General to draw on the expertise 
of the Department of Defense, among others, when appropriate in 
undertaking and moving forward with investigations and prosecutions.
  And finally, we require that the FBI look only to the Secretary of 
Defense for any additional security assistance that the FBI 
investigative units may need in a war zone. We would not want to have 
the FBI relying on private contractors for security while investigating 
their conduct.
  And so I thank the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Bobby Scott; 
the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Randy Forbes; along with 
the bill's creator, David Price; and finally, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney) for working with me to craft this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, the manager's amendment purports to correct several 
flaws with this legislation. Unfortunately, the amendment offered by my 
good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
misses the mark. It is one of those things that had we had the 
opportunity to work in a bipartisan way we could have corrected it. I 
don't have any pride of authorship, don't care who writes it. We just 
need to get it written correctly, and unfortunately, it's not written 
correctly as it's before us today.
  H.R. 2740 imposes an unworkable and unnecessary geographic limitation 
on Federal jurisdiction to areas in ``close proximity'' to a 
contingency operation. The manager's amendment fails to correct this 
flaw. If the majority were serious about passing a good bill, it would 
have heeded the concerns of the Department of Defense that establishing 
extraterritorial jurisdiction based upon a tenuous link to geographic 
locations where a military presence can be found is impractical. 
Civilian criminal jurisdiction based on a nexus dependent upon a 
military ``contingency operation'' is ill-advised.
  For instance, Madam Chairman, if the majority had consulted the 
Department of Defense, it would have learned that Secretary-designated 
contingency operations are rarely, if ever, used and are limited to 
operations with a view toward an enemy or opposing military force.
  By-law designations, however, result from automatic actions during a 
war or

[[Page 26336]]

a national emergency declared by the President or Congress, the scope 
of which may be unannounced, generally unknown, or imprecisely defined.
  Thus, it will be next to impossible for Federal prosecutors to 
establish jurisdiction in a U.S. court based upon an indefinable 
proximity to a contingency operation at the time the offense occurred.
  Moreover, the majority clearly did little to educate itself as to how 
the government currently investigates fraud or violent crimes committed 
by U.S. military personnel or contractors overseas. If it had, it would 
have learned that such investigations are not conducted solely by the 
FBI.
  The FBI does not operate theater investigative units. Rather, legal 
attaches assigned to 70 embassies worldwide are the first point of 
contact for any overseas crime investigated by the FBI. The largest of 
these offices is currently in Baghdad, which operates the Iraq 
Contracting Fraud Task Force.
  In addition, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal 
investigative arm of the DOD Inspector General, has been engaged in 
investigating DOD-related matters pertaining to the Iraqi theater, to 
include Kuwait, since the start of the war.
  Likewise, the International Contract Corruption Task Force, which is 
known as ICCTF, combines the Department of Justice and FBI with Army 
CID, DCIS, SIGIR, IRS CID and other Inspectors General to investigate 
and prosecute procurement fraud.
  Requiring the FBI to establish individual theater investigative units 
will disrupt the existing law enforcement partnerships and task forces.
  This bill will also impose a heavy financial burden on the FBI with 
no additional funding from Congress and will most certainly detract 
from the FBI's duty to dismantle gang networks, combat child 
pornography and exploitation, and protect Americans from another 
terrorist attack.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott be allowed to control the time on the 
manager's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Chairman, the manager's amendment reflects the compromise and 
bipartisan nature of the bill, which was reported out of the committee 
with bipartisan support. But after the bill was reported out of 
committee, the Department of Justice wanted to completely rework the 
bill. One of their suggestions would have gutted the FBI investigative 
units established in the bill and removed the enforcement mechanisms in 
the bill. Another would have so limited the number of crimes covered by 
the law that it could have not covered contractor fraud or even sex 
crimes in prisons. Those are simply unacceptable.
  The suggestions proposed by the administration, many of which have 
been incorporated into the manager's amendment, have been described by 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Madam Chairman.
  And finally, I'd just like to point out to my distinguished colleague 
from Virginia that if he has additional technical and definitional 
changes and recommendations, those can certainly be accommodated after 
the bill passes the House before final enactment. They will be 
accommodated.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have nothing but the utmost respect for my good friend from 
Virginia and the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee. However, that 
offer was extended to us when we had the bill come out of the Judiciary 
Committee, and we thought we were going to be able to make those 
corrections between then and the time it came to the floor. They 
weren't.
  The manager's amendment that was ultimately filed was filed right 
before we could even file amendments, and I certainly was never 
presented with that amendment.
  So we hope that the Senate will make these changes, Madam Chairman. 
We look forward to that. I think it's important for the American people 
and for the individuals that are defending this country.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the author of 
the bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the 
manager's amendment. I want to again commend and thank Chairman Conyers 
and Chairman Scott for their work in refining this legislation.
  There's one aspect of this manager's amendment that is particularly 
important, I believe, and is the product of excellent work by 
Representative Chris Carney. This provision would make sure that FBI 
investigations are not corrupted by any conflicts of interest. That's 
an important addition, and I thank Representative Carney for his 
attention to this matter.
  It is true, as others have said, that there were some late-breaking 
objections from the Department of Justice, that if they had been 
accommodated would have gutted the bill. However, various comments from 
the Department of Justice have dribbled out over some extended period 
of time, and the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee 
have dealt with those suggestions as they became available. That is 
reflected in this manager's amendment before us today.
  I won't go into the content except to say that these are reasonable 
accommodations, and if there are additional technical changes or 
perfecting changes that are required, I am and I'm sure the leaders of 
the committee are, open to discussing further refinements.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-359.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Schakowsky:
       In section 2(b)(2) of the bill--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(iv), strike ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (1) in subparagraph (B), strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''; and
       (1) at the end of the paragraph, add the following new 
     subparagraph:
       (C) with respect to covered contracts where the work under 
     such contracts is carried out in Iraq or Afghanistan--
       (i) a list of each charge brought against contractors or 
     contract personnel performing work under such a covered 
     contract, including--

       (I) a description of the offense with which a contractor or 
     contract personnel were charged; and
       (II) the disposition of such charge; and

       (ii) a description of any legal actions taken by the United 
     States Government against contractors or contract personnel 
     as a result of--

       (I) a criminal charge brought against such contractors or 
     contract personnel; or
       (II) a complaint received regarding the activities of such 
     contractors or contract personnel.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 702, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank my friend Mr. Price for bringing this important 
legislation to the floor and would like to thank Chairman Conyers, 
Subcommittee Chairman Scott and the Judiciary

[[Page 26337]]

Committee for their hard work on this very important issue.
  My amendment would simply require the Department of Justice to issue 
descriptions of all charges that have been brought against contractors 
and contract employees in Iraq and Afghanistan and a description of the 
legal actions taken by the U.S. Government against them as a result of 
those charges.
  H.R. 2740 requires the Department of Justice to issue a report that 
contains a list and descriptions of investigations that it is 
conducting into possible violations of U.S. law committed by contract 
personnel. This report must list the number of complaints it's 
received, the number of investigations it's begun, the number of 
criminal cases it has opened and the result of those cases.
  My amendment would expand that requirement a bit further to ensure 
that the report includes a description of the charges that have been 
brought against contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan and a description 
of the legal action taken as a result of those charges.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to this amendment, although I'm not opposed to it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment, Madam Chairman, expands the reporting requirement of 
the Department of Justice Inspector General to include a list of 
charges that have been brought against contractors and contract 
employees in Iraq and Afghanistan, a list of all criminal 
investigations and reports made with respect to contractors and 
contract employees in Iraq and Afghanistan in cases where no criminal 
charges were ultimately brought, and a description of the legal actions 
taken by the United States Government against contractors and contract 
employees in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of a criminal charge or 
criminal investigation.

                              {time}  1745

  This is important information that Congress should be provided in 
order to make informed and accurate decisions regarding the 
investigation and prosecution of offenses by contractors overseas. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the gentlewoman.
  I am proud to rise today in support of the Schakowsky amendment, and 
I thank my colleague for her leadership on this most important issue.
  One of the most destabilizing aspects of our military involvement in 
Iraq is our unprecedented use of unaccountable private security 
contractors. By some estimates, there are 50,000 or more private 
security personnel working in Iraq. These contractors operate largely 
outside U.S. and Iraqi law, raising animosity toward Americans in the 
field and losing the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq.
  The activities of 1 of the most prominent contractors, Blackwater, 
highlight why this amendment and the underlying bill come not a moment 
too soon. Two weeks ago, Blackwater personnel guarding a State 
Department group were involved in a shootout that involved the deaths 
of 11 Iraqis. Blackwater has been involved in 195 escalation of force 
incidents since 2005. In 80 percent of those, Blackwater fired the 
first shots, even though they are only supposed to use defensive force.
  It turns out that Blackwater has terminated 122 of their security 
employees, 53 of which were for weapons-related incidents or drug and 
alcohol violations. An incident report from another contracting firm 
described a Blackwater contractor's killing of a vice presidential 
security aide as ``murder,'' and Blackwater itself determined that he 
should be fired and his clearance should be revoked.
  I could go on, but I think you get the picture. How many more 
incidents are there? How many more allegations and actions to be 
brought? Congress and the American need to know.
  The MEJA Expansion Act will go a long way toward stopping the most 
egregious behavior of misconduct by these contractors and make their 
activities subject to U.S. law.
  The Schakowsky amendment will strengthen this bill by making sure 
that any charges or legal actions are brought to light by DOJ. This 
amendment is vital to helping us in Congress conduct effective 
oversight to rein in contractors in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. First, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Virginia for his support of the amendment and just close with these 
remarks.
  U.S. taxpayers have paid billions to private security contractors in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that Congress must know if they are 
engaging in criminal behavior that puts the U.S. Armed Forces and our 
mission at risk, and what the government is doing to address it.
  Congress and the American people are beginning to understand the vast 
impact that contractors are playing in our military operations. These 
private contractors are not, right now, accountable to the military, 
but their actions often put our brave military men and women at risk.
  Currently, the U.S. military is using an estimated 180,000 private 
contractors in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many are performing 
duties that are often considered inherently governmental functions, 
such as military operations, intelligence gathering, law enforcement, 
security and criminal justice functions. But despite the critical role 
that contractors are playing, Congress is unable to determine the full 
impact of contractors on U.S. military operations.
  We have all heard about the tragic incident in Iraq on September 16 
when Blackwater employees reportedly killed 11 Iraqi civilians, and 
another unconscionable incident on Christmas Eve 2006 when a drunk 
Blackwater guard killed an Iraqi security guard for the Iraqi Vice 
President. He was flown out of the country within 36 hours and has 
faced no charge or punishment for his crime.
  We should be outraged that with incidents like these reported 
prominently in the press, and with the hundreds of thousands of 
contractors who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, that only two have 
ever been charged with any crime.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hill

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 110-359.
  Mr. HILL. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hill:
       At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
       (e) Annual Report.--Not later than one year after the date 
     on which the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     ensures compliance with the provisions of this Act pursuant 
     to section 5(c), and annually thereafter, the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing--
       (1) the number of reports received by Thearter 
     Investigative Units relating to suspected criminal misconduct 
     by contractors or contract personnel;
       (2) the number of reports received by Theater Investigative 
     Units relating to fatalities resulting from the use of force 
     by contractors or contract personnel;
       (3) the number of cases referred by Theater Investigative 
     Units to the Attorney General for further investigation or 
     other action; and
       (4) any recommended changes to Federal law that the 
     Director considers necessary to

[[Page 26338]]

     perform the duties of the Director under this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 702, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hill) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HILL. Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Thank you, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to present this simple 
amendment to the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act.
  Just yesterday, The New York Times reported that since January 2005, 
there have been more than 200 shootings by U.S. contractors in Iraq 
where the contractors fired the first shot.
  This type of action on behalf of these contractors is wholly 
unacceptable. However, our government did not have the option to 
prosecute all of the bad actors, until now. I applaud the gentleman 
from North Carolina for introducing this bill to correct this inequity.
  The bill before us would provide a mechanism to enforce complaints 
regarding all contractor and contractor personnel misconduct through 
newly created FBI Theater Investigative Units. My amendment is a simple 
one that would enhance the bill that would require the Director of the 
FBI to submit annual reports to Congress outlining the success of these 
Theater Investigative Units.
  Specifically, the reports would include the number of reports 
received by the Theater Investigative Units relating to criminal 
misconduct by contractors or contract personnel; the number of reports 
received by the Theater Investigative Units relating to fatalities 
caused by the use of force by contractors or contract personnel; number 
3, the number of cases referred to the Attorney General; and, last, any 
statutory changes necessary for the Director to carry out the duties 
required by this act. Progress reports are necessary to ensure that 
these units are being used efficiently and appropriately.
  Thank you again for the opportunity to present my amendment. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying bill.
  Again, I would reiterate that the author of the bill, the gentleman 
from North Carolina, has specifically seen the need for this kind of a 
bill. My amendment, I think, enhances his bill dramatically.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment requires the FBI to report annually to Congress the 
number of reports received of criminal misconduct by contractors, the 
number of reports received of fatalities caused by contract personnel, 
the number of cases referred to the Attorney General, and statutory 
changes necessary for the Director to carry out the duties entailed by 
this bill.
  As I mentioned earlier in this debate, the creation of Theater 
Investigative Units within the FBI will hinder rather than help the 
investigation and prosecution of overseas crimes under MEJA. The 
creation of such units ignores the current framework of interagency 
cooperation amongst the Departments of Justice, Defense and State.
  More importantly, these investigative units are in direct conflict 
with statutory mandates under other portions of MEJA. For instance, 
MEJA, under title 10, section 3262, requires the Secretary of Defense 
to authorize a person within the Department of Defense to arrest 
persons subject to MEJA.
  H.R. 2740 does nothing to address this requirement with the 
conflicting requirement that the FBI establish Theater Investigative 
Units. Which agency will take custody, detain and transfer suspects 
arrested under MEJA?
  MEJA allows suspects to be transferred to authorities of a foreign 
country for trial in certain circumstances. The Secretary of Defense is 
responsible for determining which officials of a foreign country 
constitute appropriate authorities. Will the Secretary now be required 
to make this decision for contractors not associated with military 
operations or will this decision fall to the FBI and, if so, under what 
authority?
  MEJA allows initial court proceedings to occur while the covered 
person is outside of the United States. When this occurs, MEJA requires 
that a suspect be appointed counsel by a Federal magistrate judge. Such 
a counsel is designated a qualified military counsel, which is designed 
as a judge advocate made available by the Secretary of Defense. So now 
will a contractor who isn't associated with military operations be 
assigned a military judge advocate to be his counsel? Or will the 
Department of Justice be required to designate qualified civilian 
counsel for nonmilitary contractors and under what authority?
  Clearly, there are numerous flaws with the creation of FBI Theater 
Investigative Units. This amendment does not alleviate any of these 
concerns.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILL. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my good 
friend from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise in 
strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Indiana, 
and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Hill's amendment is based on two critical principles, 
transparency and accountability. Over the last few years, many of us 
have asked the Department of Justice to give us basic information about 
the allegations of abuse by contractors, and the Department's efforts 
to investigate and prosecute these allegations, to carry out its 
responsibilities under existing law. Answers, I am afraid, have not 
always been forthcoming.
  This amendment would ensure that Congress has the basic information 
we need to determine whether we are aggressively enforcing the rule of 
law and ensuring accountability of those who work in our name and on 
our dime.
  As my friend Mr. Hill well knows, our American troops on the 
battlefield, who must deal with the consequences of incidents like the 
recent Blackwater shootings, those troops will be the main 
beneficiaries of the increased accountability that his amendment would 
require.
  I applaud Mr. Hill for his efforts and urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I move that the 
Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Clarke) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2740) to 
require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under 
Federal contracts, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________