Most Georgia Lawmakers Against Bill to Toughen Oversight of Contractors

WASHINGTON — A bill passed by the House to put private contractors working in combat zones for the State Department and other federal agencies under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts "was a knee-jerk reaction to recent events involving the Blackwater security firm" and not "well-thought out legislation," Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., said Friday.

Five Georgia lawmakers cast one-sixth of all the votes against the popular measure, which passed 389-30 Thursday with considerable bipartisan support despite opposition by President Bush. All of the "nay" votes came from Republicans.

"The bill is flawed," said Rep. Paul C. Broun, R-Ga. "Not only would it increase the size of government, in this case the FBI, without paying for it, but it would also hamper private contracting efforts in Iraq."

"This would result in our soldiers being diverted from their primary mission in the war on terror in order to take over functions currently being carried out by over 200,000 private contractors," said the Athens physician-turned-lawmaker.

The House vote came amid well-publicized concern on Capitol Hill over a shoot-out last month in which agents of the private security firm Blackwater USA killed at least eight Iraqi civilians in Baghdad while working for the State Department.

Congressional Democrats have criticized the Bush administration's reliance on private contractors to protect State officials and other federal employees in Iraq and Afghanistan. Supporters of the legislation charged that the private security forces are trigger-happy and have been operating outside of federal judicial authority.

"There is simply no excuse for the de facto legal immunity" granted the armed agents of Blackwater and other private security contractors, said Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, a sponsor of the legislation.

"Tightening it down is important," said Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., who voted for the measure. "I do think there is a signal that has been sent to the contractors. I don't want them or our allies to think we're giving wide liberties" to act with violence against the Iraqi populace.

"I don't think the bill was purely political," said Kingston. But he said he understood the concerns of Bush and other Republicans who opposed the measure.

"Some of the objections are legitimate," he said. "I support the use of contractors. But we need to make sure that everyone understands the rules. And the rules have been tighter for the Defense Department than for the State Department."

The bill would put contractors who work for the State Department and other federal agencies under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdictional Act, which already allows criminal prosecution of civilian Defense Department employees and the Pentagon's private contractors. The House bill gives FBI greater overseas investigative powers.

The White House issued a statement expressing "strong opposition," predicting the bill would have "unintended and intolerable consequences" for national security activities. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised to bring up legislation to govern contractors in Iraq.

Along with Linder and Broun, the House bill was opposed by Georgia Republicans Tom Price, Lynn Westmoreland and Nathan Deal.

Linder said the bill goes beyond what is needed.

"Instead of simply expanding this mandate to include contractors from any U.S. department or agency, this bill places an onerous burden on the FBI by requiring that it create an investigative unit based outside the U.S.," said Linder. "The FBI's number one priority is to protect and defend the U.S. from terrorist attack, and from foreign intelligence operations and espionage, not to be an international police force. It is a domestic investigative body, and should not be made into a clone of the CIA."

Price questioned the bill's effect on Iraqi civilians who work for U.S. contractors.

"At a time when political reconciliation is paramount to ensuring progress in Iraq, the Democrat leadership put forth a proposal which undermines U.S.-Iraqi relations," said Price. "It is irresponsible to further subject Iraqis to U.S. law and perpetuate the notion that the U.S. is an occupier force. In the big picture, this bill is unworkable with our immediate goals in the region."

Some legislation is needed, said Westmoreland, who also voted against this bill. "Obviously, our present laws are insufficient."

Because changes are needed, he said he gave this bill a lot of thought, ultimately agreeing with the administration.

Westmoreland said there needs to be more oversight, but he is concerned that the bill could create unintended problems and expand American jurisdiction into areas "where that's not practical."

"For example, I'm not convinced that we would have the authority to prosecute in an American court a Jordanian or Australian who broke our laws while working for the United States in Iraq. What about an Iraqi working for a contractor who commits an act that's against our laws but not against Iraqi laws?"