Betty Sutton

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 765 provides for consideration of H.R. 1483, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order the substitute reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule also contains a self-executing provision to the base text consisting of a technical correction that inserts a map reference for a map that was not completed yet by the National Park Service prior to filing the reported bill. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, before I begin to address the rule and the underlying bill, I want to also extend my feelings of empathy and concern for those out in California dealing with the fires that are plaguing that area of our country. We are all watching and we are all, in spirit, hoping that the fire ravaging will end. We appreciate the hard work and the fearless dedication of our fire service and our firefighters, and we hope that that situation is under control in the very, very near future. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. At the outset, I would like to commend my Republican colleague and neighbor, Congressman Regula, for his leadership in sponsoring this bipartisan piece of legislation. This bill will provide additional support to nine national heritage areas and allow for the designation of six new heritage areas, making them eligible for Federal support. I am proud that the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway is among these nine national heritage areas. And I can tell you from firsthand experience that I've had with the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway, that these heritage areas are an invaluable asset, both to the local communities and to our Nation, from the preservation of local culture and history, to increasing tourism, and as centerpieces for economic growth. The designation of heritage areas provides for a partnership approach to heritage development, allowing the sites to be locally managed with a local organization coordinating in partnership with local residents. These areas provide unique opportunities to understand the larger context of these regions' traditions, landscapes and people, and the heritage of this great country. The Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway is not a traditional park. It's a lived-in region where the national, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a nationally significant landscape that celebrates the significance of the Ohio and Erie Canal and its contribution to the region, the State of Ohio, and the United States. The Ohio and Erie Canal helped connect the Ohio frontier with New York and New Orleans in the early 19th century, playing a key role in linking a previously isolated Ohio with economic centers east and south. And the canal was crucial to the development of Ohio's economy, attracting businesses to the area and providing a viable transportation route for emerging industries. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that with increased Federal support, the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway and other heritage areas included in this legislation will continue to play central roles in their communities and equally important roles in our national heritage. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act will provide support to the National Coal Heritage Act in West Virginia, the Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, the Augusta Canal and National Heritage Area in Georgia, the Steel Industry American Heritage Area in Pennsylvania, the Essex National Heritage Area in Massachusetts, the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, America's Agricultural Partnership in Iowa, and the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area in New York. This legislation will also recognize and bring the benefits of heritage areas to six new communities throughout the Nation: Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area in Virginia, Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in New York, Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area in Alabama, Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in Illinois, and Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in Arizona. And it's important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation specifically includes language that protects private property rights. And the bill makes clear that a national heritage area designation does not alter existing regulations or land use plans. This is a good bill that will help communities and our country celebrate our heritage and use our history for future prosperity and collective pride. I urge my colleagues to support it. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation. And, again, I would like to thank Congressman Ralph Regula from my home State of Ohio for introducing this bill and for being a champion of Ohio's heritage. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 765 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague from Washington that this legislation does not affect private property rights. The bill makes it clear that a National Heritage Area designation does not alter existing regulations or land use plans, either. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1727, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Quality of Life for Persons with Paralysis Act. And as I express my support for this legislation today, I would like to recognize an outstanding organization in my district, Linking Employment, Abilities, and Potential, or LEAP. LEAP provides hope and empowerment for tens of thousands of people with disabilities and their families throughout Northeast Ohio. Through legislation such as the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, Congress sends a message about people with disabilities--that they matter, that they can and do make valuable contributions to society. That is a message that LEAP and so many disability rights advocates send every day. LEAP is deeply committed to empowering people with disabilities in the workplace through specialized skill development programs, at home through independent living training, in the medical system through access to the best medical care, and in so many other aspects of society. LEAP's Disability Employment Training Program, in particular, aligns with the goals of Christopher and Dana Reeve, who fought so hard for integration and acceptance for those with disabilities in our communities. LEAP has an 80 percent success rate in employment training and placement and has a tremendous impact on the community, recognizing the many talents of people with disabilities and the potential to be productive citizens. Once again, I rise to express my support for H.R. 1727, and to honor Linking Employment, Abilities, and Potential.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, on October 13, Ohio Attorney General Mark Dann, U.S. Attorney Gregory Lockhart, and USDA Agent Mark Barnhart received the 2007 Humane Law Enforcement Award from the Humane Society and the National District Attorneys Association. They were honored with this prestigious award for conducting one of the largest, best coordinated crackdowns on dog fighting in the Nation. I am extremely proud that my home State of Ohio is taking a lead in cracking down on this vicious blood sport, but this raid also demonstrates the difficulty authorities have of prosecuting offenders under Federal law. I have introduced the Dog Fighting Prohibition Act, which would strengthen Federal penalties for those participating in dog fighting and broaden the scope of the law to allow prosecution of everyone involved, from spectators to trainers to dealers. We need to do all we can to end what has become a lucrative gambling business; and to accomplish that, we must give our law enforcement officials like Mark Dann, Gregory Lockhart, and Mark Barnhart the tools that they need. I want to thank them and congratulate them on their efforts, and encourage support for the Dog Fighting Prohibition Act.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina on this strong bipartisan bill. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act is critical, commonsense legislation to hold contractors responsible for criminal behavior, just like we hold our troops responsible for crimes when they are committed, and just like we hold American citizens responsible for following the law. Those who argue against this measure seem willing to tolerate lawlessness in countries where our military is seeking to restore justice. The truth is, every time we see an incident with an Iraqi civilian being killed and American contractors escaping accountability, our men and women in uniform suffer. They see support from the insurgents rise and they lose the trust of the Iraqi people. Our troops are not responsible for the strain that the President has placed on our Armed Forces which has led to the need for mercenaries to carry out missions that our troops capably handle, and it is tragic that the troops are targeted for the negligence of private contractors. We owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to ensure that contractors are held to the same standards of justice as everybody else. Only then will we see a true deterrent to vigilante behavior and reckless actions by private citizens working overseas for our Federal agencies and Departments. It is simple, Mr. Speaker. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act extends policies that are in place for the Department of Defense to contractors for other agencies. And let's be clear: Nobody is accusing every single contractor of committing the criminal acts we have talked about today. But when a contractor does commit a crime, they must be punished and we must have consequences to serve as a deterrent. It should not be controversial to punish people for committing murder and other felonies. This is a giant loophole in our law that is hurting our reputation abroad, hurting our troops in the field and is making a mockery of the American sense of justice. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 702 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker at this time on my side, so I will reserve my time.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 702 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SUTTON. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Ms. SUTTON. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Ms. SUTTON. H. Res. 702 provides for consideration of H.R. 2740, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for three amendments. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill which helps to address one of the most disturbing and pressing issues to come before the Congress this year, the lack of oversight and accountability of contractors abroad and here at home. And it is vital that we are passing the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act today to address at least one of these critical issues. Currently, there are estimated to be at least 180,000 contractors working in Iraq under contracts awarded by the Department of Defense, the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other Federal agencies. Yet under current law, only contractors working for the Department of Defense can be held responsible for crimes they commit while working in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the world. At present, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, leaves felonies committed by contractors working for other Federal Departments unpunished. This is unfair and unacceptable, and this Congress must act to ensure that justice is not a selective American principle. Our current law has given private mercenary armies like Blackwater USA free rein to do as they please without fearing the repercussions. And as we have seen, that unbridled freedom from any accountability has resulted in sometimes egregious criminal behavior. But under the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act, Federal contractors working for every Department and agency will be held responsible for criminal acts. It will also direct the FBI to establish units to investigate crimes committed by contract personnel operating abroad. Mr. Speaker, it simply makes no sense to hold contractors to a different standard than American citizens living at home or even the brave soldiers who risk their lives every day in Iraq. It is a travesty of justice that we allow private armies to evade punishment for serious crimes, especially considering we have prosecuted our soldiers for the very similar actions. In a recent incident that has received significant scrutiny, Blackwater guards were involved in a September 16 shootout in Baghdad that left 11 Iraqis dead and a number wounded. This event spurred such a tremendous public outcry that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had to apologize to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. And we have learned from reports compiled by Blackwater themselves that since 2005, its employees have been involved in at least 195 incidents in Iraq that involved the firing of shots by Blackwater guards. Blackwater's contract with the State Department stipulates that Blackwater may only engage in defensive use of force. However, in the vast majority, over 80 percent, of these shooting incidents, Blackwater's own reports revealed that its guards fired the first shots. In one incident that has recently come to our attention, Blackwater guards shot a civilian bystander in the head. In another, State Department officials report that Blackwater sought to cover up a shooting that killed a seemingly innocent bystander. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, and despite numerous instances where the military has found probable cause that a crime has been committed and has referred the case to the Justice Department, there has been only one successful prosecution of a civilian contractor for wrongdoing. Without fear of reprisal, these reckless contractors have operated with no regard for the private property of innocent Iraqi citizens. In a November 2005 incident, a Blackwater motorcade collided with 18 different vehicles. Written statements from team members were determined to be invalid, and a Blackwater contractor on the mission stated his tactical commander ``openly admitted giving clear direction to the primary driver to conduct these acts of random negligence for no apparent reason.'' Mr. Speaker, we have seen the number of contractors increase exponentially as the Bush administration has placed an unnecessary strain on our Armed Forces through the war in Iraq. In 2001, Blackwater had less than $1 million in Federal contracts. By 2006, that figure had grown to over half a billion dollars, an increase of more than 80,000 percent. Today, there are approximately 180,000 Federal contractors in Iraq alone, a number greater than the American military presence. Because of the President's policy of escalation in Iraq, we have become more reliant on these contractors to protect American interests there. For every Blackwater mercenary the United States Government hires to protect embassy officials, Blackwater charges $1,222 per day, which is over six times more than the cost of an equivalent American soldier. Mr. Speaker, the lack of oversight of Federal contractors committing crimes overseas is an example of how the system of Federal contracting is broken. Earlier this year, this Congress got off to a strong start by passing H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act which helped restore integrity to the contracting process. I am also proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 2198, the Contractor Accountability Act, which will require the head of every agency and department to ensure that every Federal contract recipient is fulfilling their obligations after they are awarded that contract. It requires that every Federal agency and department awarding contracts submit a report on the status of those contracts to Congress. This is the type of oversight and accountability that is necessary to ensure that the problems that are happening in Iraq with Federal contractors and here at home can finally be put to an end. Today, with the passage of the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act, we are addressing a critical loophole in our contracting crisis by ensuring that those contractors who commit crimes are held accountable for their actions. What we seek to do today is simple but important. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act will hold Federal contractors operating overseas to the same standards we hold ourselves and to which we hold our brave troops. And let's be clear. This bill does not prevent contractors from using force if the situation calls for it. Our bill simply allows contractors to be punished for committing acts of murder and other felonies. Nobody should be immune from the law. This legislation will ensure that no one, even if he is a private contractor in Iraq, is. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, I would just like to say that in the process of this bill coming forward, not a single Republican offered an amendment in the committee. Though the committee reported the bill by voice vote, not a single person voted ``no.'' Only one Republican offered an amendment for the floor, and it had nothing to do with the scope of the bill and was nongermane.

Ms. SUTTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for his question. I think that the important thing here to look at is there was an opportunity for the Republican side to offer amendments, and only one was offered yesterday in committee. There was an opportunity, obviously, for those to be presented.

Ms. SUTTON. Certainly.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 701.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 701 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, in 1978, the House committee that was then known as Government Operations envisioned Inspectors General as watchdogs to bring accountability and oversight to our agencies. Now, almost 30 years later, we act to update and improve this valuable program. This important bill will not only bring enhanced continuity and accountability to the Inspectors General; it will strengthen their most important quality: their independence from the Departments and agencies that they inspect. The American people should have the utmost faith that their precious taxpayer dollars are being used in the most efficient manner. This bill ensures the accountability that our citizens demand and which they deserve. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material referred to previously by Mr. Sessions is as follows: (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote; the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. SUTTON. Okay. I'm the last speaker for my side, so I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and yielded back his time.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 701 provides for consideration of H.R. 928, the Improving Government Accountability Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported substitute. The rule makes in order all five germane amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the rule and in favor of H.R. 928, the Improving Government Accountability Act. I am very proud to be a Member of this new Congress because over the last 9 months we have made huge strides to better our great country. We have empowered our workers. We have fought to lift up our citizens. And today, I am proud to join my colleagues once again as we press for greater government accountability and work to restore the trust of the American people in this great institution. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today will amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to ensure necessary government oversight and strengthen the role of the Inspectors General. Next year will mark the 30th anniversary of the Inspector General Act. Offices of Inspector General now exist in more than 60 Federal Departments and agencies where they work to combat waste, fraud and abuse. The Inspectors General have many vital tasks. They act as government watchdogs, conducting audits and examining complaints from agency employees. They actively promote efficiency in government programs, and encourage employee disclosure of waste and fraud. Our bill today acts to strengthen and clarify their tenure, resources, authority, oversight and autonomy. It is an important action that we are taking today. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in recent years, politics has crept into the inner workings of the Inspectors General leaving the door open for political pressure and influence to prejudice the job that they are supposed to perform. Under President Bush, only 18 percent of the Inspectors General have audit experience while 64 percent have political experience. This is in comparison to President Clinton who appointed far more, 66 percent, of Inspectors General with audit experience versus only 22 percent with political experience. And what's more, over one-half of the IGs appointed by President Bush had made contributions to his campaign or to other Republican candidates and over one-third had worked in a Republican White House prior to their appointment; whereas none of the IGs appointed by President Clinton had worked in a Democratic White House. These statistics are concerning because the hallmark of Inspectors General must be their independence from the departments and agencies within which they are housed. This independence is crucial because the inspectors are charged with submitting reports to the agency heads and to Congress regarding any failures on the part of their agencies. When this independence is compromised, the missions and goals of the Inspectors General lose credibility. Their work is critical to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being used wisely and that our government is working efficiently and effectively. The Improving Government Accountability Act will strengthen the independence of these important watchdogs. First, it clarifies when the inspectors can be removed from their posts. Under current law, they have limited protection from removal from office. In fact, inspectors that are appointed by the President can be removed by the President without cause. The only requirement is that the President must report the removal to Congress after the removal has already been accomplished. It is much more difficult to be independent when you know that the head of the Department that you are critically evaluating can remove you and that there are no checks on that power. Our bill specifies that they may only be removed before the end of their term for permanent incapacity, inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance or conviction of a felony, or conduct involving moral turpitude. This takes the politics out of a position and a decision- making process where it never should have been in the first place. Under this new law, removal of an Inspector General must be communicated to both Houses of Congress at least 30 days before that inspector's removal. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today encourages inspectors to remain in office for at least 7 years by setting a fixed term of office and allowing the inspectors to be renewed at the completion of their term. This allows for greater continuity and increased independence on the part of the inspectors. Under this legislation, an Inspector General will be allowed to submit budget requests directly to the Office of Management and Budget. This is a vital change. Inspectors General must not be at the mercy of administration officials who have the unbridled power to cut their budget because of disagreement over their findings or improper political influence. Budget autonomy is crucial to the independence of these inspectors. Further, H.R. 928 establishes the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. This council's task will be to increase the professionalism and effectiveness of the Inspectors General staff. The council will seek out fraud, waste and abuse in Federal programs. Today, through the Improving Government Accountability Act, we will give the Inspectors General more power to do their job and, more importantly, to do so with heightened independence and integrity. The trust of the American people is a precious thing. The bill today guarantees that our departments and agencies are worthy of that trust. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.