Hearing of the Crime, and Homeland Security Subcommittee - "Enforcement of Federal Criminal Law to Protect Americans Working For U.S. Contractors"
Interview
Hearing of the Crime, and Homeland Security Subcommittee - "Enforcement of Federal Criminal Law to Protect Americans Working For U.S. Contractors"
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. HANK JOHNSON (D-GA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to first of all thank you for promptly responding to this rapidly and publicly unfolding drama that first came to public attention, I believe, approximately one week ago. And here we are today holding oversight hearings in Congress, and I think that this is what makes us proud to -- this is what makes me proud to serve in Congress and of course under the auspices of our chairman, who has set the pace for this kind of vigorous oversight. Chairman Conyers, we want to thank you.
And I also want to thank all of the witnesses for coming today, especially to Ms. Jamie Lee Curtis, for what you've endured and for coming here to tell us your story.
And --
REP. SCOTT: Jamie Leigh Jones.
REP. JOHNSON: Excuse me, did I say Jamie Lee Curtis? (Laughter.) Jamie Leigh Jones. Okay, I'm sorry.
REP. SCOTT: She's going to play her in the movie.
REP. JOHNSON: All right, Jamie Leigh Jones. And I want to also point out that Miss Tracy Barker is here, who is another victim of similar activity that was undergone by Miss Jones, and also here are the attorneys representing both victims, Mr. L. Todd Kelly and Mr. Paul Waldner from Houston, Texas and also Stephanie Morris of Washington, D.C.
And this is a case against Halliburton, which actively concealed both of these egregious violations of the criminal law and then engaged in a cover-up to keep these issues from ever seeing the light of day in criminal court. And these issues have continued to this day. And for that reason alone, it would seem that both victims would be able to come into civil court and prosecute their claims for justice in front of a jury.
Unfortunately, the issue of pre-dispute binding mandatory arbitration arose when they attempted to seek redress and these types of hidden clauses in employment agreements strip citizens of their basic rights to a jury trial. Arbitration agreements were meant to be agreements between equal parties, but for Miss Jones, Miss Barker and the countless other employees who have tried to exercise their rights under these agreements, they turn out to be anything but equal. Companies have taken advantage of employees by forcing them to sign away their rights to a public justice system in favor of a private or profit justice system where the chips are stacked against them and where the arbitrator playing judge and jury typically sides with the big business that signs his or her paycheck.
With over 180,000 civilian contractors in Iraq, our federal laws must protect those who are working for our government. We should be protecting them and we should have protected you, Miss Jones, both criminally and you should have the protection of the civil laws here in America as well. I'm hopeful that the Senate can move forward on H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007, which would close the loophole to ensure that all contractors are accountable under U.S. criminal law and mandates that the Department of Justice, through the FBI, enforce this bill by investigating and prosecuting offenses under the law.
But we also need to understand how pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements are contracts of adhesion and they affect the ability of victims, especially those who are unable to seek criminal penalties, from seeking civil damages when they've been truly wronged.
I also want to thank Representative Ted Poe, who took prompt action by notified by the father of Ms. Jones and was able to get Ms. Jones out of harm's way, out of the Green Zone in Iraq, and is here to testify today. And I thank you, sir, for your service to the country.
And with that, I'll yield back.
REP. SCOTT: Thank you.
We recognize the members for brief statements if possible. In order of appearance, the gentlelady from Texas I understand had a brief statement.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In watching the news last night I saw -- or heard, I was washing dishes during that time, (I record,?) you had to wash dishes (laughter) -- and heard a report of a homicide on a military base in Fairfax County of Virginia, that had occurred on Monday. And the report went on to say that the FBI has taken over the case, and was investigating this homicide to determine whether or not it was a -- any foul play that was involved in it.
And something of that -- a simple procedure like that, was called for in this case. Even though it occurred in the Green Zone in Iraq -- a place where we had invaded, destroyed the infrastructure, then put in our own systems of justice over there of maintaining law and order, especially in the Green Zone.
And so I know that there are some -- I know that at the time that the incident occurred, Ms. Jones, that there was law enforcement available, a neutral law enforcement available in the Green Zone to protect persons who were crime victims. And that system failed you. In fact,, there are strong implications that perhaps that system, and your private employer, Halliburton, the owner of KK -- or of KBR, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary, perhaps there was some unholy alliance between the law enforcement at that facility and your private employer, and that operated to deprive you of your right to justice under the criminal law up to this point.
And with the state of the evidence, I'm not sure whether or not it will be feasible to move forward with a criminal case, but certainly, you having come back to the United States of America, you would seek to establish justice in the civil courts. And you have been met with resistance in doing that because of this mandatory, binding arbitration clause in the agreement that you signed with Halliburton in connection with your employment. Is that correct?
MS. JONES: Yes. And I wanted to go and get a -- do away with the arbitration in my case because I want justice, and I want to contribute every penny to the Jamie Leigh Foundation -- to put it back, and help other victims, and do everything that I can in my power to help victims of violent crimes.
REP. JOHNSON: Well, let me tell you, I've got a daughter who is 18 years old -- not much younger than you, I think you're what, 22, at this time?
MS. JONES: I just turned 23 -- (on the 13th?).
REP. JOHNSON: Twenty-three?
MS. JONES: Yeah, on the (13th?).
REP. JOHNSON: And I'll say that if something would -- would have happened to my daughter, I, like all of the others sitting on this podium, would -- it's impossible to say how one would react until one is faced with some dilemma like this, and it could actually tear apart the family. And I'm so happy that you are here with your family today -- your father, your mother, and your husband, who has stuck with you throughout this trial and tribulation.
And so my hat goes off to that family support that you have. And I'm proud of you for the stance that you have taken. And I know that they are very proud of you as well.
MS. JONES: Thank you.
REP. JOHNSON: You were 19 years old, or so, when you signed this employment agreement with Halliburton?
MS. JONES: I think I was 19 -- I think I had just turned 20.
REP. JOHNSON: Did you -- did you have a lawyer present to explain to you what was in that agreement?
MS. JONES: No, sir.
REP. JOHNSON: And did you have any idea of knowing anything about the so-called Halliburton Dispute Resolution Program that was alluded to in that contract?
MS. JONES: I didn't see that it was alluded in a contract.
REP. JOHNSON: Mm-hmm. (In acknowledgement.) Well, now the contract did mention about mandatory, binding arbitration for any employment disputes. Were you aware of that when you signed?
MS. JONES: No, it was 18 pages long, and it was -- (inaudible) -- (to ?) the time that I quite frankly did not understand. If you would have asked me at 20 years old, what an arbitration was, I would not have been able to tell you.
REP. JOHNSON: And Congressman Poe, according to an analysis by the National Employment Lawyers Association -- based on the American Arbitration Association's Public Reports, from January 1st, 2003 to March 31st of 2007 -- of the arbitration decisions involving Halliburton, the triple-A arbitrators, who are the lead arbitrators in this case, found for -- found for Halliburton 82 percent of the time. Do you find that number disturbing?
MR. POE: Well, it's hard to understand that somebody could be correct 82 percent of the time in these type of disputes. It is somewhat disturbing. On arbitration, it just seems like it ought to be, in a case like this, optional. And it certainly shouldn't apply to criminal activity.
REP. JOHNSON: Why do you think a public hearing, in a public courtroom, with a judge paid for with public funds, charged with being fair and impartial, is so important in resolving disputes of any nature?
MR. POE: Oh, I'm a great believer in the jury trial. I just think it's one of the greatest things we have in our judicial system, whether it's a civil case or a criminal case. I heard over a thousand jury trials, and so I think the public courtroom, and our philosophy in the Constitution, is fundamental. And so I'm a great believer in it.
It just seems to work because it is public -- and you have the jury, and you have the judge, and you have both sides, and you're making your case, the lawyers are making their case -- before a public forum. So I'm a believer in that.
REP. JOHNSON: And on the other hand, the arbitration proceeding is secret -- rules of evidence, rules of procedure don't apply, and it is -- an appeal is limited. So, having said that, I will close my comments at this time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source