Save for ritual nods to Motherhood and Apple Pie, the 389-30 winning margin for Rep. David Price's bill to make all private contractors working in war zones subject to U.S. law was about as convincing as a vote can be in the divided and contentious U.S. House of Representatives.

Broad bipartisan backing for the Chapel Hill Democrat's measure -- all North Carolina House members voted for it in Thursday's tally -- sends the Senate a compelling invitation. When senators take up the issue later this month they should join Price's effort to gain greater control over contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republican Sens. Richard Burr and Elizabeth Dole have a useful role to play here, if they can help President Bush see the utility of the House bill's approach.

Getting Bush on board, though, could prove to be a struggle.

Since beginning the Iraq War the president has gone along with extensive, unprecedented use of armed (and unarmed) private contractors and has tolerated obvious shortcomings in holding them to account for misdeeds. The White House now calls Price's legislation hasty and excessive. A veto-proof two-thirds margin in the Senate may be needed to ensure that the bill -- which has support from Blackwater USA's founder, Erik Prince -- eventually gains Bush's signature.

In essence, the bill fills a legal vacuum. Private contractors working for the State Department, as Blackwater does, have been under the jurisdiction of neither Iraq nor the U.S. courts. (In contrast, Defense Department contractors are under U.S. and military law). The bill would expand the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to cover all U.S. contractors operating in war zones. Despite the "military" in the title, civilian courts would have jurisdiction.

In addition to clarifying the law, the legislation would create an FBI unit to investigate accusations of wrongdoing by contractors in war zones, thus bolstering enforcement, which has been scanty.

Clearly, reforms are needed. Testifying before a House committee, Blackwater's Prince cited the example of an off-duty, drunken contractor who shot to death an Iraqi vice president's security guard. Blackwater fired him and docked some of his pay but, Prince said, "We can't incarcerate him. We can't do anything beyond that." The ex-employee, now home in the U.S., has not been charged.

A security contractor trade group also endorsed Price's bill, saying "effective legal structures are necessary to ensure ethical operations in the field." Human rights organizations support it as well.

Interest in private firms such as Blackwater, headquartered in northeastern North Carolina, is nothing new. Despite White House complaints last week that H.R. 2740 arose all of a sudden, oversight of private contractors and their operations has long been a concern for Price, dating to spring 2004 and the aftermath of the horrific killings of four Blackwater employees by Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah.

The four, whose families are suing the company, are among 30 Blackwater employees who have died in the line of duty. In contrast, Blackwater's Prince noted, not one State Department official guarded by his men has been lost. That's a sign of effective security -- but it's equally true that the House hearings last week were prompted by an uproar over the deaths of 17 Iraqis (Iraq's official count) in a chaotic encounter with Blackwater employees. The company says its men acted properly; Iraq wants them put on trial.

More than any other incident involving trigger-happy security guards, the Sept. 16 shootings have had a negative effect on U.S. efforts to win greater support from Iraqis. The incident highlighted the legal black hole that Blackwater, with its $1 billion in contracts, has been operating in. It cries out for passage of corrective legislation, so Price's bill is much-needed.

But no matter how well regulated security firms may be in the future, reliance on so many armed private contractors deserves serious rethinking. In the long run, this is not the way for America to wage war.