Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tonight this body did something that it failed to do last year under the previous majority by passing legislation to direct the spending of our Federal Government.

I am disappointed that the choice of the President and the minority to engage in confrontation and obstruction instead of cooperation and progress prevented us from more fully meeting America's needs in this bill. Despite their intransigence, we were able to pass a bill that began to reinvest in critical national priorities that had been neglected for too long. Priorities like life saving medical research, law enforcement, border and homeland security, K-12 education, college aid, needed infrastructure improvements, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. In addition to those steps, this bill lived up to the commitment of this Congress to keep our promises to America's veterans by providing $3.7 billion over the President's request for veterans' medical care, claims processing, and facility improvements.

As I indicated this is not a perfect bill. I am deeply troubled by the decision to include language that provides authority for the Department of Energy to issue over $8 billion in loan guarantees to coal-based energy projects, and over $20 billion for nuclear energy projects, while authorizing only $10 billion for renewables and energy efficiency. Nuclear power has shown itself to be an environmentally and economically unsustainable form of energy, and has repeatedly failed the test of whether it can survive without taxpayer support. Given the nuclear industry's record of risk and nonperformance, expanding taxpayer support for nuclear power would be throwing good money after bad. In order to truly make the most progress possible toward a clean, profitable, independent energy future for our Nation, it will be more effective to devote maximum federal support to renewable energy technologies like wind, solar, geothermal as well as new technologies and improvements in efficiency.

While I remain concerned about the loan guarantee language, I believe that in its totality the spending bill we approved tonight does a tremendous amount of good by funding key programs that will make America more secure and more prosperous. It makes necessary investments in America's future, and that is why I voted for it.

Mr. Speaker, I voted ``nay'' on the motion to recommit H.R. 2082 with instructions to conference committee because such a vote would have killed the bill. H.R. 2082 includes a provision to ban torture and authorizes the intelligence activities of the United States. While I would have strongly preferred for the Conference Committee to follow the instructions adopted by the House, I believe the intelligence programs and ban on torture included in this bill are too important to the national security of the United States to endanger it by returning it to conference.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to rise today in support of this rule because last November the American people sent a new majority to Congress with a clear mission, to reduce our energy dependence on foreign oil, fight skyrocketing energy prices, and to protect our environment. The landmark legislation before the House today makes good on that goal.

You know, in my district, we're able to buy wind power on the back of our electric bill. My wife and I burn 20 percent soy biodiesel in our home heating oil in our furnace. We're driving an American-made hybrid car which today gets 33 miles per gallon, although one can get 35 if one drives a little slower with a gentle foot on the accelerator. These things are attainable now. The technologies, many of them are available now.

We had a woman call our office and say, I'm all excited; I just got a flex fuel vehicle. Where can I get some flex fuel? And my staff had to tell her that there were two pumps in New York State for E-85.

There's plenty of supply. We've heard in front of the select committee that there's a surplus right now of both biodiesel and ethanol, but not the infrastructure to get them to market. And so we need to put the supply and the demand together, and that will produce more incentive for people to develop these biofuels. I believe that they can be produced, and they are being produced, in fact, by several producers in my district.

This sweeping array of provisions on this bill includes two historic measures. First of all, the first CAFE standard fuel economy increase in three decades, which will save drivers $1,000 at the pump and cut Persian Gulf oil imports in half. And for the first time we will adopt a renewable energy standard so we can replace the polluting electric generation plants we rely on today with domestically produced power that helps us fight climate change.

With energy prices burdening our working families, dependence on foreign oil continuing to undermine our sovereignty, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the latest demonstration of this administration's misplaced priorities.

President Bush wants to slash $2 billion in funding that will help our police and other first responders protect Americans here at home from terrorists and other threats so that he can send $3 billion over to Iraq to train police there. That money means a lot to our police and firefighters here at home. By cutting this funding, President Bush will endanger security at our ports, subways and rail lines. Further, his proposal will not allow law enforcement agencies to use grants for counterterrorism or intelligence personnel, funding which has helped the NYPD uncover and stop nearly 20 terrorist attacks.

By proposing these cuts, the President rejects the advice of the Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission and again shows his priorities are not those of the American people.

I urge the President to reconsider this request and will work with my colleagues to reverse these deeply misguided cuts to homeland security.

Madam Speaker, I voted in favor of the motion to instruct conferees, which included Senate language stating that ``the Senate should not pass legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq'', because I believe the men and women of the United States military are admirably and ably performing their duties. They are already doing everything the can to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state, and I continue to support them and the professionalism and skill they have displayed. However, it is not the role of the United States military to control the long term viability of the Iraqi government. To avoid becoming a failed state, Iraqi political leaders must come to a consensus regarding the future of Iraq and the Iraqi government. There is no role for the United States military in that task. I continue to call for strong diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation in Iraq, and believe that a firm time-line for the withdrawal of U.S. troops will force Iraq's political leaders to take responsibility for the future of their country.

Mr. Chairman, today, during the consideration of H.R. 3915, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 I voted against the Motion to Recommit forthwith. If passed, that motion would have required anyone seeking to get a residential mortgage loan to produce one of four forms of identification prior to approval; a Social Security card and picture ID, a Real ID drivers license, a U.S. or foreign passport or an ID card issued by the Department of Homeland Security.

I am opposed to giving illegal immigrants access to mortgages. However, the language contained in the Motion to Recommit forthwith would not only have failed to meet the goal of denying mortgages to illegal immigrants, but it could have actually made it more difficult for legal citizens of New York and other states to obtain these same housing funds. The motion could have made it more difficult for people from states that have not yet adopted Real ID standards or do not have ready access to other documentation to qualify. However; any illegal immigrant with a passport from their native country would have no difficulty in using that passport to get a mortgage. That is not the kind of requirement we want or need.

I believe it is important that Americans have the opportunity to qualify for mortgages. Owning one's home is a vital part of the American dream. I cannot and will not support legislation that will make it more difficult for citizens and legal immigrants to get mortgages, and easier for illegal immigrants to do so. This motion would have done just that, and as a result I could not support it.

Madam Speaker, if nothing is done soon, 27 million families across the country will be obligated to pay the alternative minimum tax, the AMT. Over 100,000 of these middle-class families live in New York's 19th District. They will have to go through the tedious process of computing their tax returns twice, and they will end up having to pay thousands more than they otherwise would.

The AMT is an unfair tax which in 1970, when it first took effect, only affected 155 households in the entire country. The people who pay it lose the opportunity to take many of the deductions and exemptions that make the tax code friendlier to families. Under the AMT, it doesn't matter what money is spent on health care, on property tax or on education; everyone pays the same amount of tax regardless.

Tomorrow, we will consider legislation to allow almost 73,000 of my constituents to escape the AMT. Today, millions of middle-class families are in danger of being ensnared by a tax that was never intended to affect them.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor in defense of fiscal responsibility. After 6 years of disastrous management and record deficits, the new Democratic House has restored fiscal sanity to the Federal Government. We have reinstated PAYGO, or pay as you go, and passed a budget that will balance Federal spending.

As the Speaker knows, PAYGO requires the House to live by the same rules that American families live by. Like them, if we want to spend more money on something, we know we have

to spend less money on something else. Just as families sit down and make tough choices every day, Congress now has to decide what the government's priorities should be.

And the new Democratic majority has made America's priorities the priorities of this Congress. We have twice passed the SCHIP legislation to provide working families with health care for their children.

We passed the College Cost Reduction Act, the largest investment in college financial aid since the GI bill. This bill increased Pell Grants, provided tuition assistance for future teachers, and enabled loan forgiveness for first responders, law enforcement officers, and fire fighters.

The new Democratic Congress also honored America's promise to our veterans by passing the largest budget increase in the history of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We have passed appropriations bills that fund the most pressing needs of our country. As the bridge collapse in Minnesota showed, there are serious infrastructure needs throughout the country. In fact, there are 13 deficient bridges alone, according to a study that we were shown today in a Transportation and Infrastructure hearing, in my district, the 19th Congressional District of New York.

The House has increased funding for highway repair by $631 million over the President's request to make these important repairs.

We have provided $400 million extra to improve the quality of teachers in America's schools.

House Democrats provided $1.8 billion above the President's request to invest in renewable energies to save our environment and end our dependence on foreign oil.

Because we have funded these vital needs for America, the President has threatened to veto these bills. After borrowing more money than every other President in history combined, President Bush has decided to pretend to be fiscally responsible. Unfortunately for the President, his Halloween costume just doesn't fit. For as he protests over $22 billion for American needs, he has watched $35 billion in taxpayer money get lost or stolen in Iraq. With the money the President has lost in Iraq, we could pay for all of these important needs with billions left over. The President has spent over $2 billion in Iraq to improve oil production; yet still, production of oil in Iraq remains at below prewar levels.

Now the President threatens to veto the Homeland Security bill because House Democrats have added that same amount to train first responders and protect our ports. It seems that the President believes it is more important to waste money in Iraq than to provide critical equipment and protective gear for 250 fire departments in New York.

The President has stood by while contractors have gone $144 million over budget building the embassy in Iraq. With this $144 million, I believe we should instead provide health care for over 20,000 New York veterans.

The President has paid $2 billion to provide drinking water to the Iraqi people, although fewer Iraqis now have access to drinkable water than before the war. Yet the President threatens to veto $1.2 billion, as compared to $2 billion, for clean drinking water here in America.

Finally, the President stood quietly by as the American government shipped $8.8 billion in cash to Iraq and simply lost it. You heard me correctly, lost it. There are absolutely no records to explain where this money went. It just disappeared into the Iraqi desert.

The new Democratic majority has spent the last year restoring fiscal sanity to the government's budget. We have passed legislation to help middle-class families insure their children and pay for college. We have funded important needs across this country. I am proud of our work and I urge the President to stop playing politics and sign these important bills.

I am very pleased that today the House passed S. 2106, the Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act. This bill is the Senate companion to an important piece of legislation I sponsored along with my good friend Representative Tim Bishop of Long Island.

To start off I'd like to thank Mr. Bishop for introducing this important bill in the House, and Mr. biden for introducing it in the Senate. This is a simple bill, but a vital one to the people who it will affect, and I applaud both gentlemen for calling it to my attention, and that of the Congress as a whole.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed legislation to the effect that those victims and families of victims seeking legal redress as a result of the events of 9/11 may do so only in the federal court in the Southern District of New York. However, under the Federal /Rules of Civil Procedure, parties can only issue subpoenas for testimony and documents located within 100 miles of the District. This means that a significant percentage of evidence that might be relevant to the case is unobtainable to the participants only because it is not located within the New York City metropolitan area.

When Congress mandated that only one specific court could hear lawsuits from those people who opted out of the 9/11 Compensation Fund, no one foresaw that the decision would prove to be a barrier for those people who seek evidence from outside the jurisdiction of this court. But there is no alternative as to where they can bring suit.

I am proud to support this bill because it fixes this unintended flaw by providing nation-wide subpoena power to all the parties involved in litigating 9/11 claims. The 9/11 attacks were an attack on the whole country. It was a tragedy that greatly affected us all. There's no reason why victims should be prevented from obtaining possibly vital evidence, just because it happens to be outside the jurisdiction's direct subpoena power.

Thank you so much, Congressman, for yielding.

I am proud to join my fellow new Members of the class of 2006. Freshmen, new Members, whatever you want to call us, I am really honored to be here with all of you and to tell you, speaking of oversight, about my trip this last weekend to Iraq. I think it's one of the most important functions the Constitution gives to Congress, the power, the sole power, to make war and to fund that war should it decide that it needs to happen.

I flew out on a congressional delegation that was led by our fellow classmate, Dave Loebsack, Congressman of Iowa. And after a few hours of sleep in Kuwait, we were flown in by a C-130 to Balad Airbase in Iraq. On the way in, the plane's crew deployed flares against a perceived threat from the ground. I never found out exactly what they saw, but they fired flares for protection.

We got a tour of the base and the Air Force Theater Hospital there. We spent a night in the Green Zone. I slept in a guest room in one of the pool houses by one of Saddam's palaces, with a big Olympic swimming pool and gold fixtures and a marble bathroom that the guesthouse had. And I understand this is a subject of some friction with the Iraqis who feel that after 4 years we should have handed over the national palaces to the Iraqi people rather than inhabiting them ourselves, but that's another subject.

I have good news and I have not so good news. The good news that I first perceived on my trip is that, first of all, I cannot state strongly enough my admiration and respect for our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine personnel. Officers, medical teams, enlisted men and women, all are displaying creativity, commitment and a work ethic that should make all of us proud, even when they're carrying out duties other than they were trained for, such as an artillery officer doing civil affairs or training Iraqi police. They are more than up to the mission.

The other good news is the money that we and our fellows here in Congress voted for MRAPs was definitely money well spent. We saw a picture of a Cougar MRAP that was hit by such a powerful explosive that it blew it up 25 feet or so into the air, hooked the utility lines, and brought them down with it as it landed upside down. Four soldiers inside that MRAP, two of them

walked away; the other two spent a night in the hospital with relatively minor injuries and returned to their units. Their commander told us that in any other vehicle all four would have been fatalities.

Now for the bad news. We have a lot of other vehicles. We were shown a huge parking lot. Imagine the biggest used car lot that you ever saw full of Humvees, Bradley vehicles, tanks, trucks, all kinds of vehicles that had been hit by IEDs. Some, including Abrams tanks, looked like they had been opened up by a can opener and had metal inside that had melted and resolidified. Tires, treads, electronics and other useable parts were being salvaged, and the twisted steel that was left sold for scrap to Kuwait.

Some vehicles were deemed fit for repair, but most of what we saw was clearly far beyond repair. The lot we looked at represented thousands of American casualties and billions of taxpayer dollars. We were not, by the way, allowed to take photographs of it.

In the Green Zone, the most heavily guarded part of Baghdad, one of the safest, supposedly, parts of Baghdad, we were shown the concrete shelters every couple of hundred feet and warned to duck inside one of these shelters if an alarm sounded, because just the week before, two American troops were killed by mortar fire in the Green Zone. Even sleeping in a guest room in Saddam's pool house, with the Olympic swimming pool and gold fixtures, we had to be ready to duck and cover.

We had meetings with Ambassador Ryan Crocker, General Petraeus, briefings by the intelligence staff. And my synopsis of the conversations goes like this: Ambassador Crocker said, ``the Maliki government is somewhere between challenged and dysfunctional.''

I asked repeatedly about what progress is being made toward restoration of clean drinking water, sewer service, and uninterrupted electrical supply. The answers from all of our briefers were vague. And current estimates are that electricity is only on 2 to 3 hours in Baghdad, maybe 12 hours a day in Ramadi or the Shia-controlled south.

The next day we got to go to what they called the safest part of the country, which is Ramadi in Anbar province. Surprise; the last couple of months there has been a decrease in violence there as what they call the Anbar awakening happens with the sheiks deciding they're going to side with us rather than siding with the terrorists.

Nonetheless, as we rode in the helicopter to the safe part of the country, we flew low and fast, close to the deck, with two .50 caliber machine guns out each of the front doors, and a couple of times they fired bursts of automatic weapons fire. And afterwards I asked what it was for, and the gunners said they were clearing intersections. I presume that means firing in front of the lines of vehicles to make them stop and not drive directly underneath us.

When we entered the marketplace to see the new, safe Ramadi market and the new business center, the small business center that had opened, we were driven there in a Cougar MRAP and told to wear our body armor and our helmets while we were inside the MRAP. And when we took them off and walked around the marketplace, we were surrounded at all times by a ring of dozens of soldiers carrying automatic weapons, and they were wearing their helmets and their body armor. So, if that's the safe part of Iraq, I wonder what the dangerous part is.

On the way home we stopped in Ramstein, Germany, launched to a medical center, visited some of our troops. I saw one of my constituents there and had my picture taken with him, and interrupted his lunch to shake his hand and thank him for his service.

There were several Romanians there who were injured, a number of Americans, all of whom from Iraq were hurt in Baghdad, attacked in Baghdad, and then there was one attacked or wounded in Afghanistan.

Their spirits, in general, were great, and the medical staff was terrific. I can't say enough about our medical core either. And they really appreciate the visits. They really appreciate the donations from home that are coming from individuals, from school kids, from veterans groups and from corporations of everything from fleece and coats and underwear and toothbrushes, anything you might need, duffel bags, because these are soldiers evacuated from the point where they were wounded in the field by helicopter to Balad and then stabilized and sent off to Germany.

So, there are good things, but there are also enough negative things going on there so that I returned with the same conclusion that I went there suspecting, which is that the $200 billion more that we're being asked for by President Bush for Iraq, based on the presumption that the Maliki government, which our own ambassador describes is dysfunctional, will be up to the task of resolving and reconciling the differences between the different sects is wishful thinking; and that after a year and another $200 billion, where will we be? What kind of guarantee, what kind of even probability do we have of a stable country to leave behind? If the sheiks in Anbar can get together, if the mullahs in the south, the Shia south can get together, if the Kurds in the north can get together and stop attacking Turkey long enough to have the country that they've always wanted, then perhaps we can bring our troops home and get to business spending that money here on things that Americans, at least in my district, are telling me they need built, infrastructure they need repaired, schools that they need to be improved, and other things that constitute Nation building here at home.

That is the short version of my report. I thank you so much for letting me share that with you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is true that all of our areas and our districts around the country are different in many ways, but it is also true that they are the same, and our people have the same needs in many ways.

The gentleman from Florida talked about Hurricane Katrina. The gentleman from Minnesota mentioned the trailers that FEMA didn't know were contaminated with formaldehyde. Two weeks ago, in my district, the town of Deer Park discovered they had lead contamination in their highway department building and their town hall

that was measured at 5,000-plus parts per million of indoor air contamination of lead.

My office called and we got FEMA to send a trailer over 2 days later so they could set up some computers and telephones and at least have a rudimentary office in the parking lot next to their closed-down office being remediated for lead contamination.

Three days later, the following Monday, I found that FEMA had come and towed the trailer away because it was contaminated with formaldehyde. Two-plus years after Hurricane Katrina, they still don't know which of their trailers have formaldehyde in them and which ones don't.

That is why oversight is needed. Whether it is the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which has performed significant oversight, whether it is the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee looking at Coast Guard sweetheart deals with military contractors that resulted in eight vessels being lengthened by 13 feet and rendered unseaworthy, the 123s, as they call them, so they are now being scrapped in Baltimore Harbor, or whether it is oversight of the conduct of the war in Iraq, this body needs to perform oversight, and I am glad after the last 6 years, it is finally doing so.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, as part of consideration of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007, the minority offered a motion to recommit forthwith with the proclaimed intent of clarifying the circumstances under which motorized vehicles can enter wilderness areas. However, I am concerned that the language of the motion may actually work at cross purposes with that goal.

The MTR stated that: ``The designation of lands as wilderness or a wilderness study area by an amendment made by this section does not prohibit the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats or the landing of aircraft or other forms of mechanical transport, on the designated lands when required in connection with an emergency involving the health and safety of persons, including search and rescue efforts or the response to an Amber Alert.''

I don't know anyone who believes that we shouldn't be able to use motorized equipment in a wilderness to react to an emergency. It's common sense, and that's why it's already included in the underlying statute. In fact, the underlying law makes the allowance for motorized equipment in a health or safety emergency without enumerating specific types of equipment or circumstances, giving the widest possible scope of interpretation. I am concerned that by listing specific pieces of equipment and circumstances, the motion offered tonight could have caused more confusion and possibly limited the ability to respond to emergencies, despite any good intentions. For this reason, I voted against it.

Madam Speaker, in a move that defies logic, President Bush made the mistake of vetoing the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, contradicting an explicit pledge he made during the 2004 campaign to ``lead an aggressive effort to make sure uninsured children receive health coverage, guaranteeing them a healthy start in life.'' Instead of living up to that promise, he is denying millions of children access to high quality, affordable health care.

CHIP is a vital program for both the Nation and the State of New York. Since 1997, it has proven to be a popular, successful program, covering 6.6 million children nationwide, and helping to reduce the number of uninsured children in my State of New York by 40 percent. The bill he vetoed would help 268,000 more of New York's kids.

The President has said that children don't need health care; all they need to do when they get sick is go to an emergency room. I am not sure if that comment was uninformed and irresponsible or simply callous, but I think that parents of New York would like to see the veto overridden.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House took an important step to restore accountability to our involvement in Iraq by passing H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007. This bill serves an important purpose by bringing previously unaccountable private security contractors under the rule of U.S. law.

By some estimates there are nearly 50,000 private security personnel working in Iraq. These contractors operate largely outside U.S. and Iraqi law, and episodes of significant contractor misconduct raise animosity toward Americans in the field and lose us hearts and minds in Iraq.

The activities of one of the most prominent contractors, Blackwater, highlight why they are a counterproductive influence in Iraq and their activities must be curtailed. Two weeks ago, Blackwater personnel guarding a State Department group were involved in a shootout that resulted in the deaths of as many as 17 Iraqis. Yesterday, the Government Reform Committee disclosed that Blackwater has been involved in 195 escalation of force incidents since 2005 and in 80 percent of those Blackwater fired the first shots.

These incidents combined with a host of other abuses clearly indicate that we need to stop putting contractors in Iraq and bring those there under control. That's why I was proud to cosponsor and vote for the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act to bring these contractors under U.S. jurisdiction if they commit criminal acts. Only by holding these contractors accountable can we actually begin to restore our standing in the world and win hearts and minds in Iraq.

During consideration of this bill, the House of Representatives considered a motion to recommit forthwith that stated, ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect intelligence activities that are otherwise permissible prior to the enactment of this Act.''

I am an ardent supporter of our efforts to combat terrorism, prevent terrorist attacks, and bring terrorists to justice. I want our intelligence community to have all of the tools it needs to accomplish these tasks, and believe it can be successful in doing so within the rule of law. Some of my proudest votes on this floor have been to give our government new tools to fight terrorism and keep Americans safe. However, for the following reasons I could not in good conscience vote for this motion to recommit forthwith.

It is often said that, ``the devil is in the details.'' In this case, I fear the level is in the lack of details. The drafting of this legislative language is extremely vague, and I have serious reservations about the scope of its impact. It seems that this language could be interpreted to provide legal cover to abuses committed by contractors, like those at Abu Ghraib, that undermine our national security and are contrary to the founding principles of our nation. On a day when the New York Times has reported at length on the concerted efforts of the Administration to twist the law to make practices like freezing and water-boarding legal, I could not support language that could be manipulated to provide cover for such illegal and counterproductive acts.

I am doubly skeptical of this language because if it was not meant to provide cover for questionable acts, it would not be necessary. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act does not make any previously legal acts illegal, it simply extends the jurisdiction of U.S. law. Previously uncovered contractors would not be impeded in their work if they were acting and continue to act in accordance with the law.

For these reasons, I voted to support the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act and voted against the motion to recommit forthwith.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to decry our unprecedented use of unaccountable private security contractors in Iraq.

By some estimates, there are over 50,000 private security personnel working in Iraq. These contractors operate outside U.S. and Iraqi law, raising animosity toward Americans in the field and losing us hearts and minds in Iraq.

The activities of one of the most prominent contractors, Blackwater, highlight why they are a counterproductive influence in Iraq, and their activities must be curtailed.

Two weeks ago, Blackwater personnel guarding a State Department group were involved in a shootout that resulted in the deaths of as many as 17 Iraqis. Yesterday, the Government Reform Committee disclosed that Blackwater has been involved in 195 escalation of force incidents since 2005; and in 80 percent of those, Blackwater fired the first shots. These incidents, combined with others, clearly indicate that we need to stop putting contractors in Iraq and bring those there under control, which is why I have introduced legislation to freeze the number of contractors operating in Iraq at September 1 levels. And I am a proud cosponsor of the bill we will vote on today, the MEJA Expansion Act, to bring these contracts under control.

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 one 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.