Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the American people have paid a tremendous price for our 5-year occupation of Iraq. Over 3,100 U.S. lives have been lost and more than 23,000 wounded, and nearly half a trillion taxpayer dollars have been spent. In my own congressional district, nine servicemembers have given their lives to the conflict in Iraq.

I am committed to bringing our troops home safely and as soon as possible. The legislation before us today holds the Iraqi government accountable by imposing strict benchmarks for success. If the President cannot show that the Iraqis have met these standards by July 1, 2007, a troop withdrawal will begin immediately and must be completed within 180 days.

These measures not only provide the support our troops need and deserve, but they also force this President to think twice before asking our brave military men and women to serve a third or fourth tour in Iraq, and requires and provides the resources our troops need when they come home.

But this bill also honors our veterans by investing billions of additional dollars for their health care. And, for the first time since this war began, Congress is not giving the President a blank check.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we can bring a reasonable, timely end to the war in Iraq, and if this bill does that, we will also protect our troops.

I urge my colleagues to cast their important vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 327, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act. I want to thank Congressman Boswell for introducing this important piece of legislation and Chairman Filner for moving it through the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to the family of Joshua, both for their tireless efforts to pass this legislation and for their son's service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, too many servicemembers return from war with invisible wounds. It is estimated that almost 1,000 veterans receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs commit suicide each year. This is a symptom of a larger problem.

A July 2004 Army study reported that one in six combat troops will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder shortly after combat. Sadly, this is only a measure of the number of veterans who receive the help that they need. Many veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress and other mental problems don't seek assistance.

This bill strengthens cooperation between the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to provide better and more accessible mental health care for all of our veterans. This bill also creates a program to regularly screen and monitor all veterans for risk factors of suicide, and establishes a 24-hour counseling line so that veterans in rural and remote areas can receive the help whenever they need it.

Additionally, this legislation offers training in suicide prevention to medical personnel and support staff at our VA hospitals so they can identify veterans at risk. This bill also provides training and services to the families, helping them understand risk factors and working with them on the readjustment process.

Although our men and women come home safely, the war isn't over for many of them. Often the physical wounds of combat are repaired but the psychological scars can haunt a person for a lifetime.

I am proud to have had the opportunity to work on this legislation in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I will continue to do what I can to assure that we honor the sacrifices of our Nation's veterans.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.

When I met with local economic development administration officials in Moline, Illinois, over the February recess, reauthorizing and ensuring adequate funding for the State revolving loan fund was stated as the number one need that these administrators had in assisting the rural communities in my district. We all know that the ability to process and treat wastewater, as

well as provide clean water to a community, is the biggest challenge to economic development. In an area hard hit by offshoring and outsourcing of jobs, this assistance is critical to the 17th Congressional District of Illinois.

The Clean Water Revolving Fund is a top priority of the Democrats, and it authorizes $14 billion for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities and other water pollution abatement projects.

In addition, this bill renews the requirement that contractors and subcontractors on wastewater treatment projects constructed with assistance from the State revolving funds be paid at least the prevailing local wage rate, as determined under the Davis-Bacon Act. By guaranteeing payment of the prevailing local wage rate, Davis-Bacon provides a better standard of living.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Water Quality Financing Act to address your constituents' clean water needs and to uphold these important labor standards.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Water Quality Investment Act and strongly urge Its passage.

Many communities in my district, such as the city of Monmouth, have severe capacity issues with their wastewater treatment systems. Several of these communities are rural but are experiencing new growth and cannot afford to expand their wastewater systems or update their antiquated and deteriorating facilities. The overflow of sewer systems can cause untreated waste to run into streets, basements, rivers and lakes, posing obvious health, safety and environmental problems.

Additionally, 772 municipalities across the country, the majority having fewer than 10,000 people, have combined sewer systems. These systems partially separate sewage and stormwater runoff and are extremely vulnerable to sewer overflows during periods of peak rainfall. The EPA estimates that each year, overflows from combined sewer systems discharge about 850 billion gallons of wastewater and storm water containing untreated waste, toxic debris, and other pollutants into the environment.

It is imperative that we help localities improve their sewer infrastructure for the health and safety of their residents and to meet their obligations under the Clean Water Act.

The Water Quality Investment Act would authorize $1.8 billion in federal grants over five years to municipalities for sewer overflow control and improved infrastructure. This new funding is a good first step toward addressing the EPA's estimated sewer overflow control costs of over $150 billion.

This legislation is supported by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, which services the majority of Americans, and the Water Infrastructure Network, a broad-based coalition of environmental, conservation, municipal, public health, engineering, construction, and energy groups.

I again urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan legislation. Sewer system overflows are a public health risk with the biggest threat occurring in smaller communities that cannot finance the modernization of their systems. We are obligated to help these communities protect their citizens, which is why we must pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are rightfully outraged by the stories coming out of Walter Reed.

On Monday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held its first hearing at Walter Reed to determine how long these problems have been going on and how best we can fix the problems as soon as possible. Three other hearings are scheduled throughout the week.

But this administration has some tough questions to answer. First, when did they know that wounded military personnel were not receiving the treatment they deserve? The President said he wasn't aware of these problems until the Washington Post investigation, but several GAO reports have been released outlining some of these problems. Was the administration ignoring these reports or just ignoring the problem?

And, second, why did the administration choose to privatize services at Walter Reed? And how did they go about choosing a company with ties to Halliburton?

Our soldiers deserve better, and I am confident that this Congress will provide the necessary oversight so that we can fix these problems immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the very kind words.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 995, a bill to extend the authorization for the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial. I introduced H.R. 995 along with my colleague Congressman Mark Kirk to provide the time necessary to raise the private funds and navigate the approval process in order to bring this memorial to life in Washington, D.C. Without this bill, the charter for the memorial will expire in October of this year.

I would like to thank Chairman Rahall for quickly moving this legislation through the Resources Committee; and Lois Pope, the Chair of the Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation, who has worked tirelessly to establish this memorial since 1996. I also appreciate the efforts of Congressman Kirk and Congressman Dennis Moore to ensure the memorial is funded and dedicated by 2010, and all the other Members who have made this legislation a priority in the 110th Congress.

There are more than 3 million disabled veterans living today and millions of veterans from past and future conflicts who will be honored by this long overdue memorial.

It is my hope as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs that this memorial will only be the beginning of our recognition of the incredible sacrifices of our veterans. This memorial cannot repay the sacrifice of our disabled veterans, but it will serve as a reminder of the debt that we owe to each and every one of them.

Transcending conflicts, service branches and generations, the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial will express America's lasting gratitude to the men and women whose lives were forever changed in service to our country.

Due to its proximity to the Capitol, the memorial will remain in the sight of America's lawmakers, serving as a constant reminder of the human cost of conflict and the sacrifices of our disabled veterans. The memorial will be a setting for school groups to learn about disabled veterans, the cost of freedom and the challenges faced by those with disabilities. Most importantly, it will be a place for disabled veterans to come and know they are recognized by a grateful Nation.

I am proud to be a freshman legislator in the 110th Congress because we are changing this country's priorities. In our recently passed continuing resolution, we increased veterans health care by over $3.6 billion, and we are taking swift action to hold those who are responsible for the inexcusable conditions at Walter Reed accountable.

Congress has a responsibility to plan for the long-term well-being and health of our troops, and I am committed to taking care of our veterans when they are in conflict and when they return home. This bill is a critical first step in honoring the sacrifices our military men and women have made and continue to make for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 995 and join me and the other 28 cosponsors to ensure this memorial is built and dedicated as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Michaud. And I want to thank you for your leadership on this whole issue of trade. I was here last week, as you know, and we were talking about the Employee Free Choice Act. And I spoke then as a former labor organizer about the difficulties working men and women have in being able to join the union. Tonight I am here, and I want to tell a brief story, if I could, about what I think this whole trade situation boils down to.

In my district, we have a city called Galesburg, Illinois. It was the home of Maytag, manufacturing washers, driers and refrigerators; 1,600 very talented men and women worked in that factory. On two different occasions, the workers of that plant gave pay concessions back to keep that plant open. The State of Illinois, my home State, gave Maytag $24 million in State taxes for renovations to keep the factory there. The plant, about 8 months later, announced that it was moving to Sonora, Mexico.

The CEO said it was because of several things, but the bottom line was they could make more money manufacturing in Sonora, Mexico, for cheap labor. And 1,600 of those people are out of work, and 1,000 more recently followed a few weeks later in Herron, Illinois, from another Maytag facility. And the CEO of that corporation said, ``You just have to understand, Congressman, I am in the business to make money for my shareholders. I don't really care about the people of this city and the educational system and what happens to them, and the small businesses that feed into Maytag. I am here to make money.''

Well, I am here tonight to say a couple of things on this whole issue of trade. First, let me say, I said this on the campaign trail, Congressman. I am a card-carrying capitalist; I believe in trade. We have to have trade. I am not a protectionist, an isolationist. But I do know this. As my colleague, Representative Kagen, said, we have to have some fair trade.

Under this NAFTA agreement, it was tough enough to lose those jobs, but we negotiated that; we, meaning our trade folks, negotiated a 5- year head start for those Maytag jobs in Mexico, gave the Mexican government a 5-year head start on refrigerator products. Now, how are you going to compete?

I went to an editorial board, and I remember saying to the publisher of the newspaper, if your competitor across the river had a 5-year head start on subscriptions and advertising and being able to get the news out each and every day, and you could not publish for 5 years, do you think you would be at a distinct disadvantage? He said, ``Absolutely.''

So here is what I think we need to do, in plain and simple language from a former clothing worker: I think we have to stop this exportation of manufacturing jobs across this country. And we have to be not just angry about it; we have to say: I am more than angry. I am now going to do something that we haven't done before. I am going to raise my voice and I am going to tell my elected Members of the Congress of the United States that if you vote to send our jobs overseas, we are going to vote to send you back to your district permanently, because in this business, we are supposed to be here to represent people.

The job of a Member of the United States Congress, to me, is standing up for ordinary people, and I am tired of seeing our jobs shipped overseas. And, more importantly, the American people hopefully watching and listening tonight are tired of their tax dollars being spent to subsidize those jobs being sent to Sonora, Mexico, where, by the way, the people down there have no trade unions, don't have enough money to even purchase the products that they are making. And I believe that all of us, whether you are a Republican or Democrat or Independent, have seen the hemorrhaging.

In textile, in my industry, thousands of jobs are gone, not because people couldn't do it, but because they can't compete against 18 cents an hour. It is impossible. Not simply because these people were getting benefits and other things that they desperately needed so they can do like I did and buy a home and put their kids through school and go to college and do the right thing; these are veterans of our country who have fought and defended it. They come back and had a job that was taken away from them, not because of anything they did wrong.

So here is what I propose: How about a little corporate responsibility? But how about, let's tell our trade negotiators that we want trade, but let's make it fair and free? Let us don't negotiate our manufacturing jobs overseas. And, by the way, let me just say, I have a lot of agriculture in my district, and farmers are the last group brought to bear on the trade negotiations. They are never brought to the table. I think we have to have, as Representative Kagen said, an administration and a Congress that says to the trade negotiators, look, we want trade; we want to be able to negotiate a decent standard of trade for our folks. But we will not do it by simply abdicating our manufacturing base, whether it is in steel or textile or automobiles, whatever it is, because there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country, and not every one of them is going to sit behind a computer terminal the rest of their life and work. They want to be welders. They want to produce steel. They want to produce automobiles. They want to cut men's suits like I am wearing tonight that, by the way, was made in Chicago, Illinois, by working men and women.

So I would just encourage everybody this evening as we have this debate on trade that, from my perspective, I ran on this issue, and I am going to be a Congressman on this issue. I am not going to vote for a trade deal that is going to send one more job overseas. I am not going to vote for a trade deal that abdicates the responsibility, and to go back to my district and as some people say, well, you know, we are in a global economy. It is high tech. Well, I understand I am in a global economy. I wasn't born yesterday. But I also know, to those men and women from Maytag that don't know what they are going to do for their health care now that it is gone, for health care, their pensions that are on the line that they are losing, those people from KSIH that lost their jobs simply because they happen to be a union plan and maybe made a bit too much money; I say to those folks that, today, this Congress needs to stand up for working men and women. It needs to say we want trade in this country. We will work very hard to make sure that we have the ability to export our products, but at the same time, the one product that we are no longer going to export in this country is the men and women and their futures and their children, because there is no place for that in fair and free trade.

With that, I just want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak this evening for a few moments on this issue. I believe very deeply in this. The great news about being a freshman is sometimes we don't come with the best prepared speeches. I think we speak a lot from the heart. But I can tell you this much, from a former clothing perspective, in our union, there is a movie called, ``The Inheritance,'' that talks about how the union was formed. And at the very end of it, a little old man looks into the end, and I would say to our friends on the other side of the aisle who don't want to work with us on this straight policy, he says, ``You think this is the end? My friend, this is only the beginning.''

This 1-hour tonight is the beginning of changing trade policy in this country and in this Chamber. And I am honored to be part of it.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this vital and important legislation.

For 13 years, I cut suits at Seaford Clothing Company in Rock Island. I would not be here today as a Member of the United States Congress if it weren't for my union. My membership in my local union, Local 617, gave me access to higher wages, good benefits and invaluable workplace safety protections. My union helped me send my kids to college, it helped me buy a house and to begin to build a secure retirement. But, sadly, more and more Americans are seeing these opportunities slip away.

Worker productivity is up, but wages are declining. Corporate CEOs are enjoying record profits, yet average workers are struggling to pay their home heating bills, affordable health care, and save for college for their kids.

Current law allows employers to refuse recognition of a union when the majority of employees sign cards saying they want a union. In addition, there are weak penalties for employers who intimidate, coerce or fire workers who try to organize a union or secure a first contract.

The bipartisan Employee Free Choice Act levels the playing field between employer and employee relations by requiring employers to recognize a union formed by a majority sign-up, stiffening the penalties for employers who violate the law, and providing an arbitrator if labor and management cannot agree on a contract.

In closing, let me just say that I chose to join a union. I was able to make it from the cutting room floor of the Seaford Clothing factory to the floor of this Chamber.

I urge Members to give every American that same opportunity by voting ``yes'' on the Employee Free Choice Act.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, there has been a lot of talk here about the last election. And my friends on the other side of the aisle were talking about the secret ballot. The reason that they lost the election wasn't because they had the secret ballot. They lost the election because they lost sight of what they were here to do, stand up for ordinary people, fight for them.

It took the Democrats a little less than 2 weeks to raise the minimum wage. My friends on the other side of the aisle had this Chamber for 12 years and couldn't get it done.

We are standing here today, and I mentioned earlier that I organized a plan. I have been there and I have done that. I worked on the J.P. Stevens boycott, where the foreman would literally follow the employee to the restroom to make sure she or he was not taking an unauthorized break. Someone would show up at the hospital, if they were injured, at the emergency room to tell the employee, if you don't show up for work tomorrow, you are fired.

My friends, we have heard a lot of talk today, but actions speak much

louder than words. For 12 years, my friends on this side of the aisle have had a chance to improve workplace safety and they haven't done it, a chance to strengthen workers' rights. And you would swear today that they are the champion of ordinary people giving them the breaks. Well, for 12 years we have watched. Today, we act.

I will put my card in. I will vote ``yes'' for all of the people who want a fair shake, an opportunity to join a trade union, to have health insurance and better benefits.

It didn't take us 12 years, my friends, to understand. And trust me when I tell you, we will pass this legislation. And as the end of the movie ``The Inheritance,'' the movie that formed my stance on unions, an older man looks into the camera, and he says, you think this is the end? My friends, this is only the beginning.

Mr. Speaker, last week British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he plans to withdraw 1,600 British troops this summer. The administration's response, this is good news, because it shows that some good things are happening in Iraq. Nice spin. But one has to wonder why our closest ally in this war is pulling out troops at the very same time this administration wants to send 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers into Iraq.

The British say they are withdrawing their troops because the Shiite- dominated southern region is relatively calm. That is, indeed, good news. But if the British really believed, as this President does, that expanding number of troops in Baghdad would lead to the same results there, wouldn't they choose to move these troops into Baghdad rather than pull them out completely?

No matter how the Bush administration tries to spin it, the British withdrawal is not good news for the administration's troop escalation plan. Why should we be sending thousands more of our troops to Iraq when Britain and other coalition members are pulling out? It is time the administration stops spinning and instead answers these questions.

Mr. Speaker, part of our job in Congress is to ensure that every American has the right to a higher education. Unfortunately, a provision in the Higher Education Act makes it difficult for people of low incomes who attend schools with low tuitions to receive the assistance they need.

I rise in strong support of the Pell Grant Equity Act, which provides low-income students

the opportunity to go to college by eliminating the ``tuition sensitivity provision.'' This provision prohibits maximum Pell grant awards to students attending low-tuition institutions of higher education even if their income is low enough to otherwise qualify for the maximum award.

As implemented by the U.S. Department of Education, ``tuition sensitivity'' is intended to reduce the Pell grant for low-income students who attend very low tuition schools as a cost-saving measure. Unfortunately, the students most negatively impacted by this policy are the poorest students who still cannot afford the lower tuition.

As I have been saying throughout my district this past week, education is an investment not an expenditure. We must invest in our students now or be forced to pay more later. We can start this investment by passing the Pell Grant Equity Act, allowing approximately 96,000 of our poorest students to receive the financial assistance they need in the upcoming academic year.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know where we stand on the President's troop escalation plan, and this week every Member of this House will have an opportunity to explain why he or she supports or opposes President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.

The resolution that we are debating this week is a straightforward two-page bill. First, it highlights our continued support for our troops in Iraq. And second, it voices opposition to the President's troop increase plan.

The American people don't want Congress to continue to shirk from its responsibility to oversee the Bush administration's implementation of this war. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in the Senate, where a bipartisan resolution opposing the President's troop escalation plan is being kept hostage from the Senate floor by Republicans who seem content to allow the President to conduct this war any way he sees fit.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have unequivocally called on Congress to discuss this situation in Iraq and to take action to change our course there. Here in this House, we have begun the process this week.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California. I rise today in strong support of this resolution.

Recently at a town hall meeting that I had, a man approached me, pulled out a picture of his son, said that he had just died in Iraq 6 months ago. His wife won't come out of the home. He said, ``I want you to promise me that when you go to Washington, you will do everything you can to make sure that this never happens to another family.''

Three days later, I called the family of Senior Airman Daniel Miller of Galesburg, Illinois, who lost their son to a roadside bomb explosion outside of Baghdad 2 weeks prior to when he was supposed to be coming home. I hope and pray I don't ever have to make another phone call to another grieving family. That is why I come to the floor this evening in strong opposition to the President's decision to deploy 21,500 additional troops in Iraq, and I strongly support this resolution.

The current situation in Iraq is grave, and it is rapidly deteriorating. The sectarian conflict is the principal challenge to stability in Iraq, and caught in the middle of this civil war are approximately 140,000 of our bravest troops. Over 3,000 troops have already lost their lives, while over 22,000 have been wounded.

Our current strategy has not made significant impact on reducing the violence. In fact, December 2006 was the third deadliest month since the war began. The cost of this war, both in the number of lives lost and the amount of dollars spent, has had a profound effect on Illinois and my congressional district. Out of the 3,128 deaths, 95 have been from Illinois, and eight soldiers from the 17th District.

But not only will an increase in troop levels not solve the fundamental cause of violence, it places us at a great disadvantage here at home. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the troop surge could require as many as 48,000 troops and as much as $27 billion, which is five times the amount of the President's request of $5.6 billion. Also the U.S. military will be forced to deploy many combat units for their second, third, and even fourth deployments in Iraq, and extend the redeployment of others.

Currently as we sit in debate on this resolution, 16,000 single mothers are serving in Iraq. This troop surge would only extend the time their children are left at home alone, with their mother or their father.

Since the military is already short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other protective equipment, a troop surge threatens the readiness of our forces. In fact, if you saw the paper recently, a soldier was quoted saying he had to go to the junkyards to dig up pieces of rusted scrap missile and ballistic glass so they could armor the vehicles and make them combat ready.

While only a first step, this resolution is a good start. It does not give up on our troops or declare defeat in Iraq, but offers a new forward direction towards a nonpartisan goal of bringing our troops home safely, quickly, and securing stability in the region.

Already, this Democratic-led Congress has had 52 oversight hearings on various issues related to this war, and many of my colleagues have introduced several bipartisan measures that promote political and diplomatic engagements.

A person this evening said, Where do we go from here? I would strongly suggest that this administration try something it hasn't tried yet: diplomacy. It can work. You just have to have the courage to try.

In the coming weeks, I am hopeful that Congress will consider a comprehensive measure such as H.R. 787, the Iraq War De-escalation Act, of which I am a cosponsor. In addition to requiring the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq and allowing basic force protection, it launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative. I am thoroughly convinced that the only way we will attain peace in this region, in Iraq, is through diplomatic initiatives.

This legislation also makes the Iraqi Government responsible for their own destiny by establishing benchmarks concerning Iraqi military readiness to police their own country without United States assistance.

Finally, as a veteran myself, I also hope as we move forward we will adequately prepare for the return of thousands of new veterans. Our number one priority should be to fully fund the cost of veterans health care and PTSD benefits.

This administration's budget calls for cutting prosthetics by $2 million and severely cuts funds to the VA at a time when it is proposing an increase in troop levels. Without full funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, our veterans are left without the services they were promised when they pledged to defend this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution as the first of many steps towards bringing our troops home and securing our success in Iraq. As I told the gentleman at my town meeting, I promised him I would do everything I could so this would never happen again. That journey begins this evening

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce a bill to ensure the creation of a Disabled Veterans Memorial. This bill would extend the memorial's charter until 2015, allowing the necessary time to raise the private resources and navigate the 10-year approval process required to bring the memorial to life in Washington, DC.

There are more than 3 million disabled veterans living today, and millions of veterans from past and future conflicts who will be honored by this long-overdue memorial. The memorial will be located on an impressive 2-acre site within full view of the U.S. Capitol, adjacent to the National Mall, and across Independence Avenue from the U.S. Botanical Garden, at Washington Avenue--Canal Street--and Second Street, SW.

Adding to the beauty of our Nation's capital, the memorial will soon become one of our country's treasured landmarks. It will bring together visitors of all ages and backgrounds--a fitting tribute to the brave men and women who stand watch over America. No Federal funds have been or may be used for planning and construction of the memorial.

In the 109th Congress this bipartisan bill passed by voice vote, but it was not taken up by the Senate. Therefore it is critical that this legislation be considered this Congress, since the authorization for the memorial expires in October 2007.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure the creation of this memorial to honor those who have sacrificed so much for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that the situation on the ground in Iraq is grave and rapidly deteriorating and therefore deserves the immediate and undivided attention of this Congress.

Last week, the National Intelligence Estimate released a pessimistic outlook on the future of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The NIE offers no hope that under the likeliest of scenarios the level of violence in Iraq will be significantly reduced between the next 12 to 18 months.

Additionally, the Iraq Study Group has identified the increase of sectarian violence in Iraq as a principal challenge to stability in the Middle East. In light of the current situation, a military approach is no longer a viable solution to stabilizing Iraq. Our success in Iraq is dependent upon a forward change in direction, which involves input of Iraq's neighbors and the entire international community.

Through political and diplomatic engagement we have a serious chance of reducing sectarian tensions, bringing our troops home, and ultimately declaring victory in Iraq. I urge my colleagues in both Houses to put aside partisan differences and honestly debate our strategy in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to another great American hero. On July 15, 2006, Specialist Nathan Gurley of Fayetteville, North Carolina, though wounded, fiercely pulled Specialist Josh Eckley of Little York, Illinois and another crew member from a military vehicle that had been hit by an IED while on combat logistics control in Al Anbar Province in Iraq. For his heroism, Specialist Gurley was awarded a Bronze Star with Valor and the Purple Heart.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of the 17th District of Illinois, I thank Specialist Gurley for saving the life of one of our beloved sons. Specialist Gurley and Specialist Eckley represent the best the United States military has to offer in Iraq. These two brave soldiers risked their lives to fight an unrelenting insurgency in one of our country's most dangerous areas. For their service, the American people will be forever indebted.

Madam Speaker, brave men such as Specialist Gurley and Specialist Eckley are hard to come by, so for their sake and for all those continuing to fight, it is my sincere hope that at the conclusion of this war their sacrifice will not be in vain.