Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage and not have it tied to a poison pill that is designed to kill that increase. That is not what we are getting tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that men and women across this country go to work, working 40 hours a week, often more, and can't even make ends meet.

The minimum wage hasn't been increased since 1997. Workers in Rhode Island, for example, have to earn approximately three times the minimum wage just to afford a basic two-bedroom apartment.

A majority in this House supports an increase in the minimum wage, but the Republican leadership only wants to help a privileged few. To put this in perspective, thousands of families in Rhode Island and millions of families across America would benefit from a minimum wage increase, while the Republican tax plan would help a handful of the wealthiest. This costly political stunt will add billions of dollars per year to our national debt and demonstrates the Republicans' misguided priorities.

It is time for a new direction. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this sham bill and supporting a stand-alone vote to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. It is the right thing to do for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Hellenic Caucus, I wish to recognize the 32nd Anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. On July 20, 1974, under the pretense of peace-keeping operations, Turkish forces occupied northern Cyprus and gained de facto control in the annexed territory. Today we remember those who lost their lives, the barrier that was erected, and the political upheaval it created. Sadly, despite attempts by the United Nations for a reunification settlement, the country remains divided.

On this anniversary, in addition to mourning and remembering, let us also look forward as positive developments have recently occurred. Earlier this month, Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat agreed to begin a process of bilateral discussions to find a comprehensive settlement to the ongoing Cyprus problem. Both sides recognize that the status quo is deplorable and its prolongation will continue to have negative consequences for both Turkish and Greek Cypriots. The Set of Principles agreed to by the leaders includes a commitment to the unification of Cyprus based on a bizonal, bi-communal federation and political equality, as set out in Security Council resolutions. Discussions would immediately commence to focus upon issues that affect the day-to-day life of the people while addressing those that concern substantive issues, both of which will contribute to a comprehensive settlement. This momentous agreement is the first step to engage in direct negotiations since Cyprus's admission to the European Union on May 1, 2004.

Recent events represent great triumphs for the Cyprus state and affirm Cyprus's willingness and determination to diplomatically resolve the decades-old inter-communal conflict. U.S. support, in conjunction with the U.N. and EU, will play an integral role in ensuring successful Cypriot negotiations. The United States must consider Cyprus as one of our nation's top foreign policy priorities. As Americans, we must guarantee that our foreign policy reflects our values of justice, equality and responsibility, and promoting a lasting peace and stability in Cyprus will help further those values. The United States holds a unique position of trust with both Greece and Turkey, and we must use our influence to work toward a solution that is acceptable and equitable to all of Cyprus's residents.

The European Union will also play an important role in charting the future of Cyprus. I was a strong advocate of Cyprus's admission to the EU because Cyprus, like the United States, shares a commitment to democracy, human rights, and the concept of equal justice under the law. Also, the EU's consideration of Turkey's application for membership provides a prime opportunity for needed reforms. If Turkey wishes to increase its global profile and to gain the world's respect, it must earn it by demonstrating its commitment to peace in Cyprus, as well as other important priorities such as ending the blockade of Armenia. Members of the EU have expressed similar concerns, and I have urged Secretary Rice to emphasize those factors as the EU continues its deliberations.

Despite the obstacles and disappointments we have experienced in the past, we cannot abandon our vision of a Cyprus that is again unified and able to reach its fullest potential in the international arena. The United States has stood beside her in the past, and we will undoubtedly maintain this strong relationship for years to corne.

Again, I thank my colleagues on the Hellenic Caucus for their recognition of this important event.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 5684, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Once again, the Administration has not met its promise to work with both sides of the aisle to craft a fair trade agreement. While I favor expanding trade and eliminating restrictive tariffs and barriers, the U.S.-Oman agreement does not create a fair playing field for United States companies and workers to compete.

Oman is an important ally in the Middle East, and I respect their friendship. However, their labor laws are insufficient to create a level playing field for American companies. At this point, Oman apparently only meets three of the International Labor Organization's five core labor standards. There are no labor unions in Oman, and Oman's workers do not have the right to collectively bargain. Oman's lack of core labor standards alone should be reason enough to oppose the agreement.

Unfortunately, this agreement could also cede our ability to select companies to operate our own ports. As the President learned during the Dubai Ports World controversy just a few months ago, the American people want control over our critical transportation infrastructure, but language in this free trade agreement specifically permits foreign companies to operate our ports as long as the company operates a port in Oman.

In 2005, Rhode Island companies exported approximately $158,000 to Oman, or about .01 percent of the State's worldwide exports. We must go back to the drawing board to ensure American companies, American jobs, and American security are not left behind for such a small price. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 5684 and encouraging the Administration to renegotiate a more equitable agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her exceptional leadership, along with Congressman Mike Castle's leadership on this exceptional and important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express profound disappointment in the decision of the President to veto H.R. 810.

This legislation passed with strong bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress. It enjoys the support of upwards of 70 percent of the American people and, most importantly, it offers hope and the promise of a cure to the millions of people who are living with the constant challenge and burdens of chronic disease and disability.

Mr. Speaker, when I was injured in an accidental shooting as a young police cadet almost 26 years ago, I was told that I would never walk again. The promise of embryonic stem cell research was at that time unheard of.

While I always held out hope that I would one day walk again, it was not until the tremendous potential and advances in the field of stem cell research that I truly understood how a cure might work. Today I am thrilled to be able to share this hope with millions of others.

We live in exciting times. Today, newly injured patients, many of them teenagers, as I was, are told about developing treatments and scientific progress. They face the world with many of the same challenges I faced in 1980, but they also face the world with the hope and real promise of a cure.

Under the current policy, however, that promise is limited. Embryonic stem cell research has been limited to the lines derived before August 9, 2001, the date of the President's policy announcement.

When the President announced his policy almost 5 years ago, even he acknowledged the tremendous potential of embryonic stem cell research. In fact, that policy allows the research to proceed but only in a very limited way. The resources that we had in 2001 have run out. This research cannot truly move forward without a change in policy. That is why I am disheartened by the President's decision today.

H.R. 810 was crafted according to the ethical guidelines outlined by the President, and it is why I will vote to override his veto today.

It authorizes research only on excess embryos originally created for in vitro fertilization but which are slated for destruction.

It requires informed, voluntary consent of the donor.

The only change to existing policy would be the lifting of the cutoff date of August 9. This is, in fact, not a debate about the ethics of stem cell research, or a debate about when life begins. It is a debate about a date.

H.R. 810 offers our nation's scientists the tools they need to proceed down this historic path. Stem cell research represents the most noble activity in which our government can engage: the protection, promotion, and, indeed, affirmation of the lives of our most vulnerable citizens.

With millions of American patients and their families in mind, I will proudly cast my vote today to override the President's veto. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of the override.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of our Nation's scientists and medical research. Today the Senate passed three bills. Now, I believe that it is important to pursue all types of research, and the bill that we are debating presently is something that NIH and our researchers can already do.

But let me be very clear: only H.R. 810, which this Chamber passed over a year ago, H.R. 810 is the only bill that holds the tremendous potential to cure some of life's most challenging conditions and diseases.

Mr. Speaker, we stand at the threshold of a new generation in medical research. I believe firmly that H.R. 810 and stem cell research will fundamentally change the course of medicine within the next decade and well into the future in so many ways.

We are limited only by the bounds of our own imagination. As long as our Nation's scientists and medical researchers have the tools and resources that they need, I believe that there is no limit to what they can cure. H.R. 810 and stem cell research offers the hope to cure Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, and even spinal cord injuries.

Mr. Speaker, I remember a time more than 25 years ago when I stood in the locker room of the police station as a young police cadet. A police officer's gun accidentally went off. That bullet went through my neck and severed my spinal cord. I have been paralyzed ever since. I was told that I would never walk again.

But, Mr. Speaker, today is an exciting time in medical research. I firmly believe in a day in the very near future when a child with juvenile diabetes will not have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests; that families will not have to watch in agony as a loved one with Alzheimer's gradually declines; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe in a day when I will walk again.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to move research forward. H.R. 810 removes the restrictions that have been placed on it and offers hope to millions of Americans and people around the world.

This is an important time. I ask the President not to veto this bill, but to join with us in passing H.R. 810 and changing the world for the better.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. Throughout my career in public service, I have fought to protect Americans' most fundamental right--the right to vote. As the secretary of state of Rhode Island, I worked to ensure the accuracy of our elections and to guarantee that all eligible voters were able to cast a ballot. I have the most profound respect for the great Americans who came before us and who worked tirelessly to fight injustice in our electoral system. We honor their service and their sacrifice today by reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation.

The Voting Rights Act has proven extremely effective in expanding the freedom to vote to citizens who had previously been disenfrachised, and, as a result, minorities have been able to participate in elections at record levels. However, while we have made significant progress, recent cases of voter intimidation and discrimination demonstrate that we have more to accomplish. We need to reauthorize this landmark legislation so that we may build on past progress.

The Voting Rights Act's strength lies in its mandate that states not use tests of any kind to determine a citizen's eligibility to vote, and in its requirement that states with a history of unfair voting practices obtain federal approval before enacting any election laws that may have a discriminatory effect. I am deeply disturbed that a vocal contingent of Republicans wants to weaken this bipartisan legislation by gutting the very provisions that have made the Voting Rights Act one of the greatest legislative accomplishments in our history. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments we will consider today and to support final passage of H.R. 9 so that we may continue to protect the most precious right of Americans--the right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 6 months since the Republican prescription drug plan went into effect, and we are seeing prices shoot up faster than they have in 6 years. That's right, prices have increased by almost 4 percent in the last 6 months. Weren't Republicans promising prices would actually go down after their plan took effect?

The reason drug prices are not falling is because the Republican law forbids the Federal Government from using the purchasing power of 40 million seniors to actually negotiate for lower prices, an issue I raised when this prescription drug plan was first taken up by this House. That is exactly what the Veterans Administration does for America's veterans.

According to a report released last month, veterans' drug bills are 43 percent lower than seniors' bills as a result.

Well, today, thanks to a Republican plan that was written here in the back rooms by the pharmaceutical industry, these companies can charge our seniors any price they want. Unlike our Republican colleagues, House Democrats actually want to help our seniors. We want to give the Federal Government the ability to negotiate for lower prices, something that is good for our seniors and good for the American taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brittany Gilbert, who had the great honor of presenting her exhibit, ``John James Audubon: The American Woodsman Taking a Stand,'' at the Smithsonian American Art Museum's Renwick Gallery before the National History Day contest. Brittany, a student at North Kingstown High School, and 18 other students were chosen out of more than 2,000 participating finalists.

The National History Day program allows students to create exhibits, documentaries and performances, by using their critical thinking and research skills in the subject of history. A basic knowledge of history is essential for our Nation's children to become informed participants in our democracy, and National History Day is promoting history education in Rbode Island and throughout the Nation. National History Day empowers teachers to improve history education so that every student will have historical knowledge and skills to contribute to the public good of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Brittany, and may she have continued success in all her future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment.

I acknowledge that this is a controversial issue, and it has been a difficult decision for me. While scientific evidence is inconclusive and the medical community has yet to speak with one voice as to whether there is a unique, therapeutic benefit to inhaled marijuana, some studies suggest that marijuana can relieve pain, nausea, and appetite loss. I have heard from many patients, suffering from some of life's most challenging conditions, who have informed me that the therapeutic value of inhaled marijuana is unmatched. I have always supported further study of medical marijuana because of the potential to ease the suffering of the many Americans dealing with chronic illness and disease

While I have not supported amendments similar to this one in the past, the issue is different for me this year, as the Representative from the Second Congressional District of Rhode Island. Since we last debated this issue in June 2005, the state legislature of Rhode Island has passed--and the state Department of Health has implemented--a law allowing for legal access to medical marijuana. Under this law, the state established a registry that issues identification cards to qualifying patients or caregivers who register with the state. These patients, who suffer from an approved list of conditions including cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS, must provide certification from a Rhode Island physician. Once approved in the registry, the patient or a designated caregiver is permitted to possess up to a certain amount of cultivated marijuana and to grow up to 12 marijuana plants. The statewide discussion over the issue made clear that my constituents overwhelmingly support regulated access to marijuana for medical purposes; and the state legislature responded with overwhelming support by overriding a governor's veto with significantly more than the necessary 2/3 support in each chamber. I am aware that I now represent some constituents who are using medical marijuana, in compliance with state laws. I am also aware that under federal law, these Rhode Island patients run the risk of being arrested and prosecuted for federal drug offenses--and this troubles me greatly.

My vote for the Hinchey amendment should not be interpreted as an unconditional endorsement of medical marijuana. I do believe the therapy deserves further clinical trials and scientific scrutiny. As we move forward with these policy discussions, we must bear in mind that marijuana is a narcotic and therapeutic usage must be carefully controlled. However, I rise today in support of the Hinchey amendment because I do not want my constituents, or those of the ten other states that have passed similar laws, to live in fear of arrest when they are complying with state law.

I urge my colleagues to support the Hinchey amendment, as well as the further study of the therapeutic value of medical marijuana.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that, on Monday, the House passed S. Con. Res. 103, though I am disappointed by the events that necessitated its consideration. Last September, when the House considered H.R. 889, the Coast Guard Authorization Act, I expressed my concern about a provision that would have altered the existing evaluation and approval process for the Cape Wind project, a 420 megawatt offshore wind farm proposed for Horseshoe Shoal off the coast of Massachusetts. That project is currently undergoing a thorough review process that is working with numerous federal and state agencies, as well as interested parties, to assess potential impacts to the environment, navigation and other areas of concern. When the House and Senate went to conference, I wrote to the head House conferees, explaining the strong support in Rhode Island for the project and cautioning about the potential negative ramifications of the provision on the growing wind energy industry, which will help diversify our Nation's energy supply by providing a clean and renewable source to millions of Americans.

Much to my dismay, during conference negotiations, a much broader restriction on the project was inserted--language that had not been considered by either the House or Senate--that would essentially circumvent the existing project by giving the Governor of Massachusetts veto power over this particular project. At a time when our Nation's economy is endangered by our dependence on foreign oil, we should be encouraging clean and renewable energy development, not blocking it. To protest this last-minute back-room conference deal, I joined the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, in leading an effort to ask the House leadership to prevent the consideration of any final agreement on the Coast Guard bill that contained language endangering the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. I am pleased that widespread public opposition to the language forced it to be removed from the bill, and I will continue my efforts to promote the responsible development of clean and renewable energy in Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding and for drawing attention to the important issue of climate change.

Last week, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that ``the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years.''

We can no longer ignore the fact that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and contributed to changes in the Earth's climate.

The Pallone amendment recognizes that climate change threatens our coastal communities. In States like Rhode Island, which has about 400 miles of coastline and a significant portion of the population lives along the coast, the impact of rising sea levels would be downright disastrous. Beach erosion would lead to greater flooding and endanger our tourism-based economy, while the destruction of wetlands would eradicate wildlife habitat and reduce the natural buffer against storm surges.

Mr. Chairman, global warming threatens to have a devastating impact on our Nation's environment and economy, and Congress must take swift action. We can start by funding important research into climate change impacts on our communities. And I urge my colleagues to support the Pallone amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday night, the House passed H.R. 5631, the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2007. I commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for crafting an important piece of legislation that will provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to continue their excellent record of service to the Nation. I was proud to vote for that measure, which passed by an overwhelming vote of 407-19.

However, I am disappointed that the House did not pass a very important amendment offered by Congressman Schiff to block funding for any surveillance program that does not comply with the safeguards in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I have been deeply disturbed by the President's decision to expand domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens beyond what is permitted under existing law. As a member of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, I am fully aware of the dangers posed by those who wish to harm Americans, and I have strongly supported efforts to make our Nation safer. However, President Bush has not yet explained to my satisfaction why powers available to him under existing law cannot meet the needs of the war on terrorism. For example, the Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) already permits the warrantless surveillance of communications by U.S. citizens under certain limited circumstances. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration did not use those emergency powers and instead chose to expand the authority of the National Security Agency (NSA).

As I have said before, if President Bush believes that FISA needs to be altered or updated to address new threats, he should make his case to Congress and propose legislative changes. The President's decision to expand domestic surveillance while notifying only a handful of legislators does not constitute Congressional consent and is a danger to our established Constitutional system of checks and balances. While Americans may disagree about the merits of broadening the government's authority to combat terrorism, it is in all of our interests that such important decisions should be made publicly, as they affect the very values of freedom and liberty on which the Nation was founded.

Opponents of the Schiff amendment argued that we shouldn't be considering such a significant change in a spending bill. Under normal circumstances, I would agree with that assessment. However, because the House has neglected to consider any legislation to address the serious issue of domestic surveillance, we are left with no other choice.

We cannot continue to shirk our Constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch and its activities. We must hold hearings and consider legislation to ensure that our efforts to protect our nation are done consistent with the civil liberties that we hold dear and comply with the Constitution--the supreme law of the land.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5573, the Health Centers Renewal Act. By reauthorizing the health center program, we will ensure that community health centers are able to continue the delivery of cost-effective, high quality care to medically underserved communities.

It is important to note that community health centers are the primary providers of health care to America's poor and medically underserved. For over 30 years, they have been responsible for bringing doctors, basic health services and facilities into the Nation's neediest and most isolated communities. Community health centers provide quality primary health care in over 20 locations to one out of ten Rhode Islanders throughout my home state.

With increasing numbers of Americans losing access to employer- sponsored health coverage as a result of recent increases in unemployment and the rising cost of health care, it is more important than ever to support people and programs devoted to filling in the gaps. Without the services of community health centers, we would see even more over-crowding in our emergency rooms and unnecessary declines in quality of life for those who lack access to other forms of preventative care. Health centers do a tremendous job of managing the problems that exist in our broken health care system. But they cannot continue to do it alone. As we join together today to reauthorize the health center programs, I hope my colleagues will take this opportunity to reflect on the health care crisis that exists in America.

I have introduced legislation that proposes a universal system of health care, offering access to coverage for all Americans. Under my proposal, all Americans would have the opportunity to participate in a program modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which has provided Members of Congress, their staffs and other federal employees with quality health care over many years. With a commitment and partnership from businesses, consumers and the government, we could offer this kind of coverage and oversight to all Americans. Recent developments in Massachusetts and other parts of the country have shown us that the business community and Americans are ready to participate in such a system--it is now up to us, as Congress, to take on this Issue.

Mr. Speaker, once again I call on Congress to join me in the effort to develop a universal health insurance program that will include all Americans. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of programs that make health care available to at-risk individuals in underserved communities and vote in favor of H.R. 5573.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Michael J. Day, who tragically died in the line of duty earlier this week. Mr. Day, the Deputy Assistant Fire Chief and 27-year veteran of the Providence Fire Department, was dedicated to his profession and to serving his community.

On June 13, Mr. Day had returned to the Washington Street Fire House after responding to a fire earlier in the night. As the overnight shift began, Michael had been working in his office when a coworker found him unconscious. While his fellow firefighters did all in their power to resuscitate him, they were unable to do so.

A lifelong resident of Providence, Mr. Day came from a family of firefighters, which included his father and three brothers. He attended LaSalle Academy and after graduating from the fire academy, he was appointed to the Providence Fire Department in 1979. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Physical Education from Rhode Island College in 1980 and another B.A. in Fire Science at Providence College in 1981.

Michael was promoted to Lieutenant in 1989, the same year he was honored as the Providence Firefighter of the Year and received the Heroic Action commendation for rescuing four people from the roof of a burning house. This was just one of many times he would be recognized for his outstanding service and courage on the job. He was promoted to Captain in 1995, Battalion Chief in 2000, and most recently to Deputy Assistant Fire Chief on June 30, 2005. He oversaw operations at multiple fire stations and was the top ranking officer of his shift. Michael had just completed his final class in the Executive Officer program at the National Fire Academy.

As a beloved father figure to his fellow firefighters, I have no doubt that Michael Day will leave a lasting legacy to the entire Providence Fire Department and the Providence community. I extend my condolences to all who knew and loved Michael Day, especially his wife, Cynthia; his son, Michael; and his daughters, Amanda, Brianne and Stephanie. May we keep his loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they endure this difficult period.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to have a frank discussion about the Iraq war. We need to make hard choices to ensure that our presence in Iraq does not do long-term damage to our military or endanger the men and women who proudly defend our Nation. However, this resolution doesn't address any of those questions nor does it provide answers for a Nation that demands them. Instead, Republicans have given us more of the same.

In October 2002, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, but since then, I have supported every supplemental appropriations measure to fund our troops because it is Congress's responsibility to give them the resources needed to accomplish their mission. It is precisely that support for the troops that motivates me to point out how we may do irreparable harm to our military if we do not alter our mission in Iraq quickly. Our men and women in uniform have performed admirably in difficult conditions--in many cases adapting quickly to missions outside their traditional roles, such as policing and reconstruction. However, the current pace of operations is untenable, and we are seeing evidence of the impact it is having on our military.

Our troops have faced numerous deployments to the area, with the National Guard and Reserve in particular demand because of their expertise in needed skills such as policing, civil affairs, and engineering. Nearly 500,000 members of the Selected Reserves have been mobilized since September 11, with more than 10,000 members having been deployed more than three times. We are spending more and more money in an attempt to meet recruiting and retention goals in the active military and reserve components, and we are nevertheless starting to see increasingly more mid-level officers exiting the force--a dangerous sign for the future health of the military.

Furthermore, the harsh desert conditions in Iraq--coupled with the high operational tempo--have taken their toll on our equipment, which is wearing out at twice to nine times the normal rate. The National Guard has only one-third of its equipment on hand, which weakens our ability to respond to a natural disaster or other major event on U.S. soil. Despite the billions we have provided in supplemental appropriations, it will take years and tens of billions more dollars to restore our forces to appropriate levels.

General Barry McCaffrey recently traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to assess U.S. operations there. Upon his return, he briefed the Armed Services Committee on his findings and gave us a very frank assessment. He has stated that we should know by the end of the year whether the new Iraqi government will be effective in controlling the insurgency. He has also claimed that we cannot sustain our current level of operations beyond Christmas without breaking our military and endangering our ability to fight future missions. In other words, we are quite possibly six months away from a point of no return that could have long-ranging effects on our military and the stability of the Middle East.

So what is our strategy to prevent the worst-case scenario from occurring? Where is the accountability? Where is the Congressional oversight? I'll tell you one thing--they're not in the resolution we're debating today. The Republican leadership promised a debate on Iraq but then refused to consider any alternatives to their own bill, preferring to embrace the status quo and ignore the very difficult decisions this Congress needs to make. We deserve better. Our brave men and women in uniform deserve better. The American people deserve better.