Allyson Schwartz

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Abington Township Police Department on an important milestone--its 100th anniversary. Since 1906, the officers of Abington Police Department have proudly served and protected our community, and I am honored to represent them in Congress. Beginning with only four patrolmen and a handful of bicycles, the Abington Police Department has blossomed into a modern, diverse and professional police agency. Under the leadership of Chief William J. Kelly, the Department now counts 163 law enforcement professionals, including an undercover drug investigation unit and SWAT team in its ranks. Over the last century, the Department accomplished many significant achievements. In 1906, it established the first fingerprint laboratory in the region. Later that year, it used this facility to close the first criminal case in Pennsylvania using only fingerprint evidence. Ten years later, the Department traded in its bicycles and horses to become the first fully-motorized police department in the United States--an achievement that was motivated by the need to patrol a region that was originally very rural, but is now a fully-developed suburban community. In recent years, Abington became the first police department to achieve statewide accreditation from the Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission and one of three municipal police departments in Pennsylvania to achieve international accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). The Abington Police Department's record of excellence has been recognized by its peers, who have paid tribute to many of its law enforcement initiatives and appointed it to serve on a number of regional taskforces. While successfully fulfilling its mission to serve and protect, the Department has also successfully established strong community ties. It has partnered with Abington residents to implement innovative programs like D.A.R.E, the Police Athletic League, Kids in Safety Seats, and Town Watch--demonstrating its commitment to building a strong community that is free of crime, violence, and substance abuse. Mr. Speaker, once again I congratulate Chief Kelly and all of the men and women of the Abington Police Department for their service, dedication, sacrifice and accomplishment. I look forward to continuing our work together and ensuring another 100 years of success, safety, and security for all Abington residents.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in strong opposition to the decision by the city of St. Denis, France to dedicate a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Every day, law enforcement officers selflessly risk their lives to protect us and our communities, and 25 years ago Officer Faulkner paid the ultimate price for his service to the city of Philadelphia. On December 9, 1991, Officer Faulkner was shot to death during a traffic stop at 12th and Walnut Street. Officer Faulkner was a respected and loved member of the Philadelphia community, a loving husband to his wife Maureen. He was only 25 years old when he was murdered. The city of Philadelphia is still mourning the loss of Officer Faulkner, yet some have allowed Mumia Abu-Jamal, his convicted murderer, to become an international cause celebre. Most recently, the French city of St. Denis named a street after this man. Abu-Jamal was found guilty by a jury of his peers, a sentence that has been upheld by State and Federal courts. It is unfortunate that elected officials in France, who surely understand the importance of honoring those who risk their lives to preserve the rule of law, pay tribute to such a man. In the United States, naming of public places such as buildings and streets is an honor reserved for individuals who have brought significant contributions to their communities, to our Nation, or to the society at large. Perhaps the mayor and elected officials of St. Denis could learn from the city of Philadelphia, which in the year 2000 named a portion of the Roseville Boulevard in my district in remembrance of Officer Faulkner. Or perhaps the mayor will respond to the collective outrage expressed today by the U.S. House of Representatives when it passes this resolution; because he did not, when I wrote to him earlier this year to express my strong opposition to his actions. Instead, I received a response making clear that the city would not be deterred. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow Officer Faulkner's public service to be diminished by the actions of a foreign city. The resolution before us remembers his service to our community and to our Nation. It condemns those involved in his murder and the city of St. Denis for celebrating them. And it recognizes that while 25 years have passed since Officer Faulkner's passing, he has not been forgotten. Sadly, since Officer Faulkner's murder, 110 brave law enforcement officers have given their lives serving and protecting the communities of my State. I want to take this opportunity to reflect and remember the four officers we lost just this last year: Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Joseph Pokorny; Reading Police Officer Scott Wertz; Upper Saucon Township Police Officer David Petzold; and Police Officer, in Philadelphia, Gary Skerski. Gary Skerski was a constituent of mine. He had befriended my staff, and he was a beloved member of our community. I know how much he is missed by his wife Ann and their two young children as well as the residents of Port Richmond, the Philadelphia neighborhood where he lived and was so involved. I know the St. Denis actions are an offense not only to Daniel Faulkner and his family, but also to the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police and to Officer Skerski and all of our Nation's fallen heroes. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to send a message to the leaders of St. Denis that police officers, not cop killers, are heroes worthy of our respect, admiration, and remembrance.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Every day, Americans work hard to meet their responsibilities, to pay their mortgage, to send their children to college, to save for retirement, and every day Americans worry about the health and safety of their family, friends, and loved ones. Yet, under the policy of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress, access to health care has gotten harder. The number of untreated Americans is on the rise; 47 million are currently without insurance. Health insurance premiums are skyrocketing, a 73 percent increase over the last 5 years. And medical research is stifled because politics, not science, dictates public policy. Democrats have a plan to make health care more affordable and to advance lifesaving medicine. Democrats will enable small businesses to join together to negotiate more affordable rates for their employees. Democrats will negotiate lower prices for seniors and eliminate overpayments to HMOs, and Democrats will work towards cures for diseases that affect all of our families by investing in the promise of stem cell research and innovative biotechnologies. Our plan prioritizes the health of people, not the profits of special interests. Our plan will reduce costs and will find cures. It is time for a new direction in health and science, one that Democrats can deliver.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Every day, Americans work hard to fulfill their obligations to their families, to pay their mortgage, to send their children to college, to save for retirement. Americans understand these priorities. At all times, but particularly at a time of war, Americans expect their leaders to understand that our priority should be securing our homeland. Yet this administration and the Republican Congress have no such plan. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission noted, quote, ``a lack of urgency'' by this administration and the Republican Congress in addressing our homeland security vulnerabilities, and called their failures shocking. Democrats have a plan to lead our Nation in a new direction. Democrats will immediately implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Democrats will secure our borders. Democrats will ensure that our police and firefighters can communicate with each other during times of crisis. And Democrats would never approve the sale of port security to a foreign nation. It is time for a new direction. Americans deserve to feel secure and to know that our government is working hard to ensure that safety and security every day. Democrats know that government's paramount responsibility is to defend our citizens. Democrats will keep our country safe.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans are stretched thin. Under the Republican majority, their wages have remained stagnant, while their day-to-day expenses have all increased: health insurance, childcare, tuition, housing, energy bills. Energy costs have skyrocketed, whether at the pump, at home or in business. Americans are paying more, and they are looking to Congress for relief. They are asking, demanding, that we work to reduce these costs, reduce dependence on foreign oil and make our Nation more secure. They are looking for a new direction. Democrats have responded and Democrats have a plan. Democrats will double the production of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel; Democrats will increase accessibility to renewable fuels at the pumps; and Democrats will aggressively invest in the future to assure their energy needs are not tied to the whims of unfriendly nations in the Middle East. Our plan will reduce costs for American consumers, and it will make this Nation safer. It is smart, and it is common sense. What have the Republicans done? They have given away billions to the oil industry. America deserves a 21st century solution to energy needs, not oil industry handouts. Mr. Speaker, America deserves a new direction.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the budgets crafted by the Bush administration and the Republican majority do not address our national short-term or long-term objectives or the values of our Nation. It is time for a new direction. To meet our Nation's goals of economic security for our families and security for our homeland, Democrats have offered a plan. Democrats believe in paying down the debt and maintaining fiscal restraint and discipline. Democrats believe in real investment in life-long education which enables every American to reach their potential and strengthens the long-term financial security of our families and our Nation. Democrats believe in budgets that invest in our armed services to defend our homeland and to protect the men and women who defend us. Democrats believe in tax fairness and tax cuts for the middle class. We believe in helping Americans pay for college, buy their first home, find affordable health insurance, and save for retirement. We understand the priorities of everyday Americans. The Republican budgets of the last 5 years have failed to meet each of these objectives. At a time when American families are facing stagnant wages and ever-increasing bills for child care, for health care, for college tuition and for gas at the pump, the Republican Congress has failed to address these day-to-day concerns. Instead, they have enacted tax cuts for the very wealthy. My constituents want Congress to address their needs, not the wants and desires of a select few. It is clear which side the majority has chosen. Instead of budgeting fairly, the Republicans have relied on smoke- and-mirror, borrow-and-spend gimmicks. They don't include the war in Iraq and the military activities in Afghanistan in their budget, they don't include the massive costs of repealing the estate tax for estates valued at $10 million or more, and they don't include the full cost of the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit. Despite these efforts to keep costs hidden, their budget schemes create new deficits every year and have added nearly $3.5 trillion to our national debt. Mr. Speaker, American families deserve better and they deserve a new direction. Instead of making smart investments in America's future, the Republican budgets have run up massive deficits each year and have added to our national debt, so that as of now our national debt is nearly $8.5 trillion. This means that we spend more on interest payments on our debt than the combined Federal investments in education, homeland security, and veterans health care combined. The Nation's debt is unsustainable and it is immoral. Mr. Speaker, American families deserve better. They deserve a new direction. Mr. Speaker, the budget policies of the Bush administration and this Republican Congress leave our Nation less secure. Their schemes rely on borrowing more and more money from foreign investors. More money, mind you, than the amount borrowed by all past American Presidents combined. And instead of enhancing our safety at home and bolstering our security abroad, the Republican Congress continues to underfund important security initiatives at our ports, chemical plants and along our borders, this at the same time they are failing to enact many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, including enabling our police and firefighters to communicate seamlessly. Mr. Speaker, American families expect the government to make the necessary investments to keep them safe, and they believe that the American Dream should be available to everyone, not a select few. They deserve a new direction. Democrats understand that unless we change course, the harmful effects of the Republicans' borrow-and-spend budget policies will only continue. Democrats have a plan that makes tough, fiscally disciplined choices, to restore our budget to balance and to meet our obligations to American families; Democrats have a plan that fulfills the basic budgetary principles of living within our means; and Democrats have a plan to reduce wasteful spending and make smart investments in all Americans that will ensure the Nation's current and future fiscal well- being and protect the safety, security and freedoms that make our Nation great. Mr. Speaker, Americans work hard every day. My constituents work hard every day to meet their obligations to their families, to their communities and to their Nation. We must honor their commitment, and we should not and cannot walk away from our obligations to them. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are committed to fiscal responsibility, the Democrats are committed to the future of our Nation, and the Democrats are prepared to lead the Nation in a new direction.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, more than 3 years after President Bush declared ``mission accomplished,'' U.S. troops, their families, and all Americans continue to pay a high price for the Bush administration's ``stay the course'' policy in Iraq. We cannot afford to stay the course in Iraq. We need a new direction, which must begin with new leadership at the Department of Defense. Secretary Rumsfeld must be held accountable for his misconduct of this war. He has executed it with no plan beyond the initial invasion, rejecting sound advice and guidance from experienced generals, Middle East experts, troops on the ground, and elected officials from both sides of the aisle. From his failure to prepare the military for extended deployments, to his decision to disband the Iraqi military, to his unwillingness to acknowledge miscalculations and false information, he has demonstrated that he does not grasp the challenges facing the Iraqi people or the challenges facing our Nation and the military. His failed management of the war has not made us safer, and his recent attacks against Americans who question our strategy undermine the very freedoms he has sworn to protect. To fulfill our national security mission, it is time for a new Secretary of Defense and time for a new direction in Iraq.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, during an absence yesterday, I regrettably missed rollcall votes 436-437. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 436: ``yea'' and rollcall No. 437: ``yea.''

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. No. These are just for workers. These are for people who are employed by the ports or employed by a company that is actually coming in and out of the ports. These are for the workers. The problem is they do not go through the screening as much then. These ID cards get very sophisticated. They have a lot of information on them, but the idea here is that anyone who is working in a port, and as I understand, there are workers who actually go from port to port or go from different destinations, so some of this is also, again, to keep the commerce flowing. The idea here is not to make things more difficult, to be able to actually move things more efficiently, more quickly, but to do so with a sense of security because we have the technology to do that. So this is basically a little more information, but it is like showing any kind of driver's license, or it is a special ID that says, yes, you have been screened, you have gone through the background checks to allow you to work in a sensitive area. This is something that is important to our ports and our airports as well, and that the workers who work there every day actually have an ID card that can be scanned quickly and that they can actually be able to flow back and forth very easily but that we can be secure it is someone who we know will not engage in any kind of criminal behavior, let alone terrorist behavior.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. And just on the port, I was very much a part of the argument in that regard, too. And I think again it brought some greater attention to the fact of port security and both what has been done positively and what more we need to do. But to think that after 5 years we have still only appropriated 16 percent of what the Coast Guard has told us they need to enhance port security over the next 10 years. I mean, this is something they are telling us, their expertise, this is what we need to do. And the President actually proposed eliminating $173 million in port security grants. I argued that and presented an amendment to the Budget Committee to restore some of those grants. One of the things that happens, I was going to call it a trick, I suppose that may not be the nicest thing to call it, is if you put all these grant programs together and cut it, you can say I didn't really cut that particular program; I just put these three or four grant programs together and reduced the overall amount and someone else can decide later what we are going to cut. That is still a cut. We have to understand that there are very serious issues before us. Again, I think we are talking about being fiscally responsible here--we have a priority and what we actually want the dollars to do, the right things that we really need to do. I do want to mention the earlier remarks because there was something I also learned from the visits in my district, and that is, that this is an identity card. We have talked a lot about that in different circumstances, but one in which we all agree on, Republicans and Democrats, is that we will have a worker ID card. We actually understand we were not sure what should go into that, the information that should go into it, who should produce it, how it can work. We have literally then tens of hundreds of thousands of workers coming in and out of our ports every day across this country, and yet, the idea that we are going to scan all this cargo but then anyone can just come in and out of the ports, driving a truck, is something I think certainly not something any of us find acceptable. So, in fact, it has taken 4 years and Congress has had to push this administration really, really hard. There has been pressure from Congress to get the administration finally just really recently to approve and decide what that card would look like. Now, I think that should have been years ago. I am grateful it just was done, but I think it speaks to our responsibility as Members of Congress to keep asking the tough questions, demanding that accountability, demanding that high performance and demanding that high level of government provide the leadership to our local communities, to our ports, to our airports, to our rail, and not just to walk away and take too long. One of the things we do not want to have happen is for us to say let us keep waiting, let us keep waiting, and then have some tragedy happen we were not prepared for, fully knowing that we could have been prepared if we had taken quicker action.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. I appreciate the comments, and it is a perspective that wasn't on my list of things mentioned. So I appreciate that. I think that is an important aspect, that we are self-sufficient, that we are able to take care of ourselves, certainly in an emergency that we are prepared. And I think that you also raise a really good point about the training that we need for our first responders. Mr. Carnahan I think mentioned that we all go and visit our fire companies and police. And I will say here again, the good news is that they recognize the need for more training and equipment. They have said to us, and they sometimes proudly say this is the additional training. I have a group in part of my district that has joined together to talk to each other, to do emergency management training, because they realize particularly in the suburban part of my district, probably have it more so in some of the rural parts of our country where you really aren't going to be able to manage it all alone, so you need to be able to work with other fire companies, with the counties even to be able to call them in, to be able to know what to do in that. And we just had some very serious flooding in this country and certainly in my area just outside of my district, but I went to visit anyway. And one of the things they said to me was they were very proud of the fact that, because of the planning they had done, they were better prepared than they had ever been before. And that was a really important thing. They said they had never before set aside a command center, that they knew exactly who was supposed to staff that command center. They knew who to call, who would bring the food. They had the volunteer services that could be helpful. But they also knew who and what kind of equipment in adjoining areas that could really help them get right on top of things right away. And they know that that eased the urgency of the situation for many of the people who lived in that area. And yet, again, we need to make sure that the Federal Government, this is what the Department of Homeland Security was set up to do, was to make sure that we don't have everyone just reinventing the wheel. That just shouldn't be the way it is. It is not the most efficient use of money. We should be making sure that there are countywide plans, that there are statewide plans, that there is a sense that maybe not everyone needs to have every piece of equipment. How do you actually join together? Do you do that across regional lines? Who do you call and how do you make that work? But we have seen in fact a cut in some of these security grants. And how can that be, when in fact we can all say that we are not finished with this task of making sure that we are as secure as we need to be in this country. So I open it up to some of the comments you may have in some of your own experiences in your own districts.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman would yield, I think you have raised a really good point here. I am on the Budget Committee, and when I saw that in fact we saw port security cut and this was just after the scandal about whether in fact we would allow our ports to be managed by a foreign company, which I think raised some benefit of that discussion in that it raised real awareness I think for many Americans where we think about our airports of course because of 9/11, and there is work still to be done there. But we found that, and in fact we do know better how we can do port security, but I also have some of the numbers that show that in fact only 6 percent of containers entering U.S. ports are screened. Now, you have some debate about whether to do 100 percent or not, and there are many of us who think we have to do some kind of screening of every bit of cargo. But 6 percent, what is that about? Well, when I visited the port in Philadelphia, one of the things that people said to me, and it is interesting that the more we have assurance that the port of origin does the kind of screening that they need to do, that we have a relationship with that port and that nation, the better off we are, that we can be secure before cargo leaves the port of origin before it even comes here. First of all, it will speed things up because I hear from my business people that the longer cargo sits in the port, every day they lose money. They pay for that cargo the minute it leaves the foreign port, that costs them money. So we have to be more efficient about this, but we have to get it right as well. And, again, here is where some technology can help, here is where, as I understand it, that we have only 20 people in the Coast Guard who are assessing security at 135 foreign ports. Well, that can't be adequate. That can't do what we know we need, which is to make sure that the screening as the cargo gets loaded in foreign ports before it even gets here is making us more secure. So, again, we have learned certain things in the last 5 years. That is the good thing. But we have to put that knowledge to work to make sure that we can move commerce through our ports and also be secure. We have to be anticipating the real risks. We can't just be looking backwards.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and you are more than welcome to stay with us if you are willing to as we switch gears. Let me first of all let me thank you for sharing your personal story. I think that it is important for us to think about what compels us to do what we do. Sometimes sharing a personal story, we don't always remember to do it. So I thank you for your willingness to do that. I hope that all of us are fortunate enough to have parents that inspire us. You were fortunate certainly in that. We did want to take the discussion about that and talk about another area that we are deeply concerned about, and certainly has been very much a topic of concern for all of us here in Congress and I think for all Americans, and again certainly as I go around my district, I am well aware of the fact that we are in changed world. Since 9/11/2001 and the terrorist attacks on our Nation, we recognize, if we didn't before, but certainly for most Americans we recognize that we are under a threat from terrorism in this world and that we have a responsibility, and here we speak again about responsibility, but we have a responsibility not just to talk about the fear maybe or the reality of that fear, but to actually talk about what can we do about it. How can we do more to make sure that our homeland is safe and what do we mean by that. It is taking the very real challenges and the tragedy of 9/11, and I will say also the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, and whether in fact we were as prepared as we needed to be. Did we respond as comprehensively as we should have. I think most of us believe we did not, that there was more that should have been done. But we need to take these tragedies and we need to say, to examine very, very clearly, and make a clear cut assessment about whether, in fact, we are doing all that we can to make sure that we are more secure. That means being sensible. I think that is what I would really like to talk about this evening, is not just spending the dollars, because we have spent quite a bit of Federal taxpayer dollars on homeland security initiatives. We have to make sure that as a Federal Government we can work with the local, and State officials to make sure that we are secure where we are vulnerable. That means making the right kind of assessments, sharing what works across jurisdictional lines, and demanding that kind of assessment and a plan for readiness. I come from an area, I representative southeastern Pennsylvania, part of the City of Philadelphia, part of the suburbs, so my region is home to a major seaport, a major airport, a major rail station. We are multi county and tri-state. We are talking about literally not just a million and a half people who live in Philadelphia, but the millions of people who come in and out of the city to work every day, roads and highways. We are talking about volunteer fire companies in some of the suburban part of my district, and a major urban city fire company. We are talking about police that work in a rail station, we are talking about police who work in the city, we are talking about suburban police officers, we have State police. These are numerous jurisdictions, all of who have had to try and figure out what is the best way for them to be prepared in the case of some kind of tragedy, such as a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. And I want to be, I guess I want to say positively, is that we have taken this seriously and we have done much more than we might have. But where the failure is is the lack of leadership from the Federal Government to help make sure that we have the right kind of assessments done in each of our vulnerable areas. I mentioned our ports, I mentioned our rail stations, I mention our airports, and that we are providing the guidance and instructions and the assistant at the local levels, and the dollars and resource that they need to make sure that they are prepared, so we are not duplicating where we do not have to, we are being smart where we have to. I will give one example, then I would just ask my colleagues to take an area that they might be interested in. I would like to have a little bit more of a conversation. But one of the areas that I have been particularly concerned about is one called interoperability. It is one of those terms I am not sure I even knew about a few years ago. But the fact is, that it is one that we use much more. This is how we get, how we communicate, how our emergency personnel will be able to communicate in a disaster. And the fact is that in the analysis after 9/11, one of the things that we knew is that we did not have a way for all of our emergency personnel to talk to each other, to communicate. We do not, in fact, know how many firefighters or police officers might have been saved if we could have actually communicated in the Towers, the World Trade Center. We know that even here in Washington, we heard stories afterward, that the Capitol Police could not talk to the city police, because they do not have a way to communicate. So I have been working locally with the regional subway system, because the fact is, that our city police cannot talk to the rail police underground. Now, that is very upsetting to hear about. If we had to call SEPTA police, that is our Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority police, as capable as they may be, if they need to call in for back-up, this is not a scenario that we cannot imagine, because unfortunately we have seen it happen in London, we have seen it happen in Madrid, we have seen most recently a rail tragedy in Bombay, India. So we know this can happen. But we do not have an ability right now for them to be able to talk to each other. And I think that is unacceptable. I think that the Federal Government should have said, here are the best ways to do it. We have looked at it. We have examined it. This is the way it has been done elsewhere. Those are options that you have. This is a spectrum we will dedicate to emergency responders and be able to have them talk to each other, and here are the dollars to make it happen. In fact, their application was denied. You know, I do not understand that. I do not understand how the Federal Government can say it is not a priority, that our fifth largest city's transit system does not meet this requirement. It is not acceptable. And we can give example after example of these situations. We had big issues with the port security and whether we actually inspect all of cargo. We do not. Are we doing the assessment on foreign ports? We can use the example of ports. We can use the example of even in the airports where we spend serious dollars, not all of our cargo is inspected. And yet, we still go round and round whether enough is being done, where are the regulations, where are the help we need from the Federal level. We have issues around identity cards. The Port of Wilmington, not far from me, did a demonstration project. And we still just, after Congress was pushing the administration, finally got them to decide what that national security card would look like for people, for workers going into our ports. So I am, I mean, I can probably take up the next 20 minutes all by myself. But I will not do that. But as a new Member, we can bring our commitment to securing this country. But we also bring maybe a little bit of impatience and outrage because we are new at this. I come in and I say, wait a minute, it is 5 years since 9/11. We just got a report from the 9/11 Commission. There were far too much Cs, Ds and Fs on that report of what has not yet been done. So we can be critical. This is less about being critical than figuring out a way to make it happen and to get it done. Because my constituents, your constituents are counting on us to demand that accountability from our administration, to demand that effectiveness from these dollars, and to make sure that we can say back to them, this is the plan we have for assessing our risk, this is the plan that we have for meeting the demands to meet that and reduce that risk, and here is what we are going to do to make sure that we have the resources, the trained personnel and the equipment and the know how to make sure that we are as safe as we possibly can be in this country. It is just not acceptable to do any less than that. So with that bit of introduction, if I may, if my colleagues want to join me. There may be some local issues that you have as well. But I think each and every one of us can point to ways in which our own communities need to be more secure, how we can learn from each other and how we have to recognize the shared risk that we have for some of the greatest vulnerabilities that we have in this country.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, not to interrupt, but if I may reclaim my time, I want to talk about the number of veterans. My staff did a little bit of work here to just say that there are six States that have over 1 million veterans in their State alone. And in Pennsylvania, we have the fourth highest number of veterans in our State. We have over 1 million veterans in Pennsylvania alone. And I can look up Colorado. I am sure the gentleman will be interested. There are 427,000 veterans in Colorado. I should check Missouri too because we have Mr. Carnahan with us. And we were talking about over 500,000 veterans. So these are actual people living in our States asking for asking for health care, as you say, on waiting lists, going to the pharmacy, being asked to pay for more prescription drugs, being asked to pay an enrollment fee to get their health care, and not assured that they are going to get the kind of health care that you are saying is really lifesaving.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Maybe that is a good way to sort of wind up the conversation we are having, but first let me say, I think we are all saying thanks just out of tremendous respect for the great work that has been done by our police and our firefighters and our emergency personnel, and they are on the front lines, and they are getting additional training. They are working very hard to make this happen. As I said, I have been impressed locally at some of the work that has been done in their planning, but the 9/11 Commission just simply, I think, as Democrats, we have said our first priorities would be to address some of the shortcomings, and that includes interoperability for all of our first responders, fire and police personnel. Second, it would be to coordinate local, State and Federal emergency response planning, that we would make sure that the administration provide local and State governments with the tools and the guidance to better secure our communities and make sure communities are secure and that we ensure that the administration makes strategic and risk-based decisions about how our homeland security dollars are spent so that we are smart, we use common sense and that we use these dollars in the most effective, wisest way possible. In that way, we can stand up here and I hope we can months from now, a year from now, be able to say, you know, we got these things done because it was not just a broad rhetorical commitment, it was putting our dollars, putting our expertise to work for the American people to make sure that our homeland is as secure as we all deserve. With that, I want to thank the gentlemen who joined me this evening for your willingness to do the freshman Special Order, and I look forward to being able to do it again, possibly in September, but thank you and thank you for your commitment to both the veterans of this country and also to the homeland security needs of this Nation.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to speak on two different areas. I hope we get to both in this hour. This is a Special Order that has been organized for some of the Democratic freshmen, the new Members of Congress, and I rise first to say that I am very pleased to participate in this and to have helped organize it. This is the third of our Special Orders, and we have done this because we do believe as new Members we come from a very diverse group. Many of us served at the local and State level. We come from very different backgrounds. Some of us are lawyers, some in academics, and some are ranchers. We are really very active members in our community, but we bring with us this experience at the local and State level, yet a fresh perspective on some of the major debates of the day. We certainly bring with us a commitment to making sure that our homeland is as safe and secure as each and every American expects it to be, and that is certainly our first and foremost commitment. I and my colleagues really wanted to speak this evening both about the security of our homeland and also about our commitment to those men and women who have served this Nation in the armed services. Particularly as a Nation at war, we have tremendous respect for those who are actively serving, but want to remember as well that as they come home and that others who came before them also have a right to expect we will meet our commitments and our promises to them. So what we are going to do first, we are going to try to split this hour, if we can, between the two different topics. So I will ask my colleague, John Salazar, a freshman, a veteran from the great State of Colorado, to speak. He has really been an outspoken leader amongst the freshmen on the issue of veterans. So I will just close by saying that I am the daughter of a veteran. My father served in the Korean War. And I can tell you that my very first memory as a child was my father returning home when I was 5 years old. He came to school, I was in kindergarten, and he came to the public school to pick me up, and my brother, who was a year ahead of me in school, to greet us after not having seen him for 2 years. This man in uniform arrived at school, and I can tell you honestly that I did not recognize him. So I also speak as a family member of a veteran. And I hope that we do have the opportunity this evening to talk about the sacrifice not only of our men and women in service but of their families as well. Because certainly the families are also committing themselves and sacrificing as well. And we do know, and I know we will talk about this, that the process of healing and of reinvigorating both the family and the veteran when they are back home is something that we all want to be committed to. So I would like to now turn over the conversation, and I hope we can have a bit of dialogue, because I am joined my two of my colleagues, John Salazar, as I said, who is going to talk about a number of issues; and then Russ Carnahan from Missouri is also going to join us. We may be joined by others as we go through the evening, but the three of us, I hope, will able to have this conversation about our commitment and our belief in our promise to veterans of this country. Mr. Salazar.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Well, I thank you, Mr. Salazar, for laying out some of the issues before us. As you know, I serve on the Budget Committee, and so we have had this debate about the Veterans Administration, veterans health care in particular. And it is so easy for people to stand up for veterans. We all do this. On Veterans Day we go and visit with our veterans. I know for you it is probably true, for me as well, I will be stopped sometimes on the street by a veteran who will tell me about his service and who will feel strongly and deeply committed. One little aside, if I may. I actually brought three veterans together who had not ever received their medals. One actually was receiving the medal for a deceased brother who had never gotten it. It was a really wonderful moment. They brought their families. One brought three generations with them. What was interesting is they all started talking to each other, and I asked if they knew each other, and they said, no. Two of them had actually served in World War II and one had served in Vietnam. So they didn't even know each other, yet there was a comradery and an understanding and a commitment and a caring they had for each other that was so clearly expressed. It was a wonderful moment to acknowledge their service to this country. But those are the good moments, I think, when you interact with veterans. But there are the other ones where they say, What is going on with the veterans health care I get? I am standing in line for my prescription medicine. I have to pay more. Are there shortages? Why does the Veterans Administration not have the resources that it should when we have the President standing up both with active servicemen and with veterans and they voice respect. We have got to turn that respect and commitment into the hard dollars that say we are going to meet these problems for the Veterans Administration. We have a Veterans Administration hospital in Philadelphia that does a fine, fine job. But I can tell you, and I give some credit to Congress on this, that we did already increase the level of funding for the Veterans Administration from what the President had proposed. So already we said that is not adequate. We will not accept that budget. And we spoke up for veterans. But nonetheless, there are not cuts this year, but there are cuts in later years for the Veterans Administration. So that is certainly not meeting the commitment that even if we do not cut it this year, we are cutting it in future years. That means that the Veterans Administration, veterans hospitals, will not be able to know that they are going to be able to be there for veterans when we have now veterans coming back, of course, who are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we are going to see some real shortfalls, and you may speak to this as well, but we are seeing a proposal by the President again this year to add fees for veterans when they come for health care, that they should have to pay. We have had to fight this enrollment fee once a year. They have to pay that. They have to pay additional fees when they see a see a physician. And we know that many of our veterans have come back with serious injuries, with certainly mental health problems, which I know you will want to talk about a little bit later as well. But in serving on the Budget Committee, we have been able to make some of these changes. We have to give some of the hard dollars, but I think really the issue here is that they are such big numbers but if we are talking about a number here of $8.6 billion below the funding that we saw previously, those are real dollars in the care and attention that our veterans deserve. And they will see the effects unless we fight back and demand that we are going to meet this commitment to veterans.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) to talk a little bit about the VA employees.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is one area where I think we, in the broader sense, certainly the military itself, the different branches, have recognized better than they have ever before that there is actually very serious stress-related illnesses and recognize that and try to make some services available. I think that in the years past, we basically said you come back from war and just go home and get a job and go back to your family and you will be fine. And, in fact, our young men and women, and they are young and women, we are talking about 19, 20-year-olds, 21-year-olds, some who have had some life experiences before but they are being put in a very difficult position, being asked to make very tough choices. They perform admirably. They perform wonderfully. We are proud of each and every one of them. But many of them use such strength to do that while they are in harm's way and then come back and say now, how do I think about what I have done for the last 18 months, the last couple of years, how do I integrate that with the life I have now? So they are coming back in larger numbers. Some of the statistics of mental health experts indicate that between 17 and 26 percent of our troops returning from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may experience symptoms of post traumatic stress syndrome, and what that means is that they deserve and need counseling; that counseling should be made available through the Veterans Administration. And when we see cutbacks, it is just unacceptable to think that we might actually leave a veteran with that kind of serious disorder really on their own. And that is really what we are experiencing. And I know that we, as Democrats, have brought up amendments to try to address that to make sure that there are counseling services available, more active services available, mental health services. These are, as we know, illnesses that we really need to make sure, particularly in a post-deployment situation, that they receive screening and diagnosis and that no one goes without the care that they actively deserve.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. I think the gentleman makes a really both good point too, that in fact one of our responsibilities, and I just heard the debate earlier on how to be civil in our disagreements, and there is strong disagreement between the two members who were speaking, but they were certainly civil. But this is one where I think again the rhetoric about our support for veterans is fairly universal, and I think that is a good thing. But we have to build on that to find a way to meet this commitment and to be realistic about what this commitment means. The commitment means that we not only make a commitment for this year, but we do a budget for 5 years and we make a commitment for 5 years, and we say to the veterans hospitals that you are going to have the resources. We say to veterans that you won't have to wait 6 months and you won't have to pay a 40 percent increase in your fees that you are paying. It gets complicated. We have all probably had calls in our offices about different levels of disability and what you get paid or what you don't and how you get your care through the Veterans Administration. It is complicated, and maybe that is appropriate. But certainly from our point of view, I think you are right, this has to be a commitment that we make as Democrats and Republicans, because certainly when our men and women go to war, they are not going as Republicans or Democrats, they are going as Americans, and our commitment has to be to veterans, all of whom are Americans, all of whom deserve not just our respect, but the hard core services that we have told them they will get and they should be able to get. I very much agree with you that we have to find those dollars and we have to find them in a responsible way. All of us up here are for a balanced budget, but this is not about spending money we don't have. It is about our priorities and making sure we put those dollars in priorities as we articulated them.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and I rise in support of our friend and ally, Israel, during this critical period. September 11th was a defining moment for our country in many ways. In particular, it forced Americans to confront a new reality--that terrorists could cause massive destruction on our soil and that we are all at risk. Faced with this new reality, we resolved to fight--to go to Afghanistan with the aim of destroying al-Qaeda and removing the government that sheltered it. Israelis have been living with this reality for decades. Well-armed, well-financed and sophisticated terrorist organizations--backed by Syria and Iran--surround her. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah have carried out thousands of attacks on Israeli soil. They have strapped bombs to teenagers and sent them on suicide missions targeting buses filled with innocent women and children. They have launched rockets at Israeli homes and stores. And, they have murdered and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. They will stop at nothing to accomplish their one common goal: the destruction of Israel. Just as America does, Israel has a right to defend herself. Israel has a right to better secure its borders, its security and its future. A secure Israel can not exist with Hezbollah controlling the territory directly north of the country. A secure Israel can not exist with thousands of katyusha rockets aimed at Haifa, Tiberius and other population centers in the North. A secure Israel can not exist with Hamas in control of the Palestinian territories. Israel is at war with these terrorist entities and we must stand by her. We have a moral obligation to do so--to stand on the side of democracy and freedom versus terror and radicalism. We must also do so because left unchecked, these terrorist organizations will continue to destabilize the region and use it as a base to foster global instability and undermine our national security. As the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, I will never forget what can result when the world fails to confront evil and terror. Passage of this resolution with strong bipartisan support will send an unequivocal message to the world--Hezbollah and Hamas are responsible for this violence, Israel has a right to defend itself, and the United States will stand with Israel as it confronts the evil and terror of Hezbollah and Hamas. I am confident that Israel will prevail in this fight. And, it is my hope that their strong actions against terror will ultimately lead to the peace and security that so many in the region desperately seek.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise disappointed and angered by the President's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and I rise in solidarity with my 237 colleagues and the 63 Senators who voted to overturn the Bush administration's policies that have stifled the promise of stem cell research and sound and ethical science. Since 2001, stem cell research in the United States has been thwarted by the Bush administration's misguided policies. And yesterday, President Bush once again let politics, not science, not the health and well-being of American families, and not the will of the majority of Americans, dictate his decision making. It is a sad day when the President of the United States acts to impede lifesaving medical research. And with this veto, President Bush failed to give American families the promise of this research. American families want cures, not politics. And they want hope, not lost opportunities. I, along with millions of Americans, am outraged, but we are not deterred. We will keep fighting and we will succeed in fighting the President's restrictions on stem cell research. Those of us who voted to override the presidential veto, voted: to maintain the United State's stance as the world leader in medical research and scientific advancement; to advance scientific discovery in an ethically and responsible manner; to enhance the ability of medical professionals to care for their patients; to fulfill our obligation to use our human resources and capital for the greater good; and most importantly, to benefit the millions battling disease and injury.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and in support of our friend and ally Israel. September 11 was a defining moment for our country. It forced Americans to confront a new reality, that terrorists could cause massive destruction on our soil, and that all of us are at risk. Israelis have been living with this reality for decades. Well-armed, well-financed, and sophisticated terrorist organizations backed by Syria and Iran surround her. They have carried out thousands of attacks on Israeli soil, and they will stop at nothing to accomplish their one common goal: the destruction of Israel. Just as America does, Israel has a right to defend herself. Israel has a right to better security for its borders and its security and its future. A secure Israel cannot exist with Hezbollah controlling the territory directly to the north, and a secure Israel cannot exist with Hamas in control of the Palestinian Authority. Israel is at war with terrorists, and we must stand with her. We have a moral obligation to stand on the side of democracy and freedom against terror and radicalism, and we must do so because, left unchecked, these terrorist organizations will continue to destabilize the region and will use it as a base to foster global instability and to undermine our national security. With passage of this resolution, we will send an unequivocal message to the world that terrorist organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, backed by Iran and Syria are responsible for this violence; that Israel has a right to defend herself; and that the United States will stand with Israel in its fight against terror. We must also do so because this conflict is not just about Israel, but it is about America's national security. Since the 1980's, Hizballah has been behind dozens of terrorist attacks targeting western nations, including the United States. In 1983, they killed 241 American servicemen in an attack on a military barracks in Lebanon. In 1994, they killed 86 civilians in a bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina. In 1996, they killed 19 U.S. airmen at a U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia. Left unchecked, Hizballah and these terrorist groups will continue to destabilize the region and use it as a base to foster global instability. By passing this resolution with strong bipartisan support, we will send an unequivocal message to the world--Hizballah and Hamas are responsible for this violence, Israel has a right to defend itself, and the United States will stand with Israel in its fight against terror. I am confident that Israel will prevail in this fight. And, it is my hope that their strong actions against terror will ultimately lead to the peace and security that so many in the region desperately seek.

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, due to delays on Amtrak, I regrettably missed rollcall votes 375-377. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 375--``Yea'', rollcall No. 376--``Yea'', rollcall No. 377--``Yea''.