Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), in whose district can be found Ground Zero.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Brooklyn, New York, (Mr. Towns).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), a former New Yorker.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by thanking again the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, who has made it clear over and over again that when the United States was attacked, we were all Americans, we were all New Yorkers. The gentleman has expressed to me his concern, his observations, the pain that he saw when he visited Ground Zero. I feel confident that we are going to continue this process. For me it was very gratifying to work in a bipartisan way with my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), with all of the appropriators and the New York delegation, to make it clear to our colleagues that although the United States was attacked, New York has been suffering extraordinary pain. As New Yorkers we go home every weekend. We look in the eyes of those who lost their loved ones, their sisters, husbands, family members. Life will never be the same for any of us; but for New Yorkers, they feel that every single day. We were all in the office when the President made the commitment of $20 billion to New York. I feel confident that the President of the United States will keep that commitment. In fact, from the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to the ranking member who has been so supportive, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), all of the Members have made it clear that this is a floor, it is not a ceiling. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that although today it is tremendously disappointing to all of us that that commitment that is so needed now so we can rebuild, so we can plan, so we can make sure that New York regains its former glory, I would hope that in the days, not months ahead, we can somehow find the vehicle to keep that promise. There are an awful lot of people in New York who heard that promise, who heard it again and again who are counting on it, who understand that when the President of the United States speaks and the Congress of the United States speaks, that word, that word can be believed by everyone. Mr. Chairman, let us work together again in a bipartisan way to ensure that in the days and the weeks ahead we can keep that commitment. I am sorry that it cannot be done this evening, but I know that Members' hearts and thoughts are with us every day. Mr. Chairman, again I thank the entire New York delegation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), an outstanding member of the Committee on Appropriations who has been very forceful in his arguments.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman for his work. I know he would rather be arguing on this side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman. It is unfortunate that he is being put in this very difficult position, but I want to thank him. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), dean of our delegation.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Last night, a bipartisan group of New Yorkers asked the Committee on Rules to make in order our amendment to allocate $10.4 billion in contingency emergency spending for New York's recovery. Mr. Speaker, in the hours after the World Trade Center attack, President Bush made a commitment that New York would receive $10 billion plus $10 billion, $20 billion, to recover and rebuild. And Congress made that commitment law, $20 billion. But the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and I and our entire delegation have spent the last 2 months trying to ensure that law is complied with, and we are still fighting today. Mr. Speaker, an agreement is an agreement is an agreement. The law says that New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are entitled to ``not less than half'' of the $40 billion supplemental; 422 Members of this body supported that supplemental. No Member voted against it. Eleven weeks later, we are still having the debate. We are still fighting. It does not make any sense. Eleven weeks after the worst disaster in the history of our country, the crisis in New York has not ended. Thousands are facing the holidays without a spouse, a child, or a parent. Thousands are out of work. Small businesses remain shuttered. Thousands of residents are still unable to return to their homes. Work at Ground Zero goes on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Fires are still burning underground. Memorial services at the site continue. Families are coming to terms with the knowledge that there will never be anything of their loved ones recovered. New York will never be the same. We put together an amendment that would commit the billions needed to continue the enormous recovery and rebuilding effort. We designed it as contingency emergency spending which would allow the President to determine when the funds are needed and declare an emergency, at which point the money would become available. We believe that this is the most appropriate way to respect the need to manage Federal spending while assuring the Americans who took the blow for our country on September 11 that Congress is committed to their recovery. We ask for consideration of this amendment. Let us have a full debate on the issue. A promise is a promise. When the President of the United States makes a promise, we appreciate it and expect that promise will be met.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Aviation Security Conference Report. First, I would like to commend Chairman Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, and Representatives Mica and Lipinski for remaining at the negotiating table, and crafting a bipartisan bill that both chambers can endorse. I also want to applaud Leader Gephardt for his tireless pursuit of an airline security bill, and for making aviation security a matter of national security. My colleagues, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, newspapers across the country have editorialized in support of federal workers at airports. Security experts have said that a federal security force is needed. And, the airlines have called for Federal help. Today, we finally meet our responsibility to assure the public that our skies are safe. With this bill, the American people will know that second best isn't good enough, the lowest bidder isn't good enough, and a workforce with a more than 120 percent turnover rate isn't good enough. Mr. Speaker, American families traveling to visit loved ones and friends are not the only ones who depend on the airline industry. Just take a minute to think about what would happen if people don't fly. Businesses will suffer--from the people who run coffee stands in airports to hotel operators to taxi cab drivers to travel agents. These small businesses deserve approval of this bipartisan conference report. One of my constituents recently wrote that until the skies are secured, ``My family will not be flying. . . . We will not be flying any airplane until . . . every piece of luggage is x-rayed and the workers that screen flyers are federalized.'' Well, this bill would allow the government to immediately begin taking over control of airport screening functions, require that all baggage be checked, and expand the Federal Air Marshal Program. So let's pass this bill now and give our constituents the long-overdue good news. We have delayed long enough. Vote ``yes,'' pass the conference report, and make travel safe and secure for all Americans.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it's been 50 days since the terrorist attacks of September 11 and Americans are still unsafe on our nation's airlines. While I am pleased that the House is finally debating airline security, I rise in support of the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate 100-0. My colleagues, aviation security is now a matter of national security. That became clear on September 11, when four commercial plains were used as weaponry in the terrorist attack on America. The first obligation of our government is to protect our citizens and public safety is currently threatened by an unprecedented war. It is the federal government's job to protect our country during these times, and as President Bush has stated, we are fighting a two-front war--one here and one abroad. While we've committed troops and billions of dollars to the war overseas, it's sadly taken us seven weeks to even begin debate on how to make air travel safe. My colleagues, now is not the time for partisan politics. And shame on those trying to make this a partisan issue. The Senate didn't. They unanimously passed--100 to 0--a bill to hold the federal government responsible for the safety of our nation's airlines. Quite frankly, the Senate-passed bill should have been immediately placed on the House suspension calendar and fast tracked to the President. Instead, we are considering a bill that maintains the status quo. It will keep the same screeners who are undertrained and underpaid. And a workforce with a more than 120 percent turnover rate. Do we want someone with less incentive than fast-food workers screening the people and bags that are on our planes--or do we want a well-trained, capable force of federal law enforcement ensuring our safety? The Republican leadership cannot in good conscience ask Americans to resume life as normal, without first making sweeping changes to our airline security system. One of my constituents wrote that until the flying public is put first, ``My family will not be flying . . . We will not be flying any airplane until Air Marshals are on every flight, every piece of luggage is x-rayed, and the workers that screen flyers are federalized.'' Federalization is the key to professionalizing security. We would never consider contracting out the duties of the U.S. Customs Service, Border Patrol, or the local police department, and it makes no sense to do so with airport screeners--the front line in aviation security. The bipartisan democratic substitute is clearly the right bill for airline security: 100 Senators voted for it; 82 percent of Americans want to federalize airline security; and flight attendants, pilots, and baggage handlers have made clear that their security is at risk at work everyday, and they support federalizing airline security. Let's vote down the Republican airline security bill, and enact the bill everyone can stand behind--the democratic substitute.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of S. 1465, and I would like to address several concerns about this bill which would authorize the President to exercise certain waivers with respect to Pakistan. In recent weeks, the President has invoked special authorities to enable the provision of $100 million in economic assistance for Pakistan. I have been consulted on these decisions and I have supported them as necessary to carry out our campaign against terrorism. But the passage of this bill today will remove all remaining legislative restrictions on assistance to Pakistan for both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. It is my understanding that the administration will soon inform Congress of its intention to provide an additional $500 million in economic assistance to Pakistan to be taken from the $40 billion emergency supplemental. There is simply no question that the United States should move rapidly to provide economic assistance to Pakistan in light of its cooperation in the war on terrorism, and because of the severe economic crisis there, but I caution my colleagues against relinquishing our role in this process. With the passage of this bill, we give extraordinary discretion to the administration to determine the extent and content of our assistance. While I support a bold and significant assistance program for Pakistan, I believe it must have appropriate congressional oversight. The Pakistani government has requested billions in economic assistance to meet its cash shortfall and to address its significant infrastructure, education, and health needs, and I expect we will provide $600 million to respond to that request. But at the moment, there is no clear plan for how this assistance will flow, and we have very little monitoring capacity to ensure funds are spent for their intended purposes. Under normal circumstances, Congress has a role in directing the use of appropriated funds prior to their disbursement, and I hope we will be included in the current process as well. At this point, we have not been informed of any plan to provide significant military assistance to Pakistan. However, that could and likely will change as the situation develops. There are no legislative guidelines in place to ensure that we will have appropriate assurances from the Pakistani government that the use of such assistance will be restricted to the fight against terrorism. While it is my expectation that the President would seek and obtain such assurances, Congress does not currently require him to do so. Finally, I am puzzled that this bill takes the unusual step of waiving a provision of law on a bill that is not yet written: the fiscal year 2003 Foreign Operations bill. I understand and support the need to send a strong signal to Pakistan and to provide some assurance that our commitment to them is long term, but I submit that providing $600 million is a very strong signal. The Committee on Appropriations, under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), has responded with speed and cooperation to the President's request for resources to fight this war. We neglect our oversight responsibilities when we provide prospective waivers for bills that have yet to be written. Madam Speaker, I support this bill, but I urge my colleagues to carefully consider these concerns as we move forward.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Dr. Ruth Gruber who recently celebrated her ninetieth birthday on September 30th, 2001. A courageous leader, devoted humanitarian, acclaimed journalist, and loving grandmother, Dr. Gruber's contribution to New York and our nation is immeasurable. At the age of 20, Dr. Gruber became the youngest Ph.D. in the world. That, a remarkable achievement in and of itself, was only the first of many unprecedented accomplishments. In 1944, at the request of then Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, Dr. Gruber was sent on a top secret mission to escort 1,000 refugees from war-torn Europe to America. After safely arriving back in the United States, she immediately led the charge to ensure that the refugees be allowed to stay in the country permanently. Dr. Gruber's talents as a journalist took her to all corners of the globe. She was the first foreign correspondent to enter the Soviet gulag, an experience which she chronicled in her book, I Went to the Soviet Arctic. She visited Korea and Vietnam to write They Came to Stay, a book about 10 Korean children who had been adopted by families in the United States. Through her many books and articles Dr. Gruber has been our eyes on the world. We are fortunate that she went to places she knew we needed to see and told such compelling stories. In February, CBS will air Haven, a four hour documentary chronicling Dr. Gruber's exceptional life. At age ninety, she still has plans to write more books, although much of her time is spent with her precious grandchildren. It is my privilege to thank Dr. Gruber for all she has done for our society, and of course, to wish her a happy ninetieth birthday.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriation bill. It is really a privilege for me to serve on this committee; and I personally want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I know of their commitment to the issues that we discuss in this committee; and I want to also thank the staff of the committee, both majority and minority, who really have been a pleasure to work with. Their cooperation has allowed us to consider what should have been the least contentious bill in years, and I do hope that some of the amendments that were in the planning will not be offered so that we can all stand together in support of this really good bill that serves people in this country, because I certainly do not want to be here discussing some of these amendments. I would rather be working on ways to provide for the defense of our citizens, of finding ways to stimulate the economy. This bill has provided for funding for so many programs that are needed by the American people. The bill significantly increases funding for the National Institutes of Health. We must continue to provide robust funding for medical research so that we can find the cures for disease. The bill also provides a large increase for the 21st Century Learning Centers After School Program. I remember when I first got on this committee and we had $1 million in the program, and now we are up to $1 billion; and the lines are still long in every community of people who want to provide funding for after-school programs, so I want to thank again the chairman and the ranking member for their help in that area. The program gives millions of children a place to go after school where they can participate in meaningful activities. I just want to mention one other thing. I do hope as this bill moves through the process we can add some money for school modernization. It has been an issue I have been working on for a very long time, and it is so very important. I do hope we can invest in that critical area. There are so many schools in terrible condition, and we should do something to help local school districts fix this problem. This bill is a very big step in the right direction. Mr. Chairman, I support the bill; and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook amendment. The Labor-HHS bill contains many programs that are very important to the American people. At this time of crisis and increased concern about the public welfare, we have a greater obligation than ever before to prioritize. The chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member have made an extraordinary effort to bring this good, balanced bill to the floor, and I thank them. The Istook amendment, I believe, undermines the bipartisan commitment we have made to move this bill without unnecessary conflicts. It would increase funding for a single health education grant program by $33 million. Funding began 1 year ago at $20 million, and the chairman's mark already increased a promised $30 million by an additional $10 million. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) wants to go from this $40 million program, a 100 percent increase over last year, to $73 million. Not only would this increase eclipse that of any other program in the bill, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) offsets the cost of this excessive increase by cutting funds for the CDC, the Child Care Development Block grant. His cuts in CDC would force the CDC to make reductions in these areas: infectious diseases, chronic diseases, STDs, breast and cervical cancer. Which should we choose? I will repeat it again, it means cuts in infectious diseases, chronic diseases, STDs, breast and cervical cancer. This is outrageous and irresponsible. Equally disturbing, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) proposes to cut the child care development block grant. These funds are desperately needed to ensure that children receive quality child care, especially low-income families. I want to make this clear to my colleagues: I know how important this program is to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). In fact, despite my strong reservations about the effectiveness of teaching abstinence only until marriage, I have worked with my colleague, I have worked with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) in designing these community-based grants, because I believe abstinence is an important message for our youth. We have worked together. However, with the tremendous needs, Mr. Chairman, as a result of September 11, and I feel so privileged to serve on a committee that can meet these needs, and we cannot even find enough money for CDC. I know my good chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), would like to do more. So now is not the time, in my judgment, to allocate a three- fold increase, and that means 200 percent, to one health education program. Even if our Nation was not in the state of emergency, a drastic increase in this program is premature because it has only been in place 1 year. As part of our agreement, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and I had an agreement with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and our former chair, Mr. Porter, to include rigorous evaluation in this program, an evaluation which would include a range of sexuality programs, not just abstinence-only programs, has not even begun. Finally, our funding needs for CDC bioterrorism, the public health emergency fund, worker training, unemployment insurance, mental health counseling, to name just a few, are just enormous. They are great. While we each continue our interest and advocacy for particular programs, seeking an increase of this magnitude I feel is inappropriate at this time. So let us give this program some time before providing an even larger funding increase, especially considering our budgetary restraints. I want to thank the Members again. I hope my colleagues will vote no on this Istook amendment, and I want to appreciate the good work of our Chair, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), for bringing us together working on a bipartisan agreement. I really feel that it is unfortunate that one of our members of the subcommittee chooses to violate the agreement and ask for a 200 percent, 200 percent increase in this program, which has not been evaluated. It will not be evaluated until 2005. I would be delighted to work with my colleague to make sure that we continue to look at this program very carefully.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. My colleagues, I raced to the floor as I heard the discussion of the Pelosi amendment; and although I was not able to speak before the final vote, I just wanted to rise briefly in strong support of the Pelosi amendment. As a New Yorker, as we go from one funeral to wakes, to vigils, to the site to see the pain, to see the suffering of the families, of the children, and as we work hard to do what we have to do to rebuild our great city, I think we would be remiss if while we are moving forward, and I have confidence that the best minds in this country are focused like a laser beam on what we have to do to move forward to ensure that this kind of horror, the incomprehensible, does not happen again. I think we would be remiss if we did not ensure that there was an independent review. The amendment of the gentlewoman from California emphasized the independence of the review and the scope of the review. Again, my colleagues, while we are moving forward and doing what we have to do to prevent the horror of this kind of incident ever occurring again, I think it is absolutely essential that we look at what happened. We can only learn from the past. In order to move forward, we have to evaluate the past and we have to be sure that all the information is in place. If the same people are doing the review, in my judgment we are missing the strength and the power of an independent analyst really looking at the agencies and seeing what perhaps we can do differently. So I just wanted to make that point again. If we are going to move forward and truly understand the future, my colleagues, it seems to me we have to truly understand what happened in the past. And I just wanted to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for offering that amendment. I appreciate that there was a compromise worked out between the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); but I wanted to emphasize again that I strongly supported the amendment, and I thank her for bringing it to my colleagues' attention.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Bill Ivey upon the occasion of his departure from the National Endowment for the Arts. Chairman Ivey is an extraordinary leader, who transformed an agency battling for its very survival to one which has received increases in funding and ever-growing respect and acceptance. As a recent member of the National Council on the Arts, I had the distinct honor of working alongside Chairman Ivey, and I have seen first-hand the vision, dedication, and warm personal touch he has contributed to the arts community for more than thirty years. The NEA is not the first institution to have benefitted from Chairman Ivey's talents. Mr. Ivey was the first Endowment chairman to have developed and run a nonprofit cultural organization, serving as Director of the Country Music Foundation in Nashville, Tennessee for seventeen years. There, he forged valuable public-private partnerships, and created numerous outstanding programs. Chairman Ivey has chaired or served on fifteen different Endowment grant panels, and he served as an appointee to the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities. The NEA will sorely miss Bill Ivey. Yet the under-served communities touched by his Challenge America Program, the thousands of artists, students, and teachers who will benefit from increased NEA funding, and those of us in Congress who have had the pleasure of working and fighting by his side will remain grateful for the service that Chairman Ivey has performed.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member for their extraordinary work in making this package possible. In my district today, children grieve for the fathers and mothers who did not come home from work on Tuesday. So many families are grieving, Mr. Speaker. By now we have all heard of the men and women trapped in the World Trade Center calling their spouses saying good-bye. Our hearts and prayers are with all who are still waiting for a loved one to come home. Our arms are around you and America is with you. As we speak on this floor, hundreds of brave men and women risk their lives minute by minute shifting carefully through the rubble and the twisted steel, searching against hope that they will find survivors in the wreckage of what was once my city's greatest building. Their heroism has moved a Nation and has touched the world. They are ordinary people engaged in the most extraordinary of acts. Each one is a hero and deserves our deepest thanks and praise. And they are not alone. New Yorkers and Americans have responded by the thousands, waiting in line to give blood and making charitable donations. This is the best of America and of New York. Now Congress must act. We New Yorkers pride ourselves on being tough, but we cannot bear this terrible burden alone. Our Mayor and our Governor have been magnificent, but they need our help. More than 48 hours after Tuesday morning's horrific attacks, the aftershocks continue. Buildings still crumble, families search for loved ones, thousands remain buried beneath rubble in New York and Virginia. Even now, rescuers are scrambling to pull survivors from the twisted steel and concrete of the World Trade Center. The bill before us today will provide $20 billion specifically for humanitarian needs. Governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani have made clear that they need funds now to take care of immediate needs: search and rescue, recovery of the victims, support for survivors and victims' families, and restoration of security and basic services to lower Manhattan. This legislation sends a clear signal that the Nation stands shoulder-to- shoulder with New York as we proceed with our rescue and recovery efforts. Our first priority, and our singular focus, must be finding survivors, healing the injured, and comforting the bereaved. But when the urgent humanitarian needs have been met, we will be faced with the daunting task of starting anew. And we will find that what took seconds to destroy will take years to rebuild. The package we pass today is merely a downpayment toward what will prove to be the largest recovery effort in our Nation's history--rough estimates total in the tens of billions of dollars. We will need to clear thousands of tons of debris from the streets. We will need to reconstruct large swaths of lower Manhattan. We will need to restore the infrastructure of the heart of the world's financial markets, and we will need to rebuild the economic backbone of the New York area. The ripple effects of this tragedy will be severe--they will be felt across the country, and around the world. As we embark on this long and tortuous journey, I pledge today to my fellow New Yorkers and to all Americans that Congress will be with you every step of the way. I urge unanimous passage of this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. America stands at a threshold. Behind us lies our sense of security, now shattered by intentional and brutal acts of war. Before us lies our solemn obligation. Our steps over this threshold must be deliberate, they must be firm, and they must be brave. Today, Congress invokes our authority, derived from our Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, to authorize the use of force against enemies of the United States. Our object is not to extract vengeance; mere retribution will not make Americans safe, nor will it purge terrorism from this world. The battles ahead will be against an enemy who knows no boundaries and has no shame, an enemy with no flag and no official military, who lurks in the shadows of the world, cloaked in malevolent ideology and attacks us indiscriminately. These will be battles unlike any we have ever known and we must stand united with our President, our allies, and each other as we navigate the coming storm. The coming days and weeks will give us a clear picture of who stands on the side of justice and freedom and who does not. Those who stand against us, actively, by organizing, financing, or executing terrorism, or passively, by sheltering terrorists and their allies, or implicitly, by teaching hatred to children or justifying violence against innocents, will know the full fury of a just and gentle America aroused. We will not rest until the world is free at last from the grave threat that struck so hard at our Nation's heart. Since the end of the Cold War, this Nation has taken much for granted: our freedom, our liberty, our safety. These days are over, I say to my colleagues. Today, at this moment, a new generation is being called upon to defend our way of life and protect our citizens. A new war is upon our shores. Its first innocent casualties have already fallen. Let us meet this test with all the unity and will we can muster, and may God bless America.