Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about credit unions. Representatives of New York City credit unions and the New York State Credit Union League visited my Washington office to explain the response of the credit union community in the wake of September 11th. The trip had been planned for quite some time and they thought about canceling their visit out of respect for the larger issues before Congress. Instead, they came with a message that has defined credit unions since their inception--one of cooperation and a ``people- helping-people'' service to their membership. Branches of three credit unions, Excel Federal Credit Union, US Alliance Federal Credit Union and FAA Regional Federal Credit Union, were lost in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Municipal Credit Union--which serves predominantly emergency service personnel and city employees--had its main office and a branch office severely damaged. All employees were fortunate to escape, but hundreds of members undoubtedly perished. The New York State Credit Union League opened a ``command center'' to channel information to distressed credit unions and assist in their recovery. The New York State Credit Union Foundation created a disaster relief fund that has raised nearly $500,000 from credit unions throughout the country and the world to assist families and help rebuild community programs in Manhattan. Fire and police credit unions in Syracuse, NY raised $150,000 in a single weekend. Empire Corporate FCU, located in Albany, NY has created a $2 million ``interest free'' loan fund for credit unions in Manhattan to assist their members or help rebuild their infrastructure. The National Credit Union Foundation, operated by the Credit Union National Association on behalf of 80 million credit union members, has raised $250,000 through its Credit Unions Rebuild America. In addition to providing operational and financial assistance, credit unions are extending special services to surviving members in the form of lower loan rates, deferred payments on credit, longer grace periods and fee waivers. As owners of their cooperative financial institution, credit union members feel a sense of community, which is especially apparent during periods of financial hardship. I urge my colleagues to speak with the credit unions in their districts and to encourage their constituents to turn to credit unions for help. The New York credit unions have demonstrated to me their willingness to reach out during this time of extraordinary need to help our communities. Their cooperative spirit will not only see their members through these trying times, but will make us stronger as a Nation in the end.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, Christmas has come early for the special interests this year. This so-called stimulus package is nothing more than the eternal wish list of big business wrapped up in a nice, neat, little bow. When the President put together his mammoth tax cut for the rich earlier this year, businesses were told to wait their turn. They would get their huge tax cut, but it couldn't be in the same package or it would shatter the illusion that the first one was for working families. So, we all knew this big tax cut was coming. But frankly, I'm shocked that the Republican Leadership would trot it out so soon, under the guise of ``economic stimulus.'' Quite simply, there is virtually no economic value to this package. The key to economic stimulus is to put money in the pockets of people who will spend it immediately. At Democrats' insistence, there is at least a small amount of money going to those who are hardest hit by these economic times. But the overwhelming majority of cuts in this bill are skewed to the very rich, who are more likely to put savings in the bank than to spend it. By some estimates a whopping 75% of the benefits of this package would go to the top 10% of wage earners. This is not just dramatically unfair, it economically foolish. Not surprisingly, the portions of this bill that are aimed at lower income workers are temporary. But, the special breaks to big business, like capital gains reductions and repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax are permanent. This bill even has the gall to provide for refunds to any business that has paid the corporate AMT since 1986. That's not economic stimulus, that is corporate give-away In addition, these provisions will simply worsen our long-term economic outlook, upon which current investment decisions are made. Rather than provide an immediate boost, these tax cuts are more likely to hinder spending in the short-term and plunge us deeper into recession. That's a pretty big price to pay for pacifying the special interests. And, the flaws in this bill are not just limited to what's in it. It is equally poor policy because of what's missing. Any responsible stimulus package would include new direct spending on the pressing needs of the nation. This would create jobs while shoring up the infrastructure critical to our future economic growth. For example, in this new world of heightened security at the airports, we must invest in high-speed rail to accommodate travel between short distances. But, as usual, this bill simply relies on the old gospel of the Republican Party--that tax cuts are the solution to any problem. This corporate wish list may settle some old debts in the potential arena, but it will do nothing to nurse our ailing economy back to health. It is special interest pandering at its worst and should be defeated.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a clarification to ensure that the legislative language of the bill reflects the reality of technology today and will not affect the status of pending civil actions brought under Section 1030. We need to encourage our businesses to protect their information and computer systems with redundant systems, and we must be careful not to limit legal protection to only one computer when an entire network may be affected. As I understand the bill, the parenthetical in 1030(a)(5)(B)(i) is not meant to change current law or inhibit the ability of a corporate Section 1030 plaintiff to base a claim upon loss incurred in connection with a database that is run from more than one server or other computer. In light of the interest in greater Internet security that is demonstrated by this legislation, and the need for data and server redundancy, which minimize potential risks to data integrity, such system redundancy is very important. The section amending 18 U.S.C. 1030 should not be read to undermine the current state of the law or the goals behind data and system redundancy.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which extends help to many of the heroes, firefighters, and the families of the firefighters and the police officers who gave their lives in trying to help people, to help the victims of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. I do wish, however, that the bill was broader than it is, as has been stated by some of my colleagues from New York. Current law forgives the loans of the victims who were killed. But if a victim is killed, a police officer, a firefighter, an innocent civilian who works in the World Trade Center, their spouse, their family is left with any loans that they may have taken out; but the income with which to pay those loans is substantially, maybe totally substantially diminished, maybe totally eliminated. This bill should recognize that. We should deal with that. We should, in this bill, and I hope we will in subsequent bills since unfortunately this bill does not do it, exercise the same loan forgiveness for the spouses of people who died in this terrorist attack, firefighters, police officers, emergency rescue workers or just plain people who happened to be there and were killed so that it is a little easier for them to try to pick up the shards of their lives and get on with their lives and recover from the terrible tragedy that occurred to them when their spouse was murdered by the terrorist attack on the United States. I support the bill. I wish it were broader. I hope the committee can work on a further bill to extend what we are doing and take care of this omission from the bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the staff of the High School of Economics and Finance for their outstanding response to the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Situated just one block south of the World Trade Center, the High School of Economics and Finance was the closest school to the epicenter of the horrifying disaster of September 11th. The administrators, teachers, guidance counselors, school safety and support staff of the school took immediate, efficient, and lifesaving action to protect all 750 students in their care. Their praiseworthy efficiency in evacuating all 750 students from their building deserves an enormous debt of gratitude from our community. The staff members mobilized immediately to protect the safety, welfare and well-being of all students in the most professional fashion possible. So closely situated near ``ground zero,'' there is no question that the staff's organized evacuation saved countless lives. The building housing the High School of Economics and Finance was heavily damaged by the disastrous acts of September 11, 2001. On September 20, 2001, the staff and students relocated to Norman Thomas High School, on 33rd Street in midtown Manhattan. It is a demonstration of the high level of professionalism of all staff members that students have returned to school and are currently progressing with their studies while receiving counseling and care from their dedicated teachers and staff members. The courage, vigilance, valor, and bravery shown by the staff of the High School of Economics and Finance in their attentive supervision of the students are admirable. Similarly, the swift return to school and the teaching, mentoring and guiding of the students through this terrible time is deeply commendable. I heartily commemorate and congratulate the staff of the High School of Economics and Finance for all that they have done on behalf of their students, city and country. I thank them all for their truly courageous leadership.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, last year candidate George Bush pledged to seek repeal of the secret courts provision of the 1996 antiterrorism bill because he claimed to understand that the law was passed hastily and that this provision at least endangered civil liberties without contributing to national security. Now the President, the same George Bush, and the leadership of this House is insisting that we again enact hastily, and again in the name of national security and antiterrorism, act so hastily as probably to endanger our civil liberties without necessarily helping our security. The bill we passed in the Committee on the Judiciary was a balanced bill that would have enhanced our security without endangering our civil liberties. Now we have a 187-page bill with a lot of provisions in it. What I am about to say I hope is accurate, but I cannot be sure, because we have only had time to glance quickly through this bill. We have not had time to properly review it, to send it out to law schools, to send it out to civil libertarians to get comments back so we can make an intelligent judgment. We cannot wait until Tuesday. We passed out the bill from committee last week. We wasted a whole week, but now we cannot wait 3 days. We must rush to judgment on this bill. Let me give three provisions of this bill that look, to a hasty reading, dangerous. Section 203 says that ``secret grand jury information can be shared without a court order,'' upsetting all American legal tradition, ``if notice is given to the court within a reasonable period after the sharing.'' But, of course, the whole point of the current law is that a court, not some FBI agent, should decide if secret grand jury information is appropriate for sharing with other agencies. Now the FBI agent decides it on his own and tells the court later, and the court has nothing to do except to say thanks for the information. Section 213 permits law enforcement to delay notification of search warrants in any criminal investigation. There may be justification for delaying notification of a search warrant sometimes, but in all criminal investigations? What does that have to do with terrorism? Finally, there is a provision in the bill that essentially allows the Attorney General, by stating he has reasonable grounds to believe that someone here who is not a citizen, that may be deportable, he has 7 days to start deportation proceedings; but once he does, that person can stay in jail forever. He can sue under habeas corpus; but if the court then says, okay, you can keep him in jail, it is not reviewable again ever. So they can throw away the key and forget about him forever? Is that American justice, or is that the Count of Monte Cristo? We ought to review this bill carefully and not pass it today.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree with the other distinguished gentleman from New York. There are provisions that go too far in this bill, in my opinion; and there are things that are not in this bill that ought to be, again, after the wonderful work done by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan and the committee as a whole, tossed out the window, a new bill, brand new, emergency we are told. Limit this to the terrorism and let us work regular order, the way this House ought to proceed, so we may examine whether these powers belong in the general criminal field. There is no emergency we are told about there. The emergency pertains to terrorism, so let us proceed on an emergency basis, which we are doing now, voting for this bill virtually sight unseen, proceed on that emergency basis only for the terrorism emergency. Limit the bill to the terrorism emergency and look at the rest in our own good time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, what this motion to recommit does is to make the provisions of this bill granting extraordinary powers to investigative agencies of governments apply only to extraordinary circumstances, only to investigations of terrorism or potential terrorism. Mr. Speaker, a month ago, the United States was attacked; and in particular my district was attacked. I know or knew many people who were victims of that horrible attack, and I thirst to repay that attack and to make sure it will not happen again. But we can be attacked in many ways, and one of those attacks is to cause us to invade our own liberties as a reaction to the attack upon us, and that we must prevent. Speaker after speaker on this floor today has described how this 187- page bill, seen by us only a few hours ago, with no opportunity to really look into it, to send out the text to law professors, to others, to really see the implications and to make intelligent judgments upon it may very well be a danger to many of our liberties. Well, we have to act in haste, we are told. Why? Because we must prevent acts of terrorism. Let us grant that assumption. Fine. But why should these provisions then extend to anything but terrorism? We can pass the bill today. I will not vote for it, but we can pass the bill today, give our government the powers it says it needs, that the President and the Attorney General say they need to prevent terrorism and to defeat terrorists, but not grant that power with respect to everything else until we have had proper time to look into the question without the haste that this emergency imposes on us. And then we can say that these provisions should or should not, or some should and some should not, be extended to ordinary criminal investigations. Let the terrorism bill proceed for terrorism now, albeit in haste, albeit hastily drafted, albeit not properly vetted. If that is the will of the body, let it be done for terrorism, but only for terrorism. And let us, for other things where the emergency is not immediate, take our time and do it properly. So this motion to recommit simply says these extraordinary powers exist for terrorist threats, for investigations of terrorism, and not for others.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very dangerous time we are in today. It is dangerous for two reasons: our country is at war, and we face danger from enemy action. We also face danger from our own action. The history of this country is that in most of our wars in this century, we have taken actions against our liberties that we have regretted and apologized for later. I refer to the Espionage Act of 1917, which no one will today defend, the Japanese internment of World War II, the COINTELPRO operations of Vietnam, and today we are asked to buy a pig in a poke. Why a pig in a poke? A 187-page bill, hot off the press, that we have not had a chance to read or analyze. I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I voted for a terrorism bill with strong provisions that I thought was balanced and reasonable and protective of civil liberties, as well as giving the Government the tools it needs to deal with terrorism. But, no, that bill does not come up. Why did it not come up? We are told we have to vote on this bill right away. We cannot wait until next Tuesday. We ought to wait until Tuesday. We ought to have a chance to analyze this bill over the weekend, to send it out to the law schools and the civil liberties people and others and let them read it and let them give us their comments so we vote in an informed manner, and so that we can offer amendments on the floor and have a well-crafted bill that protects us against terrorism, but also does not do violence to our civil liberties. But, no, we are told, we must rush right now, we must have this marshal law resolution to enable us to vote before anybody can read the bill. Why? Some people would say because if we read the bill, there are those who are afraid we would not pass it. I am not that cynical. But because the President is pushing us, we have got to pass it right away. The times demand it. Well, why did we not take up the committee bill on the House floor earlier this week? We could have passed that bill and gone to conference with the Senate and had a full bill, a conference report, ready to adopt today or Monday, properly considered. To vote on a bill that may do violence to our liberties, and it has to be very carefully balanced, to ask the Members of this House to vote on a bill that may do violence to our liberties, that may go way beyond what we need to legitimately combat terrorism, is an insult to every Member of this House, it is an insult to the American people, it should not be permitted; and I am asking to have a ``no'' vote on this marshal law rule and the regular rule because we are being stampeded into doing something we may very well live to regret and that history tells us we will regret.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Istook amendment calling for a $33 million increase in abstinence-only education. First, everyone should understand one thing--this program is already receiving a 100 percent increase in its funding over last year. That is without the Istook amendment. To put that in perspective--the President's number one priority during his campaign (besides tax cuts) was education--and that receives a 17 percent increase. So, make no mistake about it, the Congress is already spending large sums on the abstinence-only program, and we won't know the effectiveness and results of the program until the congressionally mandated report comes due in 2005. What we do know is that publicly funded family planning has a significant effect on teen pregnancy. Each year, family planning services prevent an estimated 386,000 teenagers from becoming pregnant. Title X funding plays a critical role in the lives of teens across America--in preventing unwanted pregnancy and in providing needed services to young people. Through title X teens receive gynecological exams, screening for breast and cervical cancer, STD treatment, HIV testing, contraceptive care, and counseling. These services are desperately needed since we know that more than 750,000 teenagers become pregnant each year, and 80 percent of those pregnancies are unintended. We know that nearly 4 million teenagers acquire a sexually transmitted disease by age 24; and that an average of two young people are infected with HIV every hour of every day. It takes a comprehensive approach to address these problems and that is why more than 120 national organizations support comprehensive sex education including: American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, National Education Association, National Medical Association, National School Boards Association, and Society for Adolescent Medicine. Americans overwhelmingly support sex education--more than 8 in 10 Americans favor comprehensive sex education that includes information about contraception. I urge my colleagues to heed their call and to continue to push for comprehensive education. This is not the time to increase funding even more than we already have for an untested program that is so limited in scope. I urge my colleagues to reject the Istook amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Weldon amendment. This misguided amendment is the very essence of robbing Peter to pay Paul. While I support the worthy goal of increasing the appropriation for the Aids Drug Assistance Program, I cannot do so at the expense of Title I of the Ryan White program. No one can argue with Dr. Weldon that ADAP funding must be significantly increased. ADAP is a vital program that is severely underfunded. But his answer is truly perverse. He attacks the very infrastructure needed to deliver these important services. If he slashes funding for Title I, he will only make it harder for people living with HIV and AIDS to receive the medication they need under ADAP. Let's look at what Title I does. Title I directs funding to the metropolitan areas that are home to about 74 percent of all individuals diagnosed with AIDS in the United States. The areas eligible for Title I funding are magnets for individuals from all of the surrounding areas who are in need of the critical primary care and supportive services provided under this program. Whether it's primary health care, dental care, substance abuse treatment, legal services, transitional housing, transportation, or nutritional care, Title I provides the bedrock safety net that people living with HIV and AIDS depend on. The bottom line is that people will die without these services. If Dr. Weldon wants to increase funding for ADAP, as he should, the answer is not to attack Title I. The answer is to increase the total appropriation. Despite a request for flat funding from the President, I am pleased that the committee provided for a modest increase in Ryan White funding. However, the need is far greater still. Title I alone would require a 30 million dollar increase just to keep pace with inflation. With the modest 17 million dollar increase provided, services will already have to be scaled back and needs will go unmet. To further cut 60 million dollars from this program would be simply devastating. Indeed, ADAP is significantly underfunded, as well. But the success of the ADAP program, which has kept thousands of people alive, makes the need for Title I money all the greater. As people live longer, they rely on the services provided by Title I. This amendment might temporarily plug one hole, but it would create a much larger one elsewhere. Vote against this dangerous amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Bill Ivey for his service as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. Under his leadership, this important agency has thrived despite stagnant budgets and political roadblocks. In fact, his greatest achievement may be the period of relative calm in which the NEA now finds itself. When Chairman Ivey took over this embattled agency, he faced a Congressional majority that was not only unsupportive of the NEA, but downright hostile to the entire notion of federal funding for the arts. He inherited an agency marked for elimination since 1995, over which legendary battles had been waged. Chairman Ivey disarmed many of his enemies, however, with his thoughtful approach and personal charm. An important legacy of Chairman Ivey's tenure is the Challenge America Initiative, which specifically expands the reach of the NEA into under-served communities. By clearly demonstrating the NEA's historic commitment to ensuring the broad distribution of the arts throughout the nation, Chairman Ivey greatly enhanced the impact of the NEA. His tireless lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill were finally rewarded last year with the first increase in nearly a decade. He should also be proud that the annual debate over the NEA has become a largely pro- forma affair as Congress has learned that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the NEA and its mission. Chairman Ivey's successor will have a great task ahead, but he will have a strong foundation from which to work, thanks to Bill Ivey.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Weldon amendment which would prevent the District of Columbia from using its own funds to provide domestic partner benefits. There has been a lot of discussion in the past two weeks about sadness and anger, and most of that discussion was about the attacks of September 11th. Today, there is yet another reason to be both sad and angry. Today, this House is departing from its partisan truce and healing rhetoric of unity. Today, the war will have to wait, while we strip gays and lesbians of legal benefits and once again thwart democracy right here in Washington, DC. There are 113 jurisdictions nationwide that have domestic partner benefits and Congress has taken no action to block any of these benefits provided to other Americans. The fact that some Members of Congress seek to do so today is insulting, outrageous, and, quite frankly, offensive. The House Appropriations Committee acted in a bipartisan manner to allow DC to offer its residents domestic partner benefits, and now the House leadership has authorized the violation of House Rules in order to undo the work of the Committee on this issue. Domestic partner benefits allow residents to visit loved ones in hospitals and long term care facilities, officially register as partners, and, for employees of the District of Columbia government, to purchase health insurance at their own expense for their partner. This is hardly revolutionary or even uncommon in our nation today. Over 4,200 employers around the country, including hundreds of cities, colleges, and universities, have already established domestic partnership health programs. In fact, this amendment is not only mean-spirited and unwarranted, it is also bad health care policy. At a time when millions of Americans lack any health insurance, why would we stand in the way of any extension of health care benefits? Do we as a Congress really want to tell D.C. residents, they should be denied health care simply because of whom they love? This amendment is a disgrace and should be defeated.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Deborah Jacobs Welsh. I have never had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Welsh, but because of her courage and selflessness, I am able to stand here today on the floor of the House of Representatives and honor her memory. Debbie, as her friends and family lovingly call her, was a flight attendant on United Airlines Flight 93, which was hijacked on that fateful morning of September 11 and then crashed into a field in western Pennsylvania. But that's only part of the story. Debbie and others aboard Flight 93 were aware that this hijacking was part of a bigger, coordinated terrorist attack. They knew that not only were their own lives at stake, but the lives of countless people on the ground also hung in the balance. Putting aside their own safety and well-being and overcoming paralyzing fear, several passengers and crew members banded together and vowed to take back control of the plane. Anyone who knows Debbie, knows that, without a doubt, she was part of the group that fought to the end, refusing to give in to the hijackers. Words cannot express the rollercoaster of emotions running through me on that tragic day, especially when I learned of the heroic actions of those on Flight 93 which, according to authorities, was likely headed for the Capitol Building in Washington, DC. I cannot fathom the further devastation Flight 93 would have wrought if not for Debbie and the others who made the ultimate sacrifice, all in the name of protecting their fellow Americans and our nation. Because of these courageous individuals, I stand here today unharmed, as do my colleagues, members of my staff, and hundreds of other people who work on Capitol Hill. The bravery Debbie demonstrated in her final moments was not an isolated incident. Throughout her life, she always stood up for herself and for those around her, doing what she could to right any injustices she encountered. She could light up a room with her smile and her wonderful sense of humor. Debbie showed the same level of loyalty and concern to strangers as she did her family, routinely giving unused airline food to the homeless people in her neighborhood. Most of all, Debbie was a loving wife to Patrick, and a devoted daughter, sister, and aunt. Debbie will definitely be sorely missed, but she will never be forgotten. Her actions will live on as an example for all Americans. I know I speak for myself and my colleagues, when I say, ``Thank you, Debbie. For everything.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this legislation. We have to help the airline industry or we will face even more layoffs and economic downturn in the days ahead. But this bill does nothing to help the pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, reservation agents, and other employees who make the aviation system work. The bill contains no provisions extending unemployment benefits, health care coverage, job search assistance or any kind of relief to those who have lost their jobs as a result of the September 11 attacks. And it contains nothing about enhancing airline security, without which people will not fly the planes. The bill is inadequate, and I am tempted to vote against it, but I fear that the defeat of this bill could result in the loss of many more jobs and negatively impact the one million employees still working in the industry. It is terrible we are forced to choose between an inadequate bill or no bill at all. But that is our choice, and so I have to exercise it. And I will vote ``yes.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the World Trade Center is in my district, and I just this moment returned from traveling in the district with the President, walking through the ruins of the World Trade Center, where there are thousands of bodies buried. I have spent much of my career speaking out against the use of military force when I believed it was unwarranted. In many ways, my political awakening began with my active opposition to the war in Vietnam. But, Mr. Speaker, those of my colleagues who are rightly skeptical of the use of force, and who recognize how very reluctant we must be when sending our young men and women into harm's way, must understand the threat and the stakes if we fail to act. Many have said that the events of Tuesday changed the world forever. The world has not changed. The people who carried out this murderous attack on our Nation, the organizations which recruited, trained, and supplied them, the governments which gave them shelter and support are still there. We now know without any doubt what the price of inaction, of appeasement, of willful blindness will be. The world has not changed, but I believe the American people have. Our Nation is now ready to recognize that we have been in a war for many years. Our people now recognize that if we do not defend ourselves in that war from those for whom our lives, our children, and our way of life are a daily affront, we will not survive as a Nation. We must now exercise the right under the United Nations Charter to collective self- defense. I wish we had a choice, but the charred rubble and the thousands of dead Americans lying just blocks from my office in Manhattan, and the hundreds more a stone's throw from this very building demonstrate that we have no choice. We must pass this resolution. We must wage the war that has been thrust upon it. We must do it resolutely, and we must be victorious and rid the world of this scourge of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from my congressional district and walked with the President through the ruins of the World Trade Center. Somewhere in those charred and twisted ruins lie the bodies of relatives, friends, children, colleagues, neighbors, firefighters, police officers, working people, and innocent tourists. I have spent much of my career speaking out against the use of military force when I believed it was unwarranted. In fact, in many ways my political awakening began with my active opposition to the war in Vietnam. But, Mr. Speaker, those of my colleagues who are rightly skeptical of the use of military force, and who recognize how every careful we must be when we consider sending our young men and women into harm's way, must look carefully at this threat and understand the stakes if we fail to act. Many have said that the events of September 11, 2001, changed the world forever. But if our lives were changed forever, the world was not. The people who carried out this murderous attack on our Nation, the organizations which recruited, trained, and supplied them, the governments which gave them shelter and support, the fanatical leaders who have whipped up hatred so great that young people were willing to fly planes filled with innocent civilians into crowded office buildings--all of these despicable murders and demagogues have been at work for years. The only thing that has changed is that we have now joined the family of nations which has far too long paid a terrible price because we have failed to act. We now know without any doubt what the price of inaction, of appeasement, of willful blindness, will be. When we allow nations which offer shelter and pay tribute to these murders to pretend that they are our friends, we get the betrayal we ourselves have invited. Anyone who witnessed the mobs in the Palestinian territories celebrating our tragedy in the streets understands the attitude of our enemy in this war; they shake your hand and then cheer your pain. So the world has not changed, but I believe the American people have. Our Nation is now ready to recognize that we have been in a war for many years, and our people now recognize that if we do not defend ourselves in that war from those for whom our lives, our children, and our way of life are a daily affront, we will not survive as a nation. The Constitution gives Congress the awesome power to declare war and authorize the use of military force in the defense of the Nation. The United Nations Charter gives member nations the right to ``collective self-defense.'' Tonight we do just that. I wish we had a choice, but the charred rubble and the thousands of dead just blocks from my office in Manhattan, and the hundreds more a stones throw this very building, demonstrate that we do not. (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let me express my gratitude to everyone in this Chamber for their expressions of solidarity with the people of New York and the people of my district. On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, like December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United States was viciously and treacherously attacked. Thousands of our fellow citizens lie dead under the rubble. The World Trade Center, one of the most visible symbols of my home, New York City, is no more. Thousands of families even now frantically await word of the fates of their family members. Our response must be swift and resolute. First, we must continue the rescue and recovery operation, we must do all we can to assist the families of the victims, and we must help New York to recover from the devastation visited upon her. Second, we must prosecute the war that has been thrust upon us with resolve, with fortitude, with unity, until the evil terrorist groups that are waging war against our country are eradicated from the face of the Earth. This bill provides a down payment on the funds necessary to wage this war and to assist its victims. We will have to do far, far more; but we must begin. I urge unanimous approval of this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). I have just returned from spending time with my fellow New Yorkers to introduce this legislation. I must say, when I was going up to New York from Washington, going up by train, usually the first thing I see 20 miles away is the World Trade Center, the twin towers, and it gives me a good feeling, like a welcome home. This week, going up on the train from 20 miles away, no twin towers, no World Trade Center, only a huge plume of smoke stretching down the Jersey shore, and my guts felt like they were being torn out. I take no pride in introducing this legislation, and if ever there were a bill I drafted I wish were not needed, this would be it. Like so many Americans, I wait to hear from friends and colleagues who were in lower Manhattan when tragedy struck early Tuesday morning. With each passing hour, hope wanes; and we cannot help but feel more empty inside. But through all of this death and destruction, there are some glimmers of hope. All across this country, men, women and children are coming together, to volunteer their services, to donate supplies, and to donate their blood, and even in many countries abroad. Even more moving are the numerous accounts witnesses have relayed of the heroic and fearless actions of the region's firefighters and police officers as they rushed up to the inferno that the World Trade Center had become as thousands of civilians rushed out. Putting the safety and well-being of others well above their own, public safety officers performed the most courageous acts; but, sadly, probably about 300 New York City firefighters and EMS workers and EMT volunteers and people paid with their lives as well as 60 or 70 New York City and Port Authority police officers. According to the International Association of Firefighters, more public safety officers were lost in this attack on the United States than any other single event in modern history. In New York City, we normally lose four to five firefighters in a year. On one day, on Tuesday, we lost about 300. When a public safety officer dies in the line of duty, his or her family receives a one-time benefit payment. The paperwork involved, unfortunately, is often long, arduous and time consuming. Just as our public safety officers stand up for us, we must now stand up for them in this time of tragedy. This legislation directs the Department of Justice to expedite the payment process for the families of those affected by Tuesday's events. Expediting assistance is one small way we can help families cope with this tragic loss and take advantage of this important benefit without undue burdens or delays. Of course, much more needs to be done in response to Tuesday's events. I stand ready to work with all of my colleagues to address this crisis in a timely and comprehensive manner. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this legislation as the first step. We will take other steps. This country will make the criminals who committed this act of war against the United States and against civilization rue the day they were born. But this is our first step. I thank my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by again thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin for helping to expedite this bill so that it is before us today and hopefully will pass this body and the other body also today. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear, I want to emphasize that this legislation, one of the good points about it is that it makes the funds that are necessary available immediately as an entitlement not subject to appropriations, so we do not have to worry about the appropriation process. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my confidence that the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury will join the Congress in treating the families of these heroic public servants, these heroic police officers, fire officers and emergency medical technicians and so forth, in treating their families with the respect they are due from a grateful Nation and will speed the help that they need and deserve as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me again simply say that I regret that I was not on the floor yesterday to speak or vote on the resolution. I was up in New York in my district which includes the World Trade Center dealing with some of the problems, some of the people, and touring the site. It is a gut-wrenching site. But let me express my confidence that New York and the United States will recover from this. We are a resilient people. We will recover from this. We will build anew. The terrorists who did this, the nations behind them, will pay a heavy price, and this act of war will not go unpunished. And we will wage war until this scourge of terrorism is eradicated from the face of our planet. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill. I thank the body. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).