on September 18 the President signed a supplemental appropriations bill that provides, quote, ``that not less than one-half of $40 billion should be for disaster recovery activities and assistance related to the terrorist acts in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania.'' The bill before us today welshes on this solemn pledge and amends the law to cut almost in half the $20 billion previously appropriated. To add insult to injury, the pending rule will not allow the bipartisan amendment to restore the $10 billion cuts to redeem the $20 billion pledge by the Congress and the President even to be debated on the floor of the House. Congressional leaders and the President have repeatedly stressed their intentions to provide more than the promised $20 billion aid to New York, just not now. The funds will come eventually. Be patient. Trust us, they say. But the funds are desperately needed now, not in 6 months or a year. We need funds now for grants to enable small businesses to survive. Lower Manhattan could lose 10,000 of its 14,000 small businesses in the next 6 months. The victims of the attack need unemployment benefits and medical insurance now, not next year. Small business owners are making decisions now whether to try to keep going or to shut the business. Large businesses must decide whether to return to downtown eventually or to seek permanent quarters elsewhere now. And residents are debating whether or not to return to Lower Manhattan.
Jerry Nadler: “on September 18 the President signed a supplemental appropriations bill that provides, quote, ``that not less than…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the need for immediate disaster recovery funding after the September 11 attacks.
Share
More from Jerry Nadler
What an administration it is shaping up to be: A Fox News host who advocated for pardoning war criminals...
On that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208, nays 196, not voting 28, as follows: [Roll No. 489]…
If their operations are legitimate and above-board, why is there a need for anonymity, and why don't they need warrants to come onto private property?
I oppose this dangerous, dishonest, and undemocratic resolution. It is dangerous because it would require shredding the social safety net and gutting vital investments in healthcare, infrastructure, and public safety. It is dishonest…





