Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on July 12, 2004, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes number 359, 360, 361, and 362. Rollcall vote 359 was on the Holt amendment to H.R. 4755, the FY05 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act; rollcall vote 360 was on the Hefley amendment to H.R. 4755; rollcall vote 361 was on the motion to recommit to H.R. 4755; and rollcall vote 362 was on final passage of

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this rule.

Unlike most appropriations bills that this House debates, this bill will be considered by a structured rule that had blocked me from offering two amendments.

Two amendments that, according to the parliamentarian, were germane and not subject to a point of order. In other words, if this appropriations bill was any other appropriations bill, I would of had the opportunity to offer my amendments.

My first amendment would have prohibited the use of funds on any vote that last longer than 17 minutes.

It is not bad enough that they will hold the vote open long enough to have it their way. What is worst is that they would not even let us debate the amendment in the first place. What are they so afraid of?

The second Amendment would have required conference committees to meet before the House can vote on a conference report.

Since they did not allow me to offer my amendment, I plan to introduce a bill to restore democracy to the House of Representative. Some of the key sections of the bill deal with what my amendments would have also addressed.

In all, this legislation will offer ten specific changes to the way this House has been operating under the Republican Majority. Like my amendments, these changes will help restore democracy to the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, today we consider appropriating $25 million that would reassure the world about the U.S. commitment to saving women's lives.

The Bush administration has systematically undermined that commitment in its continued assault on UNFPA, the U.N. Population Fund. Our allies watch in horror as the world's enormous need for family planning goes unmet; and meanwhile our government allies itself with Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan in opposing voluntary international family planning programs.

Today, we can help to right that wrong by approving a measure that would direct $25 million to UNFPA programs to prevent and treat obstetric fistula, a devastating condition that afflicts 2 million women worldwide. No other agency works in this vital area.

Let us send a message to the Bush administration that this Congress listens to the American people even if it does not. The world is waiting for us to act. UNFPA saves women's and children's lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership on so many issues.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not accept an extremely important amendment that I had hoped to offer today. I went to the committee because the issue of funding the United Nations Population

Fund is essential to the health and well-being of millions of women around the world. Women are dying, and the U.S. has turned its back on them.

I offered an amendment that would have ensured that the money in this bill will go to UNFPA and go to help young women and girls who are suffering from obstetric fistula, a terrible condition that occurs during prolonged labor and leaves the women leaking urine for life.

Unfortunately, on a party line vote, the Committee on Rules voted not to protect my amendment.

I assure my colleagues that I have made every effort to compromise on this issue and to break this logjam.

In April of this year, I wrote a letter to the President, signed by many of my colleagues, asking him to put aside our differences and reach a compromise that would help millions of women and girls around the world by funding UNFPA's work on obstetric fistula. Sadly, I received a response ignoring the facts.

Mr. Speaker, women are dying around the world, and this body can do something about it. It is time that we did.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and for her leadership on so many issues.

What in the world are we worried about? If we have nothing to hide, then we should not have any concern whatsoever. Yet, today's New York Times in their article on the front page cites ``election troubles already descending on Florida.''

I truly expect that our elections will be well maintained and done in an honest and fair way, but no American should be ashamed or scared to have our democratic system observed and monitored by an international agency if voters are truly not being disenfranchised in the United States.

We have all served as monitors elsewhere. Why not have the same standard in our own country?

[From the New York Times, July 15, 2004]

Election Troubles Already Descending on Florida

(By Abby Goodnough)

Miami, July 14.--Three years after Gov. Jeb Bush announced

a new voting system that he called ``a model for the rest of

the nation,'' Florida is grappling with some of the same

problems that threw the 2000 presidential election into

chaos, as well as new ones that critics say could cause even

more confusion this November.

The touch-screen voting machines intended to cure many of

the ills of 2000 have raised a host of other concerns here

just four months before the election. A new state rule

excludes the machines from manual recounts, and the integrity

of the machines was questioned after a problem was discovered

in the audit process of some of them. Voting rights groups

filed a lawsuit last week challenging the recount ban, and a

Democratic congressman has also sued to request a printed

record of every touch-screen vote.

The controversy over the new equipment is just one of

Florida's challenges, which also include confirming which

voters are ineligible, training poll workers on new policies

and processing a flood of new registrations.

State officials announced on Saturday that they would throw

out a controversial list used to remove felons from the

voting rolls, acknowledging that Hispanic felons were absent

from the list. Secretary of State Glenda E. Hood, appointed

by Governor Bush last year, had earlier dismissed concerns

from lawmakers and advocacy groups about the list of 48,000

suspected felons, which the state made public only after a

judge's order.

The United States Civil Rights Commission, which issued a

scathing report on the last election here in 2001, will

examine problems with the list of felons in a hearing

Thursday in Washington.

``The most important thing is to really show the voters

that there are reasons to have confidence in these systems,''

said Bobbie Brinegar, president of the League of Women Voters

of Miami-Dade County. ``But the mantra has been `trust us.'

And that is not good enough.''

Jacob DiPietro, a spokesman for Governor Bush, said the

governor was ``taking full responsibility'' for the problem

with the list, adding: ``His No. 1 priority is to have a

seamless election and an election where people have

confidence that their vote will be counted.''

The state, whose 36-day recount after the 2000 election

stunned and divided the nation, is expected to be a major

battleground again this year, with President Bush (the

governor's brother) and Senator John Kerry, his probable

Democratic opponent, fighting fiercely for its 27 electoral

votes. Mr. Bush won Florida by 537 votes last time, but

thousands of votes were discarded because of voter error on

poorly designed ballots and other problems.

The Republican-led Legislature quickly passed an overhaul

of the voting system in 2001, banning the punch-card ballots

that caused so much trouble in 2000, giving counties money

for new voting equipment and setting recount guidelines. It

adopted two-thirds of the recommendations from a bipartisan

task force that Governor Bush appointed after the 2000

election, but stayed away from some of the more

contentious issues.

Most notably, lawmakers passed over recommendations to make

the positions of county elections supervisors nonpartisan and

to review the state's policy of permanently stripping felons

of voting rights. The package that the Legislature adopted

has played a role in the new turmoil. Tucked into the law was

a provision keeping registration records secret. A state

judge struck it down on July 2, opening the way for a close

examination of the list of suspected felons to purge from the

rolls.

Newspapers then reported that the list had a simple but

glaring flaw: it guaranteed that no Hispanics, who tend to

vote Republican here, would be purged, while thousands of

blacks, who tend to vote Democratic, might be purged.

Governor Bush moved quickly to drop it, but he was too late

to avoid accusations from Democratic lawmakers and groups.

The critics have denounced the effort to keep the list

secret, the touch-screen problems and other troubles as

purposeful efforts by Florida's Republican leadership to give

President Bush an advantage here.

Unlike her predecessor Katherine Harris, who was co-

chairwoman of President Bush's 2000 campaign in Florida even

as she oversaw elections, Ms. Hood has publicly stayed away

from politics. But critics say that Ms. Hood, a Republican

and former Orlando mayor whom Governor Bush appointed, has

sown doubt by dismissing criticism of the electoral system

and by not answering questions sufficiently.

The abrupt resignation of Ed Kast, the state's director of

elections, last month--he

said he wanted to pursue other interests--only deepened

public distrust, said Sandy Wayland, a member of the Miami-

Dade Elections Reform Coalition.

While previous secretaries of state were elected, Ms. Hood

was the first appointed by the governor, the result of a 2003

change in the State Constitution. She reports to Governor

Bush, who is therefore more directly responsible for her

office's successes and failures.

``She is dealing with some really sophisticated, aggressive

partisans,'' said Lance deHaven-Smith, a political science

professor at Florida State University, speaking of the Jeb

Bush administration. ``She has been a good soldier, getting

up and saying, `Everything is fine, not to worry.' And come

to find out, some of the problems that people feared were

actually there.''

The coalition asked Ms. Hood's office last month to allow

an independent review of the touch-screen machines now used

by 15 of 67 counties, including Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm

Beach. The office said that only counties were authorized to

seek such audits, and told reporters that the request was an

effort to undermine voter confidence.

Through a public-records request, the coalition obtained e-

mail messages and other documents from Miami-Date election

officials who referred to a flaw in the touch-screen

equipment's ability to audit elections results, a backup way

of recording votes. The e-mail messages date back as far as

June 2003.

Constance Kaplan, the Miami-Dade County elections

supervisor, publicly acknowledged the problem this spring.

This month, the company that makes the machines, Elections

Systems and Software, provided software to correct the flaw,

which the county and state say will not affect the machines'

accuracy.

``It is important to note that the anomaly was rare, and

all votes were counted as the anomaly did not affect the vote

itself but rather the audit after,'' Ms. Hood's office

wrote in a statement Tuesday.

Nicole de Lara, Ms. Hood's communications director, said

that Ms. Kaplan's office had ``unfortunately'' not alerted

Ms. Hood to the problem, and that she first learned of it

from an article in The Daily Business Review in late May.

Some critics suspect that Mr. Kast's resignation was related

to the malfunction, but Mr. Kast said in an interview it was

not.

Ms. Wayland is among many here who contend that counties

like Miami-Dade and Broward adopted touch-screen technology

too soon, swayed by aggressive lobbyists. The 52 counties

that do not use touch-screen equipment use optional-scan

machines, which produce records that can be manually

recounted.

A recent analysis by The Sun-Sentinel found that touch-

screen machines in South Florida failed to record votes eight

times more often than optical-scan machines in the March

presidential primary.

Nonetheless, Ms. de Lara said touch-screen machines were

wholly reliable for tabulating votes. She added that they

would never require a recount because under State law the

only reason for a manual recount is ``voter intent'' when a

voter makes too many or too few choices. Touch-screen

machines do not allow people to vote for more than one

candidate, she said. And if people do not choose any

candidate for a given office, that is their prerogative, she

said.

The rule says no manual recounts will be conducted when

votes are cast by touch-screen machine.

The election reform coalition and other groups have also

expressed concerns about a new policy on provisional ballots,

used by Floridians if poll workers cannot verify their

registration on the spot. The Legislature decided that

provisional ballots cast outside a voter's home precinct can

be thrown out, which voting-rights groups call unfair.

Florida is one of several States where people are

questioning touch-screen technology. California's Secretary

of State, Kevin Shelley, has prohibited the use of machines

from Diebold Election Systems in four counties for the

November election, and has ordered that touch-screen systems

bought after July 1, 2005, produce a paper record that is

verifiable by the voter.

``There's no question in my mind that ultimately there will

be paper trails in every county in Florida,'' said

Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat whose suits

challenging paperless voting systems are on appeal. ``The

only question is when.''

Mr. Chairman, while I am a strong supporter of the Ex- Im Bank, I am voting for this amendment to prevent companies that dodge U.S. taxes from receiving U.S. taxpayer assistance. It is simple: we should not be providing taxpayer-funded assistance to corporations that set up shell headquarters offshore for the purpose of avoiding paying their fair share of U.S. taxes.

The Export-Import Bank should be screening companies it funds to prevent this type of abuse. And if it does not, we should. I have consistently been a vigorous backer of the Export-Import Bank's mission to provide funding for exports produced in the United States. The bank's loans have supported American companies and provided jobs in this country, in my district of New York, and in many others. But giving loans to corporations, to expatriates, is an abuse of a good program.

Not only are companies that evade U.S. taxes getting taxpayers' money, but they are taking away dollars that should be spent helping companies that pay their fair share of American taxes. And, of course, if we allow this, we are encouraging other companies to move their so- called headquarters to Bermuda to avoid taxes and abandon the American worker. This is exactly what Senator Kerry meant when he said that we must stop providing tax subsidies to Benedict Arnold CEOs.

Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the Ex-Im Bank from approving subsidized loans or loan guarantees for any company that sets up a sham headquarters offshores to dodge U.S. taxes.

Five of the top recipients of Ex-Im funding are corporations that have set up sham headquarters in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to cite one example, Ingersoll-Rand. They saved $60 million in 2002 by formally incorporating in Bermuda, but they have received over $370 million since 2003 in Ex-Im financial assistance. This is wrong. It is a gross abuse of a good program.

In the name of American workers and taxpayers, we should put a stop to it. I urge my colleagues to vote for American jobs, for American companies that are responsible, for American companies that pay their fair share, not those that dodge our country and their responsibilities to it. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I do claim the time on behalf of the Committee on Government Reform, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us today S. 15, the Project Bioshield Act. This bill is substantially the same as H.R. 2122, which passed this House on July 16 of last year by a vote of 421 to 2. This bill is, in essence, the conference report on the bill and includes some minor improvements made by the Senate. I urge Members to support this measure as well.

Given the serious threat of bioterrorism, the development of effective countermeasures to biological agents is vital to our national security. The goal of Project Bioshield is to encourage the development of these projects. I fully support the intent of this legislation. I also agree with its premise, that when the market cannot foster the development of critical products by itself, the government must rise to the challenge.

The bill before us today includes several significant improvements from earlier proposals. For example, it includes important protections against waste and abuse that are standard for government contracts, such as preserving the government's right to review contractors' books and records.

The bill also permits the use of certain streamlined procurement procedures, but only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that there is a pressing need to do so.

The Senate bill appropriately strengthens some of these provisions and also allows for recovery by the government in the event of grossly negligent or reckless conduct on the part of a contractor.

In emergency situations, we should not impede the development of necessary products. However, any exceptions from standard procurement procedures should be made only when necessary and should be subject to review. This proposal preserves that important standard.

The provisions of Bioshield authorizing the emergency distribution of unapproved drugs and devices, whose risks and benefits are not fully tested, impose an unprecedented responsibility on the government. FDA must be vigilant in protecting the public against unnecessary risks from these products. In part because of these concerns, the bill requires that health care providers and patients be informed that the products have not been approved and be informed of their risks.

The bill also requires that manufacturers monitor and report adverse reactions to the products and keep other appropriate records about the use of the products. These conditions are essential for the safe use of unapproved products, and they should be imposed in all cases except in truly extraordinary circumstances.

In addition, the HHS secretary is authorized to limit the distribution of the products, to limit who may administer the products, to waive good manufacturing practice requirements only when absolutely necessary, and to require recordkeeping by others in the chain of distribution. We expect the Secretary to consider the needs for these additional conditions in each case and to impose them to the full extent necessary to protect the public from the risk of these products.

The bill before us today is an improvement over the original proposal and represents a bipartisan consensus of the House and the Senate and the White House. It deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) as the ranking minority member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and that he be allowed to control that time.

Offered By: Mrs. Maloney

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short title),

insert the following:

limitation on contributions to united nations population fund

Offered By: Mrs. Maloney

Amendment No. 16: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

limitation on contributions to united nations population fund

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I also would like to underscore the importance of this amendment. The beetle has struck two parks in the district that I represent. Once they infest the trees, they have to all be chopped down. They have been found three blocks from Central Park in New York, and we are trying mightily to keep it out of Central Park and from moving to the upstate forested area of New York State and moving to other States.

We have to stop the beetle and spend as much money as it takes. Because once they infest a tree, the only alternative is to chop the tree down and all the trees in the surrounding area. It is a tremendous crisis of the environment in our neighborhood, and I strongly support the ranking member's statements and the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment would simply require the FDA to do the job that they are supposed to be doing. If the FDA finds the drug to be safe and effective for over-the-counter use, then the FDA cannot withhold the drug from over-the-counter status for nonstatutory reasons.

Americans rely on the Food and Drug Administration to make scientific, evidence-based decisions that are in the best interests of the American public and that will help improve our health. The majority of the time this is exactly what happens. Unfortunately, a recent FDA decision on whether to grant over-the-counter status for Plan B, an emergency contraceptive pill, went against the advice of the independent, expert advisory committee and the advice of FDA staff. The decision was not science-based and was not made in the best interests of American women. Instead, it was a decision influenced by inappropriate political and ideological considerations.

The Maloney-Waxman amendment would basically say that the FDA would have to rely on science in making these decisions, and in this amendment we are with the world community. Thirty-three nations have approved the sale of emergency contraceptives for over-the-counter use, and five States in the United States have also approved it.

The American Medical Association, the American College of Gynecologists and over 70 medical and public health groups have endorsed making emergency contraceptives available for over-the-counter because they believe that they are proven to be safe to use without any medical supervision.

I would place in the Record 10 editorials from newspapers across the country stating that science should be the basis for making medical decisions at the FDA, not politics.

[From washingtonpost.com, May 11, 2004]

New Plans

At first glance, the news that the Food and Drug

Administration had decided to reject over-the-counter sales

of the emergency contraceptive Plan B seemed dramatic. As we

pointed out earlier this year, the science around this drug

is not controversial. In several international studies, the

drug has been shown to be safe and effective if taken within

72 hours of intercourse--hence the request of its

manufacturer, Barr Laboratories, to make it available over

the counter. The FDA's own scientific advisory panel

unanimously approved the request, and such a move would be

popular. Most of the time, Plan B acts like a birth control

pill, preventing ovulation and therefore conception: The

greater use of Plan B therefore means fewer abortions.

But because Plan B may also prevent fertilized eggs from

being implanted in a uterus, it has attracted negative

political attention. Some of the drug's political opponents,

those who equate a fertilized egg with a fetus, have called

it an ``abortion pill'' and have lobbied the FDA hard to

restrict it. Both state and national legislators have spoken

out against the drug, partly on those grounds and partly out

of concern for its impact on underage sex, leading many to

fear that the FDA would make a political rather than a

scientific decision.

In fact, though the FDA has banned the drug from over-the-

counter use, it left open a window for future approval. ``We

weren't closing the door,'' said Steven Galson, acting

director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and

Research. Indeed, if the FDA ruling is taken at face value,

the only thing required of Barr is that it either conduct

more studies of the drug's impact on younger women or come up

with a plan to ensure that the drug is available only by

prescription to girls younger than 16: According to Dr.

Galson, the FDA was bothered by the paucity of data

describing the impact of the drug on girls ages 14 to 16 and

the absence of data on girls younger than that, some of whom

might presumably try to buy the drug. The company says it is

``months, rather than years'' away from providing precisely

such information.

The FDA is within its rights to remain cautious about a

controversial drug. But if the agency wants to preserve its

reputation for making decisions based on sound science, it

will stick to this proposal and grant Barr the license to

sell the drug as soon as the information or a suitable plan

becomes available. At this point, the FDA should be given the

benefit of the doubt--but not indefinitely.

I am sure that the majority of this body agrees, like the expert panel and the FDA staff, that American women deserve the most safe and effective contraceptives available. Supporting this amendment is a vote in support of healthy women and evidence-based science.

A perfect example of inserting politics into science is the recent decision by the FDA to deny over-the-counter status to Plan B or the morning after pill. On December 16, 2003, a joint panel of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee and Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee voted 28 to 0 that Plan B could be safely sold as an over-the-counter medication. It then voted 23 to 4 to recommend that the FDA approve the application to make Plan B available over the counter. Yet on May 6, 2004, the FDA rejected over-the-counter status for Plan B.

The Washington Post, dated June 18, 2004, reported that a top agency scientist dismissed the reasoning that was used to justify the rejection as unfounded.

Officials at FDA wrote that Acting Center Director Stephen Galson was introducing a different standard for evaluating Plan B than the FDA had applied to other contraceptives.

Politics and ideology have been allowed to influence science, endangering the reputation of the FDA and having a direct and irreversible effect on the health and well-being of thousands of women.

The Maloney-Waxman amendment ensures that the FDA will not deprive American women of safe and effective contraceptives on ideological grounds. Accepting the Maloney-Waxman amendment is a vote in favor of safe and effective contraceptives for American women, a vote in favor of scientific, evidence-based science. A vote in favor of this amendment requires the FDA to spend money on doing their job and making decisions based on science, not politics, and I am very grateful that the majority is considering accepting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mrs. Maloney

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill, insert after the

last section (preceding the short title) the following

section:

Sec. 759. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to restrict to prescription use a contraceptive that

is determined to be safe and effective for use without the

supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer

prescription drugs under section 503(b) of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Mr. Speaker, it does not hurt to remind Americans to be vigilant against terrorist attacks, but yesterday's infomercial from the Department of Homeland Security was similar to warnings in April and May that did not tell the American people what to do and glossed over serious gaps in the administration's effort to protect our rail and transit systems.

One-third of all terrorist attacks worldwide target transit systems, and public transit is the most frequent target. What happened in Madrid could easily happen in New York. And we know for sure that the al Qaeda had plans to attack Washington D.C.'s Metro system last year.

We know that public transit carries 16 times more passengers than the airlines, but the Federal Government provides 90 times more funding for airline security. Something is very wrong with this security funding formula, and yesterday's press conference did nothing to fix it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the freedom to read amendment. It is imperative that we do all we can to protect our country against terrorism, but reinstating laws that allow the FBI to conduct searches on libraries with search warrants and criminal subpoenas would not jeopardize national security. It would merely protect our constitutional right to privacy and make our Nation's libraries free once again.

But under the PATRIOT Act, the use of our local library is no longer free. It can cost us our civil liberties. And in the U.S. that makes it very expensive.

We are talking about the basic right to inform oneself without the threat of the Federal Government looking over their shoulder for whatever reason it likes or analyzing their intellectual curiosity for whatever reason they want. This is a chilling thought in a country that calls itself the land of the free.

The first amendment protects our right to express ourselves. We should

not need a constitutional amendment that protects our right to inform ourselves, but section 215 of the PATRIOT Act makes us think it should be removed. I support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Freedom to Read amendment.

This amendment would abolish section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Section 215 gives the FBI unlimited power to examine our library records and book-store purchases--without providing any evidence that one is under suspicion of terrorism.

The free library is one of America's great educational and cultural traditions, and a cornerstone of our communities. But under the PATRIOT Act, use of the local library is no longer free. It can cost you your civil liberties, and in the United States of America, that makes it very expensive.

We aren't talking about flag burning here. We're talking about the basic right to inform yourself without the threat of the Federal Government looking over your shoulder for whatever reason it likes.

When you are doing research in a library or browsing the bookshelves at Barnes and Noble, you shouldn't have to think twice about how your intellectual curiosity might be analyzed in a Federal investigation. This is a chilling thought in a country that calls itself the Land of the Free.

The first amendment protects our right to express ourselves. We shouldn't need a constitutional amendment that protects our right to inform ourselves. But section 215 of the PATRIOT Act makes you wonder.

It's imperative that we do all we can to protect our country against terrorism.

Reinstating laws that allow the FBI to conduct searches on library and bookstore records with search warrants and criminal subpoenas would not jeopardize national security. It would merely protect our constitutional right to privacy and make our Nation's libraries free again.

Support the Freedom to Read amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sherman amendment that would limit the use of the enemy combatant doctrine to detain persons indefinitely.

While this amendment would only apply to those apprehended on U.S. soil, the government has detained American citizens, individuals whose rights are without a doubt protected by the U.S. Constitution, without charging them or allowing their case to be brought before our judicial system. This is simply wrong.

How can we expect the rest of the world to respect our way of life if we do not even adhere to the principles we claim to hold dear?

How can we expect our own constituents to believe in the protection of their rights if the rights of others are trampled on?

The Supreme Court recently determined that foreign citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay and American citizens detained in military brigs are entitled to their day in court.

Clearly, it's time that this Administration begin to respect the rights of the people it claims are criminals. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides for due process of law, and it's time we remembered that.

I thank my friend Representative Sherman for offering this amendment today, and I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the achievements of Mary E. Leishman, a longtime resident and champion of New York City. Ms. Leishman, who passed away on June 12, 2004, leaves behind a large and caring family, devoted friends, loyal colleagues and an incredible record of community service. Mary worked every day to promote the interests of her community and to better the lives of New York City residents. The city and people of New York will miss her dearly.

Ms. Leishman was known as the ``Godmother of Yorkville''--the area of Manhattan she called home for the majority of her life. Yorkville lies between the Upper East Side and East Harlem neighborhoods of Manhattan, which are traditionally regarded as the borough's wealthiest and poorest areas. The great diversity of Ms. Leishman's neighborhood fueled her many accomplishments, and provided the setting for her significant contributions to the public good.

Mary was truly a servant of the people, devoting much of her time and energy to New York City politics and public policy. Ms. Leishman served for more than fifteen years as a District Leader of the Eastside Democratic Club and was a longtime delegate to the Democratic County Convention. Mary worked tirelessly for the causes in which she believed, and showed a particular affinity for ``grassroots'' campaigning. Mary was always available to work at polling locations, collect signatures and perform other administrative tasks--duties that are essential to the functioning of our democracy, but that are often overlooked.

Mary was always attentive to the adage that ``all politics is local.'' Ms. Leishman was a devoted member of Manhattan Community Board Eight, serving in both professional and volunteer capacities. Ms. Leishman was the Chairwoman of Board Eight's Roosevelt Island Committee and for decades visited the island at least twice a week to assess neighborhood concerns and needs. Mary is perhaps best remembered, however, for her efforts to help a great many New Yorkers, particularly veterans and the disabled, find affordable places to live. Indeed, Ms. Leishman led Board Eight's efforts to preserve the Upper East Side's stock of moderate-income housing.

In recent days, many of Ms. Leishman's friends have contacted me to relate stories of Mary's great kindness to individuals in her community. I understand that not too long ago, Ms. Leishman and a friend were walking along 34th Street in Manhattan when a man stopped to ask them for money. Noticing that the man was barefoot, Mary led him to a nearby store and bought him socks and a new pair of shoes. Similarly, Mary was known to regularly provide hot meals to homeless persons she encountered in her travels around the city. These are only a few examples of Mary's generous spirit, but they underscore the fact that Ms. Leishman never ignored the most vulnerable members of her community.

Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues join me in honoring the late Mary Leishman, whose lifetime of community service exemplifies the tradition of civic involvement that makes America the greatest nation in the world. To Ms. Leishman's friends, family members and colleagues, I offer my continuing respect, admiration and support.