Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I will be supporting the Sanders Freedom to Read amendment which would curb the FBI's unlimited power to examine library records without providing evidence that one is under reasonable suspicion of terrorism.

The free library is a great American institution. But under the PATRIOT Act, your local library is no longer free. It can cost you your civil liberties, and in America that makes it very expensive.

We should not have to think twice about how our intellectual curiosity might be analyzed by a Federal investigation. This is a chilling thought in the land of the free. We must protect our country against terrorism. Reinstating laws allowing the FBI to conduct searches on library and bookstore records with search warrants and criminal subpoenas would not jeopardize our national security; it would protect our constitutional right to privacy and make our Nation's libraries free again.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in order to enter into a colloquy with the chairman and the ranking member, would the chairman allow me to ask a question about the funding for the American Community Survey?

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the committee has reduced the funding for the American Community Survey by $19 million. I was concerned about that cut, but I have been told that the Census Bureau has assured the committee that these cuts will have no effect on the quality of the survey; is that correct?

I thank the Chairman.

Currently, this bill does not include group quarters in the American Community Survey for fiscal year 2005. My understanding is that the Census Bureau agrees that students in dorms, inmates in prisons, seniors in nursing homes, some assisted living facilities, and those on military bases in the United States do not need to be included in the survey this fiscal year, and this will not impact accuracy for 2010. Is that also correct?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I feel that we need to fund the census. We have to get ready for the census that is to come, and if we do not fund it now, then the census will not be accurate when the time comes to go forward and get an accurate accounting of Americans.

Mr. Chairman, if the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), would allow me to ask a question about the funding for research on migration into and out of the United States, I understand the committee did not fund a new initiative proposed by the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau was going to spend $1.23 million in fiscal year 2005 to improve the migration estimates and demographic analysis.

As my colleague from New York will remember, the Census Bureau estimates failed to capture the dramatic increase in the migration of Hispanics during the 1990s, and as a result, those estimates were seriously flawed. Is it correct that the committee has eliminated funding to improve those estimates?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I appreciate his efforts to assure funding not only for the 2010 census, but for the many other important programs at the Census Bureau. I believe this small amount of research funding now will pay great dividends

down the road, and that the failure to fund this research will have serious consequences for the accuracy of a great many census programs besides the 2010 census.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, while I am extremely sympathetic to the cause my good friend from New York supports, I cannot support this amendment. Taking money from the census planning will cripple that effort and have consequences that will damage the census throughout this decade.

All of our representation in this Congress and our local and State bodies is based on census numbers. The funding that we receive in localities across this Nation are based on census numbers. Working to make it as accurate as possible is absolutely fundamental to the fairness of our democracy.

The 2000 census was the most expensive in history and was not very much more accurate than the 1990 census. Demographic analysis failed to capture the growth in Hispanic migration and, as a result, was of little use in measuring the accuracy of the census.

The census annual estimates of the population were off by almost 8 million in 2000. These and many other errors were the result of a failure of Congress to adequately fund the planning for the 2000 census.

The census is an enormous management undertaking. It is the largest peacetime mobilization the government undertakes. The census requires planning to mobilize hundreds of thousands of workers for a few weeks. In 2000, it took 500 offices and 500,000 workers. The Census Bureau opens those offices, hires a staff, and closes those offices all in a few weeks. Over 100 million forms have to be printed, labeled, and mailed. Those forms have to be returned by mail and the information on them tabulated, and all of this must be done in the 9 months between April 1 and December 31, when the director must submit to the President the State numbers for apportionment.

The budget for 2005 is essential for a fair and accurate census in 2010. The cut called for in this amendment will result in a poorly executed 2010 census. That, in turn, will result in millions of errors that will distort the apportionment of the seats in this House. These cuts will result in a more costly or less accurate census or both.

In this Information Age, we need reliable information in order to make good decisions for this Nation. Without good data, we cannot administer the laws of this country fairly, and I, for one, will continue to do all I can to make sure that the Census Bureau has the capabilities to provide the Congress and the Nation with the ability to provide all of us with high-quality data needed by the public and the private sector and its elected representatives to make informed public policy decisions. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for many of the reasons that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I gave earlier in support of having an accurate census. It takes years of planning for a census, and the funds people would cut today are the funds that pay for that planning. These cuts will result in a more costly or less accurate census or both. We need to put this funding forward now; and if we do not do it now, we will have to pay for twice the work next year, and that really does not save money.

A lot of the questions that are on the American Community Survey and on the census forms are questions that are required by law and are required by a legislative-mandated program. For example, we collect information on income to determine the number of children in poverty, and this data is used to distribute the title I education funds, and that pays for reading teachers and other specialists.

I know that every one of my colleagues has heard from their local communities when these funds are cut, and all of these funding formulas are tied to census numbers. The more accurate the numbers are, the fairer our democracy is.

So those who would cut the funding for this census and offer no replacement for the functions that the census serves, they would have us do without accurate numbers; and in the absence of accurate information, funds get distributed by those who control the purse strings, not based on the merit of the programs or the merit of the numbers.

So I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Hefley amendment in favor of directing Federal funds to where they can do the most good based on accurate census numbers. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read this excerpt from ``Whatever Happened to Lori Berenson, President Toledo's Trophy Prisoner?'' This analysis was prepared by Abigail Jones, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and presents factual documentation about the recent developments in the case of my constituent, Lori Berenson, who has been imprisoned for eight and a half years in Peru. During her imprisonment, she has never received a fair trial. I remain hopeful that the Peruvian government will release Lori from prison. It is time for her to come home.

(Excerpt): ``Lori Berenson, a 34-year-old New York native, has spent eight-and-a-half years incarcerated in Peru without the benefit of a fair and impartial trial--until now. Berenson's most recent trial was heard on May 7, 2004, in San Jose, Costa Rica before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the OAS's highest judicial body for the regional organization's member states. The CIDH exerts jurisdiction over OAS members who have ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, which Peru has endorsed. It is of note that this Court does not adjudicate the innocence or guilt of a defendant, but rather evaluates a state's compliance to the tenets of the Convention. The Court consented to hear Berenson's case upon the request of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), after the Peruvian government failed to comply with the Commission's 2002 recommendations calling for the restoration of Berenson's rights, monetary compensation for damages incurred while in prison and a general overhaul of the anti-terrorism laws that have condemned hundreds if not thousands of Peruvian nationals under the Alberto Fujimori regime (1990-2000), to a parody of properly administered justice.

``If Berenson were to be exonerated of her alleged offense, the Peruvian government would be obliged to comply with the Court's judgment, based on Article 68 of the American Convention on Human Rights; this clause asserts that, `The States party to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.' Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark represented Berenson throughout the Court proceedings and was assisted by noted criminal and international lawyer Thomas H. Nooter as well as Peruvian lawyer Jose Luis Sandoval Quesada. The Court's ruling will likely be handed down later this year. . .

``In December of 1994, Berenson allegedly arrived in Peru as a journalist to work for two small American publications, Modern Times and Third World Viewpoint. On Nov. 30, 1995, the Peruvian police arrested her aboard a public bus on charges of `treason against the fatherland.' After being illegally interrogated by the police without the benefit of a defense counsel, Berenson appeared before a `faceless' military court that had a 97 percent conviction rate. In a grossly contrived trial before a hooded military judge who most likely hadn't attended a day of law school, this court sentenced her to life in prison for her suspected leadership position in the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) and for the role she purportedly played in plotting a foiled attempt to abduct members of Peru's Congress. However, after years of outraged international protest over her patently inequitable trial, she continues to serve a 20-year sentence, after a civilian court overturned the '96 supreme military court's decision on the basis of newly obtained evidence that proved she was not a leader of the MRTA. She was then convicted on a lesser offense of abetting a terrorist organization. The civilian court acquitted Berenson of both membership in and militancy with a subversive organization.''

Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2004, I missed rollcall Vote No. 275. Rollcall

Vote No. 275 was on final passage of a bill Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Vote No. 275.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for all of their hard work on this truly important bill.

The Maloney-Rangel-Weiner amendment would limit the number of grants made under the Urban Area Security Initiative to 80 total grants. This is the same number of grants that were distributed by the Department of Homeland Security this year.

Since the Sweeney amendment was not adopted that would increase funding to the high-threat level the President requested, capping the number of grants to this year's number is the best way to ensure that the same places that are targeted by terrorists are targeted by the aid. This amendment will ensure that high-threat money goes to high- threat communities.

As every terrorist expert will tell us, we need to secure the high- profile areas targeted by terrorists. Yet, it seems that since the program started, we are more concerned with expanding the number of grants than securing the most vulnerable areas.

We first started with 7 grants to cities. We then grew to 30. Now we are at 80 total grants, 50 to cities and 30 to transit authorities. We are in danger of losing our focus on the core mission of most effectively protecting ourselves with the limited resources we have.

Over the first 2 years of the program, we have seen an increase in the number of grants, but we have cut the funding levels from $800 million in 2003 to $725 million in 2004. The result of the rapidly expanding list of entities eligible for high-threat monies was a dramatic cut for some of the highest threat cities.

For example, last year, New York got $150 million of Federal high- threat aid. This year, it shrunk by 69 percent to $47 million. The DC area suffered a reduction of 52 percent of high-threat money. Chicago was cut by 17 percent of their funding. But believe me, DC, Chicago, New York, Houston, Seattle, they have not seen a decrease in their threat levels or a decrease in the amount of money that their local governments are forced to spend on the protection of their people.

One positive step that this bill takes today is a general increase in high-threat money, from $725 million this year to $1 billion. But I am concerned that if this trend continues, the number of grants will continue to increase, and the aid to the areas under the greatest threat will continue to see their aid decrease.

At a time when the administration tells us terrorists are eager to attack, we need to make sure that high-threat grants actually go to where the high threat is. That is what this amendment attempts to do.

This high-threat grant program and list cannot become another pipeline for general spending for other needs. We have to uphold it as one way to actually give the cities at risk the help that they need.

Targeting money to these high-threat areas is not sending money to prevent some hypothetical threat. The cities on the high-threat list either have been the victim of a terrorist attack or, at the very least, have been talked about by the terrorists as a target area.

We know how the al Qaeda thinks: If at first you do not succeed, try, try again. They viewed their first attack on the World Trade Center as a disaster, as a failure, so they came back with a vengeance on September 11.

There have been several other planned attacks in New York City that have been foiled. If we take a look at terrorist attacks or known plots over the last number of years, there is one thing in common: they are all on the list of high-threat cities.

We can point to the millennium plot in Seattle, Washington. Plans to attack the Los Angeles International Airport, the September 11 attacks against New York and Washington, DC, and just this week, the Attorney General told us that there was a plot on a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio. Seattle, Columbus, LA, New York, DC, they are all on the current list of 80 high-threat entities.

By including 80 entities, we allow the Department of Homeland Security to cast a pretty wide net, while making sure it is not too wide to be effective. We need to target the aid to the terrorist targets in our country. That is the purpose of the high-threat aid formula, and that is what my amendment does.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this legislation. There is no question that Congress must act promptly to repeal the tax breaks for U.S. exporters. The EU sanctions are increasing and are unfairly hurting sectors of the economy that do not benefit from the tax advantage.

But this is the wrong way to do it. This bill--with all the special interest tax breaks that have been loaded onto it--would hurt the economy more than doing nothing. It abolishes the tax subsidies for exporters but replaces them with an array of special interest tax breaks. We have an opportunity here for reform that would help our manufacturing sector while responding to the UE sanctions. We should not affirmatively do harm by passing this bill instead.

I am particularly concerned that this bill substantially increases incentives to move American jobs offshore--by 40 million dollars, according to one estimate. How can we encourage companies to move jobs offshore at a time when the unemployment rate in New

York City is at 8.1 percent and the national rate is 5.6 percent? Who are we helping here? Certainly not the American worker.

Unfortunately, the Majority has denied us the opportunity to vote on the Rangel substitute to this misguided legislation. The Rangel alternative would strike provisions that promote shipping jobs overseas, add provisions to create more jobs in the United States by giving tax relief to American manufacturing including small business and farmers, strike narrow special interest provisions, and is fully paid for. And the Rangel substitute would close tax loopholes for corporations and individuals that move abroad to avoid paying taxes. By limiting debate on these critical issues, the Republicans do a disservice to the American people.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sweeney amendment and in appreciation to the New York and New Jersey delegations and many from Chicago and other areas that are supporting this important amendment.

Mayor Bloomberg is watching this debate, and his office just sent me a note and asked me to clarify on the floor today that New York City got $90 million last year out of the $3 billion given out for homeland security to State and local governments; $35 million in high-threat money, and $53 million from the State grant program, bringing the total to $90 million out of $3 billion for New York City. His office asked me to note to this body that last year New York City spent well over $1 billion on homeland security, and I really am urging my colleagues to do the right thing for the security of our Nation and support the Sweeney amendment.

It has been 2\1/2\ years since 9/11, and we have heard numerous reports, intelligence reports, as my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) mentioned, and I support his comments completely; and numerous warnings about terrorist plans for more strikes on America. Alert after alert, Code Orange after Code Orange, we hear that the terrorists have their sights on

high-impact targets. In other words, the terrorists continue to want to strike centers of power and population, just as they did on 9/11. Their goal is to kill as many as possible, send as big a message as possible, and disrupt American institutions as much as possible.

Mr. Chairman, despite that knowledge, our homeland security funding since 9/11 has been, in large part, misguided. We continue to push limited resources through a bad formula that sends a disproportionate amount of money to prairies and pastures rather than population centers. We cannot wait out the game being played with that formula, because the terrorists do not plan on waiting for us to be ready.

Mr. Chairman, the Sweeney amendment will bring one measure of immediate assistance to the cities and communities that are squarely in the terrorists' bull's eye. All we are asking is that we do what President Bush wants. After 2 years of misguided homeland security budgets, the President finally called for a doubling of the Urban Area Security Initiative funds in his budget proposal. Sending more assistance to the communities most at risk is the best way to get the money where the threat is, right now.

New York is terrorist target number 1. Everyone says that. And I repeat, we have spent over $1 billion out of our own pocket for security, but we have gotten a mere fraction of that back from the Federal Government. There is no reason that New Yorkers should have to watch New York City close down over six firehouses. We have fewer police and fire today than we had on 9/11. The radios that did not work on 9/11 still do not work. The HAZMAT suits destroyed on 9/11 have not been replaced. Yet, there are press reports across this country about many communities getting money, and they even say to the press we do not know what to do with it. We should not be sending more gas masks to certain areas than there are even police officers, sending more homeland assistance to low-threat communities than they know what to do with while our high-threat communities struggle to keep their heads above water. It is not fair, it is not smart, and it certainly is not secure.

At the very least, this amendment sends the message to the American people that we do, in fact, understand the need to base assistance on where the threat is and, more importantly, it finally sends more assistance to the communities that desperately need it. The Sweeney amendment does exactly what the President's budget requested.

So I request my colleagues to join us in supporting this.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

In 2004.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, a point of clarification. The numbers that I cited came from the Mayor of the City of New York. His office literally called up, they are watching the debate, and said, please clarify, New York City got $90 million out of the $3 billion.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach Amendment, which would provide a modest-- but much needed--increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

This additional $10 million dollars for the NEA and $3.5 million dollars for the NEH would help expose our children to American art, history and culture. In addition to the enjoyment and life-enrichment that each participant in the arts experiences, the involvement of children in the arts has been shown to improve reading and language development, mathematics skills, fundamental cognitive skills, motivation to learn, and social behavior.

The Arts and Humanities not only enhance the lives of our children-- they also keep our economy strong. Every year, the nonprofit arts industry creates $134 billion dollars in economic activity, generating $22.4 billion dollars in tax revenue for our local, state and federal governments, and supporting nearly 5 million full-time jobs all across our country.

In my district alone, over 130,000 people are employed by the museums, theaters, art galleries and other art organizations that I am proud to represent. For my constituents, and for all Americans, the arts mean business.

Because such a modest increase in funding would bring the arts and jobs to so many people, I support the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Offered By: Mrs. Maloney

Amendment No. 8: In title III, under ``Office for State and

Local Government Coordination and Preparedness--State and

local programs'', after the second dollar amount insert

``(reduced by $446,000,000)''.

In title III, under ``Office for State and Local

Government Coordination and Preparedness--State and local

programs'', after the fourth dollar amount insert

``(increased by $446,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mrs. Maloney

Amendment No. 9: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) add the following:

Mr. Speaker, on June 1, 2004, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes numbered 210 and 211. Rollcall vote 210 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 295, a resolution congratulating and saluting Focus: HOPE on the occasion of its 35th anniversary and for its remarkable commitment and contributions to Detroit, the State of Michigan, and the United States. Rollcall vote 211 was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 612, a resolution recognizing and honoring the firefighters, police, public servants, civilians, and private businesses who responded to the devastating fire in Richmond, Virginia, on March 26, 2004.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes numbered 210 and 211.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution honoring the contributions of the more than 6 million American women, symbolized by ``Rosie the Riveter'', who served our country on the homefront during World War II and the changes to our society that came about because of them. These women stepped forward when our country needed them to work as engineers and welders and riveters to produce the ships and planes and tanks necessary for us to win the war.

I recently visited a factory in Athens, New York, that makes electric boats. They told me that even in this town of less than 4000 people, this boat factory was filled with women workers during World War II. The women factory workers made hundreds of thousands of life rafts to support the troops serving at sea. The whole country turned into a big factory to support the war effort, and the women workers were the force behind that factory.

The legacy of Rosie the Riveter is a broadening of opportunities to all Americans. For the first time in America, during World War II, women and minorities gained access to high-paying jobs in industry. Employee-sponsored health care and services such as child care for children of workers originated at this time. I join my colleagues today in applauding the improvements in the workplace and our society during the Rosie the Riveter Era and in honoring these women for stepping forward when their country needed them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men and women who have served our nation by paying the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom and democracy.

While we should honor all our nation's veterans both living and dead throughout the year, on this particular Memorial Day, we pay tribute to the nation's World War II veterans. On May 29th, the World War II memorial, a fitting tribute to ``the Greatest Generation,'' will be dedicated on the National Mall. Hundreds of thousands of World War II veterans and their families will visit the memorial which is a permanent reminder to us and to future generations that the sacrifices made by the soldiers who served overseas, their families, and the Americans who were on the homefront, saved the world from tyranny. From the beaches of Normandy to the Battle of Midway to the construction of the China-Burma-India Road, these soldiers fought for a cause bigger than themselves.

One of these heroes, Michel Thomas, resides in my congressional district and recently was awarded the Silver Star for his extraordinary courage during World War II. I, along with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), worked with the Department of Defense on Mr. Thomas's behalf so that he finally would receive the honor he so justly deserves.

Michel Thomas was born in Poland to a Jewish family with a thriving textile business. In 1933, he fled Hitler's regime in Germany for France. Thomas last saw his family in 1937. He later learned they were all murdered at Auschwitz.

During the war, he survived two years of concentration and slave labor camps in Vichy France and narrowly escaped deportation to Auschwitz. He joined the Secret Army of the French Resistance, where he was active for two years as a commando leader. In 1943, Thomas was caught by and escaped from Klaus Barbie, the notorious Butcher of Lyon. The next year Thomas served in Combat Intelligence in the 180th Regiment of the U.S. Army 45th Division, The Thunderbirds, and was nominated for the Silver Star for his bravery.

On April 29, 1945, Thomas, an agent in the U.S. Army's Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), arrived at Dachau concentration camp on the day of liberation. Thomas interrogated and photographed the crematorium workers. Two days later Thomas captured the ``Hangman of Dachau,'' Emil Mahl, who was subsequently convicted of war crimes.

In early May 1945, Thomas tracked a convoy of trucks to a paper mill outside Munich, where he rescued from destruction the Nazi Party's worldwide membership card file of over ten million members. The Nazi leadership had shipped the cards, along with tons of other important Third Reich government documents, to be pulped in the final days of the war. These documents became the heart of the collections of the U.S.- run Berlin Document Center, and were crucial in the Nuremberg war crimes trials and in the denazification of Germany.

In 1946, Thomas helped to capture Gustav Knittel, who was convicted of war crimes for his role in the Malmedy massacre of American POWs at the Battle of the Bulge. I am proud to honor Michel Thomas for his heroism.

On Memorial Day, it is fitting that we honor all the men and women of the Armed Forces who have served their nation throughout history including those who are currently risking their lives around the world, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have been to both countries twice and have visited with soldiers from New York and across the country. I especially

want to note the contributions of the 10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum under General Austin's leadership, and the 1st Battalion, 69th Infantry Division of the New York Army National Guard, located in my district, who just shipped out to Iraq on Monday. While they are serving in Iraq, I will be fighting to pass legislation to ensure that they receive full military retirement credit for their days of service at Ground Zero after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

I am pleased to note that today we are passing legislation to correct a longstanding inequity in survivor benefits for the spouses of our fallen veterans. The ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005'' provides for a 5-year phase-in to eliminate the Widow's Tax. This unfair tax penalizes the widows and widowers of military retirees by reducing their Survivor Benefit Plan benefit from 55 percent of the retiree's pension to 35 percent once they reach age 62, normally the same age she or he is eligible for Social Security. The Social Security benefit the surviving spouse receives is often less than the reduction in the benefit, which results in a net loss of income. This legislation brings long overdue relief to the surviving spouses.

I will continue to support the members of Armed Forces in every way that I can. We owe all of them a debt of gratitude which we can never repay. They helped to make this country what it is today, and they have brought peace to other nations across the globe.

I would like to thank my colleagues from New York Representatives Rangel and Walsh for organizing today's moment of silence for America's fallen soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the achievements of Brian O'Dwyer, who on May 24, 2004 will be honored at the McManus Democratic Association's Annual Spring Cocktail Party. I am very pleased to offer my warmest congratulations to both the McManus Association, for another year of outstanding service to New York City residents, and to Mr. O'Dwyer, who has long been a leader in the New York community.

The McManus family has been a fixture of New York City politics for more than one hundred years. For the past three decades, the leader of the McManus Democratic Association, James McManus, has been an advocate, ombudsman and friend to residents of midtown Manhattan. The Association, an active social-service organization, helps its members to find jobs, housing, educational opportunities and better medical care, and continually strives to promote the interests of working-class New Yorkers through collective action. The Association has also made a longstanding commitment to young New Yorkers, introducing students to the political process and to government service. I commend the McManus Association for its tireless efforts on behalf of midtown residents; time and again, the Association exemplifies the notion that we work best when we work together.

Like Jim McManus, Brian O'Dwyer is also part of a long and proud tradition in New York political life. Mr. McManus's father, Paul, served as New York City Council President from 1974 to 1978, and his uncle, William O'Dwyer, was the Mayor of New York City from 1946 to 1950. Mr. O'Dwyer currently serves as senior partner in the law firm of O'Dwyer & Bernstien, a firm known for its work in labor law, personal injury cases and civil rights litigation.

Mr. O'Dwyer has never forgotten his roots as a descendant of Irish immigrants and has steadfastly worked to promote the rights and well- being of new Americans, regardless of their country of origin. In 1995, Mr. O'Dwyer, serving as the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Emerald Isle Immigration Center, accompanied President Bill Clinton on his historic trip to Ireland. He has also served as Counsel to the Department of Community Affairs of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and was recognized by the Governor of Puerto Rico for his efforts on behalf of the Puerto

Rican people. Brian O'Dwyer is the recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor Award, the Outreach Project Annual Service Award, the New York City Council Spirit of New York Award and, in July 2000, was named a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre by Edward Cardinal Egan of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to Brian O'Dwyer and the McManus Democratic Association. To Mr. O'Dwyer and the dedicated professionals, volunteers and friends of the McManus Association, I offer my continuing admiration, respect and support.