Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this floor update says, ``Republicans Raid Social Security for Election Eve Tax Cut,'' and that is exactly what it is. My Republican friends want to take the Social Security trust fund and turn it into an all-purpose slush fund, and I do not think the American people want that. Any way we cut it, we are stealing $177 billion away from Social Security. And let us note that the surplus, as has been stated here before, is only the result of the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, I have seniors in my district come to me all the time saying that we should not raid our Social Security to pay for everything that the government wants or to pay for tax cuts. Social Security monies should be used for Social Security purposes only, and we ought to save and strengthen Social Security first. This waives the Budget Act which says that all tax cuts must be fully paid for and offset. And the reason we do have a projected surplus, frankly, is that in 1993, the Democrats, without one Republican vote, had the courage to pass the bill. So, let us remember, the unified budget is not as a result of President Johnson. Presidents Bush and Reagan did not change it either. This bill is irresponsible, and it ought to be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the fast track bill before the House today. If fast track were to become the law of the land, the President could negotiate trade agreements that Congress is not allowed to amend, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) pointed out. That means the main force for protecting American workers' and consumers' interest would be eliminated. Therefore, unless the fast track rules under which a trade agreement is negotiated contain adequate protections for labor and the environment, I must vote against the deal. Unfortunately, that is the case today. In fact this rule will not even allow amendments to protect workers' rights, human rights, and the environment. Therefore, I will vote against both the rule and the bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise. Unlimited fast track procedures also brought us NAFTA, which I believe has been a failure. The fast track NAFTA deal with Mexico and Canada in 1993 is a perfect example of what happens when we rush into agreements that do not take into consideration the concerns of workers and consumers. Ever since NAFTA became law, America has lost more than 400,000 jobs as corporations move production to Mexico and Canada. Employers are using the threat of plant closures to drive wages down as well. People who found new employment after their jobs moved to Mexico took an average pay cut of $4,400 a year. Air and water pollution along the U.S.-Mexico border has become significantly worse since we have NAFTA, while the amount of hazardous waste crossing the border increased 30 percent in 1995, the last year in which we have statistics. Increased agricultural imports and inadequate border inspections have increased the threat of unsafe food in our supermarkets and unsafe trucks on our highways. Mr. Speaker, this is the legacy of NAFTA and fast track. When we move too fast, we make mistakes. America has negotiated hundreds of successful trade agreements without fast track authority. Given NAFTA's failure, why rush into more unlimited fast track trade deals? Congress should vote for the right track, not the poorly drafted fast track. I urge my colleagues to oppose fast track. Even the President, who supports basic fast track, is opposed to this. So, we ought to vote this down. We ought not to be for election time gimmicks. We ought to do what is right for the American people. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for the right track, not this poorly drafted fast track. Defeat the rule and defeat the bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that the Committee on the Judiciary is about to release the tape of the President's grand jury testimony to the public. I thought that grand jury testimony is supposed to be confidential. So much for due process. The whole purpose in releasing the tape is to once again embarrass and humiliate the President as Mr. Starr did in his report when he put in graphic sexual details so our children could read them on the Internet. We did not even give the President the simple courtesy of seeing the report a day or two before its release even though we had given the Speaker of the House the courtesy when the House Ethics Committee had charges against him. So much for the bipartisanship that was promised to us by the House Republican leadership. The political witch-hunt against the President continues.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, if I may ask the majority leader one further question. Would it not be possible to perhaps hold votes on Tuesday, hold votes over until Wednesday, to do the debates on Tuesday, as we so very often do, but not have the votes actually held until Tuesday? That would not slow down the procedures of the House or the ability of the House to do the kinds of work that we need to do, but it would be fairer to have the actual votes on Wednesday.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, New York has a primary, and other States as well. There are probably seven or eight States that have a primary. I happen to have a contested primary election, as some of my colleagues do as well. I know in the past we have avoided having votes on a day that States are having primaries, and I am wondering if the same consideration could be given to those of us in New York who have a primary. Because, obviously, if we are running for election, we cannot be here and we would miss votes. And again, it has been done for other States, and I am wondering if it could be done on Tuesday, as well.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state my strong opposition to H.R. 3892. I am a strong supporter of bilingual education, however, instead of bolstering federal efforts to help immigrant children, this bill penalizes them. This bill also does not advance our national education policy. H.R. 3892 does not attempt to establish criteria for teachers and school districts, nor does it set realistic goals for our children. This bill instead restricts local school districts and jeopardizes successful bilingual education programs by cutting federal support for teacher training and virtually eliminating successful programs that currently help immigrant children. In fact, this bill even lowers academic standards and expectations for immigrant children by focusing exclusively on English language proficiency rather than math, science and history. H.R. 3892 jeopardizes these children's futures by setting an arbitrary and unrealistic punitive two-year federal mandate on their ability to master English. This in effect becomes a two-year ``impediment'' to their educational future. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3892 and join me in opposing this destructive and politically motivated bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey. This will help American victims of terrorism collect on judgments they have been awarded against state sponsors of terrorism. As the gentleman from New Jersey pointed out, the Flatow family has gotten a judgment against the government of Iran, which sponsors terrorism. It is absolutely obscene that we would be in a position of taking the side of Iran. Iran must understand, as an outlaw nation, that we will never stop in trying to combat terrorism. This is certainly justice for the Flatow family. By allowing this seizure of Iranian assets, this is something that teaches Iran, hits them where it hurts and let us them understand, again, that we will not accept state-sponsored terrorism. It is ludicrous that the State Department had opposed this. Iran must pay a price for the continuing support of terrorism. I compliment my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to increase funding for the Public Telecommunication Facilities Program, PTFP, by $5 million. I support public broadcasting, and I think this is a very important amendment to help public broadcasting. I am offering this amendment because I believe we must address the daunting challenge that the public broadcasters are facing in the conversion to digital broadcast transmission. Additional funding for PTFP can help with this transition. PTFP is a success story that demonstrates what the government and the private sector can accomplish when they work together. The facilities program is a matching grants plan for public radio and television stations. It helps stations purchase equipment to extend their signals to unserved areas as well as replace outdated hardware such as transmitters, master control rooms or towers. Many of these stations are in rural areas and do not have the resources to upgrade their systems or receive signals. The facilities program has been an unqualified success because it has helped extend public television and public radio services to most of the country, and certainly that is a very worthwhile endeavor. PTFP is the sole program in the Federal Government that assists in the maintenance of the vast public broadcasting inventory, which now exceeds an estimated $1 billion in value. Since its inception, PTFP has invested $500 million in public telecommunication facilities that deliver informational, cultural and educational programming to the American people. That is a significant investment in a system that is now nearly universal, reaching communities as diverse as Point Barrow, Alaska; Jackson, Mississippi; and Los Angeles, California. This universality provides an amazing potential for communication among Americans as we move further into a digital information age. The Federal Communications Commission has mandated that all public television stations be on the air with a digital signal by May 2003. Public radio stations face a similar transition, although no timetable has been set. The industry has done extensive research and estimates the costs associated with the transition conversion to be $1.7 billion. Public broadcasting stations are facing huge financial obstacles with digital transition. Tower replacements costing $1 to $3 million are estimated for about one-third of public television stations. In addition, each analog transmitter and antenna will have to be replicated in digital formats over the next seven years at high cost. Furthermore, the cost to displace radio stations could run from thousands to millions of dollars because of dislocations or structural problems with older towers. We have an obligation to help public broadcasters finance this enormous venture. Public stations must have the ability to keep up with changing technologies. With proper resources, we can ensure that the public-private partnership between the Federal Government and public broadcasting will guarantee that all Americans will continue to benefit from the services and programming available through public broadcasting. I am strongly supportive of a proposal put forth by the President that would create a new digital transition program that would help stations with digital conversion. While the Committee on Appropriations chose not to authorize the program, it is my hope that such a plan can be created in the future so that we can properly assist public broadcasters with their digital transmission needs. This amendment is a modest attempt to help them adapt to the digital, and start a dialogue for future actions that can be taken. Let us fully support these efforts, so the American people can continue to receive the quality programming they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding the time to me. Let me just say that I think all Americans want the most accurate census possible. I do not think Americans want politics to be played. I do not think Americans like this kind of thing. The whole purpose of the census every 10 years is to get an accurate description of what America is all about, an accurate count. If we look at the chart over here, it shows the estimated number of people who will be missed using the 2000 census plan as proposed by using statistical sampling. And how many people will be missed if we use the old 1990 method? Five million people missed, 5 million Americans not counted in the census if we use the 1990 method. And if we use the 2000 method that we are proposing, statistical sampling, very few people will be missed. That should be the bottom line for anybody. Politics should not be played. We should not have to do this time and time again. Everybody knows that the only way to get an accurate sampling, accurate statistics, is by using statistical sampling. The 1990 census was a disaster. Everybody knows that at least 4 million people were not counted. The Bush Administration census director at the time said enumeration cannot count everybody. So unless the census is allowed the option of employing statistical sampling to improve its accuracy of the count, the next census will miss even more people. So the bottom line, again, for us and for the American people should be, which will give us more accurately what the American population is? It certainly is using statistical sampling.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to get to the Chamber due to the funeral procession, and I inadvertently missed rollcall No. 367, amendment 23. Had I been present, I would have noted ``no.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Ganske- Dingell bill and in opposition to the Republican bill. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights takes health care decisions away from insurance company bureaucrats and gives them back to doctors and patients. The Republican bill is a sham--it will actually turn the clock back on health care consumers and is another empty political promise from this GOP Congress. The Republican bill covers too few people, provides too few patient protections and contains unnecessary and irrelevant provisions. The Democratic bill: First, returns health care decisions to health care professionals and their patients. The Republican bill does not. Second, the Democratic plan guarantees patients the right to see a specialist when they need to do so. The Republican bill does not. Third, the Democratic bill guarantees an end to financial incentives to limit medical care. The Republican bill does not. Fourth, the Democratic bill guarantees tough enforcement that will hold insurance companies responsible for their actions. The Republican bill does not. Fifth, the Democratic bill guarantees emergency care. The Republic bill does not.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his encouraging words and look forward to working with him and the gentleman from Virginia and the EPA over the next year to find a way to afford my community and others even greater flexibility in their efforts to offer Americans the cleanest water possible. Mr. Chairman, with the gentleman from California's reassurances at this time, I will not offer my amendment.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, to discuss a matter of concern that impacts my district, the 17th District of New York, and is also a matter of national concern.

Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, this week we will be voting on a Patients' Bill of Rights, something that all our constituents want. The Republican plan as put forth in the House does not do anything, does not protect people, and I think it is time to take a look at the difference between the Democratic plan and the Republican plan. The Republican plan fails to protect every American in a private insurance plan. Their plan only applies to 50 million people and leaves everyone else out in the cold. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights protects at least 140 million people, every American who is covered by a private insurance plan. The Republican plan does not return health care decisions to health care professionals and their patients. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights does. The Republican plan does not guarantee patients the right to see a specialist when they need to do so. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights does. The Republican plan does not allow for access to OB-GYN for all women or emergency room coverage for all patients. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights does. The Republican plan does not hold insurance companies responsible for their actions denying patients the care they need. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights does. When you stack the two up, Madam Speaker, there is no comparison. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights protects the American people, guarantees access to health care, and guarantees that this coverage will be there for all Americans. The Republican plan is just a public relations gimmick and a sham.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to talk about something that is happening in the Balkans, and that is, unfortunately, ethnic cleansing rearing its ugly head once again. Just a few minutes ago, we heard the President of the United States say that he was going to maintain sanctions on Serbia because of the way they have been treating their population. I applaud that. But I think it is time for us in the Congress to speak out forcefully and also to look at this in its totality. We went through a situation in Bosnia just a few short years ago where Slobodan Milosevic, the leader of Serbia, unleashed ethnic cleansing, Serbian nationalism, 200,000 people were dead, and it was something that the world just wrang its hands and did nothing until the United States grabbed the bull by the horns. We were able to put an end to the carnage in Bosnia. Unfortunately, history is repeating itself in an area called Kosovo, where 2 million ethnic Albanians live. They constitute 92 percent of the population. I say Kosova not Kosovo, as many people say, because the Albanians living there call it Kosova, with an ``A.'' And if it is good enough for 92 percent of the population to speak that way and to say Kosova, that is good enough for me. I have been to Kosova a number of times. The people there live under total oppression. They have no rights; no political rights, no human rights, no economic rights. Albanians have been summarily fired. Communities are 80 percent and higher in terms of unemployment. It is just a people under occupation. There have been many, many talks, many, many discussions, and the United States has been meeting with a group called a contact group, which contains six countries, Britain, the United States, Italy, Germany, France and Russia. And the contact group has basically been rendered impotent because Russia is always standing behind Slobodan Milosevic, its traditional Serbian ally. So when we try to put sanctions in with teeth, they are always watered down. NATO, just recently, underwent all kinds of flights to show Milosevic that, if need be, NATO means business. But so far it has been empty words. The stated policy for the United States and the administration and of NATO in the West has been that the Albanians in Kosova, the Kosovars, ought to have some kind of autonomy within Yugoslavia, within Serbia. Autonomy is something they had until 1989 when Slobodan Milosevic summarily threw it out the window. The former Yugoslavia, in those days, had a lot of different components other than the Serbs. It had the Croats, the Slovenians, the Macedonians and the Bosnians, and the Albanians, in Kosova the Vojvodinas. They had all kinds of different components. Today, rump Yugoslavia is dominated by the Serbs, containing just Serbia and Montenegro, and the Albanians could never get a fair shake in an equation such as that. So the United States' policy and the West's policy and NATO's policy that somehow the two parties should sit down and negotiate and work their way back to autonomy for Kosova, in my opinion, does not work. The only thing that will work, Mr. Speaker, and I think we should say it loudly and clearly, is self-determination for the people of Kosova. They have a right, the right that we want for ourselves, the right that our country had 222 years ago, of self-determination, and that we say we want for all peoples. The Albanians in Kosova have the same right of self-determination. If they want to be a free and independent nation, the Republic of Kosova, they ought to be allowed to do that. I support that. If they want to have union with Albania or stay within a federation with Serbia, that is the Kosovars' way. That is what they should decide. Nobody else should decide that for them. And it is ludicrous to pretend that autonomy will continue to work. Why would people who are being oppressed want to continue in a situation where their oppressors have the upper hand? It just does not work. There has been a disturbing trend in the past couple of weeks to somehow, in some quarters, equate the people who are being oppressed with the oppressors; to somehow say that everybody ought to lay down their arms; everybody ought to sit and talk. The only way to get rid of ethnic cleansing and the only way to end the oppression in Kosova is to get Milosevic, the Serbs, to back off; get their police and everybody else out of Kosova; impose a no-fly zone over Kosova, the way we have one over Iraq; and use air strikes, if need be, against Serbian positions who are terrorizing and killing innocent Albanian civilians. Ethnic cleansing and genocide is rearing its head once again on the continent of Europe, and the world is standing by and wringing its hands because nobody knows what to do. The only thing Milosevic understands is tough talk, and we need to have self-determination for the people of Kosova.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague for deferring to me, and I just wanted to rise in support of what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) was attempting to do. I very much regret that we will not have an opportunity to have his amendment on the floor. I listened intently to my friend from Wisconsin saying that it is in the Senate bill and, therefore, we will have ample opportunity in the conference to debate that. I would hope that in the conference we would have ample opportunity and that we would adopt the Senate version and bring it back to this floor with the Senate version so that the Flatows can get what is rightfully due to them. I am, frankly, not impressed with the language that this would undermine the President's ability to use the assets as leverage. This is the same sort of gobbledygook we hear all the time from many different administrations or from the State Department whenever they want to throw cold water on an idea. They always say it somehow undermines the ability to have the President do this or that, or undermines the ability of anybody to do anything. We are the United States Congress and we make policy. We decide what is right. And I certainly think that it is right that the Flatows, who have gotten a judgment, I mean absolutely they have gotten a judgment, this is not some theoretical thing that has happened, they have gotten a judgment, and it is a disgrace that somebody would prevent them from getting the judgment fulfilled. As was pointed out by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), we changed the law so that the Flatows would have the right to sue. We did that. They sued and they won. There are three Iranian owned properties in D.C. And I do not want to hear State Department gobbledygook or any kind of gobbledygook. I want to deal in the real world. The real world is that there was a terrible injustice that happened. We say we are against state-sponsored terrorism. This is a chance to put our money where our mouths are. It is all very nice to talk about platitudes and just say things, but here is where we can make a concrete difference. So I do support my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), in his amendment and what he is trying to do. And I want to commend him for doing it, because it takes a lot of courage to do this, and he is doing the right thing. I would hope that when we sit down with the Senate at the conference and iron this out, that on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, we will agree that that Senate language ought to be in so that the Flatows can go after that judgment and go after the Iranian owned properties. We should not be protecting the Iranians. This Congress has spoken a number of times in terms of Iranian assets and the types of things that the Iranians have been doing, and there is no way that we should condone this kind of nonsense. So, again, I do not want to hear gobbledygook, I do not want to hear nonsense, I do not want to hear about undermining the President's ability. We are the Congress. We have the ability to pass laws and say what is right, and we are not undermining anyone if we are saying simply that a judgment has been declared and these people have the right to exercise that judgment, which they won based on the right to sue, which we in the Congress gave them. So, again, I hope that on both sides of the aisle we can agree that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and what he is trying to do, should prevail if the Senate language is in, and I hope we will all agree to it. Legislating on an appropriation bill. We hear that all the time, and all of us know, on both sides of the aisle, that there is a lot of legislating on appropriation bills. Sometimes we look the other way and everyone is quiet and nobody says anything, and other times, when we want to use that to get legislation out, to get language out, we use it. It is very, very selective. It is not very uniform. And as far as I am concerned, it is a bunch of nonsense. So we ought to put it back in after we negotiate with the Senate so that the Flatows can get their justice. And I want to commend my friend New Jersey for bringing this to the floor.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Middle School 141 is celebrating its 40th anniversary of teaching the young people of Bronx County. In that time thousands of students have learned in a benign, education friendly environment, taught by caring teachers and principals. From the beginning the school administration insisted on the involvement of parents and it is most likely this which gave the school its ability to reach it students. The education of our children is perhaps society's most important function. Middle School 141 has fulfilled this obligation for these 40 years. MS141 opened with 600 students, in grades five through eight and two kindergarten classes. Today the school's enrollment is 1,500. Our future is written in their faces. I proudly congratulate the graduates, students and faculty for their glorious contribution to our society.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, public service, when done honestly and done well, is the noblest of callings. Thus, I rise to honor a public servant who shows that definition to be true. Maureen Walker has demonstrated unwavering integrity and an ardor for fiscal responsibility as Comptroller of the City of Mount Vernon. She has also shown a dedication to helping others throughout her community. Her success has the quality of myth surrounding it. She was born in a village in Guyana to Caleb and Mildred Headley and perhaps it was living in a village that gave her the strong sense of community service that she has shown in her adoptive country. She came to America and attended Brooklyn College, graduating Magna Cum Laude and received scholarships from Chase Manhattan and the National Association of Black Accountants. Maureen is a Certified Public Accountant with more than ten years experience. She was a senior financial analyst with Equitable Life Assurance and an auditor with Arthur Anderson & Company before becoming Mount Vernon's gain. She has received numerous awards and has served on the Board of Estimate, the Urban Renewal Agency, the Board of Assessment and Review and, of course, on the Board of Junior Achievers. She is also a member of the Board of the Community Aid Club. Working with Maureen over the years I came to appreciate her ability and dedication. She gave herself to helping her community. Mount Vernon is better not only because she has served as its Comptroller, but especially because she lives there and cares.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to praise a woman who has accomplished much. Rhonda (Randi) Weingarten is the new president of the 130,000-member United Federation of Teachers, the largest local union in the United States. She is also vice president of the 960,000 member American Federation of Teachers, the UFT's national affiliate and is a member of the Board of Directors of both the New York State United Teachers and the New York City Central Labor Council. From 1986 to 1998 Randi served as counsel to UFT President Sandra Feldman, taking a lead role in contract negotiations for teachers and other school employees. When Ms. Feldman became president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi was selected to serve as president. She has a B.S. from Cornell and graduated cum laude from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. She was also an adjunct professor at Cardozo from 1986-91. She first became affiliated with the UFT when working for a prestigious law firm which had the union as a client. She has served as legislative assistant for the New York State Senate Labor Committee and as a mediator on disputes originating in the New York Criminal Court. She has served as a member of the board and then as chairperson of the Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York. She is also a certified teacher of social studies and American History. Randi continues to advance the cause of education in New York. I look forward to working with her to keep the education of our youth as the highest priority of the people and our governments at every level.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note that Mrs. Sadie Glover Smith celebrates her one hundredth birthday. She is a remarkable woman celebrating a remarkable achievement. She moved to New York in the 1920s with her childhood sweetheart and husband, Clifford Smith. She owned a confectionery store and a catering service. More importantly, she was the person to whom all in the community came. As one of eight brothers and sisters she had learned to care for her family and her community. She was born in the year the Maine was sunk in Havana and has seen all the changes of this century, for better or worse. Through it all she has never lost her caring for people. In Concourse Village, where she lives, she is called aunt, cousin, sister, mother, Godmother, grandmother, neighbor and friend. I congratulate her not only for her long life but, most especially, for all the joy and goodness she has brought to all those fortunate enough to know her.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a person whom I am proud to call a constituent and a personal friend. Mr. Bernard L. (Buddy) Stein, a journalist of uncommon merit and character, has recently been recognized by his peers in the media through his receipt of 1998 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished editorial writing. This great honor truly befits the accomplishments of Bernard Stein and his editorial expertise and skill. Bernard's list of accomplishments is nearly as diverse and extraordinary as the man himself. Writing weekly editorials for the Riverdale Press, a publication widely known for its excellence in reporting, Bernard informs his readers on a variety of subjects of both national and local interest. His areas of special concern include such prudent matters as school overcrowding and the preservation and enhancement of the Riverdale community. Bernard is a man committed to the betterment of not only his community, but the rights of every person worldwide. In 1989, the offices of the Riverdale Press were bombarded by arson; a fire set in reaction to Mr. Stein's highly controversial editorial defending the right to purchase and read Salman Rushdie's novel, Satanic Verses. Today, Mr. Stein continues his campaign for the preservation of those most sacred rights of free speech and freedom of the press. On the anniversary of the aforementioned incident ad the death sentence against Mr. Rushdie, a photograph of Bernard holding a banner supporting free speech and freedom of the press appears in the Riverdale Press. This most recent recognition of Bernard's outstanding and distinctive journalistic talent, the Pulitzer Prize, reflects the author's unique ability to write with uncommon grace and almost lyrical composition, yet convey with a distinct and unparalleled intensity a most thoughtful and engaging editorial. Recognition for one's talents and achievements all too frequently goes unacknowledged. Yet, today we have an opportunity to celebrate a grand acknowledgement of a most distinguished member of the Riverdale and world community, Mr. Bernard Stein. I encourage my colleagues to join the people of Riverdale and the Bronx in acknowledging and congratulating Mr. Stein on his most exceptional honor, the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished editorial writing.