Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am from New York and represent a district in New York City, Bronx, New York, and am from Westchester, New York, just north of the city. I can tell the Members that we in New York are very proud of the United Nations. We are very proud to have it in New York. New York is a wonderful city. By the way, I must say that the latest crime statistics have come out and New York is now the safest city in the country of any city of 1 million population or more, and we are very proud of that. Part of what makes New York New York is the United Nations. New York certainly is a very international city. It is a city of which we are proud. We are very happy to have the United Nations there. The United Nations pumps $3 billion a year into the New York economy. That is a lot of money; 20,000 jobs in the U.N. into the New York economy. That is a lot of money. New York, being the largest city in this country, it is the financial center of this country, and it is near the national center of the country. I can tell the Members that my friend, the gentleman from Florida, is very wrong in terms of this amendment. I think that the people of New York, New York City, and the metropolitan area of New York, which includes parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, I think overwhelmingly we are very proud of the United Nations and very proud to have the United Nations in New York. That does not mean there are not disputes from time to time. We have been having some disputes involving parking and diplomats parking in New York. But disputes will come up from time to time. It does not mean that we do not want the U.N. It does not mean we should even consider not having the U.N. in New York. Mr. Chairman, I really rise to oppose this amendment. We have agencies that want to leave the United Nations in New York. In Bonn, for instance, the Germans have been very active in trying to pull different U.N. agencies out of New York. The UNDP, the United Nations Developmental Program, Bonn has a lot of empty office space and a lot of empty space because the Germans are relocating their capital to Berlin. They have offered the U.N. all kinds of incentives to try to lure different departments and agencies away from New York and away from the United States. We resist it because we do not want them to move again because of the jobs, and the fact that money is pumped into the New York economy. We should be proud of the United Nations. We should be proud of the fact that New York is the international capital of the world because the United Nations is there, and I just think that this moving the U.N. or pulling out of the U.N., as there was an amendment before which was soundly defeated, is all part and parcel of an undercurrent of U.N. bashing, or international engagement bashing. I think that is wrong. I think that the United States needs to be engaged in the world. We are the last remaining superpower. I think it is a feather in our cap to have the United Nations in the United States. It is certainly a feather in New York's cap to have the United Nations in New York. From the point it was formed back in 1945, at the end of the Second World War, New York has been the seat of the United Nations. It has been a good seat of the United Nations. It has been a good fit to have the United Nations in New York. I can say that I probably speak for the entire New York State delegation, 31 of us, Democrats and Republicans, we are proud to have the U.N. in New York. We want the U.N. to stay in New York. On our license plates, New York license plates, we have the Statue of Liberty, and of course the big three in New York City has always been the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, and the United Nations. We can talk about others, the World Trade Center and others as well. But the U.N. is part and parcel of New York, and New York is part and parcel of the U.N.

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I must rise to oppose the amendment. In fact, I think it is preposterous to even think at this stage of the game, in 1997, that we would even consider such an amendment to pull the U.S. out of the U.N. We ought to take the U.N., after the struggle to defeat the Soviet Union and to defeat communism, and we were successful, we ought to take the United Nations and utilize the United Nations to help further United States' interests, to help further United States' foreign policy. When I was a member of the Committee on International Relations and Madeleine Albright was the U.N. rep, she came and said that. I agreed with her 100 percent. Now, now that the fight against the Soviet Union has been won, the Cold War has been won, the U.S. has emerged as the world's last remaining superpower, are we going to just take that and throw it all away? We claim in this body that we want the world to emulate the United States. We want other nations to have free market economies. We want other nations to practice democracy. We say we want to promote democracy all over the world. What better ways to do it than through an international body like the United Nations? As my friend and colleague from Florida said, yes, the U.N. needs to be reformed, the U.N. needs to be changed, the U.N. needs to tighten its belt. There are lots of things the U.N. needs to do. But will the U.N. do it if the United States, the leader of the world, is not part and parcel of that driving force? I would say no. I would say, furthermore, that it is an embarrassment that the United States owes more than $1 billion in dues, in arrearages, to the U.N. That is an embarrassment. That undermines the United States' effectiveness and leadership in the United Nations, because it is very difficult for us to say to nations of the world what we think they ought to do when we are the biggest deadbeats, unfortunately, in the United Nations. So rather than pull out of the United Nations, I think what we should do is pay our U.N. dues, pay the money we owe, and make sure that the U.N. reforms itself. Mr. Chairman, I think that the United States, as the last remaining superpower on this Earth, has an obligation not to the world but to ourselves. Is the world not safer if democracy prevails with the United States there as a strong force in the U.N.? Is the world not safer if free market economies begin to flourish across the globe with the United States as part of the U.N., being the most influential member in the U.N.? I can tell the Members, in countries that I have visited, they are literally begging us for a little bit of assistance. A little bit of aid would go a long, long way. I think the direction that this Congress has been taking is a wrong direction. We ought to be expanding foreign aid. It helps the United States. Three quarters of the aid that we send or give to other countries is put back into the United States in the purchase of goods and services, American goods and services. So we help ourselves and we help the world, and we make sure that democracy flourishes and free market economies flourish. Pulling us out would be just absolutely preposterous, and would be terrible not only for the world but for the United States. We need to lead. We do not need to recoil. We do not need to be isolationists. The world is shrinking, and I believe that the United States continues and should continue to play a vital role in ensuring that democracy and free market economy is spread. Again, it is in furtherance of our own self-interest. Now that the Soviet Union is no longer around, we can grab the bull by the horns. We can shape the United Nations. We can shape the world in terms of what we would like to see. That is done with a strong U.S. presence, not with U.S. removal from the United Nations. So I believe this is just the absolute wrong direction in which we ought to move. I really think that this is, frankly, one of the silliest things I have seen since I have been in Congress.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is well known that churches are often not only the spiritual centers of communities but also the centers of gravity which hold them together. For 110 years the Wakefield Grace United Methodist Church has been such a center for the Wakefield section of the Bronx. The church was founded in 1875 when that small community was known as Washingtonville. The neighborhood worshippers decided that the only Methodist churches in the area were too far away to walk to with children and started to meet in the first floor of a dwelling at 241st Street and Richardson Avenue. When the Sunday school reached an enrollment of 91 it was decided to erect a building for the church. The pragmatism of the neighborhood showed itself again when they disassembled a church building in Mount Vernon, where that congregation was building a new church, and reassembled it on land donated for their worship. And in 1887 the cornerstone of the rebuilt church was laid. The present parsonage was built in 1911 and 2 years later a neighboring building was bought and turned into the social hall. The church has also had adversity; one tower was struck by lightning in 1927, setting it on fire, and in 1989, only 2 days before Christmas, a fire destroyed the stained glass windows and the organ. Despite this, the church has served as an anchor to the people of the area. The church today, under the guidance of Bishop Ernest S. Lyght and the Rev. Allen N. Pinckney, Pastor, continues to serve as a beacon to the area, allowing the spiritual and temporal values of the neighborhood to grow and prosper.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I speak today to honor the Wake Eden Community Baptist Church which is celebrating its 25th anniversary as a center of worship in the northeast Bronx. The establishing of a mission in the community was borne out of an idea by the Rev. Dr. Samuel G. Simpson who, when driving through the area, saw the closed church. Instead of driving on, he wondered why, when he felt that the neighborhood needed a mission. That was in 1969. Three years later, on the second Sunday of May, 1972, an inaugural service was held. Present at the service were representatives of the Bronx Baptist Church and the Greenwich Baptist Church, two churches whose contributions made Wake Eden possible. Also at that historic service were local and denominational leaders as well as civic and community representatives. In the 25 years that followed, many programs were established to bring the ministry of the church into the neighborhood. A Sunday school and a youth group were established to teach and minister to the youth of the area, a medical fellowship composed of hospital workers makes their services available to the needy, a prison ministry carries the word to the imprisoned with a follow up for released inmates, the summer day camp and vacation Bible school cater to scores of community children, and the Wake-Eden Christian Academy, which started with 5 students, now has more than 80. These are a few of the programs with which Wake-Eden makes its community a better place. I congratulate the Rev. Dr. Simpson and his church for their continuing good works.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I speak today in praise of two people who for more than 50 years have worked in environmental and community causes. Gil and Sally Kerlin have both been important elements in the cultural and social life of Riverdale. As a volunteer Gil Kerlin led the Riverdale Community Planning Association in the early 1950's to propel the rezoning of the northwest Bronx and spearhead the creation of the Natural Area District. He was a founder of Wave Hill, a prototype of preservation in the New York City area and chairman of its board until 1991. He was active in establishing the Riverdale Historic District and has chaired the Riverdale Nature Preservancy which is dedicated to preserving and enhancing the quality of life in Riverdale. Mr. Kerlin is a graduate of Harvard University, Trinity College in Cambridge, England, and Harvard Law School. Sally Kerlin is a graduate of Radcliffe College and attended the Bank Street College of Education. She is a member of the Society of Women Geographers and created a series of maps used in teaching the relationships between the U.S. topography and man's use of it. She also worked on the creation of Wave Hill. Mr. and Mrs. Kerlin are being honored by the Riverdale Senior Services, an organization dedicated to working with seniors and celebrating its 23d anniversary. This wonderful organization and this marvelous couple epitomize the contribution of caring people for their neighborhood. They deserve our praise for all the good work they have done to improve life in their community.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, DeWitt Clinton High School, in my congressional district, opened its doors for the first time in 1897 with about 500 boys and 21 faculty assembled to hear from the principal. Since that time the school has moved several times and its enrollment has grown to 3,850. The school has also grown in stature and this year it was named one of the five most improved high schools in the United States. DeWitt Clinton was also praised because of its outstanding peer mediation and negotiation program. The school meets or exceeds all of the chancellor's standards. Its college admission rate was 91.1 percent last June while its dropout rate was only 2.8 percent. Its attendance rate is 90.8 percent. The students have also shown consistent improvement in the State regents exams over the past 4 years. Perhaps most significantly, it is one of only 11 New York City high schools, out of 136, given the highest 5- star rating by the New York Times. A measure of a school's success is a list of its graduates and DeWitt Clinton's is most impressive with such alumni as James Baldwin, Burt Lancaster, Richard Rodgers, Neil Simon, A.M. Rosenthal, Paddy Chayefsky, Daniel Schorr, Arthur Gelb, Fats Waller, Jan Peerce, Nate Archibald, Bernard Kalb, and Stan Lee. These are people who have given to the country and to the world. The students at DeWitt Clinton have a strong tradition to uphold and show every indication of doing it. I join my colleagues in congratulating the school, its faculty, its students, and their parents as representatives of a century of higher education.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent during roll call vote 128. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll call 128.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am entering two articles into the Congressional Record which deal with the case of Jonathan Pollard. It is important to have these articles printed because the American people deserve to understand all aspects of Jonathan Pollard's case. I do not believe that what Jonathan Pollard did was right. It was wrong; it broke the law and Jonathan Pollard deserved to be punished. Jonathan Pollard is the first to admit that. In fact, at a recent meeting I had with him at the Federal prison in Butner, NC, where he is incarcerated, he told me that he was wrong and deserved to be punished. My problem with the entire Jonathan Pollard case is that while I don't expect him to be treated any better than anyone else committing similar acts, I certainly don't expect him to be treated any worse. The fact of the matter is that Jonathan Pollard has now served more than 11 years of a life sentence, far greater than anyone else convicted of similar crimes. In fact, a number of people convicted of spying for enemy countries, such as the former Soviet Union, have been given lighter sentences than Mr. Pollard--who was convicted of spying for a friendly country. It is my understanding that Mr. Pollard pled guilty and avoided going to trial in exchange for a promise that the Justice Department would not ask for a life sentence for him. Although the Justice Department did not per se request a life sentence, others, including Caspar Weinberger, did. Thus, Mr. Pollard was given a life sentence, even though he had been led to believe he would face lesser punishment. The two articles I am submitting into the Congressional Record tell of the disparity of the Pollard case when contrasted with another person who passed classified information to Saudi Arabia. As one can tell from the articles, the indictment of the person accused of spying for the Saudis was subsequently dropped in exchange for a last minute plea bargain agreement offered by the Navy in which the alleged perpetrator spent not 1 day in jail and received only an other-than- honorable discharge. I believe that questions of fairness and equity need to be addressed in the Jonathan Pollard case. It is my contention that Jonathan Pollard has not been treated justly when one contrasts his length of incarceration with others who have been convicted of similar crimes. People should be punished when they break the law. No one, however, should be singled out for harsher treatment than others convicted of similar crimes. I believe this happened in the case of Jonathan Pollard. I ask that articles by Alex Rose, entitled ``A Tale of Two Spies,'' and Morton Klein, entitled ``Double-Standard Spying,'' be printed at this point in the Record. A Tale of Two Spies (By Alex Rose) From November, 1992 to September 1994, Lt. Cmdr. Michael Schwartz delivered secret national defense information to Saudi Arabia. A 15-year Navy veteran, Schwartz was subsequently arrested and indicted for violating both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and various federal statutes. The indictment stated that while he was assigned to the U.S. Military Training Mission in Riyadh, Schwartz had willfully compromised sensitive information ``with intent or reason to believe it would be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.'' According to press reports, the documents in question included classified digests, intelligence advisories and tactical intelligence summaries. These documents were classified up to the secret level and specified ``no foreign disclosure.'' Although Schwartz was scheduled to be court-martialled for his action, he accepted a last-minute plea agreement offered by the Navy. While such arrangements are not unusual, particularly in espionage cases involving American allies, Schwartz' so-called ``punishment'' was unprecedented: ``other-than-honorable'' discharge from the Navy. In other words, Lt. Cmdr. Michael Schwartz was not obliged to spend a minute in jail. For a remarkably similar offense--giving classified information to an ally--Jonathan Pollard received a life sentence with a recommendation that he never be paroled. What are the differences between the two cases? The obvious ones have anti-Semitic overtones: Schwartz is not Jewish, and Pollard was spying on behalf of Israel. Not nearly as apparent is that the U.S. Government--which had expressed official outrage at Israel's ``arrogance'' in the Pollard case and proclaimed loudly (without offering any evidence) that his espionage was the worst in American history--has handled the Schwartz case with kid gloves and virtual silence. Even the Jewish War Veterans, whose lack of sympathy for Pollard is a matter of record, was nevertheless moved to revulsion by the Schwartz affair. The JWV said that it believes ``that when compared to other crimes of espionage by Navy personnel, both to enemy and friendly governments, the punishment is a farce. In each of the other cases, harsh prison sentences, including life-time sentences, were meted out.'' The Jewish veterans also questioned what information was passed to the Saudis, and who in the Saudi royal family knew of the Schwartz espionage. Other questions, as well, beg answers: Have the Saudis been asked for a formal apology? Have they promised not to recruit any more American intelligence officers or to close the intelligence unit responsible for the affair? Have the Saudis agreed to allow participants in the operation to be questioned by American counter-espionage authorities? Have they returned all the stolen documents? What other countries may have seen the information Schwartz gave to the Saudis? (This item loomed large in the Government's assessment of Pollard. Why did it lose its relevance for Schwartz?) Granted, the Navy's unwillingness to address any of these issues may be understandable; but it's also important to recognize the fact that a mindset like theirs, which subordinates American interests to protecting Saudi sensitivities at all costs, can have deadly consequences. Anyone doubting this need only recall the bombing of our Khobar Towers facility in Dhahran two years ago. Reacting to the inadequate security precautions that allowed this outrage to occur, a Washington Post editorial of July 12, 1995 observed that ``The suggestions of American reluctance to offend the culturally delicate Saudis by demanding more attention to the security of Saudi Arabia's American protectors amount to an intelligence failure of a profound sort.'' No doubt this same type of craven fear of ruffling Saudi Arabia's feathers was the principal reason why Schwartz did not have to stand trial nor suffer a jail sentence, and was not referred to by the Secretary of Defense as a ``traitor''--something which Pollard, by the way, was falsely accused of being by Caspar Weinberger. Although the Government subsequently apologized for Weinberger's groundless charge, this episode should remove any doubt as to what the Department of Defense's actual attitude towards Israel was at the time of Pollard's arrest. It also tends to confirm what many in the Jewish community have believed all along; namely that the Pollard affair was used by certain elements within our national security establishment as a means of tarnishing the popular perception of Israel as both a valuable and reliable ally. After all, if Pollard was a ``traitor'' as Weinberger had stated who, then, was the ``enemy''? That Schwartz was never used to smear the country he served, further highlights the politically-driven distinction our government drew between these two cases of ``friendly'' espionage. There are, of course, other aspects of the Schwartz case which President Clinton obviously never even considered before he turned down Pollard's last clemency appeal. For example, the Government's decision not to prosecute Schwartz calls into question CIA arguments that Pollard cannot be released because he knows too much. This is an absurdity. Schwartz was spying until recently, whereas Pollard has been in prison for more than 11 years! How is it that Schwartz is not a threat to national security but Pollard is? The President also seems to have been heavily influenced by the views of Joseph DiGenova, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted Pollard. Briefly put, DiGenova feels that individuals caught spying for close allies like Israel should actually be punished more harshly than those caught spying for enemies, since there is a greater ``danger'' that individuals would feel more predisposed to help friends. If there is any merit to this logic, it has been totally lost in the government's refusal to prosecute Schwartz vigorously, rather than to have set him free. But nobody, apparently, brought this to the President's attention. Lastly, our government sought to justify its decision not to prosecute Schwartz by claiming that the information he provided Saudi Arabia was ``less sensitive'' than what Pollard gave to Israel. One needs to recall, though, that Schwartz was indicted and confessed to a serious crime. Clearly, some punishment was therefore warranted beyond his mere ``less-than-honorable'' discharge from the Navy. The fact that this did not occur demonstrates that extra-legal considerations came into play in the disparate treatment. In other words, politics was allowed to corrupt the U.S. judicial system. Anything, then, the national security establishment might have to say about the relative sensitivity of Schwartz' information is simply too tainted to be believed. Yet, the same intelligence and defense agencies who rescued Schwartz from prosecution are the very ones who have counselled President Clinton to adhere to a policy of ``selective prosecution'' towards Pollard. So how objective could their advice have been? It seems, though, that nobody has seen fit to point this out to the President; and unless somebody does, Clinton will never know why his refusal to commute Pollard's sentence threatens to undermine one of our most important legal traditions: namely, the assurance that when a person is convicted of breaking the law, he or she will receive approximately the same punishment that any other person would receive for a similar violation that was committed under comparable circumstances. However, given the way Schwartz was preferentially handled, this principle of equal justice has been grossly violated in the case of Jonathan Pollard. But Clinton not only declined to correct this situation by granting Pollard clemency, he did so in a way that placed his own imprimatur on Pollard's clearly-aberrant life sentence. What a growing number of people are slowly recognizing, though, is that if our legal system does not work for Pollard because of who and what he is, it could fail each and every one of us, as well, both as Jews and as Americans. In our society, justice cannot simply be a theoretical concept--it must be seen to be done. Only in this way will our much-touted system of checks and balances have meaning. It is critical, therefore, that Congress investigate how a Saudi spy (Schwartz) was permitted to act with impunity while an Israeli spy (Pollard) was treated as an enemy agent. Two spies, two countries and two vastly different punishments cannot help but leave one with the distinct feeling that there is a double standard in need of challenging.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the plight of several Irish nationals facing deportation from the United States. As an executive board member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, I am deeply disappointed by our Government's policy. These men facing deportation left their homeland in the face of political persecution and now live peaceful, productive lives in the United States. Even so, in what we know as the land of freedom, they are now pursued by our own government. Most of the subjects of deportation proceedings are married to American citizens or legal permanent residents. Most have children who are American citizens. Most would be entitled to permanent residence in the United States, except for their involvement in the Irish political struggle. And, most would face severe persecution if forced to return to Northern Ireland. Two of those facing deportation, Gabriel Megahey and Robert McErlean, live in my congressional district. Two days ago, a person named Sean Brown, a man from Mr. McErlean's village in the north of Ireland, was brutally assassinated. Only 59 years old and not deeply involved in politics, Sean Brown's death only adds weight to my constituents' assertions that the would face persecution if forced to be deported to their homeland. Mr. Speaker, 3 months ago, the Ad Hoc Committee for Irish Affairs held an unprecedented forum on the Irish deportees. After hearing from a representative of the administration and family members of the deportees, more than 60 Members of the House of Representatives wrote to President Clinton pleading for justice for those facing deportation. Today, I renew that appeal and once again request that President Clinton meet with a delegation from the Ad Hoc Committee to discuss our Government's unjust policy toward the deportation cases.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent during rollcall vote 110. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 110.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in honor of the Riverside Memorial Chapel which is celebrating its 100th anniversary. It can be said that the Riverside Chapel has been a mirror of the Jewish community of New York City which it has served so faithfully for the past century. It started in 1897 when Louis Meyers provided a horse-drawn funeral livery service on the lower East Side. These modest beginnings reflected the state of Jews in New York as recent emigrants. The company followed a newer generation to Harlem and in 1926 made a landmark move to Amsterdam Avenue and 76th Street, still the signature location of what was to become Riverside Chapel. This spectacular four-story building, with its Gothic style chapel and hand-painted religious frescoes, had an implicit dedication to the sensibilities of the three main streams of Judaism. In 1933 Edward and Herman Meyers, grandsons of Louis Meyers, bought the company, renamed it Riverside Memorial Chapel and opened chapels in Far Rockaway and Miami Beach. After World War II, Riverside expanded by purchasing the adjoining building and building new chapels in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Mount Vernon. Riverside has also expanded throughout the country to establish a national presence so that as Jews left New York City they could still have a ``Riverside'' funeral. Riverside Chapel has acquired a sterling reputation for service, thanks in part to my close friend, Senior Vice President David A. Alpert. Riverside Chapel is a landmark in New York City which has earned our praise.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak in praise of Esther Keller for her work and dedication to the people of the 17th Congressional District. Esther retired last month after 20 years of service and while I wish her the best, I will truly miss her. In fact, she was one of my first staff members when I was first elected to public office 20 years ago. She has worked hard and well and with little public recognition, except among the many she has helped. She gave constituents what they want and deserve most from government: Help with a problem they cannot solve themselves. She initially worked out of a trailer in Co-op City before we moved indoors to an office which I still maintain. Esther has been an integral part of my public life from the beginning. She worked long hours to help the people of the district, working with those who had difficulties with the Social Security system giving guidance when they could not find their way through the intricacies of the bureaucracy. She brought her own special kind of charm so that people who were receiving her help also felt comfortable. All Members of Congress know the value of a staff member who wants to help those in need of help. In the time Esther worked for me I came to appreciate her willingness and her determination to give her all to the constituents. She treated them as her own, using all of her ability to assure them that someone did care and would help. I salute her and wish her the very best in her retirement. I and all the people of the 17th Congressional District will miss her.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the Hebrew Hospital Home has had as its mission, since its founding, the care and nurturing of the chronically ill and frail elderly. It has succeeded splendidly at this and celebrates its 20th anniversary of moving to its present location by announcing the good news that it will break ground on a 16,000 square foot addition adjacent to its building. The Hebrew Hospital Home has expanded from its original 50 beds since its founding in 1928 to a capacity of 480 beds, an expansion made possible by the 1977 move to its present facility in Co-op City. The range of medical aid offered by this non-sectarian home includes on- site medical, dental, laboratory, radiology, ophthalmology, podiatry and pharmacy services. There are also specialized rehabilitative services such as physical and occupational therapy and speech and hearing services. It has a highly trained professional staff of 650 persons of which 20 per cent live in the community. The Hebrew Hospital Home also has two state of the art outreach programs which recognize the desire of many elderly to stay in their own homes. It also developed the first and most innovative program to deal with Alzheimer's disease or dementia, a program providing services in the evening, the most difficult time for many of these patients. The Home also provides social work services and recreational services which range from on-site beauty salons and barber shops to trips to Broadway and other locations. A society is truly valued by how it treats its elderly. The Hebrew Hospital Home is a shining example of how it should be done. I salute them on their anniversary and their expansion.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent during rollcall votes 92 through 97. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 92, ``aye'' on rollcall 93, ``aye'' on rollcall 94, ``aye'' on rollcall 95, ``aye'' on rollcall 96, and ``aye'' on rollcall 97.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to praise a woman whose contributions are the kind which go unnoticed by society at large but which mean so much to the people who are directly affected. Tisbe Falcone DiMeo is such a person. For more than 20 years she has worked at the board of education in Public School 87 in the Bronx where she was a school lunch aide. But it was the personality and charm she brought to the kitchen which made it distinct. Mrs. DiMeo turned this into an area where teachers would come to relax, to talk about work and themselves, to take that vital time which reinvigorates us. That kitchen was such a center of the school that the principals would drop in to become a closer part of that small community. Mrs. DiMeo personifies the person we all remember who made school more like home than an institution, the one we always speak foundly of. As a former teacher I can appreciate the atmosphere created by such a person. I have also had the opportunity to witness first hand the warmth and charm of this caring individual. She is the mother-in-law of my administrative assistant, John Calvelli. On the evening of Friday, April 11, 1997, members and friends of PS 87 will be hosting a dinner to celebrate a new chapter in Mrs. DiMeo's life: her retirement. I salute her and thank her for all she has given to the school, its teachers and its students, and consequently to our community. I look forward to sharing many special events in the coming years with her and the entire DiMeo family.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the suicide bombing today in a Tel Aviv cafe, which killed at least 4 Israelis and injured dozens of people, was a cowardly act. This cowardly act represents a knife in the heart of the peace process. Terror is not an arrow in the quiver of those who strive for peace. What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is that while Yasir Arafat condemned the bombing, he once again is speaking out of 16 sides of his mouth. What disturbs me is the Palestinian negotiators or the Palestinian authorities have been using the threat of terror for a while now, saying that if the Israelis went ahead and built the Har Homa housing that there would become suicide bombings, there would be terror, and that they could not be responsible for what might happen. I say such rhetoric, such language is to give an indirect green light to those people who would use terror to maim and kill innocent civilians. We will not and cannot allow terror to destroy the peace process. When Yasir Arafat releases Hamas terrorists from prison and then predicts that violence will happen in Israel as a result of the housing, he is giving a green light to terrorist attacks. He cannot speak out of 10 or 20 or 30 sides of his mouth. He cannot oppose Hamas when it is expedient and then wink and turn the other way and say, ``Oh, I condemn this terror,'' when in essence we know that by predicting it and looking the other way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When Arafat signed the peace accords, he committed himself to the peace process, and committing himself to the peace process means no side deals with Hamas terrorists. The Hamas terrorists ought to know that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and will remain so. When Israel decides it wants to build housing or do whatever else it deems necessary in its own capital, Israel has the right to do that. Terrorism should not be used and cannot be accepted as a vehicle with which one side in a peace process makes threats and says if you do not give us what we want we are going to have terrorist attacks and we will not be able to do anything about it. The conference which condemned Israel, that was held just last weekend, in which the United States participated, sadly, was such a conference where the rhetoric got out of hand and encourages Palestinian and terrorists to attack Israel. Mr. Speaker, all of us who favor peace in the Middle East must condemn this cowardly act. We must not stand for terror and we must put the blame where it belongs, on the rhetoric of Yasir Arafat and his people who say one thing and do another. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my good friend and cochairman of the peace accord monitoring group with me, the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Saxton. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to him, and then I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations Mr. Gilman.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the situation in Kosova. As my colleagues are aware, Kosova is a region in the former Yugoslavia which is populated by 92 percent ethnic Albanians, but ruled by Serbia. Since unilaterally withdrawing Kosova's autonomy, Belgrade has carried out a harsh campaign of violations of human and political rights against the Kosovans. Dr. Alush A. Gashi, M.D., Ph.D., is a member of the Kosova Council for the Defense of Human Rights and Freedoms and is an expert on the situation in Kosova. On February 6, 1997, he addressed the Congressional Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. I am inserting Dr. Gashi's statement to the Commission at this point in the Congressional Record. Statement by Alush A. Gashi, I Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with CSCE on the timely and critical subject of repression of human rights and freedoms in the Republic of Kosova. It was almost three years ago--on May 9, 1994--that I last appeared before the CSCE. Then as now, I just arrived from Prishtina, the capital of the Republic of Kosova. Then as now, I sadly reported that the human rights situation in Kosova had degenerated. Then as now, I must regrettably tell you that repression, violence and terrorism directed at Albanians has escalated. Then as now, I reaffirmed our commitment to peaceful resistance under the leadership of President Rugova and his government. It has been said that the more things change, the more they stay the same. In Kosova, things have gotten much worse. Although I speak to you as a human rights activist, I also speak as a citizen of the Republic of Kosova who has experienced first-hand the terrible repression of the Belgrade regime.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, what is happening today is a classic saying of an old adage, the Republicans are doing that, it is, do as I say and not as I do. They are criticizing the President for purportedly not submitting a balanced budget when in fact they have not submitted a balanced budget. They have not submitted any budget at all. So how can they be critical of the President's budget when they have not even put forward their plan? We saw the Republican plan last Congress in the 104th Congress when they put forth their balanced budget, which gave huge tax breaks for the rich at the expense of cutting Medicare and cutting Medicaid and giving us the largest education cuts in the history of the United States and gutting the environment and hurting working men and women in this country. That was their proposal for a balanced budget in the 104th Congress. They were burned by it. The voters saw what it was, and the voters answered it. And a lot of them were burned by it. So being afraid to be burned again, they are just sitting tight on their hands, not submitting a budget, and pointing fingers at the President. It would seem to me that it is absolutely preposterous to point a finger at the President when at least he submitted a budget. You may disagree with his budget. You may not like his budget. You may say it is not balanced, and that is in question. Some say it is; some say it is not. But how do you point a finger and criticize when you have not even put forward one of your own? The fact of the matter is, under this President the deficit has gone down 3 years in a row. That has not happened since Truman's administration. It has gone down. It needs to come down further. We need to have a balanced budget. No one is disputing that. But it would seem to me in a deliberative body like this, when we have to make decisions, we need to have a budget. We need to have the Republican budget. And so we have the President's budget and the Republican budget and then we can compromise somewhere in the middle. But when you have not even played the game and you will not play the game, how do you point a finger at anybody else? This is preposterous and this resolution ought to be defeated.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the introduction of legislation by Representatives Nita Lowey, Carolyn McCarthy, and myself which would prevent the purchase or possession of a firearm by a nonpermanent resident alien. Unfortunately, this legislation comes too late to prevent the tragedy which occurred at the Empire State Building last month, when a man who had been in the United States for just 3 weeks shot seven tourists, killing one, and then killed himself. Such a violent crime under any circumstances is shocking but the fact that the gunman had been in this country for such a short time and had established residence at a Florida hotel was unbelievable. My colleagues and I have introduced this legislation in the hopes that we can prevent future crimes committed by individuals who are, essentially, tourists. Current Federal law requires that legal aliens live in a State for a least 90 days before purchasing a firearm. I applaud the President's recent directive which strengthens the law by mandating that legal aliens must produce a photo ID and documentation to prove they have been in country for at least 3 months before purchasing a weapon. However, I fail to understand why a nonpermanent resident alien should be allowed to own a gun under any circumstances. The Lowey-Engel-McCarthy legislation is very simple. If you are not a permanent resident of our Nation you quite simply should not be allowed to buy a gun. We must have strong comprehensive Federal legislation which prevents tourists from visiting our country to hunt down our citizens. The Empire State Building gunman was able to slip through the cracks of a system which does not adequately address the problem of violent criminal aliens. It now falls to us to ensure that our citizens are protected from violent predators who seek to abuse the laws of our Nation in order to harm law-abiding citizens.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I announce that I was necessarily absent from rollcall vote 28. On that vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a man who has involved himself in his community for more than 40 years, working to reform the political process. He started in politics in City College as a member of the Young Liberals. In 1956 he was office manager for the New York State Stevenson for President Committee and was a founder of the Village Independent Democrats, the organization which in 1961 ousted the legendary Carmine DeSapio as leader of Tammany Hall. He also worked with reform candidates in the Bronx as they sought to overthrow the Buckley organization. It was in these campaigns that he developed his expertise in the petition process. He went to Washington where he worked on legislation such as the first Federal family planning legislation. He returned to the Bronx where he met the light of his life, Mary Geissman. In 1975, he joined the staff of the New York State Assembly Election Law Committee. He worked on major legislative changes in election law, such as the mail registration law and the first Presidential primary in New York in which the names of the Presidential candidates appeared on the ballot. On a personal note, Jerry was a great help to me for all of my public career, helping me with petitions as far back as when I was district leader. Jerry Koenig has devoted himself to bettering the political process in New York State for all of his life. He has worked to make change work for the better, to open up the political process for the people. On his retirement, all of us in politics, indeed all citizens, owe him a debt we can never repay.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Marilyn Perlman, who for more than 50 years has contributed to Mount Vernon as a public servant, a public advocate, and a full-time worker for the elderly. She moved to Mount Vernon, with her new husband, Daniel, more than 50 years ago. She started in local politics by working in the campaign of a friend running for mayor. She became a district leader and subsequently served her city and her community with distinction in many capacities. She was a great help to me when I first came to Mount Vernon, serving as my guide and introducing me to the many senior programs and people of the Rose Y. She chairs the focal committee for the office of the aging and has served on all the committees relating to older adults. Her activism on behalf of Westchester's senior citizens dates back many years. In 1970, she was hired by the Y to supervise the older adult program, the senior canteen. As part of the aging services network, she was involved in the successful effort to bring the adult day care and kosher nutrition programs to the Y. Marilyn Perlman has devoted herself totally to her community and her ``people'', the elderly of Westchester County, accomplishing so much it leaves us unable to comprehend how we will continue without her. I join the people of Mount Vernon and all of Westchester County in thanking her and in wishing for her the best that life has to offer in her retirement, with the hope that the generosity of spirit she gave to all who had the good fortune to meet her and work with her is returned.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I speak to honor a woman who has done so much for the people of her community, her city and her State. Sioux Taylor has been active in her community, serving since 1992 as commissioner of the Mount Vernon Recreation Dept. and for 14 years before that as executive director of the Mount Vernon Youth Bureau. But her contributions exceed that service. Since receiving her masters of science from New York University she has served in many capacities; as a member of the steering committee, New York State Coalition for the Aging, chairperson of the Mount Vernon Chapter of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Institute for Social Change, president of the lay organization, Allen Temple AME Church, as a district leader of the Mount Vernon Democratic Party since 1978, and as a member of the executive committee of the Mount Vernon Council Community Services. She was named 1988 social worker of the year for Westchester County and a year later, social worker of the year: New York State. She was awarded the second annual Governor's Award for African-Americans of Distinction. She has served as the convener and first president of Southern Westchester NOW and is a founding member of the National Women's Political Caucus and the Westchester Black Women's Political Caucus. On her retirement, Sioux Taylor leaves her community far richer for her work. She has been a great help to me, serving as a guide and advisor so I could better represent Mount Vernon in Congress. I join with everyone there in thanking her for all she gave.