Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the Scarsdale Bowl Award, Scarsdale's highest civic honor, has been given annually since 1943 to honor ``one who has given unselfishly of time, energy, and effort to serve the civic welfare of the community.'' Today, I would like to recognize a resident of my district who, through nearly three decades of tireless community service, perfectly embodies the spirit of this award. Since moving to Scarsdale 28 years ago, Bernard Cedarbaum has chaired or served on no fewer than ten of Scarsdale's boards, councils and committees. He is one of a very small group of residents to have served on both the board of education (1979-85) and the village board of trustees (1993-98). A natural leader and common sense decision-maker, Mr. Cedarbaum has presided over the Town Club, Scarsdale Foundation, Environmental Advisory Council and Greenacres Association. Those who have served with Mr. Cedarbaum admire his intelligence, sense of fairness, reasonable approach to problem-solving, and his quick sense of humor. Mr. Cedarbaum's commitment to a successful professional career has always been balanced with an unyielding dedication to volunteerism. Remarkably, Mr. Cedarbaum dedicated countless hours to the town of Scarsdale while he worked as a partner at the law firm of Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, presided over the New York State Bar Association's Corporation and Business Law Section, and participated on various committees of the New York City Association of the Bar. The Scarsdale Bowl Award marks Mr. Cedarbaum's fulfillment of his goal, to make a valuable contribution to the community in which he lives. I join with the residents of Scarsdale in applauding Mr. Cedarbaum's commitment to our community and I am proud to officially recognize this remarkable civic leader for his many years of service.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the Scarsdale Bowl Award, Scarsdale's highest civic honor, has been given annually since 1943 to honor ``one who has given unselfishly of time, energy, and effort to serve the civic welfare of the community.'' Today, I would like to recognize a resident of my district who, through nearly three decades of tireless community service, perfectly embodies the spirit of this award. Since moving to Scarsdale 28 years ago, Bernard Cederbaum has chaired or served on no fewer the 10 of Scarsdale's boards, councils, and committees. He is one of a very small group of residents to have served on both the board of education (1979-85) and the village board of trustees (1993-98). A natural leader and commonsense decisionmaker, Mr. Cederbaum has presided over the Town Club, Scarsdale Foundation, Environmental Advisory Council, and Greenacres Association. Those who have served with Mr. Cederbaum admire his intelligence, sense of fairness, reasonable approach to problems solving, and his quick sense of humor. Mr. Cederbaum's commitment to a successful professional career has always been balanced with an unyielding dedication to voluntarism. Remarkably, Mr. Cederbaum dedicated countless hours to the town of Scarsdale while he worked as a partner at the law firm of Carter, Ledyard, & Milburn, presided over the New York State Bar Association's Corporation and Business Law Section, and participated in various committees of the New York City Association of the Bar. The Scarsdale Bowl Award marks Mr. Cederbaum's fulfillment of his goal, to make a valuable contribution to the community in which he lives. I join with the residents of Scarsdale in applauding Mr. Cederbaum's commitment to our community and I am proud to officially recognize this remarkable civic leader for his many years of service.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great admiration for Morris Offit, a remarkable individual and leader in the world of business and finance who this year will be honored by the Educational Alliance for his exceptional community service. A man of high principle, piercing intelligence, and boundless energy, Mr. Offit has acquired a well-deserved reputation for financial expertise and creativity. He formed Offitbank in 1983 and has since built it into a highly respected wealth management firm offering comprehensive investment management services to private clients and not-for-profit institutions. Mr. Offit's professional success is matched by his devotion to philanthropy and community service. He has served as Chairman of the Boards of Johns Hopkins University and the Jewish Museum, as well as in leadership positions with organizations such as UJA-Federation of New York. We are a better community and nation thanks to Morris Offit's vision and leadership. I am confident that his exceptional example will remain a source of guidance and inspiration for many years to come and that he will continue to set a standard of excellence in all his professional and civic endeavors.

Ms. LOWEY

Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, April 24th marks the 84th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, an act of mass murder that took 1.5 million Armenian lives and led to the exile of the Armenian nation from its historic homeland. It is of vital importance that we never forget what happened to the Armenian people. Indeed the only thing we can do for the victims is to remember, and we forget at our own peril. The Armenian Genocide, which began 15 years after the start of the twentieth century, was the first act of genocide of this century, but it was far from the last. The Armenian Genocide was followed by the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and other acts of mass murder around the world. Adolf Hitler himself said that the world's indifference to the slaughter in Armenia indicated that there would be no global outcry if he undertook the mass murder of Jews and other he considered less than human. And he was right. It was only after the Holocaust that the cry ``never again'' arose throughout the world. But it was too late for millions of victims. Too late for the six million Jews. Too late for the 1.5 million Armenians. Today we recall the Armenian Genocide and we mourn its victims. We also pledge that we shall do everything we can to protect the Armenian nation against further aggression; in the Republic of Armenia, in Nagorno-Karabagh, or anywhere else. Unfortunately, there are some who still think it is acceptable to block the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance around the world. Despite overwhelming international condemnation. Azerbaijan continues its blockade of U.S. humanitarian assistance to Armenia. It is tragic that Azerbaijan's tactics have denied food and medicine to innocent men, women, and children in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh, and created thousands of refugees. The U.S. must stand firm against Azerbaijan's brazen violations of international law until it ends this immoral blockade. We must make clear that warfare and blockades aimed at civilians are unacceptable as means for resolving disputes. Mr. Speaker, after the Genocide, the Armenian people wiped away their tears and cried out, ``Let us always remember the atrocities that have taken the lives of our parents and our children and our neighbors.'' As the Armenian-American author William Saroyan wrote, ``Go ahead, destroy this race.* * * Send them from their homes into the desert.* * * Burn their homes and churches. Then see if they will not laugh again, see if they will not sing and pray again. For, when two of them meet anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a New Armenia.'' I rise today to remember those cries and to make sure that they were not uttered in vain. The Armenian nation lives. We must do everything we can to ensure that it is never imperiled again.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great admiration for Lew Harris, a remarkable leader and citizen who this year celebrates 20 years of service to the Forest Hills Community House. A man of principle, intelligence, and skill, Mr. Harris has helped the Forest Hills Community House grow from a fledgling organization to a pillar of Queens social and community life. Today, the Community House serves some 15,000 people with over 35 programs operating out of 19 locations. What's more, the Forest Hills Community House is now widely regarded as a model to other settlement houses in the region, with a variety and depth of programming second to none. Lew Harris has also been actively involved in a wide range of other important community activities, including Community Board Six, the Queensboro Council for Social Welfare, the Queens Interagency Council for Aging, the Non-Profit Coordinating Committee of New York, the Council of Senior Centers and Services of New York City, and the New York State Coalition for the Aging. From leadership positions in these organizations and others, Lew Harris has strengthened human services at every level, making a critical difference in the lives of literally thousands of individuals, with a particular contribution to the opportunities available to older Americans. We are a better community thanks to Lew Harris' vision and leadership. I am confident that his exceptional example will remain a source of guidance and inspiration to service providers for many years to come.

Ms. LOWEY

Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 178th anniversary of Greece's independence from the Ottoman Empire, and to celebrate the shared democratic heritage of Greece and the United States. I thank Congressman Bilirakis and Congresswoman Maloney for organizing this special order and for their leadership on issues of importance to the Greek-American community. On March 25, 1821, after more than 400 years of Ottoman Turk domination, Greece declared its independence and resumed its rightful place in the world as a beacon of democracy. The people of Greece and the United States share a common bond in their commitment to democracy. Our Founding Fathers looked to the teachings of Greek philosophy in their struggle for freedom and democracy. And the American experience in turn inspired the Greek people who fought so hard for independence 176 years ago. This bond between our two peoples stretches beyond the philosophy of democracy. The relationship between the U.S. and Greece has grown stronger and stronger through the years, and Greece remains today one of our most important allies. And the contribution Greece makes to life in America is even stronger than the ties between our two countries. Greek-Americans are a vital part of our cultural heritage. My district in New York would not be what it is today without the valuable contributions made by the Greek- American community. I am proud to stand today in commemoration of Greek independence and in recognition of the contribution Greece and Greek-Americans have made to our country.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the resolution we are debating today quotes from the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development. As many of my colleagues know, the ICPD met in 1994 and reached a consensus on a 20-year Programme of Action that makes an unprecedented commitment to women's rights and concerns in international population and development activities. I applaud my colleagues for supporting the implementation of the Programme of Action. But since the authors of this resolution left out a good portion of the Programme. I'd like to fill in our colleagues about the rest of it, because it also deserves our strong support. The Programme of Action calls for universal access to a full range of basic reproductive health services. It also calls for specific measures to foster human development, with particular attention to the social, economic, and health status of women. It supports integrating voluntary family planning activities with other efforts to improve maternal and child health to make the most effective use of our limited resources. The resolution we are debating here today discusses the need to respect the religious and cultural realities of the countries in which we fund family planning activities. I agree. I also believed that we need to respect the rights of women around the world to make free and informed choices about their own reproductive health. And we need to help educate women and men to ensure that they have the information and resources they need to stay strong and healthy and to nurture healthy children. In addition to supporting the portions of the Programme of Action included in the resolution we are debating today, the United States also must live up to the financial commitments it made at the ICPD. To reach the Programme's year 2000 goal of providing $17 billion for international family programs worldwide--one-third of which would come from donor countries like the United States--the United States would have to triple its international family planning assistance. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the authors of this resolution support the ICPD's Programme of Action. Now I look forward to working with them to implement all aspects of the Programme.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today Congresswoman DeLauro, Congressman Shays, and I are once again joining with a geographically diverse group of our colleagues in reintroducing legislation to renew and expand the Federal Government's role in controlling pollution and in stewarding our coastal resources. Without question, much remains to be done to take our Nation's estuaries off the endangered list. Nationally, we face an appalling backlog of water quality infrastructure upgrade needs that threatens to choke our economy just as it is robbing our waters of life-giving oxygen. Quite simply, we need leadership at the Federal level to match the energy and ingenuity of our communities that are working toward a better environmental and economic future. Without strong Federal leadership and substantial funds to back it up, we run the risk of squandering over 20 years of progress in cleaning up and protecting our waters. Therefore, our legislation will re-ignite Federal, State, and local cooperation in water pollution control by significantly increasing annual authorization levels for the State Revolving Fund [SRF] Program to $4 billion in 2005, thereby providing the resources to expand and modernize the Nation's water pollution control infrastructure. Moreover, our legislation would strengthen section 320 of the Clean Water Act, which authorizes the National Estuary Program. First established under the Water Quality Act of 1987, the NEP provides a mechanism for bringing together Federal, State, and local authorities-- and interested citizens--to develop comprehensive, watershed-based plans for cleaning up and protecting nationally significant estuaries. In Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, Massachusetts Bay, and a number of other estuaries, the NEP has helped bring about unprecedented cooperation aimed at saving these threatened waters and the economies that rely on them. Our bill would build on the success of the NEP by clarifying the funding and staffing responsibilities of Federal agencies concerned with the program, including the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. Specifically, the bill states that implementation of estuary management plans is a nondiscretionary duty of the EPA. The measure seeks to improve Federal leadership in the NEP by directing the EPA to promulgate guidelines for development, approval, and implementation of comprehensive management plans. Other important proposed changes include measures to improve coordination of clean-up efforts with other Federal activities in estuaries. In short, this bill is designed to make certain that those plans do not end up on shelves in bureaucrats' offices, but instead truly clean up these critical bodies of water. Mr. Speaker, our legislation is a call to action that says through sensible investments in water pollution control we can help ensure our economic and environmental future. Without Federal assistance, our estuaries will die while the long-term growth of our economies suffers. The time has come to act, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and the public that March is National Eye Donor Month. National recognition of Eye Donor Month dates back to the very early days of transplantation, when corneas were the only human transplants. Now, transplantations are common medical procedures by which people may give so that others can live better, fuller, healthier lives. National Eye Donor Month honors the thousands of Americans who, over the past 55 years, have each left behind a priceless legacy--their eyes. Since the first transplant agency was founded in New York City in 1944, sight has been restored to over half a million individuals by means of cornea transplantation. Eye Donor Month is also about increasing public awareness of the continuing need for donors. Many people are still unaware of how easy it is to become an eye donor. All a donor needs to do is sign a card and announce to his or her family the intent to leave behind this special gift. I am confident that if more Americans realized the true extent of the need for transplants, many more would willingly donate their corneas, once they can no longer use them. More than 40,000 Americans will need cornea transplants this year. Thousands of researchers will need donor eye tissue to explore prevention and treatment of blinding diseases. Understandably, most people do not like to think about their own deaths, nor discuss the matter with their families. As a result, they frequently put off signing their donor cards until it is too late. I hope that more people will instead follow the example of a young boy in my district, Nathan Sheinfeld of Scarsdale, NY. At age 9, Nathan became a living eye donor. When faced with the loss of his left eye after a golfing incident, one of his first thoughts was to ask if it could possibly be used by someone else. Only a few days after his accident, Nathan gave the gift of sight to a 53-year-old man. Thankfully, very few people lose their sight in such a tragic way. But we can all follow Nathan's example by promising to donate our eyes when we no longer need them. I encourage people to discuss this important issue with their families, as Nathan did. By arranging to donate his eye, this young boy has shown us that some good can result even from a tragic loss. Our nation's eye banks--non-profit agencies operating under the umbrella of the Eye Bank Association of America--have done a heroic job of restoring sight to blind people. Today, cornea transplantation is the most common transplant procedure performed, with an extremely high success rate of nearly 90 percent. This incredible success rate is due in part to a meticulous screening process which separates out corneas unsuitable for transplantation. These may be used for research purposes in surgical training and medical education. So, while each donated eye is put to good use, such a selective screening process must be supported by a large number of donations. Right now, there are simply not enough donors. We must change that. I want to encourage my colleagues to celebrate National Eye Donor Month by working closely with our Nation's eye banks to educate the American public about how they can help others to see. Let us all aim to increase the number of eyes available for transplantation, so that we may illuminate the darkness for so many of our fellow citizens.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 669, which will expand our sensible investment in the Peace Corps. As an original cosponsor of this important legislation, I am proud to join my colleagues today in support of the Peace Corps, one of our most effective foreign assistance tools. This bill, which has broad bipartisan support, will increase the number of Peace Corps volunteers to 10,000 over the next four years. It is especially fitting that we make this commitment today, just a day after the Peace Corps celebrated its 38th birthday. Under the outstanding leadership of Mark Gearan, the Peace Corps has become a lean and effective advocate for the United States' foreign assistance goals around the world. With almost 7,000 volunteers in about 80 countries, the Peace Corps has brought assistance in education, microcredit, health care, and a range of other fields to millions of people in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, the Pacific, and the Middle East. This bill responds to the increasing demand for the Peace Corps, both in the United States and around the world. Here in the United States, interest in volunteering in the Peace Corps has increased by 40 percent over the last four years. And Peace Corps volunteers continue to be welcomed into communities around the world for their unique ability to work closely with the indigenous populations to implement successful development projects. Mr. Chairman, this bill makes good sense. The Administration supports it. Congress has been on the record since 1985 in support of the goal of 10,000 Peace Corps volunteers. And even this increase would still leave Peace Corps funding at only one percent of our foreign aid budget, which itself is less than one percent of our overall federal budget. I urge my colleagues to support the Peace Corps by voting for H.R. 669.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great admiration for Eli and Marilyn Hertz, two outstanding individuals who will be honored by Camp Ramah in the Berkshires on March 13, 1999. Eli Hertz, the founder and President of the Hertz Technology Group, is a towering figure in the personal computer industry. His computers have won numerous awards and are widely recognized among industry professionals and observers as the gold standard in quality, performance, and affordability. Marketing Computers lauded Hertz's vision, noting that he is ``able to shift with industry changes * * * a barometer of the future.'' Eli Hertz's devotion to public service is as strong as his commitment to professional excellence. His efforts to build a strong Jewish community and a healthy relationship between the United States and Israel are especially notable. Among the important organizations benefitting from Eli Hertz's leadership are the Joint High Level Advisory Panel to the U.S. Israel Science & Technology Commission, the Advisory Board for the New York- Israel Economic Development Partnership, the America-Israel Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. Mr. Hertz sponsored and authored portions of Partners for Change: How U.S.-Israel Cooperation Can Benefit America, a highly- respected blueprint for a new Middle-east. Marilyn Hertz is herself an expert in computer programming, with extensive experience as a lecturer, as well as a co-founder and principal officer of the Hertz Technology Group. Now responsible for human resources and general management, Mrs. Hertz has been invaluable to the company's success and growth. Marilyn Hertz is also active in a wide range of civic and charitable organizations, most especially the PTA and Camp Ramah, where her passion for the Jewish community and its children is given full expression every day. Together, Eli and Marilyn Hertz represent the very best in our country--a personal devotion to service, a professional commitment to excellence, and a visionary grasp of the opportunities open to all Americans in the future. I am delighted that the Hertz's many friends and admirers are joining to recognize their accomplishments, and I am proud to add my accolades to this well-deserved tribute.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important resolution honoring the life of King Hussein of Jordan. King Hussein will be remembered as one of the greatest leaders of the late twentieth century. His stature, his courage, and his determination made him an international force that far surpassed the size of his tiny country. Most of all, King Hussein will be remembered as a peacemaker. Over the four decades he led the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Hussein transformed himself from a teenager given the reins of a country at war with its neighbors, to a seasoned and benevolent statesman who saw the cause of peace as his destiny. Hussein showed the world that you can live in a dangerous and war- infested neighborhood, and still battle first and foremost for peace. He sought peace with Israel and he facilitated peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians at the same time that he fought off a never-ending string of coup and assassination attempts at home. He saw his good friend, Yitzhak Rabin, cut down by the enemies of peace. Still, he vowed to press on, touching us all with his poignant eulogy to the fallen Prime Minister. His words at the Rabin funeral were a call to action: ``Let's not keep silent. Let our voices rise high to speak of our commitment to peace for all times to come, and let us tell those who live in darkness who are the enemies of life, and through faith and religion and the teachings of our one God, this is where we stand.'' And he was so committed to peace that he took time from his battle with cancer to help broker the Israeli-Prime peace accords at the Wye River Plantation last fall. Our thoughts go out today to King Hussein's family and to the people of Jordan. I had the pleasure of meeting King Abdullah last year, and I know that the Jordanian people are in good hands. King Hussein left behind a strong governmental system and an able heir. King Hussein once said that he wanted to give the people of the Middle East ``a life free from fear, a life free from want--a life in peace.'' He worked tirelessly to achieve that goal, and, with our continued commitment to King Hussein's legacy, we will realize his dream.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution. Our Founding Fathers viewed impeachment as a mechanism of last resort to protect the Nation from a President who threatened the Constitution or the American people. Throughout our history, Members of Congress have appreciated the enormous gravity of impeachment and that is why, despite countless disputes, provocation, misdeeds and lies, the House has voted just once in its history to impeach a President. Indeed the delicate system of constitutional checks and balances established by the founders works only insofar as each branch of government exercises its prerogatives responsibly. In the case of impeachment, that means applying the most rigorous test to the use of our authority. The Constitution gives this body the ability to undo our only national election, but we must use that authority judiciously and cautiously. To do otherwise imperils the stability of our democracy, replacing the orderly transfer of power with the constant threat of political upheaval. A great Nation does not overturn two national elections and throw a President out of office because he denied having a consensual affair. Let us instead find a suitable punishment that fits the President's offense, censure. The President misled his family and his country and he deserves the reprimand of the Congress and the enduring judgment of history. Unfortunately, in their zeal to impeach Bill Clinton, the GOP leadership has refused to allow this House to debate a tough motion of censure, a censure that is overwhelmingly supported by the general public over impeachment. Unfortunately, there is a determined minority in America and in this Chamber who never accepted the legitimacy of this President. To them this episode is mere pretext to accomplish what they could not during two separate elections. The majority is not here today to give the President his fair day in court. They are here to oust him. And Kenneth Starr was their instrument. By utilizing the vast prosecutorial powers of the government, Kenneth Starr abused his authority and broke his trust with the American people. His dangerous and misguided inquiry has been unparalleled in our modern life, and impeachment merely serves to validate his methods and goals. And make no mistake, my colleagues, not all coups are accompanied by the sound of marching boots and rolling tanks. Some, like today, are wrapped in a constitutional veneer, softened by pious assertions of solemn obligation and duty. But the result is the same, defiance of the public will and rejection of the regular political process. Mr. Speaker, what will impeachment mean? A trial in the Senate would only deepen the Nation's wounds. Imagine the spectacle of the upper Chamber of the world's greatest democracy, presided over by the highest judge in the land, gathered for weeks and months not to consider important affairs of state, but instead to hear the same tawdry testimony, the same tiresome details, again and again. I am frankly amazed, Mr. Speaker, that the House stands poised today at the edge of a deep abyss. The American people, in their wisdom, have implored us to leave the slippery road of impeachment and pursue instead the measured course of censure. Such a prolonged re-hashing, illuminated by television lights and augmented by a thousand talking heads, would further alienate a public that has already sent its representatives a clear message to end this disgraceful episode in our nation's life. It would seriously compromise our capacity to wrestle with serious policy challenges. And it would weaken our international leadership at a perilous moment in world affairs. It would shut our government down at a time when the American people are looking at us to solve the problems that affect their everyday lives. Let us honor our Constitutional obligations, heed the call of scholars and historians, and above all, keep faith with the men and women we serve.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California who had worked so hard and been such a champion for children in this session of the Congress as a freshman.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Etheridge from North Carolina who brings an education background, one that I think all of us appreciate, to these chambers, and although in his first term you would think he had been here 20 years because he has done so much in pushing this issue, I think he is teaching a lot of us from his perspective on how we can improve the education system in this country. So I would like to yield to Mr. Etheridge.

Ms. LOWEY

Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here this evening to clarify some of the issues that we have been working on. I was just in my office when my good friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) were speaking. I was working with my staff on some of the key educational issues, and I heard some of the comments. I thought, well, I better get down to that floor and clarify some of these issues. Yesterday, I was in Maryland with the President of the United States, with leaders in the House and leaders in the Senate, and we had an opportunity to visit a school which has wonderful children, a great principal. We met the superintendent. We were there with the Governor of Maryland. We talked to some of the teachers. We talked to the students. They are working so hard to give those children the very best education they could. Yet, I was shocked to see three or four trailers outside in which the children were learning. This is the United States of America. This is not a Third World Nation. In a middle class community in Maryland, the children were forced to have classes in trailers because the community was not able to get school construction bond issues through their local communities. I have worked on the issue of school modernization a long time and let me tell my colleagues why. A couple of years ago, I did a survey of the schools in the metropolitan New York region, and I was shocked. I grew up in Bronx, New York. I raised my children in Queens. Now I live in Westchester County. So I am very interested in what is happening in the entire metropolitan region. In this survey, it showed that one out of four, one out of four schools have children learning in classrooms that were meant to be locker rooms, meant to be bathrooms. This in the United States of America. Two-thirds of these schools have boilers, have roofs, have other areas that have to be fixed. Around the country, there is $112 billion worth of improvements that have to be made in these schools. A couple years ago, Carol Moseley-Braun in the Senate and I introduced a bill. We introduced it again with our good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that would do something about this problem. I do not think we should be talking about liberals, conservatives, right wing, left wing. I am a mother. In fact, I am a grandmother. I bet Jillie is watching this program. Because we want to be sure that our youngsters, like my grandchildren, are going to go to schools that are going to give them the best education they could get. I am shocked to think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say only bureaucracies want to do this. Let me make it very clear what the school modernization proposal that our President is talking about and has been so forceful about, what our leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), is talking about, what Tom Daschle in the Senate is talking about, this is a proposal that allows local communities to make the decision. The Federal Government's role is to pay the interest on those bonds. But it is the local community that has to float the bonds. Do my colleagues know what? My good friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about cutting taxes. What this proposal will do is help lower property taxes, because unless the Federal Government is a partner with local school districts, the local school districts will have to assume this burden. Just a couple of weeks ago, I toured a school in my district in Westchester County. This district has about $8 million in repairs. They cannot go out with a bond issue of $8 million because this middle class community has so many responsibilities that it will be voted down. So they go out with bond issues of $35,000 and $45,000. My colleagues and I know when we have repairs in the House, whether we are fixing a bathroom or some leaky pipes, if we go out piecemeal, we do not get as good a price as if we put it all together. So by the Federal Government paying the interest, giving a tax credit to these bonds, and the local government going out and floating these bonds, the Federal Government is not making the decision. So all this talk about bureaucracies is kind of a joke. It is the local communities that make a difference. My friends and all of the good people, the hardworking people who are watching us tonight have to understand that there is a real difference in views about school modernization. My colleagues, my friends on the other side of the aisle and I would love this to be a bipartisan issue, because, again, this is the United States of America. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not feel that the Federal Government should be a partner in modernizing our schools. The Democrats on this side of the aisle feel strongly, passionately that the Federal Government has responsibility to help local governments in modernizing the schools. How can we in this Congress, Democrat or Republican? Because many of us, most of us voted for it, vote to make the Federal Government be a partner in rebuilding our roads, our highways, our bridges and yet not be a partner in rebuilding our schools and modernizing our schools? That does not make any sense. How can we on both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, vote, and I vote that way, to make the Federal Government a partner in building prisons and yet say to local taxpayers, you have to bear the burden of modernizing our schools. The Federal Government is not going to be a partner. It does not make any sense. I want to clarify that. Local governments will have the control over the decisions of how they are going to float these bonds, which responsibilities they want to assume, but we would tell them, you will lower your local tax burden because the Federal Government is reaching out the hand to be a partner. So let us clarify. The Republicans do not want to be a partner in modernizing our schools. The Democrats are saying, we want to help you lower your property taxes and be a partner in modernizing our schools. That is the difference. I have visited schools, not only in Westchester County but in Queens County, in New York City where the plaster is falling down because of leaks on the roof and they have sheets of plastic holding up the ceiling, not in a third world nation, in the United States of America. Locker rooms that are damp are now places for classrooms. Bathrooms are classrooms. This in the United States of America? How can we say that school modernization is not our responsibility if we are saying that we have to prepare our youngsters for the future, that education is the key to the future? How can we say there should be a computer in every classroom, that there should be computers for every youngster when many of the schools do not have the wiring, they do not have the infrastructure to support these computers? I visited one school and it would be hard for my colleagues to believe this, where they were wiring the schools outside of the window because the school could not have the infrastructure that would support the computers. Does this make sense? No, I think the majority of families, the hardworking families who are listening to us tonight, who send their kids to local schools where there are trailers because there are too many kids for those classrooms that are existing, who send their kids to local schools where the boilers are old, where they need to refurbish, where they want their children to have computers would say, ``Help us, be a partner, reach out to us,'' they are not going to say, ``You bureaucrats in Washington, don't help us modernize our schools.'' This does not make sense. They are also saying, stop all this labeling. I am tired of people being referred to as liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat. All of us should join hands across the aisle and help our parents, our hardworking families give their youngsters the very best education they can. That is what this proposal is all about. My colleagues are saying that there are a lot of arguments from, they said Democratic opponents. I do not think we are opponents in this effort. We should be working together. But yes, the Democrats are fighting for school modernization because we feel it is in the interest of our youngsters. I want to make another point in response to my colleagues. This President, because of bold actions in 1993 and actions following up, has balanced this budget. Now my colleagues are saying that we should be giving away some of this money. Do you know what the money in the surplus really is? The money in the surplus belongs to the Social Security trust fund. These are FICA taxes that are in that trust fund. We should not be using that money other than frankly preserving Social Security and Medicare. This is what our constituents want. I want to make a couple of other points. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my good friends on the other side of the aisle talked about the issues, and they talked about what they have accomplished. I want to remind our listeners that they bottled up campaign finance reform. They did not do anything about preserving Social Security and Medicare. What happened to the patient bill of rights? What happened to reforming HMOs? What happened to the environmental progress that we are trying to make that they are trying to roll back? So it is not just that they are saying no school modernization. They have not taken action to preserve Social Security and Medicare. They have not taken action on the patient bill of rights. Now, for my constituents that are listening this evening, there is an HMO in my district that has suddenly said to the seniors, ``We're not going to cover you anymore.'' That same HMO called me on the telephone and said, ``We're not going to cover you on the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. You are just going to have to find another provider.'' Why was this bottled up in the Senate? Why have we not taken action? We need campaign finance reform. We need HMO reform. We need the enforcement. I have an interesting story which may relate to some of the personal stories of families here. I was in the office of my ophthalmologist. The ophthalmologist had a difficult decision to make. As so often when I go to the doctor, and my friend from Wisconsin is here and he may have the same experiences, I often hear about what is wrong with the HMO for an hour and then maybe they examine me for 2 minutes. But on one of these occasions, the doctor said to me, Mrs. Lowey, I had to make the most difficult decision. I felt a patient needed to have surgery immediately to save her eye. That patient had to be put in a taxi, sent back to Stamford, Connecticut, this was in New York City, because the HMO would not allow this doctor to treat her and she had to be sent back for another physician who was not as expert as this physician. So in our HMO bill, we talk about enforcement, making sure that not just the doctor can be sued when something goes wrong but the HMO has to bear responsibility. So why has this Congress led by the Republican majority not passed HMO reform, passed campaign finance reform and passed our school modernization program? I am going to close now and turn it over to my good colleague from Wisconsin, because I think it is important that you hear what is happening all over the country. School modernization is critical. It is critical that in this negotiation that is going on, and it is not last-minute. I introduced my bill 2\1/2\ years ago. This is not last-minute. It is critical that we stand up and fight hard for the children of America. School modernization has nothing to do with bureaucrats. It has to do with the Federal Government reaching out to our local governments and to say to those local governments, ``We're going to be partners with you. You can lower your property taxes because we understand that you can't do this alone.'' This problem around the Nation is $112 billion. I want to close, as I mentioned before, by saying if this Congress can have a role in rebuilding highways and roads and bridges, and I think we should, if this Congress should have a critical role in building prisons, then we have a responsibility to make education the number-one issue. We have to make sure our youngsters are going to schools that have the latest technology. We have to make sure that our teachers are given all the support they need. It is too easy to criticize our teachers when you and I know that all the problems of our community converge on the teachers in our school system. So we want to be sure those schools are modern, we want to be sure those schools are equipped with computers, we want to be sure those youngsters are safe in those schools, we want to be sure there are not roofs that are leaking, we want to be sure that the boilers are up to date and that when we drive by we do not see a coal truck as I did delivering coal to the local school. We have this responsibility. I am very proud to be a Member of the Congress of the United States of America. As I look at the Capitol dome as I come in, it is often hard for me to believe that I was elected to be a Member of the Congress of the United States of America. And frankly it pains me deeply to see constant attacks, constant partisan attacks. We have to work together on the priorities that our families and our communities sent us here to accomplish. It is unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want one investigation after another. We would like to bring these investigations to closure, take appropriate action and focus on the issues that we were sent here to do. Education, my colleagues, is number one. I started working on this not only as a mother, as a PTA president, I continue to care passionately about these issues, and I am optimistic that as these negotiations are brought to closure, we will not only increase the number of teachers by 100,000 as our President has suggested, but we will pass the appropriate legislation that will provide the partnership for school modernization that is so necessary for the future of this country. And then we can go home and make it clear to our constituents that we are here fighting for you and your concerns and be proud to be representatives in this great body, in this greatest country in the world. I thank my colleagues. I am delighted that I am joined here by my good friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), and I know that he has worked hard on these issues, and my colleague would like to share some thoughts.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for those wise comments. I am particularly pleased that the gentlewoman talked about the global economy, because this is a global economy. We have to be sure that we are preparing our young people so that they can compete in this global economy, so they get the best education that we can provide in the leader of the free world, so these youngsters can go out there with this education and earn their own way in the world. We talk about cutting back on a lot of the support programs in our country. We can do this if we make sure our youngsters are educated, that they have the best education that we can provide them. I am going to close by just emphasizing a few points that we talked about this evening. With President Clinton's leadership, we did balance the budget. This is the time that we can focus on the concerns of working families in this country. Families care about education. They worked very hard to raise their children. They should not worry, when their children go to school, that the school is not safe, that it is not providing them with computer technology that is up-to-date. Parents should not have that concern. I know there are some people in the majority party who believe the answer to education is providing a voucher, to take a small percentage of youngsters out of the public schools and letting them go to another school, where we feel that we have to be sure not 2 percent, not 3 percent of youngsters get the best education, but that every youngster gets what they are entitled to, the very best education that we can provide. It is unfortunate that we end up in one large omnibus bill, and that the majority party could not get each appropriation bill passed. I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I would have liked to see every appropriations bill passed in a timely way. But this is where we are. So I am hoping that as these negotiations are going on, that everyone on both sides of the aisle remembers who sent us here, all the families of this country, and that we focus on not just education for a few, not just vouchers, which would take youngsters out of the school, but that we renew our commitment to every child in every community; that we include a school modernization program, so that every youngster can go to a school that is up-to-date, that is modern, that has computers, that is safe. Because it seems to me that that is the responsibility of this country, to provide the best education we can for our youngsters. I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), for joining us here this evening. Whether it is California or New York, this would mean millions of dollars to our local school districts, creating a partnership that I know our families and our communities and our country need, so that we can be strong and enter the next century as a strong Nation.

Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Etheridge from North Carolina again, and, of course, Ms. Sanchez from California. Mr. Etheridge has been cochair of the Education Task Force, and you have brought your huge experience, your wide range of experience as a superintendent of schools in North Carolina. So you have really seen the change over, I believe it is, eight years. Certainly Ms. Sanchez, who has been very involved in the community, has seen the change. I could not help but think as a young woman who grew up in the Bronx, New York, in the shadow of Yankee Stadium, how times have changed. In those years the biggest problem in the school was someone was chewing bubble gum or one child pushed another child. Life is different today, and all the problems of the community converge in our schools. My colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I were working on a proposal for comprehensive schools, because we believe, as you said, and I could not help but think of it as you were talking about it, that the school should be the focus of the community. It could be a place where not only the children gather, but our seniors could gather, where you could have reading programs, where the seniors could assist the young people, and we could really do creative things in the school. I mentioned before that I tour my schools all the time. My colleague, Ms. McCarthy, who could not be here with us tonight, represents another suburban district. It is amazing for us to see how this issue cuts across all of our communities. It is not just an inner-city issue, it is a middle class issue. In fact, I want to emphasize again a point I made before and my colleague Ms. Sanchez, who is an expert in this area of financing made before, that we are actually, by focusing on the school modernization program, the bill that was introduced by Charlie Rangel and myself and several others this year, are cutting taxes because of this partnership which will be controlled by the locals, not us in Washington, the local communities will make the decision. But because we are sharing the burden through tax relief, they will have a lower tax rate, because they will not have to raise the local property taxes. So I cannot understand why the majority party opposes this school modernization proposal. It makes sense. It helps us help local governments in revitalizing their schools, modernizing schools, expanding schools, providing up-to-date technology in our schools, putting computers in our schools, with the infrastructure, and that is a fancy word for anyone who is looking for it, for the wires and the mortar and bricks that support the computers. You just cannot put computers in these schools. So, to me, this should be an issue that everyone supports. My little girl, my grandchild that is watching this, wants to go to a school that provides up-to-date technology. Your children and your family all want to make sure that we are giving our youngsters the best education they can get, and I know how important this is to you.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, actually, those boundaries are pretty important in the last couple of years. Because of those boundaries, as a result of redistricting, I have gotten to work even more closely with our good friend, Tom Manton. I wanted to rise today, Madam Speaker, in tribute to our friend and our distinguished colleague, Thomas Manton. Actually, I have known Tom since the early 1960s. As some of you may know, my district does run from Westchester through the Bronx to Queens, but we both raised our children in Queens. And when I lived in Queens raising my children, I guess it is about 40 years ago, a while ago, Tom and I were both raising our children and we got to know each other in Queens politics. And Tom is an example of what is good and right in politics today. Tom understands that government and politics is the way to make life better for people, make life better for families in our communities. He has been very involved in politics and government in Queens County and, in fact, the entire State for a long, long time. We can all learn a lot from Tom because, as my colleagues have said, and I think that is probably one of the core traits of Tom, is that he is the kind of person you can trust. His word is his bond. He has absolute integrity. He is a man you can count on to tell the whole story, not part of the story. He is a man who stands up and tells it like it is and we can respect that. We need more people like that in this body and in politics and government today. As a member of the New York delegation, I have developed a great relationship with Tom and, more importantly, a warm friendship. In fact, my respect for Tom, my admiration for Tom, has only grown throughout the years. First, it was local politics, and then when I was elected in 1988 I had the privilege of working with Tom as a member of the delegation. I am sad to see Tom leave this body but I know that he will be happy and successful in whatever he does. Tom Manton was born in 1932, of Irish immigrant parents on the west side of Manhattan, having grown up in Astoria. He is a product of the area he was elected to serve. After attending both St. John's University as an undergraduate, and St. Johns's Law School, which are both in my district, Tom served as a flight navigator in the United States Marine Corps and then joined the New York City Police Department. Tom has, as I mentioned before, a long and distinguished record of leadership in the Democratic Party of New York State. He began as a member of the executive committee in 1972, and in 1986 he was elected chairman of the executive committee of the Queens County Democratic Organization. In 1988, Tom was unanimously reelected county chairman and has served continuously in that capacity since then. During his tenure in Congress, Tom has been active on a number of environmental issues. He has used his seat on the Committee on Commerce to fight for much needed improvements in the Superfund program in order to accelerate the cleanup of toxic waste sites. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Management, during the 103rd Congress, he also took a lead in improving conservation of our Nation's fisheries resources. Perhaps Tom's greatest legacy, as my colleagues have mentioned, will be his tireless and effective work regarding Northern Ireland. I am pleased to be a member of the Congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, and Tom has been and continues to be a great cochairman. The committee was founded in 1977, to bring about peace, justice and an end to all violence and discrimination in Northern Ireland, and as the leader of this committee, Tom Manton has held hearings, introduced legislation, written letters in support of the rights of the Irish. The committee crosses over partisan and geographic lines to advocate and represent the interests of the Irish American community and to ensure a friendly and productive relationship between America and the people of Northern Ireland. Efforts such as this and the great leadership of our colleague Tom Manton paved the way for the historic Good Friday Peace Agreement. When deportation proceedings were tearing apart the Irish American community in my district, Tom Manton was there to fight to keep these families together. His commitment to the peace process is unquestioned, and as the people of Northern Ireland struggle through perhaps this most vital and important time, you can be assured that Tom Manton, even after leaving this body, will continue to lead this effort and standing with them. Tom has doggedly represented his constituents for 14 years. The people of the 7th District of New York and Congress will be losing a wonderful representative, but I can assure you that Congressman Tom Manton will continue to stand up for what is right. I am very pleased that my district is right near where Tom currently resides, and I know we will continue to be good friends. I look forward to spending time with Tom and Diane, and I wish you both good luck. God bless. I have been privileged to be your friend. I am proud to be your colleague and I look forward to continuing to work with you to stand up for what is right and just. Thank you, Tom.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, we are representatives in the Congress of the United States of America. I have traveled all across the metropolitan region. My district, as the Speaker knows, goes from Westchester through the Bronx to Queens County. The schools are crumbling. They are crumbling all across America. Classrooms are literally overflowing. Students are learning in the hallways. But we are just sitting idly by. That is wrong. Last year, 120 Members of Congress showed their commitment to America's children by cosponsoring a bill, the Partnership to Rebuild America Schools. This session, we have a similar proposal which I introduced with my good colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I say to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), we are not talking about taking over the schools. We are talking about a partnership. If we can be partners in rebuilding our highways, if we can be partners in rebuilding our roads and bridges and building prisons, then it seems to me we can be partners in modernizing our schools. We have visited schools where computers cannot be installed because they do not have the wiring necessary. One school in lower New York, there were wires hanging out of the windows, and the vandals were clipping them because the school infrastructure could not hold those computer systems, the wires. That is wrong. We are not a Third World nation. Our program will make interest-free loans available to school districts, they are going to be in control, across the country through the tax code. Under the bill, school districts will be able to issue special bonds at no interest to fund the construction or renovation of school building. Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot ignore the poor physical conditions of our schools any longer. Nationally there is a $112 billion problem. That is what is needed in school construction. Mr. Speaker, let us modernize our schools. We have that responsibility.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 295, a resolution to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine and to recognize the pain and suffering of the Ukrainian people under the former Soviet regime. In 1932, the people of Ukraine fell prey to the dictatorial ruthlessness of Soviet leader Josef Stalin, who imposed a man-made famine on the Ukrainian people to punish them for their resistance to his forced collectivization policies. The ensuing famine killed more than seven million Ukrainians, almost one-quarter of the population. The starving masses were blocked at the Ukrainian borders from crossing into Russian territory in search of food. The Soviet regime rejected offers to assist the starving population from international relief organizations, denying that the famine was occurring in Ukraine. And the Soviet government even sent 1.7 million tons of grain to the West during the height of the famine. Mr. Speaker, 65 years ago the Ukrainian people were suffering from an horrific man-made catastrophe. It is a testament to their strength as a people that today's Ukraine is progressing with democratic and economic reforms, and is one of our strongest allies in the region. I am proud to stand in support of H. Con. Res. 295, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, last year I was proud to stand on the House floor and work hard with our distinguished chairman and good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), to pass a bipartisan Labor-HHS- Education spending bill. I frankly am sad and disgusted that today we are called here at the last minute to debate a phoney rule on the same bill designed by the Republican leadership simply as a pre-election gift to their right wing. This rule is a sham designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to give opponents of family planning a procedural advantage in a vote on their provision which was defeated on the House floor 2 years in a row. It is my understanding that after the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) gets his antifamily planning vote, we will simply rise and discontinue debate on this important bill with its key education and health care programs. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote down this bogus rule. Because the Republican leadership could not get an agreement to bring up the bill under a fair rule, the bill did not come up. Week after week went by and still no Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Now, 1 day before target adjournment, the bill is brought up suddenly and under a fake rule that is not about policy, but about election year politics. If the rule does pass, then I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood-Castle substitute and oppose the Istook second degree amendment. The Istook second degree contains the same language restricting teenagers' access to Title X family planning services which was defeated on the House floor just last year. This parental consent restriction will deny vulnerable teens the contraceptive services they need to avoid pregnancy, HIV and STDs. Last year's attack on the Title X program failed because a majority of Members understood that denying teens access to family planning does not promote abstinence. I only wish it were that simple. Instead, Members understand that the Istook language will increase STDs and HIV infections, unintended pregnancies and abortions. I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood-Castle substitute, it takes the responsible, sensible route, and defeat this sham rule.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my good friend and colleague, Sid Yates. Since first joining this Congress a remarkable fifty years ago, Sid has been a paragon of conscience and decency, shaping this great Nation for the better through quiet perseverance and boundless idealism. I have had the pleasure of serving with Sid on the Appropriations Committee and have watched in admiration as he successfully funded scores of worthwhile projects, many of enormous benefit to our environment. Years from now, when our children and grandchildren enjoy scenic vistas and waterways, when they walk along gleaming lake fronts and thrill to the diversity of our Nation's wildlife, they will have Sid Yates to thank. He has always understood our powerful moral obligations to be custodians of the great outdoors. Just as important has been Sid's championship of the arts. In the midst of controversy and contention, Sid has always been a staunch and eloquent defender of the NEA. To those who would inflame public passions about the controversial margins of the artistic world, Sid responded with a calm affirmation of the arts' central role in our national life. How many orchestras and exhibitions, how many performances and plays, owe their very existence to Sid's faithful leadership? Indeed, the NEA itself might have been overwhelmed by its critics had not Sid Yates been a member of this Congress. For me, it has also been a great honor to sit with Sid Yates on Appropriations' Foreign Operations Subcommittee. There, he has been an articulate spokesperson for American leadership around the world and a fierce defender of Israel's interests. It is entirely fitting that Sid's first election to Congress should occur in the very year of Israel's declaration of statehood. And that, from this high vantage, Sid should be able to watch Israel's development from a threatened outpost between the desert and the sea, to a modern, thriving nation, bursting with technology, artistry, and innovation. Sid Yates played no small role in Israel's inspiring progress. Mr. Speaker, Sid Yates leaves this House diminished by his departure, yet wiser for his service. I know that Sid Yates' integrity and courage will remain a model to countless public servants for many years to come.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding leader, good friend, and beloved former member of this House, Dick Ottinger. Dick represented Westchester County in the United States House of Representatives from 1965 to 1971, and again from 1975 to 1985. Throughout his service in the Congress, Dick was a model of integrity and energy. He fought for the interests of working families and consumers, for the underprivileged and for seniors--always guided by a powerful sense of justice and idealism. But Dick's greatest passion has always been the environment. He came to Congress at a time when few in Washington devoted sufficient attention to the cleanliness of our air and water, to the depletion of fossil fuels, or to the long-term relationship between economic growth and sound environmental stewardship. He left Washington with these priorities enjoying wide acceptance among lawmakers and the public alike. Without a doubt, Dick's contribution to the environmental cause was wide and deep--and today his legacy is as great as the American outdoors. Mr. Speaker, Dick's accomplishments are not limited to the arena of elected office. Public service is at the very heart of Dick Ottinger's character, an instinct revealed in every season of his life. He was one of the founding members of the Peace Corps, a distinguished attorney, an author of numerous books and articles, and today the Dean of the Pace University School of Law as well as the Co-Director of Pace's prestigious Center for Environmental legal Studies. For his extraordinary body of work, Dick Ottinger has been honored many times over. But perhaps the greatest tribute is the lasting affection and admiration of the men and women whom Dick so ably represented and about whom he continues to care so deeply. I am pleased to recognize Dick Ottinger, together with his wife June, and to express my thanks to an outstanding role model and wonderful human being.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a remarkable individual and good friend, Sunny Yeddis Goldberg. There are few people as well named as Sunny. Active in an extraordinary number of causes, ranging from education to neighborhood beautification, from promotion of the arts to prevention of illness, Sunny brings to each challenge her unique blend of bright optimism and boundless energy. Professionally, Sunny has devoted her life to children, earning degrees in education and acquiring an expertise in overcoming learning disabilities. As a private therapist and as an expert with the Board of Cooperative Services, Sunny has helped countless young people overcome obstacles to achieve their potential. In Mamaroneck, New York, where Sunny lives, she is regarded as a community treasure. Indeed, one of Sunny's passions has been Larchmont- Mamaroneck Community Television, an exceptionally well-regarded local station with a rich array of programming a central place in the life of the villages it serves. Sunny has been a Board Member at LMC-TV for twelve years, including nine during which she served as President. This month, LMC-TV will not only recognize Sunny's exceptional contribution, but will name its annual award after her. There can be no more deserving recipient of the ``Sunny'' than Sunny herself. Mr. Speaker, Sunny Yeddis Goldberg is one of those individuals around whom burdens seem lighter and joys even more sweet. We are enriched by her work and inspired by her example.