Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, when Medicare was created in 1965, fewer than half of all American seniors had health care coverage. Today 99 percent are covered. Medicare has enabled millions of seniors to live their retirement years with dignity, financial independence, and peace of mind. Unless we prepare for the baby boom's strain on the system, Medicare will go bankrupt in the year 2008, only 9 years away. The Democratic proposal for the Federal surplus would use 15 percent of that surplus to bolster Medicare, to strengthen Medicare. This plan will extend the life of Medicare by a decade. In contrast, the Republican plan is to spend that surplus on a one- time, trillion-dollar tax break while Medicare withers on the vine. It is irresponsible. Giving tax breaks while Medicare dissolves is akin to fiddling while Rome burns. Mr. Speaker, we should use the surplus to strengthen Medicare. This is a responsible plan for our current seniors and for future generations.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to my colleagues, my colleague from Ohio. Let me say a thank you to my colleague, the delegate from Washington, D.C., who took the charge of this special order with my having to do something else for a few minutes, but it is a great turn out of Members on this floor today on an issue and an area that is critical particularly at this point because we are at the threshold of discussing where Social Security is going for the next 75 years, and, as part of this effort, women, and the effects currently of Social Security on women and what happens when the Social Security system changes is incredibly important and critical to women in our society. So I thank my colleagues so much for participating and for their good words. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for her comments. If I might, the gentlewoman pointed out some very specific issues that face women directly and talked about some statistics. I think it is important just to get a few more of those statistics on to the record here that are truly incredible about women's dependency on the Social Security system. Women make up roughly half of America's population. They account for 60 percent of Social Security beneficiaries. As has been pointed out, three-quarters of widowed and unmarried elderly women rely on Social Security for over half of their income. The median income of women over 65 in 1996 was around $9,300. Men over 65 have a median income of approximately $16,200, twice that, almost twice that, of women. Older white women had a median personal income of $9,900. Older black women's median income equaled approximately $7,100. One-fifth of older black women received less than $5,000 and nearly three-fourths had annual incomes under $10,000. Older Hispanic women's median income equaled around $6,400. Thirty-two percent had personal incomes under $5,000, and 80 percent had incomes under $10,000. Women are so dependent on this system that at their peril, and our future peril, if we are not mindful of these kinds of statistics and how we have to have a system which allows for women today to be beneficiaries of a Social Security system, and that if we change it radically and we move to this privatization effort, that women will, in their older years, be placed further and further and further in poverty, because women are living longer and they earn less and they are in and out of that work force because of family needs. Whether it is for their children or whether it is for their older parents these days, women find themselves caught in between. So I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for her passion with regard to what is happening to veterans in our country. Mr. Speaker, with my remaining time, let me just say that we will continue to focus our time and effort on talking about issues that we believe are relevant to the people in this country and focus our time and attention on Social Security and its effects on women.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have an 85-year-old mother and she once said to me, and not too long ago, she said, you know, Rosa, these were supposed to be the golden years, she said, but, they are the lead years. She was just generally expressing the frustration that many elderly women face. But it is not only my mother, my mother's generation, it is our generation, it is our children's generation. And they are not women's issues, neither the paycheck fairness bill nor what we are talking about tonight with Social Security and its effect on women. These are family issues. And it in fact speaks to where our values lie, because if one does have an elderly parent, an elderly mother, and if this system works against them, where do they turn? They turn to their families, if they have families, and hopefully they do, that they are not out there by themselves; they turn to you, they turn to me, and they turn to others. They are going to need help. That means that we owe an obligation to our parents to be able to take care of them. Our children are going to owe an obligation, feel an obligation to us if this system changes. We all want for our children the very best so that they are able to make their future and their lives and to be able to succeed. No one wants to be a burden or a drain, the same as my mother feels that way, and I am sure the gentlewoman's folks do. We do not want to do that to our kids. We want to maintain some dignity, some independence, and that is what Social Security has meant to people in this country, and particularly with what we are talking about tonight with women in this country. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman again for sharing in the Special Order with me this evening. We are going to try to continue this effort of raising the issues that are important, and particularly with regard to Social Security, over the next several months. This debate will be ongoing. I have introduced a resolution in the House which has now been cosponsored by 108 Members to keep the spotlight on this issue. The resolution calls on the Congress and the President to take into account the unique obstacles that women face when considering proposals to reform Social Security. We are also going to ask all 108 cosponsors to join in signing a letter to the Speaker of the House and to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to help us to bring this resolution to the floor of the House for a vote, because what it does is to elevate and talk about the importance of this issue. Each of us, and men and women in this body, I believe, need to take this message, not only deliver it here on the floor of the House, from the well of the House, but we need to take it each to our own districts. We have an obligation to engage the public and to be involved in a public education campaign about Social Security and about its effects on women. That is what we are going to try to do over the next several months in this body. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for the reasons that have been talked about here tonight, it is critically important. I now yield some time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). Budget for Veterans Services

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for her comments. An issue that we are not talking about here tonight but we will sometime very soon is all about pay equity and the Paycheck Fairness Act, a piece of legislation that is there which the President has endorsed, which talks about women only making 74 cents on the dollar. That is true for professional women, for all women. Women have to work an extra four months in order to make the same amount of money that men do; clearly not fair. These things are not separate and because women earn less, in fact that if we went to a system where there was investment that they are going to have less money to invest because of the way our system is structured today. So that is an important issue, one which we will talk about at another time. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois, a new Member of this body, not a new Member to these issues, and someone who is not afraid to stand up and be counted on a whole variety of issues.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I hold in my hand a letter to the Speaker of the House imploring him to devote 15 percent of the budget surplus to strengthen Medicare. This letter has been signed by 201 Democrats. We speak with a unified message: Do not jeopardize Medicare for political tax breaks. In the most recent Republican budget, not one penny of the surplus is used to shore up Medicare. Medicare is projected to be bankrupt in the year 2008. That is only 9 years away. The Democratic plan to use 15 percent of the surplus would extend the life of Medicare by a decade, giving us time to reform the program so that it endures the coming strain of the retiring baby boom generation and allows us to put a prescription drug benefit together. The Republican plan is irresponsible. It puts short-term political gain ahead of long-term fiscal responsibility and, in the process, jeopardizes seniors' health and their retirement security. Today 99 percent of America's seniors are covered by Medicare. Social Security and Medicare have combined to give our seniors independence, dignity and security in their retirement. Let us strengthen them and not dismantle them.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise today in strong support of the Miller-Kildee amendment, which ensures that meet our intended education goals: improving public schools, improving student achievement, and making sure our children are well prepared for the future. Of the 12 states which are currently participating in the Ed-Flex pilot program, only Texas has set specific numerical criteria for student achievement. The GAO found that many participating states have only vague objectives that don't allow us to measure how students are progressing under the program. The Texas plan has shown results. It has allowed the state the flexibility to identify problems and allocate resources where they are needed the most. School districts which have received waivers have made tremendous gains on state tests. This is the essence of Ed-Flex--the flexibility for states to make their own plan while showing measurable improvement in our student achievement that proves to parents that this money is being put to good use. Democrats believe that local school districts should have flexibility when they administer federal education programs. But we also believe that flexibility should be coupled with accountability to ensure that our teachers, students, and parents receive the support they deserve. This Congress should: Authorize 30,000 more teachers on our way to 100,000; ensure that the neediest schools are protected; and hold schools accountable for student performance. We can't just turn this money over to states and say, do with it as you will. States must set measurable goals and show progress in meeting those goals. Vote yes on the Miller-Kildee amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last year Democrats were successful in passing a measure to improve education by hiring 100,000 new teachers. We are a third of the way there. This year there are 30,000 new teachers, reducing class size, improving discipline and increasing the individual attention that our kids need. Democrats want to pass the next installment toward 100,000 teachers, but the Republican leadership is fighting us tooth and nail. The Republican leadership's ed flex act is a flimsy piece of legislation, a fig leaf to cover its barren agenda. It makes no provision for new teachers, no measure to ensure that the neediest school districts receive funds, and it has no accountability. Democrats believe that local school districts should have flexibility when they administer Federal education programs, but there should be flexibility coupled with accountability to ensure that our teachers, students and parents receive the support that they deserve. What we ought to do in this Congress is authorize 30,000 more teachers on our way to 100,000 and hold schools accountable for student performance. These are the measures that are going to make a real difference for our students, ensure that our schools have the support that they need to make the decisions that they need and to provide our youngsters with the best possible opportunity for their future.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today Democrats from both Chambers will unveil our agenda for the 106th Congress. At the top of that agenda are the two pillars of retirement security, Social Security and Medicare. So that there can be no doubt about our priorities, I will state it loud and clear. Democrats are committed to using the lion's share of the Federal surplus to protect Social Security and Medicare well into the future. For the first time in three decades, the Federal Government has a surplus. This is a historic opportunity to protect Social Security and Medicare so that our seniors can live independently and with dignity. Protecting Social Security and Medicare is sound fiscal planning. Two- thirds of our seniors rely on Social Security for over one-half of their income. Medicare ensures that 99 percent of our seniors have health insurance. These two programs are paramount to a strong and a vibrant America and should come before a 10 percent tax cut that benefits mostly the wealthy. The surplus must be used carefully, not spent irresponsibly on a one-time, feel-good tax break. On behalf of our peers and our parents and our children, let us not squander this historic opportunity.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I want to commend my colleague for the leadership role he has taken on the issue of education. It is not just this evening, but it has been since he arrived in the Congress, he has made this a principal part of what his efforts are here. I congratulate him for that. I am delighted to join with the gentleman. Just on the point he was mentioning, I think it is interesting to note that the gentleman is so right, this is not about the Federal Government getting into the school construction businesses, nor about just bricks and mortar and bells and whistles and newfangled buildings and all of this. I will just tell Members about my part of the country. I am from the Northeast, from Connecticut. We did a school survey. We found that in my community the age of the school buildings is rather staggering. The average age of the elementary school buildings is 50 years old. More than half of the elementary schools regularly hold classes in areas not designed to be classrooms, including cafeterias, hallways, mobile or temporary rooms, and storage areas. The average class size is 23 students. So that I happen to live in the part of this country where the infrastructure, and whether that is the roads, the bridges, whatever it is, including our schools, are old. What does that mean in terms of the future? If we just take one small aspect of that, that is technology, we have some buildings where the thickness of the walls is so big and so dense that to wire these schools up so that we can really be connected with the Internet, and put in the kind of computer and advanced technology that our young people need today, is either prohibitive, or there are some places where the computers are stored in boxes in rooms because they do not have the ability to get them wired up. What are we talking about with school construction? It is modernization, it is providing the kinds of facilities that are going to lend themselves for that future opportunity for our young people. I am going to use myself. I am old. My kids are computer literate. My grandkids will be computer literate. We have little tots that know more about computers than I probably will ever know. I want to talk about a classroom that I went to this past week. But the fact of the matter is, what was a textbook to me, to my generation, and the importance of that, is what the computer is to our kids today, so looking at modernizing our schools so we can deal with this new technology is critical. Now, that having been said, school construction. What we are offering here is not to build the schools, not to say where they are going to get built, not to preempt any local control of this effort. But what we will try to do as a proper role for the Federal Government is to say to the locality, you have to float bonds to be able to modernize or to build. What we want to do is to provide you with a tax credit. Use the tax code to help to pay the interest on those bonds. Therefore, you can float the bonds, you can get some financial resources to pay the interest, thereby cutting down the costs to local communities and taxpayers and what they have to pay in terms of modernizing or building those classrooms. It is good for the community, it is good for the tax relief and local property taxes, and we get to where we want to be in modernizing facilities for advancement for our young people. It makes perfect sense. It makes sense to use the tax code in a way that facilitates the direction we want to go in in trying to meet a goal and a value, because education is about values and who we are as a country. Secondly, it is to provide the kinds of tax relief to struggling local communities in this effort. So this is one of the most logical pieces of legislation that has come along, with the perfect match between local control and Federal government partnership in an effort. No one is suggesting that the Federal Government get into the business of constructing schools. I just want to make one more point on computers and teacher training, which we allow for in this families first agenda and our budget. I did go into a classroom, and I watched a first-rate teacher who takes every opportunity that she can to avail herself of information and learning herself to be skilled, and then transmitting these kinds of skills to young people today. As I said, we can provide and we can get involved in getting all of the hardware into these schools, and if we do not have competent and qualified teachers who can teach our youngsters about how to use the machinery, then they are just going to stay in the boxes and it is not going to amount to a hill of beans. It really will not. So that the training, that we have competent and qualified teachers to train in this area, is critical to where we want to go. In addition to which, it says to parents and says to local taxpayers, we want to make sure we are keeping our kids up to date, that the standards rise, that there is accountability on behalf of the schools and the children and the teachers, so that we make sure that our children are competent and qualified for those opportunities of a new century that we do not know what of, it is going to have so many promises and opportunities for young people. We would be foolish to squander these opportunities. That is why I am excited about this families first agenda that we have embarked on, with education being at the center of it. I know the gentleman is going to continue to make this battle in the next year and a half, and I look forward to joining that battle with him. I thank the gentleman for letting me participate with him tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we are faced with an historic opportunity. Due do a robust economy, the Federal Government has a surplus for the first time in three decades. We should seize this moment to do what is fair, right and fiscally responsible: Protect Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare are the twin pillars of retirement security. Two-thirds of our seniors rely on Social Security for over half of their income. Medicare ensures that 99 percent of our seniors have the health coverage that they need. Combined, these two programs allow our parents to live with dignity, independence and peace of mind. Now that we have the opportunity, we should use the vast majority of this surplus, a full 77 percent, to strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long-term security of our parents, ourselves and our children. Protecting Social Security and Medicare must come before a Republican tax plan, which would spend the surplus on a one-time, feel-good tax break that benefits mostly the wealthy. It is irresponsible and it is risky. Let us not jeopardize the long-term health of Social Security and Medicare for the short-term goal of an overzealous tax break. Let us do what is right, let us protect Social Security and Medicare.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the United States Census projects that in the next 25 years the size of America's elderly population will grow by more than 50 percent. This means that during our lifetime, Social Security and Medicare will face serious financial strain. In light of these facts, we must do what is necessary and what is fair and responsible, use the budget surplus to protect Social Security and Medicare while we still have the means. These two programs are bedrock. Two-thirds of our seniors rely on Social Security for over half their income. In the 30 years since its inception, Medicare has raised the percentage of seniors with health insurance from less than half to 99 percent. These two programs are important and currently too financially vulnerable to be ignored for a one-time tax break. Democrats want to dedicate 77 percent of the surplus to save Medicare and Social Security. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership disagrees. The Republican tax plan is silent on Medicare. What we need to do is to be ready to work to save and protect Social Security and Medicare. Let us use this historic surplus to do just that.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, February 21, Bishop Theodore Brooks celebrated the Confirmation of his Doctrine of Ministry. As pastor of Beulah Heights First Pentecostal Church, Bishop Brooks has proven an outstanding member of the New Haven Community, as he and his congregation have unfailingly worked to resolve social problems faced by residents of the Greater New Haven area. His commitment to social justice and his leadership in these communities has never wavered. Bishop Brooks' work on behalf of numerous New Haven community organizations has earned him our respect and admiration. His efforts have contributed tremendously to the city and its residents. As Chief Executive Officer of the Beulah Land Development Corporation since 1990, Bishop Brooks successfully pursued the renovation and rehabilitation of the Orchard Street Town Homes, a project that will enhance our community with new, affordable family housing. This project would not have become a reality without the hard work and leadership of Bishop Brooks. As a member of several Boards and Committees in various community- based organizations, Bishop Brooks has worked tirelessly to strengthen families and help residents in the community develop a more positive self-image. His work reflects his dedication to helping society's least privileged develop the cognitive skills they need to remain productive members of the community. Among his many accolades, Bishop Brooks was recognized by the White House for his leadership in building community empowerment zones. Bishop Brooks' work embodies the spirit and vitality of the New Haven Community he so tirelessly represents. I look forward to working with him in the future as we have in the past, to further advance social justice and promote sound economic growth. It gives me great pleasure to join his many friends and family in thanking him for his leadership over the years. I congratulate Bishop Theodore L. Brooks on yet another great achievement--the Confirmation of his Doctrine of Ministry.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, we in the Congress have an historic opportunity to save the twin pillars of retirement security, Social Security and Medicare. We have this opportunity because of a strong economy in this country that has resulted in a Federal surplus for the first time in three decades. At this historic juncture, Democrats propose to do what is right: save Social Security and Medicare while we have the financial ability to do so. Republicans, on the other hand, want to give a one-time tax break that flies in the face of fiscal responsibility. It is a shortsighted plan. It will not save Social Security and Medicare. It gives a 10 percent tax break to those, most of whom are wealthy in this country. The lion's share of the plan goes to people making more than $300,000 a year. Middle-class families would get back less than $100. As one of their own said in today's Congress Daily, ``A 10 percent cut means nothing for most taxpayers.'' Democrats are for tax cuts, tax cuts that are targeted to middle-class families. The Democratic plan will save Social Security and Medicare, and give tax relief to the people who need it most.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and I want to say I offer my congratulations to him and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for introducing this legislation. It really is so critical to what seniors in this country are facing today. To bring this to the Nation's attention, I think we can really create no better opportunity than to provide some relief to people who we have all heard from, all of us. There are 435 Members of this body; 435 Members have heard that their seniors that they represent are in a difficult spot. Many are just deciding, as has been said on this floor today, between whether or not they are going to have a decent meal or whether or not in fact they are going to be able to take care of their health concerns. Let me just talk a little bit about my own district, which is the 3rd District of Connecticut. I conducted a study and discovered that seniors in Connecticut's 3rd District pay an average of twice what the pharmaceutical companies' preferred customers pay. And by ``preferred customers,'' so it is clear, and I am sure others have made that clear here today, these are large corporate institutional customers with market power for which they can buy drugs at a discount price. And that is a good thing. That is a good thing. While HMOs and others get the drugs at a discount, the cost is shifted to seniors and others who shop at their local store or their pharmacy. The bottom line is that we have seniors winding up subsidizing the corporate discounts out of their own pockets, and they live on fixed incomes. It is very difficult for them to make ends meet and to be able to afford prescription drugs. I will give my colleagues an example. Prilosec, a drug commonly prescribed to seniors, HMOs are able to buy an average dosage for $56.38. Seniors in my district would pay $108.63, almost double. It really is no wonder that some of the seniors that I have talked to spend nearly half of their income each month just on prescription drugs. On a personal note and a sad note for our family, my father-in-law, Sam Greenberg, passed away about two weeks ago. And something I did not realize when I talked with my mother-in-law is that they were paying up to $800 a month for prescription drugs. I do not know how they did it. I do not know how they did it. And I did not know that. My husband did not know that. But they were trying the best they could to pay $800 a month for prescription drugs. When I released the study that I did last year, I met with the local pharmacists and I met with seniors in my district who were affected by the problem, and I met the daughter of a woman who had a stroke because she could not afford to take her medications but she was embarrassed to tell anyone about the problem. I met a pharmacist who does all that he can to help his customers afford the prescriptions that they need, sometimes giving them credit until they find money to pay him. I saw people who are struggling to make ends meet on a limited income while buying the medicine they need to stay healthy. One of those seniors, Irma Yoxall, is a 72-year-old resident of West Haven, Connecticut. Ms. Yoxall suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure and she takes six prescription drugs. Her monthly income is $750. She spends between $300 and $400 a month, almost half of her income, on her prescription drugs. Until she became eligible for Medicaid, Ms. Yoxall had no insurance coverage at all for her prescription drug needs and at times was forced to skip medications because of the high cost. In fact, she recently suffered a stroke which her daughter believes was brought on because of the skipped medications. Let me just say, and let me conclude, I want to say thank you to my colleagues. This is such an important piece of legislation. It simply says, let seniors purchase their medications at the same cost that our large corporations, HMOs, can make that purchase, and keep them healthy and keep them in a sense of security that in fact they can weather, weather the storm of a serious illness. I thank my colleague again for letting me participate with all of my colleagues tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we are faced with an historic opportunity. For the first time in three decades, we have a Federal surplus with which we can save America's twin pillars of retirement security: Social Security and Medicare. This surplus, and our opportunity to do what is right, is a result of Democratic fiscal discipline and sound economic policy. But instead of acting in the best interest of America's future, Republicans want to use the surplus to give a one-time tax break that benefits mostly the wealthy. It is a bad idea. Democrats are for tax cuts, tax cuts that are targeted to middle- class families, not the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. Let me just tell my colleagues that the Republican tax scheme gives back the average family less than $100. It gives wealthy families earning more than $300,000 a tax break of $20,000. For that kind of money, wealthy folks can buy a brand-new car. With $100, middle-class families cannot even buy a new set of tires.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to come before the House today to honor the long and distinguished record of service of Marine First Sergeant Michael Hayes. Whether serving his nation in the Marine Corps or providing for the needy during the holidays here at home, Sergeant Hayes has set a record of achievement that we can all be proud of. Even while serving the Marine Corps faithfully here in New Haven, Sergeant Hayes went above and beyond the call of duty and worked diligently to involve his staff and Marine cadets with the community. Of all his accomplishments, the most impressive and the most touching has been his work on behalf of numerous ``Toys for Tots'' campaigns. His commitment has brought more than thirty thousand toys to needy children in the Greater New Haven area, putting a smile on the faces of so many of New Haven's kids on many Christmas mornings. At the end of this year, Sergeant Hayes will leave the Marine Corps, retiring with the United States Armed Forces Meritious Service Medal, a honor he most certainly deserves. His generosity and dedication to the needs of New Haven residents will not be forgotten.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, for the first time in three decades the Federal Government has a surplus. The debate: what to do with it. Today Democrats want to use the historic $70 billion surplus to save social security, save Medicare, and to provide targeted tax cuts to middle class families. Republicans want to give a one-time tax break that mostly benefits the wealthy. The Republican tax plan is unfair and it is ill-advised. A 10 percent tax cut is a plan that is skewed to the wealthy. If Republicans get their way, 60 percent of Americans, the middle class backbone of this country, will get a tax rebate of only $100, while the wealthy, those making over $300,000, will get a $20,000 tax break. Let us take this opportunity to help people. Let us save social security and Medicare. Let us look at those targeted tax cuts, like a tax cut for long-term health care, school modernization, child care, for stay-at-home parents, those that directly benefit working middle class families. Let us not squander this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, November 17, 1998, family and friends will come together to hold a testimonial dinner to honor Martin L. King, who retired from the New Haven Fire Department after forty- eight years. It is with great pleasure that I salute Marty King and his notable career of service to the New Haven Fire Department. Marty King's career as a firefighter began in 1953 when he was transferred from his first public service job with the New Haven Police Department. Marty served the police department with distinction for two years, but his heart was with the fire service. In 1954, Marty was assigned to the old Central Fire Station on Court Street. It was from this point that he launched his long career of courage and commitment to his community. Because of Marty's hard work and strong devotion, he was promoted to lieutenant in 1967 where he was assigned to the Lombard Street Station. Following his duty there, he was transferred to headquarters as a veteran firefighter. For the past ten years, Marty worked as an administrative aide in the fire chief's office. Marty earned a number of awards during the course of his career. He received many citations and a commendation for his bravery, and was also honored as the Fireman of the Year in 1993. Most notably, Marty was presented with the 35-year award from the Connecticut State Fireman's Association in 1987. His awards serve as a testament to his dedication to fire fighting and to protecting residents of New Haven. In addition to his outstanding record with the Department, Marty proudly served his country by joining the Navy during World War II. Marty remains a legend to many, being the oldest member of the department in years of service, and the last active fireman who fought the most devastating fire the City had ever witnessed. The incident occurred when the factory on Franklin Street caught fire. Tragically, 15 people lost their lives. I am very pleased to join Marty's colleagues and friends, his wife Kathryn, his six children, and his grandchildren in congratulating him on his retirement. His departure is a great loss to the Department. His efforts have made this City a better and safer place to live. Indeed, Marty, has left an indelible mark on the City of New Haven. I thank you for a lifetime of extraordinary services to the public, and I wish you much health and happiness in your retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on January 4, 1999, the Honorable Judge Aaron Ment of Fairfield, Connecticut, will retire after 14 years of dedicated service as Chief Court Administrator for the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. I rise today to honor Judge Ment and salute his distinguished career spanning over 20 years serving the people in the State of Connecticut. Aaron Ment's career as a judge began in 1976 when he was first appointed to the bench. Only eight years later, on September 18, 1984, Judge Aaron Ment was appointed as the Chief Court Administrator for the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. Here Judge Aaron Ment's vision and leadership helped shape the Connecticut Judicial Branch forever. Judge Ment's innovative foresight and ambition helped to foster a more positive working relationship between the courts and Connecticut communities. He has been diligent in improving operations and trying to better serve the people of Connecticut. The multiple innovative programs he has helped pioneer have been studied and reproduced all over the United States. Under Judge Ment's leadership, judges and citizens have benefited from programs such as the one day/one trial jury system, an expanded prebench orientation program, a wellness program for Judges, a centralized infractions bureau and a statewide alternative incarceration program. He has also implemented special sessions of the Superior Court, including drug sessions, truancy dockets, the complex litigation docket and a National Demonstration Program for Domestic Violence. It is with great pleasure that I join with the friends and family of Judge Aaron Ment in congratulating him on his retirement. The State of Connecticut's Judicial Branch will feel his absence for years to come. I thank you, Aaron, for all that you have accomplished in your very distinguished career. My very best wishes to you for health and happiness in your retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose these articles of impeachment. I oppose this action with every fiber of my body because it is an affront to our Constitution and our democracy. In my short tenure in the House of Representatives, I can recall no other action that has so jeopardized the historic obligations that we are sworn to uphold. For me, this is no longer about the President's actions. They were repugnant, embarrassing and immoral. But this is not a constitutional forum for judging such behavior and exacting punishment. The President's family, the American people and maybe even the courts may eventually speak to his errors. We might have given voice to our views in the form of a censure resolution, but this House leadership chose not to allow any but the most draconian actions, impeachment. It is wrong and it is unfair. It denies the American people their right to representative democracy. We have the constitutional authority to remove a President only when he or she crosses the line into treason, bribery and high crimes against the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin spoke of impeachment as an alternative to assassination. Today this body is contemplating a constitutional assassination, driven by a naked partisanship, almost without lawful and civil bounds. The Republican majority is moving to impeach an elected President of the United States. Thwarting the public's will, they do so even as the President commands our troops in battle against Iraq and even as he seeks to perform his constitutional responsibility with the support of the overwhelming majority of the American people. This debate amidst those bombs more than anything else symbolizes the madness that has inflamed the partisan fires on the other side of the aisle. This is a moment for boundaries and not license. This is a moment to allow history to have its sway. This is a moment to allow Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and Washington to be heard in this Chamber above the partisan din. If that spirit were to prevail, I have no doubt that the provocateurs would be stilled and our Constitution preserved. The American people, not the politicians, would have the final say, as the Founders intended.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues to express my support for the US troops in the Persian Gulf and the important work they are doing to protect our national security. The President is our Commander in Chief, and he has my support. The President's military and foreign policy advisors, as well as our allies, unanimously concluded that Saddam Hussein must be stopped now. His nuclear, chemical and biological weapons pose a serious and immediate threat. We cannot sit back and watch while he rebuilds and strengthens his arsenal. In times like these, the Congress and the leaders of both parties should set aside our differences to support our Commander in Chief, the President, and our Armed Forces. Such ought to be our instincts at this critical moment, and I applaud all those who have risen above partisan debate to support this action by our country. It is unclear we did in the 1991 Gulf War. Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak. It is important for Members from all across this country to lend their voices and support for our Nation's efforts to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. Thank God we have taken on this task.