John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I could not be present today, Wednesday, June 4, 2003, to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 236 through 242 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 236 on H. Res. 257; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 237 on H. Con. Res. 177; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 238 on H. Res. 201; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 239 on H.R. 1954; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 240; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 241; and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 242.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to a family medical emergency, I am unable to be present for the debate and vote on H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. However, I wish to submit this statement for the record to ensure that my position on this legislation is clear. While I am against late term abortions, H.R. 760 fails to make an exception for instances where the procedure was deemed medically necessary for preservation of the life or health of the mother. If enacted, this legislation would most likely stop physicians form performing lifesaving medical procedures when a fetus will not survive, or when a woman's life, health, or future reproductive capacity may be severely threatened. Therefore, had I been present I would have opposed this bill. However, I do support the compromise substitute amendment offered by Representatives Greenwood and Hoyer, which would prohibit all late-term abortions, irrespective of procedure, with exceptions only to protect the life of the mother and to avert serious, adverse consequences to her health. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. Additionally, I would have voted in favor of the motion to recommit offered by Representative Baldwin to return H.R. 760 to committee to include exceptions for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to a family medical emergency, I am unable to be present for the debate and vote on H. Res. 257, the rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 760. However, I wish to submit this statement for the Record to ensure that my position on this legislation is clear. While I am opposed to H.R. 760, I am encouraged that the Rules Committee has finally allowed a substitute amendment to this bill. For the fifth time in nine years, this bill has been brought to the floor of the House for a vote. But, for the first time, a compromise substitute amendment is being allowed. I support the substitute amendment offered by Representatives Greenwood and Hoyer and therefore, if I had been present, would have voted in favor of H. Res. 257 to allow this compromise to be brought to the floor.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I could not be present today, Tuesday, June 03, 2003, to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, and 235 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 230 on S. 222--Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003; ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 231 on S. 273--Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act; ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 232 on S. 7563--To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 46 East Ohio Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse''; ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 233 on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.J. Res. 4 offered by Congressman Watt; ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 234 on final passage of H.J. Res. 4-- Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Desecration of the Flag; and ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 235 on H. Res. 231--Supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to a family medical emergency I could not be present today during the debate and votes on H.J. Res. 4, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make burning or otherwise desecrating a United States flag a federal offense. I would, however, like to submit this statement for the record so that my position on this resolution is clear. The flag burning amendment is an emotional issue that in my opinion cuts to the core of the things we hold dear and value as a nation. I do not question anyone's patriotism or conviction no matter where they stand on this issue. Mine is a matter of record. As a member of the Connecticut State Senate I voted to protect the flag, I did so not to limit peoples' freedom of expression, but to limit hateful behavior. Burning the flag is not speech, and as an expression it seeks to engender hate. I am not a constitutional scholar, but have long felt that honoring my father's memory and that of so many veterans of his generation and mine, who have given their lives in defense of the nation should be afforded the respect they richly deserve. I do not believe that we endanger our freedom by protecting the flag and honoring their memory. While I do support this proposed amendment, and have voted for it in the past, I also understand and respect the opinions of those who have expressed concern about the possibility that this amendment could affect First Amendment rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. I would, therefore, consistent with my votes in the 107th Congress on this issue, also support the substitute amendment offered by my colleague Congressman Watt that I believe represents an acceptable compromise on this issue. I will remain steadfast in protecting peoples' freedom of speech, and speaking out against discrimination and injustice. As someone who adamantly supports the crime legislation, I cannot be oblivious to the incendiary nature and emotional response evoked by burning the nation's flag. For many Americans, burning the flag is a hateful action that is as repugnant as burning a cross on a lawn, or painting a swastika on a synagogue.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me this time. I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Missouri, who has distinguished himself on this committee, along with the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter). I do rise, however, with strong reservation, as was already noted earlier today, about the environmental concerns, an issue with the Spratt amendment on cooperative threat reduction. Only recently on PBS we saw the documentary on avoiding Armageddon, and clearly we need that amendment to make sure that we are able to address this crucial and vital national security interest. But my main objection stems from denying more than 750,000 workers their collective bargaining rights under civil service. The other body saw fit not to provide that in their proposal. I hope that through the rule or through discussion we are going to be able to alleviate that in our proposal as these deliberations go forward. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our leader, has often said, our troops deserve a bill that is worthy of their sacrifice. It is my sincere hope that through the continued efforts of these two fine gentlemen, both the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), that allows us to be in a position in a bipartisan manner to support this bill.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 198, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 197, there was an inadvertent malfunction of my card. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am an original co-sponsor of H. Con. Res. 156, honoring the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police as they celebrate the 175th anniversary of the police force. Congress established the Capitol Police during the administration of John Quincy Adams. Ponder how different the world was then, when the U.S. Congress was a young and largely untested deliberative body located in a relatively isolated town that was as much wilderness as it was settled territory. In the last 175 years, the world has changed immeasurably, and so has the work of the Capitol Police. Today the U.S. Capitol--which is simultaneously a national shrine, tourist attraction, and working office building--imposes extraordinary security requirements. For example, more than three million tourists visited the Capitol complex in 2000. At the same time, the Capitol hosted more than 1,200 American and foreign dignitaries and 1,000 special events, and was the site of nearly 500 scheduled demonstrations. In addition to lawmakers and their staffs, a sizable number of journalists, concerned citizens, lobbyists, and service personnel also work within the Capitol complex. To address these security requirements while keeping Congress as open and accessible as the Framers of the Constitution intended, the mission of the Capitol Police has expanded to provide the Congressional community and visitors with the highest possible quality of a full range of police services. These services are provided through the use of a variety of specialty support units and a network of foot patrols, vehicular patrols, and fixed posts. In modern times, the Capitol Police have also had to cope with emergencies, bombings and shootings, including the tragic 1998 murders of Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, that remain so painfully fresh in our memories. After that tragic event, Congress properly heightened Capitol security, adopting a posture that requires considerable additional manpower. Recent events in the Middle East and elsewhere have obviously underscored the need for more officers and greater security. Fortunately, additional resources have been provided. Congress has appropriated money to fund all the additional officers the Capitol Police can hire and train. Supplemental funds have also been provided to address needs identified since September 11, 2001. Today, the Capitol Police face evolving threats from those who, for whatever reason, wish our country and our democracy harm. What was unthinkable only 18 months ago, has been done. We must remain vigilant and prepared as we work to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism and preserve and expand the promise of peace and democracy. We will continue to rely on the Capitol Police as the first line of defense for the People's House and all who work and visit here. The men and women of the Capitol Police meet their challenges with courage and a level of professionalism not exceeded anywhere. Since the dastardly attacks of September 11, and again after the heightened security level of the past few months, Capitol Police officers, under the able leadership of Chief Terrance Gainer, have worked long hours under adverse conditions. These men and women clearly represent the best that America has to offer. I want to express my personal thanks for a job well done and wish the United States Capitol Police a sincere and happy 175th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H. Con. Res. 156.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am very intrigued by the gentleman's charts, and it seems to me, based on the number of speakers that we have had in this hour that we have been given; my question is, Mr. Stockton used to say that what we have to do in order to get rid of these social programs that the Democrats have put forward like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, is starve the beast. Is this not the method that is now being used? We have just heard the gentleman from Washington State talk about what is going to happen next week with respect to Medicare. We saw a budget atrocity last week. And now we are talking about taxes, a tax cut tomorrow that basically leaves us, as your charts amplify, with no money to provide for these much-needed and highly successful and highly valued programs that have helped all of our citizens.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Ask them if they would like to see a veteran get his benefits. Would they forego a tax cut to see veterans get their benefits? These are the questions the American public needs to ask themselves. Would you forego the tax cut so your parents could have prescription drugs? Would you forego a tax cut so you did not have to raise local property taxes and actually provide school construction or lessen the burden that school districts have to pay because of special education? Would you be willing to forego that tax cut if we were reinvesting in our infrastructure and providing jobs for people? That is what the Democratic proposal is all about.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, again noting the chart there, I just want to point out that certainly it is true that most individuals are happy to get any form of a tax cut from their government. That is an indisputable truth. People like to receive a tax cut. When I go home to my district and talk to people about a tax cut, they are generally enthused, even if it is a modest amount. But when you explain to them the ramification of this tax cut, the enormity of the tax cut, the extended amount of time, and then what will have to be sacrificed in order to achieve that goal, it is an entirely different story. People back in my district in Connecticut have a lot of common sense. They understand that you cannot have it all. We cannot possibly prosecute the war in Afghanistan, the war against terror, the war against Iraq and not sacrifice. And yet seemingly with both our budget proposals and now our tax cuts we are asking people to sacrifice. The people we are asking to sacrifice are the veterans, the elderly in need of prescription drugs, the towns and States as have been enumerated here today that desperately need town aid so they will not have to raise local taxes or cut programs and close schools, the communities that need school construction funds, the amount of money that will not be available for special education, that we will continue to underfund that program, a Federal commitment. We have enough money to provide a tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent, but not enough to take care of those in the shadows of life, those in the dawn of life, and those in the twilight of life as Hubert Humphrey would so eloquently talk about. So tomorrow we are seeing a philosophical debate on the direction and focus of this Nation. And what the Nation stands for in a time of sacrifice when men and women are truly sacrificing their lives overseas to defend our vital freedoms for what? When they come home and face the devastating deficits and the problematic concerns that that will raise for each and every one of their children as we project these deficits out into the future. This is an outrage. We do not have the megaphone here. We cannot even get a small voice because of how our Committee on Rules allocates time for people to come to the floor. I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), always able to articulate in a very intelligent manner the disparity that exists here and providing the intellectual underpinnings hopefully so the other voices in America besides the right wing and talk radio get the message out here to the American public what is absolutely happening to them. People understand you cannot have it all. What the Democratic proposal demonstrates is that knowing that and knowing that we are going to have to sacrifice, should we not make sure that there is money there for prescription drugs, for school construction, for Social Security, for Medicare, Medicaid. Our hospitals are crying to us because of the needs that they have to take care of the population that comes to our urban and rural hospitals on a daily basis. I thank the gentleman for his strong voice here on the floor.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. So this is incredible when you think that this seems to be all part of a design, a design that is geared to in fact deny people over time the ability to respond to needs that we know, as your charts illustrate, with the baby boomers retiring, that are funds that are going to be necessitated, less the programs per the design of starving the beast, the beast in this case being social programs.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman is absolutely right. I could not agree more with him. To quote our leader as she often says, ``These are both fair and fast-acting and fiscally responsible.'' That is the alternative that is being presented tomorrow. It is up to us to get back to our districts and talk to people. I have held town hearings on these issues which I think are vitally important so that average citizens get to speak up. They get it when they see the choice. Tomorrow is going to be an orchestrated event whereby a proposal will be jammed down the minority's throat with maybe an hour of debate on an issue that is this important to the American citizens. We owe it, Democrat and Republican alike, to go back to our districts and say during this time of national crisis as we are fighting terrorism, ask them plainly and clearly, would you forego a tax cut so that you get prescription drugs for the people that need them? So that the veterans can get their benefits? So that school buildings could be paid for and technologically upgraded? So that the special education students would get their fair share of money, lessening the burdens on our local communities and States? It is great to pat yourself on the back here and say you gave a tax cut, but our tax cuts here become their tax increases back home with a suffering burden that none of our States and municipalities can afford at this time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House Resolution 110 which provides almost $11 million for the Select Committee on Homeland Security for the 108th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for their outstanding choices in Select Committee on Homeland Security leadership. I do not believe one could select two finer individuals than the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) or the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). We all know that they face a daunting task of building a committee from scratch while they simultaneously are engaging in substantive committee business. Since September 11, this has created an important urgency that the United States Congress must address, and both of these gentlemen, we believe, along with the vast experience that the members of that committee will bring, will handle this task adroitly. Again, I would applaud the efforts of the committee Chair in ensuring the one-third/two-thirds split on the committee, and I also want to extend an extra thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) as well who went out of his way to secure extra space on behalf of the committee as well. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House Resolution 110, which provides almost $11,000,000 to the Select Committee on Homeland Security for the 108th Congress. The Select Committee on Homeland Security is the newest committee in the House of Representatives. Its mission--to oversee and set policy for the new Department of Homeland Security--will affect the security and safety of every American for years to come. No one denies that the Select Committee on Homeland Security must be given ample resources to oversee the most significant restructuring of the Federal government since 1947 and help secure this nation's borders. I am pleased that House Resolution 110 proposes just that. As I learned during committee funding hearings in March, the gentleman from California, Chairman Cox, and the gentleman from Texas, Rep. Turner, face the daunting task of building a committee from scratch while simultaneously engaging in substantive committee business. House Resolution 110 will provide the wherewithal for Mr. Cox and Ranking Mr. Turner to hire professional staff with a wide-range of expertise, establish secure office space, procure office equipment and technology, and conduct field hearings on a wide-range of security issues, including port security, First Responders, and continuity in communications. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my leader, Nancy Pelosi, and Speaker Hastert for their outstanding choices to lead Homeland Security Committee. If there are two individuals better qualified to lead the committee, I do not know them. I dare say our colleagues do not know them, either. Rep. Turner and Rep. Cox bring a command of the issues, the respect of their colleagues, an ability to put politics aside when circumstances demand it, and an incredible appetite for hard work. Without question, these qualities will serve the new committee very well. In selecting the gentlemen from Texas and California to carry out the toughest and most sensitive assignments of the 108th Congress, Leader Pelosi and Speaker Hastert have distinguished themselves by putting the security and safety of the American people ahead of all other considerations. That is what leadership is all about. I was especially pleased to learn during the March hearing that Chairman Cox intends to honor what is referred to as the ``Two-thirds, One-third Principle.'' This common-sense principle, which has worked extremely well for the other House committees, will provide Ranking Minority Member Turner and the Committee's Minority Staff a minimum of one-third of the total funds, one-third of the total staff positions, and the control to expend those funds within the Committee's administrative guidelines, with no unusual constraints on the gentleman from Texas. Practiced faithfully, this principle will help ensure that the Select Committee on Homeland Security operates in as non-partisan a manner as possible. Given the sensitive nature of the Committee's work, the American people deserve nothing less. Finally, let me thank Chairman Cox for his efforts to procure adequate committee space for Mr. Turner and his staff. As we all know, space is a scarce resource in the House. Nevertheless, Mr. Cox has gone out of his way to accommodate the space needs of Mr. Turner. I thank the distinguished Chairman for bringing House Resolution 110 to the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss as well if I did not thank my staff personally for the hard work that they have put forward in putting these deliberations together. I would also like to acknowledge Bill Cable, who was a valued member of this staff who is moving on, as well, and who we had a small party for today. His help in assisting George Shevlin was invaluable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my support for House Resolution 148, which provides an overall average of a 9.4 percent increase in funding for the 19 committees under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration; and I want to thank, again, the chairman of this committee for his outstanding work and effort. This is, after all, an extraordinarily important action that we are taking today. This funds the work of our committees, so in essence it funds the work of the people of this country. The process through which this resolution was developed and the majority's commitment to ensuring equitable treatment for the minority indicates the healthy respect for the work of this institution and the vital contributions that both sides of the aisle make in enacting and overseeing public policy. The committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and his staff must be commended for their commitment to equity and bipartisanship. I also want to express my gratitude to my leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and her staff. Her leadership was critical to the progression towards fairness in the allocation of committee resources between the majority and the minority. As any outstanding leader would, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) early on chose to focus on the legitimate institutional needs of the House committee system. I thank her for that; and I thank her for her vision, her clarity, and her focus on the continued need for diversity in our committees, technological enhancement, and an outreach to Members, so that they are able to perform their tasks to their utmost ability. She reached out to the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and to his staff to make sure that the committee funding for the House of Representatives did not get caught up in the same partisan bickering that previous Congresses had. Without question, her leadership and decision to put politics aside has made my job much easier. I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) for working in conjunction to aid and abet the cause of this great institution of ours. Mr. Speaker, I think all of our colleagues will agree that the proposed 9.4 percent increase in committee funding from the 107th Congress level is fiscally responsible and in fact quite thrifty, especially when three factors are considered: the committee workload, the committee staff compensation, and the mission-critical technological upgrades that the chairman so adequately addressed in his remarks. Let me say as a person who is enjoying the experience of serving on this committee for the first time, we had the chairmen come before us and enunciate their specific concerns about the workload that they now possess, their desire to reach out beyond the Beltway, their specific concern as it relates to events that have transpired since September 11, and the new kind of pressure that so many of our committees find themselves under with expanding jurisdictions and issues that heretofore were not part of the day-to-day business of this institution. The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and the Committee on International Relations all were particularly impacted in this past legislative session, so I am pleased that we were able to provide adequate funding for those specific committees. Congress will confront many issues, including the heightened policing needed for the Nation's accounting, financial and pension systems, which will impose new demands on the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Financial Services, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well the investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy, all important issues that fall squarely on the shoulders of our various committees impacted by this decision. As to the committee staff itself, again I want to thank the various Chairs who came before our committee, to a person all concerned that there be equity. Since COLAs are already in place for the United States Senate and the executive branch, it is increasingly important that staffers who work for our House committees get the same kind of just reward and equity they richly deserve. They carry out the great work of our various committees here. The work this institution's committee staffs conduct on behalf of the American people is no less important than the work conducted by their peers in the Senate and the executive branch, and their monthly paychecks must reflect that. Again, I thank the chairmen of the various committees who came forward and made that one of their top concerns as well. As the chairman has pointed out, mission-critical technology upgrades equally are important as we continue to reach out to our constituents to make sure that they receive the most up-to-date data in a timely fashion. This can be a costly, but essential, activity; and we expect that a separate vehicle will be used to meet some of the essential institutional needs, but many technological needs cannot wait for later action. Again, I appreciate the great efforts that were put forward in the committee. Most of all, I would like to focus on the great equity that this chairman has brought to the committee. I am a new ranking member to this committee, but I am well aware of its past history. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) reminded me in subcommittee that it was not always the practice of the Democratic majority to provide the same kind of equity that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has pursued and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) along with him in the previous session, and I am proud to join in this session. Repeatedly and with the support of the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the issue of two-thirds/one-third funding has been uppermost in my concern and those of the Members of the minority, and also the way that those dollars are handled equitably within the committee process. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has continually stepped forward, not only in words, but in deeds, to insist upon that kind of equity within our committees, and I thank him for that. It has been especially important to our Committee on Small Business. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) has made this issue important, and I thank the chairman for stepping forward and aiding and abetting her cause and the concerns of that committee. Lastly, I would like to conclude by saying that I do think that it is important that when you are working in a bipartisan nature like this that you have an esprit de corps. I want to thank my members of the minority on our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), who have submitted remarks for the Record. Both bring great value to this committee process, and especially in carrying out the mission of our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my support for House Resolution 148, which provides for an overall average 9.4 percent increase in funding for the 19 committees under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration from the level set in the 107th Congress. The process through which this resolution was developed, and the Majority's commitment to ensuring equitable treatment for the Minority, indicate a healthy respect for the work of this institution and the vital contributions that both sides of the aisle make in enacting and overseeing public policy. The Committee Chairman, Rep. Bob Ney, and his staff must be commended for their commitment to comity and bipartisanship. I also want to express my gratitude to my Leader, Nancy Pelosi, and her staff. Her leadership was critical to the progress toward fairness in the allocation of committee resources between the Majority and Minority which this resolution represents. As any outstanding leader would, Leader Pelosi early-on chose to focus on the legitimate institutional needs of the House committee system. She reached out to Speaker Hastert and his staff to make sure that the committee funding work of House Administration did not get caught up in the same partisan bickering that had plagued committee funding in previous Congresses. Without question, her leadership and decision to put politics aside made my job much, much easier. I commend Leader Pelosi and Speaker Hastert. I think my colleagues will agree that the proposed 9.4 percent increase in committee funding from the 107th Congress level is a fiscally-responsible and in fact quite thrifty, especially when three key factors are considered: Factor #1: Increased committee workload: September 11, 2001 cast into sharp focus the need for the U.S. House of Representatives to examine the gaps and deficiencies in this nation's military and security apparatus. While I expect the new House Select Committee on Homeland Security to lead the charge in this area in the 108th Congress, virtually no House committee has been spared responsibilities because the issue of security extends to the jurisdiction of virtually every House committee. In addition, the recent military action in Iraq, combined with the immense diplomatic and reconstruction challenges associated with its successful resolution, will impose new oversight and legislative demands on several House committees, particularly the Committees on Armed Services, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations. Other significant committee duties that were never contemplated at the beginning of the 107th Congress but will confront the committee system in 108th Congress include heightened policing of the nation's accounting, financial, and pension systems, which will impose new demands on the Committees on Ways & Means, Financial Services, Education & the Workforce, and Energy & Commerce, and investigating the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy, a critical mission that will fall largely to the Science Committee. Factor #2 Committee staff compensation/cost-of-living adjustments. I was greatly encouraged that virtually all the committee chairs sought cost-of-living adjustments for their committee staff personnel on par with COLAs already in place in the U.S. Senate, the Executive Branch, House MRA's and House support offices like the Chief Administrative Office. If House committees are to attract and retain the best and brightest staffers the market has to offer, committees must properly compensate them. The work this institution's committee staff conduct on behalf of the American people is no less important than the work conducted by their peers in the Senate and Executive Branch. Their monthly paychecks must reflect that. Factor #3 Mission-critical technology upgrades: Virtually every committee chairman and his ranking Minority member told us that they confront the immediate need of implementing disaster-recovery programs in the event that their committee is unable to conduct regular business in its House office space. Central to meeting this need is developing off-campus computer systems to store mission-critical data--a costly but essential activity. We expect that a separate vehicle will be used to meet this essential institutional need. But many technology needs cannot wait for later action. I am pleased to report that in most instances, the 9.4 percent increase accounts for cost-of-living increases since the 107th funding resolution. Managed properly by committee chairmen and their ranking minority members, I am confident that the proposed average 9.4 percent increase will provide most House committees adequate resources over the next two years to match the 4.1 percent pay increase that President Bush has provided to federal employees in the Executive Branch under the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1990, a decision that the U.S. Senate quickly followed with respect to its committee staff compensation policies and that House Committees would be wise to follow. It is my view that the proposed 9.4 percent increase is modest. One question is whether the proposed 9.4 percent increase is enough to permit the Chairmen and their ranking minority members to carry out the ambitious agendas they described to the Committee of House Administration in March, perform crucial oversight and legislative responsibilities as they relate to the post-September 11 environment, and respond to exigencies that no amount of planning can predict. Mitigating my concern about the adequacy of the proposed 9.4 percent increase is the Majority's oft-repeated commitment to the ``\2/3\-\1/3\ principle.'' This common-sense principle will provide ranking minority members and the Minority committee staffs a minimum of \1/3\ of the total funds, \1/3\ of the total staff positions, and the discretion to expend those funds within appropriate administrative guidelines, with no unusual constraints on the Minority. Because the principle sets only a floor, not a ceiling, committee chairmen can always grant additional spending and hiring authority to their ranking minority members. It is my fervent hope that chairmen will be favorably disposed to grant such authority as circumstances may require. Were this a previous era in committee funding, I would be concerned that in cases where committee resources are just enough to cover basic committee needs, chairmen might be inclined to deprive the Minority of \1/3\ of the resources. Fortunately, it is not a previous era. In two days of committee funding hearings in March, I specifically asked each chairman if he intended to honor this important principle in the 108th Congress. The answer, to my satisfaction, was ``yes.'' In the spirit of ``trust but verify,'' I will monitor closely the distribution of resources to the ranking minority members of each committee during the 108th Congress. I expect no problems, however. Practiced faithfully, \1/3\-\2/3\ principle will help ensure that the House committee operate in as non-partisan a manner as possible. The American people deserve nothing less. I thank the distinguished Chairman for bringing House Resolution 148 to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to add that in the presence of a great leader like the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and, as he indicated, also a former President of the Maryland legislative Senate, what an outstanding job that he has done in this committee. It is always great when one is able to stand on the shoulders of those who came before you, and the work that he has done for this committee has set a very important and exemplary example of how we should conduct ourselves here on the floor and in the committee. On behalf of all of those committee members and the committee staff who especially appreciate the gentleman's commitment to the one-third/two-thirds ratio, we extend our great thanks, love and devotion. In a word, the gentleman is a class act, as is the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and as we continue this love fest here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time, but I would like to note for the record that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) was a student of Professor Remini's in college; and we do not know what his grade point average was, but nonetheless we are proud to note that he was a student at that time. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his gracious accolades, and I want my colleague to know that many Democrats, along with the gentleman's mother, pray continually for his conversion; but nonetheless, we are proud to note how well the gentleman has distinguished himself on the floor of the House, our great House and also as a person who has championed bipartisanship and the great role that he has also played along with his lovely wife in terms of making the annual bipartisan, biannual, bipartisan retreat such an enormous success because of his care for this great institution of ours.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume; and I, again, wish to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida. Madam Speaker, as the Chair and many of our colleagues know, I am an avid student of this great institution and its history and was proud to sponsor legislation, along with the Chair, that led to the writing of the history of the House by Professor Remini; and it should, therefore, be no surprise that I am an enthusiastic cosponsor of this resolution authorizing the printing of the ``Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774 to 2005.'' The volume, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) pointed out, was last printed in 1989 for the bicentennial of the establishment of the United States Government under the Constitution and before that in 1971. The Joint Committee on Printing has supervised the biographical directory's printing since 1928. In the 1989 edition, the ``Biographical Directory'' listed more than 11,000 men and women who have served in the Congress of the United States, as well as the Continental Congress. The new and revised directory will contain more than 12,000 entries, as well as provide updated information on Members who were included in the 1989 edition. There is no question that the new directory, like the 1989 edition, will promote a richer understanding of the contributions that the men and women of Congress have made over the 200 years of national growth, challenge, and change. Some, like Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster, were the heroes of their age. Others, like Jeannette Rankin, Margaret Chase Smith, and Shirley Chisolm, broke significant race and gender boundaries while rendering notable public service. Countless others have worked quietly behind the scenes, like the Chair, Madam Speaker, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) seated to my right, and my esteemed colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). The new edition of the ``Biographical Directory'' of the United States Congress will gather in one updated volume useful historical information for teachers, students, and others describing the careers of the men and women who have served in the United States Congress. To be sure, much of the material in the biographical directory is available through the Clerk of the House Web site; but there is much that is not, such as listings of the congressional memberships by State and the multiple changes that occurred in each of those Congresses. There is much to be said to be able to leaf through a volume rich in historical detail and discover its secrets rather than simply researching specific items on the Web. The ``Biographical Directory'' is an invaluable resource to students, teachers, historians, and all citizens who are interested in the history and the personalities of this great deliberative body. Anytime that we walk through these hallowed hallways or in Statuary Hall, where generations before President Lincoln sat, John Quincy Adams sat, it should give everyone in this body pause to celebrate the great institution that the House of Representatives is. I urge my colleagues to support the concurrent resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). I am delighted to cosponsor and support House Concurrent Resolution 139. This resolution, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) ably explained, authorizes the printing of brochures entitled ``How Our Laws Are Made'', ``Our American Government'', and the publication entitled ``Our Flag'', the document-sized annotated version of the United States Constitution and the pocket version of the United States Constitution, both vitally important to so many of our constituents and used by so many of our colleagues here to impart information about our government and our Constitution to our citizens. Madam Speaker, these documents are more than just handy reference materials. Collectively they explain how our federal system of government works, contain the essential documents on which the government is based, including the Declaration of Independence, and answer a wide range of questions frequently asked of our constitutional system. They are, in a word, indispensable to every American and should be made widely available to every person who seeks answers about what it means to live in the United States. The resolution before us will do just that. I urge the House to support the concurrent resolution. Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if during today's proceedings concerning the Joint Committee on Printing that I did not mention that one of the institution's finest employees, Mike Harrison, who is on the minority staff and is minority staff director for the Joint Committee on Printing, is not here today. Normally, Mike would be here right by my side. He has helped me in the past shepherd through legislation. Unfortunately, Mike is home recovering from an ailment and cannot be here today. The good news is that he is doing quite well and convalescing at home. I spoke with both him and his wife, Lori; and I know so many from here send their best wishes for his speedy recovery. He is as witty as ever, and we look forward to his speedy return. Madam Speaker, having no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.