George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, more than a thousand workers have died from working in Bangladesh's garment industry. In the latest tragedy, an eight-story building called Rana Plaza collapsed. It housed five garment factories. It has killed more than 650 workers so far, injured more than a thousand, with still more buried in the rubble. This staggering body count occurred just 5 months after the Tazreen factory fire that killed at least 112 workers. Forty more incidents, including explosions and fires, causing death and injury, have taken place since the Tazreen factory fire. I met with one of the Tazreen survivors when she visited Washington last month. She described the outrageous working conditions leading up to the fire. She toiled in a factory with bars on the windows and no place to run if a fire broke out. She told me how she jumped from the third floor of the burning factory to save her body from the fire so her family could recognize her in case of her death, and many of her coworkers jumped with her, but did not survive the fall. During our meeting, it became clear that it was only a matter of time before the next Tazreen would take place. Two weeks later, Rana Plaza collapsed. Unfortunately, these tragedies in Bangladesh are not isolated, and more of these tragedies, undoubtedly, will occur unless the major international corporations that keep these dangerous factories open decide to change their business practices. Clearly, there is a greater role for the U.S. and other governments to play, including the Bangladesh Government. However, the primary burden for action now lies with the major brands and retailers. Let's remember what is at stake here: the lives of thousands of young women and mothers trying to scrape together an existence by working 12- hour shifts for pennies a garment. They produce clothing under contract with corporations we all know well: Walmart, J. C. Penney, Mango, Benetton, H&M, The Children's Place, GAP, and Dress Barn, among others. The clothes these women sew in Bangladesh we buy here in America. Unfortunately, these young women are caught working in a garment industry that pits supplier against supplier and country against country in a calculated race to the bottom. Often, the margin for these corporations is subsistence wages and the needless disregard for the safety of these young women. That is the subsidy they receive--low wages and unsafe working conditions for the workers who produce these garments. Four million Bangladeshi workers in 5,000 factories provide clothing to Americans and to European brands while earning one of the lowest minimum wages in the world--about $37 a month. But they shouldn't have to risk their lives for the fashion industry's profits. These young women are forced to work in factories with overtaxed electrical circuits, unenforced building codes, and premises without firefighting equipment and adequate exits, and in most cases, the exits are chained closed. Americans who are the consumers of these products are increasingly worried that the label ``Made in Bangladesh'' actually means ``made in a death trap.'' Why are the managers of these factories forcing these employees to work in these deplorable conditions? Because of fear--fear that the international brands and the retailers, which we know so well, will take their orders elsewhere because of a missed day of production, a late delivery, or a minuscule increase in production costs. The brands know this. That's why I believe they bear the ultimate responsibility for the horrendously unsafe working conditions in Bangladesh and elsewhere. Corporate leaders in the fashion industry have a moral imperative to ensure that these tragedies do not happen again. These retailers and brands need to sign on to an enforceable agreement that will improve safety, called the Bangladesh Fire and Building Safety Agreement. It was developed by the Bangladeshi trade unions and nongovernmental organizations to prevent these types of disasters from occurring by addressing the most urgent elements: One, public reporting of all fire and building audits conducted by independent safety experts; Two, mandates that factory owners make timely repairs; Three, an obligation for the brands to terminate a contract if a factory defies its responsibility to keep workers safe; Four, the right for workers to refuse unsafe work without retribution--to be able to refuse work without being fired, being penalized--and union access to factories, among other labor protections, so they can see for themselves what are the working conditions on any given day. To make this work, these commitments must be contained in an enforceable contract between the brands and worker representatives because it is the workers' lives that are on the line. The holding companies of Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Van Heusen, and IZOD have signed on to this agreement already, and a major German retailer has signed on as well. Others are now meeting in Europe to discuss its provisions. I applaud these efforts toward corporate responsibility. It is now time for the major U.S. corporations, like GAP, Walmart, and J.C. Penney, to join them, but we must also take note and call out any attempt to water down the key provisions of this agreement. Experts believe that this safety agreement will only cost a dime per garment over 5 years in order to make a real difference in the safety of these factories--a dime for the lives of these workers. The major global brands now face a choice. They can attempt to wait out the storm and go back to business as usual and continue their race to the bottom, or they can chart a different course that includes healthy profits, without a human death toll, by signing on to an enforceable safety agreement. I hope these American and international fashion brands sign on. In the meantime, the American consumer and those who follow the fashion industry are watching. We want to see which fashion brands will accept blood on their labels and which will not.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, more than 75 years ago, Congress empowered the American worker through the National Labor Relations Act to form or join a union and bargain for a better life. That law and the rights it guarantees have served this country well--it has built the middle class; it has brought us the 40-hour workweek; it has brought us safe workplaces. These rights have given to millions of families economic security and the prospect that their children could build even better lives, but for the last 2 years, these rights have been under persistent and unrelenting attack by this House and this Republican leadership. There are more unemployed workers in this country today than private sector union members. Instead of working to create decent jobs for the unemployed, the majority insists on attacking the rights of the employed. At a time of stagnant wages and when businesses across the country are explaining that their number one problem is a lack of customer demand, we could be doing something useful today, like raising the minimum wage. Instead, we are debating a bill that undermines the ability of workers to bargain for better wages or for decent pensions or for safe workplaces. H.R. 1120 would stop the National Labor Relations Board from enforcing labor law. While the bill is in effect, the agency would not be permitted to issue any new decisions, enforce existing decisions, or advance any rulemaking. That means it's open season on working people. The bill tells employers: if you want to retaliate against a worker for trying to speak out or to organize, if you want to fire her, go ahead, because there won't be any effective government response. By eliminating the authority of the government to enforce the law, this bill effectively takes away every labor right that Congress gave workers to help them better their own lives. It's that simple. Take, for instance, a single mother who works at a hospital, changing bedpans, lifting patients day in and day out. She works hard. She likes her job, but she thinks that she and her fellow employees deserve a raise. After her shift, a supervisor overhears her chatting with a coworker about organizing a union. The next day, she is called into the manager's office, and she is fired for talking union--something that is a protected right under the law. This firing is illegal, and she is entitled to her job back, but under H.R. 1120, she would be out of luck. Not only would she be out of luck, but over 23,000 workers a year would be out of luck because they simply exercised the rights that are legal under the law. The law says that employers don't get to retaliate, but for those thousands of workers now, they will have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, lost the ability to support their families. They will have no recourse because of this legislation if it becomes law. How fair can that possibly be? I would also add that, in 2010, about 17,000 unfair labor practices were filed against employers by employees, but over 6,000 were filed against the unions for unfair labor practices. The fact of the matter is, for this legislation, it works against both employers and employees, and it brings chaos to the workplace. It gives the right to illegal strikes. It gives the right to illegal firings. It gives the right to illegally take away the wages of a worker. That simply cannot be tolerated in this country, but that's what this legislation does. It's an effort that started out a number of years ago on this committee with the Republicans attacking the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board, and we should not allow this to stand. We understand that they're upset with the recess appointments, but they weren't upset with some 300 other recess appointments. In fact, Mr. Roe just said that those were constitutional, but that's not what the court said. The court said that all of these recess appointments were unconstitutional. So where are we today? We have sitting before the Senate, offered by the President, a panel of appointments that they can approve, and they can cure this problem if this problem, in fact, really exists. We don't know that yet because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it. While we are waiting for the Supreme Court to rule, they want to pass this legislation; and if they pass this legislation, the fact of the matter is both employers and employees are going to be hurt. It's going to cost them a great deal of money, and it's going to cause a great deal of chaos in the workplace because of what the circuit court said. I worry, while they complain about the recess appointments, that it's the very filibusters by the Republicans that demanded that the recess appointments take place.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, during the week of March 18th, I missed roll Nos. 76 through 89 due to cataract surgery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on roll Nos. 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 88, and 89. I would have voted ``yea'' on roll Nos. 77, 78, 83, 84, 85, and 87. I would have voted ``present'' on roll No. 86.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Campolindo High School's Academic Decathlon Club for its recent success in the Contra Costa County Academic Decathlon, at which Campolindo's two teams won first and second place. The Campolindo High School Academic Decathlon Club provides students the chance to go above and beyond academically. Through fun competition, the Academic Decathlon Club members foster enthusiasm for education not only in themselves, but also in their peers. Participation in the academic decathlon has promoted and developed a range of skills, including team work, discipline, creativity and critical thinking. The Decathlon Club is training California's future leaders by helping ensure that our students will be qualified to join the workforce and grow our economy. It's clear that Campolindo High does an outstanding job of preparing these future leaders for a lifetime of success. I would like to submit for the record a recent article in the Contra Costa Times recognizing Campolindo's impressive achievement. `Going Above and Beyond': Academic Decathlon Offers Another Kind of Competition (By Lou Fancher) Moraga.--It was a repeat of last year's finish, as the top three teams at Contra Costa County's 2013 High School Academic Decathlon on Feb. 4 mirrored the winners of 2012's competition. The ``Red Team'' from Campolindo High School in Moraga took first place and will advance to the state competition March 14 to 17 in Sacramento. This year, as last, Campolindo's ``Blue Team'' placed second, and Acalanes High School of Lafayette placed third for the second straight year. Other teams competing in the county decathlon were Antioch High, California (San Ramon), Freedom (Brentwood), Las Lomas (Walnut Creek), Miramonte (Orinda), Pittsburg and Dublin. California's Academic Decathlon pits nine-member teams drawn from about 500 schools statewide in a frenzy of tests, essays, speeches and interviews. Scrimmaging over art, economics, music, language and literature, mathematics, science and social science might sound like torture to many high schoolers, but not to students like Campolindo's Zach Scherer, this year's Top Overall Academic Decathlon Individual Award winner. ``I like decathlon (club) because it's not a regular class, with a teacher lecturing for 50 minutes,'' the 16-year-old said. ``It's students, all interested in learning.'' Paul Verbanszky, an advanced-placement psychology and government economics teacher at Campolindo since 2004, leads the school's decathlon club. ``I used to be able to barely field a team. Because we're winning, more students have signed up. Now I have 40 students at the start of a year,'' he said. The club's increasing popularity has little to do with students aiming to shine on college applications, Verbanszky said. Rather, the biggest motivators are the chance to excel at something other than sports and ``going above and beyond'' academically. Team co-captain Evelyn Steefel, 17, said it's just fun. ``The meetings are entertaining,'' she said, ``and there's nothing like learning new, interesting facts.'' Campolindo's two teams (schools with more than nine students participating can form multiple teams) met three times a week, beginning in September. This year's theme was Russia. With a mix of newbies and veteran decathlon members, the students divvied up the study guides democratically. ``We just put it up for whatever each person wanted to do and made sure each section got done,'' Steefel said. A dizzying array of approaches, from PowerPoint presentations to ``Jeopardy''-style games to pop quizzes, staved off drudgery. Winning the decathlon is more than facts; it's analysis and skillful test-taking, Scherer and Steefel said. Scherer remembers the interview section of the competition beginning with simple questions about his interests. ``I discussed the clubs I'm in, model United Nations and math club, and how they have shaped who I am now,'' he said. ``Then they asked, 'How has being in U.N. shaped your interest in diplomacy?''' Steefel used the decathlon's speech portion to talk about hypocrisy in America. ``It's a country that promotes freedom and equality, but it goes against those principles in its actions. The major thing I talked about was slavery, but also affirmative action and discrimination against women. I talked about the current generation needing to stop hating, because we're not moving together as a country.'' The Super Quiz--during which teams work together, and a roaring crowd of supportive family and friends is allowed-- tested their knowledge of Sputnik 2. Another question challenged them to compare and contrast two Russian composers. ``First, you have to know about the specific facts,'' Scherer said. ``Then, you have to know about the controversies involved, the worldwide movements, the complexities.'' Verbanszky said it's not the two Campolindo teams' high scores or crafty mental gymnastics he's most proud of. ``They care about the program, but also each other,'' he said. ``Freshmen to senior--they help each other with homework and talk about their problems. They've become friends.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Congressman Mike Thompson, Congressman Jerry McNerney and Congressman Eric Swalwell to recognize the unparalleled career of Mr. Stephen Weir and congratulate him as he retires after forty years of public service on behalf of the people of Contra Costa County. Steve Weir has been known throughout our community as a man of uncommon commitment and unwavering integrity. Born in Richmond, California and raised in Pleasant Hill, Steve has been a life-long resident of Contra Costa County. Following his graduation with Honors from the University of California at Berkeley, Steve moved back to Central County to begin his career as a public servant. He won his first elected position in 1973 as the Contra Costa Water District Director. After serving seven years in that capacity, Steve was elected to the Concord City Council in 1980, and in 1984 he was selected by his colleagues to serve a two-year term as Concord's Mayor. During this time, Steve also took on the responsibilities of regional Commissioner for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and became Chairman in 1991. It was in 1989, following the death of County Recorder Jim Olson, that Steve was appointed to fill the vacant seat for County Recorder. Steve was subsequently elected to the office in 1990 and has been returned to the position by voters every four years since. As County Clerk-Recorder, Steve immediately went to work streamlining the Clerk office system from five offices spread throughout Martinez, to one consolidated, state-of-the-art facility. Leveraging nearly $13 million in federal and state grant funding, he developed and purchased a vote tabulation system and introduced electronic recording to our county. Steve's efficiency continued to garner favorable results as his implementation of a department-wide Performance Management Program brought high praise from the Contra Costa County Grand Jury. He also established a Real Estate Fraud Notification System which has protected the County's property owners. Steve has earned many awards and distinctions throughout his career, including the 1993 Citizen of the Year Award from the California Transportation Foundation in recognition of his skill in bringing improvements to the Contra Costa and Bay Area's transportation systems and under his watch, the Contra Costa County Clerk's Office was awarded the County Department of the Year Award in 1994. However, we are certain that the distinction Steve and his long-time partner, John Hemm, take most pride in is the fact that their marriage in June of 2008 was the very first same-gender union ever conducted in Contra Costa County. As Steve trades his desk chair in Martinez for his bicycle seat, we expect to see him quickly surpass the record 5600 miles of roads and trails he logged last year and to easily hit his personal goal of 75 round trip rides to the 3,864 foot summit of Mt. Diablo this coming year. Mr. Speaker, we invite our colleagues to join us in commending City Clerk-Recorder Steve Weir for his years of outstanding service to the citizens of Contra Costa County. We are pleased to join his husband, John, his family, friends and colleagues, in congratulating Steve on an outstanding career and wishing him the very best as he begins a well- deserved and we imagine, a very active retirement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 4 minutes. Madam Chair, the House today is considering Republican legislation that reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act. Rewriting the Workforce Investment Act is an important task, and it should be taken seriously. It should be an opportunity to address some significant challenges in our economy, including how to educate and train a diverse workforce with the skills required to compete in a global market. For 40 years, this task has been taken seriously by Members of both parties. Job training legislation was generally bipartisan. So I wish we were here to present a bipartisan bill on the floor. I wish we were here to discuss the product of months of bipartisan negotiations. I wish we were here to consider getting something done for the American people. But that's not the point of today's exercise. Today, we are here to meet a deadline set by the majority leader as part of a rebranding strategy. This bill is a political product. It puts ideology over practical solutions and evidence-based reforms. It fails to take a thoughtful approach to what our workers and businesses need. It decisively walks away from the program's mission of helping our most disadvantaged workers. That is why I oppose this bill. First, the bill eliminates and consolidates programs simply for the sake of elimination and consolidation. The populations served by these programs often face daunting challenges in the job market. Youth, older workers, farm workers, workers with disabilities, English-language learners, veterans and low-income workers are among those who face the greatest barriers to employment. Yet, programs that serve these populations are the very programs targeted by the Republicans. Even worse, the bill eliminates the directive requiring these poorest workers to be given priority of service. With limited money, hard-to- serve populations will be left out in the cold. And we have yet to hear any credible evidence that eliminating these programs will save taxpayer money. We have yet to hear any credible evidence that these programs are duplicative, nor have we heard credible evidence that this approach will make the system work better. In fact, the Government Accountability Office warned that this one- size-fits-all approach may make services less accessible to the many groups considered hard to serve. Second, the bill restructures the workforce system in a way that locks out key stakeholders and leaves the system vulnerable to favoritism. The legislation arbitrarily mandates that workforce boards increase business participation of the board from 51 percent to 67 percent. This will allow people in power to lock out key stakeholders, including labor, community-based organizations, community colleges, or people who work with youth or workers with disabilities. These stakeholders know how to get training to the people. And they provide a voice for the very people who need training and the very people looking for work. The Republican bill will also allow Governors to remove local control so that local communities won't be able to direct their own workforce systems. Yet local communities working with local businesses, workers, and other organizations know best how to respond to their economic needs. Finally, the Republican bill essentially turns funding into a block grant and freezes authorization levels for 6 years. We all know that this is a code word for cutting funding. That's what the Republicans have been doing in the CR, and that's what the Republicans have been doing in sequestration. The Democrats have a different version. We agree that the current system is in need of significant reform. So don't believe the other side who falsely say that we want the status quo. The system should be improved in ways to maintain our Nation's commitment to expand opportunity for all Americans. We want to make job training programs more efficient and more effective. This can be accomplished by requiring unified plans that streamline and coordinate these services. Democrats want to ensure real accountability so everyone knows which programs work and which programs don't work. Finally, we want to promote innovation in the workforce system by fully engaging community colleges. This can be done by ensuring that there are resources for community colleges to effectively respond to economic challenges and to meet future industry needs. This should be Congress' way forward to strengthen the workforce investment system. Congress should not be dismantling the system and leaving those who need help the most at the back of the line. I'm disappointed that we have reached this point on this very important topic. For months, the Democrats have extended a hand to work together with the Republican majority. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the ranking member on a subcommittee of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), one of the primary cosponsors of the Democratic alternative.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 30 seconds. In closing, I think what's clear from the speakers on the Democratic side who spoke this morning is that it was really quite possible to have a bipartisan bill come to the floor of the House out of our committee. We offered to enter into Member-to-Member negotiations. That offer was not taken up. This bill was introduced 1 week in a hearing and reported the next. And the fact of the matter is I think there's a great desire on both sides of the aisle to make this a well-run, well-functioning program for the people who need it so they can get back into the workforce in the American economy. But, unfortunately, that didn't happen, and we're now left with a partisan bill, much like we were last year. I think, unfortunately, it's going to make it very difficult to get a good job- training bill to the President's desk for his signature. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last week, I met a young man named Gregory Reynoso. He lives in Brooklyn. He is married, and they have a little girl who will soon turn 3 years old. He is a pizza delivery man. He makes $7.25 an hour, but he can't make ends meet. As Gregory told me, if he pays one bill, he can't pay another. He told me: I'm delivering food to other people all day, but sometimes I need food stamps so my family can eat. When I look at the bill before us, I think of Gregory and a million other hardworking Americans like him. The bill before us is not for him. He's low-income. Under this bill, he loses his priority of service even if he wanted to train to try to get new skills for a better job with better wages to provide for his family. With this bill, he wouldn't be able to. With this bill, we shouldn't ask what it does for people like Gregory but what it does to them. Under the Foxx bill, seniors and youth no longer have wage protections. Low-income workers no longer get priority of service. The voices of labor and community colleges are squeezed off the Workforce Investment Boards, and the poor and disadvantaged get the shaft. We propose this motion to do something different so that, no matter what happens with the adoption of the Foxx bill, the poor will get a better shot at better jobs, and those who are working in low-wage jobs will get a decent wage. This amendment raises the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. It indexes it to inflation, and gives tipped workers a raise for the first time in 20 years. For the first time in 20 years, they will get a shot at a raise and a decent wage for the work that they do in waiting on other people. Without an increase in years, the working poor have been falling further and further behind. While corporate profits soar, while the Dow breaks new records, and while the CEOs take home 380 times the wages of average workers, the lowest paid workers are falling behind. If we vote to raise the minimum wage, we pump more than $32 billion into the economy, money into working people's pockets, money into Main Street small businesses, money spent locally, money that generates demand, and demand that generates jobs. A minimum wage increase pays for itself. Some businesses might have to pay higher wages, but they'll see higher revenues thanks to higher demand. The number one complaint from small businesses, according to Steve Case, the founder of AOL, is that there are not enough customers on Main Street because they're not earning enough money. They can't spend on Main Street because they're not earning enough money. That's why business owners are coming out for the raise--large businesses, like the CEO of Costco--encouraging and supporting the minimum wage; small businesses, like the restaurant owner Andy Shallal who came out for the minimum wage; and business leaders like the CEO of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. In 2005, the chairman of the board of Walmart came out for the minimum wage because, like today, their customers don't have enough money to buy the necessities of life. So think what this means if they can have an increase in the minimum wage. Think what this means to those individuals. Over two-thirds of the people in this country support an increase to the minimum wage. A majority of self-identified Republicans support an increase in the minimum wage. We must understand that this is a pay raise for 30 million Americans. Half of those workers are women in this country; 88 percent of those workers are at least 20 years of age; and 17 million children will live in families that will get an increase in the wages and the incomes to those families. These hardworking Americans have suffered enough in the Great Recession. Enough of the attacks on Medicare, Head Start, and now job training. Let's do something different this time. Let's do something that's right. Let's reward work for people who go to work every day in very difficult jobs, in sometimes very dirty jobs, in sometimes very demeaning jobs. They work every day, and they go home poor. At the end of the year, they end up poor. They work 52 weeks--they end up poor. They work in tough jobs--they end up poor. Now is your opportunity to reward work to provide them. Let's help these individuals. Let's help these families. Let's raise the minimum wage. It's time for $10.10 an hour. Vote ``yes'' on the final passage-- the vote for the minimum wage--and protect seniors, protect veterans, protect low-income workers. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcements by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2013, I missed rollcall Nos. 59, 60, 61, and 62 due to upcoming cataract surgery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 59, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 60, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 61, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 62. On March 12, 2013, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 63. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on February 27, 2013, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll No. 53. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of House Resolution 77. And I commend the chair of the committee and the ranking member for bringing this to the floor, and I hope that all of our colleagues will participate in this competition for students in STEM subjects to create these apps and to further, hopefully, their careers in STEM. But I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am also deeply worried that our hopes to increase the number of students who will participate in STEM education and become part of the STEM careers that are available to them that this Nation so desperately needs could all be for naught, this resolution and all of our efforts, if on Friday we are not able to set aside the sequester and make a balanced proposal to reduce the deficit and to provide for the ongoing needs of this Nation. Right now, if we do nothing between now and Friday, there will be a $740 million cut to title I, impacting over 1 million students, low- income students, and 9,000 teachers and staff jobs. Those are the people that we want to encourage to go into STEM. Those are the very same students that have a 1 in 7 chance of having a qualified teacher teach them mathematics or science in their schools. So the very population that you're trying to encourage will have less of a chance because of sequestration. Over $600 million cuts for students with disabilities, eliminating some 7,800 teacher and staff jobs with respect to those students. For those students who are trying to acquire the English language so they can participate in STEM careers and STEM academics, nearly 210,000 children and 450 teachers would be eliminated by the sequestration. And the same goes with community learning centers, where it's an opportunity to expose these students, after school and in additional time, to these careers, to these opportunities, to the applications and to the Web sites that are available to them that they can't use during class time. But, finally, there is even a more direct harm that will be done by sequestration, and that is that the National Science Foundation would issue nearly 1,000 fewer research grants and awards, impacting an estimated 12,000 scientists and students and curtailing critical scientific research. That's the scientific research that builds this Nation. And for that reason, I ask unanimous consent that the House now take up H.R. 699, a balanced approach introduced by Mr. Van Hollen, to replace the sequestration and save jobs and avoid these cuts in education that are so desperately needed.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.