Candice Miller

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Chair, let me just read for our colleagues the preamble of our Constitution: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Madam Chair, this great statement that is the foundation for our Federal Government provides us the direction that we need to our primary responsibilities. I would suggest that this legislation helps us fulfill every one of the responsibilities mandated on us by our Constitution. Now let's just take them one by one. ``Establish justice''--it is just to protect American companies from the theft of their intellectual property by attackers and by competitors. ``Insure domestic tranquility''--can you even imagine the threat to domestic tranquility if our power grid is successfully attacked by a foreign state like North Korea and this Nation is left in the dark? ``Provide for the common defence''--what is more common than our power grid, our financial system and our economy? Are we not required to defend all of that? ``Promote the general welfare''--again, if our power grid is taken down, it is impossible to promote the general welfare. ``Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity''--our intellectual property, made with American ingenuity, our life savings in banks, under threat from foreign actors, our jobs, our economy. All of these blessings of liberty are currently at risk if we do nothing. I've heard some suggest, Madam Chair, that they have constitutional concerns about passing this bill. I would just suggest to them that I believe strongly that you should have constitutional concerns about not passing this bill. I do not believe that our Constitution gives foreign state actors like China or Russia or North Korea or Iran uncontested access to the critical systems of private American companies. To the contrary, I believe that our Constitution requires us, the Federal Government, to defend them. I certainly want to applaud the great work that has been done by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, and certainly applaud our ranking member, Mr. Ruppersberger. Gentlemen, you have worked so closely together on your committee and with other committees as well on this great piece of legislation. I would urge all of my colleagues, Madam Chair, to join me in fulfilling our oath and in voting ``yes.''

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 142, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on House Resolution 142.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives is recognizing the House of Representatives Child Care Center, HRCCC, team with the 2012 Employee Excellence Award, which is sponsored by the Officers and Inspector General of the U.S. House of Representatives. The award recognizes employees from each entity who have provided outstanding performance to their employer and who have demonstrated a superior attitude and demeanor in service to the House over the period of the last year. The employees of the HRCCC have demonstrated a high level of drive, determination and commitment over the past year. They are dedicated not only to the children, but also to their parents, the CAO and the House community at-large. While we recognize the HRCCC as a team I would also like to recognize each teacher and staff member individually today. Ladonya Allen Monica Barnabae Paige Beatty Sherleen Boyde Erica Doody Suzette Drexel-Carpenter Shamorrow Hall Contrinia Hemphill Suzanne Hite Michelle Jones Nicole Price Jennifer Sekhar Sharon Steele Ann Vogel Kathleen Williams Fareen Wu Congratulations to the House of Representatives Child Care Center team.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 127 and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 122, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of House Resolution 115, which is providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives for the 113th Congress and which authorizes committee budgets for the 113th Congress. Earlier this month, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on House Administration held two very lengthy and very informative days of hearings with our chairmen and with our ranking members from all of the 19 House committees. Each of them testified about their respective budgets, the commitment to uphold the longstanding two-thirds, one- third allocation between majority and minority offices; and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, they talked about doing more with less, which is a topic that we are all very, very familiar with. This funding process and these discussions significantly impact the legislative process as these committees are where, of course, the legislation that comprise much of our work begins, where our vital oversight functions occur, which is why throughout this process we adhered, Mr. Speaker, to two very important principles. First of all, we said we need to live within our means, and then prioritizing the finite resources that we have provided to us in the Congress by hardworking American taxpayers. As we all know, sequestration went into effect on March 1, 2013, and Congress must live with further cuts, just as every other agency of government must live with similar cuts. As a result of the sequester, the total committee authorization level must be reduced by approximately 11 percent, in the 11 percentile range. And that means if we authorize above that amount, then we will have to take the money from somewhere else. When ensuring that committees have adequate resources, obviously, we have to consider their legislative objectives; we have to consider their anticipated workload and authorize the finite resources available in a way that best suits the needs of the House of Representatives as a whole. Although the sequestration is not certainly the ideal way to cut spending, cuts are imperative. They must happen. Our government is too big, too involved, and too costly. As those who are charged with the care of taxpayers' dollars, we need to lead by example, and we must control our spending. We must live within our own means. Now, this may be a far more strict budget than many had hoped or anticipated, but like so many Americans, we are coping with our circumstances, and we are making cuts to our budgets in a way that any American business or American family would have to, as every local unit of government, every State around the country has had to do. Certainly during these very trying economic times, we also have to make value judgments and budget accordingly. To match the available post-sequestration funding level, the total authorization amount for House committees must be reduced, as I say, by about 11 percent from the 2012 level; and, therefore, with very few exceptions, each committee authorization has been reduced, again, within that 11 percent range or certainly within a percentage point or so of the 11 percent. Based on the anticipated workload for the 113th Congress, the Budget Committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Select Committee on Intelligence have been given very much smaller reductions, a very slight reduction from the 11 percent. But every committee certainly will be faced with important oversight responsibilities for 2013. However, given that getting our economy moving again and defending this Nation are the foremost priorities that we face, the dire need for tax and entitlement reform to help grow our economy, to create good-paying private sector jobs and the increasing cyberthreats to our digital infrastructure, it was determined by our committee that these three committees certainly are the tip of the spear in doing some of the most important work for the American people. We must remain, as well, committed to leading by example in cutting government waste, rooting out inefficiencies, and conducting essential and efficient oversight of our vast administrative agencies. House Resolution 115, Mr. Speaker, we believe fulfills that mission. I would also point out that this House resolution not only reduces committee expenditures, but it also authorizes total committee funding for the 113th Congress at a level which is lower than 2005. I think that bears repeating--a level lower than 2005. By comparison, overall nondefense discretionary spending by the executive branch has actually increased 16.7 percent since 2008--quite a big difference there. As I said before, as chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I certainly understand the challenges of stretching committee resources, and I have a very deep appreciation for every committee's ability to absorb these cuts and their commitment to functioning at a high level, even with the reduced resources that they have, and that is due certainly in no small measure to the outstanding leadership that we have with each committee chairman and each ranking member on all of our committees, really, all committed to delivering a very high level of service to the American people. Some of my colleagues, I know, have voiced their opposition to this measure calling for a freeze in committee spending. They say that freezing spending for committees at 2012 levels is a more balanced approach. But since sequestration, we just don't have the money to cover a freeze. We do not have the money. So I would simply state that spending beyond our means, in my opinion, is not a balanced approach. In fact, I would say it's a bit irresponsible. As I said before, every American family, every small business, every State and local unit of government must live within their means, and so must the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, again, this resolution has required us to make some very difficult but very necessary decisions. And I want to personally thank, and certainly all of our committee members thank, each chairman and each ranking member who testified before our committee, and our committee staffs as well, who are often unrecognized for the vital work that they do. I would urge, Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 115, living within our means and prioritizing our finite resources like the rest of America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at this time to yield as much time as he may consume to an outstanding member of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The fact of the matter is that this is all the money that we have to spend. Believe me, I am sympathetic to the arguments that it would be nice if our committees didn't have to make any cuts. Again, if we don't make some cuts because of the sequestration, this money has to come from somewhere else. I guess we're sort of looking for other ideas of offsets for those who are saying that we should not pass this resolution. What kinds of things would they offset? We've certainly watched the White House close tours to groups because they said the sequester impacted the Secret Service's ability to protect the President when the American people came into the White House. I don't know if they're suggesting we should close the Capitol Building or what have you. I don't think that kind of suggestion would go very far. But, again, where do you offset if you're not going to cut any spending here? I will also say this: I come from southeast Michigan, which arguably was ground zero during the most painful economic transition, certainly in my lifetime, that happened in our Nation here recently, and we're trying to get ourselves out of that. We were number one in all of the categories you didn't want to be number one in. If I'd have told our local county or our local units of government that they'd have to cut 11 percent, they would say thank you, because they've cut anywhere from 30 to 40 percent. There were just incredible amounts of cuts that happened. Furloughs have happened with employees. That has been going on for years, actually. That's my neighborhood. When we think about the amount of borrowing that we're doing as a Nation--as everybody knows, we are now to the point of $16 trillion in national debt with no end in sight, and we've been running deficits for, certainly, the last 5 years of well over $1 trillion and, in many cases, $1.5 trillion annually, and we're borrowing 42 cents on every dollar that we spend--if we do not have the political will to make any kind of cuts ourselves to where we can't even cut our own committee budgets here in the House while these kinds of cuts are being absorbed by other areas, I just think that this resolution will be a very vivid demonstration of the differences of what we think ``leading by example'' actually means. I will tell you as well, as a grandmother, I do not want to look at my two little grandchildren and say, Hey, do you mind paying the bill, because I don't have the political will. I just can't do it. Too hard for me. I don't want to break a sweat here. Would you mind paying? I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I just cannot get to that place. I think this resolution is very, very important. I recognize the painful cuts that are happening. It's not easy. That's why the American people sent us here--to have the political will and to make the hard decisions. I would hope that my colleagues would support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minority whip's comments. I have great regard for him as well. I thought it was interesting, Mr. Speaker, listening to him talk about the President's sequester as an irrational kind of a thing. Of course, it was the President's idea. I don't dispute that it is not the best way to cut spending. Many may say it's an irrational approach. Again, the President's sequester, the President's idea.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the sequencing of the sequester, the President's sequester, the President's idea of the sequester, and I appreciate that. I still say with the President's sequester that what's going to happen with this vote is a very vivid demonstration, again, of who is actually committed to doing more with less. My colleague, the gentleman, the minority whip, also has given us sort of a historical lesson of various things in his observation of the way things had gone earlier on, and I would point something out as well since we are talking about committee budget cuts. In 2007 when the other party, the Democrats, took control of this House, they immediately increased the amount of spending on committees by 8.9 percent, almost 9 percent; immediate increase. Then in 2009 as they kept control of the Congress, again they increased committee spending, that time by 8.9 percent. Now keep in mind, this was at a time--which I had mentioned previously, being from southeast Michigan-- everybody else, it seemed like, certainly every State government, every local unit of government, every school district, many, many businesses, certainly American families, were making cuts. That was not happening here with committee spending. In 2010, this House shifted control. The Republicans took control. And what did we do with committee spending as a way to show that we wanted to do more with less, that we understood that we needed to get a handle on this out-of-control Federal spending, we actually cut committee budgets by 9.5 percent for the 112th Congress, and as we are debating now, another 11 percent cut that we're looking at. This is at the same time that the House, under Republican control, has also cut what we call our Members' representational allowances, our MRAs, which has been very painful for all of us as well. We cut 5 percent, then in the 6 percentile. Now just a couple of weeks ago, effective immediately with the sequester, another in the 8 percentile cuts for all of us. All of us are doing more with less. And believe me, I understand there's no sympathy for Members of Congress, but I certainly point that out. At the same time if you look at non-defense discretionary for the executive branch, almost a 17 percent increase during that same time. So I just think when we look at this resolution, we see how important it is. Again, I am not minimizing how painful it will be for the committees, but it's really the new reality, I think, and it's important for those of us here in the people's House to do the people's work with the amount of money that we have available, and to do it to the very best of our ability. And I know certainly Republicans and Democrats are committed to doing that. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure, at this time, to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I certainly want to thank Mr. Vargas for controlling his time. Mr. Speaker, he did a very good job. We certainly welcome him to the committee and look forward to working with him, as we also thank the ranking member, Mr. Brady, for his extraordinary work on behalf of the committee, and we look forward to continuing to work with him. Obviously, we have a bit of a disagreement, Mr. Speaker, on the committee budget cuts here; but I certainly would also applaud the work of all of our chairmen of our committees, as well as all of the ranking members, who very diligently went through their budgets trying to make the appropriate cuts and will continue to do that now, when this resolution is certainly passed, as we go forward, I think, for all of us, really, trying to create a fiscally responsible level of funding here and, again, something that allocates resources in the very best way that we can, that allows this House to complete its work on behalf of the American people. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would say, I believe that we are leading by example with this resolution today, and we need to show that the important work of government can certainly be done, and we can do it well with less. Doing more with less, that's a very well-used term, but it is certainly appropriate for this, during times of tight budgets. So I would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement on February 28, 2013, we would like to thank Mr. Gordon Beaudoin for his twenty-three years of distinguished service to the United States House of Representatives. Gordon has served this great institution as a valued employee of House Information Resources (HIR), within the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Gordon began on the Hill in 1990 as an on-site Voice Service Manager with an outside contractor. He was responsible for all telephone services for the House, the Library of Congress and the Supreme Court. He retired from the company in 2000, and became a full-time employee for the House on April 16, 2001. Gordon's first responsibility as Manager of the Voice and Video Branch was to sustain existing systems and ensure the best level of voice service was provided to the House community. After September 11, 2001, Gordon's team was tasked with identifying and resolving vulnerabilities in the voice systems necessary for Congress to perform its duties. Gordon directed the development of a voice network recognized by industry experts as one of the most reliable and sustainable in the country. His team completely revamped the voice system hardware and software to provide multiple backups and redundancy. Additionally, he directed his team to completely redesign the network used to transport phone calls. It was an amazing improvement to reliability of service and one in which Gordon is extremely proud to have been a part. Then, Gordon's responsibilities focused on the tracking and implementation of new technology in the House community. Gordon had the foresight to initiate projects which will continue to provide House customers with the world class service they expect from the CAO. Based on his vision, the voice network is being converted to an IP based system in order to provide many benefits now as well as in the future. Additionally, the voicemail system is being upgraded to provide new features and functions allowing customers to communicate in more collaborative ways. On behalf of the entire House community, we extend congratulations to Gordon Beaudoin for his many years of dedication, outstanding contributions and service to the United States House of Representatives. We wish him many great years in fulfilling his retirement dreams.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 77) establishing an academic competition in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics among students in Congressional districts.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the House resolution.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in very strong support of House Resolution 77 to establish an academic competition that promotes innovation among students from across the country in the science, technology, engineering, and math--or the ``STEM'' fields, as they are called. This program will be modeled after the Congressional Art Competition. This Congressional Academic Competition will be a nationwide STEM innovation competition for participating students in every congressional district. Each year, students will submit STEM projects or programs to their Representatives for consideration. Representatives, Members of Congress, will then select the winning submissions that will be recognized in Washington, D.C., each year. The initial focus of this competition will be software applications. Submissions will likely include smart phone apps, management software programs, and social media technologies. STEM positions are among the fastest growing occupations. Unfortunately, organizations are having a difficult time filling these positions with qualified and diverse candidates. At least half the growth in the U.S. gross domestic product over the last 50 years has been due to science and engineering. Yet the United States, unfortunately, is losing its competitive edge in those fields. According to a 2010 National Academies report, the United States ranked 27th among developed countries in the proportion of college students earning bachelor's degrees in science or engineering. As I mentioned, it is our intent to model this program after the Artistic Discovery Competition. I would say, Mr. Speaker, since my arrival here in Congress, I've just marveled at the incredible abilities, the talents, the creativity of young artists from my district, and I have certainly been honored to display the winning submission here in the Capitol building. I truly believe that the Artistic Discovery has worked to inspire those artists to hone their skills and advance their creativity. This STEM competition, this program that we are talking about today, could do so much more of the same and perhaps help us discover the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. This would not only help our young people to thrive, but it would also advance our entire economy. A study by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology found that, over the next decade, ``economic forecasts point to a need for producing approximately 1 million more college graduates in STEM fields than expected.'' We are nowhere near meeting that goal, and this competition would be a no-cost way to further interest in the field. Additionally, fewer than one-third of the eighth graders in the United States show proficiency in science and mathematics. Actually, only nine States allow computer science courses to count toward high school graduation requirements. I know we can do better than that. We can help America's schools to do more to prepare our children in the STEM fields. We can help to stimulate the workforce by helping America's young people to not only be prepared but to ably fill the STEM jobs in our economy as they are created. It is vital to our economy and to our future that America remain competitive in this growing field. We can encourage and embrace STEM innovation through this bipartisan academic competition. In an ever-competitive global economy, I know that America's young people can be the world's greatest source of innovation and creativity. We can improve our Nation's economy and help provide countless of our children great opportunities in the future by encouraging their imaginations and by honoring their hard work. If there are STEM jobs available, we must make every effort to ensure that American young people fill these positions. This competition will help students see the value of STEM fields and engage them with the topics throughout their lives. We also need to help students who are interested in science and engineering maintain that interest so that they can become scientists and engineers. Encouraging greater innovation and participation in STEM fields will help our students and, again, help our Nation to succeed in the future. We know all too well how difficult our economy has been in recent years, but even in this tough economy a lot of these tech industries have flourished. It's important to empower our young people with the necessary tools to succeed when it comes time for them to enter the labor force. The action that we take today could help empower the next generation because this competition will offer the opportunity for students to expand their horizons and to potentially find interest or maintain their interest in one of our economy's fastest growing occupations. We can improve our students' academic achievements in education in hopes of preparing them for these opportunities in their futures. As former U.S. Secretary of Education Bill Bennett has said: As a Nation, we simply must get this message to schools, businesses, corporations, State departments of education, Governors, and beyond. STEM education is an urgent need for our Nation. We cannot continue to graduate students ill- prepared for our Nation's economic necessities--or their own. Mr. Speaker, we believe that this proposed academic competition will inspire and encourage young innovators and better equip our youth to compete in today's global economy. Far too often, I would note, this House seems to be unable to come to agreement on ways to solve America's challenges, and I know on this issue we all agree. It's a bipartisan effort. We all love our children. We all want them to succeed. We want them to reach their full potential, and we certainly want to honor their hard work as they reach toward a brighter future. So I would urge all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join me in supporting this small step toward that brighter future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), who has been a principal force and advocate for this particular piece of legislation in the STEM.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna), who is also the distinguished cochair of the STEM Education Caucus.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as the Internet Caucus, and a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, but I would reserve the balance of my time if my ranking member would like to close, to make his final statement.