Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Resolution 671, which is the rule for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004, which is masquerading today as the energy conference report of 2003; and H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act.

Mr. Speaker, this summer Americans all across the country are flooding into movie theaters to see the much-anticipated sequels to such blockbuster films as ``Shrek,'' ``Spider Man,'' and ``Harry Potter.''

So far the early reviews and box office returns for these sequels suggest Hollywood has actually managed to improve on the original versions by adding exciting new characters and interesting new plot lines.

Sadly, that is not so here in the House of Representatives. This summer, the Republican leadership is forcing us to vote on the same tired old reruns of bad bills that we have already seen and voted on once before. The consideration of H.R. 4503 actually marks the sixth time this year that this House has passed a bill for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of the bills that the House has voted on at least twice this year.

(1) Bankruptcy. The House passed its bankruptcy reform bill

on March 19, 2003 (H.R. 975, vote No. 74) and passed it again

on January 28, 2004 when it substituted the text of

the already-passed H.R. 975 into a non-controversial Senate

family farmer bankruptcy bill (S. 1920, vote No. 10).

(2) Medical Malpractice. The House passed medical

malpractice reform legislation on March 13, 2003 (H.R. 5,

vote No. 64) and then passed it again on May 12, 2004, as

part of the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R.

4280, vote No. 166).

(3) Association Health Plans. The House passed legislation

creating Association Health Plans (AHPs) on June 19, 2003 and

then passed the same bill again in May 13, 2004, as part of

the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R. 4281,

vote No. 174).

(4) Teacher Training. The House passed the ``Ready to

Teach'' Act on July 9, 2003 (H.R. 2211, vote No. 340) and

then passed it again under a new bill number on June 2, 2004

under suspension of the rules (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then

inserted by H. Res. 656 into H.R. 444).

(5) Graduate School Grants. The House passed a bill to

reauthorize programs that award grants to U.S. graduate

students under suspension of the rules on October 21, 2003

(H.R. 3076, voice voted) and then passed it again under a new

bill number on June 2, 2004 under suspension of the rules

(H.R. 4409, voice voted, then inserted by H. Res. 656 into

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this process is lousy. H.R. 4503, the bill the gentleman was referring to, Members on the Democratic side were not even allowed to participate in the conference where this bill was negotiated. The process here is awful, and it really is indefensible.

I also remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this rule is not only for the consideration of H.R. 4503, it is also for the consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery and Revitalization Act. There were no hearings at all in the committee of jurisdiction on that bill. There was no markup by the Members of the committee of jurisdiction on that bill.

I think we need to say something in defense of the Members, both Democrat and Republican, who are on that committee of jurisdiction that they should have an opportunity to be present at hearings and ask questions and to be able to make suggestions to make that bill better. So this process is indefensible. It is indefensible not only by the fact that people are getting locked out and bills are being rushed to the floor without hearings and without markups, but also this is bad policy. I think almost everybody knows it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this House is becoming a place where the rules are constantly being broken and a place where the process is constantly being ignored. No hearings, no markups, no amendments made in order. How cynical on an issue so important.

We need an energy policy in this country, Mr. Speaker. But this is not it. What we are being presented with today really is a giveaway to big campaign contributors. This bill does nothing to lower gas prices. This bill does nothing to have us become less dependent on foreign oil. It does nothing to support, in a meaningful way, renewable energy sources.

This bill is having a tough time for all the right reasons, because it is a bad bill. And rather than trying to fix it and rather than trying to negotiate with the other body, here we are again going through the same old routine.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just people like me who have problems with this bill. Let me read just a section from a letter signed by the president of Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the president of the Council for Citizens against Government Waste, the President of the National Taxpayers Union, the president of the Americans for Tax Reform, and the president of the American Conservative Union. They recently sent all of us a letter. Let me just quote from one paragraph.

They say: ``There is too much waste to describe in one letter,'' contained in this bill. ``Suffice it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything, from giving billions to ethanol producers to 'green' bonds for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal industries to billions in loan guarantees for an Alaska natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet projects at colleges across this country. The oil and gas industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's funding.''

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and I will insert this letter in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, we could do so much better, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule, to force the committees of jurisdiction to do their job, to go back and meet again and to come up with an energy bill that we all can be proud of.

December 1, 2003.

Pop the Ballooning Energy Bill

Dear Senator: On behalf of our members, the undersigned

groups urge you to oppose H.R. 6, the so-called ``Energy

Policy Act of 2003.'' We are concerned that at every

opportunity the energy bill has been larded up with more and

more waste and inappropriate taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Between initial passage on the floor of the House of

Representatives and the bill's emergence from the sequestered

conference committee, the bill's price tag ballooned from $46

billion to over $72 billion in authorized spending. That is a

50% increase in authorized spending in just a few months. Our

organizations will strongly consider including votes on this

bill in our end-of-the-year scorecards.

H.R. 6 is chock full of subsidies, pork barrel projects,

and unnecessary spending that have little, if anything, to do

with our nation's energy needs. Even supporters of the

legislation have admitted that it is not real comprehensive

energy policy, but merely a goodie bag of various projects

and policies. The Wall Street Journal called this bill ``one

of the great logrolling exercises in recent Congressional

history'' and that to get the bill through, leadership has

``greased more wheels than a Nascar pit crew.'' The

Washington Post also editorialized against the bill, calling

on lawmakers to ``make sure the bill doesn't become law.'' We

echo that sentiment.

There is too much waste to describe in one letter. Suffice

it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything,

from giving billions to ethanol producers to ``green'' bonds

for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal

industries to billion in loan guarantees for an Alaska

natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet

projects at colleges across the country. The oil and gas

industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's

funding.

Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6 and we will strongly

consider including votes on this wasteful legislation in our

organizations' end-of-year scorecards. We would be happy to

discuss these issues with you further. Please contact Aileen

Roder at Taxpayers for Common Sense Action at (202) 546-8500

130 or [email protected] with questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Jill Lancelot,

President, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action.

Tom Schatz,

President, Council for Citizens against Government Waste.

John Berthoud,

President, National Taxpayers Union.

Grover G. Norquist,

President, Americans for Tax Reform.

Richard Lessner, Ph.D,

Executive Director, American Conservative Union.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 671 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 671 is a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004; and H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4503, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides one motion to recommit.

Section 2 of the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4517 to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also provides one motion to recommit H.R. 4517.

Mr. Speaker, the first bill provided for under the rule, H.R. 4503, reflects the conference report on H.R. 6 that passed the House this November by a vote of 246 to 180. It is a bipartisan, comprehensive energy plan that is focused on providing a secure and diverse energy supply for our Nation.

There is bipartisan agreement on this plan to modernize our power generation systems, improve conservation and promote the development of renewable energy resources. The predominant source of energy varies among the different regions of our country. The bipartisan energy plan is comprehensive and addresses energy produced from oil, natural gas, wind, biomass, solar, coal, nuclear, and hydro.

In my area, the Pacific Northwest, Mr. Speaker, our primary source of power comes from hydroelectric dams. Clean, low-cost hydropower was critical to building the Northwest's economy. Whether it was electricity to irrigate central Washington's farms or to build airplanes in Seattle, it was vital to our economy.

This bipartisan agreement includes reforms to the lengthy and costly dam relicensing process that is critical to maintaining our region's low-cost hydropower. Environmental protections are preserved while providing flexibility to reduce costs and delays. Getting this plan enacted into law will help keep prices lower for Northwest families and for job-creating businesses.

An adequate, affordable energy supply is vital for a growing economy and job creation, and we need to get this plan enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, today, the United States imports nearly 60 percent of its oil. This energy plan contains provisions to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. The second bill provided for under this rule, H.R. 4517, will also help increase our Nation's energy independence.

The United States Refinery Revitalization Act would responsibly encourage the opening of previously closed refineries in the United States and the construction of new refineries to increase the domestic supply of gasoline which would help lower the price at the pump.

American demand for gasoline and refined fuels currently outpaces the capacity of our Nation to produce these needed products, and consumption of gasoline is expected to rise as our economy grows over the next 2 decades. Our choice as a Nation is to either increase our dependence on foreign sources of fuel or to help ensure refineries are built in America, which will create jobs here rather than at refineries in other countries.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to act and get a bipartisan energy plan enacted into law. It is time to increase America's energy independence. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule, H. Res. 671, and the two underlying bills, H.R. 4503 and H.R. 4517.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think probably the right thing to do is just review back to how we got to this point. Let us remind ourselves we have not had an energy policy in this country for several decades, and we need to have an energy policy. This House has passed three energy bills, and the other body has not acted on those three energy bills.

The last energy bill, however, did get to a conference where we worked out the disagreements between both of the bodies, and the ensuing conference report was then passed by this body and then went to the other body and was subject to a filibuster which, of course, is in their rules. In order to break that filibuster, it takes 60 votes. They got 58 votes. The presumption would be if they had a chance to vote up or down on the bill that perhaps they would have enough votes to pass the energy bill.

But I think it is even more instructive to go back and reflect on how we got to this point of the conference report. In the House alone in the last 3 years, we had 80 public hearings on energy policy in this country. We had 11 markups in the various committees on this energy bill. They considered 224 amendments, and we had 5 days of floor debate with 39 amendments in this body.

In the other body, there were 37 hearings, there were eight markups, and they had weeks of debate on the floor. When they finally got to conference, which of course is the final product which will develop the bill which will ultimately be the policy of this country, there were nine public hearings, there were 24 hours of debate. On a bipartisan basis, there were 10 staff meetings working out some of the details, and to say that this was not made public totally misses the point because there were 14 titles and 1,163 pages of text posted on the Web.

It is not surprising then with this background that the conference report dealing with our energy policy would pass on a bipartisan basis: 246 in this body to 180 against.

So I would just remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that there was a great deal of work that went into this. We are simply bringing the bill back again with the idea to pass an energy bill that we need, and we need it very badly. It has been reflected, of course, in the higher prices of gasoline, which, I might add, are starting to reduce because of market pressures; and I am in favor of that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think to set the record straight there has been a great deal of work that has gone into the original bill and into this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Linder) from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend from Washington that I am outraged as he is and other speakers have been by the revelation of the traders at Enron. No question about that. It is in black and white.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the revelations that came to light last week regarding the tapes on the Enron traders. As I started to say earlier, that is pretty black and white, and it is bad. There is absolutely no question about that. And FERC is responsible for that. FERC has been working on this for some time. They have been. I think, frankly, they have been moving rather slowly. But now that this new information is out, I think FERC has to move much more quickly on this issue because there is an awful lot at stake for the rate payers in the western part of my State and certainly in my State and, indeed, the whole northwest. So I share concerns with my colleagues on the west coast that FERC needs to act immediately, and I hope that they would.

I might also add that since these revelations came to light last week about the trading, the Department of Justice has now weighed in, as they properly should. So we will get to the bottom about this. I do not think there is any question about that. But there is no way that anybody in this body can condone what we heard that was made public with those tapes.

So with that, getting back to the business at hand, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3076) to amend title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure graduate opportunities in postsecondary education, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3076.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3076, the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act, a bill that will not only build upon the successes of our graduate education programs, but will also help fulfill areas of critical National need which will help trigger improvement at all levels of education, including K-12.

I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) who, again, we have been very able to work very well together, and his cooperation has been able to bring these bills together in a bipartisan way.

We all recognize the importance of graduate education, particularly as we work to meet the challenges of the No Child Left Behind Act and place a highly-qualified teacher in every public school classroom by the 2005-2006 school year. I believe the legislation before us today will help our States and schools as they strive to achieve that important goal.

The Federal Government has long been involved with graduate-level education, providing fellowships that assist students who excel in their chosen fields to complete education beyond the baccalaureate level. These programs have been tremendously successful, encouraging in-depth study and creating knowledgable experts, particularly in subject areas facing national need.

Graduate education authorized under Title VII of the Higher Education Act produces immeasurable benefits for our Nation. Not only do these programs enrich our citizenry, but they also nurture discovery and innovation that will some day lead to medical and technological advancements. Graduate programs train the next generation of teachers, researchers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, poets and professors. These individuals will be vitally important in preparing the United States to meet the challenges of the future.

Title VII of the Higher Education Act authorizes three graduate fellowship programs, the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need program, the Jacob K. Javits Fellowship program, and the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity program.

Collectively, they encourage students to advance their knowledge in scientific and technical fields, the arts and humanities, and legal studies by providing financial assistance as well as support services to those displaying academic excellence in their field of study.

Each year, Congress appropriates nearly $45 million to assist these students in pursuing their goals. The Graduate Opportunities and Higher Education Act seeks to build upon the success of these programs by targeting fellowships in subject areas facing national need, not only at the graduate level, but also by encouraging study of subject areas where there are shortages in K-12 education as well. This will help to expand the number of educators prepared to train the teachers of tomorrow in critical subject areas such as math, science, and special education. By placing a priority on these subject areas with a demonstrated national need, graduate fellowships will serve to strengthen education from the halls of universities down to the classrooms filled with children.

In addition to placing a priority on these three subject areas, the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act also recognizes the rapidly-growing need for teachers prepared to meet the needs of students with limited English proficiency. The Graduate Opportunities and Higher Education Act is an essential piece of our higher-education reform efforts. By strengthening graduate education and targeting the Federal investment towards those areas facing demonstrated need, we cannot only improve graduate education but education at all levels in this Nation.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation and help make our already successful graduate education programs even better.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to, once again, thank my colleague for working with us. I think we have developed a great partnership on this subcommittee. We had a great hearing down in the gentleman's district, a couple of weeks ago, in Texas. We had a very, very good hearing, a very, very good roundtable, and a delicious dinner together with great hospitality. And I just want to publicly express my appreciation for the cooperation in that process and also the continued partnership on the legislation coming through this committee.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for those kind words.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4411) to amend title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure graduate opportunities in postsecondary education, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4411.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4411, the Priorities for Graduate Studies Act, which builds on the success of the graduate programs currently authorized under title VII of the Higher Education Act and also helps to fulfill the demand for highly qualified teachers at the K-12 level.

I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), a valuable member of the committee, for his work on this important piece of legislation.

I am particularly pleased that this bill has the potential not only to enhance graduate education but to build on the strength of education at all levels by helping to increase study of subject areas facing particular shortages in elementary and secondary schools.

This bill complements H.R. 4409, the Teacher Training Enhancement Act, which we have considered here today. Bringing these two bills forward is our declaration that supporting America's schoolteachers is a priority for our committee and for the U.S. House of Representatives.

We know that an important part, important key to placing highly qualified teachers in every public classroom called for by the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act is having adequate faculty available to train the teachers of tomorrow. This is particularly important in subject areas facing severe shortages.

If we are serious about ensuring every child learns from a highly qualified teacher, we must address the issue in a comprehensive manner. Elementary and secondary classrooms across the Nation are facing severe shortages of highly qualified teachers, particularly in high-demand subject areas. States and schools tell us they are struggling to find highly qualified math, science and special education teachers.

To address these shortages head-on, this bill places a priority on these particular subject areas, ensuring that our investment in graduate education continues to improve education at all levels in America.

Although I believe the role education plays in creating a pipeline of highly qualified teachers is extremely important, the many other benefits of graduate education cannot be overlooked. As we enter the 21st century, the need for advanced education is becoming increasingly vital to successfully maintaining our place in the technologically advanced economy. The future competitiveness of our Nation will depend on successfully educating our workforce and fostering continued breakthroughs through education.

Now more than ever our citizens are obtaining graduate degrees in order to obtain more expertise in their field of study. This bill will help ensure the continued availability of such graduate study opportunities for students.

As we move forward with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must continue to build on the success of these valuable programs that prepare the next generation of scholars. We have expressed our support for our teachers before and we stand united today to continue that support and urge our colleagues in the other body to do the same.

Graduate education is essential to maintaining our economic leadership as well as ensuring the success of education reform in classrooms across America. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and the continued success of graduate education.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer the gentleman's question why we are here today.

I think that we did pass these bills before, but they have not been acted upon by the other body. So I do not think it will hurt to have further discussion here, again voting on these issues and showing how important our teachers are, showing how important economic stability comes from education.

We think that it is very important to discuss these issues; and, frankly, I do not think it is a waste of time any time we can talk about helping the education of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), a strong member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and respond to my colleague that I will be happy to join him in that letter. Whatever we can do to help move the other body, I think is important, especially in the area of education, where we are trying so hard to help our teachers and our young people so that we can better prepare ourselves for stronger economic stability in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, a highly educated workforce is critical to America's future competitiveness. And the quality of education in America's schools is directly related to the quality of the teachers entrusted with the vital task of educating the Nation's students. Today's students are tomorrow's workforce, and for that reason education is directly linked to America's future competitiveness in a changing economy.

H.R. 4411, the Priorities for Graduate Studies Act, addresses the shortage of highly qualified math and science teachers at the K-12 level. One of the problems is the continuing lack of faculty at the graduate level to train the teachers of tomorrow in these demanding fields. This must be addressed to fortify the pipeline of highly qualified teachers for our Nation's youth. To increase faculty in these high-demand subject areas, the Priorities for Graduate Studies Act will target Federal aid for graduate studies to these subject areas. The bill, introduced by my colleague from Georgia Representative Max Burns, places a priority on the areas of math and science for graduate fellowship programs in the Higher Education Act. Further, this bill reinforces previous Federal efforts in the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' requiring a ``highly qualified'' teacher in every classroom. This bill, along with the other bills being discussed today, also provides State grants to recruit and train teachers. In addition, loan forgiveness programs at the Department of Education and the Noyce Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF), which seeks to encourage top math and science students to enter the teaching profession, are just some of the initiatives that have been designed to address issues of teacher recruitment and retention.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently testified before the House Education and Workforce Committee and said that strengthening the Nation's education and worker training systems and supporting innovation are essential to creating jobs and sustained economic growth for American families. He said that the U.S. appears to be lagging seriously behind other nations in terms of the quality of education being provided to students at the K-12 level. He quoted a study conducted in 1995 (The Third International Math and Science Study, a project of the International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College) revealing that although our fourth-grade students were above average in both math and science, by the time they reached their last year of high school they had fallen well below the international average.

The quality of America's workforce is inextricably tied to the quality of America's education system. For that reason, advanced degrees in specific subject areas will help to improve the training of our schoolteachers, building upon the quality of elementary and secondary education and, in turn, strengthening the competitiveness of the American worker. The House bill being discussed today recognizes that a shortage of advanced degrees earned in high-demand subject areas such as math and science can create a void from the university level down to K-12 classrooms. To address this shortage, the bill places a priority on these subject areas when awarding graduate level fellowships.

Mr. Speaker, when I have an opportunity to speak with teachers about education, I often ask them if teaching a child math or science is more like lighting a fire than filling a container, at what age they believe the flame of interest for math and science education is sparked and how can we keep it burning. I get all sorts of answers. Some say third grade. Others say kindergarten. But they all generally agree that our greatest challenge is to ensure that all children experience that initial spark to create more interest in science and math.

As Chairman of the Science Research Subcommittee, I recently introduced legislation that passed this House, creating a Congressional award for private sector entities that partner with schools to improve science, technology, engineering, and math education. The bill, H.R. 4030, would provide well-deserved recognition for outstanding private sector efforts and directs the National Science Foundation to disseminate information about award winners to educators, businesses and the general public.

The way to maintain and increase our standard of living is through innovation, technological advancement and hard work. We need to do a better job of encouraging student interest and achievement in math and science so that today's students will be successful in the highly competitive global economy.