Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the new ranking member of the committee for his kindnesses and generosity. That bodes well for the future.

Science is fun. I can vouch for that as someone who has been a practicing scientist for over 2 decades. Science is also interesting. And science is rewarding. All of that is epitomized by the success of the rover that is currently on Mars transmitting pictures to us and also scientific data and information to us. I am very pleased to join in congratulating the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and their scientists for the successful landing and operation of the rover Spirit on Mars. For over 40 years, the dedicated scientists at JPL have built cutting- edge robotic explorers that have investigated other planets and the far reaches of our solar system and even beyond. These missions have opened windows to the universe, provided us with invaluable scientific information and inspired generations of scientists and engineers.

Just 2 months ago, I was privileged to lead a group of science committee members on a tour of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. That tour included an exciting meeting with Dr. Daniel McCleese, who is the chief scientist and Dr. Peter Theisinger, the project manager for the Mars exploration project. Their enthusiasm and devotion to this work was clearly evident during our discussion, and it epitomizes the excitement that the scientists at JPL have. They worked endless hours and I am sure they are so interested and excited in their work that they would be willing to do that work without pay if they had some other means of putting food on the table.

Science is fun, as I said, and it is very clear that this grand experiment on Mars is exciting and interesting to our students, our children at our elementary and secondary schools. That is extremely important, because we do not have enough Americans studying science and engineering. Our engineering enrollments in American universities have steadily declined in the last 20 years. One of the reasons is that children in our schools are not excited enough about science. I want to thank JPL and NASA for their efforts to stimulate the excitement of the students in the schools and help generate a new generation of scientists and engineers.

I certainly want to congratulate JPL and all its partners on this latest success in landing the rover Spirit on

Mars. It is truly moving to see the years of devoted scientific work succeed in this effort.

As I saw the first pictures coming back, tears welled in my eyes at the tremendous advancements in science that we are seeing. This experiment also epitomizes what we must do if we are to meet the President's vision. We cannot just pop humans in a space capsule and send them off to Mars. There is an incredible amount of groundwork to be done and the Spirit is one example of the type of work that we have to do if we are going to explore our planetary systems. These experiments are far, far less expensive than sending a human being to Mars and we will have, I would estimate, at least 20 and perhaps even 40 years of such experiments before we are ready to tackle the very difficult and expensive task of sending a human to another planet.

I congratulate once again the JPL crew for their work, and not only JPL, but all of NASA and all the scientific community in the United States. The scientists and engineers continue doing this work in generally anonymity. The great excitement we see them exhibiting as they succeed in their experiments is typical of what goes on in laboratories across the United States, and in fact, across the world, but which we, as laymen, never tend to see. Science is a great profession. It is fun, it is interesting, but especially it is important to the human spirit and important to the success of our Nation and the improvement of the prosperity and the general knowledge of this country. Thank you, JPL.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up and speak in honor of Paul Simon. I first knew his brother, Art, through Bread for the World. I had been active in world hunger activities and in fact was a coauthor of a book regarding world hunger. When I read Bread for the World at that time I was very impressed with it. I knew that Senator Simon was Art's brother, so I was very pleased when I first had the opportunity to meet Senator Simon and have a discussion with him.

He was an honorable person, and, even though I never had close contact with him on a continuing basis, I was very impressed with his forthrightness, his thoughtfulness, his ability and his honesty. He set a high standard for all of us to follow.

I also appreciated the help of his wife, who was very interested in the Library of Congress. I was on the Committee on House Administration and served on the Joint House-Senate Committee on the Library of Congress, and she was a great help to me at various times in trying to achieve my objectives. They were a wonderful couple.

My last contact with Senator Simon was just 2 months ago, when I received a very kind, handwritten note from him. He had heard one of my speeches on the floor and sent me a quick note saying, in effect, ``That is the kind of voice we need to hear more in the Congress.'' I thought that was an overwhelming act of kindness on his part, to take time at this point in life, with the difficulties he faced, to write to a relatively unknown Congressman from a neighboring State and express his appreciation.

This indicated what a wonderful person he was, the kindness and the thoughtfulness he had. I am just delighted to join in this accolade for him. He was a great man. We could use many more like that in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce ``The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2003.''

While Congress, the Administration and the American people have discussed the many challenges facing our nation's manufacturers, such as international trade, China policy, tax policy and health care costs, I believe that a fundamental issue has been generally left out of the debate--innovation. For decades innovation has underpinned American's dominance in the world economy. If our manufacturing sector is to remain competitive in the global marketplace, we must foster innovation within this sector.

As Chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, I oversee many of the federal government's manufacturing-focused research and development programs. I have met with manufacturers from around the country and specifically spoken to manufacturers both large and small about their problems. They all agree that innovation is one of the keys to ensuring our manufacturers remain competitive and it is crucial to the development of new industries. Funding research and development underpins innovation.

Based on these discussions and a hearing I held earlier this year, I am proud to introduce the Manufacturing Technology and Competitiveness Act of 2003. This bill will help our nation's manufacturers maintain and improve their technological edge. This legislation will stimulate innovation through collaborative research and development, and broaden and strengthen the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, which provides small- and medium-sized manufacturers with the tools to compete better. More importantly, it will bring together a variety of partners in the public and private sectors, building relationships that encourage and foster technological development and the ability to bring these developments to the marketplace.

Our global competitors are eagerly supporting investments in manufacturing research and development because they know it is the key to sustained economic development. If we are to continue to be the world's technological leader, we need to rise to this new global challenge and make the investments envisioned by this legislation.

More specifically, the bill:

Ensures that all federal manufacturing programs and related

funding are coordinated and focused on solving these

important problems. The bill requires a strategic plan and

improved budget process to ensure these programs work

together efficiently;

Designates the current Under Secretary for Technology

within the Department of Commerce, as the Under Secretary for

Manufacturing and Technology, to be the federal government's

point person on manufacturing R&D policy, and outlines new

duties focused on fostering innovation within the

manufacturing sector for this position;

Establishes a new collaborative research and development

program for manufacturing technology to build partnerships

among higher education institutions, businesses, states and

other partners. This program will provide $184 million over

four years;

Helps to develop future leaders in manufacturing technology

through a fellowship program in applied manufacturing

research. Fellows will get to work with world-class leaders

in technology and engineering at the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (KIST). The fellowship program will

provide $7.5 million over four years;

Reauthorizes and reforms the Manufacturing Extension

Partnership (MEP) program by increasing competition among the

centers. MEP is funded at $120 million for the first year,

increasing to $137 million by year four; and,

Creates a new competitive, peer-reviewed grant program

within the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program

to develop new tools to help small businesses innovate and

compete. Funding for this program will come from the total

MEP funding.

Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased that we are on the road to economic recovery, we must still address underlying concerns about the future of U.S. manufacturing. This bill will help address some of those concerns and put our Nation's manufacturers in a better position to compete today and in the future.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate, and with the manufacturing and research communities, to pass this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 626 and 627 I was absent because I was giving a major lecture on science and engineering to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both issues.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 641, 642, 643, and 644, I was absent because I was receiving a major named award from and giving remarks to the national meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all four votes.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce an important piece of legislation, ``The Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2003.'' Our Nation's transportation system faces tremendous challenges. We have more drivers who are driving more miles leading to severe congestion, particularly in many urban areas. An aging infrastructure is putting a strain on State and local transportation budgets, which are tied up in maintaining our existing system, with little, if any, money left for improving the system and planning for the future. And an aging population and changing development patterns that demand an innovative response to ensure the transportation system meets future needs. The public demands safer, less congested roads, and more transportation choices. Considering that we won't have the ability to simply build

more roads to address these challenges, especially in urban areas, we must look at new ways to improve the overall system, to make it safer and more efficient, and to ensure that the system meets future needs.

Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation system depend on high quality surface transportation research. Research can provide the proper tools and information needed to drive solutions. The last time Congress fully examined our Nation's transportation policy was through the debate and passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (better known as TEA-21). While Congress increased funding for overall transportation programs by upwards of 40 percent, funding for transportation research remained relatively flat. I think that lack of investment in research has hurt our ability to meet new challenges. However, simply providing more money for research will not solve our problems. Increased funding must be accompanied by some reforms of the existing research programs.

As Chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, which shares jurisdiction over surface transportation research with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I held a hearing earlier this year to hear from experts on the state of the Federal Government's current surface transportation research program. In addition, we heard from a wide array of interests on how to improve and reform the research program, and the levels at which research should be funded. Based on this input, I am proud to introduce the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2003.

This legislation has three overarching goals: to increase stakeholder input to ensure that the folks who must implement and use the research agree that it is worthwhile and transferable into practice; to create the highest quality research through increased competition and peer- review of all projects; and to ensure greater accountability so that our research supports the goals of our surface transportation system.

More specifically, the bill:

Creates and funds an important research program run by the National Academy of Sciences to address short to medium-term research needs. Research will focus on reducing congestion, renewing existing roads and bridges while minimizing impact to the public, improving safety by reducing crashes, and developing tools for getting more out of our existing highway capacity and assessing future needs. All projects funded by this program will be competitively awarded and peer-reviewed;

Provides needed funds to implement a public-private cooperative environmental research program, with the goal of developing the knowledge, tools, and performance measures that will help us understand the linkage between the environment and the transportation system;

Calls on the U.S. Department of Transportation to take the lead in carrying out fundamental, long-term research to achieve breakthroughs in transportation research;

Increases funding for University Transportation Centers and ensures greater competition among universities which seek to become transportation research centers;

Reforms and increases the responsiveness of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the needs of the transportation community; and

Provides States with additional resources to better train and educate the transportation workforce.

This legislation will significantly, yet prudently, increase funding for transportation research starting at $500 million a year in fiscal year 2004 for Federal research programs and gradually rising to $850 million a year by 2009. These funding levels are based on an overall level of $375 billion for the comprehensive six-year surface transportation reauthorization advocated by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which I support. I believe my approach ensures that our transportation research is well planned, peer- reviewed, properly funded, and evaluated and will go a long way to help solve the many challenges facing our Nation's transportation system.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Science and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees, the U.S. Department of Transportation, State transportation departments, and all other interested stakeholders as this legislation and the overall reauthorization of TEA-21 progress.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 668 I was delayed on the way to the floor to vote, and the vote ended just as I walked in the door. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1829, legislation that has been a very long time in coming. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, for moving this bill forward; and I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), my colleague and friend, for his steadfast work on this issue.

This bill will provide much-needed relief for manufacturers in my district and across the country that have faced the anticompetitive and unfair practices of Federal Prison Industries for too long. By eliminating FPI's current status as a mandatory source to various Federal agencies and requiring FPI to compete for its contracts, H.R. 1829 will ensure that all private sector businesses can bid on Federal contract opportunities that are funded with their tax dollars, not just those companies who first enter into contractual relationships with

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for introducing this important resolution, and I would particularly like to commend three affiliates of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities that are located within my district: Calvin College, Cornerstone University, and Reformed Bible College. Combined, these schools enroll approximately 6,600 undergraduates.

As a former professor at Calvin College, I fully realize the value of Christian higher education. Intentionally Christ-centered colleges and universities encourage students to consider their studies in light of God's word and creation. This perspective enables students to develop moral principles and a sense of purpose in life. It also encourages the students to place a high priority on community service and on helping the disadvantaged.

Christian colleges and universities not only prepare students for a life of service but also provide a well-rounded, academically excellent education. Let me once again refer to Calvin College as an example, because I am most familiar with that institution.

Calvin College offers nearly 100 academic options, and its largest programs are education, engineering, and economics and business. Because Calvin is a liberal arts college, its graduates are exceptionally well prepared for a variety of vocations, regardless of their major.

Furthermore, Calvin instills in its students a desire to serve others. Beginning at Streetfest, during first-year students' orientation, Calvin's Service and Learning Center encourages all students to serve people who are in need within the Grand Rapids community. In addition, most Calvin students have the opportunity to engage in service learning as part of their course work. This service orientation also extends to faculty. When faculty members are considered for promotion or tenure, their service to the community is one of the factors considered.

The overarching goal of Calvin's service-oriented, academically excellent education, is to enable students to better understand how they can serve God in their chosen vocations and in their lives.

I have used Calvin as an example simply because, as an alumnus and professor of 16 years at Calvin, I am very familiar with the college. But Calvin is just one of many Christian colleges and universities that make efforts to effectively equip students with a well-rounded education and the desire to serve others.

Again, I support the goals of Christian Higher Education Month, and I commend the more than 125 members and affiliates of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities for their vital contributions to our Nation.

As the Committee on Education and the Workforce proceeds with reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I am hopeful that the committee will be mindful of the valuable, faith-based education these colleges and universities provide.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation ensures the federal government's deep commitment to a highly-trained and diverse workforce. But we should go even further. In order to best maximize federal government resources, we should consider allowing competition within other aspects of the student loan program, including consolidation loans.

In order to ensure that we instill such competition, we should safeguard and improve existing loan consolidation opportunities. The 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act has allowed Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) student loan borrowers who hold loans from more than one underlying lender to select from those lenders when consolidating their loans. This change has enabled many recent college graduates to refinance their loans at a lower fixed-interest rate. However, student loan borrowers who hold loans through a single lender must consolidate loans through their current lender. This rule, known as the ``Single Holder Rule,'' fosters a situation analogous to requiring homeowners to refinance their mortgages only through their current mortgage holders. We should consider repealing the single holder rule during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

As we progress through this reauthorization, I am hopeful that we will preserve the existing loan consolidation provisions and also improve this important program. Allowing competition in loan consolidation encourages student loan borrowers to consolidate their loans and to further reduce their debt burden by taking advantage of historically-low, fixed-interest rates, just as other borrowers are able to do every day.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I am a bit late and out of breath. My plane was an hour and a half late. I believe I ran all the way from the airport.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this resolution. We have often heard the phrase ``better living through chemistry,'' and that is very true. And I find it strange that today many people regard chemistry as a danger because they worry about things such as pesticides. In fact, I recall speaking to a person once who said that she really did not dare to eat anything now unless it was natural because of the chemicals. And I said, ``Well, do you like oranges?'' ``Oh, yes, they are wonderful.'' she replied. I said, ``In spite of the fact that they are filled with chemicals, chemicals such as vitamin C?'' And I went on to name other chemical components.

Chemicals can be either good or bad. And they are certainly a part of everyday life, but what I appreciate is the many good things that chemistry has brought us. And I also appreciate the American Chemical Society, which has established the National Chemistry Week which we are celebrating here. This year the theme is Earth's Atmosphere and Beyond, in an effort to honor the 100th anniversary of Orville and Wilbur Wright's flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.

But there is so much more to chemistry activities that we do not realize. What I appreciate about the American Chemical Society, also, is their interest in education.

In my efforts to improve math and science education in this Nation, I have worked very closely with the American Chemical Society over the past few years. And they have been outstanding in their efforts to assist in improving math and science education, and National Chemistry Week is part of that.

I just received this morning an e-mail from Michelle DeWitt from Michigan who is one of the organizers of the National Chemistry Week in Michigan. And she talked a little bit about what they did last week.

Let me read portions of her letter. ``Our National Chemistry Week event at Westshore Mall was a huge success. We had our largest amount of volunteers ever, with nearly 100 people helping out, including students from Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids Community College, Aquinas College, some local high school and younger students with parents. This was very fortunate because we had the largest turnout with about 3,000 people stopping by between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Saturday, October 18th.

``We had six demonstrations by area chemists and about ten activity tables, where area chemists and college students engaged in hands-on activities with kids of all ages. There was a constant stream of rockets shooting off. Some even hit the ceiling. Making slime is always one of the kids' favorite activities.''

``We gave away about 1,300 balloons to kids. I heard one boy walking into the mall with his dad saying, `Look, Dad, a party.' and I thought it was great to have kids think of science as a party. The newspaper reporter who spent most of the day with us commented on how much fun everyone was having and said there were so many fun things going on it was like a ten-ring circus.''

Then she goes on and talks about the volunteers and the great things they did. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will insert the entire text of the letter.

To: Laura G. Kolton, American Chemical Society

Our NCW event at Westshore Mall was a huge success. We had

our largest amount of volunteers ever with nearly a hundred

people helping out, including students from Grand Valley

State University, Grand Rapids Community College, Aquinas

College, some local high school and younger students with

parents. This was very fortunate because, due to advertising

in both the Grand Rapids Press and the Holland Sentinel, we

had the largest turn out with about 3000 people stopping by

between 10 am and 4 pm on Saturday October 18th.

We had 6 demos by area chemists and about 10 activity

tables where area chemists and college students engaged in

hands-on activities with kids of all ages. There was a

constant stream of rockets (made with vinegar / baking soda /

film containers) shooting off. Some even hit the ceiling.

Making slime is always one of the kids favorite activities.

We also had a poster drawing contest. We will be sending our

winning posters in to the National ACS competition.

We gave away about 1300 balloons to kids. I heard one young

boy walking into the mall with his dad say ``Look Dad, a

party,'' and I thought it was great to have kids think of

science as a party. Even the Holland Sentinel reporter who

spent most of the day

with us commented on how much fund everyone was having, and

said there were so many fun things going on it was like a 10

ring circus.

We had two sixth grade volunteers (Debra Gorden and Shannon

Vandenberg) from Blandford school (which is a Grand Rapids

Public school for 6th grade students who have excelled in

elementary school.) These girls worked a booth giving away

tattoos, stickers, magnifying glasses and ChemMatters

Magazine, with the help of two chemistry students from GRCC

(Grand Rapids Community College). They loved working with the

college guys and were smiling all day. The college students

were very nice and inspired the young girls into an interest

in college and disproved the stereotype of the geeky chemist.

Through this National Chemistry Week thousands of children will learn about the earth's atmosphere and the solar system through hands-on events and demonstrations.

I commend the American Chemical Society for stimulating our children's interest in the chemical sciences so that they will not only be interested, but will consider careers in these fields and potentially discover the innovations of the future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution recognizing the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week.

Today, I am pleased that we are considering this resolution recognizing the importance of chemistry to our everyday lives. This resolution supports the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week. It recognizes the important contributions of chemical scientists and engineers to technological progress and the health of many industries. In addition, it encourages the people of the United States to observe National Chemistry Week, which, this year, is October 19-25.

The chemical sciences provide an enabling infrastructure that delivers the foods, fuels, medicine, and materials that are part of our everyday lives. The contributions of chemical scientists and engineers are central to the technological progress and the health of many industries.

I commend the American Chemical Society for establishing National Chemistry Week in 1987. During National Chemistry Week, volunteers from across the United States will teach children about air, the atmosphere and the solar system. The theme in 2003, ``Earth's Atmosphere and Beyond,'' was chosen to honor the 100th anniversary of Orville and Wilbur Wright's flight from Kitty Hawk, NC. It is important to stimulate children's interest in the chemical sciences so that they will consider careers in these fields and potentially discover the innovations of the future.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution recognizing the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 279) recognizing the significance of the anniversary of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program, and reaffirming the commitment to support the use of science in governmental decisionmaking through such Program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 279, the concurrent resolution now under consideration.

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

Today I am pleased that we are considering this resolution recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program coordinated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, better known as AAAS.

This resolution has bipartisan support from 26 cosponsors. It recognizes a truly valuable educational program that gives scientists a wonderful opportunity to step out of the lab and into the political process. By working as legislative assistants in congressional offices, they get a behind-the-scenes look at how our laws are made, writing speeches, developing legislation, and serving as liaisons to committees on which a Member serves. At the same time Members of Congress and other policy makers gain a valuable new resource to help them better understand the scientific and technical issues underpinning complex policy debates.

Six different fellows have served on my staff and each one has used their unique talents and understanding to help shape my legislative agenda. One in particular contributed greatly to this Nation at the time I was rewriting the Nation's science policy at the request of Speaker Gingrich and Chairman Sensenbrenner. Sharon Hayes played a key role in the preparation of that report, which has been widely used and quoted throughout the scientific community.

After 30 years, this program is still going strong. Over 800 scientists have now served Republican, Democratic, and Independent Members of Congress

and many are currently working for Congress and the administration. These individuals have contributed not only their scientific expertise, but also a fresh perspective to policy making. I urge my colleagues to recognize the success of this program by supporting this resolution to honor the AAAS Congressional Fellowship Program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time. I will reserve the balance of my time.

MS. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for his comments and his co-sponsorship on this resolution. I also thank him for his sponsorship on the previous resolution on National Chemistry Week. He and I, as most people know, are the only two physicists in the Congress and I am told are the only two that have ever served in this Congress. That, I think, is an indictment of the scientific community because we should have more scientists in the Congress, but most scientists tend to shy away from this particular type of activity. But the Fellows that we are honoring here have filled the gap, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) has so clearly outlined. They provide some very badly needed scientific advice.

I recognized the need for this some years ago before there was a fellowship program, and I contacted my Congressman and I worked with him over several years informally advising him on science. His name happened to be Gerald R. Ford. And I was very pleased when he became President and he continued to use some of the advice that I had given him.

The OTA came along and that relieved some of the need for scientific advice; but as we know, the OTA is no longer with us. And so the Fellows are extremely important in maintaining the scientific competence of the Congress, both House and Senate. Many of

the Fellows have returned to their laboratories where they serve as a good liaison between the scientific communities and the Congress. Many others have chosen to stay here; and I have one sitting immediately behind me, Ms. Amy Caroll, who served as science Fellow and now serves as my designee on the Committee on Science, particularly the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards.

In my office I have a scientist Ellen Burns, who is currently my employee, but previously served as a science Fellow; and you will find many former science Fellows in the halls of Congress, in the administration, playing a very vital role in keeping this Nation's governing bodies current in science. So this has been a very valuable enterprise.

I was pleased to be involved in Fellows programs from the very start. I served on one of the first interviewing boards. We have come a long way since then because at that time scientists did not even know what it meant to become involved politically. Now we have a good network, thanks to the AAAS and the sponsoring societies; and it has been very, very beneficial to our Nation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge that this resolution be adopted, and I thank all of those who have supported it and cosponsored it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for their work on the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act. I also thank the committee staff for working to address my concerns surrounding the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need program, better known as the GAANN program.

I also commend the Secretary of Education for identifying as the current areas of national need biology, chemistry, computer and information sciences, engineering, geological and related sciences, and math and physics.

There is good reason for him to do so: It is estimated that more than half of the economic growth of the United States today results directly from research and development in science and technology. The effectiveness of the United States in promoting economic growth will be largely determined by the intellectual capital of the United States. Education is critical in developing this resource.

Currently, a shortage exists of scientists, engineers and other technology-proficient workers. It is hard to believe that when we have an economy, as we have right now, with massive unemployment, but there are an estimated 200,000 open positions for scientists, engineers, and technology professionals. This is in addition to approximately 200,000 H-1B visa recipients who are currently in the United States filling other technical positions.

Unfortunately, the United States enrollment in both undergraduate and graduate mathematics, science and engineering majors is lower than enrollment in most other majors, and enrollment has been on the decline over the past decade. Especially worrisome is the fact that enrollments in undergraduate engineering which is training for a key specialty that we need in our manufacturing work, has declined steadily for 20 years. Graduate enrollment in engineering, however, has increased. How can that be? The difference is students from other countries coming in to do graduate work in our country because we are not producing enough students at the undergraduate level to fill the available graduate spaces. That is not good for the long-term health of our economy and our country.

This declining enrollment affects the education of our prospective elementary and secondary mathematics and science teachers as well. Teachers provide the essential connection between students and the content they are learning. Student performance on the recent Third International Mathematics and Science Study highlights the shortcomings of current K-12 science and mathematics education in the United States, particularly when compared to other countries. We must expect more from our Nation's educators and students if we are to build on the accomplishments of previous generations.

New methods of teaching mathematics and science are required, as well as better curricula and improved training of teachers. Just to illustrate that, the TIMSS study I mentioned showed that we are near the bottom of all developed nations in the accomplishments of our high school students in science in general. We are even lower in the performance of our students in mathematics, and we are dead last out of all developed nations in the performance of our high school physics students. Clearly, we need improvements if we are going to continue discoveries and the growth of our economic engine.

To achieved improved training of teachers, this legislation establishes a priority for grants under the GAANN program in order to prepare individuals for the professoriate who are committed to training highly-qualified elementary and secondary school teachers of mathematics and science. I encourage the secretary to provide priority to departments that engage in such activities, and encourage the secretary to regard departments of mathematics and science, as well as departments of engineering, as departments that may provide such activities. Already, departments of engineering have demonstrated a focus on preparing highly-qualified elementary and secondary mathematics and science teachers. We must have those teachers in the K- 12 system. If we do not, we are not going to solve the problem, and we will continue to be short on trained technical personnel, we will continue to suffer in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I want to register my support for the bill that is currently before us, H.R. 3077. It is something that is badly needed. I am very pleased to see it come out of committee, and I hope it will soon pass the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Barry Beringer, chief counsel for the House Committee on Science, who passed away 3 weeks ago.

Barry served the Science Committee for 14 years, under three different Chairmen. He had an immense store of knowledge about the history and jurisdiction of the Committee. He was an invaluable asset in guiding bills through the legislative process, which at times can be cumbersome and confusing. I was always confident that Barry's thoughtful, careful work on parliamentary procedures would result in high-quality legislation and proper procedures.

Prior to joining the Science Committee, Mr. Beringer served as associate undersecretary for economic affairs in the U.S. Department of Commerce. He was a graduate of Dickinson College and active in the Arlington County Republican Committee. I will always remember Barry for his high ethical standards, and his kind way of always putting others' needs before his own. Mr. Beringer was a consummate gentleman, always polite and considerate, and had a wry, but always funny, sense of humor.

I extend my heartfelt condolences to Barry's wife, Bonnie, and their children Francis and

Katie. He will be missed by all of us who were privileged to work with him.