[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 105 (Monday, June 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9023-S9024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           SCIENCE EDUCATION

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes here 
this morning to oppose cuts for science education that were made June 
20, in the House Appropriations Committee, related to the Energy 
Department. Congress is engaged in an important process to reduce the 
Federal budget and I support that process. I recognize very difficult 
choices will have to be made. But I want to be sure, to the extent I 
can, that the process remains thoughtful and maintains our national 
commitment to improvement in education and our national investment in 
education, at the same time that we proceed toward a balanced budget. 
Cuts being proposed for science education in the Department of Energy 
appropriation do not meet that test of thoughtfulness and support for 
investment in education.
  In 1989, President Bush met with the 50 Governors throughout this 
country in an education summit in Charlottesville, VA. That was a 
historic occasion because for the first time the Governors and the 
President met together to discuss that important issue of how to 
improve education in the country.
  In 1990, they published goals for this country, and one of those 
goals, which I believe was an extremely important goal for us to commit 
ourselves to, was the goal of making this country first in the world in 
math and science education by the year 2000. This is the backdrop 
against which we need to judge what we are doing in this appropriations 
process here in the Congress in these weeks.
  I am told that the House appropriations bill, that I referred to 
before, significantly reduces the $160 million for science education 
embedded in various parts of the Department of Energy, and it 
eliminates altogether the funding for two line items which are focused 
entirely on education. Those two line items are:
  First, the University and Science Education Program in the Department 
of Energy Office of Science Education and Technical Information. The 
House appropriations mark for this program has reduced the funding from 
the proposed $55 million, which the President asked for in his budget, 
to absolutely zero.
  The second of these two line items is the Department of Energy 
Technology Transfer and Education Program for Department of Energy 
Office of Defense Programs. The House mark for this program was reduced 
from $249 million in fiscal year 1996--that was the proposed level--to 
$15 million, including a cut to zero funding for the $20 million line 
item earmarked for science education at our three national weapons 
laboratories.
  Obviously, Mr. President, this is of concern to me because this 
directly affects two of those national laboratories in my home State of 
New Mexico, Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories.
  First, let me describe the impact of the elimination of the Science 
Education and Technical Information Program. This cut eliminates the 
central coordinating and evaluation mechanism for all of the Department 
of Energy education activities, which is the Office of Science 
Education and Technical Information. In eliminating this office, 
Congress would eliminate the administrative infrastructure for other 
Department of Energy science education offices' programs, the only 
Department of Energy office in which education is not just an ancillary 
function.
  In addition, this cut would eliminate the laboratory cooperative 
science centers, which leverage the much larger investment in science 
and technology expertise residing in the Department of Energy 
Laboratory System. These centers connect thousands of students and 
teachers each year in high schools, colleges, and graduate programs 
with scientists at our Department of Energy laboratories. The centers 
provide training and mentoring, and hands-on laboratory experiences 
both at the laboratories themselves and at local public schools and 
universities. They provide internships, faculty research opportunities, 
and professional development enhancements and lab-school partnerships. 
They also help support the Department of Energy's scientists' 
participation in a variety of State and local systemic education reform 
activities, such as the National Science Foundation's State systemic 
reform initiatives.
  These cuts will weaken the pipeline of well-trained scientists 
supported by the 73 percent of programs funds that go to universities 
to train future engineers, technicians, and scientists for current and 
future work force needs. They will eliminate Department of Energy work 
to support and strengthen the caliber of science and math education at 
the secondary and at the college levels, and the 1996 priorities for 
work force development, systemic education reform, science literacy, 
evaluation, and dissemination.
  Mr. President, the Department of Energy education cuts will have a 
particularly damaging effect for those who benefit from the education 
activities of Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National 
Laboratory in my home State of New Mexico.
  First, they will suffer education cuts as part of the centers that I 
just described. Second, they will also suffer the loss of their part of 
the additional $20 million for education programs concentrated at 
Sandia, Los Alamos, and at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, 
the Nation's three weapons laboratories.

[[Page S9024]]

  For Sandia National Laboratory, this would eliminate education 
outreach funding which in 1995 was $6 million from the Office of 
Defense Programs, $2.3 million from the Office of Science Education, 
and almost $2 million from other internal funds to reach a total of 
over $10 million.
  This will mean the loss of K through 12 student enrichment programs, 
K through 12 teacher professional development programs, college and 
university programs, and programs for educational technology.
  For Los Alamos National Laboratory, it would eliminate educational 
outreach funding again for the 1995 fiscal year, which amounted to $6.3 
million from the Office of Defense Programs, $1.3 million from the 
Office of Science Education, $600,000 from other parts of the Office of 
Energy Research, for a total of about $8 million.
  This would mean the loss of nationally recognized model science and 
math programs relied upon by the States that they serve for high-
quality professional development for our teachers.
  Together, these cuts in the two programs will hurt science education 
in the country, and it will especially hurt science education in my 
home State of New Mexico. They will weaken the infrastructure support 
for science education and work force preparation. These are the kinds 
of priorities that we need to protect. We need to reassert our 
commitment to reaching the education goals that were established by 
President Bush and the Governors in 1989. We should not undermine those 
goals by making these kinds of shortsighted cuts.
  Mr. President, as we work to reach deficit reduction and to reach a 
balanced budget, we need to make our priorities clear. One of our 
priorities needs to be retaining funding for science and math 
education. I hope that when the Senate passes its appropriations bill, 
it will see to it that the funds for these programs are retained, and 
that we can prevail in conference with the House.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________