[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10610-H10622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4271) to establish and expand programs relating to 
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education, and for 
other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4271

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Science Education 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) As concluded in the report of the Committee on Science 
     of the House of Representatives, ``Unlocking Our Future 
     Toward a New National Science Policy'', which was adopted by 
     the House of Representatives, the United States must maintain 
     and improve its preeminent position in science and technology 
     in order to advance human understanding of the universe and 
     all it contains, and to improve the lives, health, and 
     freedoms of all people.
       (2) 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 most 
     fundamental research is responsible for investigating our 
     perceived universe, to extend our observations to the outer 
     limits of what our minds and methods can achieve,

[[Page H10611]]

     and to seek answers to questions that have never been asked 
     before. Applied research continues the process by applying 
     the answers from basic science to the problems faced by 
     individuals, organizations, and governments in the everyday 
     activities that make our lives more livable. The scientific-
     technological sector of our economy, which has driven our 
     recent economic boom and led the United States to the longest 
     period of prosperity in history, is fueled by the work and 
     discoveries of the scientific community.
       (3) The effectiveness of the United States in maintaining 
     this economic growth will be largely determined by the 
     intellectual capital of the United States. Education is 
     critical to developing this resource.
       (4) The education program of the United States needs to 
     provide for 3 different kinds of intellectual capital. First, 
     it needs scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to 
     continue the research and development that are central to the 
     economic growth of the United States. Second, it needs 
     technologically proficient workers who are comfortable and 
     capable dealing with the demands of a science-based, high-
     technology workplace. Last, it needs scientifically literate 
     voters and consumers to make intelligent decisions about 
     public policy.
       (5) 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 science, mathematics, 
     engineering, and technology are required, as well as better 
     curricula and improved training of teachers.
       (6) Science is more than a collection of facts, theories, 
     and results. It is a process of inquiry built upon 
     observations and data that leads to a way of knowing and 
     explaining in logically derived concepts and theories. 
     Mathematics is more than procedures to be memorized. It is a 
     field that requires reasoning, understanding, and making 
     connections in order to solve problems. Engineering is more 
     than just designing and building. It is the process of making 
     compromises to optimize design and assessing risks so that 
     designs and products best solve a given problem. Technology 
     is more than using computer applications, the Internet, and 
     programming. Technology is the innovation, change, or 
     modification of the natural environment, based on scientific, 
     mathematical, and engineering principles.
       (7) Students should learn science primarily by doing 
     science. Science education ought to reflect the scientific 
     process and be object-oriented, experiment-centered, and 
     concept-based. Students should learn mathematics with 
     understanding that numeric systems have intrinsic properties 
     that can represent objects and systems in real life, and can 
     be applied in solving problems. Engineering education should 
     reflect the realities of real world design, and should 
     involve hands-on projects and require students to make trade-
     offs based upon evidence. Students should learn technology as 
     both a tool to solve other problems and as a process by which 
     people adapt the natural world to suit their own purposes. 
     Computers represent a particularly useful form of technology, 
     enabling students and teachers to acquire data, model 
     systems, visualize phenomena, communicate and organize 
     information, and collaborate with others in powerful new 
     ways. A background in the basics of information technology is 
     essential for success in the modern workplace and the modern 
     world.
       (8) Children are naturally curious and inquisitive. To 
     successfully tap into these innate qualities, education in 
     science, mathematics, engineering, and technology must begin 
     at an early age and continue throughout the entire school 
     experience.
       (9) Teachers provide the essential connection between 
     students and the content they are learning. Prospective 
     teachers need to be identified and recruited by presenting to 
     them a career that is respected by their peers, is 
     financially and intellectually rewarding, contains sufficient 
     opportunities for advancement, and has continuing access to 
     professional development.
       (10) Teachers need to have incentives to remain in the 
     classroom and improve their practice, and training of 
     teachers is essential if the results are to be good. Teachers 
     need to be knowledgeable of their content area, of their 
     curriculum, of up-to-date research in teaching and learning, 
     and of techniques that can be used to connect that 
     information to their students in their classroom.

     SEC. 3. ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED LOCAL CONTROL.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any 
     department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States 
     to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the 
     curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or 
     personnel of any educational institution or school system.

     SEC. 4. MASTER TEACHER GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Director of the National 
     Science Foundation shall conduct a grant program to make 
     grants to a State or local educational agency, a private 
     elementary or middle school, or a consortium of any 
     combination of those entities, for the purpose of hiring a 
     master teacher described in subsection (b).
       (b) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this subsection, a State or local educational 
     agency, private elementary or middle school, or consortium 
     described in subsection (a) shall submit to the Director a 
     description of the relationship the master teacher will have 
     vis-a-vis other administrative and managerial staff and the 
     State and local educational agency, the ratio of master 
     teachers to other teachers, and the requirements for a master 
     teacher of the State or local educational agency or school, 
     including certification requirements and job responsibilities 
     of the master teacher. Job responsibilities must include a 
     discussion of any responsibility the master teacher will have 
     for--
       (1) development or implementation of science, mathematics, 
     engineering, or technology curricula;
       (2) in-classroom assistance;
       (3) authority over hands-on inquiry materials, equipment, 
     and supplies;
       (4) mentoring other teachers or fulfilling any leadership 
     role; and
       (5) professional development, including training other 
     master teachers or other teachers, or developing or 
     implementing professional development programs.
       (c) Assessment of Effectiveness.--The Director shall assess 
     the effectiveness of activities carried out under this 
     section.
       (d) Funds.--
       (1) Source.--Grants shall be made under this section out of 
     funds available for the National Science Foundation for 
     education and human resources activities.
       (2) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the National Science Foundation to carry out this section 
     $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

     SEC. 5. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       (a) General Authority.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Grant program.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall, subject to appropriations, carry out a 
     demonstration project under which the Director awards grants 
     in accordance with this section to eligible local educational 
     agencies.
       (B) Uses of funds.--A local educational agency that 
     receives a grant under this section may use such grant funds 
     to develop a program that builds or expands mathematics, 
     science, and information technology curricula, to purchase 
     equipment necessary to establish such program, and to provide 
     professional development in such fields.
       (2) Program requirements.--The program described in 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) provide professional development specifically in 
     information technology, mathematics, and science; and
       (B) provide students with specialized training in 
     mathematics, science, and information technology.
       (b) Eligible Local Educational Agencies.--For purposes of 
     this section, a local educational agency or consortium of 
     local educational agencies is eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section if the agency or consortium--
       (1) provides assurances that it has executed conditional 
     agreements with representatives of the private sector to 
     provide services and funds described in subsection (c); and
       (2) agrees to enter into an agreement with the Director to 
     comply with the requirements of this section.
       (c) Private Sector Participation.--The conditional 
     agreements referred to in subsection (b)(1) shall describe 
     participation by the private sector, including--
       (1) the donation of computer hardware and software;
       (2) the establishment of internship and mentoring 
     opportunities for students who participate in the information 
     technology program; and
       (3) the donation of higher education scholarship funds for 
     eligible students who have participated in the information 
     technology program.
       (d) Application.--
       (1) In general.--To apply for a grant under this section, 
     each eligible local educational agency or consortium of local 
     educational agencies shall submit an application to the 
     Director in accordance with guidelines established by the 
     Director pursuant to paragraph (2).
       (2) Guidelines.--
       (A) Requirements.--The guidelines referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall require, at a minimum, that the application 
     include--
       (i) a description of proposed activities consistent with 
     the uses of funds and program requirements under subsection 
     (a)(1)(B) and (a)(2);
       (ii) a description of the higher education scholarship 
     program, including criteria for selection, duration of 
     scholarship, number of scholarships to be awarded each year, 
     and funding levels for scholarships; and
       (iii) evidence of private sector participation and 
     financial support to establish an internship, mentoring, and 
     scholarship program.
       (B) Guideline publication.--The Director shall issue and 
     publish such guidelines not later than 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Selection.--The Director shall select a local 
     educational agency to receive an award under this section in 
     accordance with subsection (e) and on the basis of merit to 
     be determined after conducting a comprehensive review.
       (e) Priority.--The Director shall give special priority in 
     awarding grants under this

[[Page H10612]]

     section to eligible local educational agencies that--
       (1) demonstrate the greatest ability to obtain commitments 
     from representatives of the private sector to provide 
     services and funds described under subsection (c); and
       (2) demonstrate the greatest economic need.
       (f) Assessment.--The Director shall assess the 
     effectiveness of activities carried out under this section.
       (g) Study and Report.--The Director--
       (1) shall initiate an evaluative study of eligible students 
     selected for scholarships pursuant to this section in order 
     to measure the effectiveness of the demonstration program; 
     and
       (2) shall report the findings of the study to Congress not 
     later than 4 years after the award of the first scholarship. 
     Such report shall include the number of students graduating 
     from an institution of higher education with a major in 
     mathematics, science, or information technology and the 
     number of students who find employment in such fields.
       (h) Definition.--Except as otherwise provided, for purposes 
     of this section, the term ``eligible student'' means a 
     student enrolled in the 12th grade who--
       (1) has participated in an information technology program 
     established pursuant to this section;
       (2) has demonstrated a commitment to pursue a career in 
     information technology, mathematics, science, or engineering; 
     and
       (3) has attained high academic standing and maintains a 
     grade point average of not less than 3.0 on a 4.0 scale for 
     the last two years of secondary school (11th and 12th 
     grades).
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to 
     carry out this section, $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2003.
       (j) Maximum Grant Award.--An award made to an eligible 
     local educational agency under this section may not exceed 
     $300,000.

     SEC. 6. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON REQUIRED COURSE OF 
                   STUDY FOR CAREERS IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, 
                   ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall, jointly with the Secretary of Education, 
     compile and disseminate information (including through 
     outreach, school counselor education, and visiting speakers) 
     regarding--
       (1) typical standard prerequisites for middle school and 
     high school students who seek to enter a course of study at 
     an institution of higher education in science, mathematics, 
     engineering, or technology education for purposes of teaching 
     in an elementary or secondary school; and
       (2) the licensing requirements in each State for science, 
     mathematics, engineering, or technology elementary or 
     secondary school teachers.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to 
     carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2003.

     SEC. 7. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT STUDY EVALUATION.

       (a) Study Required.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall enter into an agreement with the National 
     Academies of Sciences and Engineering under which the 
     Academies shall review existing studies on the effectiveness 
     of technology in the classroom on learning and student 
     performance, using various measures of learning and teaching 
     outcome including standardized tests of student achievement, 
     and explore the feasibility of one or more methodological 
     frameworks to be used in evaluations of technologies that 
     have different purposes and are used by schools and school 
     systems with diverse educational goals. The study evaluation 
     shall include, to the extent available, information on the 
     type of technology used in each classroom, the reason that 
     such technology works, and the teacher training that is 
     conducted in conjunction with the technology.
       (b) Deadline for Completion.--The study evaluation required 
     by subsection (a) shall be completed not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Definition of Technology.--In this section, the term 
     ``technology'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     3113(11) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6813(11)).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for the 
     purpose of conducting the study evaluation required by 
     subsection (a), $600,000.

     SEC. 8. TEACHER TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall establish a grant program under which grants 
     may be made to a State or local educational agency, a private 
     elementary or middle school, or a consortium consisting of 
     any combination of those entities for instruction of teachers 
     for grades kindergarten through the 12th grade on the use of 
     information technology in the classroom. Grants awarded under 
     this section shall be used for training teachers to use--
       (1) classroom technology, including hardware, software, 
     communications technologies, and laboratory equipment; or
       (2) specific technology for science, mathematics, 
     engineering or technology instruction, including data 
     acquisition, modeling, visualization, simulation, and 
     numerical analysis.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to 
     carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2003.

     SEC. 9. SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY 
                   BUSINESS EDUCATION CONFERENCE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of the National 
     Science Foundation shall convene the first of an annual 3- to 
     5-day conference for kindergarten through the 12th grade 
     science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education 
     stakeholders, including--
       (1) representatives from Federal, State, and local 
     governments, private industries, private businesses, and 
     professional organizations;
       (2) educators;
       (3) science, mathematics, engineering, and technology 
     educational resource providers;
       (4) students; and
       (5) any other stakeholders the Director determines would 
     provide useful participation in the conference.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the conference convened 
     under subsection (a) shall be to--
       (1) identify and gather information on existing science, 
     mathematics, engineering, and technology education programs 
     and resource providers, including information on 
     distribution, partners, cost assessment, and derivation;
       (2) determine the extent of any existing coordination 
     between providers of curricular activities, initiatives, and 
     units; and
       (3) identify the common goals and differences among the 
     participants at the conference.
       (c) Report and Publication.--At the conclusion of the 
     conference the Director of the National Science Foundation 
     shall--
       (1) transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on the outcome and 
     conclusions of the conference, including an inventory of 
     curricular activities, initiatives, and units, the content of 
     the conference, and strategies developed that will support 
     partnerships and leverage resources; and
       (2) ensure that a similar report is published and 
     distributed as widely as possible to stakeholders in science, 
     mathematics, engineering, and technology education.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to 
     carry out this section--
       (1) $300,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       (2) $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

     SEC. 10. GRANTS FOR DISTANCE LEARNING.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation may make competitive, merit-based awards to 
     develop partnerships for distance learning of science, 
     mathematics, engineering, and technology education to a State 
     or local educational agency or to a private elementary, 
     middle, or secondary school, under any grant program 
     administered by the Director using funds appropriated to the 
     National Science Foundation for activities in which distance 
     learning is integrated into the education process in grades 
     kindergarten through the 12th grade.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to 
     carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2003.

     SEC. 11. SCHOLARSHIPS TO PARTICIPATE IN CERTAIN RESEARCH 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--The President, acting through the National 
     Science Foundation, shall provide scholarships to teachers at 
     public and private schools in grades kindergarten through the 
     12th grade in order that such teachers may participate in 
     research programs conducted at private entities or Federal or 
     State government agencies. The purpose of such scholarships 
     shall be to provide teachers with an opportunity to expand 
     their knowledge of science, mathematics, engineering, 
     technology, and research techniques.
       (b) Requirements.--In order to be eligible to receive a 
     scholarship under this section, a teacher described in 
     subsection (a) shall be required to develop, in conjunction 
     with the private entity or government agency at which the 
     teacher will be participating in a research program, a 
     proposal to be submitted to the President describing the 
     types of research activities involved.
       (c) Period of Program.--Participation in a research program 
     in accordance with this section may be for a period of one 
     academic year or two sequential summers.
       (d) Use of Funds.--The Director may only use funds for 
     purposes of this section for salaries of scholarship 
     recipients, administrative expenses (including information 
     dissemination, direct mailing, advertising, and direct staff 
     costs for coordination and accounting services), expenses for 
     conducting an orientation program, relocation expenses, and 
     the expenses of conducting final selection interviews.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to 
     carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2003.

[[Page H10613]]

     SEC. 12. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION EXTENSION 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to improve the 
     utilization of educational technologies in elementary and 
     secondary education by creating an educational technology 
     extension service based at undergraduate institutions of 
     higher education.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Extension services such as the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership and the Agricultural Extension Service have 
     proven to be effective public/private partnerships to 
     integrate new technologies and to improve utilization of 
     existing technologies by small to medium sized manufacturers 
     and the United States agricultural community.
       (2) Undergraduate institutions of higher education working 
     with nonprofit organizations and State and Federal agencies 
     can tailor educational technology extension programs to meet 
     specific local and regional requirements.
       (3) Undergraduate institutions of higher education, often 
     with the assistance of the National Science Foundation, have 
     for the past 20 years been integrating educational 
     technologies into their curricula, and as such they can draw 
     upon their own experiences to advise elementary and secondary 
     school educators on ways to integrate a variety of 
     educational technologies into the educational process.
       (4) Many elementary and secondary school systems, 
     particularly in rural and traditionally underserved areas, 
     lack general information on the most effective methods to 
     integrate their existing technology infrastructure, as well 
     as new educational technology, into the educational process 
     and curriculum.
       (5) Most Federal and State educational technology programs 
     have focused on acquiring educational technologies with less 
     emphasis on the utilization of those technologies in the 
     classroom and the training and infrastructural requirements 
     needed to efficiently support those types of technologies. As 
     a result, in many instances, the full potential of 
     educational technology has not been realized.
       (6) Our global economy is increasingly reliant on a 
     workforce not only comfortable with technology, but also able 
     to integrate rapid technological changes into the production 
     process. As such, in order to remain competitive in a global 
     economy, it is imperative that we maintain a work-ready labor 
     force.
       (7) According to ``Teacher Quality: A Report on the 
     Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers'', 
     prepared by the Department of Education, only one in five 
     teachers felt they were well prepared to work in a modern 
     classroom.
       (8) The most common form of professional development for 
     teachers continues to be workshops that typically last no 
     more than one day and have little relevance to teachers' work 
     in the classroom.
       (9) A 1998 national survey completed by the Department of 
     Education found that only 19 percent of teachers had been 
     formally mentored by another teacher, and that 70 percent of 
     these teachers felt that this collaboration was very helpful 
     to their teaching.
       (c) Program Authorized.--
       (1) General authority.--The Director of the National 
     Science Foundation, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     Education and the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, is authorized to provide assistance 
     for the creation and support of regional centers for the 
     utilization of educational technologies (hereinafter in this 
     section referred to as ``ETU Centers'').
       (2) Functions of centers.--
       (A) Establishment.--ETU Centers may be established at any 
     institution of higher education, but such centers may include 
     the participation of nonprofit entities, organizations, or 
     groups thereof.
       (B) Objectives of centers.--The objective of the ETU 
     Centers is to enhance the utilization of educational 
     technologies in elementary and secondary education through--
       (i) advising elementary and secondary school 
     administrators, school boards, and teachers on the adoption 
     and utilization of new educational technologies and the 
     utility of local schools' existing educational technology 
     assets and infrastructure;
       (ii) participation of individuals from the private sector, 
     universities, State and local governments, and other Federal 
     agencies;
       (iii) active dissemination of technical and management 
     information about the use of educational technologies; and
       (iv) utilization, where appropriate, of the expertise and 
     capabilities that exist in Federal laboratories and Federal 
     agencies.
       (C) Activities of centers.--The activities of the ETU 
     Centers shall include the following:
       (i) The active transfer and dissemination of research 
     findings and ETU Center expertise to local school 
     authorities, including school administrators, school boards, 
     and teachers.
       (ii) The training of teachers in the integration of local 
     schools existing educational technology infrastructure into 
     their instructional design.
       (iii) The training and advising of teachers, 
     administrators, and school board members in the acquisition, 
     utilization, and support of educational technologies.
       (iv) Support services to teachers, administrators, and 
     school board members as agreed upon by ETU Center 
     representatives and local school authorities.
       (v) The advising of teachers, administrators, and school 
     board members on current skill set standards employed by 
     private industry.
       (3) Program administration.--
       (A) Proposed rules.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, after consultation with the Secretary of 
     Education and the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, shall publish in the Federal 
     Register, within 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this section, proposed rules for the program for establishing 
     ETU Centers, including--
       (i) a description of the program;
       (ii) the procedures to be followed by applicants;
       (iii) the criteria for determining qualified applicants; 
     and
       (iv) the criteria, including those listed in this section, 
     for choosing recipients of financial assistance under this 
     section from among qualified applicants.
       (B) Final rules.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall publish final rules for the program under 
     this section after the expiration of a 30-day comment period 
     on such proposed rules.
       (4) Eligibility and selection.--
       (A) Applications required.--Any undergraduate institution 
     of higher education, consortium of such institutions, 
     nonprofit organizations, or groups thereof may submit an 
     application for financial support under this section in 
     accordance with the procedures established under this 
     section. In order to receive assistance under this section, 
     an applicant shall provide adequate assurances that the 
     applicant will contribute 50 percent or more of the proposed 
     Center's capital and annual operating and maintenance costs.
       (B) Selection.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, in conjunction with the Secretary of Education 
     and the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, shall subject each application to competitive, 
     merit review. In making a decision whether to approve such 
     application and provide financial support under this section, 
     the Director of the National Science Foundation shall 
     consider at a minimum--
       (i) the merits of the application, particularly those 
     portions of the application regarding the adaption of 
     training and educational technologies to the needs of 
     particular regions;
       (ii) the quality of service to be provided;
       (iii) the geographical diversity and extent of service 
     area, with particular emphasis on rural and traditionally 
     underdeveloped areas; and
       (iv) the percentage of funding and amount of in-kind 
     commitment from other sources.
       (C) Evaluation.--Each ETU Center which receives financial 
     assistance under this section shall be evaluated during its 
     3d year of operation by an evaluation panel appointed by the 
     Director of the National Science Foundation. Each evaluation 
     panel shall measure the involved Center's performance against 
     the objectives specified in this section. Funding for an ETU 
     Center shall not be renewed unless the evaluation is 
     positive.

     SEC. 13. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Interagency Coordination Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Director of the Office of Science 
     and Technology Policy shall establish an interagency 
     committee to coordinate Federal programs in support of 
     science and mathematics education at the elementary and 
     secondary level.
       (2) Membership.--The membership of the committee shall 
     consist of the heads, or designees, of the National Science 
     Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of 
     Education, and other Federal departments and agencies that 
     have programs directed toward support of elementary and 
     secondary science and mathematics education.
       (3) Functions.--The committee shall--
       (A) prepare a catalog of Federal research, development, 
     demonstration and other programs designed to improve 
     elementary and secondary science or mathematics education, 
     including for each program a summary of its goals and the 
     kinds of activities supported, a summary of accomplishments 
     (including evidence of effectiveness in improving student 
     learning), the funding level, and, for grant programs, the 
     eligibility requirements and the selection process for 
     awards;
       (B) review the programs identified under subparagraph (A) 
     in order to--
       (i) determine the relative funding levels among support 
     for--

       (I) teacher professional development;
       (II) curricular materials;
       (III) improved classroom teaching practices;
       (IV) applications of computers and related information 
     technologies; and
       (V) other major categories of activities;

       (ii) assess whether the balance among kinds of activities 
     as determined under clause (i) is appropriate and whether 
     unnecessary duplication or overlap among programs exists;
       (iii) assess the degree to which the programs assist the 
     efforts of State and local school systems to implement 
     standards-based reform of science and mathematics education, 
     and group the programs in the categories of high, moderate, 
     and low relevance for assisting standards-based reform;

[[Page H10614]]

       (iv) for grant programs, identify ways to simplify the 
     application procedures and requirements and to achieve 
     greater conformity among the procedures and requirements of 
     the agencies; and
       (v) evaluate the adequacy of the assessment procedures used 
     by the departments and agencies to determine whether the 
     goals and objectives of programs are being achieved, and 
     identify the best practices identified from the evaluation 
     for assessment of program effectiveness; and
       (C) monitor the implementation of the plan developed under 
     subsection (c) and provide to the Director of the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy its findings and 
     recommendations for modifications to that plan.
       (b) External Review.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall enter into an agreement with the National 
     Research Council to conduct an independent review of programs 
     as described in subsection (a)(3)(B) and to develop findings 
     and recommendations. The findings and recommendations from 
     the National Research Council review of programs shall be 
     reported to the Director of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy and to the Congress.
       (c) Education Plan.--
       (1) Plan contents.--On the basis of the findings of the 
     review carried out in accordance with subsection (a)(3)(B) 
     and taking into consideration the findings and 
     recommendations of the National Research Council in 
     accordance with subsection (b), the Director of the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy shall prepare a plan for 
     Federal elementary and secondary science and mathematics 
     education programs which shall include--
       (A) a strategy to increase the effectiveness of Federal 
     programs to assist the efforts of State and local school 
     systems to implement standards-based reform of elementary and 
     secondary science and mathematics education;
       (B) a coordinated approach for identifying best practices 
     for the use of computers and related information technologies 
     in classroom instruction;
       (C) the recommended balance for Federal resource allocation 
     among the major types of activities supported, including 
     projected funding allocations for each major activity broken 
     out by department and agency;
       (D) identification of effective Federal programs that have 
     made measurable contributions to achieving standards-based 
     science and mathematics education reform;
       (E) recommendations to the departments and agencies for 
     actions needed to increase uniformity across the Federal 
     Government for application procedures and requirements for 
     grant awards for support of elementary and secondary science 
     and mathematics education; and
       (F) dissemination procedures for replicating results from 
     effective programs, particularly best practices for classroom 
     instruction.
       (2) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with 
     academic, State, industry, and other appropriate entities 
     engaged in efforts to reform science and mathematics 
     education as necessary and appropriate for preparing the plan 
     under paragraph (1).
       (d) Reports.--
       (1) Initial report.--The Director of the Office of Science 
     and Technology Policy shall submit to the Congress, not later 
     than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, a 
     report which--
       (A) includes the plan described in subsection (c)(1);
       (B) in accordance with subsection (c)(1)(C), describes, for 
     each department and agency represented on the committee 
     established under subsection (a)(1), appropriate levels of 
     Federal funding;
       (C) includes the catalog prepared under subsection 
     (a)(3)(A);
       (D) includes the findings from the review required under 
     subsection (a)(3)(B)(iii);
       (E) includes the findings and recommendations of the 
     National Research Council developed under subsection (b); and
       (F) describes the procedures used by each department and 
     agency represented on the committee to assess the 
     effectiveness of its education programs.
       (2) Annual updates.--The Director of the Office of Science 
     and Technology Policy shall submit to the Congress an annual 
     update, at the time of the President's annual budget request, 
     of the report submitted under paragraph (1), which shall 
     include, for each department and agency represented on the 
     committee, appropriate levels of Federal funding for the 
     fiscal year during which the report is submitted and the 
     levels proposed for the fiscal year with respect to which the 
     budget submission applies.

     SEC. 14. SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND ENGINEERING SCHOLARSHIP 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Director of the National 
     Science Foundation is authorized to establish a scholarship 
     program to assist graduates of baccalaureate degree programs 
     in science, mathematics or engineering, or individuals 
     pursuing degrees in those fields, to fulfill the academic 
     requirements necessary to become certified as elementary or 
     secondary school teachers.
       (b) Scholarship Amount and Duration.--Each scholarship 
     provided under subsection (a) shall be in the amount of 
     $5,000 and shall cover a period of 1 year.
       (c) Requirements.--
       (1) Eligibility.--Undergraduate students majoring in 
     science, mathematics, or engineering who are within one 
     academic year of completion of degree requirements, and 
     individuals who have received degrees in such fields, are 
     eligible to receive scholarships under the program 
     established by subsection (a).
       (2) Guidelines, procedures, and criteria.--The Director 
     shall establish and publish application and selection 
     guidelines, procedures, and criteria for the scholarship 
     program.
       (3) Requirements for applications.--Each application for a 
     scholarship shall include a plan specifying the course of 
     study that will allow the applicant to fulfill the academic 
     requirements for obtaining a teaching certificate during the 
     scholarship period.
       (4) Work requirement.--As a condition of acceptance of a 
     scholarship under this section, a recipient shall agree to 
     work as an elementary or secondary school teacher for a 
     minimum of two years following certification as such a 
     teacher or to repay the amount of the scholarship to the 
     National Science Foundation.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to 
     carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2001, 2002, and 2003.

     SEC. 15. GO GIRL GRANTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Getting Our Girls Ready for the 21st Century Act (Go Girl 
     Act)''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Women have historically been underrepresented in 
     mathematics, science, and technology occupations.
       (2) Female students take fewer high-level mathematics and 
     science courses in high school than male students.
       (3) Female students take far fewer advanced computer 
     classes and tend to take only the basic data entry and word 
     processing classes compared to courses that male students 
     take.
       (4) Female students earn fewer bachelors, masters, and 
     doctoral degrees in mathematics, science, and technology than 
     male students.
       (5) Early career exploration is key to choosing a career.
       (6) Teachers' attitudes, methods of teaching, and classroom 
     atmosphere affect females' interest in nontraditional fields.
       (7) Stereotypes about appropriate careers for females, a 
     lack of female role models, and a lack of basic career 
     information significantly deters girls' interest in 
     mathematics, science, and technology careers.
       (8) Females consistently rate themselves significantly 
     lower than males in computer ability.
       (9) By the year 2000, 65 percent of all jobs will require 
     technological skills.
       (10) Limited access is a hurdle faced by females seeking 
     jobs in mathematics, science, and technology.
       (11) Common recruitment and hiring practices make extensive 
     use of traditional networks that often overlook females.
       (c) Program Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation is authorized to provide grants to and enter into 
     contracts or cooperative agreements with local educational 
     agencies and institutions of higher education to encourage 
     the ongoing interest of girls in science, mathematics, and 
     technology and to prepare girls to pursue undergraduate and 
     graduate degrees and careers in science, mathematics, or 
     technology.
       (2) Application.--
       (A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local educational agency or institution of 
     higher education shall submit an application to the Director 
     at such time, in such form, and containing such information 
     as the Director may reasonably require.
       (B) Contents.--The application referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
       (i) A specific program description, including the content 
     of the program and the research and models used to design the 
     program.
       (ii) A description of how an eligible entity will provide 
     for collaboration between elementary and secondary school 
     programs to fulfill goals of the grant program.
       (iii) An explanation regarding the recruitment and 
     selection of participants.
       (iv) A description of the instructional and motivational 
     activities planned to be used.
       (v) An evaluation plan.
       (d) Uses of Funds for Elementary School Program.--Under 
     grants awarded pursuant to subsection (c), funds may be used 
     for the following:
       (1) Encouraging girls in grades 4 and higher to enjoy and 
     pursue studies in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (2) Acquainting girls in grades 4 and higher with careers 
     in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (3) Educating the parents of girls in grades 4 and higher 
     about the difficulties faced by girls to maintain an interest 
     and desire to achieve in science, mathematics, and technology 
     and enlisting the help of the parents in overcoming these 
     difficulties.
       (4) Tutoring in reading, science, mathematics, and 
     technology.
       (5) Mentoring relationships, both in-person and through the 
     Internet.
       (6) Paying the costs of attending events and academic 
     programs in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (7) After-school activities designed to encourage the 
     interest of girls in grades 4 and

[[Page H10615]]

     higher in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (8) Summer programs designed to encourage interest in and 
     develop skills in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (9) Purchasing software designed for girls, or designed to 
     encourage girls' interest in science, mathematics, and 
     technology.
       (10) Field trips to locations that educate and encourage 
     girls' interest in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (11) Field trips to locations that acquaint girls with 
     careers in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (12) Purchasing and disseminating information to parents of 
     girls in grades 4 and higher that will help parents to 
     encourage their daughters' interest in science, mathematics, 
     and technology.
       (e) Uses of Funds for Secondary School Program.--Under 
     grants awarded pursuant to subsection (c), funds may be used 
     for the following:
       (1) Encouraging girls in grades 9 and higher to major in 
     science, mathematics, and technology in a postsecondary 
     institution.
       (2) Providing academic advice and assistance in high school 
     course selection.
       (3) Encouraging girls in grades 9 and higher to plan for 
     careers in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (4) Educating the parents of girls in grades 9 and higher 
     about the difficulties faced by girls to maintain an interest 
     and desire to achieve in science, mathematics, and technology 
     and enlist the help of the parents in overcoming these 
     difficulties.
       (5) Tutoring in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (6) Mentoring relationships, both in-person and through the 
     Internet.
       (7) Paying the costs of attending events and academic 
     programs in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (8) Paying 50 percent of the cost of an internship in 
     science, mathematics, or technology.
       (9) After-school activities designed to encourage the 
     interest of girls in grades 9 and higher in science, 
     mathematics, and technology, including the cost of that 
     portion of a staff salary to supervise these activities.
       (10) Summer programs designed to encourage interest in and 
     develop skills in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (11) Purchasing software designed for girls, or designed to 
     encourage girls' interest in science, mathematics, and 
     technology.
       (12) Field trips to locations that educate and encourage 
     girls' interest in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (13) Field trips to locations that acquaint girls with 
     careers in science, mathematics, and technology.
       (14) Visits to institutions of higher education to acquaint 
     girls with college-level programs in science, mathematics, or 
     technology, and to meet with educators and female college 
     students who will encourage them to pursue degrees in 
     science, mathematics, and technology.
       (f) Definition.--In this section the term ``local 
     educational agency'' has the same meaning given such term in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801), except that in the case of Hawaii, 
     the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the term ``local educational agency'' shall be deemed 
     to mean the State educational agency.

     SEC. 16. GRANT FOR LEARNING COMMUNITY CONSORTIUM FOR 
                   ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN, MINORITIES, AND PERSONS 
                   WITH DISABILITIES IN SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND 
                   TECHNOLOGY.

       The Director of the National Science Foundation may, 
     through a competitive, merit-based process, provide to a 
     consortium composed of community colleges a grant in an 
     amount not more than $11,000,000 for the purpose of carrying 
     out a pilot project to provide support to encourage women, 
     minorities, and persons with disabilities to enter and 
     complete programs in science, engineering, and technology.

     SEC. 17. USE OF FUNDS FOR PROVIDING RELEASE TIME AND OTHER 
                   INCENTIVES.

       A recipient of a grant under section 4 or 8 may use funds 
     received through such grant for expenses related to leave 
     from work (consistent with State law and contractual 
     obligations), and other incentives, to permit and encourage 
     full-time teachers to participate in--
       (1) professional development activities relating to the use 
     of technology in education; and
       (2) the development, demonstration, and evaluation of 
     applications of technology in elementary and secondary 
     education.

     SEC. 18. SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Director of the National 
     Science Foundation may establish a program to improve the 
     undergraduate education and in-service professional 
     development of science and mathematics teachers in elementary 
     and secondary schools. Under the program, competitive awards 
     shall be made on the basis of merit to institutions of higher 
     education that offer baccalaureate degrees in education, 
     science and mathematics.
       (b) Purpose of Awards.--Awards made under subsection (a) 
     shall be for developing--
       (1) courses and curricular materials for--
       (A) the preparation of undergraduate students pursuing 
     education degrees who intend to serve in elementary or 
     secondary schools as science or mathematics teachers; or
       (B) the professional development of science and mathematics 
     teachers serving in elementary and secondary schools; and
       (2) educational materials and instructional techniques 
     incorporating innovative uses of information technology.
       (c) Requirements.--The Director shall establish and publish 
     application and selection guidelines, procedures, and 
     criteria for the program established by subsection (a). 
     Proposals for awards under the program shall involve 
     collaborations of education, mathematics, and science faculty 
     and include a plan for a continued collaboration beyond the 
     period of the award. In making awards under this section, the 
     Director shall consider--
       (1) the degree to which courses and materials proposed to 
     be developed in accordance with subsection (b) combine 
     content knowledge and pedagogical techniques that are 
     consistent with hands-on, inquiry-based teaching, are aligned 
     with established national science or mathematics standards, 
     and are based on validated education research findings; and
       (2) evidence of a strong commitment by the administrative 
     heads of the schools and departments, whose faculty are 
     involved in preparing a proposal to the program, to provide 
     appropriate rewards and incentives to encourage continued 
     faculty participation in the collaborative activity.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to 
     carry out this section $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2003.

     SEC. 19. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) The terms ``local educational agency'' and ``State 
     educational agency'' have the meanings given such terms in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (2) The term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
     meaning given that term by section 101 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 4271.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4271 is the product of a 2-year effort by the 
Committee to examine the disappointing state of K-12 math and science 
education in the United States.
  As we are all aware, too many American students are entering the 
workforce with an inadequate foundation in math and science. This bill 
is an effective start toward implementing math and science education so 
that we may break the cycle of low achievement in these important 
disciplines.
  H.R. 4271, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), 
vice chairman of the Committee on Science, addresses the problem by 
focusing on teachers. The bill would authorize several creative 
programs to provide teachers with the tools they need to excel in the 
classroom.
  For example, the bill provides for technology training specifically 
for teachers. Unfortunately, it is currently the case that many 
teachers lack sufficient training in the use of technology in the 
classroom. Additionally, these teachers often lose when administrators 
are forced to choose to dedicate funds between teacher training and 
hardware and software for students.
  The bill authorizes the program just for teachers so that they will 
have the opportunity to secure this training. In addition, the bill 
incorporates the input of many Members on both sides of the aisle.
  I am pleased that the House is considering the bill today that brings 
together so many positive ideas that will help America's students.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for all his 
hard work in producing a bill that deserves strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4271, the 
National Science Education Act. This is a bipartisan bill that 
incorporate ideas from

[[Page H10616]]

Members on both sides of the aisle. It has widespread support from 
science educators and support from the industry.
  H.R. 4271 is focused on a problem of great importance to the future 
of the Nation, that is, improvement of science, math, and technology 
education in elementary and secondary schools.
  The important role of science education to our future well-being is 
widely understood. An informed citizenry and a full pipeline of future 
scientists and engineers will depend on the quality of science and math 
education.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) for his efforts to move the bill forward for floor 
consideration today. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the vice chairman of the Committee, and the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking 
Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, for all of 
their hard work on conducting the series of committee hearings that 
have provided the basis for this bill and on development of this 
legislation.
  The programs established by H.R. 4271 will address serious 
deficiencies in preparation and professional development of K-12 
science and math teachers. The bill will provide new partnerships 
between schools and businesses to encourage greater student interest in 
science and in technology. And the bill will help to develop more 
effective curricular materials, including the exploration of ways to 
deploy education technologies more effectively.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the programs authorized by the National 
Science Foundation by H.R. 4271 will go a long way to improve K-12 
science education in all of our schools. There is no more important 
goal to ensure the Nation's future prosperity and well-being.
  I commend the measure to the House and urge its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the author of this bill.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a major national problem. We have a booming 
economy which arose out of developments in science and technology, and 
we are all enjoying the fruits of that economic boom. At the same time, 
we do not have the workforce to manage the boom and to keep it going.
  There are several evidences of that. Number one, compared to other 
developed countries, we are at the bottom or near to the bottom in 
terms of the mathematics and science education student achievements of 
our high school graduates.
  The second point: if my colleagues would visit the graduate schools 
of science and engineering in this Nation, they will find that over 
half of the graduate students are from other countries, because our 
students cannot compete with those students from other countries.
  Another factor is that every year the science and technology industry 
comes to us and says, will you please allow more immigrants into our 
Nation with the scientific and technological capability to fill the 
need that we have. And just 2 weeks ago we approved a bill to allow 
another 200,000 immigrants into this Nation to fill that need.
  We have 365,000 open scientific and technical jobs in the United 
States, and we do not have people qualified to fill those jobs.
  We must either allow those from other countries in, or employers will 
move the jobs offshore to take advantage of the people there.
  We have to address this problem. If we want to continue to enjoy the 
fruits of this economic boom, we have to produce students and adults 
who are educated in science and math. And I am not talking just about 
scientists and engineers. Today they need to know high school physics 
and algebra in order to get a job as a mechanic in a major auto service 
shop. And this applies to most jobs in society today. We must have 
better training in science and technology for our students.
  This bill is an attempt to do that. The need for this was 
demonstrated in the Science Policy Statement that I developed with the 
help of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 2 years ago 
and which was adopted by the Committee on Science and by the full 
House. We have conducted further hearings during the past 2 years to 
examine this educational need, consider solutions, and arrive at a bill 
that would actually meet and solve the problem.
  In addition to that, the Glenn Commission, which was appointed by the 
Secretary of Education, has been meeting for 2 years, and just a few 
weeks ago released its report. Its recommendations parallel almost 
exactly what we are trying to do in this bill and some companion bills 
that have been introduced.
  We must have a knowledgeable and well-prepared teacher in every 
classroom. That is the effort of this bill, to provide training for 
those teachers already in the classroom who have not received adequate 
math and science training in their college or university work, and bill 
will provide opportunities to educate them.
  Let me make it clear, I am not faulting the teachers for the problem. 
In every classroom I visited, and I have been in many in my lifetime, 
teachers are eager to teach math and science properly; but they have 
not been given the proper training or background, and they desperately 
want it. Through this bill, we have provided ways for them to have that 
training.

                              {time}  1415

  In addition, this bill provides for a master teacher program, under 
which grants would be given to schools. These schools could use those 
funds to hire teachers who would have, in addition to their teaching 
responsibilities which are assigned by the school, other 
responsibilities to deal with equipment maintenance, instruction of 
teachers, in-service training of teachers, maintenance of equipment, 
outlining curricula, perhaps developing curricula and acquainting the 
teachers with all of the ramifications of it.
  This master teacher program is a key part of the bill. It has been 
the most widely applauded portion of the bill.
  In addition to that, the bill contains a teacher scholarship program 
so that teachers will be able to go elsewhere and benefit from work 
experience or scientific research in laboratories, in businesses or in 
other ways. They are professionals, and they need the opportunity to 
follow their professional programs and ideals.
  We have also included some other bills that were introduced and 
referred to the Committee on Science. For example, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) had introduced an excellent bill, 
which provides a pilot program to encourage private sector 
contributions and involvement in information technology programs in the 
neediest high schools. It is an excellent bill, and I was pleased to 
incorporate that bill in this one.
  In addition, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) introduced a 
bill which authorizes an educational technology extension service based 
in intermediate school districts, which will allow the schools to 
benefit from the expertise of the centralized agencies and personnel.
  This bill was reported out of the Committee on Science with a 
unanimous vote and has received bipartisan support from the beginning. 
I am pleased that we have received support from members of the 
Committee on Science, from the members of the Committee on 
Appropriations, Committee on Education and the Workforce and from 
Members of leadership. There are currently 118 cosponsors for this 
bill. It has widespread support in this Congress. Eighteen of those 
cosponsors are from the committee on education; 36 from the Committee 
on Science.
  Teachers will be positively affected by this bill. Our Nation's 
teachers and students will be one step closer to receiving the support 
they so deserve with this effort.
  I want to close this by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for the tremendous support he has given me in the effort 
on this bill, and also the help the House leadership has provided. I 
urge the House to approve this bill.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)

[[Page H10617]]

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on 
H.R. 4271 and want to express my appreciation for the leadership to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hall) and the efforts of other committee members.
  After a comprehensive effort and a set of hearings of the Committee 
on Science organized by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), which 
examined all aspects of K-12 science and math education, we finally did 
come to an agreement on a comprehensive bill, a bill that incorporates 
a range of proposals from several Members on both sides of the aisle 
and addresses ways to improve teacher training, develops more effective 
educational materials and teaching practices to improve student 
learning and establishes programs to attract more women and minorities 
to careers in science and technology.
  I am concerned, however, about a provision that allows grants to 
private elementary and middle schools. I support the provisions of 
4271, but I have a concern about the constitutionality of this 
provision. I am simply disappointed that the majority party would allow 
an unconstitutional provision in section 4 of H.R. 4271 to authorize a 
grant program at the National Science Foundation for competitive awards 
to public and private elementary and middle schools to hire master 
science teachers.
  I fully realize that every school needs these teachers, but we simply 
cannot spend public dollars on private schools in elementary and 
secondary levels for these schools to hire master teachers. We know 
that in these private schools, they have smaller classes, they are 
easier students to teach; and so consequently we feel that the master 
teachers probably would gravitate to these private schools. Who would 
blame them?
  Despite the efforts to try to remove this provision, it is still 
here; and we need a clean bill because we need the provisions otherwise 
of this bill. This section and only this section is the cause of much 
of my concern to the once highly supported bill by both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, section 4 is clearly unconstitutional on the basis of a 
Supreme Court decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman. In that case, the Court 
disallowed a State program for providing salary supplements to teachers 
in private schools.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have today is simply an effort to get public 
dollars funneled into private schools. We simply must not do that in 
this body. The precedent set by this case is what we should follow 
today. The Court knew then, just as we know today, that implementation 
of a provision like this would serve to endanger this entire bill.
  As stated before, it was highly supported by both sides of the aisle. 
H.R. 4271 incorporated the Mathematics and Science Proficiency 
Partnership Act, a bill that I introduced last year. My legislation is 
a targeted measure. It seeks to bring schools with large populations of 
economically disadvantaged students together in partnership with 
businesses to improve science and math education and to recruit and 
support students in undergraduate education in science and technology 
fields.
  Before realizing the intentions of Section 4, I was also pleased that 
the bill included a provision I offered in Committee to establish a 
formal coordination and planning mechanism for federal K-12 science 
education programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the nation must take advantage of the human resource 
potential of all our citizens if we are to succeed in the international 
economic competition of the 21st century. Just as other members, I 
would like to see the good provisions of H.R. 4271 implemented, but I 
can not justify to the 30th district of Texas and to the American 
people support of such legislation that risks being struck down because 
of the unconstitutional provision. The American people can only benefit 
if we pass a bill that is constitutional and speaks to the welfare of 
all Americans. This can only be done without the inclusion of Section 
4. We need reform efforts in science and math education that will 
engage and cultivate the interest of all children, not efforts that 
will put the grant application to hire master science teachers at risk 
by providing funding to private schools--yielding unconstitutional 
results.
  Indeed, H.R. 4271 addresses many aspects of K-12 science and math 
education that plague our schools. At the same time, H.R. 4271 
unconstitutionally serves to deny public schools the opportunities to 
become technologically savvy in this increasingly technological world. 
Due to the unconstitutional section of this legislation, I urge my 
colleagues to correct this provision so that we can get the other 
provisions of the bill going. It is long overdue.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
engage the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) in a colloquy to be 
sure that we can correct this provision in this bill before it goes 
into final print. If this can happen, I wholeheartedly support this 
bill.
  Could the gentleman assure me that the language that provides grants 
to private schools that are publicly supported could be corrected 
before the final language of the bill?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, let me clarify this issue. First of all, 
this is typical language that we have incorporated in this bill. We are 
not breaking new ground. The National Science Foundation at present 
does give grants to private schools. Let me also clarify that private 
schools does not mean rich preparatory schools, as many people think, 
and does not necessarily mean religious schools. In my city in Grand 
Rapids, we have a private school that serves students in the inner 
city, and survives through my extensive fund-raising. It operates on a 
poverty shoestring. Most of its students are from minority groups. So 
private schools can include many different types.
  Be that as it may, note that the letter that has been circulated 
saying that this program may raise a constitutional question, is based 
on a 1971 Supreme Court decision which has been superseded by several 
other decisions, and I think this issue deserves considerable study 
before one could conclude that there is a constitutional problem.
  Secondly, if we read the bill carefully we note the grants provide 
for development or implementation of science, mathematics, engineering 
or technical curricula in classroom assistance; authority over hands-on 
inquiry materials, equipment and supplies; mentoring other teachers or 
fulfilling any leadership role and professional development, including 
training other master teachers or other teachers or developing or 
implementing professional development programs. Nowhere in here does it 
say that they will be teaching children.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) very much for his response. I guess the 
commitment that I want is that if it is determined to be 
unconstitutional, could the language be made so that if it is 
determined to be unconstitutional then we can remove this provision? 
Because we need the rest of this bill, and we need it rapidly. I have 
been pleading for this for over 2 years to move forward, but what I do 
not want to do is dilute public dollars further in supporting private 
schools when we so desperately need special areas, especially students 
in areas where it is difficult to attract master teachers, it is 
difficult to have smaller classes, it is even difficult to have the 
classes wired as they should be for today's education. I need that 
assurance.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the assertions that have 
been made that the section in question is unconstitutional. The 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) cites a 1971 U.S. 
Supreme Court case. There have been two more recent cases, Agostini v. 
Felton in 1997 and Mitchell v. Helms earlier this year that clarified 
the Lemon v. Kurtzman test. Basically, it said that a statute similar 
to what is being proposed here is constitutional if it does not result 
in religious indoctrination, it does not define its recipients by 
reference to religion and it does not create excessive entanglement 
between government and religion. In each of these three instances, the 
statute does not do so.
  There has been a Presidential award program that has been on the 
books since 1983 where each year the National Science Foundation 
recommends to the President 107 math teachers and 107 science teachers 
from around the country to receive an award which is a $7,500 grant to 
the school where the

[[Page H10618]]

teacher teaches. That is open to both public schools and private 
schools.
  I have a list of recent awardees, and I would like to read some of 
them to show that the President has directed money from the NSF to 
private schools. One of the awardees is Ms. Barbara Day Bass of St. 
Catherine's School in Richmond, Virginia. Another is sister Elizabeth 
C. Graham of Christ the King High School in Middle Village, New York; 
Sister Ellen Callaghan of Mount Carmel High School in Essex, Maryland; 
Ms. Claire Anne Baker of Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School of 
Indianapolis, Indiana; Ms. Carole Bennett of the Jesuit High School in 
Tampa, Florida; and even Mr. David Stuart Wood of the Sidwell Friends 
School of Washington, D.C., which I believe is attended by the son of 
Vice President Gore.
  Now, this program has been working very well on the executive level 
for 17 years, and no one has raised the question that these types of 
awards violate the establishment clause of the United States 
Constitution. As a matter of fact, during all of the hearings that the 
Committee on Science had on this bill and during the markup, no one 
raised the issue as well. It was only a couple of nights ago that 
somebody started calling around saying that this provision was 
unconstitutional.
  Well, first of all, the Congress does not make constitutional 
determinations. That can only be made by the Court and usually by the 
Supreme Court of the United States. I think that there is a sufficient 
question on the constitutionality that we should not pull this 
provision out of the bill, particularly because it would set such a 
precedent that the existing award program that had been going on by the 
NSF would be called into question as well. But also it is a standard 
rule of statutory construction that sections that are declared 
unconstitutional are severable if they can be severed from the rest of 
the bill. So I think that the concern of the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) is really unfounded.
  Constitutional and precedential questions aside, what we should be 
saying here is that it should not make any difference whether a teacher 
teaches at a public school or a private school in terms of the benefits 
of getting better math and science education in the classroom, because 
it is the students in those classrooms that are going to benefit from 
better teachers and more motivated teachers. I do not think we should 
leave the children who happen to go to private schools behind with 
these kinds of grants, just as the President has not left children who 
are taught by teachers in private schools behind in making the awards 
pursuant to the 1983 law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, good grief. Here we go again. Members from 
both sides of the aisle joined together to craft a good bipartisan 
bill, the National Science Education Act, a bill that addresses an 
important national need which is improving science education.

                              {time}  1430

  A bill that includes many innovative programs, such as my ``Go Girl'' 
initiative, which encourages girls to study and pursue careers in math, 
science, engineering and technology.
  The Democrats on the Committee on Science and the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce had to fight really hard to convince the 
Republicans on the Committee on Education and the Workforce to let ``Go 
Girl'' stay in the bill, and we prevailed, and the bill is better 
because of that.
  But H.R. 4271 still includes a poison pill, a poison pill that no 
Member who cares about public education in America wants to vote for. 
In section 4, H.R. 4271 will give Federal funds directly to private and 
religious schools to hire teachers. This appears to violate our 
Constitution, and it absolutely takes precious dollars away from public 
schools.
  It would be easy to change this provision. In fact, our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle were asked to do just that before the bill 
came before us today on the floor, but they have refused.
  So with regret for the students and the public schools that could 
benefit from the good programs in this bill, I cannot support H.R. 
4271, unless the section 4 language regarding private schools is 
corrected.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, did the gentlewoman vote for a bill 
as a Member of the Committee on Science?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, sir, I did.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman would further yield, did the 
gentlewoman propose an amendment during Committee on Science 
consideration to remove the section that she objects to now?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I did not, until it came to my attention more clearly. 
You know how fast we shoved that through the committee, because each of 
us that had things, like my ``Go Girl'' bill, and I was very, very 
seriously concentrating on that.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman would yield for one further 
question, does the gentlewoman feel that President Clinton made a 
mistake in awarding the 7,500 grants in the PAEMST program to 
representatives and teachers of private schools that I mentioned?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to say 
that this gentlewoman supports public education. I am not against 
private schools, I have no problem with religious schools; but our 
public schools are underfunded, and to take anything away from the 
funding of public schools at this time is a huge, grave mistake. If we 
vote on this later today, on H.R. 4271, I urge my colleagues who care 
about public education in America to do the same and vote against this 
bill.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me time.
  I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers), for his work on this important issue, improving math and 
science education in this country. We know that our economic 
competitiveness as a Nation depends on our ability to compete in the 
area of education.
  Unfortunately, in Virginia there are tens of thousands of jobs going 
vacant because we cannot find the qualified workers in the area of 
technology. Businesses cannot therefore expand until they find the 
qualified workers, and localities trying to recruit businesses cannot 
recruit those businesses because of the shortage of technologically 
qualified workers.
  So, Mr. Speaker, while I think this bill goes in the right direction 
because it improves science, math and technological education in our 
schools, I, too, am concerned about section 4 in the bill involving 
master teachers. That section directs the National Science Foundation 
to give direct grants to entities, including private schools, to hire 
master teachers. This provision is not only constitutionally suspect, 
but also provides for a dangerous precedent for Federal education 
programs.
  Under current law, private schools can now participate in 
professional development activities and may participate in consortia or 
partnerships that receive Federal grants. But we have never given them 
direct grants to hire teachers. Direct grants are even more 
constitutionally suspect than vouchers, because this bill allows direct 
funding to private religious schools.
  Now, some of the voucher programs pretend to have the benefit going 
to the student, not to the school; but there is not that fiction in 
this bill. This money goes directly to private religious schools.
  It should be noted that private religious schools would be able to 
discriminate on the basis of religion when they hire teachers with 
Federal funds, and that is particularly absurd on a science bill, to 
think that a private school could fire a master teacher, hired with 
Federal funds, because that master teacher it was found believed in 
evolution, if teaching evolution is inconsistent with the teaching and 
tenets of the private religious school.

[[Page H10619]]

  Now, although we do not make the constitutional determinations as 
Members of Congress, I would remind our Members when we were sworn in, 
we did swear to uphold the Constitution.
  Even more of a concern is the precedence this provision sets for 
other Federal education programs. Should we give money to private 
schools to hire teachers to reduce their class size, to modernize their 
schools or to run after-school programs, when those initiatives are 
woefully underfunded in the public area?
  Mr. Speaker, public funds should benefit public schools, where more 
than 90 percent of our students go; and, therefore, I urge the defeat 
of this legislation.
  I would also in response to the constitutional arguments include for 
the Record a memorandum dated October 24, 2000, from the Congressional 
Research Service.

                                   Congressional Research Service,


                                          Library of Congress,

                                 Washington, DC, October 24, 2000.


                               memorandum

     To: House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
       Attention: Alex Nock
     From: David M. Ackerman, Legislative Attorney, American Law 
       Division
     Subject: Establishment Clause Issues Raised by Master Teacher 
       Grant Program in H.R. 4271
       This is in response to your request regarding the 
     constitutional implications of the ``Master Teacher Grant 
     Program'' that would be authorized by H.R. 4271. More 
     specifically, you asked for a brief analysis of the program's 
     implications under the establishment of religion clause of 
     the First Amendment. Time limitations prevent an exhaustive 
     analysis, but it is hoped the following may be helpful.
       H.R. 4271 would, inter alia, authorize $50 million for each 
     of the next three fiscal years for a master teacher program 
     conducted by the National Science Foundation. Under that 
     program the NSF could make grants to state or local 
     educational agencies, a private elementary or middle school, 
     or a consortium of any combination of those entities for the 
     purpose of hiring a master teacher whose responsibilities 
     could include (1) development or implementation of science, 
     math, engineering, or technology curricula; (2) providing in-
     classroom assistance; (3) managing materials, equipment, and 
     supplies; (4) mentoring other teachers; and (5) developing 
     and implementing professional development programs for 
     teachers, including other master teachers. Thus, a private 
     sectarian elementary or middle school could receive a grant 
     to hire a master teacher.
       The program may raise a constitutional question under the 
     establishment of religion clause. Several Supreme Court 
     decisions have addressed the constitutionality of public 
     subsidies of teachers in sectarian elementary and secondary 
     schools. Most pertinent, perhaps, is Lemon v. Kurtzman. In 
     that case the Court held unconstitutional, 7-1, two state 
     programs subsidizing teachers of secular subjects in 
     sectarian elementary and secondary schools. One program 
     provided a salary supplement of up to 15 percent of the 
     salary of teachers of secular subjects in private elementary 
     schools. The other program reimbursed private elementary and 
     secondary schools for the salaries of teachers of math, 
     modern foreign languages, physical science, and physical 
     education. The Court analyzed the programs' 
     constitutionality under what is now known as the Lemon 
     test:
       First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; 
     second, its principal or primary effect must be one that 
     neither advances nor inhibits religion . . .; finally, the 
     statute must not foster ``an excessive entanglement with 
     religion.''
       The Court found the programs to have legitimate secular 
     purposes but, without deciding the primary effect question, 
     held them to foster an ``excessive entanglement between 
     government and religion'' and thus to be unconstitutional 
     under the establishment clause. It stressed that the schools 
     that benefited from the subsidies had a ``significant 
     religious mission and that a substantial portion of their 
     activities is religiously oriented.'' The schools were all 
     located near parish churches, all displayed numerous 
     religious symbols, all were administered by religious 
     authorities, and two-thirds of the teachers were nuns of 
     various religious orders. As a consequence, the Court said, 
     there was a substantial risk that the subsidized teachers 
     would engage in religious indoctrination:
       We need not and do not assume that teachers in parochial 
     schools will be guilty of bad faith or any conscious design 
     to evade the limitations imposed by the statute and the First 
     Amendment. We simply recognize that a dedicated religious 
     person, teaching in a school affiliated with his or her faith 
     and operated to include its tenets, will inevitably 
     experience great difficulty in remaining religiously neutral. 
     . . . With the best of intentions such a teacher would find 
     it hard to make a total separation between secular teaching 
     and religious doctrine.
       Because of the ``potential for impermissible fostering of 
     religion,'' the Court held that the states would have to 
     engage in an intrusive monitoring of the teachers' 
     performance:
       The . . . Legislature has not, and could not, provide state 
     aid on the basis of a mere assumption that secular teachers 
     under religious discipline can avoid conflicts. The State 
     must be certain, given the Religion Clauses, that subsidized 
     teachers do not inculcate religion. . . . A comprehensive, 
     discriminating, and continuing state surveillance will 
     inevitably be required to ensure that [this] restriction [is] 
     obeyed and the First Amendment otherwise respected. . . . 
     These prophylactic contacts will involve excessive and 
     enduring entanglement between state and church.
       The Court saw an added danger in the program reimbursing 
     private sectarian schools for the salaries of teachers of 
     specified secular subjects:
       The Pennsylvania statute . . . has the further defect of 
     providing state financial aid directly to the church-related 
     school. . . . The history of government grants of a 
     continuing cash subsidy indicates that such programs have 
     almost always been accompanied by varying measures of control 
     and surveillance. The government cash grants before us now 
     provide no basis for predicting that comprehensive measures 
     of surveillance and control will not follow. In particular, 
     the government's post-audit power to inspect and evaluate a 
     church-related school's financial records and to determine 
     which expenditures are religious and which are secular 
     creates an intimate and continuing relationship between 
     church and state.
       Lemon concerned the public subsidy of sectarian school 
     teachers. In 1975 in Meek v. Pittenger the Court extended its 
     reasoning to a program in which public school teachers 
     provided ``auxiliary services'' to sectarian school students 
     on the premises of the sectarian schools they attended. The 
     Court again stressed the religion-pervasive nature of 
     sectarian elementary and secondary schools and found that 
     even public school teachers might engage in the fostering of 
     religion in such an atmosphere. It said:
       ``To be sure, auxiliary services personnel, because not 
     employed by the nonpublic schools, are not directly subject 
     to the discipline of a religious authority. But they are 
     performing important educational services in schools in which 
     education is an integral part of the dominant sectarian 
     mission and in which an atmosphere dedicated to the 
     advancement of religious belief is constantly maintained. The 
     potential for impermissible fostering of religion under these 
     circumstances, although somewhat reduced, is nonetheless 
     present. To be certain that auxiliary teachers remain 
     religiously neutral, as the Constitution demands, the State 
     would have to impose limitations on the activities of 
     auxiliary personnel and then engage in some form of 
     continuing surveillance to ensure that those restrictions 
     were being followed.
       Thus, by a margin of 6-3, the Court held the program to 
     violate the establishment clause.
       A decade later the Court reaffirmed these views. In Aguilar 
     v. Felton the Court held unconstitutional, 5-4, New York 
     City's implementation of Title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act. Under the program public school 
     teachers provided remedial and enrichment educational 
     services to eligible children in private elementary and 
     secondary schools on the premises of those schools. The City 
     had set up a system to monitor the teachers' performance to 
     ensure that they did not engage in religious teaching. But 
     the Court, again stressing the religion-pervasive nature of 
     the schools, found that the monitoring system itself to 
     create excessive entanglement between the City and the 
     religious schools:
       . . . [T]he supervisory system established by the City of 
     New York inevitably results in the excessive entanglement of 
     church and state. . . .
       In the related case of City of Grand Rapids v. Ball the 
     Court also struck down two teacher-subsidy programs operated 
     in Grand Rapids. In the Shared Time program public school 
     teachers provided remedial and enrichment instruction to 
     children in sectarian elementary schools on the premises of 
     those schools, while in the Community Education program 
     teachers who were otherwise employed by the parochial schools 
     were hired on a part-time basis to provide after-school 
     extracurricular courses to the students attending 
     those schools. The Court held both programs to satisfy the 
     secular purpose aspect of the Lemon test but to violate 
     its primary effect prong, but margins of 5-4 and 7-2, 
     respectively. The Court said the programs 
     ``impermissibly'' advanced religion in three ways:
       First, the teachers participating in the programs may 
     become involved in intentionally or inadvertently inculcating 
     particular religious tenets or beliefs. Second, the programs 
     may provide a crucial symbolic link between government and 
     religion, thereby enlisting--at least in the eyes of 
     impressionable youngsters--the powers of government to the 
     support of the religious denomination operating the school. 
     Third, the programs may have the effect of directly promoting 
     religion by impermissibly providing a subsidy to the primary 
     religious mission of the institutions attended.
       Thus, after Ball the Court viewed programs subsidizing 
     teachers of secular subjects on the premises of sectarian 
     schools to violate both the primary effect and excessive 
     entanglement prongs of the Lemon test.
       More recently, however, the Court has begun to retreat from 
     these rulings. In Agostini v. Felron in 1997 the Court 
     specifically rejected the conclusions and reasoning

[[Page H10620]]

     of Aguilar, Ball, and Meek with respect to programs in which 
     public school teachers provide remedial and enrichment 
     services to eligible children in sectarian elementary and 
     secondary schools on the premises of those schools. Agostini 
     again involved New York City's implementation on the Title I 
     program, but this time the Court held on-premises instruction 
     by public school personnel to be constitutional, 5-4. The 
     Court said the assumptions on which Aguilar, Ball, and Meek 
     were based had been ``undermined'' by its more recent church-
     state jurisprudence. Specifically, the Court said it had 
     ``abandoned the presumption . . . That the placement of 
     public employees on parochial school grounds inevitably 
     results in the impermissible effect of state-sponsored 
     indoctrination or constitutes a symbolic union between 
     government and religion.'' the Court further said it had 
     ``departed from the rule . . . That all government aid that 
     directly assists the educational function of religious 
     schools is invalid.'' Finally, the Court states that because 
     it no longer adhered to the view that ``property instructed 
     public employees will fail to discharge their duties 
     faithfully'' and be tempted to inculcate religion while on 
     parochial school grounds, it also ``discard[ed] the 
     assumption that pervasive monitoring of Title I teachers is 
     required. There is no suggestion in the record before us that 
     unannounced monthly visits of public supervisors are 
     insufficient to detect inculcation of religion by public 
     employees. Moreover, we have not found excessive entanglement 
     in cases in which States imposed far more onerous burdens on 
     religious institutions than the monitoring system at issue 
     here.''
       Most recently, the court further revised its jurisprudence 
     concerning public aid to sectarian elementary and secondary 
     schools, although the case did not involve teacher subsidies. 
     In Mitchell v. Helms the Court upheld, 6-3, a program 
     providing instructional materials and equipment to public 
     and private schools alike and in so doing overturned parts 
     of its prior opinions in Meek v. Pittenger, supra, and 
     Wolman v. Walter. The Court could agree on no majority 
     opinion. A plurality opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by 
     Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Kennedy, 
     stated that programs providing aid directly to sectarian 
     schools are constitutional so long as the aid is also made 
     available on a neutral basis to public schools and is 
     secular in nature. The opinion by Justice O'Connor, joined 
     by Justice Breyer, averred that the aid also had to be 
     limited to secular use by the schools after it was 
     received. But she eschewed the notion that an intrusive 
     monitoring system was constitutionally necessary to ensure 
     that such a restriction was honored. She stated:
       ``. . . Agostini and the cases on which it relied have 
     undermined the assumptions underlying Meek and Wolman. To be 
     sure, Agostini only addressed the specific presumption that 
     public-school employees teaching on the premises of religious 
     schools would inevitably inculcate religion. Nevertheless, I 
     believe that our definitive rejection of that presumption 
     also stood for--or at least strongly pointed to--the broader 
     proposition that such presumptions of religious 
     indoctrination are normally inappropriate when evaluating 
     neutral school-aid programs under the Establishment Clause. . 
     . . [T]he Court's willingness to assume that religious-school 
     instructors will inculcate religion has not caused us to 
     presume also that such instructors will be unable to follow 
     secular use restrictions on the use of textbooks. I would 
     similarly reject any such presumption regarding the use of 
     instructional materials and equipment.''
       But Justice O'Connor also took pains to re-emphasize her 
     position in Ball that ``the religious-school teacher who 
     works throughout the day to advance the school's religious 
     mission would also do so, at least to some extent, during the 
     supplemental classes provided at the end of the day.''
       Thus, it seems clear that the Court's church-state 
     jurisprudence is evolving. More specifically, the Court has 
     abandoned the assumptions that aid to sectarian schools 
     inevitably has a primary effect of advancing the schools' 
     religious mission and that public school teachers will 
     inevitably be tempted to inculcate religion when they offer 
     instructional services on the premises of such schools. But 
     it has not yet abandoned the presumption that was key to its 
     decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, that the teachers hired 
     by the sectarian schools themselves would inevitably engage 
     in such instruction and that a constitutionally entangling 
     surveillance of such teachers would be essential if they were 
     publicly subsidized. Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, in other 
     words, appears still to be good law. Moreover, it may also be 
     material to note that all of the Justices in their various 
     opinions in Mitchell v. Helms, supra, emphasized the 
     constitutional dangers that were inherent in direct grants of 
     money to sectarian schools. As a consequence, the Master 
     Teacher program that would be authorized by H.R. 4271 appears 
     to raise a constitutional question.
       I hope the foregoing is responsive to your request. If we 
     may be of additional assistance, please call on us.

  I would just read part of it. Lemon v. Kurtzman was mentioned. CRS 
suggests that that still appears to be good law. Moreover, it may be 
material to note that all of the justices in their various opinions in 
Mitchell v. Helms emphasized the constitutional dangers that were 
inherent in direct grants of money to sectarian schools. As a 
consequence, the master teacher program that would be authorized by 
H.R. 4271 appears to raise constitutional questions.
  I think they should be considered and that provision should be taken 
out of the bill, so other good portions could go forward.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this precedent has already been set, and I would 
like to read from the National Science Foundation fact sheet that 
outlines the awards that the President of the United States offers 
every year. It says, the presidential award for excellence in 
mathematics and science teaching is the Nation's highest commendation 
for K-12 math and science teachers. It recognizes the combination of 
sustained and exemplary work, both in and outside of the classroom. 
Each award includes a grant of $7,500 from the NSF to the recipient 
school. Winners use the money at their discretion to promote math and 
science education.
  Frequently asked questions: What are the PAEMST selection criteria?
  Answer: The program is open to practicing public, private and 
parochial school teachers with a minimum of 5 years experience.
  Then there is a press release attached to this that says President 
Clinton has recognized 214 mathematics and science teachers for their 
innovative and outstanding contributions to their professions under the 
presidential awards for excellence in mathematics and science teaching 
programs.
  Now, if the gentleman from Virginia's argument is valid, then all of 
the awards that President Clinton has passed out in the last 8 years to 
private and parochial school teachers, because they have done a good 
job in the classroom, never should have been paid and are 
unconstitutional.
  What is being proposed in this bill is patterned after what the 
President has done since 1983. The issue of the constitutionality is 
simple, and that is whether the funds are used to promote 
indoctrination of religion, in this bill they are not; whether there is 
a preference on religious instruction, in this bill they are not; and 
whether there is excessive entanglement between the government and 
religion, and in this bill there is not, just like in the PAEMST awards 
that have been given by the President of the United States.
  So I think that the argument that has been advanced at the 11th hour 
and 59th minute is really a red herring. We need to improve math and 
science education in our elementary and secondary schools. The best way 
to do that is to have really motivated teachers that turn the kids on. 
It should not make any difference whether those teachers teach in the 
public school or in a nonpublic school, because we should not leave the 
children in the nonpublic schools behind in order to get better math 
and science education.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that sailed through the committee 
with input from both sides. It is a good bill. It is a bill that is 
endangered now because some things have been detected in it, and it is 
not unlikely that could happen to any committee or any member of the 
committee.
  But we have a problem with it, and we would have worked it out. I 
think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson), and, of course, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) and others would have worked it out at the committee level. 
But that did not happen.
  I am very hopeful that in colloquy between the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers), they are both highly skilled in the art of compromise, maybe 
something can be worked out with this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is no question 
about any provision in this bill,

[[Page H10621]]

 except that provision that allows for the payment of teachers for 
private schools. There is a real difference between a $7,500 award and 
paying the full salary of a teacher for a private school. That remains 
a problem in this bill.
  Clearly, this bill needed to move. We have been holding it up for 
over 2 years, trying to hear everyone all over the country, many 
educators, and we know the urgency of the provisions of this bill. But 
we do not want to risk the outcome of this bill because of this 
provision.
  That is where my concern is, and that is what I would like. If the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) could assure us that this 
provision would not jeopardize this bill and it could be corrected 
before it is signed into law or vetoed or whatever, then I have no 
problem with the bill.
  We need the other provisions of this bill to be in law so that we can 
get the benefit as quickly as possible.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, there is a host of questions that have been 
raised here at the last minute, and a considerable surprise to me, 
because on this bill we have held hearings for over a year, and the 
bill has been out for almost 2 years.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Not on this provision, but the 
last one.
  Mr. EHLERS. Let me just try to respond. This provision is, first of 
all, a grant to the school, not to the teacher, so it is not even as 
far along as the list that the chairman gave a moment ago. It is a 
grant to the school and not to the teacher.
  Secondly, you have to recognize teachers move from one school to 
another. Just yesterday I spoke in a school, and there was a teacher in 
the public school who had previously taught in a religious school in my 
community. If you educate or train a teacher, are you going to say once 
we have trained them with Federal money, they cannot teach in a private 
school anymore, even if they were trained with Federal money while they 
were in the public school?

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, 
let me just say that we want the provisions of this bill to go forward. 
We do not want public dollars to flow to private schools when we have 
such need in public schools.
  I need that assurance. This bill is on suspension. I need to assure a 
number of people in this body that this will happen if this bill is to 
pass today.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, yes, I am one who wants the parents to make the decision 
as to what type of education their children have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill to get America's children the 
type of technologically adept teachers that they need to bring 
themselves into the 21st century. It should not be held up because we 
have had 2 years of study on this, direct hearings and having the bill 
open for amendment during the markup at the Committee on Science.
  At no point prior to 48 hours ago have the objections, such as those 
raised by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) been brought up.
  This bill has widespread support, and I would like to read off a list 
of the organizations that have supported it: the American Association 
for Engineering Education, the American Association of Engineering 
Societies, the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American 
Astronomical Society, the American Chemical Society, the American 
Physical Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 
Business Round Table, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 
International Society for Optical Engineering, International Technology 
Education Association, Jobs for the Future, National Academy Of 
Sciences, National Alliance of Business, National Council of Teachers 
of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, National Society 
of Professional Engineers, Optical Society of America, SAE 
International and Triangle Coalition for Mathematics and Science 
Education.
  Mr. Speaker, I would implore the House of Representatives to do the 
right thing, to give our kids the tools to advance into the 21st 
century and be able to compete in a globalized economy. Mr. Speaker, I 
urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H.R. 
4271, the National Science Education Act, of which he is a cosponsor.
  Through grants to public and private schools, the National Science 
Education Act provides math and science teachers with the assistance 
they need in professional development and support for the use of hands-
on science materials, and with development in technology use and 
integration. It also creates a national scholarship to reward teacher 
participation in science, math, engineering or technology research.
  In June of this year, this Member was visited by Mr. Robert Curtright 
and his wife from Lincoln, Nebraska. Mr. Curtright, a science teacher 
at Lincoln Northeast High School, was honored as one of the winners of 
the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science 
Teaching Program that is administered by the National Science 
Foundation. The award enables Mr. Curtright to serve as a role model 
for his peers in Nebraska and encourage high quality teachers to enter 
and remain in the education field. However, Mr. Curtright cannot do it 
alone. Nebraska is currently facing a great deal of difficulty in 
recruiting and retaining good quality teachers. This Member believes 
that through H.R. 4271, more teachers will benefit from the additional 
resources, enhanced professional development as well as professional 
mentors to recruit and maintain quality math and science teachers.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to support the 
National Science Education Act. Mr. Curtright deserves all of the help 
he can get in assisting others in his profession provide the best math 
and science education that children in Nebraska and throughout the 
country deserve.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4271, 
the National Science Education Act, an important bill that recognizes 
the need to educate for the future.
  I do have some concerns about one part of the bill that would permit 
allocation of federal funds to private schools. I would have preferred 
for that to have been omitted. However, the rest of the bill deserves 
enactment. So, I will support sending the bill to the Senate, in hopes 
that it will be further improved to the point that it can be supported 
without reservation by anyone.
  I'd like to talk specifically about the merits of one provision, 
added by an amendment that I offered, that is designed to encourage 
would-be science and math teachers. My amendment authorizes a program 
of one-year, $5000 scholarships to those with bachelors degrees in 
science or engineering, or those nearing completion of such degrees, to 
enable them to take the courses they need to become certified as K-12 
science or math teachers.
  Over the last year, the Science Committee held a series of hearings 
about the state of math and science education in this country. From 
these hearings and from talking to constituents, students, and 
educators at home, it has become crystal clear to me that we have much 
work to do to prepare our students to succeed in the 21st century 
workplace.
  In particular, we've been hearing that poor student performance in 
science and math has much to do with the fact that teachers often have 
little or no training in the disciplines they are teaching. While the 
importance of teacher expertise in determining student achievement is 
widely acknowledged, it is also the case that significant numbers of K-
12 students are being taught science and math by unqualified teachers.
  The bill includes a number of important provisions to assist 
teachers, and deserves to pass. Not only do we need to ensure a high 
quality of science and math education for our students, but we also 
need to ensure there is sufficient quantity of trained teachers 
available to teach them. My amendment provides an incentive for 
individuals with the content knowledge to try teaching as a career.
  Most students emerge from college with a heavy debt load--and studies 
have shown that average debt has tended upward, sine college tuition 
costs have been increasing faster than inflation. So scholarships would 
be particularly beneficial for those considering entering the teaching 
field where starting salaries are relatively low.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill takes some critical steps to help ensure that 
we can sustain our

[[Page H10622]]

current economic growth and that our future workforce will be prepared 
to succeed in our increasingly technologically based world.
  I urge support for this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4271, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________