[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 71 (Wednesday, June 7, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3445-H3449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS AND SUPPORT FOR GREATER OPPORTUNITIES FOR
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (GO-STEM) PROGRAMS
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 421) expressing the
sense of Congress and support for Greater Opportunities for Science,
Technology, Engineering,
[[Page H3446]]
and Mathematics (GO-STEM) programs, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 421
Whereas in October 2005, the Government Accountability
Office released a study on Federal science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs and concluded
that the Federal Government funds 207 education-related STEM
programs across 13 separate Federal agencies;
Whereas in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-171), the Congress established the Academic
Competitiveness Council in order to identify all Federal
education programs with a mathematics and science focus;
Whereas the Academic Competitiveness Council is chaired by
the Secretary of Education and brings together officials from
across the Federal Government;
Whereas the Academic Competitiveness Council is charged
with determining the effectiveness of each program and
identifying areas of overlap or duplication; and
Whereas the Academic Competitiveness Council has up to one
year after February 2006 to release its report and will
recommend ways to efficiently integrate and coordinate the
programs: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) mathematics and science education programs across
Federal agencies should be better coordinated;
(2) there should be minimal duplication among these
programs and consistent standards of evaluation;
(3) the Department of Education should be commended for its
rapid response in creating the Academic Competitiveness
Council; and
(4) the recommendations of the Academic Competitiveness
Council should be closely examined when making decisions
about Federal funding for mathematics and science education
programs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
General Leave
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on H. Con. Res. 421.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I initially want to start and thank the chairman and
staff of the Education and Workforce Committee, and Members on both
sides, cosponsors on both sides of the aisle here, for their support
and their assistance as we bring this important resolution forward.
A couple of quotes from the Hart-Rudman Commission report in 2001:
``The harsh fact is that the United States need for the highest quality
human capital in science, mathematics and engineering is not being met.
Another reason for the growing deficit in high-quality human capital is
that the American kindergarten through 12th grade education system is
not performing as well as it should.''
And then just a year and a half ago, the former Speaker of the House,
Newt Gingrich said, ``The biggest challenge for the United States
domestically is to fundamentally, profoundly overhaul math and science
education. This is a real crisis.''
Mr. Speaker, in order to sustain America's economic growth and
national security, United States must remain at the cutting edge of
innovation and ingenuity in such fields as science, technology,
engineering and mathematics, often referred to as STEM. And staying at
the cutting edge will only happen by putting the right workforce in
place for the 21st century.
Creating the 21st century workforce begins by answering the domestic
demand for occupations like scientists and engineers. In fact, the
demand for scientists and engineers is expected to increase at four
times the rate of all other occupations over the next decade.
Already the Federal Government makes a sizeable investment to promote
STEM-related occupations through education initiatives. But if the
Federal Government is going to continue to have such a role, it makes
sense to take a look at the current Federal programs, the total
investment of those programs and gauge the effectiveness of those
programs.
In October 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a
study on Federal STEM programs and concluded the Federal Government
funds 207 education programs across 13 separate Federal agencies. In
total, those programs cost $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2004. However,
only 51 of the 207 programs received $10 million or more, meaning that
most received not a substantial investment.
In the study, the GAO went on to conclude that before adopting any
changes, it is important to know the extent to which existing STEM
education programs are appropriately targeted and making the best use
of available Federal resources.
Based upon the recommendations of the GAO, Congress went on to
establish the Academic Competitiveness Council in order to identify all
Federal education programs with a math and science focus. The primary
duties of the council are to determine the effectiveness of each
program and identify areas of overlap or duplication.
Now, the rudimentary evidence points to a system that is fragmented
and in need of much better coordination. Congress is eagerly
anticipating the report of the Academic Competitiveness Council to see
how the larger facts bear out, and to that end the Department of
Education and other Federal agencies should be commended for their
rapid response in creating the council and their aggressiveness in
finding the truth.
But as Congress examines the investments made on math and science
education, the effort also must focus on duplication and standards of
evaluation. Federal resources are precious, and it is the
responsibility of Congress to ensure that money is not being thrown at
repetitive or duplicative efforts and that these programs can be
properly monitored for their effectiveness.
Instead of spreading money around on programs that span the Federal
Government and lack an overall coherent plan, Congress must direct the
money to the best possible use in a consistent manner. The
recommendations of the Academic Competitiveness Council should be
closely watched and bring semblance to math and science education
programs. This resolution would move us in that direction.
So I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. Now is the time to
affirm the importance of such an investment, but also to properly
evaluate the recommendations produced by the council. As America looks
to sustain its economic vitality and national security, investments in
the field of science, technology, engineering and math are too
important to leave fragmented and without proper guidance.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the
House, we rise in support of this legislation. We think that it is
important that we do get a handle on those programs that the Federal
Government currently supports in the fields of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics.
Late last year, the Democratic Caucus introduced an innovation
agenda, and that innovation agenda was designed to make sure that
America would retain its competitiveness and America would be able to
go forward into this century as a leader in math, science and
engineering and a leader in innovation, a place that America has held
for the last 50 years. We have held that position in the world because
of an investment that was made by President Kennedy to go to the Moon
and to return safely, and the infrastructure that was built up by that
decision. President Kennedy understood it was more than just a moon
shot. It was about building an infrastructure in math, science and
engineering for this country for the future. And that decision led to
the greatest public-private partnership in the history of the world and
created an infrastructure today that we continue to live off of and
that has driven this economy for that same period of time.
{time} 1330
The question is whether or not we need to renew that investment.
Clearly those people who are participating in this economy at the
highest levels, on the cutting edge, those who are creating new start-
ups, who have created some of the great companies of the
[[Page H3447]]
world in high technology, biotech and engineering, tell us that it is
absolutely imperative that America make this effort.
They have made it also clear to us that the foundation of this is the
American education system; that not only must we fully fund No Child
Left Behind, as the American Electronics Association called for, but we
have to make a new commitment to graduate studies, we have to make a
new commitment to the teachers of math, science and engineering at all
levels, and we have got to make a new commitment to research and
development.
So this resolution is quite timely, because it is important that we
understand not only why these programs are on the books, the purposes
for which they are created, but do they still work in today's
environment, should they be modified, should they be merged, should
they be given new purposes.
We know that the National Science Foundation outside of the
Department of Education has created some of the most effective programs
for young people to become excited about the physical sciences and the
life sciences and to understand the world around them, and have engaged
students in a way that they are unlikely to be engaged with the
traditional textbook approach to those sciences.
In my own State of California, we now see the University of
California initiating a new program where those students of math,
science and engineering will be able to concurrently achieve a teaching
credential, so not only will they be fully skilled in the core subject
matters of engineering and math and science, but they will also, if
they decide to go into the teaching field, be fully qualified to teach
those subject matters and create that excitement that we talk about so
much, so that young people will truly see the value and the excitement
of studying and entering careers that deeply involve math, science and
engineering.
If we fail to do this, if we fail to do more than this resolution, if
the national science programs continue to come under budget pressure,
then the problem will be that we can lose that leadership in fields of
innovation where America has been so terribly strong.
We now see strategic investments being made in the educational
facilities, in the research facilities, all along the Asian Rim, by
India, by China, by Indonesia, by Korea, in the field of
telecommunications and the field of technology and the field of
biosciences; and it is terribly important for our economy here at home,
for the jobs of the future and for our leadership in the world and a
matter of our national security, certainly, in the technology fields.
The only way we are going to be able to do that, according to those
people who are betting their companies, betting their shareholders'
money, betting borrowed money and the venture capitalists staking their
future on it, is to engage in a full and comprehensive program for
competitiveness and innovation.
In the Democratic proposal, the challenge that we have laid down to
this Congress, that challenge is to create a new generation of
innovators, and this legislation speaks to this because it speaks to
the education programs that will be available and the effectiveness of
those programs for math, science and engineering.
We also speak to that by making sure that there are graduate
fellowships, much as we did again in the effort to reach the Moon in
the Kennedy administration where 28,000 fellowships were given. Those
individuals finished their graduate studies early and became part of
that great foundation of American ingenuity and competitiveness.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I, too, want to support this resolution and
draw attention to the needs that we have in the areas of science,
engineering and math for the education establishments in this country.
We dramatically need to improve the number of highly qualified teachers
with core competencies in these fields; we dramatically need to
increase the number of young people who are excited by this; and we
dramatically need to increase the number of young people who want to
choose this as a career, as a profession, as a place of excitement and
innovation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member
for his support, and yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Education and the Workforce
Committee.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to recognize the
ever-increasing importance of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics programs, to which we have given the acronym STEM. As you
know, this is an issue on which the Education and the Workforce
Committee has provided considerable leadership over the last several
years, particularly during the No Child Left Behind era and through our
recent efforts to strengthen the Higher Education Act.
Right now, our committee is immersed in a series of hearings on the
current state and future prospects of our Nation's STEM programs. At
these hearings, we have heard from Secretary of Labor Chao and
Secretary of Education Spellings, who discussed the Bush
administration's view on the STEM programs. We have also heard from a
variety of other Federal officials, as well as educators and
businessmen and women from across the Nation.
A common theme throughout their testimony was this: In order to
determine where to go next with regard to Federal involvement in STEM
programs, it is best to gain a better understanding of where we already
are.
Congress has taken steps to determine just that. Last fall, the
Government Accountability Office issued a report that quantified the
many Federal programs established to increase the number of students
pursuing science, technology, engineering and math degrees. In fiscal
year 2004 alone, we spent about $2.8 billion on these programs, and the
GAO has recommended that before creating new Federal math and science
programs, we should know which existing programs are appropriately
targeted and making the best use of Federal resources.
Following that logic, earlier this year, as part of the Deficit
Reduction Act, Congress established an Academic Competitiveness Council
designed to identify and review the more than 200 programs within the
13 separate Federal agencies with a math or science focus. The council
will evaluate the effectiveness of the programs, determine areas of
duplication and recommend ways in which to integrate and coordinate
them. Its activities recently began in earnest, and a final report must
be submitted to Congress by February 2007.
Mr. Speaker, Congress, the Federal Government and our Nation's
academic and business communities must gain a better understanding of
what programs already exist to improve STEM education, how effective
these programs are and, most importantly of all, what we can do to
improve them.
Simply put, for our Nation to remain competitive in a rapidly
changing global marketplace, we must sharpen our focus in STEM
programs. I applaud our efforts to improve them, and I support this
resolution.
I thank my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Price, for bringing it to the
floor.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding me time. I also want to commend Representative Price for his
introduction of this legislation, and I am pleased to join with him,
Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Miller as we express support for H.
Con. Res. 421.
Supporting mathematics and science in education is crucial to
national prosperity. The United States workforce is dramatically
changing, and the demand for highly skilled jobs is increasing. In the
last 10 years, employment in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics, STEM fields, as we call them, have increased by an
estimated 23 percent, particularly in mathematics and in computer
science. This growth will only continue by 2020. Fifteen million new
jobs that require college-educated and highly skilled workers will be
created.
However, and unfortunately, we have seen a recent drop in students'
educational interest in STEM-related fields. In 2004, only 27 percent
of degrees awarded were in STEM fields, compared to 32 percent of
degrees in
[[Page H3448]]
1995. We need to ensure that our students are adequately prepared for
the changing economy, and supporting quality programs in STEM-related
fields is essential to reach this goal.
The goals of the Academic Competitiveness Council are to evaluate the
effectiveness of each STEM-related program across the government,
identify areas of overlap and recommend ways to efficiently integrate
and coordinate in the future.
It is important that the Academic Competitiveness Council and this
Congress continue to focus on a high-quality investment in STEM
training. Further, it is important that we work to increase the
participation of minority groups and women, who are seriously
underrepresented in STEM fields. Inclusion of women and
underrepresented minorities in STEM will help correct the historical
employment inequities that have existed in our country and help supply
the American economy with the STEM expertise that the country needs to
innovate and remain competitive.
Just last month, we heard from the administration that the creation
and operation of the Academic Competitiveness Council is under way and
that they are working to make concrete recommendations. Congress has a
responsibility to thoughtfully consider these recommendations,
accepting those that are reasonable and rejecting recommendations that
could undermine or undercut progress.
It is incumbent upon us to ensure that the needs met by current
activities continue to be addressed, and even strengthened where
needed. We must not eliminate critical and crucially needed activities
solely in the name of consolidation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further
requests for time on this legislation. Again, I want to thank Mr. Price
and Mr. McKeon for bringing this bill to the floor, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to once again reiterate my thanks to the ranking
member and to Mr. Davis for their support and for the support of all
the cosponsors on both sides of the aisle who understand and appreciate
the importance of this resolution. I am so pleased to stand with both
Republicans and Democrats who appreciate that Federal resources are
precious, but also that they are finite. It is our responsibility,
Congress' responsibility, to provide the oversight and to be certain
that hard-earned taxpayer money is wisely spent.
This resolution is truly a win-win. It allows Congress to be certain
that the money is being spent effectively, and it reiterates our
appreciation and support for increasing the interests in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics education.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following correspondence.
Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2006.
Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Boehlert: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the consideration of H. Con. Res. 421, expressing
support for Greater Opportunities for Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics programs. I appreciate your
efforts to improve the text of the resolution. When the bill
is considered on the floor, the changes you have suggested
will be included in a manager's amendment.
I also appreciate your agreement to not request a
sequential referral and your willingness to forgo
consideration of H. Con. Res. 421 by your committee. I agree
that waiving consideration of H. Con. Res. 421 in no way
diminishes or alters the jurisdictional interest of the
Committee on Science. I will include your letter and this
response in the Congressional Record during the bill's
consideration on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2006.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters
being considered in H. Con. Res. 421, a concurrent resolution
expressing the sense of Congress and support for Greater
Opportunities for Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (GO-STEM) programs. This measure deals with
matters in the jurisdiction of the Science Committee,
including the education programs of the National Science
Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Department of Energy.
I appreciate your willingness to work with me to satisfy my
concerns about the language in H. Con. Res. 421 by modifying
language in the measure so that we are not prejudging any
recommendations of the Academic Competitiveness Council. The
Science Committee acknowledges the importance of H. Con. Res.
421 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.
Therefore, pursuant to our agreement to modify the language
of the measure, I agree not to request a sequential referral.
This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding
that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forgo a
sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the
jurisdiction of the Science Committee. I would appreciate it
if you would include a copy of this letter and your response
in the Congressional Record when the measure is considered on
the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment positively on H. Con. Res.
421, but also to express some concerns about it. I commend
Representative Tom Price for his interest in supporting Greater
Opportunities for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math--
collectively, STEM--programs and I thank him for including a change in
the manager's amendment. STEM education is extremely important to our
Nation, because our economic and national security rely on technical
and innovative expertise in these fields. However, I am concerned that
this resolution, despite the change in the manager's amendment, still
gives premature support to the Academic Competitiveness Council's--
ACC--recommendations, which are not due until February 2007.
The impetus for the ACC sprang from a 2005 Government Accountability
Office study on Federal STEM programs. It is my understanding that
Federal agencies with STEM programs have a seat at the ACC table.
However, I am concerned that not all agencies have an equal
appreciation or understanding of the importance of STEM education in
improving our national competitiveness and security.
The National Science Foundation--NSF--has a proven track record of
expertise and experience in STEM programs. We all know that NSF grants
have led to truly revolutionary discoveries and technical advances.
NSF-funded researchers have won more than 160 Nobel Prizes, and these
pioneers have included the scientists or teams that discovered many of
the fundamental particles of matter and decoded the genetics of
viruses. But many do not know that another essential element in NSF's
mission is support for science and engineering education, from pre-K
through graduate school and beyond. The research that the NSF funds is
thoroughly integrated with education to help ensure that there will
always be plenty of skilled people available to work in new and
emerging scientific, engineering and technological fields, and plenty
of capable teachers to educate the next generation. Since the NSF has
been a leader in STEM education for more than 50 years and has
established excellent evaluations for all of its programs, the ACC
should give very strong recognition to the role NSF and its education
programs play in promoting our economic competitiveness and national
security, and they should build upon the strengths of the NSF. The
treasure trove of knowledge the foundation represents should not be
overlooked, but, in fact, should be used as a base for the ACC
recommendations.
Specifically, I am concerned that the GO-STEM resolution calls for
``minimal duplication among [STEM] programs'' without defining what
this means and also goes further than the established goals for the ACC
that are set out in the Deficit Reduction Act. For years, I have been
promoting the Math and Science Partnership programs at the Department
of Education--ED--and the National Science
[[Page H3449]]
Foundation. Unfortunately, because both agency's programs have the same
name, some have mistakenly thought of these programs as equivalent,
even though they are in name only, and duplicative, even though they
most definitely are not. I am working on legislation to change the name
of the NSF program to help avoid future confusion. Among other
differences, the NSF program is designed to provide rigorous,
scientifically based research on what works in STEM teacher
professional development whereas ED's program is designed to implement
these ideas on the State level. A wide array of teachers, scientists
and education researchers agree that there is much research needed in
the areas addressed by the NSF Math and Science Partnership program,
yet the President's budget has called for eliminating new research in
the NSF program.
Since there has been significant confusion about different STEM
programs, I am pleased that the ACC will focus on coordination and
strengthening the Federal STEM endeavor. There is a plethora of STEM
education programs across many different Federal agencies. The goal of
the GO-STEM resolution--to better coordinate Federal STEM education
efforts--is needed and is very admirable. However, I do not want to put
the cart before the horse, and prefer that Congress carefully consider
whatever recommendations the ACC puts forth before adopting them.
Additionally, the GO-STEM resolution calls for ``consistent standards
of evaluation.'' While this is a laudable goal, apples cannot be
compared to oranges. In particular, I am concerned that new programs
could receive failing grades since they have not had time to
demonstrate results. Will the new SMART grants, a tremendous tool for
bolstering the STEM education pipeline, receive a ``results not
demonstrated'' designation as other new programs do in PART reviews?
Furthermore, we should expect very different outcomes from programs
that focus on student learning compared to programs that focus on
graduate-level research in the physical sciences. The tools used to
define ``effective'' are extremely critical. I am uncertain what
evaluative methodology the ACC will adopt to define ``effective,'' and,
therefore, am very reluctant to give premature support to the ACC's
recommendations.
I urge that Members pay very close attention to the ACC's
recommendations. But please, think critically about the evaluative
methodology the ACC uses in developing its recommendations, and
recognize and build upon the existing expertise of agencies such as the
National Science Foundation. Also, think very hard about how our
actions will affect our economic competitiveness and national security
before considering eliminating any StEM-related programs.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res.
421, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as
amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________