[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3797-H3799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 362, 10,000 TEACHERS, 10 MILLION 
                 MINDS SCIENCE AND MATH SCHOLARSHIP ACT

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 327 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 327

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 362) to authorize science scholarships for 
     educating mathematics and science teachers, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Science and Technology. After general debate the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science and Technology now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 
     of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 362 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 327 provides for consideration of H.R. 362, 
the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act, 
under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Science and Technology. The rule waives all points of 
order against the bill, except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of 
rule XXI. The rule also makes in order and provides appropriate waivers 
for consideration of two amendments that

[[Page H3798]]

were submitted for consideration. A third amendment was submitted, but 
was withdrawn by its sponsors. All three amendments that were submitted 
to the Rules Committee were offered by Democratic Members.
  H.R. 362 is a bipartisan bill aimed at improving K-12 science, 
technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, education through 
recruitment, training, mentoring and professional development of 
teachers.
  The major provisions of H.R. 362 are in response to recommendations 
laid out by the National Academy of Sciences in their recent report on 
American competitiveness. That report, ``Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm,'' identified K-12 science and math education as the highest 
priority policy recommendations. This legislation intends to implement 
those important recommendations. The report concluded a comprehensive 
and coordinated Federal effort is urgently needed to bolster U.S. 
competitiveness and preeminence in these areas.
  This report, initiated, as you know, by Congress, makes four 
recommendations along with 20 implementation actions that Federal 
policymakers should take to create high-quality jobs and focus new 
science and technology efforts on meeting the Nation's needs. Those 
include, one, increasing America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 
mathematics and science education; two, sustaining and strengthening 
the Nation's commitment to long-term basic research; three, develop, 
recruit and retain top students, scientists and engineers, both from 
the U.S. and abroad; and, four, ensure that the United States is the 
premier place in the world for innovation.
  According to that report, in 1999, 68 percent of U.S. eighth graders 
received math instruction from a teacher with no, repeat, no math 
certification or degree. Also, according to that report, in the year 
2000, 92 percent of the fifth through ninth graders, our kids, were 
taught physical science by a teacher with no science degree or 
certification. In 2004, the United States high school students ranked 
24th, 24th, out of 29 countries in math proficiency, according to the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, obviously a 
situation that is not tolerable.
  This bill makes important strides towards achieving the goals laid 
out by the National Academy of Sciences report. H.R. 362 will authorize 
$1.5 billion to be appropriated for new and existing programs within 
the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy that 
support the training and professional development of elementary and 
secondary school teachers in the fields of science, technology, 
engineering and mathematics. H.R. 362 addresses the academy's highest 
priority recommendations to invest in elementary and secondary 
education.
  In summary, H.R. 362 creates programs at colleges and universities to 
improve the training of science, technology, engineering and math 
teachers; increases the size and duration of scholarships provided for 
those fields for people who become teachers; authorizes teacher 
training for advanced math and science courses; establishes a National 
Science Foundation grant program to support teachers institutes, 
including summer institutes for working math and science teachers; 
establishes master's degree programs for working math and science 
teachers through the NSF; and creates centers for improving 
undergraduate education in science, technology, engineering, and math.
  The bill also authorizes scholarships for students majoring in these 
STEM fields who commit to teaching in our K-12 science and math 
programs.
  The legislation has very broad support among our Nation's leading 
education and research institutions and broad bipartisan support in 
this body.
  H.R. 362 will improve teacher preparation by providing our Nation's 
teachers with the necessary professional development, and it should 
improve our students' achievement by strengthening our math and science 
curriculum.
  The reason for this legislation is clear: by 2010, one in four new 
jobs will be technically oriented, or will involve computers. Women 
still lag far behind in earning computer technology degrees and working 
in computer technology related professions, a situation we hope to 
change.
  Constituents from my home State of Vermont have expressed their 
belief that this legislation provides the forward-thinking policy our 
Nation's education system requires.
  H.R. 362 will provide a particular benefit to rural regions because 
of the number of rural school districts that currently don't have the 
resources to get these jobs done. High school lab courses not only 
reinforce what is going on in lecture, but obviously capture the 
attention and engagement of our students. These are useful tools for 
our students to acquire, no matter what career path they choose to 
follow.
  An additional 10,000 math and science teachers across the United 
States will help ensure that our Nation can capture the imagination of 
our young people and give them the tools they need to succeed in the 
careers of science, engineering, technology, and math. The bill also 
supports the purchase of laboratory equipment, absolutely essential to 
achieving these goals, that will upgrade facilities in the development 
of programs that integrate laboratory experience with classroom 
instruction.

                              {time}  1330

  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 362 to invest in 
America's competitiveness. That is essentially what this bill is about. 
This bill will have a great impact on our teacher preparation, will 
strengthen and expand the science, technology, engineering and math 
workforce, and attract more of our best and brightest students into 
these fields.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules 
Committee met and granted a structured rule for consideration of the 
bill 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship 
Act. Only two amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee and both 
were offered by the underlying bill's lead sponsor and the chairman of 
the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. Gordon.
  Madam Speaker, I am disappointed the Democrat majority rejected, on a 
party-line vote, an open rule for consideration of this measure, thus 
denying Members of the House of Representatives the opportunity to come 
to the floor and offer his or her amendments to this bill. And I 
frankly view this as another opportunity of the promises made by the 
new majority that were wasted with this bill.
  However, the underlying bill mirrors the Science and Mathematics 
Education for Competitiveness Act, which was approved by the House 
Science Committee unanimously in the last Congress. The underlying 
legislation aims to increase K-12 science, technology, engineering and 
mathematics or ``STEM'' teachers annually by 10,000. Specifically, the 
bill authorizes competitive awards through the National Science 
Foundation to institutions of higher education to improve the training 
of STEM teachers and provide scholarships to students in STEM fields 
who commit to teaching after graduation.
  I applaud the Science and Technology Committee for working in a 
bipartisan manner to help address the need for America to be more 
globally competitive in math, science, technology and engineering 
fields by focusing on increasing the number of quality math and science 
teachers in our Nation's classrooms. Our students and educators 
certainly stand to benefit from this bipartisan bill which I support.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from 
Washington.
  Just in response to comments on the rule, the Rules Committee 
believes that this is a judicious rule. All of the amendments that were 
presented to the Rules Committee were made in order. This is 
essentially from our point of view an open rule, subject to a filing 
requirement. The filing requirement obviously gives Members as well

[[Page H3799]]

as the Rules Committee an opportunity to review what is being proposed. 
The rule was adopted by a voice vote.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman stated that in his mind 
this is an open rule. An open rule historically in this body has been 
where the committee of jurisdiction marks up the bill, takes it to the 
committee, and then the Rules Committee, with no restrictions, allows 
Members that are not on that committee to come down if they wish and 
submit their thoughts or improvements to the bill.
  The bill we are about to vote on is a structured rule. Only two 
amendments were offered. Actually three, and one was withdrawn. Two 
amendments were made in order. Those amendments were sponsored by the 
chairman of the committee that has primary jurisdiction on this and the 
sponsor of the bill, to which it has strong bipartisan support because, 
as I mentioned in my remarks, this mirrors a bill passed out of the 
Science Committee last year.
  This bill very easily could have been amended in the committee by the 
chairman, because he is the one who wanted to have the amendments, and 
it could have been on the Suspension Calendar. It would have passed 
with strong bipartisan support.
  So with due respect to my friend from Vermont, this is not an open 
rule. This is a structured rule where Members are denied the 
opportunity if they wish to come to the floor of the House and offer 
amendments or improvements to this bill.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I would inquire of the gentleman, were any 
rules offered by Members on the Republican side that were rejected?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will simply say that a requirement of 
an open rule is not necessarily to have amendments submitted to the 
Rules Committee. The committee of jurisdiction is the one that marks it 
up and they take a lot of give-and-take within the committee. That is 
how we break this down, we break this whole cumbersome process down so 
committees can work in specific ways.
  It is after that process, when it goes to the floor, that Members 
should have an opportunity to submit whatever they wish. And there is 
no requirement, never has there been a requirement on something like 
that where they have to go to the Rules Committee and essentially ask 
permission to offer an amendment on the floor.
  So with this rule, contrary to the promises your party made going 
into the election, this is a closed process. Only two amendments are 
made in order. So Members are denied an opportunity to offer their 
thoughts on the floor.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, every amendment that was offered 
was allowed. There was one amendment that was offered and withdrawn. 
That is the reason it is not being offered. There was no denial of any 
proposed amendment by anybody in this body, Republican or Democrat. The 
only requirement under the rule is that if somebody had an amendment to 
propose, they had to do it in a timely way.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me thank our 
leaders on the committee. This is a very important bill. It is most 
especially for me, because for the last 15 years that I have been here, 
I have been preaching about this. So I rise in strong support of H.R. 
362 for 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship 
Act.
  The Committee on Science and Technology has worked to produce 
legislation to act upon the recommendations of the ``Rising Above the 
Gathering Storm'' report which was published by the National Academy of 
Sciences. This bill addresses the issues that they recommended to 
improve the quality and number of math and science teachers across the 
Nation.
  Of particular interest to me is the Noyce teacher scholarship 
program. This program provides grants to universities to give 
scholarships to math, science and engineering students who become math 
and science teachers. Original law stated that for every 1 year the 
scholarship was awarded, new teachers must spend 2 years teaching in a 
high-needs school. This high-needs school requirement was softened by 
H.R. 362, but I am pleased that the chairman agreed to modify the bill 
in conference to restore incentives for teachers to serve in high-need 
schools. We are losing so many students because they are are from poor 
communities.
  The new design will provide more money per scholarship for students 
who agree to teach in underserved classrooms. This incentive will 
hopefully entice passionate and high-quality Noyce scholars to share 
their talents with students most in need.
  I want to commend the chairman's sensitivity to the great disparities 
that exist in availability of highly qualified math and science 
teachers in schools across the country. As a matter of fact, in my 
district we have the number one high school in the country in this 
area, but not without a great deal of effort.
  The subcommittee chair, where I was ranking member for about 6 years, 
Mr. Baird, and ranking member, Mr. Gingrey, of the Research and Science 
Education Subcommittee have been great advocates for lessening the 
achievement gap as well.
  H.R. 362 also contains a laboratory science partnership pilot program 
that I have worked on with Mr. Hinojosa from Texas, and he has been a 
strong advocate because many of these schools don't have equipment. 
Overall, this legislation is designed to strengthen our Nation's 
scientific competitiveness by producing thousands of talented and well-
educated math and science teachers. That is the only way we are going 
to remain competitive in this country. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of H.R. 362.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, we have had a discussion 
on the structure of this rule, and I just want to ask this question of 
my friend from Vermont, and I will be more than happy to yield to him.
  This bill will be debated on the floor later on this afternoon. Is it 
possible under this rule for any Member, Democratic or Republican 
Member, to come down and offer an amendment on this bill?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. No.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you for your honest response on 
that.
  Madam Speaker, I make the point that this, therefore, is not an open 
rule as was presented by my friend in his remarks. This is a structured 
rule, and what has happened is very simply that Members not on the 
committee are not given the opportunity to try to improve this bill. 
With that, I oppose the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, this bill has received 
bipartisan support. There has been a slight argument here about the 
nature of a structured rule, but I have heard from the gentleman from 
Washington that there is broad support for the content of this bill. It 
is a step that is going to move this Nation ahead in the important 
areas of improving science, math, technology, and engineering.
  It is absolutely crucial that our country remain competitive. It is a 
disgrace that we are 24th out of 29 countries as measured in our 
performance in K-12 instruction in these critical areas to our present 
economy.
  So we support this bill and ask full support of the Members of the 
House of Representatives for its passage.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.




                          ____________________