[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.
____________________