[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10208-10211]
[From the U.S. 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, 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

[[Page 10209]]

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 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

[[Page 10210]]

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 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

[[Page 10211]]

     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 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.

                          ____________________