Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 362, and yield myself such time as I may consume for an opening statement.

In 2005, the National Academies assembled a blue-ribbon committee of national leaders in academia, business and government to address concerns about the national prosperity and the global economy in the 21st century. The Academies' report was entitled, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' That report catalogs a number of worrisome indicators and presents recommendations that the Nation must follow to maintain its competitiveness.

What did this distinguished committee tell us is most important to the future of the economic health of our Nation? Here is the first recommendation from the report: Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education.

The Gathering Storm report goes on to tell us where the focus should be in efforts to improve K-12 science and mathematics education. In brief, it says, ``Focus on the teachers.'' H.R. 362 follows that blueprint.

In January, I partnered with Mr. Hall, ranking minority member on the Committee on Science and Technology, to introduce H.R. 362, whose purpose is to implement all of the action items from the Gathering Storm report and address the report's first recommendation.

I want to thank Mr. Hall for his assistance in developing this bill. With his support, it was favorably reported by the Science and Technology Committee by a unanimous vote.

This bill is endorsed by a wide variety of educational organizations and business coalitions, including the Association of American Universities, the Business Roundtable, the Council of Competitiveness, the National Education Association, the National

Science Teachers Association, and the STEM Education Coalition. These organizations are enthusiastic about H.R. 362 because it will dramatically improve the national corps of math and science teachers.

We call the first title of the bill ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act.'' The bill will create thousands of new teachers with content and teaching skill expertise in their area of teaching.

The vehicle for accomplishing this goal is the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation. Noyce awards go to universities that build model programs for recruiting math and science students into teaching. These programs provide mentoring, early field experiences, and a streamlined path toward teaching certification. Students who enroll in this program will receive $10,000-per-year scholarships. In return, they will make commitments of several years to the teaching profession.

H.R. 362 will also create summer institutes and graduate programs that provide sustained, content-oriented professional development to in-service teachers through the Math and Science Partnership Program at the National Science Foundation. We have a critical shortage of math and science teachers in the U.S., and many of our math and science teachers have no degree or certification in the field they teach. In fact, 87 percent of middle school and 58 percent of high school physical science teachers lack these qualifications.

This bill tackles this problem from both ends. On the one end, we bring in a new cadre of math and science teachers who are well-educated and well-prepared. That is what the Noyce program does. On the other end, we improve the teachers that we have through innovative, effective programs led by disciplinary faculty from higher education. That is what the Math and Science Partnerships program does.

Other provisions of H.R. 362 include an expansion of the STEM Talent Expansion Program at the National Science Foundation, a program to enhance the undergraduate education of the future science and engineering workforce, and a pilot program at the NSF to improve laboratory science in high-need secondary schools.

To maintain our high national standard of living, we need a workforce that is prepared in a world-class math and science education system. But there is a dark cloud looming. American students have performed poorly in recent years on an assortment of international tests of math and science achievement. That does not bode well for the future. Our next generation of innovators, where will they come from? That is what the gathering storm on the horizon is all about. To rise above it, we need to reform the math and science teaching profession. That is what this legislation now before us will do.

The stakes are high and the concern is urgent. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 362.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. The NSF Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, as amended by H.R. 362, is specifically designed to help place highly qualified STEM teachers in every classroom across the Nation. I further agree with the gentleman that it is particularly important to reduce the number of out-of-field teachers in the schools that have a high proportion of minority students, who are currently underrepresented in science and technology.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield

further, let me first of all thank the gentleman for his recommendation and assure you that it is my intention when we go to conference on H.R. 362 to work to increase the size of the Noyce scholarship to $12,000 per year for students who agree to carry out their teaching commitment in high-need schools.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I certainly do; and I once again thank the gentleman for bringing this up.

As the gentleman points out, H.R. 362 now requires the National Science Foundation track the proportion of Noyce graduates who elect to teach in high-need schools. I will seek to expand this provision in conference to require NSF to assess the effect of increasing the size of scholarships on attracting graduates of the program to teach in high-need schools.

Mr. Chairman, once again we are on the same page. I agree with the gentleman that an important goal of the Noyce program is to reduce disparities in the distribution of highly qualified STEM teachers among schools in different regions of the Nation. I support the gentleman's proposed modification to section 103 of the bill and will pursue this change in conference.

Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the gentleman for his constructive efforts in making a good bill even better.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on Education and Labor.

Committee on Education and Labor,

Washington, DC, April 3, 2007.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Gordon: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding consideration of H.R. 362, the

``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math

Scholarship Act,'' which was referred to the Committee on

Science. As you know, the Committee on Education and Labor

has a jurisdictional interest in H.R. 362, particularly as we

move forward to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this

term.

Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly,

I do not intend to request the sequential referral of H.R.

362 to the Committee on Education and Labor. However, I do so

only with the understanding that this procedural route should

not be construed to prejudice this Committee's jurisdictional

interests and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the

Committee on Education and Labor in the future. In addition,

should this bill or similar legislation be considered in a

conference with the Senate, I would expect members of the

Committee on Education and Labor to be appointed to the

conference committee on such measures.

Finally, I ask that you include a copy of our exchange of

letters in your committee's report on H.R. 362 and in the

Congressional Record during the consideration of this bill.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do

not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

George Miller,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say amen to most of Dr. Ehlers' eloquent statement. He is a very constructive and positive force on our committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), a former science teacher.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his support for this bill, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) who has spent so much time working on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman for his generosity. There is a lot of interest in this bill.

I would like to yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan), another active member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the vice chairman of the Science and Technology Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), the former State senator.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to the generosity of our ranking member, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to one of his fellow Texans (Mr. Hinojosa), chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the amount of time that we have left here?

Mr. Chairman, let me take just a moment to thank the staff, Jim Wilson, and our minority staff for the time they have put in on this bill. Two years ago, Lamar Alexander, and our former chairman, Sherry Boehlert, asked the National Academies to do a recommendation on the competitiveness of America in the 21st century. The recommendation was good news and bad news. The bad news was that we are in a very competitive environment and that we are on a losing track.

The good news was we had some recommendations. That is what we tried to do. We didn't try to make a Democratic or Republican bill; we took their recommendations and made a bipartisan bill. I think that today the bipartisan bill is the result of that. I again thank all the Members for their constructive efforts in doing this.

I understand that the Speaker is so committed to this bill that she is on her way to the floor, and she is not only on her way, but she has arrived, and I yield her the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation aims to increase the number of first-rate math and science teachers in the U.S.

The program targets two resources from which to recruit these teachers: one, undergraduates who are majoring in the math and science field; and, two,

science and math engineering professionals who want to switch to a teaching degree.

The reported version of H.R. 362 considerably expands the Noyce program. It also amends a part of the program that targets undergraduates. But the part of the program that targets professionals was left for the most part unchanged. This amendment establishes within the Noyce program a new model for recruiting professionals to a teaching career.

This new model is based on a program called Math for America, which has shown astonishing success in making first-rate teachers out of former scientists and engineers. Math for America was launched in 2004 by James Simons, a mathematician who founded an enormously successful private investment firm in New York City.

Mr. Simon's philanthropic foundation has provided much of the funding for Math for America. This is just the third year of Math for America, but already they have recruited 90 teachers for New York City public schools. The math for America model has so much in common with the Noyce program at the National Science Foundation.

Consistent with the Math for America model, my amendment has the following features: An institution of higher education wishing to establish this new program must create a partnership with at least one non-Federal entity to be eligible for the NSF support; a scientist or engineer participating in the program must demonstrate advance content knowledge through a nationally recognized standardized test; participants take specialized education courses in a 16-month teacher certification program during which they receive a stipend; graduates from the program must teach in a secondary school for a period of 4 years, during which they receive a teaching supplement to their ordinary salary.

The teaching supplements are provided by the partnerships from non- Federal sources. This amendment, therefore, adds a component to the Noyce program to develop the kind of public/private partnership that we see working so well in Math for America.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to thank Dr. Gingrey for his support for this bill and, more importantly, his constructive role that he plays on the Science and Technology Committee. Again, I want to thank Mr. Hall for his constructive role, and also for his generosity in having additional time for us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Noyce program at the National Science Foundation has up to now required scholarship recipients to teach in high-need schools. H.R. 362 substantially expands the program, scaling it up from fewer than 1,000 pre-service STEM teachers per year to 10,000 per year.

The Noyce program is being scaled up by H.R. 362 to address the needs of schools in all parts of the Nation which have large numbers of out- of-field STEM teachers. For example, the percentage of physical science teachers in

middle schools with neither a major in the field nor certification is nearly 90 percent.

As part of enlarging the program's scale, the bill also removes the requirement that all graduates teach in a high-need school. But the bill also adds in its place an incentive for teachers to serve in high- need schools. The amendment I am proposing makes clear that we are not backing away from our firm commitment to address the requirements of high-need schools.

The amendment has two provisions. The first provision requires the NSF to broadly disseminate information about the program, including to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This is to ensure that students in minority schools have improved chances of seeing a minority teacher prepared through a Noyce program.

The second provision requires the foundation to maintain a clearinghouse on teaching opportunities in high-need schools. This will assist Noyce scholars in finding their ideal placement.

Without this amendment, Noyce scholars seeking placement might not know which schools meet the definition of high-need in any given year or which such schools have openings.

This amendment will both help increase the number of individuals from minority-serving institutions who participate in the Noyce program and will help recruit Noyce scholars to teaching positions in high-need schools. I recommend adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank Dr. Ehlers for his support for this bill, but more importantly for making a good bill a better bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, this motion simply states the status quo, and we are glad to accept it.

Yes, he does.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. There will be no votes before 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and at noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills, Mr. Speaker, will be available by the end of business today. We will also expect to consider H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act; and H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. on both those days. On Friday, no votes are expected, and Friday is not scheduled at this date. We will consider H.R. 1332, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act; and H.R. 249, a bill to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Of course, as he knows, it was only 38 days ago that the President made his last request for an addition to the supplemental, and 94 days sounds like longer than I think it has been. But notwithstanding that, we do expect the supplemental to be on the floor next week. That is our expectation. If things go as we hope, the supplemental will be on the floor, and, hopefully, we can get that to the President either very late next week or no later than a week from this coming Monday. We think that is important.

As you know, you and I and others were down at the White House to discuss whether there was room for agreement and accommodation on this issue. We are still having those discussions, as you know, and we are hopeful that that can be reached.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his question. And, frankly, I don't want to anticipate what the conferees are going to do, having been appointed just last night. There was a vote on the House floor. Frankly, the vote would have had no effect whether it passed or

failed in light of the fact that it instructed the House to do what it had already done. So if it had failed, presumably the House was going to be in the same position that it otherwise would have been in.

But notwithstanding that, I don't want to anticipate what the conferees are going to do in light of the fact that they have just been appointed, but I do know that the chairmen of the conference on both sides, House and Senate, want to see this matter resolved quickly, sent to the President, would want to see the troops funded. We were very pleased to see the Department of Defense make it very clear, as, frankly, General Speer and General Ward made clear to me in Europe, that funding is available and will be able to be accommodated through June.

As the gentleman knows, last year when the President made a request for a supplemental, that was not passed until mid-June, that supplemental. So I was pleased to see the Department of Defense indicate that that would be okay. It is not perfect. That is not what they would choose, but, in any event, through the month of June. We hope to get this work done long before that.

Obviously, we are very hopeful that we will pass a budget, that we will pass a budget in a timely fashion. As you know, we did pass a budget through the House in a timely fashion. The Senate passed its budget. It is now in conference.

Because of the April break, Easter-Passover break, we have not reached the April 15th. As a matter of fact, I talked to Mr. Conrad just an hour ago, I talked to Mr. Spratt just an hour ago, and we are very hopeful that we will come to an agreement.

I would observe, of course, last year the disagreement was between the Republican leadership in the Senate and the Republican leadership in the House. I understand what the gentleman is saying. Some of the votes in the Senate were overwhelming and bipartisan in terms of some of these issues. So this is an issue that we've got to overcome. We hope we can overcome it and move the budget.

But I want to tell the gentleman, he is absolutely correct. I am very focused. Mr. Obey is very focused. We are going to pass appropriation bills in a timely fashion. We hope to finish by the 30th of June. Very frankly, the more quickly we can move appropriation bills, perhaps the more flexibility we will have in June's schedule. But as you know, June now is scheduled for every Monday and every Friday meeting to effect that business, which is critical.

As the gentleman knows, we met last year for the full year. We left here in December and nine of the 11 appropriation bills were unpassed. We don't want to be in that position. The gentleman knows, and I know, that part of that problem was the Senate's inability to move its business as quickly as we would like, as quickly as we did. The Labor- Health bill, of course, never passed this floor last year, but we are hopeful that that will happen.

I will go over the schedule of the appropriations process with the gentleman at some point in time. We are hopeful that mid-May to the end of June we will pass our appropriation bills. I will tell the gentleman it will be my intention to discuss with both Chairman Spratt and Chairman Obey that if the budget process cannot be resolved, not in this House, but in the other House, that it would be my hope that the House would mark its bills to the House-passed number, as you know we have done in the past; and that would certainly be my intention.

Again, I have not discussed that with Mr. Obey at this point in time, that's premature, nor have I discussed it with others, but we are hopeful to move ahead on the appropriation bills.

As you know, passage of the budget has a much greater impact in the Senate than it does in the House with respect to the rules process under which appropriation bills are considered in the Senate.

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman and I have a slightly different perspective on what the rule provided.

First of all, as you know, motions to recommit were available in both of the bills that were on the floor. The tabling referred to that, if the second bill had not been adopted or the PAYGO provision had not been adopted, they would both be tabled. The reason for that was, we wanted to be consistent with our pledge to the PAYGO principle.

What we didn't want, what I don't want, and you and I have discussed this, is, I'm frankly ``perplexed,'' might be the word, as someone who has been in the legislative body for some 40 years; and I think the parliamentarians were accurate in their determination of germaneness, but germaneness has always meant to me in 40 years, I will tell my friend, that it is pertinent to the subject at hand.

You know that when you add a PAYGO provision, which frankly you abandoned on your side in 2002, you did not want to be constrained by PAYGO. I understand why you didn't want to be constrained by PAYGO because you couldn't pay for your tax cuts. You talked about spending. We've cut revenues very deeply. There were different philosophical arguments about that; but the fact is, they were not paid for, and as a result, the deficits have in large part expanded very greatly.

With respect to the rule, yes, the rule was structured in a way that limited to the subject matter at hand, whether it was the tax bill or the D.C. voting rights bill, motions to recommit to those subjects, as opposed to expanding to subjects that, frankly, from my perspective, are used for political purposes.

I will tell my friend that the motion last night and the motion on the previous D.C. bill had nothing to do with D.C. voting rights. And last night's bill had everything to do with trying to focus on our Members being targeted. And, in fact, the memorandum that you sent--not you, but somebody sent around to all of your Members expressed the purpose of your motion to recommit to target Members for political reasons, from my perspective.

In that context, if you are asking me if it is my intent in the future to try to limit you from doing that, the answer to that question is ``yes.'' If your question is, do I want to make sure that you have a motion to recommit with or without instructions, a motion to recommit, of course, kills the bill, as the motion to recommit to report back promptly kills the bill.

The irony is, the gentleman from North Carolina offered a motion to recommit the other day with respect to guns that related to the District of Columbia. Excuse me, I'm not sure it related directly to the District of Columbia, which would have had the perverse effect of offering the amendment and, if adopted, would have killed the amendment in the same process. That is because it was referring it back to committee. The committee would not have reported out that amendment.

If he had really been interested, in my opinion, in passing that amendment, as opposed to politically giving a vote that was difficult for Members on our side of the aisle, what he would have done is moved his gun amendment to be reported back forthwith and had his vote on that up or down.

But I will tell my friend, as he well knows, I want to make sure that from my perspective, and I have told him, I will not suggest a change in the rules, we did not change the rules, there was some discussion about that, without discussing it with him. I want your side to feel that you are getting a fair shot at relevant motions to recommit with or without amendments that do not kill the bill in the process. I don't think that is something that is unfair to expect.

Will the gentleman yield on that issue?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We could go on for some period of time on this. We have a different perspective, not on providing fairness for all Members. I said the gentleman from North Carolina; it was the young gentleman from Texas, and I thank you for correcting me on that.

Frankly, I want to tell my friend that if the gentleman from Texas was sincere, in my view, in wanting his amendment adopted, he would not have rereferred it to committee. Very frankly, in my opinion, his amendment would have passed. The bill would have been reported back forthwith, and the bill would have passed.

We all make a judgment as to what the purposes of amendments are. My view is, the gentleman voted against the underlying bill. The gentleman was opposed to the underlying bill. His motion was to do two things: to provide

an instance where on an issue not related to voting rights in the District of Columbia, but on an issue he thought the majority of the House supported which, I think he was correct, he wanted attached to that, and therefore create a dichotomy for Members. They either had to vote for an issue they were for and kill the bill, or vote against an issue they were for and be perceived as being against the proposition.

I understand what you are saying. I do not believe that it is fair legislative process to necessarily believe that that needs to be made in order.

Now, having said that, we did not amend the rules. Consistent with the rules, we provided a process on PAYGO. You waived PAYGO on a regular basis when it was in effect. As a result of doing so, you narrowed the scope of amendments. Not only did you do that, but you also waived the necessity to pay for things from time to time.

But, having said that, I want to reiterate to my friend, and we have had good discussions and will continue to have good discussions, but I am not going to say that we are going to allow our Members to be put in very difficult positions for what we perceive to be for political reasons only, not for the substance. If the gentleman from Texas had wanted to amend the substance with the motion to recommit, he had that available to him and have it reported back forthwith so it could be adopted. He had that available to him. He chose not to take that route.

It caused us some consternation, as was noticed, I am sure by some, particularly to me, because I felt very strongly about that bill. The majority of this House has now passed that bill, with significant support from your side of the aisle. As a matter of fact, it was a bill sponsored by one of your leaders, a former chairman of your campaign committee.

We want to make sure that we consider legislation on this floor fairly, and we will certainly work with you toward that end. But I don't want to assure the gentleman that I am not going to try to provide for the consideration of legislation and amendments thereto which are germane and relevant.

If the gentleman will yield on that, you understood my phrase. It was my perception. I did not question his sincerity. But the perception of what he did, offering the amendment, and within the ambit of the same amendment he offered killing the bill to which the amendment would be attached, appeared to me to be an act that was at least contradictory.

I thank the gentleman for his observations. This has probably gone on longer than the Members or the public wants it to, but let me simply observe that waivers obviously relate to and PAYGO relates to entitlement spending, and while you may not have waived it with respect to spending, because PAYGO does not affect discretionary spending, what it affects, of course, is entitlement spending.

The reason it affected the D.C. bill was because the Member from Utah would have had to have been paid and would have been entitled to be paid. So a relatively de minimis sum was involved in that.

Frankly, the gentleman and I have a disagreement in terms of the rule that was used. First, the rules have not been amended. They have not been amended. Secondly, this rule was consistent with our rules.

The only thing that this rule did that I think caused so much consternation on your side was it adopted PAYGO without opening the bill up to what were amendments that were extraneous to the subject matter and offered the bill on its merits. You were free to offer a motion to recommit, with or without amendments, on the subject matter of the bills, either bill. That was your right then.

The tabling simply referred to making sure that we kept our promise that bills would have PAYGO on them, and if they didn't have PAYGO on them, we weren't interested in passing them, because we were going to be faithful to our pledge on that rule. That is what the tabling dealt with. It didn't deal with your motion to recommit.

If you had defeated H.R. 1906, the second bill with the PAYGO provision, H.R. 1905 would not have gone forward. But our side of the aisle believed that both were important and wanted them together because we wanted the PAYGO provision in there, a relatively de minimis sum in terms of the budget, but consistent with our rule.

If I can make another observation on another matter, you mentioned the supplemental had been pending 94 days. It has been pending 73 days. I think that is an important distinction. That is almost a month of legislative work, if not more.

I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule, and I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that information.

Last evening we did appoint conferees to the conference on the emergency supplemental for the war. Would we expect to have a conference report, do you think, sometime next week? I think it has been 94 days now since the President requested that, and I am wondering if we would anticipate a conference report anytime next week.

I would yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that response. And we would hope to see that bill next week on the floor or as soon as possible because there is some great likelihood from that White House meeting that the gentleman mentioned that there is going to have to be a second bill if we can't resolve these issues that lead toward a veto.

On one of those issues we did yesterday, the House voted on the motion to instruct the conferees to sustain the House position. Does the gentleman have any information on the likelihood of the House or Senate view of the deadline issue that we discussed yesterday?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that answer, Mr. Speaker. I hope we can. I think we do need to continue to talk about how we ultimately resolve this issue.

Now, in the information that I am getting from both the Defense Department and our Members that have military installations is that while the war effort, itself, with lots of changing of categories of money and determinations of money around may be very well up through June, that the defense effort generally is impacted because money that would have been spent for National Guard training or money that would have been spent to pay obligations to a contractor are not available in this process.

Now, the last time Secretary Gates, at least, who was not Secretary at the time, said that the spend-out was not quite as quick, and he also said that the need was not quite as critical. But the gentleman is absolutely right in pointing out that last time this process took a long time, and one of the reasons it took a long time was that the House leaders, the majority leaders at that time, were in conflict with the Senate about additional spending. I don't see any of those discussions, frankly, going on, but the additional spending last time at $14.5 billion did not occur because the House leaders wouldn't accept that and we passed the bill in the House last time a month after the President sent the request up, and then it was a number of months, almost 4 or 5 months, before we got a final bill because we were fighting that additional spending, and at some point we are going to have to also engage not just on the issues of deadlines and whether or not we are micromanaging the effort, but the additional spending was the real problem last time. I would like to think that there was some effort going on there. I don't know that there is.

My next question, though, is that the gentleman's goals for the appropriations process really would require us to pretty quickly move on the budget itself. We missed a deadline that we often miss. I don't want to belabor that point, but that April 15 deadline we normally had to hit if we had a real opportunity to get the bills out of the House by the Fourth of July, which we did in the first part of the last Congress and all but one of the bills in the second part of the last Congress.

What is your sense of where we are on the conferees for the budget and a final budget document?

I thank the gentleman for sharing that with me. And certainly there were occasions where we had to do exactly what the gentleman is suggesting, and that is always one option. At some point, based on the meeting the deadlines we hope to meet and you hope to meet on the calendar, you have to decide whether that is the option you have to go to or not, as opposed to a conference report that we can agree to that lets us move forward that way.

I would also like to repeat one of the comments the gentleman made simply because we don't get much credit here or didn't get much credit for efforts we did make to control spending. And you are absolutely right, a year ago at this time the fight was between the Senate, which was led by Republicans at the time, and the House that was led by the Republicans on that additional spending.

And I just want to make the point that you already made once, but we don't hear it emphasized very often, but that was the fight. House Republicans did win, and we spent $14.5 billion less than our friends on the other side intended to spend, offered to spend, wanted to spend; and that is what that time frame was all about.

We do, I believe, have more concerns in overall defense spending just because the spend-down has been quicker this year than last year, and Secretary Gates, not me, would be the source for that view of the difference in the 2 years. But clearly, the process, as the gentleman rightly pointed out, is never as easy as we want, as quick as we want, and there are obstacles there.

I would like to, before we conclude today, ask a couple more questions. One is the concern that I have and many of our Members have on the rule that was used this week to waive PAYGO for the D.C. bill and to create a new obstacle for Members who hope to offer a motion to recommit.

Twelve years and, now, a few months ago, when Republicans took control of the House, they extended the motion to recommit to the minority at that time and never failed to offer that motion to recommit under the traditions of the House. I believe, while it often was not

allowed the minority in previous years, never in either previous times or the last 12 years was an actual tabling motion put in the rule, which creates a different circumstance intentionally, but a different circumstance than was ever created in this House before.

And I wonder really two things: Would that tabling motion be something that we will see again? And also, would we expect to see the PAYGO effort in the future waived for the principal reason to be on the floor and handled in a separate vote and a separate piece of legislation, like we did this time?

Is that now the anticipated norm for this process, Mr. Leader?

I would.

Well, I thank my friend for that.

But I do think in that view of this that there is a significant restriction of the rights available to Members. Members have to defend what they do on the floor. Let me make a couple of points.

One is, in the incident you mentioned when the gentleman from Texas offered a motion to recommit well within the rules, and, by the way, in that case and many other cases the only option that the minority has had has been the option of last resort, unless you take that away, which was the motion to recommit. All of our amendments were rejected; no matter how germane they might have been, they were not allowed.

The Members of the House are the ones who have the opportunity to decide what is the right vote and what's not. And, in fact, stopping that vote offered under the rules by a Member in good faith I think was a violation of that Member's rights as a Member of the House.

Now, you could have had that vote, it might have killed the bill, but you could have started a new bill just like you did anyway. The only difference would have been that the Member of the House that brought the issue to the floor would have had his full rights as a Member to have his issue not only debated, but voted on. And we were literally seconds from actually having that vote, which under the rules of the House would have sent the bill to the committee promptly.

There may have been no way to leave the committee with that bill, but you could have started a new bill just like you did. The only difference would have been that the gentleman from Texas would have had his motion voted on, as I believe he had a right to.

On the other issue, we did have PAYGO for 8 years of the 12 years we were in the majority. We complied with it. We still never took away the ability of your side to do just what you said we shouldn't be able to do.

Let me finish the thought, and then I will.

I can give you many instances where not only did your side try to avail themselves of that right, which we never then took away, and it probably did create political concerns for our Members; but the House has been here longer than any Member has been here and will be here longer than any Member will be here. And beginning to change the rules in that way or change the rights of Members to offer their objections, their ideas, their improvements as Members always have is a bigger step than I think the gentleman may realize.

And in terms of whether things are germane or not, I very well remember a bill to create the Homeland Security part of our government and the motion to recommit was about corporate inversions. Now, that is every bit as tangential as anything the gentleman just mentioned. But we didn't go back the next week and say, we're never going to allow the minority to have that vote again because it was troublesome for us. Troublesome for us and protecting the rights of Members as they relate to past Members and future Members I think are two different things.

I will yield to my friend.

I would say to my friend, we do have a disagreement on this and I think we do see what my good friend perceives as a minor change in procedure differently because I don't think it is that at all.

I would say a couple of things: one is 18 times at least in the minority our friends on the other side used the same rule that my friend now so vigorously objects to because it would kill the bill. Eighteen times. They never were able to do it, but 18 times used it, many times with the provisions just like the one I cited earlier that were every bit as tangential as the one the gentleman is speaking to.

Also I am sure in terms of, I don't know if the word was ``sincerity'' or what, but I do know that our friend from Texas is a sincere and dedicated Member.

Mr. Speaker, my friend knows as well, if not better than anybody, how to explain exactly how a Member could be motivated to do both of those things and has defended the rights of the minority for a number of years in an extraordinary way on similar kinds of issues. But the point here is that we are about more than the moment, and my friend said that he wants to do everything he can to prevent his Members from being put in a difficult political situation. The truth is, this is a difficult job, and Members who run for it should understand it is a difficult job and there are things that not only have to be decided, but have to be explained as part of that job. And while changing a procedure, a process, in a way that has never been handled before with this tabling inclusion this week may seem insignificant, I don't think it is.

Also, on our side during the time we had PAYGO, my friend mentioned spending, we never waived PAYGO for spending. On any spending bill, we always adhered to the PAYGO rule. You always had that available to you.

We will move forward. I do appreciate the fact that we are going to continue to talk about these issues before we do anything to change the overall rules of the House. I am concerned, however, when we change what one of our outside observers has referred to recently as the norms of the House. This rule this week was not only outside the norms of the House; it was unique in the way it handled this tabling issue. It was not unique in the way it divided the bills. I am not complaining about that. I am complaining about the potential for a Member to use all the tools previously available to them to actually, frankly, stop legislation that they didn't like if they didn't like it. But you can't do that unless 217 other people join you in that.

We are not in the majority on our side, we understand that, and for us to do anything under the rules of the House, with a majority vote, Democrats have to join us. If we make those options too appealing, that is, frankly, not our fault. Changing the rules for the momentary relief of Members has greater long-term consequences than I believe my friend realizes.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we will get our staffs together and look at the calendar later because they seem to be in disagreement on that, even at this moment as you give me that information.

I am going to make one, hopefully, final comment on this issue for now, though I am sure it is going to be an issue we talk about in the future.

For my friend to understand, it is not a concern about this bill. It is not a concern about what happened on that bill. It is the fact that the tabling addition may be within the rules, but extraordinary. If it is within the rules it has never been done before. The tabling addition changes the consequences of a Member's motion. When you change the consequences of a Member's motion, you take a right away from the Member that the Member previously had.

We may have to discuss this. I can see we are still not quite on the same wavelength. It is not about this bill, Mr. Hoyer. It is not about this week. It is about doing something that has never been done before that has consequential impact, and I believe this does. I think you and I should continue to talk about it. I think our Members in the minority are justly concerned about it, as you would have been in the minority if we had done something we never did in the majority, which is change the consequences of your motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 318 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the Record.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 318 provides for consideration of H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general 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 consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read.

The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for all three amendments that were submitted for consideration. The first amendment to be debated on the floor will be that of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the talent, intellect and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people have made this Nation the leader in economic and technological advancements. In fact, high-tech industries drive economic growth around the world.

Every day, however, my constituents tell me the United States has fallen further and further behind our competitors in Europe and Asia. The United States continues to lead the world in many statistical categories such as R&D spending and the number of scientists and engineers; however, the rest of the world is increasing its capacity, its R&D investments, and its will to catch up with us.

Other countries such as China and India are pouring resources into their scientific and technological infrastructure at staggering rates, which is increasing their ability to compete with us in the global economy.

For example, in South Korea, 38 percent of undergraduates received their degrees in science or engineering. In France, the figure is 47 percent. In China, it is 50 percent, and in Singapore, it is 67 percent. In the United States, only 15 percent of undergraduates receive a degree in science or engineering. More telling is the fact that approximately one-third of U.S. students intending to major in engineering switch majors to something else before graduating.

Madam Speaker, the warning signs could not be any clearer. Our leadership in the race to discovery is being challenged at unparalleled levels around the world. We cannot ignore this challenge, and we cannot afford to ignore this challenge.

Our society has always depended on innovation and discovery. It has depended on pioneers who push themselves to their intellectual and physical limits to find the hidden paths that lead to that discovery. Over 125 years ago, Thomas Edison who famously quipped that he had not failed but instead had found 10,000 different ways that would not work invented the light bulb, and it was Albert Einstein who once said, ``I never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking.''

My point, Madam Speaker, is that our advancement as a society depends on leading the search for the unknown. Americans must continue to research, we must continue to develop, and we must continue to innovate in order to create new and thriving industries that will produce millions of good jobs and a better future for our children. To do that, however, we must continue to reinvigorate America's commitment to this discovery process.

The National Academy of Sciences recently released a report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The report outlines specific recommendations to enhance the scientific building blocks in the United States. The bill we have today before us, H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act, draws directly from several of those recommendations.

To paraphrase the report, the report recommends that we strengthen our Nation's commitment to research to maintain the flow of new ideas that fuel the economy, provide security and enhance our quality of life. In that regard, H.R. 363 seeks to improve Federal support for scientific research and education in order to maintain our position as the unequivocal global leader in innovation.

H.R. 363 creates a program at the National Science Foundation to award grants to scientists and engineers at the early stage of their careers at colleges, universities and research institutions across the country. Young researchers are eligible to receive up to $80,000 per year for 5 years.

The awards are granted on a competitive basis and are based on intellectual merit of their work, the innovative or transformative nature of the proposed research, and the researcher's potential for leadership at the frontiers of knowledge.

The bill requires that the National Science Foundation director allocate at least 3.5 percent of its research funding for this grant program. The bill also creates a similar program in the Department of Energy for which $25 million is authorized.

H.R. 363 directs NSF to allocate at least 1.5 percent of its research funds

to an integrated graduate education and research training program. This program provides support to those scientists and engineers who will pursue careers in research and education.

Just this week, Madam Speaker, the president of my alma mater from the University of Maryland, Dr. Mote, came by to describe some of the challenges for young researchers in just this area. It is so appropriate that Congress is taking this action at this time.

This bill establishes the Presidential Innovation Award, an award which will recognize scientists and engineers who develop unique innovations in the national interests. The bill creates a national coordination office within the Office of Science and Technology Policy to better coordinate research efforts, and, finally, H.R. 363 directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to provide a report to Congress on the efforts to attract and retain young researchers.

But this bill goes far beyond the long-lasting impacts of development and innovation. It goes far beyond our ability to create jobs and compete in a global economy. It will plant the seeds of hope for a better tomorrow in communities across this country.

I know firsthand what research funding will be able to do. The University of California in Merced, my hometown in my district, is on the cutting edge of several research projects where additional funding could spur the next big breakthrough. UC Merced is a leader in solar concentration technologies, just one of the many of our ongoing projects. To date, this research has largely been supported through public and private partnerships. However, increased research funding could potentially improve the efficiencies of solar power and solar thermal technologies; and if efficiency and affordability are within our grasp, we can decrease the carbon emissions and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, certainly worthy goals for this Congress. This is but one example of many research efforts across our country that has the potential to define and shape tomorrow.

It is this type of project that would benefit from the funding of this bill, but how many more ideas could become reality if our researchers only had the tools that they sorely need? How many more concepts, how many more ideas are out there on the horizon waiting to be discovered?

Madam Speaker, it is our duty and our responsibility as legislators to help make those dreams and ideas become a reality.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I turn it over and yield to my colleague from Texas, I just want to respond to the gentleman and say, on an ongoing basis, we have heard the same drumbeat that we are somehow trampling on the rights of the minority. It is true that this is a structured rule, but it is also true, as it was with the last bill, that every amendment that has been offered has been granted. Certainly that is in the spirit of collegiality and cooperation that this House deserves. We have gone far beyond what is required. This is not an open rule, but certainly we have done more open rules in this committee than was done in the past Congress already in the first few months. We are doing everything we can to accommodate the minority in both spirit and practice.

So I say to my colleague, my good friend from the State of Washington, that he has had the opportunity, every Member, I have heard no one who is clamoring for an amendment to this bill. In fact, all three amendments that were offered to the committee were, in fact, granted, and it seems to me that we are offering cooperation on a silver platter. We just need our colleagues to say ``yes'' and agree that we have done that.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, I acknowledge this is not an open rule, this is a structured rule. That is what we put forward. In the 12 or 14 years that the current minority was in power, we saw a declining, ever-declining number of what he considers an open rule.

As I said before, we granted every amendment that came forward in the

last two bills. Certainly that is in the spirit of cooperation that we bring this legislation to the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), a member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

We have no more requests for time and are prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge the fantastic remarks of my colleague, Mr. Israel, from the great State of New York.

I also want to respond to my colleague in closing, that while we hear continued complaints about the rule process this session, we have granted the vast majority of amendments that have been offered on these last two bills. In fact, I think every amendment that was offered was granted to the minority. There is certainly no shortage of allowing the minority to have input, both in the committee and here on the floor.

I just get to the heart of the topic at hand today, and that is, quite simply, we must, we must reinvigorate America's commitment to discovery. Where there is research to be done, we must undertake it. There is opportunity to be pursued. This country has always pursued the opportunities presented. We have been an innovator in the last 225 years that we have been in existence, and we must continue to pursue it.

When a technological breakthrough lies far away on the horizon, we must seek it and discover it. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, all of us go back to our districts regularly and meet with our constituents, and some of the most sorrowful meetings I have are with students who have just graduated from high school and say, I can't get a job. I can't get a job. What a shock to them, after years of education. And I am not talking about dropouts. I am talking about students who have studied hard, worked hard, and tried to learn a lot.

When I analyze the problem, much of it circles around the fact that today, and, indeed, all the jobs of the future, require a good understanding of the basic principles of mathematics and science, and many students in today's curriculum are not getting that knowledge.

What can we do to help solve that? There are a number of aspects to the problem. Obviously, the first thing is to entice students to take those courses. But, secondly, and more importantly, is to make certain that all those teachers in our high schools across this Nation are adequately trained and adequately prepared to teach math and science courses and do it in a fashion that excites the students and entices them to take these courses so that they will develop the background in math and science that they need to get a job, both now and in the future.

The world has changed. China and India recognized this 20 years ago and changed their educational system. We did not change. We did not recognize what was happening, and so we have to play catch-up.

This bill, which I strongly support, is a good bill which will help us to improve U.S. math, science, and engineering education at all levels; K-12, undergraduate and graduate.

As most people in Congress know, I am a scientist. What you may not know is that over 40 years ago, I dedicated myself to trying to improve the science educational programs in the United States, basically from preschool through graduate school, because we were simply falling behind other countries in the areas of mathematics and science.

I am not talking only about producing good engineers and enough engineers, or good scientists and enough scientists. That is very important, and we must do it. We are losing out on that as well. But what we certainly have to do is to prepare everyone for the workplace of today, and especially the workplace of tomorrow.

This bill will help do that. This bill builds on the Noyce Scholarship Program, an excellent program that has been in effect for a number of years and which was initially proposed by the former chair of the Science Committee, Sherry Boehlert. It is named after the person who helped to found Intel and make it grow into what it is today. They also have funded a number of scholarship programs, and this is our counterpart.

But this program does more than that. It strengthens and expands the

Noyce Scholarship Program, but it also strengthens and focuses the Math and Science Partnership Program at the National Science Foundation, a program which has fallen on hard times in the last few years, primarily because the President's budget has sought to eliminate funding for that program. I think this is based on a misunderstanding in the administration or in the Office of Management and Budget about what the program does, and the mistaken belief that this program was a duplicate of one residing in the Department of Education. As a result the program in the Department of Education grew, and the one in the Science Foundation was cut back.

The fact of the matter is they are both good programs and necessary programs, and they are complementary, not competitive. We need both if we are going to strengthen our teacher training programs. That is why I strongly approve of the aspect of the bill that will strengthen and focus the Math and Science Partnership Program.

The bill also extends the authorization of and expands the NSF Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program, better known as the STEP program, which provides grants to colleges and universities to improve undergraduate science, math and engineering education.

This bill enables NSF to fund the creation of centers at colleges and universities to develop new approaches to undergraduate education programs, and expands the focus of STEP beyond its initial focus of increasing the number of graduating STEM majors to also include increasing the number of nonmajors taking STEM courses.

The bill also establishes a pilot grant program at NSF to create a partnership to support science lab improvements in secondary schools, a proposal initiated by Mr. Hinojosa in a separate bill, but that we are incorporating into this bill.

In short, this bill does a great deal to strengthen several programs at the NSF and, develop innovative programs which will provide better math, science education at all levels from the elementary schools through the undergraduate and the graduate programs.

We have worked together on this in a nonpartisan way. I commend Ranking Member Hall. Mr. Hall has been a strong person in this area and has strongly pushed this bill. I also commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Gordon, who has also worked very hard on this. It has been a copacetic experience in the Science Committee to hear this discussion and see the progress we have made. I strongly support the bill, and urge the House to adopt it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I do support this amendment and I think we should approve it, but I would like to spend the majority of my time discussing the previous amendment which we already accepted. I would like to make a point in connection with that. A very good part of that amendment is that it provides an additional stipend for teachers during their 4-year service requirement.

We have a major problem in America with math and science teachers; in fact, we have a major problem with a lot of teachers who do not stick with their field. We just don't have the retention rate we should. But that is especially true of good math and science teachers because the market out there for them is tremendous. Frequently, they can double their salary by going into industry, and at the very least they can increase their salary by 40 or 50 percent. It is very difficult for the schools to compete with that, although I have argued for years we should have a salary differential for those teachers who have very strong economic incentives to leave the teaching profession and to go into another job.

We simply have to meet the market, and unfortunately that has not been the tradition in the schools. I think we should establish that. If you don't meet the market, you are going to lose your best teachers, and we certainly don't want to lose them after all the work we have done through these various scholarships to develop good teachers.

So I strongly support the part of the Noyce amendment No. 2 which Chairman Gordon offered, and I hope that we can work, not just within this Congress but within this Nation, with the teachers, the school boards, and the teachers unions to develop a system that recognizes that a mechanism is needed to meet the market for those teachers who are offered large inducements to leave the teaching profession and go to another field.

I simply wanted to make that point in connection with the first amendment simply because that amendment is a start in the right direction, and I hope we can carry that principle onward.

I appreciate Chairman Gordon offering the amendment, and I hope that we can continue along that path in future bills relating to the subject.