49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–524 

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION FOR 

COMPETITIVENESS ACT 

JUNE 22, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5358] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 

5358) to authorize programs relating to science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy Office of Science, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 

pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2 

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 9 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 9 

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 11 

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 12 

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, As Reported ........................... 13 

VII. Section-By-Section Analysis (By Title and Section), As Reported .......... 14 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 18 

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 21 

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 22 

XI. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 24 

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 24 

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 24 

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 24 

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 24 

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 24 

XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 24 

XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported ....................... 24 

XIX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 36 

2 

XX. Committee Correspondence ........................................................................ 37 

XXI. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup .................................................... 39 

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) The National Science Foundation has made significant and valuable contributions to the improvement of K–12 and undergraduate science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics education throughout its 56 year history. 

(2) The National Science Foundation shall continue to carry out the functions 

described in section 3 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 

1862). 

SEC. 3. ROBERT NOYCE TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. 

Section 10 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 

U.S.C. 1862n–1) is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘Teacher’’ after ‘‘Noyce’’ in the section heading and each place 

it appears in the text; 

(2) in subsection (a)(1)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘to provide scholarships, stipends, and programming designed’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘and to provide scholarships and stipends to students 

participating in the program’’ after ‘‘science teachers’’; 

(3) in subsection (a)(3)(A)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘encourage top college juniors and seniors’’ and inserting 

‘‘recruit and prepare undergraduate students’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘qualified as’’ after ‘‘to become’’; 

(4) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘programs to help scholarship recipients’’ and inserting 

‘‘academic courses and early field teaching experiences designed to prepare 

students participating in the program’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘programs that will result in’’ and inserting ‘‘such preparation as is necessary to meet requirements for’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘licensing; and’’ and inserting ‘‘licensing;’’; 

(5) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘scholarship recipients’’ and inserting ‘‘students participating in the program’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘enable the recipients’’ and inserting ‘‘enable the students’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

(6) in subsection (a)(3)(A) by inserting at the end the following new clause: 

‘‘(iv) providing summer internships for freshman and sophomore students participating in the program; or’’; 

(7) in subsection (a)(3)(B)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘encourage’’ and inserting ‘‘recruit and prepare’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘qualified as’’ after ‘‘to become’’; 

(8) by amending clause (ii) of subsection (a)(3)(B) to read as follows: 

‘‘(ii) offering academic courses and field teaching experiences designed to prepare stipend recipients to teach in elementary schools and 

secondary schools, including such preparation as necessary to meet requirements for teacher certification or licensing;’’; 

(9) in subsection (a) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(4) ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT.—To be eligible for an award under this section, an institution of higher education (or consortia of such institutions) shall 

ensure that specific faculty members and staff from the institution’s mathematics, science, or engineering departments and specific education faculty are 

designated to carry out the development and implementation of the program. 

An institution of higher education may also include teacher leaders to participate in developing the pedagogical content of the program and to supervise students participating in the program in their field teaching experiences. No institution of higher education shall be eligible for an award unless faculty from the 

3 

institution’s mathematics, science, or engineering departments are active participants in the program.’’; 

(10) in subsection (b)(1)(A)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘scholarship or stipend’’; 

(B) by inserting ‘‘and summer internships’’ after ‘‘number of scholarships’’; and 

(C) by inserting ‘‘the type of activities proposed for the recruitment of students to the program,’’ after ‘‘intends to award,’’; 

(11) in subsection (b)(1)(B)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘scholarship or stipend’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting ‘‘, which may include a description 

of any existing programs at the applicant’s institution that are targeted to 

the education of science and mathematics teachers and the number of 

teachers graduated annually from such programs;’’; 

(12) in subsection (b)(1), by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(C) a description of the academic courses and field teaching experiences 

required under subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (B)(ii), including— 

‘‘(i) a description of the undergraduate program that will enable a 

student to graduate in 4 years with a major in mathematics, science, 

or engineering and to obtain teacher certification or licensing; 

‘‘(ii) a description of the field teaching experiences proposed; and 

‘‘(iii) evidence of agreements between the applicant and the schools 

or school districts that are identified as the locations at which field 

teaching experiences will occur; 

‘‘(D) a description of the programs required under subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii) 

and (B)(iii), including activities to assist new teachers in fulfilling their 

service requirements under this section; and 

‘‘(E) an identification of the applicant’s mathematics, science, or engineering faculty and its education faculty who will carry out the development 

and implementation of the program as required under subsection (a)(4).’’; 

(13) in subsection (b)(2)— 

(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E) as subparagraphs (C), (D), (E) and (F), respectively; and 

(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) a new subparagraph as follows: 

‘‘(B) the extent to which the applicant’s mathematics, science, or engineering faculty and its education faculty have worked or will work collaboratively to design new or revised curricula that recognizes the specialized 

pedagogy required to teach mathematics and science effectively in elementary and secondary schools;’’; 

(14) in subsection (c)(3)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘$7,500’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘of scholarship support’’ and inserting ‘‘of scholarship support, unless the Director establishes a policy by which part-time students 

may receive additional years of support’’; 

(15) in subsection (c)(4)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘, with a maximum service requirement of 4 years’’ after 

‘‘was received’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Service required under this paragraph shall be performed 

in a high-need local educational agency.’’; 

(16) in subsection (c), by adding at the end a new paragraph as follows: 

‘‘(5) EXCEPTION.—The period of service obligation under paragraph (4) is reduced by 1 year for scholarship recipients whose service is performed in a highneed local educational agency.’’; 

(17) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ‘‘to receive certification or licensing to 

teach’’ and inserting ‘‘established under subsection (a)(3)(B)’’; 

(18) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ‘‘and professional achievement’’ after 

‘‘academic merit’’; 

(19) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘16 months’’; 

(20) in subsection (d)(4), by striking ‘‘for each year a stipend was received’’; 

(21) in subsection (g)(2)(A)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘Treasurer of the United States,’’ and inserting ‘‘Treasurer 

of the United States.’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘multiplied by 2.’’ 

(22) in subsection (i)(3), by inserting ‘‘or had a career in’’ after ‘‘is working 

in’’; and 

(23) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(j) SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS SCHOLARSHIP GIFT FUND.—In accordance with 

section 11(f) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, the Director is authorVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:09 Jun 24, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR524.XXX HR524
4 

ized to accept donations from the private sector to support scholarships, stipends, 

or internships associated with programs under this section. 

‘‘(k) ASSESSMENT OF TEACHER RETENTION.—Not later than 4 years after the date 

of enactment of this subsection, the Director shall transmit to Congress a report on 

the effectiveness of the program carried out under this section regarding the retention of participants in the teaching profession beyond the service obligation required 

under this section. 

‘‘(l) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Except as provided in subsection (m), 

there are authorized to be appropriated to the Director for the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program— 

‘‘(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which at least $7,500,000 shall be 

used for capacity building activities described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii) 

and (B)(ii) and (iii); 

‘‘(2) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which at least $10,500,000 shall be 

used for capacity building activities described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii) 

and (B)(ii) and (iii); 

‘‘(3) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which at least $13,500,000 shall be 

used for capacity building activities described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii) 

and (B)(ii) and (iii); 

‘‘(4) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, of which at least $16,500,000 shall be 

used for capacity building activities described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii) 

and (B)(ii) and (iii); and 

‘‘(5) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, of which at least $19,500,000 shall be 

used for capacity building activities described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii) 

and (B)(ii) and (iii). 

‘‘(m) EXCEPTION.—For any fiscal year for which the funding allocated for activities 

under this section is less than $50,000,000, the amount of funding available for capacity building activities described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (l) 

shall not exceed 15 percent of the allocated funds.’’. 

SEC. 4. SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act 

of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n) is amended— 

(1) in the section heading by striking ‘‘MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE 

EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPS’’ and inserting ‘‘SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION’’; 

(2) in subsection (a)(2)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘(A)’’; 

(B) by striking subparagraph (B); 

(C) by inserting ‘‘, through 1 or more of its departments in science, mathematics, or engineering,’’ after ‘‘institution of higher education’’; and 

(D) by striking ‘‘a State educational agency’’ and inserting ‘‘education faculty from the participating institution or institutions of higher education, 

a State educational agency,’’; 

(3) in subsection (a)(3)(B) by— 

(A) inserting ‘‘content-specific’’ before ‘‘professional development programs’’; 

(B) inserting ‘‘which are’’ before ‘‘designed’’; and 

(C) inserting ‘‘and which may include teacher training activities to prepare science and mathematics teachers to teach Advanced Placement and 

International Baccalaureate science and mathematics courses’’ after ‘‘and 

science teachers’’; 

(4) in subsection (a)(3)(C) by inserting ‘‘and laboratory experiences’’ after 

‘‘technology’’ and by inserting ‘‘and laboratory’’ after ‘‘provide technical’’; 

(5) in subsection (a)(3)(E) by striking ‘‘master teachers’’ and inserting ‘‘teacher 

leaders’’; 

(6) in subsection (a)(3)(I) by inserting ‘‘including model induction programs for 

teachers in their first 2 years of teaching,’’ after ‘‘and science,’’; 

(7) in subsection (a)(3)(K) by striking ‘‘developing and offering mathematics 

or science enrichment programs for students, including after-school and summer 

programs;’’ and inserting ‘‘developing educational programs and materials for 

use in and conducting mathematics or science enrichment programs for students, including after-school programs and summer camps for students described in subsection (b)(2)(G);’’; 

(8) in subsection (a)(4) by striking ‘‘master teachers’’ and inserting ‘‘teacher 

leaders’’ in the paragraph heading and each place it appears in the text; 

(9) in subsection (a) by inserting at the end the following: 

5 

‘‘(8) MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAMS.—Activities carried out in accordance with 

paragraph (3)(B) shall include the development and offering of master’s degree 

programs for in-service mathematics and science teachers that will strengthen 

their subject area knowledge and pedagogical skills. Grants provided under this 

section may be used to develop and implement courses of instruction for the 

master’s degree programs, which may involve online learning, and develop related educational materials. 

‘‘(9) MENTORS FOR ADVANCED PLACEMENT COURSES TEACHERS AND STUDENTS.—Partnerships carrying out activities to prepare science and mathematics teachers to teach Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate 

science and mathematics courses in accordance with paragraph (3)(B) shall encourage companies employing scientists, mathematicians, or engineers to provide mentors to teachers and students and provide for the coordination of such 

mentoring activities. 

‘‘(10) INVENTIVENESS.—Activities carried out in accordance with paragraph 

(3)(H) may include the development and dissemination of curriculum tools that 

will help foster inventiveness and innovation.’’; 

(10) in subsection (b)(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively, and inserting after subparagraph (D) the 

following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(E) the extent to which the evaluation described in paragraph (1)(E) will 

be independent and based on objective measures;’’; 

(11) in subsection (b)(3)(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(12) in subsection (b)(3) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph 

(C) and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(B) give priority to applications that include teacher training activities 

as the main focus of the proposal; and’’; 

(13) in subsection (b) by inserting at the end the following: 

‘‘(4) MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM GRANT SIZE.—A grant awarded under this section 

shall be not less than $75,000 or greater than $2,000,000 for any fiscal year.’’; 

(14) in subsection (c)— 

(A) by striking paragraph (2); 

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as paragraphs (4), (5), 

and (6), respectively; and 

(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraphs: 

‘‘(2) REPORT ON MODEL PROJECTS.—The Director shall determine which completed projects funded through the program under this section should be seen 

as models to be replicated on a more expansive basis at the State or national 

levels. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the 

Director shall transmit a report describing the results of this study to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the 

House of Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

of the Senate. 

‘‘(3) REPORT ON EVALUATIONS.—Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Director shall transmit a report summarizing the 

evaluations required under subsection (b)(1)(E) of grants received under this 

program and describing any changes to the program recommended as a result 

of these evaluations to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and to the Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate. Such report shall be made widely 

available to the public.’’; and 

(15) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘mathematics and science teacher’ 

means a mathematics, science, or technology teacher at the elementary school or 

secondary school level.’’. 

(b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 4 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act 

of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n note) is amended— 

(1) by amending paragraph (6) to read as follows: 

‘‘(6) ELIGIBLE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘eligible nonprofit organization’ means a nonprofit organization, such as a museum or science center, involved in the preparation, training, or certification of science and mathematics 

teachers.’’; 

(2) by amending paragraph (8) to read as follows: 

‘‘(8) HIGH-NEED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—The term ‘high-need local educational agency’ means a local educational agency that— 

6 

‘‘(A) is receiving grants under title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq) as a result of having within 

its jurisdiction concentrations of children from low income families; and 

‘‘(B) is experiencing a shortage of highly qualified teachers, as defined in 

section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 7801), in the fields of science, mathematics, or engineering.’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (11) by striking ‘‘master teacher’’ and inserting ‘‘teacher leader’’ in the paragraph heading and in the text, and by striking ‘‘master teachers’’ 

and inserting ‘‘teacher leaders’’ . 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Director of the National Science Foundation for the School and University 

Partnerships for Science and Mathematics Education program— 

(1) $63,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; 

(2) $73,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

(3) $83,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

(4) $93,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 

(5) $103,000,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

SEC. 5. SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS TALENT EXPANSION PROGRAM. 

(a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 8(7) of the National Science Foundation Authorization 

Act of 2002 is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘competitive, merit-based’’ and all that follows through ‘‘in recent years’’ and inserting ‘‘competitive, merit-reviewed 

multiyear grants for eligible applicants to improve undergraduate education in 

science, mathematics, engineering and technology through— 

‘‘(i) the creation of programs to increase the number of students studying 

toward and completing associate’s or bachelor’s degrees in science, mathematics, engineering and technology, particularly in fields that have faced 

declining enrollment in recent years; and 

‘‘(ii) the creation of centers to develop undergraduate curriculum, teaching methods for undergraduate courses, and methods to better train professors and teaching assistants who teach undergraduate courses to increase 

the number of students completing undergraduate courses in science, mathematics, technology, and engineering, including the number of nonmajors, 

and to improve student academic achievement in those courses. 

Grants made under clause (ii) shall be awarded jointly through the Education 

and Human Resources Directorate and at least 1 research directorate of the 

Foundation’’; 

(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘under this paragraph’’ and inserting 

‘‘under subparagraph (A)(i)’’; 

(3) in subparagraph (C)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘(i)’’ before ‘‘The types of’’; 

(B) by redesignating clauses (i) through (vi) as subclauses (I) through 

(VI), respectively; 

(C) by striking ‘‘under this paragraph’’ and inserting ‘‘under subparagraph (A)(i)’’; and 

(D) by adding at the end the following new clause: 

‘‘(ii) The types of activities the Foundation may support under subparagraph 

(A)(ii) include— 

‘‘(I) creating model curricula and laboratory programs; 

‘‘(II) developing and demonstrating research-based instructional methods 

and technologies; 

‘‘(III) developing methods to train graduate students and faculty to be 

more effective teachers of undergraduates; 

‘‘(IV) conducting programs to disseminate curricula, instructional methods, or training methods to faculty at the grantee institutions and at other 

institutions; 

‘‘(V) conducting assessments of the effectiveness of the Center at accomplishing the goals described in subparagraph (A)(ii); and 

‘‘(VI) conducting any other activities the Director determines will accomplish the goals described in subparagraph (A)(ii).’’; 

(4) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ‘‘under this paragraph’’ and inserting 

‘‘under subparagraph (A)(i)’’; 

(5) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking ‘‘under this paragraph’’ and inserting 

‘‘under subparagraph (A)(i)’’; 

(6) after subparagraph (D)(iii), by adding the following new clause: 

‘‘(iv) A grant under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be awarded for 5 years, and the 

Director may extend such a grant for up to 2 additional 3 year periods.’’; 

7 

(7) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘under this paragraph’’ both places it appears and inserting ‘‘under subparagraph (A)(i)’’; 

(8) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (J); and 

(9) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new subparagraphs: 

‘‘(F) Grants awarded under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be carried out by a department or departments of science, mathematics, or engineering at institutions 

of higher education (or a consortia thereof), which may partner with education 

faculty. Applications for awards under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be submitted 

to the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information 

as the Director may require. At a minimum, the application shall include— 

‘‘(i) a description of the activities to be carried out by the Center; 

‘‘(ii) a plan for disseminating programs related to the activities carried 

out by the Center to faculty at the grantee institution and at other institutions; 

‘‘(iii) an estimate of the number of faculty, graduate students (if any), and 

undergraduate students who will be affected by the activities carried out by 

the Center; and 

‘‘(iv) a plan for assessing the effectiveness of the Center at accomplishing 

the goals described in subparagraph (A)(ii). 

‘‘(G) in evaluating the applications submitted under subparagraph (F), the Director shall consider, at a minimum— 

‘‘(i) the ability of the applicant to effectively carry out the proposed activities, including the dissemination activities described in subparagraph 

(C)(ii)(IV); and 

‘‘(ii) the extent to which the faculty, staff, and administrators of the applicant institution are committed to improving undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education. 

‘‘(H) In awarding grants under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Director shall endeavor to ensure that a wide variety of science, mathematics, and engineering 

fields and types of institutions of higher education, including 2-year colleges, 

are covered, and that— 

‘‘(i) at least 1 Center is housed at a Doctoral/Research University as defined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; and 

‘‘(ii) at least 1 Center is focused on improving undergraduate education 

in an interdisciplinary area. 

‘‘(I) The Director shall convene an annual meeting of the awardees under this 

paragraph to foster collaboration and to disseminate the results of the Centers 

and the other activities funded under this paragraph.’’. 

(b) REPORT ON DATA COLLECTION.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to Congress a report on how the 

Director is determining whether current grant recipients in the Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program are making satisfactory 

progress as required by section 8(7)(D)(ii) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 and what funding actions have been taken as a result of the 

Director’s determinations. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Director of the National Science Foundation for the program described in section 8(7) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002— 

(1) $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which $4,000,000 shall be for the 

grants described in subparagraph (A)(ii); 

(2) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which $10,000,000 shall be for the 

grants described in subparagraph (A)(ii); 

(3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which $10,000,000 shall be for the 

grants described in subparagraph (A)(ii); 

(4) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, of which $10,000,000 shall be for the 

grants described in subparagraph (A)(ii); and 

(5) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, of which $10,000,000 shall be for the 

grants described in subparagraph (A)(ii). 

SEC. 6. INTEGRATIVE GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRAINEESHIP PROGRAM. 

(a) FUNDING.—For each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2011, the Director of the 

National Science Foundation shall allocate at least 1.5 percent of funds appropriated 

for Research and Related Activities to the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program. 

(b) COORDINATION.—The Director shall coordinate with Federal departments and 

agencies, as appropriate, to expand the interdisciplinary nature of the Integrative 

Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program. 

8 

(c) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT FUNDS FROM OTHER AGENCIES.—The Director is authorized to accept funds from other Federal departments and agencies to carry out 

the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program. 

SEC. 7. CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT. 

The Director of the National Science Foundation shall continue to carry out the 

program of Centers for Research on Learning and Education Improvement as established in section 11 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 

(42 U.S.C. 1862n–2). 

SEC. 8. UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

The Director of the National Science Foundation shall continue to carry out programs in undergraduate education, including those authorized in section 17 of the 

National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n–6). Funding for these programs shall increase as funding for the National Science Foundation grows. 

SEC. 9. EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE MASTERS. 

Not earlier than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of 

the National Science Foundation shall enter into an agreement with an appropriate 

party to assess the impact of the Professional Science Master’s (PSM) degree at a 

variety of institutions, including the extent to which the degree is interdisciplinary 

and targeted to emerging fields, such as services sciences, the ability of graduates 

to obtain employment in industry relative to those who receive traditional science 

master’s degrees, salary ranges for graduates relative to traditional science masters 

graduates, the extent to which the degree is terminal or graduates go on to continue 

their education, and the success of the degree in attracting traditionally underrepresented populations, including women and minorities. The results of such study, 

together with any recommendations for Federal support for Professional Science 

Master’s programs, shall be transmitted to the Congress not later than 3 years after 

the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 10. REPORT ON BROADER IMPACTS CRITERION. 

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the 

National Science Foundation shall transmit to Congress a report on the impact of 

the broader impacts grant criterion used by the National Science Foundation. The 

report shall–— 

(1) identify the criteria that each division and directorate of the Foundation 

uses to evaluate the broader impacts aspects of research proposals; 

(2) provide a breakdown of the types of activities by division that awardees 

have proposed to carry out to meet the broader impacts criterion; 

(3) provide any evaluations performed by the National Science Foundation to 

assess the degree to which the broader impacts aspects of research proposals 

were carried out and how effective they have been at meeting the goals described in the research proposals; 

(4) describe what national goals, such as improving undergraduate science, 

mathematics, and engineering education, improving K–12 science and mathematics education, promoting university-industry collaboration and technology 

transfer, and broadening participation of underrepresented groups, the broader 

impacts criterion is best suited to promote; and 

(5) describe what steps the National Science Foundation is taking and should 

take to use the broader impacts criterion to improve undergraduate science, 

mathematics, and engineering education. 

SEC. 11. STUDY ON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT DONATIONS FOR SCHOOLS. 

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the 

National Science Foundation shall transmit a report to the Congress examining the 

extent to which institutions of higher education are donating used laboratory equipment to elementary and secondary schools. The Director, in consultation with the 

Secretary of Education, shall survey institutions of higher education to determine— 

(1) how often, how much, and what type of equipment is donated; 

(2) what criteria or guidelines the institutions are using to determine what 

types of equipment can be donated, what condition the equipment should be in, 

and which schools receive the equipment; 

(3) whether the institutions provide any support to, or follow-up with the 

schools; and 

(4) how appropriate donations can be encouraged. 

9 

SEC. 12. ASSESSMENTS OF NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

In conducting assessments of National Science Foundation education programs, 

the Director shall use assessment methods that allow Foundation programs to be 

compared to education programs supported by other Federal agencies. 

SEC. 13. EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF EDUCATION PROGRAMS.—The Secretary of Energy, acting 

through the Office of Science, shall carry out education programs and activities in 

fields related to the Office of Science’s mission, which may include awarding scholarships or fellowships for study and research, providing research experiences at National Laboratories for undergraduates, and operating summer institutes to improve 

the content knowledge of science and mathematics teachers. 

(b) INVENTORY AND EVALUATION.— 

(1) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary of Energy shall transmit a report to the Congress which shall contain— 

(A) an inventory of existing education programs and activities at the Department and at the National Laboratories, which shall include a description of each education program or activity supported by the Department or 

the National Laboratories, a description of the intended beneficiaries, and 

the amount of Federal funding used to support it; and 

(B) a schedule for conducting independent evaluations of the education 

programs and activities identified under subparagraph (A) to assess the impact of such programs and activities on the intended beneficiaries and the 

larger mission of the Office of Science that shall result in all evaluations 

of the programs being completed not later than 4 years after the date of 

enactment of this Act. 

(2) IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHEDULE.—The Secretary shall implement the 

schedule provided under paragraph (1)(B) and shall transmit each evaluation to 

the Congress as it is completed, along with a description of any actions the Secretary intends to take as a result of the evaluation. 

(c) NATIONAL LABORATORIES.—The Secretary shall include the conduct of education programs at the National Laboratories and the results of any evaluations of 

such programs as a factor in the annual setting of the performance and other incentive fees for a National Laboratories management and operations contractor. 

SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act— 

(1) the term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the meaning given such 

term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); 

and 

(2) the term ‘‘National Laboratory’’ has the meaning given the term ‘‘nonmilitary energy laboratory’’ in section 903(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(42 U.S.C. 16182(3)). 

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to strengthen and extend existing federal programs to improve U.S. science, mathematics, engineering, 

and technology education at all levels through developing and providing teacher training; attracting science, mathematics, and engineering majors to teaching; improving undergraduate science, 

mathematics, and engineering courses; and expanding interdisciplinary graduate work. The programs authorized in this bill are run 

by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

IN THE U.S. 

Over the past several years, a number of industry and policy organizations have released reports describing the critical role that 

science and technology play in U.S. economic competitiveness and 

recommending strengthening science, technology, engineering, and 

10 

mathematics (STEM) education at all levels—K–12, undergraduate, 

and graduate—to ensure that the U.S. has a technologically literate workforce for the 21st century. These recommendations have 

come from a wide variety of business and academic groups, as well 

as federal advisory panels; recent reports have been produced by 

the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Council on Competitiveness, the Association of American Universities (AAU), the 

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, AeA 

(formerly the American Electronics Association), Business Roundtable, the Electronic Industries Alliance, the National Association 

of Manufacturers, and TechNet. 

K–12 SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN THE U.S. 

Without strong science and mathematics education at the K–12 

level, efforts to increase the number of Americans training for, and 

choosing careers in STEM fields will be severely handicapped. 

Many of the reports focused their recommendations on enhancing 

teacher training, for both pre-service and in-service teachers. The 

NAS, in Rising Above the Gathering Storm, recommended attracting new science and mathematics teachers through the use of 

scholarships and bolstering the skills of the existing science and 

mathematics teaching corps through extensive professional development opportunities. AAU, in its National Defense Education and 

Innovation Initiative, emphasized the value of universities 

partnering with schools to provide teacher training and the need to 

develop training programs with a good balance between preparation in how to teach and preparation in the content area to be 

taught. 

UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE STEM EDUCATION IN THE U.S. 

Once students reach college and graduate school, even well prepared students are choosing not to major in, or are dropping out 

of STEM fields. Half of all students who begin in the physical or 

biological sciences and 60 percent of those in mathematics will drop 

out of these fields by their senior year, compared with the 30 percent drop out rate in the humanities and social sciences. The attrition rates are even higher for underrepresented minorities. In research for their book, Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates 

Leave the Sciences, the authors determined that the most common 

reasons offered for switching out of a science major included a lack 

or loss of interest in science, belief that another major was more 

interesting or offered a better education, poor science teaching, and 

an overwhelming curriculum. To increase the number of undergraduate students in STEM fields will require not only recruiting 

more students but also improving the quality of their education. 

In Rising Above The Gathering Storm, the NAS recommended 

expanding the scholarships and fellowships available to attract 

more U.S. students to STEM fields. Similarly, the Business Roundtable and other industry groups have recommended creating scholarships and loan forgiveness programs for students who pursue degrees in STEM fields and emphasize the need to improve recruitment and retention of STEM majors at undergraduate institutions. 

AAU called for strengthening the connection between research faculty and undergraduate students at universities, including expandVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:09 Jun 24, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR524.XXX HR524
11 

ing research opportunities to better engage students in STEM 

fields. 

At the graduate level, the emphasis in many reports is on ensuring that there is a sufficient quantity of students studying STEM 

fields in preparation for research and technical careers and that 

the type of graduate education that these students receive is appropriate preparation for research in emerging fields and careers in 

industry, academia, and government laboratories. In particular, 

AAU recommended broadening the scope of graduate education, including in interdisciplinary fields. 

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

On Thursday, July 21, 2005, the Committee on Science held a 

hearing to examine the relationship between federal science and 

engineering research and education investments and U.S. economic 

competitiveness. The witnesses were Mr. Nicholas Donofrio, Executive Vice President for Innovation and Technology at IBM Corporation; Mr. John Morgridge, Chairman of Cisco Systems, Incorporated, and part-time professor at Stanford University’s Graduate 

School of Business; and Dr. William Brody, President of The Johns 

Hopkins University and co-chair of the Council on Competitiveness 

National Innovation Initiative. The witnesses emphasized that the 

educational system needed to provide students with a solid background science and engineering fields so that the U.S. has access 

to a technologically-literate workforce. 

On Thursday, October 20, 2005, the Committee on Science held 

a hearing to receive testimony on the report released by NAS on 

October 12 entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing 

and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. The witnesses were Mr. Norman R. Augustine, retired Chairman and CEO 

of the Lockheed Martin Corporation (Mr. Augustine chaired the 

NAS committee that wrote the report); Dr. P. Roy Vagelos, retired 

Chairman and CEO of Merck & Co. (Dr. Vagelos served on the 

NAS committee that wrote the report), and Dr. William A. Wulf, 

President of the National Academy of Engineering. The witnesses 

emphasized that solving the problems of global economic competition requires significant improvements in America’s K–12 and 

higher education systems and that the U.S. ability to innovate depends on an educated workforce and a social climate that encourages students to pursue science and technology degrees. 

On Wednesday, March 15, 2006, the Research Subcommittee of 

the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives held a 

hearing to review undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education. Dr. Carl Wieman, distinguished professor of 

physics at the University of Colorado and Nobel Laureate in physics, emphasized the connection between high quality undergraduate 

instruction in science and mathematics and improvements in K–12 

science and mathematics education. Dr. Elaine Seymour, the author of Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the 

Sciences, described the impact of poor science teaching at the undergraduate level. Dr. Daniel Goroff, Vice President and Dean of 

Faculty of Harvey Mudd College, Dr. John Burris, President of Beloit College, and Ms. Margaret Collins, Assistant Dean of Science, 

Business & Computer Technologies at Moraine Valley Community 

College, concurred with Dr. Wieman’s and Dr. Seymour’s remarks. 

12 

They added that NSF support of undergraduate programs, including research programs for improving professors’ quality of teaching, 

is essential to the enhancement of science and mathematics instruction at that level. 

On Thursday, March 30, 2006, the Committee on Science of the 

House of Representatives held a hearing to consider the role of 

Federal agencies in K–12 science and mathematics education. The 

hearing brought together five federal agencies to discuss their work 

in science and mathematics education at the K–12 level. Secretary 

of Education Margaret Spellings argued that improving science and 

mathematics education is essential to maintaining America’s global 

economic competitiveness, and said increased coordination among 

the agencies would improve federal education programs. NSF Director Arden Bement detailed NSF’s expertise in the area of science 

and mathematics education in particular, noting that the competitive grant process and rigorous evaluations result in excellent programs that bolster science and mathematics education at all levels. 

Representatives from DOE, the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration also discussed their own agencies’ programs, including opportunities for students and teachers to improve their 

knowledge science content. 

On Wednesday, May 3, 2006, the Committee on Science of the 

House of Representatives held a hearing to consider the role of the 

NSF in K–12 science and mathematics education. The hearing further explored the work of the NSF discussed in the March 30 hearing from the points of view of education researchers and teachers. 

Dr. Dennis Bartels, Executive Director of the Exploratorium 

science museum in San Francisco, noted the essential role NSF 

plays in bridging the gap between educational research and usable 

classroom tools. Dr. Joe Heppert, Chair of the American Chemical 

Society Committee on Education, agreed and pointed out that 

NSF’s strongest education programs are those that support teacher 

development through scholarships and training programs. Two 

teachers, Ms. Judy Snyder, mathematics teacher at Eastside High 

School in South Carolina and Ms. Becky Pringle, National Education Association Executive Board member and physical science 

teacher at Susquehanna Middle School in Pennsylvania, also testified that their participation in NSF education programs improved 

both their understanding of content and their teaching strategies. 

The witnesses all strongly supported NSF leadership in federal 

science and mathematics education programs. 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On May 11, 2006, Representative John J.H. ‘‘Joe’’ Schwarz; Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Chairman of the Committee on 

Science; Representative Lamar S. Smith; Representative Ken Calvert, Chairman of the Space Subcommittee; Representative Vernon 

J. Ehlers, Chairman of the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee; Representative Judy Biggert, Chairman of the 

Energy Subcommittee; Representative Bob Inglis, Chairman of the 

Research Subcommittee; and Representative Michael T. McCaul introduced H.R. 5358, the Science and Mathematics Education for 

Competitiveness Act, a bill to reauthorize programs relating to 

13 

STEM education at NSF and the DOE Office of Science, and for 

other purposes. 

The Full Committee on Science met on Wednesday, June 7, 2006, 

to consider the bill. • Mr. Schwarz, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Gordon, and Ms. Hooley offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to provide more 

specifics on the program element of the Robert Noyce Teacher 

Scholarship Program; expand allowable activities and prioritize 

teacher training in Student and University Partnerships for 

Science and Mathematics Education; integrate the centers on undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education into 

the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP); and add sections on a study of university 

donation of laboratory equipment and on NSF assessment of education programs. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote. • Ms. Matsui offered an amendment to gather information on 

whether participants in the Noyce Program continued in the teaching profession after their service requirement was completed. The 

amendment was adopted by a voice vote. • Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to add a new section to the 

bill to establish a program at NSF to give grants to high-need local 

educational agencies to purchase lab equipment. A unanimous consent request to withdraw the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. Gordon moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, 

H.R. 5358, to the House with the recommendation that the bill do 

pass, and that the staff be instructed to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and prepare the legislative report and 

that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before 

the House for consideration. With a quorum present, the motion 

was agreed to by a voice vote. 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AS REPORTED

• Strengthens and extends the Noyce Program at NSF by 

amending the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 

2002. (The Noyce Program provides funding to institutions of higher education to develop and implement programs that prepare 

STEM majors to become teachers as well as to provide scholarships 

to such students in exchange for teaching service after graduation.) 

Specifies some of the programs grantees must provide to prepare 

students for teaching, including providing field teaching experience. • Strengthens and focuses the Math and Science Partnership 

Program at NSF by amending the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. Renames the program as the ‘‘School and 

University Partnership for Science and Mathematics Education 

Program.’’ Requires the Director of NSF to give priority to applications that include teacher training activities as the main focus of 

the proposal. Establishes a minimum grant size of $75,000 per year 

and a maximum grant size of $2,000,000 per year. Requires the Director to transmit a report to Congress on which completed Math 

and Science Partnerships projects should be seen as models to be 

replicated on a more expansive basis at the State or national levels. 

• Extends the authorization of, and expands NSF’s STEP, which 

provides grants to colleges and universities to improve undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education, by 

amending the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 

14 

2002. Enables NSF to fund the creation of centers at colleges and 

universities to develop new approaches to undergraduate education 

programs, and expands STEP beyond its initial focus of increasing 

the number of graduating STEM majors to include increasing the 

number of non-majors taking STEM courses. • Ensures that funding increases proportionally to the overall 

NSF budget for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research 

Traineeship (IGERT), which supports graduate programs and students in interdisciplinary fields. • Requires NSF to continue the programs on Centers for Research on Learning and Education Improvement and on undergraduate education as authorized in the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. • Requires the Director of NSF to arrange for an assessment of 

the impact of Professional Science Master’s degree programs, to 

evaluate the NSF broader impact grant evaluation criterion, and to 

conduct a study on university donation of used laboratory equipment to schools. Requires NSF to use assessment methods that 

allow NSF programs to be compared to education programs supported by other Federal agencies. • Authorizes the DOE Office of Science to conduct education programs, and requires DOE to inventory and evaluate its current and 

future education programs. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION), AS

REPORTED

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE

‘‘Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act’’ 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS

Finds that NSF has made significant and valuable contributions 

to the improvement of K–12 and undergraduate STEM education 

and that it should continue to carry out education programs. 

SEC. 3. ROBERT NOYCE TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Amends Section 10 of The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, which established the Noyce Program. Under 

the Noyce Program, NSF provides grants to institutions of higher 

education to encourage top STEM majors to become teachers. The 

grants are used both to develop programs to prepare students for 

teaching and to provide to students who commit to teach for two 

years at the elementary or secondary school level in return for each 

year of scholarship aid. H.R. 5358 amends the law by specifying 

some of the programs grantees must provide to prepare students 

for teaching, including providing field teaching experience, and by 

making those programs available to students beginning in their 

freshman year (even though the scholarships are still available 

only to juniors and seniors, summer internships may be provided 

to freshmen and sophomores participating in the program). Also 

amends the law to specify that both faculty from STEM departments and education faculty must be involved in the program. Also 

amends the law to increase the minimum scholarship from $7,500 

per year to $10,000; to allow additional years of scholarship support for part-time students; to cap the post-graduation service reVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:00 Jun 24, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR524.XXX HR524
15 

requirement at four years; to extend stipend support for professionals in STEM fields returning to schools for a teaching degree 

to 16 months from one year to align the support with the length 

of a typical program; and to allow the Director of NSF to accept 

donations from the private sector to support scholarships, stipends, 

or internships associated with this program. Also amends the law 

to allow teaching service to occur in any local educational agency 

(rather than only in high-need areas), but to reduce the period of 

service obligation by one year for those scholarship recipients 

whose service is performed in a high-need local educational agency. 

Requires NSF, four years after the date of enactment, to transmit 

to Congress a report on whether participants in the program continue to teach after their service obligation is completed. Authorizes appropriations for the program of $50,000,000 for fiscal year 

2007, $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $90,000,000 for fiscal year 

2009, $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and $130,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2011, and sets aside specific portions of those authorizations 

for the programmatic (as opposed to scholarship) portions of the 

Noyce Program. 

SEC. 4. SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR SCIENCE AND

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

Amends Section 9 of The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, to strengthen the Math and Science Partnerships 

program at NSF, which provides grants to institutions of higher 

education (or to eligible nonprofit organizations) to partner with 

local educational agencies to improve elementary and secondary 

mathematics and science instruction. Amends the law to clarify 

that faculty from STEM departments must be the lead participants 

from the institutions of higher education and clarify that education 

faculty may participate in the Partnerships. Amends the law to explicitly include as allowable activities developing model induction 

programs and conducting training to teach Advanced Placement 

and International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) science and mathematics 

courses, encouraging STEM professionals to act as mentors for AP/ 

IB students and teachers, and providing science enrichment programs, including after-school programs and summer camps for female and minority students. Also amends the law to explicitly 

allow teacher training activities to include the development and offering of master’s degree programs for in-service mathematics and 

science teachers that will strengthen their subject area knowledge 

and pedagogical skills. Amends the law to require the Director of 

NSF to give priority to applications that include teacher training 

activities as the main focus of the proposal and to establish that 

the grant size should be between $75,000 and $2,000,000 per year. 

Amends the law to require the Director, within a year of the enactment of the Act, to transmit a report to Congress on which completed Math and Science Partnerships projects should be seen as 

models to be replicated on a more expansive basis at the State or 

national levels, and, within four years, to transmit a report to Congress summarizing the evaluations each Partnership is required to 

conduct of its projects and describing any changes to the overall 

program recommended as a result of these evaluations. Authorizes 

appropriations for the program of $63,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, 

$73,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $83,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, 

16 

$93,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and $103,000,000 for fiscal year 

2011. 

SEC. 5. SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

TALENT EXPANSION PROGRAM

Amends Section 8(7) of The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, which established at NSF STEP, which provides grants to institutions of higher education to improve undergraduate education. Amends the law to authorize NSF, as part of 

STEP, to award grants on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis to 

institutions of higher education to create Centers to improve undergraduate education through the development and dissemination of 

undergraduate curriculum and teaching methods, and the development and dissemination of training programs for faculty and graduate students who teach undergraduates. Requires that grants for 

Centers be made jointly through the NSF Education and Human 

Resources Directorate and at least one research directorate for periods up to five years, with two possible extensions of no more than 

three years each. Also requires the Director of NSF, within 180 

days, to transmit to Congress a report on how the Director is determining whether current STEP grant recipients are making satisfactory progress toward targets they have set for increasing the 

number of STEM majors at their institutions and what actions the 

Director has taken to ensure that funding is continued only to 

those making satisfactory progress. Authorizes appropriations for 

STEP of $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which $4,000,000 shall 

be for the Centers authorized by this Act; $55,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2008, of which $10,000,000 shall be for the Centers; 

$60,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2011, of 

which $10,000,000 each year shall be for the Centers. 

SEC. 6. INTEGRATIVE GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

TRAINEESHIP PROGRAM

Requires that the Director of NSF allocate at least 1.5 percent 

of funds appropriated for Research and Related Activities to the 

IGERT Program. Requires that the Director coordinate with Federal agencies to expand the interdisciplinary nature of the program, and allows the Director to accept funds from those agencies 

to carry out the program. (The IGERT program awards grants to 

institutions of higher education to develop interdisciplinary graduate programs and to provide tuition and stipends for graduate 

students in those programs.) 

SEC. 7. CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND EDUCATION

IMPROVEMENT

Requires the Director of NSF to continue the program on Centers 

for Research on Learning and Education Improvement as established in section 11 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. 

SEC. 8. UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Requires the Director of NSF to continue to carry out programs 

in undergraduate education, including those authorized in section 

17 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. 

17 

Funding for these programs shall increase as funding for NSF 

grows. 

SEC. 9. EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE MASTERS

Requires the Director of NSF to arrange for an assessment of the 

impact of Professional Science Master’s degree programs at a variety of institutions. Requires that the report be submitted to Congress within three years of the enactment of this Act and include 

information on the interdisciplinary nature of the degree, the employment and salary prospects of degree recipients compared with 

those of traditional science master’s graduates, the extent to which 

Professional Science Master’s graduates continue their education, 

and the effectiveness of the degree at attracting populations traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields. (Professional Science 

Master’s degree programs consist of two years of training in an 

emerging or interdisciplinary technological area. Many include internships and training in business and communications.) 

SEC. 10. REPORT ON BROADER IMPACTS CRITERION

Requires the Director of NSF to submit to Congress within one 

year of the enactment of this Act a report that evaluates the results of the use of the broader impacts criterion by NSF. (NSF 

grant proposals are evaluated for their ‘‘intellectual merit’’ and 

‘‘broader impact,’’ which includes the benefits of the activity to society at large.) Requires the report to identify how NSF evaluates 

proposals based on the broader impacts criterion, to categorize the 

types of broader impacts enumerated by grant applicants, to include any evaluations performed by NSF of the implementation of 

broader impacts aspects of research proposals, to describe which 

overarching national goals the broader impacts criterion is best 

suited to promote, and to describe what steps NSF should take to 

use the broader impacts criterion to improve undergraduate 

science, mathematics, and engineering education. 

SEC. 11. STUDY ON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT DONATIONS FOR SCHOOLS

Requires the Director of NSF, within one year of the enactment 

of this Act, to transmit to Congress a report on the extent to which 

universities are donating used laboratory equipment to elementary 

and secondary schools and how appropriate donations can be encouraged. 

SEC. 12. ASSESSMENTS OF NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Requires the Director of NSF, in conducting assessments of NSF 

education programs, to use assessment methods that allow NSF 

programs to be compared to education programs supported by other 

Federal agencies. 

SEC. 13. EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Authorizes education programs at DOE, through the Office of 

Science, in fields related to the Office’s mission, including activities 

such as offering scholarships or fellowships for study or research, 

research experiences for undergraduates, and summer institutes 

for improving teacher content knowledge in science and matheVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:09 Jun 24, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR524.XXX HR524
18 

matics. Requires the Secretary of Energy to submit a report not 

later than one year after the enactment of this Act that includes 

an inventory of existing education programs at DOE and the civilian National Laboratories and requires independent evaluations of 

those programs to be conducted within four years of the enactment 

of this act. Requires DOE to include the results of evaluations of 

educational programs run by the civilian National Laboratories as 

a factor when setting performance and incentive fees for those National Laboratory management and operations contractors. 

SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS

Defines ‘‘Institution of Higher Education’’ and ‘‘National Laboratory’’ for this Act. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ROLE IN STEM EDUCATION

Science and mathematics education is a cornerstone of the historic mission of NSF. The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, 

which established NSF, directed NSF to support and strengthen 

science and mathematics education programs at all levels. NSF has 

accumulated a 50-year record of accomplishment in developing 

highly successful science and mathematics education programs, 

which are strongly supported by the education community. The 

Committee believes that it is vitally important that NSF continue 

to carry out its mission to improve K–12 and undergraduate education in science and math. NSF’s peer review system, its connections with higher education, and its prestige give it a unique role 

in improving science and mathematics education that cannot be duplicated by any other federal agency. 

RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM

The NAS report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, stresses the 

importance of improving K–12 education in the U.S., but also emphasizes the need for increasing the number of undergraduate and 

graduate students studying and choosing careers in STEM fields. 

The Committee endorses the NAS’s focus on the link between a 

technologically-educated population and the U.S. ability to innovate 

and remain competitive, and this Act implements key education-related recommendations of Rising Above the Gathering Storm. The 

Act strengthens and expands existing programs, primarily at NSF, 

to enhance federal STEM education efforts, and creates no new 

programs. 

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN K–12

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program 

The Committee recognizes that the preparation and retention of 

excellent K–12 science and mathematics teachers is essential to improving science and mathematics education in the United States. 

The Act includes provisions for recruiting, training, and retaining 

teachers to ensure that schools have access to a pool of talented, 

qualified, and committed science and mathematics teachers. 

The Committee strongly believes that strong STEM content 

knowledge and excellent pedagogical skills are both necessary for 

19 

success as a K–12 science and mathematics teacher. This Act expands the program element of the Noyce program to support and 

encourage the transformation of how K–12 science and mathematics teachers are educated in this country. In addition to providing scholarships to juniors and seniors, colleges and universities 

receiving Noyce grants will be required to offer a program that provides instruction (which may begin as early as freshman year) and 

early field teaching experiences, including interactions with teacher 

leaders and coursework developed by STEM and education faculty, 

to allow participants in the program both to graduate with STEM 

degrees and to meet requirements for teacher certification or licensing. The Committee also believes that the colleges and universities should develop and implement induction programs to support 

graduates of the program in their first few years of teaching in 

order to improve the retention of Noyce program graduates in the 

teaching profession. The Committee also believes that collaboration 

between STEM and education faculty is critical for the success of 

these programs. The Committee applauds the work of University of 

Texas at Austin on its UTeach program, which is a successful 

model of the type of teacher education and support program the 

Committee wishes to encourage. 

The Committee believes that to maximize the impact of the 

teacher training programs supported through the Noyce Program, 

institutions receiving grants should make strong efforts to inform 

potential program participants about the program and the scholarships. NSF should support such recruitment efforts and use annual 

conferences of participants as opportunities to share best practices 

in recruitment as well as in other program components, such as 

coursework, mentoring, and field teaching experiences. 

The NAS in Rising Above the Gathering Storm calls for federal 

programs to support recruiting 10,000 new science and mathematics teachers every year, and the appropriations authorized in 

this Act put the Noyce program on track to reach that level of effort in 2016. 

The Committee expects NSF to do far more to publicize and promote participation by institutions of higher education in the Noyce 

Program, especially among schools that are more known for their 

rigorous STEM programs than they are for teacher preparation. 

School and University Partnerships for Science and Mathematics 

Education 

The updates contained in the Act to the existing Mathematics 

and Science Partnership program at NSF, now renamed the School 

and University Partnerships for Science and Mathematics Education program, reflect the recommendations the Committee has received from education experts who have encouraged a stronger 

focus on teacher training, especially in STEM content. The changes 

also address recommendations in this area by the NAS in Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm, particularly on providing master’s degree programs for in-service teachers and training programs to prepare teachers to teach AP/IB science and mathematics courses. The 

Committee strongly believes that grant applications which focus on 

teacher training should be given strong priority by NSF. Additionally, the Committee is concerned about the extremely high attrition 

rates for new science and mathematics teachers and believes that 

20 

the development and use of teacher induction programs, which provide content instruction, mentoring, professional development, and 

other support to teachers in the first few years of their career, 

should be supported in order to help improve teacher retention. 

Also, because of the importance of content training, the Act requires that the principal investigator for a Partnership grant be a 

science, mathematics, or engineering faculty member at the grantee institution. To improve the focus of the Partnership program, 

the Act requires that grants fall within the limits of $75,000 to 

$2,000,000 per year. By limiting grant size, the Committee hopes 

that proposed projects will focus on targeted approaches to improving science and mathematics education and thus allow clear evaluation of the effectiveness of each project. 

In adding language allowing the development and dissemination 

of curriculum tools that will help foster inventiveness and innovation, the Committee recognizes the value of innovation in U.S. competitiveness and the economic benefits that the U.S. gains by being 

a culture that encourages and rewards innovation. To support and 

cultivate the next generation of inventive scientists and engineers, 

teachers should have access to curriculum tools that include activities such as open-ended problem solving; hands-on and ‘‘how things 

work’’ exercises; projects that emphasize creativity, design and 

teamwork; and lessons to raise the stature of inventors and invention in the eyes of young people. 

SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION

AT THE UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL

Undergraduate education is the first step toward a career in 

teaching and in other science, engineering, or mathematics fields; 

it is the primary source of education and training for technical 

workers; and, it is often the last time non-majors will take a class 

in science and mathematics. The Committee believes that NSF, due 

to its close relationship with institutions of higher education and 

its expertise and experience in education at all levels, has a critical 

role to play in improving undergraduate STEM education for majors and non-majors, especially future teachers. No other Federal 

agency has a clear responsibility for undergraduate STEM education. 

The Act expands NSF’s STEP to fund the creation of centers at 

colleges and universities to develop new approaches to undergraduate STEM education programs. The Committee intends that 

these centers focus not only on improving undergraduate teaching 

and courses at their own institutions, but also on developing and 

disseminating innovative curricula, laboratory experiences, and 

teaching and training methods that can be used throughout the 

country. 

The Committee is also concerned that in running STEP, NSF has 

not seriously enforced the statutory requirement that an applicant 

set a numerical goal for increasing the number of STEM majors 

and that grantees be evaluated, in part, on the basis of whether 

they are meeting the numerical goals contained in their applications. The Committee expects STEP to be carried out pursuant to 

statute. This Act requires a report to Congress to ensure that NSF 

gathers data on majors at STEP institutions. 

21 

To ensure the widest possible impact of STEP grants, the Committee expects NSF to provide grantees with opportunities to discuss best practices for recruiting students into programs run by 

STEP grantees. 

In addition to STEP, NSF currently carries out a range of other 

programs designed to improve undergraduate STEM education, 

and the Committee strongly supports the continuation of these activities, especially the Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program. 

SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION

AT THE GRADUATE LEVEL

NSF continues to be the primary source of support for graduate 

students in many STEM fields. The Committee is particularly supportive of the IGERT Program because it not only provides support 

for graduate students but also facilitates the development of new 

graduate programs that reach across traditional disciplinary 

boundaries and may include internships and mentoring in industrial, national laboratory, academic, or other settings. 

The Committee encourages NSF’s ongoing efforts to collaborate 

with other agencies in support of the IGERT program. In particular, the Committee encourages NSF and DOE to work together 

to support projects that enable graduate education in advanced energy technology research and development, including projects that 

involve partnerships between schools, departments or programs of 

engineering and schools, departments or programs of design, architecture, and city, regional or urban planning. 

PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE MASTER’S PROGRAMS

The Committee applauds the efforts by the Sloan Foundation 

and the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) to support the development of Professional Science Master’s programs. The Committee is 

aware of CGS plans to evaluate data related to graduates of these 

programs and expects NSF and CGS to work together to ensure 

that evaluation and assessment efforts are not duplicated in producing the study required under this act. 

EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATION PROGRAMS

In 2006, Congress created the interagency Academic Competitiveness Council, which was formed to evaluate the effectiveness of 

STEM education programs and improve interagency coordination of 

these programs. The Committee encourages NSF and DOE, in assessing their education programs as required by this Act, to use 

methodologies that allow comparison of the impact and outcomes of 

the NSF and DOE programs to the effectiveness of education programs conducted at other federal agencies. 

IX. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on 

Science prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section 

X of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). 

22 

H.R. 5358 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the 

sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 5358 does 

authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the 

Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained 

in Section X of this report. 

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

JUNE 22, 2006. 

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5358, the Science and 

Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON, 

Acting Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5358—Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act 

Summary: H.R. 5358 would reauthorize certain programs carried 

out by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The bill would direct the NSF to continue funding for its division of undergraduate 

education and would specifically authorize appropriations for three 

grant or scholarship programs carried out by that division. In addition, the bill would direct the NSF to continue operating its centers 

for research on learning and education improvement and to allocate 

at least 1.5 percent of amounts appropriated for research and related activities each year to the integrative graduate education and 

research traineeship program (IGERT). Assuming appropriation of 

the specified and estimated amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5358 would cost $131 million in fiscal year 2007 and 

$1.7 million over the 2007–2011 period. (An additional $500 million 

would be spent after 2011.) 

The bill also would authorize the NSF to accept and use donations to support scholarships and other payments to students under 

the Robert Noyes teacher scholarship program. CBO estimates that 

providing this authority would have no effect on federal revenues 

(or spending of those revenues) because the agency already has 

similar authority under current law. Enacting this legislation 

would not affect other direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 5358 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); 

any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result from 

complying with conditions of federal assistance. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5358 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 250 (general science, 

space, and technology). 

23 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Spending Under Current Law for NSF Science and Mathematics Education Programs: 

Budget Authority a ........................................................................... 295 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 281 218 86 28 6 0 

Proposed Changes: 

Robert Noyce Scholarship Program: 

Authorization Level ................................................................. 0 50 70 90 110 130 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 11 38 61 84 105 

Science and Mathematics Education Partnerships: 

Authorization Level ................................................................. 0 63 73 83 93 103 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 14 44 64 79 90 

STEM Talent Expansion Program: 

Authorization Level ................................................................. 0 44 55 60 60 60 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 10 32 47 56 59 

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................ 0 66 67 69 70 71 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 15 45 59 67 69 

Centers for Research on Learning and Education Improvement: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................ 0 26 26 27 27 28 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 6 17 23 26 27 

Other Undergraduate Education Programs: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................ 0 116 118 120 122 125 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 0 75 102 116 121 123 

Total Proposed Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ....................................... 0 365 410 449 483 516 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................... 0 131 278 370 433 473 

Spending Under H.R. 5358 for NSF Science and Mathematics 

Education Programs: 

Authorization Level a ............................................................... 295 365 410 449 483 516 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 281 348 365 397 440 473 

a The 2006 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the NSF programs that would be reauthorized by H.R. 5358. 

Notes: STEM = Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

5358 will be enacted during fiscal year 2006 and that the entire 

amounts specified by the bill or estimated to be necessary will be 

appropriated for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011. Estimated 

outlays are based on historical patterns for the authorized programs. 

H.R. 5358 would specifically authorize the appropriation of about 

$1.1 billion over the 2007–2011 period for three educational grant 

programs carried out by NSF’s division of undergraduate education. CBO estimates that the bill also would authorize the appropriation of an additional $1.1 billion over that period for grants by 

directing the agency to continue to carry out other graduate and 

undergraduate grant programs. This estimate is based on appropriations in recent years for these activities, adjusted annually for 

anticipated inflation. Assuming appropriation of these amounts, 

CBO estimates that carrying out H.R. 5358 would cost $131 million 

in 2007 and about $1.7 billion over the 2007–2011 period. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5358 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. The bill would authorize activities and grant funds that 

would benefit institutions of higher education. Any costs they 

might incur would result from complying with conditions of federal 

assistance. 

24 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine; Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 (UNFUNDED MANDATES) 

H.R. 5358 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee on Science’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of H.R. 

5358 are to update the activities and extend the authorization for 

the Noyce Program at NSF; update the activities of the Mathematics and Science Partnership program at NSF; authorize specific 

program activities at NSF and DOE; and conduct studies of Broader Impacts Criterion, K–12 school laboratory equipment, and professional science master’s programs to improve the quality of 

STEM education. 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 5358. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 5358 does not establish nor authorize the establishment of 

any advisory committee. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 5358 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

XVII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL

LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

XVIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

25 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT 

OF 2002 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(6) ELIGIBLE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘‘eligible 

nonprofit organization’’ means a nonprofit research institute, 

or a nonprofit professional association, with demonstrated experience and effectiveness in mathematics or science education 

as determined by the Director.¿ 

(6) ELIGIBLE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘‘eligible 

nonprofit organization’’ means a nonprofit organization, such 

as a museum or science center, involved in the preparation, 

training, or certification of science and mathematics teachers. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(8) HIGH-NEED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—The term 

‘‘high-need local educational agency’’ means a local educational 

agency that meets one or more of the following criteria: 

ø(A) It has at least one school in which 50 percent or 

more of the enrolled students are eligible for participation 

in the free and reduced price lunch program established by 

the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 

U.S.C. 1751 et seq.). 

ø(B) It has at least one school in which— 

ø(i) more than 34 percent of the academic classroom 

teachers at the secondary level (across all academic 

subjects) do not have an undergraduate degree with a 

major or minor in, or a graduate degree in, the academic field in which they teach the largest percentage 

of their classes; or 

ø(ii) more than 34 percent of the teachers in two of 

the academic departments do not have an undergraduate degree with a major or minor in, or a graduate degree in, the academic field in which they teach 

the largest percentage of their classes. 

ø(C) It has at least one school whose teacher attrition 

rate has been 15 percent or more over the last three school 

years.¿ 

(8) HIGH-NEED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—The term 

‘‘high-need local educational agency’’ means a local educational 

agency that— 

(A) is receiving grants under title I of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et 

seq) as a result of having within its jurisdiction concentrations of children from low income families; and 

(B) is experiencing a shortage of highly qualified teachers, as defined in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801), in the 

fields of science, mathematics, or engineering. 

* * * * * * * 

26 

(11) øMASTER TEACHER¿ TEACHER LEADER.—The term ‘‘ømaster teacher¿ teacher leader’’ means a mathematics or 

science teacher who works to improve the instruction of mathematics or science in kindergarten through grade 12 through— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(E) providing professional development, including for the 

purposes of training other ømaster teachers¿ teacher leaders, to mathematics and science teachers. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 8. SPECIFIC PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS. 

From amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 5, the 

Director shall carry out the Foundation’s research and education 

programs, including the following initiatives in accordance with 

this section: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(7) SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY

TALENT EXPANSION PROGRAM.—(A) A program of øcompetitive, 

merit-based, multi-year grants for eligible applicants to increase the number of students studying toward and completing 

associate’s or bachelor’s degrees in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, particularly in fields that have faced 

declining enrollment in recent years¿ competitive, merit-reviewed multiyear grants for eligible applicants to improve undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering 

and technology through— 

(i) the creation of programs to increase the number of students studying toward and completing associate’s or bachelor’s degrees in science, mathematics, engineering and 

technology, particularly in fields that have faced declining 

enrollment in recent years; and 

(ii) the creation of centers to develop undergraduate curriculum, teaching methods for undergraduate courses, and 

methods to better train professors and teaching assistants 

who teach undergraduate courses to increase the number of 

students completing undergraduate courses in science, 

mathematics, technology, and engineering, including the 

number of nonmajors, and to improve student academic 

achievement in those courses. 

Grants made under clause (ii) shall be awarded jointly through 

the Education and Human Resources Directorate and at least 

1 research directorate of the Foundation. 

(B) In selecting projects øunder this paragraph¿ under subparagraph (A)(i), the Director shall strive to increase the number of students studying toward and completing baccalaureate 

degrees, concentrations, or certificates in science, mathematics, 

engineering, or technology who are individuals identified in 

section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b). 

(C)(i) The types of projects the Foundation may support 

under øthis paragraph¿ subparagraph (A)(i) include those that 

promote high quality— 

27 

ø(i)¿ (I) interdisciplinary teaching; 

ø(ii)¿ (II) undergraduate-conducted research; 

ø(iii)¿ (III) mentor relationships for students; 

ø(iv)¿ (IV) bridge programs that enable students at community colleges to matriculate directly into baccalaureate 

science, mathematics, engineering, or technology programs; 

ø(v)¿ (V) internships carried out in partnership with industry; and 

ø(vi)¿ (VI) innovative uses of digital technologies, particularly at institutions of higher education that serve high 

numbers or percentages of economically disadvantaged 

students. 

(ii) The types of activities the Foundation may support under 

subparagraph (A)(ii) include— 

(I) creating model curricula and laboratory programs; 

(II) developing and demonstrating research-based instructional methods and technologies; 

(III) developing methods to train graduate students and 

faculty to be more effective teachers of undergraduates; 

(IV) conducting programs to disseminate curricula, instructional methods, or training methods to faculty at the 

grantee institutions and at other institutions; 

(V) conducting assessments of the effectiveness of the Center at accomplishing the goals described in subparagraph 

(A)(ii); and 

(VI) conducting any other activities the Director determines will accomplish the goals described in subparagraph 

(A)(ii). 

(D)(i) In order to receive a grant under øthis paragraph¿ 

subparagraph (A)(i), an eligible applicant shall establish targets to increase the number of students studying toward and 

completing associate’s or bachelor’s degrees in science, mathematics, engineering, or technology. 

(ii) A grant under øthis paragraph¿ subparagraph (A)(i) 

shall be awarded for a period of 5 years, with the final 2 years 

of funding contingent on the Director’s determination that satisfactory progress has been made by the grantee toward meeting the targets established under clause (i). 

* * * * * * * 

(iv) A grant under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be awarded for 

5 years, and the Director may extend such a grant for up to 2 

additional 3 year periods. 

(E) For each grant awarded under øthis paragraph¿ subparagraph (A)(i) to an institution of higher education, at least 

1 principal investigator shall be in a position of administrative 

leadership at the institution of higher education, and at least 

1 principal investigator shall be a faculty member from an academic department included in the work of the project. For each 

grant awarded to a consortium or partnership, at each institution of higher education participating in the consortium or 

partnership, at least 1 of the individuals responsible for carrying out activities authorized under øthis paragraph¿ subparagraph (A)(i) at that institution shall be in a position of administrative leadership at the institution, and at least 1 shall 

28 

be a faculty member from an academic department included in 

the work of the project at that institution. 

(F) Grants awarded under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be carried out by a department or departments of science, mathematics, or engineering at institutions of higher education (or a 

consortia thereof), which may partner with education faculty. 

Applications for awards under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be 

submitted to the Director at such time, in such manner, and 

containing such information as the Director may require. At a 

minimum, the application shall include— 

(i) a description of the activities to be carried out by the 

Center; 

(ii) a plan for disseminating programs related to the activities carried out by the Center to faculty at the grantee 

institution and at other institutions; 

(iii) an estimate of the number of faculty, graduate students (if any), and undergraduate students who will be affected by the activities carried out by the Center; and 

(iv) a plan for assessing the effectiveness of the Center at 

accomplishing the goals described in subparagraph (A)(ii). 

(G) in evaluating the applications submitted under subparagraph (F), the Director shall consider, at a minimum— 

(i) the ability of the applicant to effectively carry out the 

proposed activities, including the dissemination activities 

described in subparagraph (C)(ii)(IV); and 

(ii) the extent to which the faculty, staff, and administrators of the applicant institution are committed to improving 

undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education. 

(H) In awarding grants under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Director shall endeavor to ensure that a wide variety of science, 

mathematics, and engineering fields and types of institutions of 

higher education, including 2-year colleges, are covered, and 

that— 

(i) at least 1 Center is housed at a Doctoral/Research 

University as defined by the Carnegie Foundation for the 

Advancement of Teaching; and 

(ii) at least 1 Center is focused on improving undergraduate education in an interdisciplinary area. 

(I) The Director shall convene an annual meeting of the 

awardees under this paragraph to foster collaboration and to 

disseminate the results of the Centers and the other activities 

funded under this paragraph. 

ø(F)¿ (J) In this paragraph, the term ‘‘eligible applicant’’ 

means— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 9. øMATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPS¿ 

SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR SCIENCE 

AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION. 

(a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.— (1) * * * 

(2) PARTNERSHIPS.—ø(A)¿ In order to be eligible to receive a 

grant under this subsection, an institution of higher education, 

through 1 or more of its departments in science, mathematics, 

29 

or engineering, or eligible nonprofit organization (or consortium 

of such institutions or organizations) shall enter into a partnership with one or more local educational agencies that may also 

include øa State educational agency¿ education faculty from 

the participating institution or institutions of higher education, 

a State educational agency, or one or more businesses. 

ø(B) A participating institution of higher education shall include mathematics, science, or engineering departments in the 

programs carried out through a partnership under this paragraph.¿ 

(3) USES OF FUNDS.—Grants awarded under this subsection 

shall be used for activities that draw upon the expertise of the 

partners to improve elementary or secondary education in 

mathematics or science and that are consistent with State 

mathematics and science student academic achievement standards, including— 

(A) * * * 

(B) offering content-specific professional development 

programs, including summer or academic year institutes or 

workshops, which are designed to strengthen the capabilities of mathematics and science teachers and which may 

include teacher training activities to prepare science and 

mathematics teachers to teach Advanced Placement and 

International Baccalaureate science and mathematics 

courses; 

(C) offering innovative preservice and inservice programs that instruct teachers on using technology and laboratory experiences more effectively in teaching mathematics and science, including programs that recruit and 

train undergraduate and graduate students to provide 

technical and laboratory support to teachers; 

* * * * * * * 

(E) developing a cadre of ømaster teachers¿ teacher leaders who will promote reform and improvement in schools; 

* * * * * * * 

(I) developing initiatives to increase and sustain the 

number, quality, and diversity of prekindergarten through 

grade 12 teachers of mathematics and science, including 

model induction programs for teachers in their first 2 years 

of teaching, especially in underserved areas; 

* * * * * * * 

(K) ødeveloping and offering mathematics or science enrichment programs for students, including after-school and 

summer programs;¿ developing educational programs and 

materials for use in and conducting mathematics or science 

enrichment programs for students, including after-school 

programs and summer camps for students described in 

subsection (b)(2)(G); 

* * * * * * * 

(4) øMASTER TEACHERS¿ TEACHER LEADERS.—Activities carried out in accordance with paragraph (3)(E) shall— 

30 

(A) emphasize the training of ømaster teachers¿ teacher 

leaders who will improve the instruction of mathematics or 

science in kindergarten through grade 12; 

(B) include training in both content and pedagogy; and 

(C) provide training only to teachers who will be granted 

sufficient nonclassroom time to serve as ømaster teachers¿ 

teacher leaders, as demonstrated by assurances their employing school has provided to the Director, in such time 

and such manner as the Director may require. 

* * * * * * * 

(8) MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAMS.—Activities carried out in 

accordance with paragraph (3)(B) shall include the development 

and offering of master’s degree programs for in-service mathematics and science teachers that will strengthen their subject 

area knowledge and pedagogical skills. Grants provided under 

this section may be used to develop and implement courses of 

instruction for the master’s degree programs, which may involve 

online learning, and develop related educational materials. 

(9) MENTORS FOR ADVANCED PLACEMENT COURSES TEACHERS

AND STUDENTS.—Partnerships carrying out activities to prepare 

science and mathematics teachers to teach Advanced Placement 

and International Baccalaureate science and mathematics 

courses in accordance with paragraph (3)(B) shall encourage 

companies employing scientists, mathematicians, or engineers to 

provide mentors to teachers and students and provide for the 

coordination of such mentoring activities. 

(10) INVENTIVENESS.—Activities carried out in accordance 

with paragraph (3)(H) may include the development and dissemination of curriculum tools that will help foster inventiveness and innovation. 

(b) SELECTION PROCESS.— (1) * * * 

(2) REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.—In evaluating the applications 

submitted under paragraph (1), the Director shall consider, at 

a minimum— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(E) the extent to which the evaluation described in paragraph (1)(E) will be independent and based on objective 

measures; 

ø(E)¿ (F) the likelihood that the partnership will demonstrate activities that can be widely implemented as part 

of larger scale reform efforts; and 

ø(F)¿ (G) the extent to which the activities will encourage the interest of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 

of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in mathematics, science, engineering, and technology and will help prepare such individuals to pursue postsecondary studies in these fields. 

(3) AWARDS.—In awarding grants under this section, the Director shall— 

(A) give priority to applications in which the partnership 

includes a high-need local educational agency or a highneed local educational agency in which at least one school 

31 

does not make adequate yearly progress, as determined 

pursuant to part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.); 

øand¿ 

(B) give priority to applications that include teacher 

training activities as the main focus of the proposal; and 

ø(B)¿ (C) ensure that, to the extent practicable, a substantial number of the partnerships funded under this section include businesses. 

(4) MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM GRANT SIZE.—A grant awarded under this section shall be not less than $75,000 or greater than 

$2,000,000 for any fiscal year. 

(c) ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISSEMINATION.— 

(1) * * * 

ø(2) DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS.—(A) The results of the evaluation required under paragraph (1) shall be made available to 

the public and shall be provided to the Committee on Science 

of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate. 

ø(B) Materials developed under the program established 

under subsection (a) that are demonstrated to be effective shall 

be made widely available to the public.¿ 

(2) REPORT ON MODEL PROJECTS.—The Director shall determine which completed projects funded through the program 

under this section should be seen as models to be replicated on 

a more expansive basis at the State or national levels. Not later 

than 1 year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the 

Director shall transmit a report describing the results of this 

study to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

of the Senate. 

(3) REPORT ON EVALUATIONS.—Not later than 4 years after 

the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Director shall 

transmit a report summarizing the evaluations required under 

subsection (b)(1)(E) of grants received under this program and 

describing any changes to the program recommended as a result of these evaluations to the Committee on Science and the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 

Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions of the Senate. Such report shall be made 

widely available to the public. 

ø(3)¿ (4) ANNUAL MEETING.—The Director, in consultation 

with the Secretary of Education, shall convene an annual 

meeting of the partnerships participating under this section to 

foster greater national collaboration. 

ø(4)¿ (5) REPORT ON COORDINATION.—The Director, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, shall provide an annual report to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee 

32 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate describing how the program authorized under this section has 

been and will be coordinated with the program authorized 

under part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.). The report under 

this paragraph shall be submitted along with the President’s 

annual budget request. 

ø(5)¿ (6) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—At the request of an eligible partnership or a State educational agency, the Director 

shall provide the partnership or agency with technical assistance in meeting any requirements of this section, including 

providing advice from experts on how to develop— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘mathematics and 

science teacher’’ means a mathematics, science, or technology teacher 

at the elementary school or secondary school level. 

SEC. 10. ROBERT NOYCE TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. 

(a) SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall carry out a program to 

award grants to institutions of higher education (or consortia 

of such institutions) øto provide scholarships, stipends, and 

programming designed¿ to recruit and train mathematics and 

science teachers and to provide scholarships and stipends to 

students participating in the program. Such program shall be 

known as the ‘‘Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program’’. 

* * * * * * * 

(3) USE OF GRANTS.—Grants provided under this section 

shall be used by institutions of higher education or consortia— 

(A) to develop and implement a program to øencourage 

top college juniors and seniors¿ recruit and prepare undergraduate students majoring in mathematics, science, and 

engineering at the grantee’s institution to become qualified 

as mathematics and science teachers, through— 

(i) administering scholarships in accordance with 

subsection (c); 

(ii) offering øprograms to help scholarship recipients¿ academic courses and early field teaching experiences designed to prepare students participating in the 

program to teach in elementary schools and secondary 

schools, including øprograms that will result in¿ such 

preparation as is necessary to meet requirements for 

teacher certification or ølicensing; and¿ licensing; 

(iii) offering programs to øscholarship recipients¿ 

students participating in the program, both before and 

after they receive their baccalaureate degree, to øenable the recipients¿ enable the students to become better mathematics and science teachers, to fulfill the 

service requirements of this section, and to exchange 

ideas with others in their fields; øor¿ and 

(iv) providing summer internships for freshman and 

sophomore students participating in the program; or 

(B) to develop and implement a program to øencourage¿ 

recruit and prepare science, mathematics, or engineering 

33 

professionals to become qualified as mathematics and 

science teachers, through— 

(i) administering stipends in accordance with subsection (d); 

ø(ii) offering programs to help stipend recipients obtain teacher certification or licensing; and¿ 

(ii) offering academic courses and field teaching experiences designed to prepare stipend recipients to 

teach in elementary schools and secondary schools, including such preparation as necessary to meet requirements for teacher certification or licensing; 

* * * * * * * 

(4) ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT.—To be eligible for an award 

under this section, an institution of higher education (or consortia of such institutions) shall ensure that specific faculty 

members and staff from the institution’s mathematics, science, 

or engineering departments and specific education faculty are 

designated to carry out the development and implementation of 

the program. An institution of higher education may also include teacher leaders to participate in developing the pedagogical content of the program and to supervise students participating in the program in their field teaching experiences. No 

institution of higher education shall be eligible for an award 

unless faculty from the institution’s mathematics, science, or engineering departments are active participants in the program. 

(b) SELECTION PROCESS.— 

(1) APPLICATION.—An institution of higher education or consortium seeking funding under this section shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and 

containing such information as the Director may require. The 

application shall include, at a minimum— 

(A) a description of the øscholarship or stipend¿ program 

that the applicant intends to operate, including the number of scholarships and summer internships or the size and 

number of stipends the applicant intends to award, the 

type of activities proposed for the recruitment of students to 

the program, and the selection process that will be used in 

awarding the scholarships or stipends; 

(B) evidence that the applicant has the capability to administer the øscholarship or stipend¿ program in accordance with the provisions of this sectionø; and¿, which may 

include a description of any existing programs at the applicant’s institution that are targeted to the education of 

science and mathematics teachers and the number of teachers graduated annually from such programs; 

ø(C) a description of the programming that will be offered to scholarship or stipend recipients during and after 

their matriculation in the program for which the scholarship or stipend is received.¿ 

(C) a description of the academic courses and field teaching experiences required under subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and 

(B)(ii), including— 

(i) a description of the undergraduate program that 

will enable a student to graduate in 4 years with a 

34 

major in mathematics, science, or engineering and to 

obtain teacher certification or licensing; 

(ii) a description of the field teaching experiences 

proposed; and 

(iii) evidence of agreements between the applicant 

and the schools or school districts that are identified as 

the locations at which field teaching experiences will 

occur; 

(D) a description of the programs required under subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii) and (B)(iii), including activities to assist new teachers in fulfilling their service requirements 

under this section; and 

(E) an identification of the applicant’s mathematics, 

science, or engineering faculty and its education faculty 

who will carry out the development and implementation of 

the program as required under subsection (a)(4). 

(2) REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.—In evaluating the applications 

submitted under paragraph (1), the Director shall consider, at 

a minimum— 

(A) * * * 

(B) the extent to which the applicant’s mathematics, 

science, or engineering faculty and its education faculty 

have worked or will work collaboratively to design new or 

revised curricula that recognizes the specialized pedagogy 

required to teach mathematics and science effectively in elementary and secondary schools; 

ø(B)¿ (C) the extent to which the applicant is committed 

to making the program a central organizational focus; 

ø(C)¿ (D) the degree to which the proposed programming 

will enable scholarship or stipend recipients to become successful mathematics and science teachers; 

ø(D)¿ (E) the number and quality of the students that 

will be served by the program; and 

ø(E)¿ (F) the ability of the applicant to recruit students 

who would otherwise not pursue a career in teaching. 

(c) SCHOLARSHIP REQUIREMENTS.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) AMOUNT.—The Director shall establish for each year the 

amount to be awarded for scholarships under this section for 

that year, which shall be not less than ø$7,500¿ $10,000 per 

year, except that no individual shall receive for any year more 

than the cost of attendance at that individual’s institution. Individuals may receive a maximum of 2 years øof scholarship 

support¿ of scholarship support, unless the Director establishes 

a policy by which part-time students may receive additional 

years of support. (4) SERVICE OBLIGATION.—If an individual receives a scholarship, that individual shall be required to complete, within 6 

years after graduation from the baccalaureate degree program 

for which the scholarship was awarded, 2 years of service as 

a mathematics or science teacher for each year a scholarship 

was received, with a maximum service requirement of 4 years. øService required under this paragraph shall be performed in 

a high-need local educational agency.¿ 

35 

(5) EXCEPTION.—The period of service obligation under paragraph (4) is reduced by 1 year for scholarship recipients whose 

service is performed in a high-need local educational agency. 

(d) STIPENDS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Stipends under this section shall be available only to mathematics, science, and engineering professionals who, while receiving the stipend, are enrolled in a program øto receive certification or licensing to teach¿ established 

under subsection (a)(3)(B). 

(2) SELECTION.—Individuals shall be selected to receive stipends under this section primarily on the basis of academic 

merit and professional achievement, with consideration given 

to financial need and to the goal of promoting the participation 

of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and 

Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 

1885b). 

(3) DURATION.—Individuals may receive a maximum of ø1 

year¿ 16 months of stipend support. 

(4) SERVICE OBLIGATION.—If an individual receives a stipend 

under this section, that individual shall be required to complete, within 6 years after graduation from the program for 

which the stipend was awarded, 2 years of service as a mathematics or science teacher øfor each year a stipend was received¿. Service required under this paragraph shall be performed in a high-need local educational agency. 

* * * * * * * 

(g) FAILURE TO COMPLETE SERVICE OBLIGATION.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) AMOUNT OF REPAYMENT.—(A) If a circumstance described 

in paragraph (1) occurs before the completion of one year of a 

service obligation under this section, the United States shall be 

entitled to recover from the individual, within one year after 

the date of the occurrence of such circumstance, an amount 

equal to— 

(i) the total amount of awards received by such individual under this section; plus 

(ii) the interest on the amounts of such awards which 

would be payable if at the time the awards were received 

they were loans bearing interest at the maximum legal 

prevailing rate, as determined by the øTreasurer of the 

United States,¿ 

ømultiplied by 2.¿ Treasurer of the United States. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) the term ‘‘mathematics, science, or engineering professional’’ means a person who holds a baccalaureate, masters, or 

doctoral degree in science, mathematics, or engineering and is 

working in or had a career in that field or a related area; 

* * * * * * * 

(j) SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS SCHOLARSHIP GIFT FUND.—In accordance with section 11(f) of the National Science Foundation Act 

36 

of 1950, the Director is authorized to accept donations from the private sector to support scholarships, stipends, or internships associated with programs under this section. 

(k) ASSESSMENT OF TEACHER RETENTION.—Not later than 4 years 

after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Director shall 

transmit to Congress a report on the effectiveness of the program 

carried out under this section regarding the retention of participants 

in the teaching profession beyond the service obligation required 

under this section. 

(l) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Except as provided in 

subsection (m), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Director for the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program— (1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which at least $7,500,000 shall be used for capacity building activities described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii) and (B)(ii) and (iii); 

(2) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which at least $10,500,000 shall be used for capacity building activities described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii) and (B)(ii) and (iii); 

(3) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which at least $13,500,000 shall be used for capacity building activities described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii) and (B)(ii) and (iii); 

(4) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, of which at least $16,500,000 shall be used for capacity building activities described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii) and (B)(ii) and (iii); 

and 

(5) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, of which at least $19,500,000 shall be used for capacity building activities described in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) and (iii) and (B)(ii) and (iii). 

(m) EXCEPTION.—For any fiscal year for which the funding allocated for activities under this section is less than $50,000,000, the 

amount of funding available for capacity building activities described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (l) shall not exceed 15 percent of the allocated funds. 

XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On June 7, 2006, a quorum being present, the Committee on 

Science favorably reported H.R. 5358, the Science and Mathematics 

Education for Competitiveness Act, as amended, by a voice vote 

and recommended its enactment. 

37 


Insert graphic folio 44 HR524.001
38 


Insert graphic folio 45 HR524.002
(39) 

XXI: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 5358, SCIENCE 

AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION FOR COMPETITIVENESS ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:39 p.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I want to welcome everyone here for this 

markup on three important and bipartisan bills. The Committee on 

Science will come to order, as I started to say. 

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to consider 

H.R. 5136, the National Integrated Drought Information System 

Act of 2006; H.R. 5358, the Science and Mathematics Education for 

Competitiveness Act; and H.R. 5356, the Research for Competitiveness Act. 

I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during consideration of these matters, and 

without objection, it is so ordered. 

We will now proceed with the markup beginning with opening 

statements. I will go first, followed by my distinguished colleague 

and partner in this venture, Mr. Gordon. 

I am going to make all my general comments on today’s bills 

now, and not speak on the bills later on. Since we have to squeeze 

in a lot of business this afternoon between Floor votes, and according to the report from the Floor, we can expect a series of votes 

some time in the 4:00 to 4:15 timeframe. 

As usual with this committee, these bills reflect a lot of bipartisan work to solve real problems in practical ways. 

Our first bill today will be a measure to improve drought forecasting and monitoring, introduced by Mr. Hall. I appreciate Mr. 

Hall bringing this matter to our attention. 

Drought may seem like something that is easy to detect, but 

hard to do anything about; but that turns out to be wrong on both 

counts. It is tricky to figure out when a drought is developing, but 

if one knows, one can take many steps to alter water usage to mitigate drought’s often severe economic consequences. So we need to 

pay more attention to this costly phenomenon, and Mr. Hall’s bill, 

building on existing federal efforts, will enable us to improve 

drought forecasting and monitoring, which will save billions, with 

40 

a ‘‘B,’’ billions of dollars. So, I expect this bill to move smoothly 

today, and on the House Floor. We will have one manager’s amendment today, to reduce the authorization levels, to make that 

progress to the Floor a little easier. 

The other two bills we will take up today are the Committee’s 

long-awaited innovation package. 

Our goal here is to take action on the recommendations of the 

National Academy of Sciences, the Council on Competitiveness, 

AEA, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, and others, who have been calling for the U.S. to shore 

up its competitiveness by focusing more attention and more dollars 

on research and education. 

These calls were really music to our ears, because we have been 

issuing the same entreaties ourselves on this committee for a number of years, and especially in the last couple of years, as the challenge to future U.S. competitiveness has never become clearer. 

But we didn’t want to answer those calls with a laundry list of 

new programs of dubious value, that would be unlikely to ever get 

funded. It might give us a lot of satisfaction and some fancy press 

releases, but that is not what this committee is about. We are 

about results. Indeed, we looked around to see what is working 

right now, or what has worked in the recent past, and then, we extended or expanded or built on those successful programs, and the 

result is a focused, bipartisan measure that should be able to move 

swiftly through the House. 

This measure is an intelligent middle ground between those who 

want to create scores of new, untested, expensive programs, and 

those who argue that all that is necessary is to increase overall 

funding for basic research, and leave everything else to chance. If 

we are to remain competitive, then we have to bolster key programs at the National Science Foundation, especially focused on K– 

12 and undergraduate education, and it is the prerogative of the 

Congress to do that. 

I want to thank Dr. Schwarz and Mr. McCaul, two active freshmen on this committee with a deep understanding of these issues, 

for introducing these bills. 

And I want to thank Mr. Gordon and the Members on both sides 

of the aisle, who worked with us on developing the final versions 

of these bills that are in the amendments in the nature of a substitute, including Dr. Ehlers and Ms. Biggert and Mr. Calvert, Ms. 

Jackson Lee and Mr. Green, and Mr. Honda. You get the idea of 

how we operate. Fingerprints of Members on both sides of the aisle 

are all over these bills, and that is the way it should be. 

The Schwarz bill focuses on education programs at the National 

Science Foundation, which runs programs that are critical to improving math and science education at all levels. The bill includes 

enhancing and extending the Noyce Scholarship program, one of 

my pet projects, to attract and better train science and math teachers. We also give renewed emphasis to the Math and Science Partnership program, now renamed the School and University Partnership Program. 

And we underscore NSF’s role in the sometimes neglected, but 

critical area of undergraduate education. We also give clear authorVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:09 Jun 24, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR524.XXX HR524
41 

ity to the Department of Energy for education programs, and we 

require an inventory and an evaluation of those programs. 

In Mr. McCaul’s bill, we bolster research by ensuring that both 

NSF and DOE, we will set aside funding for young researchers, 

who are likely to perform the most creative and pathbreaking 

work. And we revive and idea from the 1980s, to try to get industry 

interested in these young academic researchers and in their longterm, basic research. 

I would add that both of these bills, and the underlying 2002 

NSF Act, direct that the programs in these bills, among other 

things, help bring more individuals from under-represented groups 

into science, math, and engineering, and that is a goal that many 

Members of this committee have been very active in pursuing. 

So, we are taking action today, as we promised when we heard 

from the leaders of the National Academies Gathering Storm panel 

last year. We are setting a realistic agenda to increase U.S. investment in research and education in carefully targeted ways. 

I look forward to moving this legislation today, and to continuing 

efforts to see it signed into law this year. And I will continue to 

work with the appropriators to see that they provide the funding 

called for in the American Competitiveness Initiative and in these 

bills. 

Now, it is my privilege to turn to my partner in this venture, the 

distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

I want to welcome everyone here for this markup on three important and bipartisan bills. I’m going to make all my general comments on today’s bills now and not 

speak on the bills later, since we have to squeeze in a lot of business this afternoon 

between Floor votes. 

As usual with this committee, these bills reflect a lot of bipartisan work to solve 

real problems in practical ways. 

Our first bill today will be a measure to improve drought forecasting and monitoring, introduced by Mr. Hall. I appreciate Mr. Hall bringing this matter to our 

attention. 

Drought may seem like something that is easy to detect but hard to do anything 

about. But that turns out to be wrong on both counts. It’s tricky to figure out when 

a drought is developing, but if one knows, one can take many steps to alter water 

usage to mitigate drought’s often severe economic consequences. So we need to pay 

more attention to this costly phenomenon, and Mr. Hall’s bill, building on existing 

federal efforts, will enable us to improve drought forecasting and monitoring, which 

will save billions of dollars. So I expect this bill to move smoothly today and on the 

House Floor. 

We will have one manager’s amendment today to reduce the authorization levels 

to make that progress to the Floor a little easier. 

The other two bills we will take up today are the Committee’s long awaited innovation package. 

Our goal here is to take action on the recommendations of the National Academy 

of Sciences, the Council on Competitiveness, AEA, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers and others who have been calling for the U.S. 

to shore up its competitiveness by focusing more attention and more dollars on research and education. 

These calls were really music to our ears because we’ve been issuing the same 

entreaties ourselves for years, and especially in the last couple of years as the challenge to future U.S. competitiveness has become ever clearer. 

But we didn’t want to answer these calls with a laundry list of new programs of 

dubious value that would be unlikely to ever get funded. Instead, we looked around 

to see what is working right now or what has worked in the recent past, and then 

we extended or expanded or built on those successful programs. And the result is 

42 

a focused, bipartisan measure that should be able to move swiftly through the 

House. 

This measure is an intelligent middle-ground between those who want to create 

scores of new, untested, expensive programs and those who argue that all that’s necessary is to increase overall funding for basic research and leave everything else to 

chance. If we are to remain competitive, then we have to bolster key programs at 

the National Science Foundation (NSF), especially programs focused on K–12 and 

undergraduate education, and it’s the prerogative of the Congress to do that. 

I want to thank Mr. Schwarz and Mr. McCaul, two active freshmen on this committee with a deep understanding of these issues, for introducing these bills. 

And I want to thank Mr. Gordon and the Members on both sides of the aisle who 

worked with us on developing the final versions of these bills that are in the amendments in the nature of a substitute, including Mr. Ehlers, Ms. Biggert, Mr. Calvert, 

Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Green and Mr. Honda. 

The Schwarz bill focuses on education programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF), which runs programs that are critical to improving math and science 

education at all levels. The bill includes enhancing and extending the Noyce Scholarship program, one of my pet projects, to attract and train better science and math 

teachers. We also give renewed emphasis to the Math and Science Partnership program, now renamed the School and University Partnership Program. 

And we underscore NSF’s role in the sometimes neglected, but critical area of undergraduate education. We also give clear authority to the Department of Energy 

(DOE) for education programs, and we require an inventory and evaluation of those 

programs. 

In Mr. McCaul’s bill, we bolster research by ensuring that both NSF and DOE 

we will set aside funding for young researchers, who are likely to perform the most 

creative and pathbreaking work. And we revive an idea from the 1980s to try to 

get industry interested in these young academic researchers and in their long-term, 

basic research. 

I would add that both these bills, and the underlying 2002 NSF Act, direct that 

the programs in these bills, among other things, help bring more individuals from 

under-represented into science, math and engineering. 

So we’re taking action today as we promised when we heard from the leaders of 

the National Academy’s Gathering Storm panel last year. We are setting a realistic 

agenda to increase U.S. investment in research and education in carefully targeted 

ways. 

I look forward to moving this legislation today, and to continuing efforts to see 

it signed into law this year. And I will continue to work with the appropriators to 

see that they provide the funding called for in the American Competitiveness Initiative and in these bills. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

There are many ways we can foster innovation and competition at the national 

level, but the most critical is the support of education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields. I am pleased that today’s bills artfully address this 

area by focusing on programs that maximize innovation and educational opportunities. By addressing teacher training, graduate interdisciplinary studies, and research in areas that bridge scientific fields, these bills combine to provide a comprehensive alliance putting us on the right track to remain competitive in today’s 

global economy. NSF education programs play a strong role in promoting our economic competitiveness and national security and I am glad that my colleagues on 

the Committee recognize that this treasure trove of knowledge the Foundation represents should not be overlooked. The bills also demonstrate a strong commitment 

toward fundamental research, and place an emphasis on the promise of young research professors. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the scientific community to advance this important legislation. I believe that both bills align with the mission of 

bolstering American Competitiveness, and will support them strongly when they are 

considered by the whole House. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

43 

I am happy that the Republican leadership has finally put together a package of 

legislation in response to the President’s call for increased national competitiveness 

in science, technology, engineering and math. 

This initiative underscores the recommendations of several important reports, including the report called Rising Above the Gathering Storm, released last year by 

the National Academy of Sciences. 

A nation lacking science and math competitiveness is a nation lacking a future 

of prosperity. Advances in medicine, engineering and technology have touched every 

aspect of our lives. 

The bills up for consideration today focus on particular weaknesses in our national scientific enterprise. 

The enhancement of early career awards for investigators in the physical sciences 

will be important in maintaining our national pipeline of talent. 

Support of high-risk, high-reward research projects pertinent to industry are designed to spur innovation. 

Cross-disciplinary research is an important sector, and it is good to encourage collaboration between life sciences and the physical sciences. 

As always, the NASA workforce is deserving of the Committee’s support, especially when it comes to programs to strengthen that workforce. 

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, the provisions in H.R. 5358 are likewise good ideas to 

enhance math and science education at all levels. 

Programs such as the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship provide strong support 

to math and science teachers, particularly as they enter the final years of their 

training. Research has shown that these years are critical for retention of teachers, 

and so it is good to provide support at this critical point in their education. 

Advanced degree programs for teachers such as those specified in the School and 

University Partnerships for Science and Math Education provision, are also important to keep educators on the cutting edge of their course material. 

H.R. 5358 contains many creative provisions to support math and science teachers 

from the beginning of their training throughout their careers. 

I believe this support is critical to enhancing students’ views of math and science. 

Students need to see mentors who have passion for the subject material. 

One particular concern of mine is regarding our nation’s people of color. Minorities, with the exception of students at historically Black colleges and universities, 

are not pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering and math at the same 

rate of their peers. 

My hope was to see a much greater emphasis on programs supporting ethnic minorities. Although I commend the efforts of the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy and other organizations that support research in the physical 

sciences, the problem is clearly far from being resolved. 

This issue, of minority participation in math and science careers, is one I would 

like to see this committee address much more intently in the future. 

As former Chair of the Research Subcommittee, I support this committee’s efforts 

to enhance programs in the name of national competitiveness. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 5356, the Research for Competitiveness Act. I recognize Mr. Gordon for his remarks. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I think we are moving along well. 

Let me just say once again, I think this is a good bill. I think 

it would have been better if we had added the ARPA–E recommendations from the ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ bill 

that myself and most Members here have co-sponsored. 

Just to, once again, remind people, so that it stays on your radar, 

so hopefully, we will have a chance to deal with this later, but the 

Department of Defense had a little agency called DARPA, and we 

are familiar with that. It is in the advanced research area. They 

developed the Internet. They developed stealth technology, and a 

number of other important technologies. What we would like to see, 

and again, following on the recommendations of the report, is that 

within the Department of Energy, we set up a similar type of advanced research agency, that we look around, you know, the country, and we determine the eight or ten, for them to determine the 

44 

eight or ten best technologies, where we could have some breakthrough with energy and alternative energies, that we bring the 

National Labs, the private sector, the universities together, really 

hunker down, focus on these, like they have done in DARPA, and 

see if we can’t have some breakthroughs. 

And again, I will not make it as an amendment, but I raise it 

as an issue, so that we can hopefully talk about this more at a 

later date. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

Today, the Committee will consider legislative proposals for improving the future 

competitiveness of the Nation. 

The Manager’s amendments to H.R. 5356 and H.R. 5358, which I have co-sponsored, meld provisions from the majority’s bills and my bipartisan bills, H.R. 4434 

and H.R. 4596. 

I want to thank the Chairman and other Members of the Majority for working 

with me to improve both the scope and funding levels authorized in the manager’s 

amendments so that they are more in-line with the recommendations of the recent 

report from the National Academy of Sciences, Rising Above the Gathering Storm. 

The resulting legislation focuses specifically on improving science and math education and on strengthening basic research. 

The markup vehicles now implement a number of the key recommendations of the 

Gathering Storm report, recommendations which represent a consensus for action 

from a distinguished panel representing business, academic, and education leaders. 

Last year, I introduced three bills based on the Rising Storm panel’s recommendations that were in the Science Committee’s jurisdiction, and I had hoped to see early 

action by Congress in implementing them. 

With the general uncertainty about our country’s future economic prospects, we 

need to act promptly. At a recent ETS Subcommittee hearing with NIST’s three 

Nobel Prize winners, all three agreed that we need to increase our investment in 

basic research and to improve K–12 science and math education. 

The Gathering Storm report states that ‘‘laying the foundation for a scientifically 

literate workforce begins with developing outstanding K–12 teachers in science and 

mathematics.’’ 

I believe the report got it exactly right and has identified teachers as the first 

priority. 

Therefore, I am pleased that the markup vehicle for H.R. 5358 will implement the 

top priority of the Academies’ report, which is to put in place effective teacher training programs for new and in-service science and math teachers. 

The proposed modifications to the Noyce scholarship program will transform it 

into much more than a scholarship program. It will spur reform to change the way 

colleges and universities educate new science and math teachers. Teachers who 

emerge from the program will combine deep knowledge of their subject with expertise in the most effective practices for teaching science or math. 

The new teachers will also receive mentoring and support during the critical early 

years of their teaching careers, when teacher attrition is known to be high. 

Finally, the program is authorized at a level that would enable it to meet the goal 

of producing 10,000 highly qualified science and math teachers each year within the 

President’s goal of doubling the NSF budget. 

In short, the manager’s amendment now implements the highest priority of the 

Rising Storm report. In addition, the NSF’s major K–12 education program involving partnerships between universities and school systems is strengthened by the 

manager’s amendment. Emphasis is placed on professional development opportunities for practicing teachers, including support for Master’s degree programs and 

teacher institutes. 

While I am largely satisfied with these bills, I am disappointed that the Science 

Committee is being a follower and not a leader on the critical issue of innovation. 

We are following the action of Senate committees to move legislation, and the bills 

before us today were only recently introduced. 

In addition, we are taking a timid approach by not addressing all of the Gathering 

Storm report’s recommendations within the Committee’s jurisdiction. 

We are not taking up ARPA–E legislation to help meet the Nation’s critical energy 

needs, and we are not authorizing the NSF and DOE Office of Science funding increases called for in both the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative and 

45 

in the National Academy’s report. As the authorizing committee for these agencies, 

we are ducking our responsibilities if we do not act. 

So while the bills before us today are a good start, they do not represent a comprehensive approach. I hope the Committee will soon act to provide the missing 

pieces. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Moving right along, we will now consider 

H.R. 5358, the Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act. I recognize Mr. Gordon for any remarks that he might 

care to make. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will submit my eloquent remarks for the record, but I want to 

talk to the Committee just a moment about these bills that are 

coming up. 

Once again, as usual, and I will start with the good news, I support the Chairman in these bills. I think they are good bills. We 

could, you know, I think maybe make them better, but these are 

good bills. 

I am disappointed that we are getting started a little bit late 

with this. The authorizers are going to deal with this issue next 

week, and as a practical matter, we can—or rather, the appropriators—and we need to give them some instructions on this very important issue. 

And now, what I would like to do, if I could, just for a minute 

or so, I would like to sort of declare a political free zone here. The 

California election is over. No one—well, I don’t want to say no 

one, a couple of folks on the Committee have serious races, but 

really, most folks don’t, and Dr. Schwarz, if it wouldn’t hurt you, 

I would go down and endorse you in your primary. We don’t have 

a new Member who has brought more to the Committee than you 

have, and I thank you for that. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. Unanimous 

consent. 

Mr. GORDON. Happy to do that. Would be happy to do that. 

But you know, these are very important issues. You are probably 

tired of hearing me talk about my daughter, but my daughter is 

graduating from pre-K tomorrow, and I am very concerned, sincerely concerned, about the kind of competitiveness that she is 

going to, and her generation, is going to find when they enter the 

workforce. And you don’t have to wait ten years or twelve years. 

It is going to be before that. 

We really have, I think, a crisis brewing, and I don’t want to, you 

know, I don’t want to overdo it. In the ’50s, we had Sputnik, that 

we thought, you know, was going to change the world, and that we 

were in trouble, and we were a great nation, and we came back together. In the seventies, once again, we thought we—this competitiveness was going to get us with the rising oil prices, but as a 

great nation, we came together. And I think that we have a chance 

to do that again, but this is a very serious problem, and we have 

a chance on the Science Committee, I think, to make a real contribution, but we need to do it right, and let me say that, and I 

will preface this, so you will know why. 

President Clinton introduced something called direct lending, 

where he had student loans go directly through the Department of 

Education. I thought he was wrong. I thought the Department of 

46 

Education had more than they could handle, and that they would 

wind up screwing it up, and I fought him on that, and we have 

both programs, or at least we stopped them from taking the private 

sector out, and having just direct lending. 

I say that because President Bush now is proposing, with much 

of this legislation, to run it through the Department of Education. 

That is a mistake, and this committee has over and over said it is 

a mistake. The Chairman and I are going to sign a letter to the 

appropriators saying that is a mistake, but we need to do more 

than just vote these things today, touch base, and go home. 

We really need to work this with the appropriators, and we need 

to deal with this, because we have a lucky situation, in that there 

is going to be some additional funds that are going to be put in this 

competitiveness agenda, and it is going to be hard to go back and 

get these funds again later. We cannot screw this up, because they 

are going to say, well, you had your chance, and we are going to 

go somewhere else. 

And let me tell you what I am talking about. Everybody that 

came before this committee that testified for us said that when it 

comes to science and education, it starts with teachers, and that is 

what we have got to deal with. Everyone except for the Secretary 

of Education, and again, she had a parochial interest, and she 

seems to be doing better than most of them have done. But everybody else says it starts with the teacher. 

Yet, the President’s proposal puts 70 percent of the money into 

math curriculum, nothing for science, only math curriculum, and 

then, the other 30 percent goes into AP courses. Well, you can’t 

have AP courses if you don’t have AP teachers, and so, it is very 

important, I think, that we talk with the appropriators, and get 

this thing right. If we follow along the route that he is proposing, 

it is contrary to everything that this committee has done over the 

last few years on a bipartisan basis. 

At the same time they are putting the money in the Department 

of Education for this curriculum, the National Science Foundation, 

that for fifty years, has been trying to educate teachers, and doing 

a good job, they are being cut by 50 percent over this last three 

years. And so, this is not a partisan issue. This is, you know, a 

Science Committee, this is a competitiveness issue, and we really 

need to take this opportunity to do more than vote for this bill and 

then go home. We need to talk with the appropriators. We need to 

get this thing right, and I hope that we can do that again. 

I know that the Chairman and I will be signing a letter, but we 

need to do more than that, and I hope that all of you will take the 

chance to talk with the appropriators, and explain that we want to 

do this thing the right way. It is not a partisan issue. It is an issue 

about competitiveness for this country, and we need to get it right. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. 

I thank you for your passion, for your commitment, and I thank 

you for saying, suggesting at the outset that this be a nonpartisan 

zone, and we just concentrate on what is best for the Nation and 

our future. 

And I just signed the letter you are referring to, but let me tell 

you something. Bart Gordon and I, as partners on the Science 

47 

Committee, do more than just sign letters. We have been working 

right along with the appropriators. We don’t have to pass some bill 

here today to initiate action, in terms of dealing with the appropriators. We have been dealing with them right along, not just last 

week, not just last month, not just last year, but for several years. 

Together, we have gone to them. Individually, we have gone to 

them. And we have focused on the importance of science and math 

education for the future of this nation, and we have said, quite 

frankly, if you leave it just to the professionals in the Department 

of Education, shame on you. 

The National Science Foundation has a vital role to play, and we 

have emphasized that role, and when there was an effort to take 

away the Science and Math Partnership from the National Science 

Foundation, the response they got from this committee, on a bipartisan basis, was quite simple. Like hell. We wouldn’t stand for it, 

and they didn’t do it. 

So, it didn’t take a report from the National Academy of Science, 

an excellent report, entitled ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm,’’ 

to get our collective attention within this room. We have been on 

this subject for some time, but that aided us in getting the attention of others, who don’t have a day to day responsibility in this 

subject arena. And now, when we talk to them, when Mr. Gordon 

talks to his people, when I talk to our people, when we interact 

with each other, we are now getting people who are paying attention to this very important subject. 

So, I couldn’t appreciate more the sentiment behind Mr. Gordon’s 

remarks. And quite honestly, I couldn’t appreciate more the determined effort that he has demonstrated to let partisanship check it 

at the door. I have decided not to run for re-election. I came here 

42 years ago as a starry-eyed young staffer. It is time for me to go. 

But one of the reasons that I used in the makeup of my decision 

was partisanship has reared its ugly head on Capitol Hill for too 

long, too consistently, and tolerance for another point of view has 

been notably absent. Fortunately, that is not in this committee, so 

I thank you very much. 

Now, we will consider the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the 

bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, and 

that the Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the 

roster. Without objection, so ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is an amendment offered in 

the nature of a substitute by the very distinguished gentleman 

from Michigan, who is enjoying bipartisan support on this committee today, Dr. Schwarz. I ask unanimous consent that the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute be treated as original text 

for purposes of amendment under the five minute rule, and without 

objection, that is so ordered. 

The Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5358, offered by Mr. Schwarz of 

Michigan. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading of the full amendment. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize Dr. Schwarz for five minutes. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce this 

amendment in the nature of a substitute, which is the end result 

48 

of many hours of hard work on the part of Members and staff on 

both sides of the aisle. I especially want to thank Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, Dr. Ehlers, Mr. Green, Mr. Honda, 

Ms. Jackson Lee, and Mr. Baird and their staff, for their hard work 

and thoughtful comments, that have contributed to the many improvements in this amendment. Like the original bill, this substitute represents a critical step for our country’s education system 

in science, mathematics, engineering, and other technology. 

This substitute includes nearly all the language from the original 

bill, while bringing in many provisions suggested by Democratic 

and Republican Members of the Committee. I am proud to say that 

working together, we have drafted legislation that creates no new 

programs, but rather, strengthens and expands existing programs 

that have a proven track record of success. 

This substitute bolsters important programs dedicated to preparing science, technology, engineering, and math teachers, originally authorized in the National Science Foundation Authorization 

Act of 2002. 

It expands the Robert Noyce Scholarship program. Robert Noyce 

was the founder of Fairchild Semiconductor, one of the founders of 

Intel, and one of the discoverers of the integrated circuit or 

microchip. He died in 1990. It expands the Noyce Scholarship program to include four years of instruction and field work opportunities for participants, which will help attract science, math, technology, and engineering majors to consider teaching careers early 

on. It also prioritizes programs focusing on teacher training, including preparation for teaching advanced placement courses, and developing Master’s degrees programs under the School and University Partnerships for Science and Mathematics Education program, 

formerly known as Math and Science Partnerships program. The 

substitute also authorizes enrichment activities such as summer 

camps and classroom laboratory experiences to better engage students in science, math, technology, and engineering fields. 

Undergraduate programs also receive additional attention in this 

substitute. It combines the new Centers for Undergraduate Education into the pre-existing Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematic Talent Expansion program at the NSF, furthering that 

program’s goal of increasing the pool of undergraduate students 

pursuing science, math, technology, and engineering degrees. It 

also requires the continuation of existing undergraduate education 

programs at the Foundation. 

The substitute clarifies a few items in the original bill, in the 

2002 Act. It reasserts the importance of the Centers for Research 

and Learning and Education Improvement established in the 2002 

Act. It also clarifies that the section on Department of Energy education programs in the original bill refers only to programs within 

that Department’s Office of Science. 

Finally, on the request of Members of both sides of the aisle, this 

substitute strengthens the assessment of programs in order to ensure that the National Science Foundation is maintaining its historically strong standards of excellence for the programs and its 

funds. The substitute requires the Foundation to assess its programs in a way that allows for comparisons to other federal programs, aiding both the Foundation and other agencies in the design 

49 

and implementation of education programs that expand science 

technology, engineering, and math education programs, and opportunities for students at all levels. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwarz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN J.H. SCHWARZ

I am pleased to introduce this amendment in the nature of a substitute, which 

is the end result of many hours of hard work on the part of Members and staff on 

both sides of the aisle. I especially want to thank Chairman Boehlert, Ranking 

Member Gordon, Chairman Ehlers, Mr. Green, Mr. Honda, Ms. Jackson Lee, and 

Mr. Baird and their staff for their hard work and thoughtful comments that have 

contributed to the many improvements in this amendment. Like the original bill, 

this substitute represents a critical step for our country’s education system in 

science, mathematics, engineering, and other technology. 

This substitute includes nearly all the language from the original bill, while bringing in many provisions suggested by Democratic and Republican Members of the 

Committee. I am proud to say that, working together, we have drafted legislation 

that creates no new programs but, rather, strengthens and expands existing programs that have a proven track record of success. 

This substitute bolsters important programs dedicated to preparing science, technology, engineering, and math teachers originally authorized in the National Science 

Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. It expands the Robert Noyce Scholarship program to include four years of instruction and field work opportunities for participants, which will help attract science, math, technology, and engineering majors to 

consider teaching careers early on. Robert Noyce was co-founder of Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel, and he is credited as one of the inventors of the integrated circuit or microchip. He died in 1990. It also prioritizes programs focusing on teacher 

training, including preparation for teaching advanced placement courses and developing Master’s degrees programs under the School and University Partnerships for 

Science and Mathematics Education program, formerly known as the Math and 

Science Partnerships program. The substitute also authorizes enrichment activities, 

such as summer camps and classroom laboratory experiences, to better engage students in science, math, technology, and engineering fields. 

Undergraduate programs also receive additional attention in this substitute. It 

combines the new centers for undergraduate education into the preexisting Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematic Talent Expansion Program at the National Science Foundation, furthering that program’s goal of increasing the pool of 

undergraduate students pursuing science, math, technology, and engineering degrees. It also requires the continuation of existing undergraduate education programs at the Foundation. 

The substitute also clarifies a few items in the original bill and the 2002 Act. It 

reasserts the importance of the Centers for Research on Learning and Education 

Improvement established in the 2002 Act. It also clarifies that the section on Department of Energy education programs in the original bill refers only to programs 

within the Office of Science. 

Finally, on the request of Members from both sides of the aisle, this substitute 

strengthens the assessment of programs in order to ensure that the National 

Science Foundation is maintaining its historically strong standards of excellence for 

the programs it funds. The substitute requires the Foundation to assess its programs in a way that allows for comparisons to other federal programs, aiding both 

the Foundation and other agencies in the design and implementation of education 

programs that expand science, technology, engineering, and math educational opportunities for students at all levels. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Schwarz, for 

that excellent summation. Is there anyone else who would care to 

speak on this? 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for recognizing me, and I will be brief. 

I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you and your 

staff for working with me to include language about what I have 

been calling teaching innovation in the manager’s amendment. The 

50 

language would allow NSF to use funding for the development and 

dissemination of curriculum materials that will help foster inventiveness and innovation, and to research the process of innovation, 

and the teaching of inventiveness. 

I think, then, as we strive to train new scientists, engineers, and 

teachers to maintain global competitiveness in science and technology, we must realize that we cannot just train them in the same 

old way we have used in the past. We need to introduce them to 

new fields, teach them to be interdisciplinary, and ensure that they 

are taught the creativity and technical skills of highly inventive 

and innovative people. 

Data on patent awards shows that in especially innovative, hightech companies, the cutting edge work has really been driven by a 

few highly innovative scientists and engineers. We need to figure 

out how these people do it, and teach others those skills, and that 

is what my language does. I am not the only one who thinks this. 

Leading experts made similar recommendations in the MIT– 

Lemelson program report called Invention, and many high-tech 

CEOs have told me the same thing, and have endorsed my standalone bill, from which this language is adapted, the Inventive Act 

of 2006 and H.R. 5477. 

So, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for working with my staff 

and myself to include this in the manager’s amendment, and for 

putting these bills together that we can support, and I want to also 

thank you for your last comment, and really personally recognize 

you for your great leadership in the years that I have been here. 

And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL M. HONDA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me, and I’ll be brief. 

I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for working 

with me to include language about what I’ve been calling ‘‘teaching innovation’’ in 

the manager’s amendment. 

The language would allow NSF to use funding for the development and dissemination of curriculum materials that will help foster inventiveness and innovation, 

and to research the process of innovation and the teaching of inventiveness. 

I think that as we strive to train new scientists, engineers, and teachers to maintain global competitiveness in science and technology, we must realize that we cannot just train them in the same old way we have used in the past. 

We need to introduce them to new fields, teach them to be interdisciplinary, and 

ensure that they are taught the creativity and thinking skills of highly inventive 

and innovative people. 

Data on patent awards shows that in especially innovative high-tech companies, 

the cutting edge work has really been driven by a few highly innovative scientists 

and engineers. We need to figure out how these people ‘‘do it’’ and teach others those 

skills. That’s what my language does. 

I’m not the only one who thinks this—leading experts made similar recommendations in the MIT–Lemelson Program report ‘‘Invention,’’ and many high-tech CEOs 

have told me the same thing and have endorsed my stand-alone bill from which this 

language is adapted, the INVENT Act, H.R. 5477. 

So again, I thank the Chairman for working with me to include this in the manager’s amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. I really appreciate 

those comments. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

51 

And while I hate to be the skunk at the lawn party again, I will 

have to oppose this love feast of bipartisanship, both on philosophical and practical grounds. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just note that the goal of having better 

and more science and mathematics teachers, as far as I am concerned, is a noble goal, and I want to make sure the Chairman— 

make sure I am addressing the Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chairman is always attentive to the 

distinguished gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I was saying, the goal of achieving more math and science 

teachers is certainly a laudable goal. I would have to say that 

whether that goal should be the priority for all of our local schools 

throughout the United States is something they should decide, and 

I have just spent the morning talking to educators from my district 

who are totally upset with the outcome of the No Child Left Behind 

Program. The No Child Left Behind Program was also something 

that sounded very laudatory, and ended up with more direction 

from Washington, D.C. about education and what was going on in 

the local area, and they are bemoaning that control and that loss 

of leeway that they have, and the loss of control that they have had 

locally because of the No Child Left Behind program. 

This will, again, further the—set things in a direction we would 

like to see it, but perhaps that is not their priority, and perhaps 

there are other ways to achieve this goal, if it is their priority. This 

would offer a certain expenditure of federal money, and I certainly 

laud the fact that the scholarship program within this bill demands 

a two for one service requirement for each person who gets a scholarship. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I would. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I couldn’t agree more that the local schools 

should decide whether or not they want to hire a capable science 

teacher. That is their decision to make. What we want to make 

sure is they have some choices in the marketplace, and that capable science teachers are trained, and we have found that offering 

these incentives to students going to college majoring in science, 

math, and engineering, serve as a vehicle to carry them from college, without heavy loan obligation, into the classroom, teaching 

our youngsters. That is what we want. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time. Just to note, there are 

ways to do this through the marketplace, without necessarily having a federal program directed by bureaucrats, whether they are at 

the Department of Education, or whether they are at NASA, or 

whether at the National Science Foundation. I don’t care where the 

public employees are, where their desk is located. They are still 

parts of a Washington bureaucracy that will eventually have the 

same type of attitude that Washington bureaucrats have towards 

local educators in the No Child Left Behind program. 

The way that local schools can attract, through the marketplace, 

as many science and mathematics teachers as are necessary to 

meet their standards is very easy, and it won’t cost any money, in 

terms of any more money. It is just simply permitting science and 

mathematics teachers to receive higher compensation from their 

52 

pay, for their pay, than do people who teach basket-weaving and 

physical education. But that is not the case in so many schools 

throughout the country, where we have highly structured, and I 

might say a union environment, which actually undermines the 

teaching of educational courses that we now know are necessary for 

our country in science and mathematics. No one wants to touch 

that issue, because we know those unions who are demanding that 

basket-weaving teachers earn the same as mathematics teachers 

and science teachers, have a great sway politically, and that is unfortunately one of the issues we can’t handle here in this building. 

But what we can do is make sure that we just don’t substitute 

government control from Washington, D.C., and direction from 

Washington, D.C., for an inability of people to try to handle those 

issues locally. For example, summer schools may—and summer 

camps may be a very good thing. This should not be a decision 

made, something that we try to pressure people to do from the Federal Government. This should be made—a decision made totally by 

local people. 

Furthermore, what I find in this bill is—basically, it is aimed at 

teachers. That is correct, and as I say, I think there are plenty of 

trained mathematicians and scientists who will go in that direction 

of teaching, if they were offered higher pay, but it doesn’t really do 

anything, in terms directly for the students. There are, for example, many members of the scientific and engineering organizations 

who would love to share enthusiasm and their knowledge for math 

and science and engineering to kids in K–12, and that is where we 

really need to make our mark. We need to make sure that younger 

people who get interested in science and mathematics, that is 

where our future depends on, and there is nothing in this that affects those kids. What it affects are teachers, and what we are 

going to do is get away—we are going to teach teachers, rather 

than attracting those people who already have the skills in, because we are not willing to look at that union issue, as I suggested. 

I would, again, suggest to my friends and colleagues that although this is very laudable, this is a very, very laudable goal, education is something our country depends upon, certainly science 

and mathematics education, but just like the No Child Left Behind, 

there is no excuse for us to be expanding the arena of the Federal 

Government into the decisions of local education. After all, the 

money all comes from the local area anyway. We are just taxing 

the money away, and giving it back as we think it should be structured. That doesn’t make any sense to me, and I will oppose the 

bill, although I applaud all of you for your very good motives. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. We thank the gentleman for his applause 

for the noble objectives of this very worthy bill, and we thank him 

for his always interesting observations with his intervention. 

And now, any further comments? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, I will just real quickly ask to strike the last 

word. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. GORDON. As usual, my friend from California has an opinion, 

and whether you agree with the opinion or not agree with the opinion, it really is not on mark with this bill. 

53 

I mean, I think what we are trying to accomplish—what he 

wants to accomplish, you know, God bless him, go forward and try 

to do what you can where you can, but that is not what this bill 

is about. The fact of the matter is that, if you want to say the private sector has not worked in this area—right now, two-thirds, approximately two-thirds of the math and science teachers in this 

country have neither a major or a certificate to teach that subject, 

and that has been isolated as the number one problem. It is hard 

to inspire someone, it is hard to teach someone, if you don’t fully 

understand, you know, the subject. 

This gives us an opportunity to put more of those teachers with 

that background in the market, so that those communities can 

bring them in, and probably even more importantly, what it will 

do is, it will go to those existing teachers, allow them to upgrade 

their credentials. So, again, the problems, concerns that you mention, you are consistent in mentioning them, but it is inconsistent 

with this particular bill. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon. Is 

there any further discussion on that? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first, I 

would like to thank you and the Ranking Member, for your leadership on this most important piece of legislation, to implement many 

of the Augustine recommendations for global competitiveness. 

I would like to thank all of the staff persons who have worked 

tirelessly to draft this legislation. It is most meaningful, and I believe that this amendment will do a lot to clarify some of our positions. Most especially, I would like to commend this committee’s 

spirit of bipartisanship, notwithstanding recent comments, and the 

efforts put forth to accommodate my interests in providing additional opportunities for under-represented persons in math and in 

science. 

Following last month’s hearing regarding the National Science 

Foundation’s role in providing math and science education, I introduced H.R. 5458. This legislation authorizes a National Science 

Foundation Competitive Grant program, which would assist institutions of learning and other science and math-oriented nonprofit 

organizations, with the creation and/or expansion of science and 

math summer camps specifically targeted towards inner city, underprivileged children. Although the text provided in the substitute 

amendment does not contain all of the language that I included in 

H.R. 5458, I appreciate the spirit of the compromise provision, 

which authorizes the development of educational programs and materials for use to conduct both after-school and summer camp enrichment programs in math and science for under-represented students. 

I also want to commend the Chair and Ranking Member for their 

efforts to include several additional provisions other than my own, 

which aim to increase the diversity among the STEM professions. 

Some of the progressive provisions included are the National 

Science Foundation, the NSF, must consider academic merit, finanVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:09 Jun 24, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR524.XXX HR524
54 

cial need, and the promotion of participation by women, minorities, 

and individuals with disabilities in awarding the Noyce Scholarships. I think that is progress. STEM professionals who receive a 

stipend to become certified as teachers must carry out their teaching payback period in high need schools. I believe that is progress. 

The teaching payback period for scholarship recipients is reduced 

by one year if they elect to teach in a high need school. I think that 

is progress. 

The NSF must consider the extent to which activities proposed 

will encourage the interests of women, minorities, and individuals 

with disabilities in STEM fields. I believe that is progress. The 

NSF must give priority to applications from partnerships that include a high need local education agency in making awards. That 

is progress. Under the STEM Talent Expansion program, proposed 

language specifically states that NSF must strive to increase the 

number of STEM graduates who are women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities. This is progress. 

Mr. Chairman, when Albert Einstein was a child, he was considered a slow learner, not the genius destined for greatness that he 

is remembered as today. This legislation gives us a greater chance, 

not only to leave no child behind, but also to reveal the hidden talents of the next genius child waiting to make a difference if given 

the opportunity. 

I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for the hard work 

and leadership that they have given us, in helping us to move forward with the Augustine recommendations to improve our STEM 

endeavors. And—— 

Mr. GORDON. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GREEN.—my colleagues will—yes, I yield. 

Mr. GORDON. Let me just quickly say that I appreciate you bringing these issues before us, and that I am pleased that the Chairman accepted them into this bill. Every witness that came before 

us, it was consistent that to improve our competitiveness, we had 

to improve our math and science skills, and everyone said that 

women and minorities were under-represented, and the best way to 

get bang for your buck was to work in those areas, and I think that 

your amendments are going to help us have a better bill, and a 

more competitive nation. Thank you. 

Mr. GREEN. I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, and would close 

by simply saying I greatly appreciate the bipartisan effort that was 

put forth, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to continuing this type 

of effort. 

I came here to work with everybody, and I appreciate it when the 

hand of friendship is extended so that we can work together, and 

I thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Green. 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Matsui for—are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? The Clerk will read the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5358, offered by Ms. Matsui of 

California. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

55 

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain her 

amendment. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Gordon, for your leadership on this issue that is so important to 

our nation’s future. It is a pleasure to consider these critical challenges on my first markup today. 

Upgrading the math and science capabilities of our students, 

teachers, schools, and colleges has long been a priority for me. I am 

glad to be on the Committee to participate in the support and debate. The redesigned and expanded Noyce Teacher’s Scholarship 

program contained in this bill is intended to create thousands of 

new math and science teachers each year. 

My amendment directs NSF to report to Congress on how many 

of those teachers are staying in the profession beyond the service 

commitment required by the Noyce program. I believe this is a logical question to ask, particularly since teacher retention is one of 

the program’s objectives. This provision will allow Congress and 

this committee to have measurable results, so that we can go back 

to our constituents and say this was money well spent, because to 

maintain our leadership in math and science, we need teachers 

who devote their professional career to teaching these subjects, not 

just a few years out of college. 

This amendment will allow us to see how successful these programs are in producing such truly committed individuals. I hope 

my colleagues will be able to support this amendment, and thank 

you very much. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I want to thank Ms. Matsui for her amendment. Didn’t take you long to get actively engaged. I mean, just a 

couple of months on the Committee, and already, you are coming 

forward with something that demands our thoughtful consideration. The Chair has given it just that, and he is pleased to support 

the amendment. 

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? If no, the answer—the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 

to. 

The third amendment on the roster is offered by the gentlelady 

from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5358, offered by Ms. Johnson of 

Texas. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain the 

amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and our 

Ranking Member. 

Increasing our national competitiveness begins in the classroom. 

In order to educate, train, and produce a generation of scientists, 

technologists, engineers, and mathematicians, we have to start 

early. Students must be shown from a young age that science and 

56 

math are a fun. An important part of having a meaningful educational experience is access to resources. 

Science and math classrooms are not as fun, unless those classrooms are well equipped to capture kids’ imaginations. Microscopes, computers, projectors, animals for dissection are all key 

items that link math and science education to students’ sense of 

practicality. Kids need to see how these subjects apply to everyday 

life. That vision often begins in the high school laboratory. 

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Rube ́n Hinojosa, has developed a 

clever strategy to get science laboratory equipment to high schools, 

and I must tell you that we explored other committees. The fundamental aspect of that provision has been formed into a proposal for 

a demonstration grant that is before the Committee’s consideration. 

The amendment targets secondary schools in high need areas. This 

definition refers to schools located in impoverished areas, rural, 

urban, and suburban. High schools may apply for grants through 

the National Science Foundation to enhance their math and science 

labs. 

Applicants must demonstrate a partnership with a university, industry, or a nonprofit organization, a national laboratory, or another entity. The provision, totaling a mere $3 million for up to ten 

such partnerships is meant as a demonstration project. I will note 

that the partners must agree to pay two thirds of the total cost for 

each grant proposal, while the National Science Foundation will 

pay one third of the cost. Universities, colleges, technology companies, and other scientific and engineering groups are rich with opportunities. This amendment provides a mechanism for schools to 

reach out for those opportunities, and form partnerships in the 

community. The ultimate goal, of course, is to open lines of communication between these partners, and enhance our math and 

science classrooms. Only there can the hearts of future scientists, 

technologists, engineers, and mathematicians be captivated. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that you object to this for two reasons. 

One, you felt like this was the wrong venue. Two, it was submitted 

late, and you are right. Fourteen years I have been on this committee, and my story has been the same, to try to make sure that 

we are competitive in the future, by making sure that all of our 

young people have an opportunity to prepare for it. 

Congresswoman Connie Morella and I sponsored legislation and 

created a national advisory group to attempt to attract more minorities and women to the field, and we had very esteemed people 

from around the country. The Chair was from my district, the 

President of TXU, that was very interested in what we were doing. 

We know there is a need, and the need is great. This was late coming, because we explored other areas, and I have heard the same 

reason for not putting it in the Department of Education as I have 

heard here earlier. 

What I want to say, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to ask for a 

vote. This is supported bipartisanly. I am going to pull the amendment down, and ask you to help us get some attention in this area, 

perhaps even in conference. 

Mr. Chairman, it has come the time when we have got to focus 

on where the needs are, to get these young people prepared for the 

57 

future. This is not a lot of money, and I believe that it will be useful. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Increasing our national competitiveness begins in the classroom. In order to educate, train, and produce a generation of scientists, technologists, engineers and 

mathematicians, we must start early. 

Students must be shown, from a young age, that science and math are fun. An 

important part of having a meaningful education experience is access to resources. 

Science and math classrooms are not very fun unless those classrooms are wellequipped to captivate kids’ imaginations. Microscopes, computers, projectors, animals for dissection are all key items that link math and science education to students’ sense of practicality. 

Kids need to see how these subjects apply to everyday life. That vision often begins in the high school laboratory. 

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Rube ́n Hinojosa, has developed a provision to get 

science laboratory equipment into high school classrooms. The fundamental aspects 

of that provision have been formed into a proposal for a demonstration grant that 

is before the Committee’s consideration. 

The amendment targets secondary schools in ‘‘high need’’ areas. This definition 

refers schools located in impoverished areas—rural, urban or suburban. 

High schools may apply for grants, through National Science Foundation, to enhance their math and science labs. Applicants must demonstrate a partnership with 

a university and industry, nonprofit organization, national laboratory, or other entity. The provision, totaling a mere $3 million for up to ten such partnerships, is meant 

as a demonstration project. I will note that the partners must agree to pay twothirds of the total cost for each grant proposal, while the National Science Foundation would pay one-third. 

Universities, colleges, technology companies, and other scientific and engineering 

groups are rich with opportunities. This amendment provides a mechanism for 

schools to reach out for these opportunities. 

The ultimate goal is to open the lines of communication between these partners 

and enhance our math and science classrooms. Only there can the hearts of future 

scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians be captivated. 

Mr. Chairman, I will note the letter sent by Congressman Reyes and over fifty 

other Members of Congress requesting a greater emphasis on women and under-represented minorities in science. 

My amendment is also supported by the American Chemical Society, the National 

Science Teachers Association and the American Council on Education. All have sent 

you letters in the name of this cause. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on this amendment. I 

yield back. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I want to thank the gentlelady for raising 

the issue, and she performs a very valuable service for us all by 

almost forcing us to pay attention to the subject at hand. 

There is a compelling need, and I will be glad to work with the 

gentlelady in trying to find the best way to address that need, and 

I won’t just slough it off, but I don’t think, in my heart of hearts, 

that the National Science Foundation is the appropriate vehicle to 

carry forward this program. They have got a lot on their plate, and 

they do it exceptionally well. One thing that we don’t want to add 

to it is getting into a grant program like this, where that is not 

really their forte. 

But that doesn’t eliminate the need that you have so correctly 

identified, so I will be glad to work with the gentlelady in partnership, as we try to find some vehicle to carry forward with what we 

both agree needs to be carried forward. 

And is the gentlelady asking for unanimous consent to withdraw 

her amendment? 

58 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw it, 

and to say, Mr. Chairman, that the National Foundation is probably the only source of scientific money in the government that has 

not been challenged for how they use it. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. JOHNSON. And whether they use it effectively. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, her unanimous consent 

request is so ordered. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Biggert, do you seek the Chair’s attention? 

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, you have the Chair’s attention. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. And you are recognized. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask 

that a statement be submitted for the record, and it is about adding section 12, and thanking you for the opportunity to have that 

in the bill. And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

I want to take this opportunity to thank you and Mr. Schwarz for working with 

me on a provision that is now Section 12 of this bill. 

This section would require the NSF, when evaluating the educational programs 

created in this bill, to use assessment methods that would allow the effectiveness 

of these programs to be compared to the effectiveness of science, math, and engineering education programs supported by other federal agencies. 

As part of the Deficit Reduction Act, Congress created an Academic Competitiveness Council. Chaired by the Secretary of Education and consisting of officials from 

other federal agencies responsible for managing programs to promote math and 

science, the Council is charged with identifying all such programs and determining 

their effectiveness. More specifically, the Council is charged with identifying areas 

where programs overlapped or are duplicative, and was asked to recommend ways 

to efficiently integrate and coordinate such programs. 

A major purpose of this Council is to develop a ‘‘measuring stick’’ that can be used 

to evaluate programs that promote math and science education across the federal 

agencies. 

As a Member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I attended a hearing 

at the beginning of May at which the Assistant Secretary of Education for Planning, 

Evaluation, and Policy Development provided an update on the development of this 

‘‘measuring stick.’’ 

Granted, it’s not yet complete. 

And once it is complete, the Science Committee and the Education and Workforce 

Committee should examine it closely to ensure that it is an appropriate evaluation 

tool and accomplishes what Congress intended. 

For this committee to effectively exercise its oversight responsibilities, we need to 

be able to compare programs across agencies. 

That’s why this provision is just plain common sense, and I thank the Chairman 

and Mr. Schwarz, the bill sponsor, for including it in the substitute. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Are there any other amendments to the substitute? Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I strike the last word. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. EHLERS. I want to speak to the general issue. I will not be 

offering an amendment, but I certainly want to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for your work on this. 

59 

As you know, I spent the better part of twenty years of my professional career working on this, and my entire Congressional career working on improving math and science education, and I deeply appreciate your efforts, and those of Dr. Schwarz, in putting this 

bill together, and presenting it to us. It is a big step forward, and 

certainly is in accord with the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative, but not only that, it is good for the kids, and something that is very badly needed, and I just wanted to thank you 

and everyone else on this committee involved with that, and particularly, Dr. Schwarz, who has been—whom I served with in the 

Michigan Senate. He did yeoman work there. He is continuing to 

do yeoman work here, and I deeply appreciate your efforts. 

Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman. 

I don’t have an amendment on the measure, but I do want to comment on the effort. 

I do concur with my colleagues, to commend you and their efforts, and our Ranking Member, to develop, and continue the bipartisan tradition, which I think is very important as legislators, to do 

the work that we are sent here to do. 

The problem that Congressman Schwarz and others are trying to 

address, I think, is laudable here. My own experiences in schools 

in the Central Valley of California is to take advantage of the 

funds that have been made available, and the desire to train 

science and math teachers fund that we obviously have to refocus 

our efforts on. 

Part of the problem, I think, has touched upon the point that you 

have raised as to the letter that you are going to provide to the appropriators, the authorization, very, I think, helpful in expanding 

and enhancing the efforts, but frankly, what we have found in our 

area of California is that the grants tend to be too small, and limited in number, in terms of getting to where it is most needed. And 

frankly, I applaud the fact that you are both going to send the letter to the appropriators. I am not so sure that frankly, the whole 

committee, or those who are in concurrence, should be signing a 

letter to the appropriators, because unless we are able to get this 

money where it is most needed, I am afraid that the effort that we 

would like to—the ultimate results we would like to see achieved 

will be lacking. 

So, I concur with measure. I intend to support it, but I do think 

that the goal really is to make sure that the appropriators understand the seriousness of the effort. 

I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for that. 

If there are no other amendments, the vote occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All in favor, say aye. Aye. The 

nos, no. The yeas have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on 

the bill, H.R. 5358, the Science and Mathematics Education for 

Competitiveness Act, as amended. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. 

Opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

I recognize Mr. Gordon to offer an amendment. 

60 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 5358, as amended, to the House, with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to prepare the 

legislative report, and make necessary technical and conforming 

changes, that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the 

bill before the House for consideration. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the motion to report the 

bill, as amended, favorably. 

Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably reported. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, may I note that this was—well, it 

wasn’t unanimous, but it was all but one voted for this, so that as 

we talk to the appropriators, we could say—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You could move to make it unanimous, and 

I wouldn’t object. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, then, I will move to make this unanimous. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. All in favor, say aye. Aye. No, aye. The 

gentleman’s motion has passed. The spirit of cooperation. 

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in 

which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the 

measure. I move, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the 

Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House 

to adopt and pass H.R. 5358, the Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act, as amended. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

I want to thank all the Members for their attendance, not just 

today, but for their active participation in the important deliberations of this committee. 

This concludes our markup. 

[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(61) 

Appendix: 

H.R 5358, SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY, AMENDMENT ROSTER

62 


h5358rr.eps
63 


h5358ss.eps
64 


h5358tt.eps
65 


h5358uu.eps
66 


h5358vv.eps
67 


h5358ww.eps
68 


h5358xx.eps
69 


h5358yy.eps
70 


h5358zz.eps
71 


h5358a3.eps
72 


h5358b3.eps
73 


h5358c3.eps
74 


h5358d3.eps
75 


h5358e3.eps
76 


h5358f3.eps
77 


h5358g3.eps
78 


h5358h3.eps
79 


h5358i3.eps
80 


h5358j3.eps
81 


h5358k3.eps
82 

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF H.R. 5358, 

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION FOR COMPETITIVENESS ACT

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE 

‘‘Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act.’’ 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS 

Finds that the National Science Foundation has made significant and valuable 

contributions to the improvement of K–12 and undergraduate science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics education and that it should continue to carry out 

education programs. 

SEC. 3. ROBERT NOYCE TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM 

Amends Section 10 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, 

which established the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. Under the Noyce 

Program, the National Science Foundation (NSF) provides grants to institutions of 

higher education to encourage top science, technology, engineering and mathematics 

(STEM) majors to become teachers. The grants are used both to develop programs 

to prepare students for teaching and to provide to students who commit to teach 

for two years at the elementary or secondary school level in return for each year 

of scholarship aid. H.R. 5358 amends the law by specifying some of the programs 

grantees must provide to prepare students for teaching, including providing field 

teaching experience, and by making those programs available to students beginning 

in their freshman year (even though the scholarships are still available only to juniors and seniors). Also amends the law to specify that both faculty from STEM departments and education faculty must be involved in the program. Also amends the 

law to increase the minimum scholarship from $7,500 per year to $10,000; to allow 

additional years of scholarship support for part-time students; to cap the post-graduation service requirement at four years; to extend stipend support for professionals 

in STEM fields returning to schools for a teaching degree to 16 months from one 

year to align the support with the length of a typical program; and to allow the Director to accept donations from the private sector to support scholarships, stipends, 

or internships associated with this program. Also amends the law to allow teaching 

service to occur in any local educational agency (rather than only in high-need 

areas), but to reduce the period of service obligation by one year for those scholarship recipients whose service is performed in a high-need local educational agency. 

Authorizes appropriations for the program of $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, 

$70,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, $110,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2010, and $130,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, and sets aside specific portions of those authorizations for the programmatic (as opposed to scholarship) portions of the Noyce Program. 

SEC. 4. SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR SCIENCE AND 

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 

Amends Section 9 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, 

to strengthen the Math and Science Partnerships program at NSF, which provides 

grants to institutions of higher education (or to eligible nonprofit organizations) to 

partner with local educational agencies to improve elementary and secondary mathematics and science instruction. Amends the law to clarify that faculty from STEM 

departments must be the lead participants from the institutions of higher education 

and clarify that education faculty may participate in the Partnerships. Amends the 

law to explicitly include as allowable activities developing model induction programs 

and conducting training to teach Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate science and mathematics courses. Also amends the law to explicitly allow 

teacher training activities to include the development and offering of Master’s degree programs for in-service mathematics and science teachers that will strengthen 

their subject area knowledge and pedagogical skills. Amends the law to require the 

Director of NSF to give priority to applications that include teacher training activities as the main focus of the proposal and to establish that the grant size should 

be between $75,000 and $2,000,000 per year. Amends the law to require the Director, within a year of the enactment of the Act, to transmit a report to Congress on 

which completed Math and Science Partnerships projects should be seen as models 

to be replicated on a more expansive basis at the State or national levels, and, within four years, to transmit a report to Congress summarizing the evaluations each 

Partnership is required to conduct of its projects and describing any changes to the 

overall program recommended as a result of these evaluations. Authorizes appropriations for the program of $63,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, $73,000,000 for fiscal 

83 

year 2008, $83,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, $93,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and 

$103,000,000 for fiscal year 2011. 

SEC. 5. SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS 

TALENT EXPANSION PROGRAM 

Amends Section 8(7) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 

2002, which established at NSF the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP), which provides grants to institutions of 

higher education to improve undergraduate education. Amends the law to authorize 

NSF, as part of STEP, to award grants on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis to 

institutions of higher education to create Centers to improve undergraduate education through the development and dissemination of undergraduate curriculum and 

teaching methods, and the development and dissemination of training programs for 

faculty and graduate students who teach undergraduates. Requires that grants for 

Centers be made jointly through the NSF Education and Human Resources Directorate and at least one research directorate for periods up to five years, with two 

possible extensions of no more than three years each. Also requires the Director of 

NSF, within 180 days, to transmit to Congress a report on how the Director is determining whether current STEP grant recipients are making satisfactory progress toward targets they have set for increasing the number of STEM majors at their institutions and what actions the Director has taken to ensure that funding is continued 

only to those making satisfactory progress. Authorizes appropriations for STEP of 

$44,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which $4,000,000 shall be for the Centers authorized by this Act; $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which $10,000,000 shall be 

for the Centers; $60,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2011, of which 

$10,000,000 each year shall be for the Centers. 

SEC. 6. INTEGRATIVE GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 

TRAINEESHIP PROGRAM 

Requires that the Director allocate at least 1.5 percent of funds appropriated for 

Research and Related Activities to the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) Program. Requires that the Director coordinate with 

federal agencies to expand the interdisciplinary nature of the program, and allows 

the Director to accept funds from those agencies to carry out the program. (The 

IGERT program awards grants to institutions of higher education to develop interdisciplinary graduate programs and to provide tuition and stipends for graduate students in those programs.) 

SEC. 7. CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT 

Requires the Director to continue the program on Centers for Research on Learning and Education Improvement as established in section 11 of the National Science 

Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. 

SEC. 8. UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

Requires the Director to continue to carry out programs in undergraduate education, including those authorized in section 17 of the National Science Foundation 

Authorization Act of 2002. Funding for these programs shall increase as funding for 

the National Science Foundation grows. 

SEC. 9. EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE MASTERS 

Requires the Director to arrange for an assessment of the impact of Professional 

Science Master’s (PSM) degree programs at a variety of institutions. Requires that 

the report be submitted to Congress within three years of the enactment of this Act 

and include information on the interdisciplinary nature of the degree, the employment and salary prospects of degree recipients compared with those of traditional 

science Master’s graduates, the extent to which PSM graduates continue their education, and the effectiveness of the degree at attracting populations traditionally 

under-represented in science, technology, engineering, and math fields. (Professional 

Science Masters programs consist of two years of training in an emerging or interdisciplinary technological area. Many include internships and training in business 

and communications.) 

SEC. 10. REPORT ON BROADER IMPACTS CRITERION 

Requires the Director of NSF to submit to Congress within one year of the enactment of this Act a report that evaluates the results of the use of the broader impacts 

criterion by NSF. (NSF grant proposals are evaluated for their ‘‘intellectual merit’’ 

and ‘‘broader impact,’’ which includes the benefits of the activity to society at large.) 

84 

Requires the report to identify how NSF evaluates proposals based on the broader 

impacts criterion, to categorize the types of broader impacts enumerated by grant 

applicants, to include any evaluations performed by NSF of the implementation of 

broader impacts aspects of research proposals, to describe which overarching national goals the broader impacts criterion is best suited to promote, and to describe 

what steps NSF should take to use the broader impacts criterion to improve undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education. 

SEC. 11. STUDY ON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT DONATIONS FOR 

SCHOOLS 

Requires the Director, within one year of the enactment of this Act, to transmit 

to Congress a report on the extent to which universities are donating used laboratory equipment to elementary and secondary schools and how appropriate donations 

can be encouraged. 

SEC. 12. ASSESSMENTS OF NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

Requires the Director, in conducting assessments of NSF education programs, to 

use assessment methods that allow Foundation programs to be compared to education programs supported by other federal agencies. 

SEC. 13. EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Authorizes education programs at the Department of Energy, through the Office 

of Science, in fields related to the Office’s mission, including activities such as offering scholarships or fellowships for study or research, research experiences for undergraduates, and summer institutes for improving teacher content knowledge in 

science and mathematics. Requires the Secretary of Energy to submit a report not 

later than one year after the enactment of this Act that includes an inventory of 

existing education programs at the Department and the civilian National Laboratories and requires independent evaluations of those programs to be conducted within four years of the enactment of this act. Requires the Department to include the 

results of evaluations of educational programs run by the civilian National Laboratories as a factor when setting performance and incentive fees for those National 

Laboratory management and operations contractors. 

SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS 

Defines ‘‘Institution of Higher Education’’ and ‘‘National Laboratory’’ for this Act. 

85 


h5358a.eps
86 


h5358b.eps
87 


h5358c.eps
88 


h5358d.eps
89 


h5358e.eps
90 


h5358f.eps
91 


h5358g.eps
92 


h5358h.eps
93 


h5358i.eps
94 


h5358j.eps
95 


h5358k.eps
96 


h5358l.eps
97 


h5358m.eps
98 


h5358n.eps
99 


h5358o.eps
100 


h5358p.eps
101 


h5358q.eps
102 


h5358r.eps
103 


h5358s.eps
104 


h5358t.eps
105 


h5358u.eps
106 


h5358v.eps
107 


h5358w.eps
108 


h5358x.eps
109 


h5358y.eps
110 


h5358z.eps
111 


h5358aa.eps
112 


h5358bb.eps
113 


h5358cc.eps
114 


h5358dd.eps
115 


h5358ee.eps
116 


h5358ff.eps
117 


h5358gg.eps
118 


h5358hh.eps
119 


h5358ii.eps
120 


h5358jj.eps
121 


h5358kk.eps
122 


h5358ll.eps
123 


h5358mm.eps
124 


h5358nn.eps
125 


h5358oo.eps
126 


h5358pp.eps
127 


h5358qq.eps