F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4940) to designate the museum operated by the Secretary of Energy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as the ``American Museum of Science and Energy'', and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill to get America's children the type of technologically adept teachers that they need to bring themselves into the 21st century. It should not be held up because we have had 2 years of study on this, direct hearings and having the bill open for amendment during the markup at the Committee on Science. At no point prior to 48 hours ago have the objections, such as those raised by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) been brought up. This bill has widespread support, and I would like to read off a list of the organizations that have supported it: the American Association for Engineering Education, the American Association of Engineering Societies, the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Astronomical Society, the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Business Round Table, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, International Society for Optical Engineering, International Technology Education Association, Jobs for the Future, National Academy Of Sciences, National Alliance of Business, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, National Society of Professional Engineers, Optical Society of America, SAE International and Triangle Coalition for Mathematics and Science Education. Mr. Speaker, I would implore the House of Representatives to do the right thing, to give our kids the tools to advance into the 21st century and be able to compete in a globalized economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think this precedent has already been set, and I would like to read from the National Science Foundation fact sheet that outlines the awards that the President of the United States offers every year. It says, the presidential award for excellence in mathematics and science teaching is the Nation's highest commendation for K-12 math and science teachers. It recognizes the combination of sustained and exemplary work, both in and outside of the classroom. Each award includes a grant of $7,500 from the NSF to the recipient school. Winners use the money at their discretion to promote math and science education. Frequently asked questions: What are the PAEMST selection criteria? Answer: The program is open to practicing public, private and parochial school teachers with a minimum of 5 years experience. Then there is a press release attached to this that says President Clinton has recognized 214 mathematics and science teachers for their innovative and outstanding contributions to their professions under the presidential awards for excellence in mathematics and science teaching programs. Now, if the gentleman from Virginia's argument is valid, then all of the awards that President Clinton has passed out in the last 8 years to private and parochial school teachers, because they have done a good job in the classroom, never should have been paid and are unconstitutional. What is being proposed in this bill is patterned after what the President has done since 1983. The issue of the constitutionality is simple, and that is whether the funds are used to promote indoctrination of religion, in this bill they are not; whether there is a preference on religious instruction, in this bill they are not; and whether there is excessive entanglement between the government and religion, and in this bill there is not, just like in the PAEMST awards that have been given by the President of the United States. So I think that the argument that has been advanced at the 11th hour and 59th minute is really a red herring. We need to improve math and science education in our elementary and secondary schools. The best way to do that is to have really motivated teachers that turn the kids on. It should not make any difference whether those teachers teach in the public school or in a nonpublic school, because we should not leave the children in the nonpublic schools behind in order to get better math and science education. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman would yield for one further question, does the gentlewoman feel that President Clinton made a mistake in awarding the 7,500 grants in the PAEMST program to representatives and teachers of private schools that I mentioned?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman would further yield, did the gentlewoman propose an amendment during Committee on Science consideration to remove the section that she objects to now?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, did the gentlewoman vote for a bill as a Member of the Committee on Science?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the assertions that have been made that the section in question is unconstitutional. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) cites a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case. There have been two more recent cases, Agostini v. Felton in 1997 and Mitchell v. Helms earlier this year that clarified the Lemon v. Kurtzman test. Basically, it said that a statute similar to what is being proposed here is constitutional if it does not result in religious indoctrination, it does not define its recipients by reference to religion and it does not create excessive entanglement between government and religion. In each of these three instances, the statute does not do so. There has been a Presidential award program that has been on the books since 1983 where each year the National Science Foundation recommends to the President 107 math teachers and 107 science teachers from around the country to receive an award which is a $7,500 grant to the school where the teacher teaches. That is open to both public schools and private schools. I have a list of recent awardees, and I would like to read some of them to show that the President has directed money from the NSF to private schools. One of the awardees is Ms. Barbara Day Bass of St. Catherine's School in Richmond, Virginia. Another is sister Elizabeth C. Graham of Christ the King High School in Middle Village, New York; Sister Ellen Callaghan of Mount Carmel High School in Essex, Maryland; Ms. Claire Anne Baker of Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School of Indianapolis, Indiana; Ms. Carole Bennett of the Jesuit High School in Tampa, Florida; and even Mr. David Stuart Wood of the Sidwell Friends School of Washington, D.C., which I believe is attended by the son of Vice President Gore. Now, this program has been working very well on the executive level for 17 years, and no one has raised the question that these types of awards violate the establishment clause of the United States Constitution. As a matter of fact, during all of the hearings that the Committee on Science had on this bill and during the markup, no one raised the issue as well. It was only a couple of nights ago that somebody started calling around saying that this provision was unconstitutional. Well, first of all, the Congress does not make constitutional determinations. That can only be made by the Court and usually by the Supreme Court of the United States. I think that there is a sufficient question on the constitutionality that we should not pull this provision out of the bill, particularly because it would set such a precedent that the existing award program that had been going on by the NSF would be called into question as well. But also it is a standard rule of statutory construction that sections that are declared unconstitutional are severable if they can be severed from the rest of the bill. So I think that the concern of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) is really unfounded. Constitutional and precedential questions aside, what we should be saying here is that it should not make any difference whether a teacher teaches at a public school or a private school in terms of the benefits of getting better math and science education in the classroom, because it is the students in those classrooms that are going to benefit from better teachers and more motivated teachers. I do not think we should leave the children who happen to go to private schools behind with these kinds of grants, just as the President has not left children who are taught by teachers in private schools behind in making the awards pursuant to the 1983 law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the author of this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4271 is the product of a 2-year effort by the Committee to examine the disappointing state of K-12 math and science education in the United States. As we are all aware, too many American students are entering the workforce with an inadequate foundation in math and science. This bill is an effective start toward implementing math and science education so that we may break the cycle of low achievement in these important disciplines. H.R. 4271, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), vice chairman of the Committee on Science, addresses the problem by focusing on teachers. The bill would authorize several creative programs to provide teachers with the tools they need to excel in the classroom. For example, the bill provides for technology training specifically for teachers. Unfortunately, it is currently the case that many teachers lack sufficient training in the use of technology in the classroom. Additionally, these teachers often lose when administrators are forced to choose to dedicate funds between teacher training and hardware and software for students. The bill authorizes the program just for teachers so that they will have the opportunity to secure this training. In addition, the bill incorporates the input of many Members on both sides of the aisle. I am pleased that the House is considering the bill today that brings together so many positive ideas that will help America's students. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for all his hard work in producing a bill that deserves strong bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4271.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Committee on Science, I believe open discourse at federal agencies is necessary for sound science. Intolerance inhibits, if not prevents, thorough scientific investigation. Accordingly, I was very disturbed by allegations that EPA practices intolerance and discrimination against its scientists and employees. For the past year, the Committee on Science has investigated numerous charges of retaliation and discrimination at EPA, and unfortunately they were found to have merit. The Committee held a hearing in March 2000, over allegations that agency officials were intimidating EPA scientists and even harassing private citizens who publicly voiced concerns about agency policies and science. While investigating the complaints of several scientists, a number of African-American and disabled employees came to the Committee expressing similar concerns. One of those employees, Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, won a $600,000 jury decision against EPA for discrimination. It further appears EPA has gone so far as to retaliate against some of the employees and scientists that assisted the Science Committee during our investigation. In one case, the Department of Labor found EPA retaliated against a female scientists for, among other things, her assistance with the Science Committee's work. The EPA reassigned this scientist from her position as lab director at the Athens, Georgia regional office effective November 5, 2000--a position she held for 16 years--to a position handling grants at EPA headquarters. In the October 3 decision, the Department of Labor directed EPA to cancel the transfer because it was based on retaliation. EPA's response to these problems has been to claim that they have a great diversity program. Apparently, EPA believes that if it hires the right makeup of people, it does not matter if its managers discriminate and harass those individuals. Diversity is great, but in and of itself, it is not the answer. Enforcing the laws protecting employees from harassment, discrimination and retaliation is the answer. EPA, however, does not appear to do this. EPA managers have not been held accountable when charges of intolerance and discrimination are found to be true. Such unresponsiveness by Administrator Browner and the Agency legitimizes this indefensible behavior. To assure accountability, I have introduced the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act) of 2000, H.R. . Federal employees with diverse backgrounds and ideas should have no fear of being harassed because of their ideas or the color of their skin. This bill would ensure accountability throughout the entire Federal Government--not just EPA. Under current law, agencies are held harmless when they lose judgments, awards or compromise settlements in whistleblower and discrimination cases. The Federal Government pays such awards out of a government wide fund. The No FEAR Act would require agencies to pay for their misdeeds and mismanagement out of their own budgets. The bill would also require Federal agencies to notify employees about any applicable discrimination and whistleblower protection laws and report to Congress on the number of discrimination and whistleblower cases within each agency. Additionally, each agency would have to report on the total cost of all whistleblower and discrimination judgments or settlements involving the agency. Federal employees and Federal scientists should have no fear that they will be discriminated against because of their diverse views and backgrounds. H.R. is a significant step towards achieving this goal.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 209) to improve the ability of Federal agencies to license federally owned inventions.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 209.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 209 continues the Committee on Science's long and rich history of advancing technology transfer to help boost United States international competitiveness. Through the enactment of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1988, and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Congress, by the direction of the Committee on Science, has created the framework to promote the government-to-industry transfer of technology that has enhanced our Nation's ability to compete in the global marketplace. H.R. 209, which originally passed the House in May of last year, continues this tradition. Last week, the Senate agreed to H.R. 209 and added a new section to the bill that directs the director of each Department of Energy laboratory to appoint an ombudsman to hear and help resolve industry partner concerns regarding laboratory policies or actions. The ombudsman's primary duty is to facilitate the speedy and low-cost resolution of complaints and disputes with industry partners. In its consideration, the Senate made clear that, to ensure fairness and objectivity, the ombudsman should promote the use of collaborative alternative dispute resolution techniques, such as mediation, but that the amendment should not be interpreted to empower the ombudsman to act as a mediator or arbitrator in the process. After its passage today, H.R. 209 will be sent to the President for his signature into law. I congratulate the Chair of the Subcommittee on Technology of the Committee on Science, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for introducing this bill and for her tireless efforts to work cooperatively with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and other Members of the minority, the administration, and the other body in crafting this important bill. I urge adoption of the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act, and I look forward to its signature by the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2607.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill extends launch indemnification to the U.S. commercial launch industry through the end of the year 2004, and authorizes funding for the Offices of Advanced Space Transportation and Space Commerce in the Departments of Transportation and Commerce. This is a bipartisan bill jointly sponsored by the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon); and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). The Federal Government first decided to indemnify commercial launch companies against catastrophic losses in 1990 as a means of rebuilding a launch industry which was critical for national security. Congress has traditionally reviewed indemnification in 5-year increments. At no cost to the government, the act successfully created a stable business environment that encouraged private firms to invest in improving U.S. space launch capabilities and maintaining their competitiveness with launchers from Europe, Russia, the Ukraine and China. By extending indemnification through 2004, we will eliminate the uncertainty created by 1-year renewals and restore a business environment that helps U.S. launch firms retain their competitiveness. The House passed this bill last year by an overwhelming margin on suspension of the rules and should do so again now that the Senate has acted. The Senate has made only minor modifications. I urge all my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, (H.R. 2607) to promote the development of the commercial space transportation industry, to authorize appropriations for the Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, to authorize appropriations for the Office of Space Commercialization, and for other purposes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with today.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our distinguished colleague, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Tom Bliley. Tom Bliley has served his constituents in Virginia for over 30 years, both on the local and national levels. His dedication to public service has taken him from the Richmond City Council, to the position of Mayor of Richmond, and then to this House where he has risen to chair this body's oldest committee. Throughout his legislative career, Tom Bliley has accumulated a list of accomplishments most of us can barely imagine. For the last six years, he has led one of the most successful, efficient, and constructive committees in Congress. He oversaw passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which brought fairness, competition, and increased consumer choice to the industry. He led the charge to override President Clinton's veto of the Contract with America, at the same time overhauling and reforming the nation's securities laws. Finally, Tom Bliley led the effort needed to pass the Mammography Standard Act of 1998, life-saving legislation that will ensure the quality of many women's lives for years to come. These are only a few of the legislative accomplishments we attribute to our colleague from Virginia. They illustrate his commitment to sound fiscal principles, a balanced budget, increased opportunities for individuals and small business owners, and common sense government. More importantly, they are among the reasons that Tom Bliley's constituents know that they can count on him to look after their best interests. I know I join Tom Bliley's many friends in Virginia's Seventh Congressional District, as well as his many friends and colleagues here in the House, in wishing him the best in the years to come. He has served us well, and we will all miss the dedication and leadership he brought to his work.