PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 7, 2015
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on September 24, 2015. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
STEM Education Act of 2015
(Sec. 3) Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to continue to award competitive, merit-reviewed grants to support: (1) research and development of innovative out-of-school STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) learning and emerging STEM learning environments; and (2) research that advances the field of informal STEM education.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires supported activities to include research and development that improves understanding of learning and engagement in informal environments and design and testing of innovative STEM resources for such environments to improve STEM learning outcomes and increase engagement for elementary and secondary school students and teachers and the public.
(Sec. 4) Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 to allow award of NSF Master Teaching Fellowships to mathematics and science teachers who possess a bachelor's degree in their field (currently limited to those with a master's degree).
Requires fellowship grants to be used, in the case of Master Teaching Fellowships for teachers with bachelor's degrees in their field who are working toward a master's degree, to: (1) offer academic courses leading to a master's degree and leadership training to prepare individuals to become master teachers, and (2) offer programs both during and after matriculation to enable fellows to become highly effective mathematics and science teachers and to exchange ideas with others in their fields. Limits fellowship support during such a master's degree program to one year, with a prorated amount in the case of enrollment in a part-time program.
Includes elementary or secondary school computer science teachers as mathematics and science teachers for purposes of the program of teacher recruiting and training grants known as the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 114-59.
Became Public Law No: 114-59.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection. (text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H6780)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection.(text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H6780)
Mr. Smith (TX) asked unanimous consent that the House agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H6780)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S6948-6949)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 195.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Thune without amendment. With written report No. 114-115.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Thune without amendment. With written report No. 114-115.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 412 - 8 (Roll no. 88). (text: CR 2/24/2015 H1098-1100)
House roll call 88 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 412 - 8 (Roll no. 88).(text: CR 2/24/2015 H1098-1100)
House roll call 88 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1135)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1020.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1098-1100)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1020 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1020 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1020 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1020 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.