PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 21, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on April 20, 2004. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Congressional Medal for Outstanding Contributions in Math and Science Education Act of 2004 - (Sec. 3) Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to establish a Congressional Medal for Outstanding Contributions in Math and Science Education program.
(Sec. 4) Requires the Director to annually name as finalists for medals up to: (1) 20 private entities with more than 500 employees; and (2) 20 private entities with 500 or fewer employees.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Director to annually award medals from among such finalists up to: (1) five private entities with more than 500 employees; and (2) five private entities with 500 or fewer employees.
Requires the Director to distribute information about the Medal recipients in a timely and efficient manner (including through the use of a searchable online database) to schools, institutions of higher education, educators, parents, administrators, policy-makers, researchers, public and private entities, and the general public. Allows any entity that is a finalist or receives a medal under this section to use such information for advertising and other publicity purposes.
(Sec. 5) Limits eligibility for such a medal to private entities that have: (1) whether alone or in partnership with for-profit or nonprofit entities, assisted students, teachers, administrators, or other support staff to improve student achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in a school or community; and (2) been involved in such activities in a sustained manner for at least two years with at least one elementary or secondary school.
(Sec. 6) Requires the Director to establish a system for accepting applications from entities seeking to be considered for a medal under this Act. Directs that applications include at least two letters of support, which: (1) may come from teachers, professional support staff, administrators, professional or business organizations, local, county, or State Departments of Education, or any other category of persons as designated by the Director; and (2) shall describe the reasons the entity deserves the medal.
(Sec. 7) Requires the Director, in selecting entities to receive medals under this Act, to give priority consideration to evidence of improved achievement in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics by students, including improved achievement by women, minorities, and persons with disabilities.
Directs the Director to also consider evidence of: (1) innovative approaches to increase interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics by students, including women, minorities, and persons with disabilities, one measure of which may be an increase in the number of students enrolled in advanced courses related to such fields; (2) employee interaction with students or teachers to support and improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning; (3) success in positively influencing student attitudes and promoting education and career opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; (4) successful outreach to students, parents, and the community regarding the importance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education to the Nation's prosperity, job creation, and standard of living, as well as future earning potential for the individual; and (5) strong and sustained commitment to the students and schools.
(Sec. 8) Amends the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act to change the deadline for submission to Congress of the NSF report on women and minorities in science and engineering from even-numbered to odd-numbered years.
(Sec. 9) Authorizes appropriations to NSF.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Nick [R-MI-7] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 7 (Roll no. 122). (text: CR H2209)
House roll call 122 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 7 (Roll no. 122).(text: CR H2209)
House roll call 122 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2224-2225)
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. 4030.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2209-2211)
Mr. Smith (MI) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 269.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 108-465.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 108-465.
Mr. Boehlert asked unanimous consent that the Committee on Science, Space and Technology have until 5:00 p.m. on April 14 to file a report on H.R. 4030. Agreed to without objection.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Research.
Referred to the House Committee on Science.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 21, 2025. 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.4030 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.4030 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.4030 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.4030 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.