A bill to provide for a teacher quality enhancement and incentive program.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on HELP.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 27, 1999

Authorizes the Secretary of Education to make grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to award nontaxable bonuses to highly qualified individuals who agree to teach in elementary schools or secondary schools that are served by the LEA and located in high poverty areas. Requires such grants to be made to at least 50 LEAs per fiscal year, and to at least one eligible LEA in each State, for a period of not less than four years. Sets forth requirements relating to: (1) LEA, school, and individual eligibility; (2) grant and bonus amounts; (3) a competitive award process based on objective measures and recommendations from higher education institutions; and (4) service obligations or award repayment. Authorizes appropriations.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Sen. Torricelli, Robert G. [D-NJ] · D–NJ

Committees

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

May 27, 1999
Read twice and referred to the Committee on HELP.
May 27, 1999
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6324-6325)
May 27, 1999
Introduced in Senate

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in Senate · May 27, 1999 Formatted Text PDF

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

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

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.1173 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.1173, 106th Congress: A bill to provide for a teacher quality enhancement and incentive program.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/1173

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1999-05-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/106/bills/s1173/BILLS-106s1173is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-21T12:25:59Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze S.1173 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.1173 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.1173, 106th Congress: A bill to provide for a teacher quality enhancement and incentive program.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/1173

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1999-05-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/106/bills/s1173/BILLS-106s1173is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-21T12:25:59Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.1173 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.1173 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.1173, 106th Congress: A bill to provide for a teacher quality enhancement and incentive program.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/1173

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1999-05-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/106/bills/s1173/BILLS-106s1173is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-21T12:25:59Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.1173 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.1173 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.1173, 106th Congress: A bill to provide for a teacher quality enhancement and incentive program.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/1173

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1999-05-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/106/bills/s1173/BILLS-106s1173is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-21T12:25:59Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.1173 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.