Firearms Fairness and Affordability Act

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Kerry today to introduce the Empowered at Home Act. This bill is a continuation of efforts that I undertook in 2005 to improve access to home and community based services for those needing long-term care. This is an important piece of legislation that continues our efforts to make cost-effective home and community based care options more available to those who need it.

In 2005, I introduced the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act with Senator Bayh. That legislation set forth a series of proposals aimed at improving the accessibility of long-term care insurance and promoting awareness about the protection that long-term care insurance can offer. It also sought to broaden the availability of the types of long-term care services such as home and community-based care, which many people prefer to institutional care.

The year 2005 ended up being a very important year for health policy as it relates to Americans who need extensive care. In the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Congress passed into law the Family Opportunity Act, the Money Follows the Person initiative, and many critical pieces of the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act. With the bill I am introducing today with Senator Kerry, I hope to set us on the path to completing the work we started in 2005.

Making our long-term care system more efficient is a critical goal as we consider the future of health care. There are more than 35 million Americans, roughly 12 percent of the U.S. population, over the age of 65. This number is expected to increase dramatically over the next few decades as the baby boomers age and life expectancy increases. According to the U.S. Administration on Aging, by the year 2030, there will be more than 70 million elderly persons in the United States. As the U.S. population ages, more and more Americans will require long- term care services.

The need for long-term care will also be affected by the number of individuals under the age of 65 who may require a lifetime of care. Currently, almost half of all Americans who need long-term care services are individuals with disabilities under the age of 65. This number includes over 5 million working-age adults and approximately 400,000 children.

Long-term care for elderly and disabled individuals, including care at home and in nursing homes, represents almost 40 percent of Medicaid expenditures. Contrary to general assumptions, it is Medicaid, not Medicare, that pays for the largest portion of long-term care for the elderly. Over 65 percent of Medicaid long-term care expenditures support elderly and disabled individuals in nursing facilities and institutions. Although most people who need long-term care prefer to remain at home, Medicaid spending for long-term care remains heavily weighted toward institutional care.

Section 6086 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) was based on the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act. The DRA provision authorized a new optional benefit under Medicaid that allows States to extend home and community-based services to Medicaid beneficiaries under the section 1915(i) Home and Community-Based Services State Option. Under this authority, States can offer Medicaid- covered home and community-based services under a State's Medicaid plan without obtaining a section 1915(c) home and community-based waiver. Eligibility for these section 1915(i) services may be extended only to Medicaid beneficiaries already enrolled in the program whose income does not exceed 150 percent of the Federal poverty level.

To date, only one State, my own State of Iowa, has sought to take advantage of the provision authorized through the DRA. While we had hoped far more States would participate, we know that the relatively low income cap, 150 percent, in the DRA provision creates an administrative complexity that has not made the option appealing for States.

In this bill we are introducing today, the income eligibility standard would be raised for access to covered services under section 1915(i) to persons who qualify for Medicaid because their income does not exceed a specified level established by the State up to 300 percent of the maximum Supplemental Security Income, SSI, payment applicable to a person living at home. This will significantly increase the number of people eligible for these services. States will be able to align their institutional and home and community-based care income eligibility levels.

The bill would also establish two new optional eligibility pathways into Medicaid. These groups would be eligible for section 1915(i) home and community-based services as well as services offered under a State's broader Medicaid program. Under this bill, States with an approved 1915(k) State plan amendment would have the option to extend Medicaid eligibility to individuals: (1) who are not otherwise eligible for medical assistance; (2) whose income does not exceed 300 percent of the supplemental security income benefit rate; and (3) who would satisfy State-established needs-based criteria based upon a State's determination that the provision of home and community-based services would reasonably be expected to prevent, delay, or decrease the need for institutionalized care. Under this new eligibility pathway, States could choose to either limit Medicaid benefits to those home and community-based services offered under section 1915(k) or allow eligibles to access services available under a State's broader Medicaid program in addition to the 1915(k) benefits. These changes will give the States the option of exploring the use of an interventional use of home and community-based services. If States have the flexibility to provide the benefit as contemplated in the bill, they can try to delay the need for institutional care and people in their homes longer.

As the number of Americans reaching retirement age grows proportionally larger, ultimately the number of Americans needing more extensive care will grow. Many of those Americans will look to Medicaid for assistance. States need more tools to provide numerous options to people in need so that they can stay in their own homes as long as possible.

The cost of providing long-term care in an institutional setting is far more expensive care than providing care in the home. States will benefit from having options before them that allow them to keep people appropriately in home settings longer. The more States learn how to use those tools, the more states and ultimately the Federal taxpayer will benefit from reduced costs for institutional care.

I am also pleased that this bill will include key provisions from S. 2337, the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2007. The bill includes important tax provisions that I introduced in previous Congresses as well--most recently, the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act of 2005, introduced in the 109 Congress.

Research shows that the elderly population will nearly double by 2030. By 2050, the population of those aged 85

and older will have grown by more than 300 percent. Research also shows that the average age at which individuals need long-term care services, such as home health care or a private room at a nursing home, is 75. Currently, the average annual cost for a private room at a nursing home is more than $75,000. This cost is expected to be in excess of $140,000 by 2030.

Based on these facts, we can see that our Nation needs to prepare its citizens for the challenges they may face in old age. One way to prepare for these challenges is by encouraging more Americans to obtain long-term care insurance coverage. To date, only 10 percent of seniors have long-term care insurance policies, and only 7 percent of all private-sector employees are offered long-term care insurance as a voluntary benefit.

Under current law, employees may pay for certain health-related benefits, which may include health insurance premiums, co-pays, and disability or life insurance, on a pre-tax basis under cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, ``FSAs''. Essentially, an employee may elect to reduce his or her annual salary to pay for these benefits, and the employee doesn't pay taxes on the amounts used to pay these costs. Employees, however, are explicitly prohibited from paying for the cost of long-term care insurance coverage tax free.

Our bill would allow employers, for the first time, to offer qualified long-term care insurance to employees under FSAs and cafeteria plans. This means employees would be permitted to pay for qualified long-term care insurance premiums on a tax-free basis. This would make it easier for employees to purchase long-term care insurance, which many find unaffordable. This should also encourage younger individuals to purchase long-term care insurance. The younger the person is at the time the long-care insurance contract is purchased, the lower the insurance premium.

Our bill also allows an individual taxpayer to deduct the cost of their long-term care insurance policy. In other words, the individual can reduce their gross income by the premiums that they pay for a long- term care policy, and therefore, pay less in taxes. This tax benefit for long-term care insurance should encourage more individuals to purchase these policies. It certainly makes a policy more affordable, especially for younger individuals. This would allow a middle-aged taxpayer to start planning for the future now.

Finally, a provision that is included in our bill that I am really proud of is one that provides a tax credit to long-term caregivers. Long-term caregivers could include the taxpayer, him- or herself. Senator Kerry and I recognize that these taxpayers--who have long-term care needs, yet are taking care of themselves--should be provided extra assistance. Also, taxpayers taking care of a family member with long- term care needs would also be eligible for the tax credit. These taxpayers should be given a helping hand. As our population continues to age, the least that we can do is provide a tax benefit for these struggling individuals.

Mr. President, every day millions of Americans are faced with significant challenges when it comes to meeting their own personal needs or caring for a loved one who needs significant support. Many elderly Americans and individuals of all ages with disabilities need long-term services and supports, such as assistance with dressing, bathing, preparing meals, and managing chronic conditions. They prefer to live and work in their community, and it is time that the Federal

Government and states act as better partners to provide improved access to home- and community-based long-term care services HCBS.

The Medicaid program, administered by the states but jointly financed with the Federal Government, is our Nation's largest payer for long- term care services. Medicaid spends about $100 billion per year on long-term services. Despite recognizing that per person spending is much lower in community settings, and that people generally prefer community services, Medicaid still spends 61 percent of its long-term services spending in institutional settings. This disparity is due, in large part, to a strong access and payment bias in the program for institutional care.

Where Medicaid does offer HCBS, it is often in short supply, with more than 280,000 Medicaid beneficiaries on waiting lists for HCBS waiver services. Further, eligibility for HCBS waiver services requires beneficiaries to already have a very significant level of disability before gaining access they must meet a level of functional need that qualifies them for a nursing home. This not only contributes to the unmet needs of those in the community but it also prevents states from providing services that can help prevent beneficiaries from one day requiring high-cost institutional care. While institutionalized care may be an appropriate choice for some, it should be just that: a choice that individuals and families are allowed to make about the most appropriate setting for their own care.

The result of Medicaid's ``institutional bias'' is that, according to the Georgetown Health Policy Institute, ``one in five persons living in the community with a need for assistance from others has unmet needs, endangering their health and demeaning their quality of life.'' This is simply unacceptable.

The lack of long-term care options available to families has a significant impact on their lives. Many of my constituents are affected, as are countless Americans across the country. Take the parents living in Newton who continue to wait for their physically disabled daughter, Julia, to have the opportunity to live independently. Julia is a young adult and instead of starting out on her own, she must watch as her peers move away and begin their independent lives- something she yearns to do as well. Growing up, Julia was able to attend Newton schools and keep a similar schedule to other children in the community but now has limited social interaction, as there is no other option but to live at home with her parents. Julia's parents are her full time caregivers and would like to see her able to live in an environment more conducive to both her needs and their own. Community based care or home based care in an apartment she could share with a roommate are options Julia and her parents would mutually benefit from. As the opportunities for the future grow for her peers, Julia's options continue to shrink because housing and home based supports for adults with disabilities are limited at best. I have heard many stories similar to that of Julia, which emphasizes the urgency in which HCBS is needed. In addition to individual lives being put on hold, entire families must deal with the consequences of inadequate services available to their family members.

Access to HCBS affects individuals in all stages of life, including Americans dealing with conditions such as Alzheimer's. Take Ann Bowers and Jay Sweatman for example. Without access to HCBS services, Jay, who suffers from early onset Alzheimer's, was forced to first move into assisted living and then a nursing home. By the time Jay was approved for HCBS it was too late and he was no longer able to live independently. Ann had worked tirelessly to coordinate her husband's care and get additional HCBS support but the process was so difficult that by the time help came, it was simply too late. This is just one case of many where early HCBS intervention would have not only saved time, money, and stress for family members, but would have made a significant impact on the quality of life and personal independence for Jay and Ann.

So today, I am introducing with my colleague from the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, the Empowered at Home Act, a bill that increases access to home and community based services by giving states new tools and incentives to make these services more available to those in need. It has four basic parts.

First, it will improve the Medicaid HCBS State Plan Amendment Option by giving states more flexibility in determining eligibility for which services they can offer under the program, which will create greater options for individuals in need of long-term supports. In return we ask that states no longer cap enrollment and that services be offered throughout the entire state.

Second, the bill ensures that the same spousal impoverishment protections offered for new nursing home beneficiaries will be in place for those opting for home and community based services. In addition, low-income recipients of home and community based services will be able to keep more of their assets when they become eligible for Medicaid, allowing them to stay in their community as long as possible.

Third, the Empowered at Home Act addresses the financial needs of spouses and family members caring for a loved one by offering tax- related provisions to support family caregivers and promote the purchase of meaningful private long-term care insurance.

Finally, the bill seeks to improve the overall quality of home and community based services available by providing grants for states to invest in organizations and systems that can help to ensure a sufficient supply of high quality workers, promote health, and transform home and community based care to be more consumer-centered.

I want to say a word about the Community Choice Act, legislation long-championed by Senator Harkin that would make HCBS a mandatory benefit in Medicaid. I am a strong supporter and co-sponsor of this landmark legislation, and look forward to working for its enactment as soon as possible. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to supplement--not supplant--the Community Choice Act by increasing access to HCBS for those who are disabled but not at a sufficient level of need to qualify for nursing home services. These two complimentary bills will finally make HCBS a right while vastly improving HCBS availability to vulnerable citizens of varying levels of disability.

I would also like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Empowered at Home Act and who have endorsed it today, including the National Council on Aging, the Arc of the United States, United Cerebral Palsy, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, the Alzheimer's Association, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, the American Geriatrics Society, ANCOR, the Trust for America's Health, and SEIU.

Improving access to a range of long term care services for the elderly and Americans of all ages with disabilities is an issue that must not stray from the top of our Nation's health care priorities. I believe this legislation can move forward in a bi-partisan manner to dramatically improve access to high-quality home- and community-based care for the millions of Americans who are not receiving the significant supports and services they need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to make it easier for students to reach college and to succeed in college. An educated workforce is crucial to the success of the American economy, but too many students are not receiving a college education. Of students who were in eighth grade in 2000, only 20 percent of the lowest-income students will earn a college degree by 2012, compared to 68 percent of the highest income group. Every student who wants to go to college should have that opportunity, and we should provide them with the tools they need. Today, I am introducing the Pathways to College Act, which creates grants for school districts to help them increase the number of low-income students who are entering and succeeding in college.

Lack of guidance and information about college has a real effect on students in poor schools. The Consortium on Chicago School Research recently released a report called ``Potholes on the Road to College.'' This report examines the difficulties faced by Chicago Public School students during the college application process. The Consortium discovered that only 41 percent of Chicago Public School students who wanted to go to college took the steps necessary to apply to and enroll in a 4-year college. Only one-third of students enrolled in a college that matched their qualifications. Of the students who had the grades and test scores to attend a selective college, 29 percent went to a community college or skipped college entirely.

But the most heartbreaking parts of this report are the profiles of smart, ambitious students who find themselves helplessly lost in the college admissions process. One student, Amelia, worked hard in her classes at Silverstein High School and dreamed of studying criminal justice. Amelia never received the help she needed to achieve her goal. The wait was two weeks to see a guidance counselor, and so Amelia learned about the process on her own. She did not apply for federal financial aid and ended up at a local community college where she described the classes as easy and ``just like high school.''

The Pathways to College Act would create a grant program for school districts serving low-income students to increase their college- enrollment rates. The Consortium's ``Potholes'' report found that the most important factor in whether students enroll in a four-year college is if they attended a school where teachers create a strong college- going culture and help students with the process of applying. The Pathways to College Act would provide the funding to help school districts improve the college-going culture in schools and guide students through the college admissions process.

A school with a strong college culture is a school where the expectation throughout the school is that every single student will go to college. Administrators, teachers, and staff members embrace and act on that goal every day. With a grant through the Pathways to College Act, schools could train student leaders, integrate college planning into the curriculum, and provide opportunities for college fairs, college tours, and workplace visits. Most

importantly, teachers and counselors would be trained in post-secondary advising so that they can motivate their students to reach for high goals. Every school in the school district would incorporate these elements and others into a school-wide plan of action to strengthen the college-going culture.

KIPP Ascend Charter School in Chicago is a school that does this well. A few weeks ago, a group of eighth grade students from KIPP came to my constituent coffee here in Washington. Each one was wearing a shirt that said ``I am college bound.'' Every child and each teacher believed the message on those shirts, and I did too. The facts prove we are all right. Eighty percent of students in the KIPP program nation- wide attend college. KIPP accomplishes this by training teachers to constantly reinforce high college expectations. If you walk into a KIPP classroom, you see college posters on the walls and hear college discussed as part of the day's lesson. If you ask the students about going to college, they will answer without hesitation and might tell you about their last field trip to a local university. When you combine those clear, high expectations with KIPP's rigorous college-preparatory curriculum, you can understand their enormous success.

The Pathways to College Act will also give school districts the tools they need to help students meet their high aspirations. Participating school districts would provide each high school freshman with at least one meeting with an advisor to discuss their goals post-graduation and create a plan to reach those goals. School districts would also educate students and families about the intricacies of the college application process and the federal financial aid application process. The average student-to-counselor ratio in high schools is 315 to one, but schools could use grant money to hire more counselors and form partnerships with community groups to help students with college applications and financial aid forms. School districts also consider could create college planning classes or establish a college access center in their school.

The Pathways to College Act provides flexibility to school districts to achieve higher college enrollment rates, but requires that each school accurately track their results so we can learn from what works. Chicago Public Schools is doing a great job--both in tackling the problem and in documenting progress. Under the leadership of CEO Arne Duncan, Chicago Public Schools responded aggressively to the ``Potholes'' report. A team of postsecondary coaches were deployed in high schools to work with students and counselors. To ensure that financial aid is not a roadblock, FAFSA completion rates are tracked so that counselors can follow-up with students. A spring-break college tour took 500 students to see colleges across the country. Because Chicago Public Schools tracks its college enrollment rates, we know that their efforts are working. Half of the 2007 graduating class enrolled in college, an increase of 6.5 percent in four years. The national increase was less than one percent in the same time-frame. Nationally, the number of African-American graduates going to college has decreased by six percent over the last four years while the Chicago rate has increased by almost eight percent.

Applying to college is not easy. Low-income students often need the most help to achieve their college dreams. When schools focus on college and provide the tools to get there, students make the connection between the work they are doing now and their future goals in college and life. Students in those schools are more likely enroll in college and are also more likely to work hard in high school to be prepared for college when they arrive. The bill I am introducing today tries to ensure that lack of information never prevents a student from achieving his or her college dream.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, before I was a Senator, I was a prosecutor, as the Chittenden County State's Attorney for 8 years, I prosecuted all varieties of crime in Vermont. I know first hand how important it is for criminal investigators, and the lawyers who prosecute those cases, to have a full arsenal of legal tools to ensure that justice is done. I also know how important the intellectual property industries are to our economy, and to our position as a global leader. In Vermont, Hubbardton Forge makes beautiful, trademarked lamps. The Vermont Teddy Bear Company relies heavily on its patented products. Likewise, SB Electronics needs patents for its film capacitor products. Burton's snowboards and logo are protected by trademarks and patents.

While Vermont is closest to my heart, every state in the Nation has such companies, and every community

in the United States is home to creative and productive people. Intellectual property--copyrights, patents, and trademarks--is critical to our fiscal health and to our continuing dominance of the world economy. This valuable property is also terribly vulnerable; by its very nature, it is subject to numerous types of thievery and misappropriation. The Internet has brought great and positive change to all our lives, but it is also an unparalleled tool for piracy. The increasing inter-connectedness of the globe, and the efficiencies of sharing information quickly and accurately between continents, has made foreign piracy and counterfeiting operations profitable in numerous countries. Americans suffer when their intellectual property is stolen, they suffer when those counterfeit goods displace sales of the legitimate products, and they suffer when counterfeit products actually harm them, as is sometimes the case with fake pharmaceuticals and faulty electrical products.

The time has come to bolster the Federal effort to protect this most valuable and vulnerable property, to give law enforcement the resources and the tools it needs to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and to make sure that the many agencies that deal with intellectual property enforcement have the opportunity and the incentive to talk with each other, to coordinate their efforts, and to achieve the maximum effects for their efforts. The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 does just that.

First, it gives the Department of Justice the ability to bring civil actions against anyone whose conduct constitutes criminal copyright infringement. Many times, a criminal sanction is simply too severe for the harm done. This provision, the concept of which has passed the Senate on three separate occasions as the PIRATE Act, gives the Department of Justice an extra tool.

Second, the bill enhances civil intellectual property rights law by eliminating unnecessary burdens to instituting a suit; improving remedies; and applying the copyright and trademark laws not only to imported goods, but also to exported and transshipped items.

Third, the bill improves and harmonizes the forfeiture provisions in copyright and counterfeiting cases.

Fourth, the bill addresses concerns that the current governmental structure to coordinate intellectual property rights enforcement among agencies and departments is impeding the Government from reaching its full potential. It creates a Coordinator within the Executive Office of the President to chair an inter-agency committee that will produce a Joint Strategic Plan to combat piracy and counterfeiting.

Finally, the bill will increase the resources available to Federal, state and local law enforcement.

We are not addressing theoretical concerns with this bill, nor are we making grandiose policy proclamations. We are synthesizing the real- world experiences of our many constituents who develop and monetize intellectual property--the individuals and companies that turn their creative and innovative efforts into jobs, goods, and services--with the daily frustrations of law enforcement agents who lack the laws, and the resources, to vindicate those property rights.

I was once a prosecutor. I am now a Senator. But I have always been a fan of movies. My cameo in the latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight, was priceless to me, but we can put real numbers on the value of that production to the economy. The Dark Knight shot for 65 days in Chicago, pouring almost $36 million into the local economy. Seventeen million dollars went to nearly 800 local vendors that were critical to the production of the movie. For example, one local lumber supplier employing 40 people played a central role in the set construction that helped transform Chicago into the mythical ``Gotham City.'' In order to fulfill the production needs of the film, the lumber company worked closely with 15 other Illinois-based companies. Those 15 suppliers employed an additional 350 workers.

All of that value is threatened by piracy. Just in the movie industry, piracy costs 140,000 U.S. jobs and $5.5 billion in wages each year. Piracy costs cities, towns and states an estimated $837 million in additional tax revenue each year. The movie industry alone produces $30.2 billion each year in revenue for 160,000 vendors all across the Nation, and 85 percent of those vendors employ 10 people or fewer.

This is a well balanced bill, drawn from numerous conversations with all manner of interested parties. It brings together the best of numerous proposals, including important legislation I introduced earlier this year with Senator Cornyn. His support on intellectual property matters is critical to our success moving forward. I thank him, and all the cosponsors of this legislation for their efforts and support. This bill will improve the enforcement of our Nation's intellectual property laws, bolster our intellectual property-based economy, and protect American jobs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the United States has been the most innovative, technologically capable economy in the world. Yet our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, education system is failing to ensure that children in our great Nation are entering the workforce with the skills and knowledge required for success in the global economy of the 21st century. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is catching up. I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Coleman to introduce the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education for the 21st Century Act. This legislation seeks to promote and coordinate existing science and technology education efforts and to improve the communication among various stakeholders so that tomorrow's workforce will be prepared to continue the American tradition of innovation and enterprise. There are three pieces to this legislation, which is based largely on the recommendations found in the National Science Board's action plan on STEM education.

First, this legislation charters a new, independent, and non-Federal National Council for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education, which will coordinate and facilitate STEM education initiatives across the Nation and inform policymakers and the public on the state of STEM education across the United States. This council will be housed in the National Academy of Sciences and will have a Board of Directors comprised of representatives from the various State and local governments, organizations, businesses, and industries that have a stake in the success of STEM education. This includes current and former governors, chief State school officers, representatives from local school boards, classroom teachers, school administrators, representatives from institutions of higher education, private foundations, and representatives of businesses and industries.

Much of the innovation and success in improving STEM education throughout the country is being done locally, in the State's counties, and school systems, often partnering with businesses and industry in need of a STEM-educated workforce. The Council will bring together these various stakeholders to facilitate and coordinate the flow of information on STEM education systems to various stakeholders; to independently evaluate the success of Federal and non-Federal STEM initiatives; to fairly determine and promote best STEM classroom practices; to encourage the acquisition and retention of highly effective STEM teachers; and to inform policymakers and the general public on the state of STEM education across the United States. More specifically, the Council will also be responsible for issuing an annual report on the state of STEM education in America to the States, Congress, the Federal Government, and the general public; disseminating results from research on teaching and learning in STEM fields to State educational agencies; helping the States establish their own Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education boards or councils; proposing models for the effective professional development of teachers in STEM fields; and launching and updating a publicly available website that hosts a database consisting of information on scholarships, fellowships, grants, internships, and summer programs for both students and teachers.

Second, this bill authorizes a full standing Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education within the National Science and Technology Council, NSTC, which is part of the Executive Office of the President. This committee would be responsible for coordinating STEM education across all the Federal agencies involved in such efforts, including the National Laboratories, the Department of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and NASA. Currently, the NSTC Committee on Science has a Subcommittee on Education and Workforce Development with jurisdiction over issues relating to STEM education. However, this subcommittee has been largely inactive: it rarely meets and has not been effective in coordinating the efforts of these different agencies. Senator Coleman and I believe that the state of STEM education in the Nation today warrants a full committee at the NSTC that will meet regularly to assess the effectiveness of such Federal efforts.

Finally in this legislation we direct the Secretary of Education to undergo a comprehensive review of all programs within the Department of Education relating to education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, and to evaluate them for their effectiveness. We want to make sure that the current panoply of such programs are effective, target the students they are intended to target, are not unnecessarily redundant, complement State and local educational agencies, and are promoted effectively so that students, teachers, and parents know about these efforts. We also direct the Department to submit to Congress a plan for addressing the challenges they identify in this review.

I believe this legislation will help science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in this country, and will help students, parents, teachers, and other educators as we strive to prepare tomorrow's workforce for the global economy of the 21st century.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.