Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2611) to designate the headquarters building of the Coast Guard on the campus located at 2701 Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue Southeast in the District of Columbia as the ``Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building'', and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2611.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 2611, would designate the United States Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, D.C., as the Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building.

Douglas Munro was born in Vancouver, Canada, of American parents on October 11, 1919, and grew up in Washington State. He attended the Central Washington College of Education for a year and left to enlist in the United States Coast Guard in 1939. He served the country during World War II, rising to the rank of signalman first class.

Douglas Munro was killed in action at Guadalcanal on September 27, 1942, shielding 500 United States marines from enemy fire during an evacuation. He volunteered to head the boats for the evacuation, and he placed himself and his boats as cover for the last marine to leave. During this time, Douglas Munro was fatally wounded. Reportedly, he remained conscious long enough to say four words: ``Did they get off?''

Douglas Munro was awarded the Medal of Honor and the Purple Heart. The bravery and sacrifice of Douglas Munro saved hundreds of marines, and he should be honored and remembered. I think it's appropriate to ensure that he will always be remembered by naming the United States Coast Guard headquarters in his honor.

Therefore, I support the passage of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2576) to amend title 49, United States Code, to modify requirements relating to the availability of pipeline safety regulatory documents, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2576.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us, H.R. 2576. This bill is a correction of an unintended consequence of the bipartisan Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. It is sponsored by Chairman Denham of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, along with full committee Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and subcommittee Ranking Member Brown.

Last Congress, section 24 of the Pipeline Safety Act included a good- faith provision intended to make the pipeline safety regulations and guidance of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

Safety Administration, or PHMSA, more transparent. It did so by requiring any document or portion thereof incorporated by reference into the new regulations and guidance of PHMSA to be made available free of charge on the Internet. In so doing, however, an unintended consequence of this language was created that, contrary to the intent of Congress, has adversely impacted the ability of PHMSA to move forward with its regulatory agenda by placing practical barriers on PHMSA's ability to rely on the state-of-the-art technical standards written by standards developing organizations, referred to as SDOs. This bill simply corrects this unintended outcome and preserves the intellectual property rights of these organizations while still meeting the goals of a transparent government with free access to standards for noncommercial purposes.

Specifically, the bill allows for standards to be made free of charge but strikes ``on an Internet Web site,'' which allows PHMSA and SDOs more leeway to comply with the law. It also gives industry and PHMSA extra time to comply by making it effective 3 years from enactment instead of 1 year.

Finally, the bill limits the applicability of the provision to only pipeline safety organizations. I believe that this bipartisan technical correction will provide PHMSA with the flexibility needed to continue to fully leverage its partnership with standards developing organizations and save the government money by not requiring PHMSA to develop its own technical standards for rulemaking.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, July 11, 2013.

Hon. Bill Shuster,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Shuster: I write concerning H.R. 2576, a bill

to amend title 49, United States Code, to modify requirements

relating to the availability of pipeline safety regulatory

documents, and for other purposes, which was ordered to be

reported out of your Committee on July 10, 2013. I wanted to

notify you that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will

forgo action on H.R. 2576 so that it may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.

This is being done with the understanding that the

Committee on Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its

jurisdiction, and the Committee will not in any way be

prejudiced with respect to the appointment of conferees or

its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar

legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding, and ask at a copy of our exchange of

letters on this matter be included in the Congressional

Record during consideration of H.R. 2576 on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Fred Upton,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with Rep. Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts, I am introducing the Making Work and Marriage Pay Act of 2013. This legislation will establish a bipartisan commission to study the negative impact that high effective marginal rates can have on families as they attempt to improve their circumstances through work or marriage. The National Commission on Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low-Income Families would provide an important opportunity for removing the disincentives that hold many back, in spite of their personal efforts to get ahead.

Federal and state governments provide financial assistance to low- income families through many means-tested programs and a variety of income tax credits. Each of these benefits is income-based, and as income rises benefits are reduced through phase-outs. These reductions occur at various earnings levels and on differing schedules.

While it is appropriate for benefits to be withdrawn as family income increases, not enough thought has been given to the combined impact on behavior of these multiple phase-outs. Different programs are created within separate Congressional committees and are implemented by assorted federal and state agencies. No one entity has the authority to consider our vast system as a whole. The Commission established under this Act would be given this task and charged with the responsibility to propose a legislative package to remove the disincentives to work and marriage that these high effective marginal rates impose.

Marginal rates matter. Economists have long contended that high tax rates affect the investment decisions of affluent individuals. People at all income levels, however, respond rationally to economic incentives and disincentives. If we want people to work their way into the middle class, we need to change a system which says that if you're poor and you struggle to earn a higher income, you won't be able to keep enough of it to make it all seem really worthwhile.

I have looked at the impact these marginal rates have on a typical single mother with two children living in Wisconsin. From $17,000 to $40,000 in earnings, this single parent would experience combined effective marginal tax rates in excess of 50 percent--averaging 59 percent between $24,000 and $41,000. At lower income levels, she even approaches a rate of 100 percent. Putting this into perspective, the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent (the highest in the industrialized world). The top U.S. income tax rate for individuals is 39.6 percent.

Thus, for every dollar of new income earned by increased effort or the acquisition of new skills, this single mother finds herself only incrementally ahead and, perhaps, wondering whether her hard work is being justly rewarded. Despite the good intentions, these programs, in effect, offer no incentive to get ahead. Rather, the incentives are backwards and low-income workers often are encouraged to stay where they are.

The same dynamic can also affect an individual's decision whether to marry. Experts from across the political divide agree that marriage is good. Government policy, however, as enacted in this assortment of programs and phase-outs actually discourages marriage among low-income couples.

Varying benefit levels across the fifty states produce different results, but in Wisconsin, for a married couple with two children, the marriage penalty starts rising from about zero at $19,000 of combined income to $7,000 in after-tax income at $28,000 of combined earnings, which is what you get if two people earn minimum wage. At $42,000, the cost of being married reaches $8,154. That's a high price for a marriage license.

This penalty results from the high effective marginal tax rates produced by taxes and the phaseout of various benefit programs. As income rises, taxes go up and benefits go down. The couple that has combined their lives and their income sees a steeper loss of income than does the comparable couple that has remained unmarried. If marriage is a recognized good for both society and for individual couples, then government policy should not stand in the way of people choosing to marry.

It's time that Congress rationalizes this web of programs to ensure that hard work brings rewards by removing the punishingly high effective marginal tax rates faced by low-income individuals and families.

This is why I am introducing the Making Work and Marriage Pay Act.

My bill would authorize a Commission made up of Cabinet Secretaries, Governors, and recognized policy experts to recommend solutions for the problems posed by these high effective marginal tax rates. The Commission would be constructed to achieve partisan balance, input from states offering varying levels of income support, and expert participation from government and private sector experts.

The Commission would be charged with seeking a solution along certain policy lines, but would have full authority to offer additional policy recommendations. The Commission's recommendations would be in the form of a legislative blueprint to ease consideration of its comprehensive solution by the wide range of Congressional committees.

For too long, Congress has neglected to clean up the mess of uncoordinated federal benefit programs. The Making Work and Marriage Pay Act is the first step toward a benefit structure that rewards work and effort and reflects our shared belief that marriage is the basis of stable communities. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

As the House considers the FARRM Act of 2013, I believe it's important that we offer the proper support for farmers, while ensuring that these support programs are responsible for the American taxpayer.

As you may know, the Federal Crop Insurance Program is the most expensive government program supporting farm income and is the only farm income support program that is not subject to some form of payment limitation or means testing.

This amendment, which incorporates the language in the AFFIRM Act that Representative Kind and I introduced last month, works to reform the crop insurance program. Capping crop insurance subsidies at $50,000 per person per year does not prohibit farmers from purchasing crop insurance, nor does it eliminate all taxpayer support for the program.

In fact, most farmers would not be affected by this cap at all. According to the GAO, in 2011, only 4 percent of farmers would have been impacted by this $50,000 cap on subsidy for insurance.

For 2001 to 2012, the total cost of premium subsidies jumped fourfold, from $1.8 billion to $7.5 billion. The Congressional Budget Office projects even higher costs in the future, averaging $9.1 billion annually. The subsidy cap, combined with the $250,000 means testing requirement, will assist in preventing fraud, waste and abuse in the Federal Crop Insurance Program.

This amendment also reforms administrative and operating reimbursements that the government pays to private insurance companies by capping those payments at $900 million, which is a fairly moderate cap and below what's currently being spent. It also lowers the reimbursement to insurance companies to the President's target of 12 percent return from 14 percent return.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act this year, we have an obligation to listen closely to the students, parents, and educators that we represent to ensure that our efforts result in responsible and pragmatic improvements. While we have made great strides in the areas of assessment and accountability over the last nine years, this reauthorization provides a critical opportunity to learn from our experiences and fine-tune the law.

One example of a lesson my constituents have learned, and have vigorously shared with me, is that we should be encouraging states to move towards better assessment models. As I have met with educators over the past several years, one of the primary concerns that I have heard is that the state assessment fails to provide information of value to educators and administrators. Even more disturbing, it often takes four to six months before scores are returned to schools, which leaves little or no time for teachers to use the information to address student performance before they advance to the next grade.

However, I believe there is a sensible solution that Congress can adopt to address these concerns and give states more options in assessment design. Today, working with Representative G.K. Butterfield, I am introducing the bipartisan Assessment Accuracy and Improvement Act of 2013 to give states the option to use adaptive testing as their statewide assessment measuring reading, math, and science to fulfill No Child Left Behind requirements. I believe that this legislation will give states the ability to truly track the academic growth of every child and provide more accurate information to teachers, parents and school administrators through the use of an adaptive test.

For those who may be unfamiliar with adaptive testing, it is a test that changes in response to previously-asked questions. For example, if a student answers a question correctly, the test presents a question of increased difficulty. If a student answers incorrectly, the test presents a question of decreased difficulty. As you can see, an adaptive test customizes itself to a student's actual level of performance with a great degree of accuracy.

Giving states the flexibility to use an adaptive test and to ask questions outside of grade level will improve the accuracy of student assessment and enable educators to target appropriate instruction for each child based on performance at, above, or below grade level. In addition, using an adaptive test over time will allow accurate measurement of the performance growth of each individual student.

In Wisconsin, hundreds of school districts currently use their own funds to participate in adaptive testing in addition to the state assessment required by NCLB. Educators and administrators appreciate the diagnostic information it yields and the efficiency that it provides. I believe that school districts nationally are already ``speaking with their wallets'' by spending scarce resources to voluntarily participate in this testing because it provides valuable information that the state assessment does not.

Mr. Speaker, adaptive testing is one of the keys to putting the `child' back into No Child Left Behind. I hope that our colleagues will join us in this pragmatic and responsible improvement to the law as we work towards a bipartisan reauthorization this year.

Mr. Speaker, today Rep. Jared Polis and I are introducing the Growing Excellent Achievement Training Academies (GREAT) Teachers and Principals Act.

The bill would implement reforms to encourage the growth of teacher and principal training academies that are held accountable for producing effective graduates in exchange for freedom from unnecessary regulations and bureaucracy.

Research continues to confirm that effective teaching is a critical component of student success. However, despite these findings, many teachers report feeling ill-prepared for their work in the classroom. These reforms will harness the power of innovation to create teacher and principal preparation programs that are more effective and more responsive to the needs of educators.

One leading study found that a majority of education school alumni (61 percent) reported that schools of education did not adequately prepare their graduates for the classroom. Principals surveyed as part of that study also gave schools of education low marks, with only 30 percent reporting that such schools prepare teachers very well or moderately well to meet the needs of students with disabilities, and only 16 percent reporting at those levels for students with limited English proficiency. It is well known that nearly half of new teachers leave the profession in the first five years.

In our bill, states would be given the flexibility to use a portion of the funds they receive for teacher and principal reforms to support the development of teacher or principal preparation academies. These academies, which may be traditional colleges of education but need not be, would be required to be selective in their admissions processes; emphasize clinical preparation by pairing their candidates with effective teachers or principals in the classroom; and produce a certain number of effective teachers or principals in order to maintain their authority to operate. In exchange for this accountability, they would be

free of much of the red tape currently imposed on schools, much of which has no demonstrated tie to student achievement.

The GREAT Act also has more than 80 endorsements from prominent education organizations, college of education deans, and state chief school officers, including Chiefs for Change, the Business Round Table, Teach For America, and the United Negro College Fund.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Rep. Polis in supporting these important reforms.

I rise today to support H.R. 1911 because it would put in place a long-term, market-based solution to Federal student loan interest rates.

Some on the other side wish to engage in endless debates on the level of student loan interest rates. This is the wrong debate to be having, however, and distracts us from real reform. By taking this issue out of the hands of politicians, H.R. 1911 moves the discussion forward.

I believe there are better ways to help students manage the repayment of their loans than ever-higher interest rate subsidies. Income-based repayment, an idea that originated with Milton Friedman and was subsequently advocated by Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama, is better for students and taxpayers.

While we have an income-based repayment option now, it doesn't do enough to protect our taxpayers. Therefore, working with Representative Jared Polis, I've introduced legislation to make needed reforms.

With today's bill, we can break free from this debate over interest rates and focus on real reform to help students struggling with student loan debts. So I'd urge passage of H.R. 1911.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw Mr. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, Mr. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, and Mr. Ruben Hinojosa of Texas as cosponsors of H.R. 632, who were mistakenly added to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with Representative Lipinski, I am introducing legislation to stimulate the financing of passenger rail development from revenues generated from transportation oriented development.

The National High Performance Passenger Rail Transportation Oriented Development Act aims to capture some of the increasing value of commercial development around station areas, which in turn would help finance rail corridor infrastructure and operational expenses. Besides providing a funding stream for intercity and passenger operations, the initiative places emphasis on intermodal connectors to create vibrant communities along the corridor. The legislation aims to begin a major public private partnership initiative that will revitalize America's rail infrastructure to create a true third passenger transportation option to highways and aviation while at the same time creating intermodal access for communities.

Under the proposal, the U.S. Department of Transportation will retain a Planning Developer who will establish guidelines for transportation oriented development programs, including special assessment districts or similar mechanisms to capture revenues from increasing commercial value. Rail corridor development funds will be established at the regional level to capture increasing real estate values. A stream of those revenues will be directed to support rail passenger operations.

The proposal permits qualified projects to apply for federal incentives to finance construction and produce jobs. These incentives will include direct access to existing Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Transit Administration programs. The initiative will be staffed by existing employees and remain revenue neutral in that all program activities, including the work of the Planning Developer, will be repaid once the high performance rail service and commercial development is implemented and generating revenues.

I hope that this bill will open a discussion on the possibilities and potential promise of passenger rail development in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Charitable Driving Tax Relief Act of 2013 to remove a serious disincentive to participation in charitable activities. Private charitable activity plays an important role in our society, and it is important that Congress not stand in the way by penalizing those who wish to offer their services to these groups.

Under current law, individuals that volunteer their time and energy by driving their personal vehicles on behalf of a charitable group can end up with an unpleasant surprise in the form of an unanticipated tax bill. Specifically, volunteer drivers receiving reimbursement for the use of their vehicle are taxed on these payments to the extent that they exceed 14 cents per mile. This treatment stands in stark contrast to the allowance for reimbursement for the business use of that same vehicle, 56 and one-half cents per mile in 2013.

The Charitable Driving Tax Relief Act will equalize the tax treatment of charitable reimbursements with those received for business driving because the point of the payment is essentially the same, that is, to cover the cost of operating a personal vehicle while performing an important service in the pursuit of a greater good.

To achieve this end, my legislation would exclude from gross income any reimbursement received for the use of a volunteer's car while assisting a charitable group, limited only by the cap the Internal Revenue Service sets regarding business driving. This treatment would be available only for services provided without compensation and drivers would be required to maintain sufficient records to substantiate the charitable use of their vehicles. Finally, this bill drops the requirement that charitable groups report these reimbursements to the IRS, removing an administrative and paperwork burden that takes resources away from a charity's larger purpose.

Each day, thousands of Americans lend a hand in providing transportation services to a multitude of organizations engaged in good works. These activities include assisting individuals with their routine grocery shopping, providing the use of a four-wheel drive vehicle to transport home-visit nurses during inclement weather, delivering meals as part of a holiday food drive, helping individuals to keep their medical appointments, and many more similar activities.

These volunteer drivers are donating their time and their talents, not their vehicles, and accepting reimbursement for the use of that car, incidental to their time and talent donation, is a reasonable act, which should not result in an additional tax liability. Today, when it comes to driving a personal vehicle, our tax code makes a distinction between business and charitable uses. This distinction is a mistake; it is a serious disincentive to charitable activities, and it should be corrected. I encourage my colleagues to support the continued efforts of our charity-minded constituents by cosponsoring the Charitable Driving Tax Relief Act of 2013.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Social Security Identity Defense Act of 2013, legislation to enhance the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to fight identity theft when that agency becomes aware of the fraudulent use of a taxpayer's personal information.

This legislation is a direct response to the experience of constituents of mine in Princeton, Wisconsin. During a routine review of his credit report, my constituent found accounts opened by another person using his Social Security number. This discovery raised many concerns, not the least of which was that this person's income might be reported to the IRS under his Social Security number. Upon contacting the IRS, he was told that the IRS knew of the situation and that they had known about it for some time.

Not surprisingly, this answer was not altogether comforting. The IRS knew that someone else had been using his Social Security number, but kept that information under lock and key. While the IRS remained silent, additional frauds were committed, resulting in the further misuse of my constituent's personal information by another person to establish a fraudulent credit history. When he raised this issue with the IRS, he was astounded by the agency's answer. Privacy statutes prevent the IRS from discussing the return information of one taxpayer with anyone else. In the view of the IRS, the fraudulent use of my constituent's Social Security number was the personal return information of another taxpayer, and this fraud could not be disclosed to the rightful owner of that personal identifier, even if this disclosure would help prevent additional frauds.

This policy makes no sense and actually puts the IRS on the wrong side in the fight against identity theft. My legislation aims to correct this problem by changing the privacy statutes to direct the IRS to inform a taxpayer when the agency learns through its normal course of business that a Social Security number assigned to that taxpayer has been used fraudulently by another worker.

Both Congress and our administrative departments and agencies, including the IRS, have made progress in combating identity theft, but more needs to be done. For this reason, the Social Security Identity Defense Act would provide an additional vital tool for our government to deploy.

Under this legislation, the IRS would be required to share any information in its possession about the fraudulent use of a taxpayer's personal information with that information's rightful owner. The agency also would be directed to transmit information that may be evidence of an identity theft to the FBI so that the Bureau can make this material available to state and local law enforcement agencies upon their request. Finally, the Social Security Identity Defense Act calls for the IRS to direct employers not to include a Social Security number on a W-2 form when that agency is aware that the employee is making fraudulent use of that number.

These are important steps forward. They will empower both citizens and law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat identity theft, and they will limit the use of personal identifiers in the commission of future crimes. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring the Social Security Defense Act.

Mr. Speaker, today, Rep. Gene Green and I are introducing the bipartisan Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) Act to make permanent one of the federal government's most successful workplace health and safety programs.

This legislation would codify a successful program, the Voluntary Protection Program, operated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that recognizes and rewards employers who voluntarily work to improve the health and safety of their worksites. The program is currently operating but has never been authorized in law and was proposed to be cut by the Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget. While the administration backed away from those cuts in its more recent budget proposals, this legislation would put the program on a more solid foundation by specifically authorizing it in law.

Since the VPP was created in 1982, it has grown to include more than 2,200 worksites and more than 921,000 employees. A 2007 report noted that federal VPP worksites saved the government more than $59 million by avoiding injuries and that private sector VPP participants saved more than $300 million. Participating workplaces have an illness and injury rate that, on average, is 50 percent below that of their industry.

Business owners in my district have reported to me that the relationship between OSHA and businesses has become more adversarial over the past couple years. While OSHA does have a responsibility to enforce workplace safety laws, it has been my experience that most employers want to run safe workplaces. The VPP program provides a mechanism for OSHA to build a more constructive relationship with employers who have demonstrated a willingness to invest in workplace safety. This creates an incentive for other employers to follow suit, improving safety and saving money on enforcement costs at the same time.

I hope that our colleagues will join us in authorizing this bipartisan and successful workplace safety program.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to rectify an inequity regarding the benefits provided to surviving spouses through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). I am pleased to be joined by Representative Rob Andrews in this effort.

PBGC provides pre-retirement survivor coverage, which provides a benefit to the surviving spouse of a pension participant who dies before retirement. However, in the case of a multiemployer pension plan turned over to PBGC, this benefit is guaranteed only if the plan participant dies before the plan is turned over. For single-employer plans the benefit is guaranteed regardless of when the participant dies.

The PBGC website acknowledges this discrepancy, stating

. . . For the most part, the PBGC guarantees the same type

of benefits for multiemployer pension plans as for benefits

in the

single-employer program, with the exception that

preretirement survivor annuities are forfeitable in

multiemployer plans if the participant has not died as of the

termination date.

The debate over how to best provide income security for older Americans will continue for some time. However, in the meantime, it is unconscionable that a widow or widower would be denied the modest benefits provided under the PBGC multiemployer plan simply because his or her spouse did not die before the plan was turned over to the PBGC.

This discrepancy appears inadvertent and deserves to be corrected by Congress. I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation so we can address this issue quickly.

Mr. Speaker, in order for our students to be competitive in the global economy, we must do our part to ensure that they are acquiring the knowledge and skills they need for success.

The skills needed for success go beyond the basics of reading, writing, and math, however. When surveyed, employers continually emphasize that, in our 21st century economy, students need to be adept at critical thinking and problem solving; communication; collaboration; and creativity and innovation, in addition to being proficient in core subjects.

Sixteen states, as well as local school districts from across the country, have formed a partnership with over thirty leading education organizations and corporate entities to find ways to strengthen 21st century skills in their K-12 classrooms. However, this momentum isn't sustainable unless federal policy gives states and districts the flexibility to innovate in this direction.

To remedy this, Rep. Dave Loebsack and I are introducing the 21st Century Readiness Act. This bill does not create any new programs or authorize additional spending; instead, it would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to emphasize the importance of 21st century skills and give states and districts added flexibility to develop and enhance these skills as part of their own initiatives.

A growing coalition of states and school districts has recognized the importance of giving our students the tools they need to succeed in our 21st century workforce. This bill will give them the flexibility to succeed in these efforts.

I hope that our colleagues will join us in this effort.