Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. That is correct.

Mr. BURR. No, it has no effect.

Mr. BURR. That is correct.

Mr. BURR. The Senator is correct. The Senator's point is I am taking power away from the decisions of the local community. The Senator is right. I make no bones about it. I plead guilty. I wish they were as concerned about their children's education as I am. I have a school system where the graduation rate this year was 46 percent. The amazing thing is nobody has been fired. As a matter of fact, nobody is outraged at it. Today's jobs that we create in the 21st century require a different level of education for our children. If you are not competitive--you will not be invited for an interview if, in fact, you do not have a high school diploma. The reality is, here is one little way we can have an impact on it, a little way that doesn't cost anybody anything because, as I said, this is all new money, from 2000 when it was at its peak. That is because, I remind everybody, in 2000 this was a 7-year program that was set to sunset, to go away. It was going to be no more. This was the adjustment period for all the States, including North Carolina, that received Federal money. It is not going away. We are going to reauthorize it until 2012, and in 2012 it will be reauthorized until 2020, and the likelihood is the money will go up every year. Our responsibility is, is the taxpayer money being used in a way that has a positive effect on the communities with Federal money? All I am saying is, as we put new money in, maybe we ought to have some Federal hand in saying let's focus it where we have a cancer. That cancer is in education. If we can't raise the graduation rate from 70 percent to 100 percent, we have individuals who come into our system incapable of competing for a job. This is a very simple decision for Members of the Senate. I am sad today to tell you I do not expect to win on my amendment. Some will say I have tried to undo 100 years of public policy. I have changed the next 100 years, possibly. They say I have trampled on States' rights by choosing how they pay for it. I am guilty. I admit it. Why? Because of our children. Our children's future is important. If it were not, we wouldn't be good parents. I am convinced this can have a small but a positive impact on rural schools and the education of our kids in rural communities. I urge my colleagues to consider supporting my amendment, which will, in fact, alter in a very small way the impact of the total Wyden amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BURR. Does the Senator agree with the letter from the commissioners that I affect the PILT payments in my amendment?

Mr. BURR. Does or does not?

Mr. BURR. So the letter and the accusation the Senator received from, I think, the counties, is, in fact, inaccurate?

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for a spirited debate, and before my colleague from New Mexico leaves, I want to make sure I have the opportunity to share with him, because he did not hear the first part, that there are three funding pieces to this bill. I am supportive of all three of them. It is the Forest Service payment, the BLM lands payment, and the payment in lieu of taxes. My amendment affects one piece of one section, the Forest Service payment that is broken down into three titles: title 1, which is designated schools and roads; title 2, which goes to forestry programs and other management programs; and title 3, which goes to law enforcement search and rescue. I do not affect title 2; I do not affect title 3. I only affect the new funding in title 1. There is no county that will be affected on what they have received up until that point. But of the $177 million of new money in title 1 of the Forest Service payment section only, he is exactly right. I would say 80 to no more than 85 percent has to go to the schools. And if, in fact, New Mexico is structured in a way that when a county ups its investment the State decreases its investment in education, he is exactly right, he would end up with no net gain. That is where our problem is across the country, our students have no net gain. We have been stuck in this rut and we will not do what it takes to get out of it. Five years ago we passed No Child Left Behind. Nationally we are making progress. We actually see the trend going up. We see K-8 performing at math and science levels that, quite frankly, 5 years ago we did not know if we could reach. It is not a plateau they have gotten to; they are on the climb. We have challenged our elementary school students and they have responded, because we have made a commitment we are going to put highly qualified teachers in classrooms. We have made a commitment to them that we are going to provide the flexibility of Federal money so they can decide how best to use that so kids can learn. In return, we are going to measure their progress. For the first time, America now knows the progress our students make. Parents are no longer reliant on the arbitrary A, B, C, D or, in some cases, pass- fail. Why is that important? It is important because we have got a 21st century economy. We are creating jobs that, quite frankly, without a high school diploma you are not competitive for. My kids are still in college. I am fortunate in the fact that at least the tools are available to them. But it is their choice now as to whether they absorb it and use it. What about those kids who are still in K-8? Could this have an impact? Yes, it could have a real impact. It is not a whole lot of money. But when you move from, in Oregon I think, $433 per student, compared to $7,388 per mile, if you were to increase that investment locally, I think it would affect the outcome. What you would be looking at is the outcome. That is the whole spirit behind No Child Left Behind. What is the result of K-8 not working? It is a 70-percent graduation rate, on time, of our high school students 9-12 today. As I said earlier, if this were a disease, we would call it an epidemic. We would send every Federal, State, and local resource to try to cure the problem. Well, here is one of those ways: We can say, with the increased money, the $177 million worth of new money these counties have never had, let's use 80 to 85 percent for schools.

Mr. BURR. Reclaiming my time. I will say to the Senator, if for some reason it is not perfectly clear--and we have had the best legislative folks in the Senate who wrote the amendment; I do not think they got it wrong, but if they did, it will change. But the reality is, it is not going to pass and the Senator from Oregon knows it is not going to pass, not because there are questions on whether it is all title 1; it is not going to pass because they are not willing to let the $177 million worth of new money be devoted to education. It is not because of some technical problem we have with my amendment. The Senator's bill was awfully large, and there were still changes being made to the bill yesterday. It was a moving target to try to figure out exactly how to do an amendment. The Senator may remember, yesterday it was a second-degree amendment, but to accommodate the majority leader, we decided to do it as a side-by-side, which meant I had to incorporate now my amendment into the Wyden bill. So we have got a Wyden bill by itself, and a Wyden bill with this change. What my colleagues are going to be asked to do is not to vote against Wyden; either way they vote, they get the Wyden bill. But if they vote for the Wyden bill with the Burr amendment, they have now made a commitment to education. They have now made a commitment to the children. They have now made a commitment to 40 percent of America's schools that are located in rural areas, 8 million kids. That is the decision. It is very simple. So it is not do we understand where it fits. Clearly since the Senator thought it applied to more, since the county letters he got thought it applied to payments in lieu of taxes, since Senator Bingaman, when he came to the floor, was concerned about payments in lieu of taxes, we do not affect those. All we affect is title 1 of the Forest Service payments that are already designated in roads or schools, and we do not affect what we have spent in the past, up to that level. We only affect new dollars. Of those new dollars, 80 to 85 percent has to go to education. So it means for your State, where it predominately goes for roads, they are not disadvantaged. They are actually going to get 20 percent more for roads. They are just going to have to take 80 percent of the new money and make more of an investment than $433 per student. It is simple for our colleagues. We are going to vote on this, I think now the order calls for about 11:45 or 12 o'clock. I am not sure if it is going to be a series of three votes. I would encourage my colleagues to vote for the Wyden amendment, but vote for the Wyden amendment that has the Burr language in it, so that, in fact, we have a commitment to our kids, their future, and their education. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Since the other side does not get any additional time, I will yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, let me ask my colleagues to listen because I think there are some misconceptions about what I am trying to do. In 1908, we created this program. We reauthorized it in 2000. It was supposed to sunset a year ago. We have decided to continue the program. I supported the Wyden amendment. There are three areas that receive funds from this amendment: Forest Service payments, BLM land, and the third fund is payments in lieu of taxes. I am only affecting one title of the first item, which is Forest Service payments. It is not doing anything to payments in lieu of taxes or BLM land. Title 1, since 1908, has said the money could be used for schools or roads. That one title has 177 million new dollars in it. My amendment says 80 percent of the new dollars will go to education, to educate our children. It does not affect title 2, which is forest programs; it does not affect title 3, which is law enforcement, search and rescue. It is basically saying: At this time, our investment is going to go to our children. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina is not intending to manage this side. Our manager is not here right now. I would ask the Senator from Oregon if he would withhold setting the current amendment aside. If he wishes to talk on an amendment, feel free to, but at this time I would have to object to setting aside the pending amendment.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, it is very simple. The question before us, whether it is a side-by-side we decide on or a second-degree amendment, is: Are we going to commit to using part of these Federal dollars that States deserve--because it is in many cases in lieu of Federal payments for a tax--are we going to commit those to local school systems to educate our children? That is the decision we will have. At the end of the day, I am going to support Wyden-Reid-Baucus- Bingaman, and however many more people go on the chart before we actually have a vote, but before that vote we will have a decision as to whether we are going to make a commitment to education in this country, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of that.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I have deep respect for my colleague, Senator Wyden. We worked together in the House. We will work together in the Senate. As he said, this is a small disagreement we have because I believe when you have a bill that says this money is going to be used for schools and communities, we should make a commitment that this money in fact does go to our Nation's schools. Today, through my amendment, we have an opportunity to make an obligation to education. Seventy percent of our children in high school today graduate on time. In North Carolina it is 68 percent. That is 32 percent of students who don't graduate on time. We hear on the floor of this institution state all the time that there's a need to make a commitment to education. And I believe we need to make a commitment to it. I believe we need to make a commitment on this bill. This program was set to sunset this year. That means the Congress, in the past, set this program to expire, to go away; that the Federal Government had met its obligation. I don't disagree with the Senators from Oregon, Senator Wyden and Senator Smith, who have both been instrumental on this. North Carolina is a beneficiary. We have a tremendous amount of public land. I think it should continue. But at a time that we are required to prioritize where we make our investment, I believe we would help every community by saying 80 percent of the new money--not the money we were using up until this point but the almost $500 million of additional money per year we are going to pump into this program, all new money, that 80 percent of it ought to be used for our schools. It ought to be used for public education and ought to be there to support school construction, K through 12, No Child Left Behind. It ought to focus on high school graduation. We should take America's high school children from 70 percent graduation and drive it to 100 percent graduation. I heard the argument this was about economic development, about communities, about law enforcement. If you solve education, you lessen the need for law enforcement. The reason we need so many cops on the beat today, that we need more schools, is because our children don't have the skills to compete in the job market. So, yes, we can add policemen and make all Federal dollars open for every community to decide how they use them, but let me assure you, if we don't educate our children, no matter how much money is pumped into those communities, they will have cancer in them. What am I doing? It is very simple. I am going to offer an amendment that requires 80 to 85 percent of the new dollars to be devoted solely to education. That way every community that is the beneficiary of this money--Oregon, with millions of dollars, and North Carolina, with the several million dollars it gets. It is not enough to solve the education problem, but it shows a commitment on our part to make sure we are willing to contribute the Federal dollars that are available to begin to address this cancer our kids have succumbed to. Amendment No. 716 to Amendment No. 709 At this time, Madam President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the Wyden amendment.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to resume consideration of the Wyden amendment.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I would only use that time to thank the Senator from Oklahoma. This is a crucial debate that this country needs to have, this institution needs to have. More importantly, we are at a point where we have to stop talking about what we are going to do and actually start doing something. The Senator from Oklahoma has stated it very well. What we can do is bring a higher level of care to all Americans--not just some Americans, to all Americans. Through that effort, all Americans receive a financial benefit. Our system prospers because we are able to take care of more, and we are able to provide an unlimited opportunity in the future because we unleash innovation and technology in health care. I have wondered what it would be like if we had innovation at the same level in health care as, say, in cell phones; that we would have a new platform every 6 years, and that platform would provide an array of opportunities to us that we are not forced to take, but they are available to us if, in fact, we want them. Health care has been starved of innovation, in large measure because it treats every American differently. This is the first real opportunity for universal coverage, universal access, where every American has an opportunity at the best coverage available. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Oklahoma, a dear friend and somebody who has been passionate about health care for years. He and I came to Washington together in 1995. We served on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and we recognized then that changes needed to be made. Every year we have seen the same response in Washington. We have seen the end of a calendar year come, the need to find savings in health care. Administrations, Republican and Democratic, turn to Medicare and Medicaid and say we are going to extract $60 billion, $70 billion out of savings in these health care systems. We have laughed as they called it ``waste, fraud, and abuse'' because there is waste, fraud and abuse in it. We just didn't get any money out of it because we have been reluctant to fix the health care system in this country. What are we doing? What is this plan? This plan is universal health care. Let me say it again. This plan is universal health care. This is providing affordable, accessible health care, provided by the private sector, for every American in this country. This is change in the design of health care that has been historically, up to this point, employer negotiated, the majority employer paid for, and an employee has very little input into the makeup of the policies that cover them. It doesn't reflect their age, it doesn't reflect their health conditions, it does not reflect their income. What we are talking about is shifting it away from employers over time. We are talking about creating real incentives for individuals. We are talking about making sure 47 million uninsured Americans today and tomorrow have tax credits that can be used for real insurance coverage. What does that provide for them? For the first time, it creates a relationship between a patient and a health care professional. We have talked in this institution, we have talked in this town, and we have talked in this country about the need to project wellness and prevention in health care. Well, this does it. This, for once, accomplishes that because we as individuals can negotiate our plans, not through the group plan but as 250 million-plus Americans. We can negotiate what makes sense for us from the standpoint of the scope of coverage that reflects what we are willing to pay as it relates to premium--and, by the way, provides States the capability to do the same thing with their Medicaid beneficiaries, their Medicaid patients, if, in fact, they want to begin to change the way their care is delivered, by creating the same relationship between a health care professional and them, because they now have the same insurance we do. Medicaid beneficiaries have this big ``M'' on their foreheads. They do not want to be on Medicaid, but they are there because it is the last resort. What we want to do is integrate them into what all of the rest of us have; that is, individual insurance. Dr. Coburn hit on a real key; that is, an attempt to bring everyone's health care costs down. It is not to pick out a group and to say, We are going to reduce yours, and pick out a group over here and say, We are going to reduce yours. This is an attempt--it is the first real attempt--to bring every-body's health care costs down. What we learned when we created Part D Medicare, the drug benefit for 35 million-plus seniors in this country, was that when we created real competition between insurers and we brought transparency to price, two very real things happened: In the first year, premiums dropped 28 percent over what we had projected, and drug pricing dropped 33 percent. We have a model we have already tried that seniors across this country say: Do not mess with this plan. That, in fact, exemplifies what we are trying to do. We are trying to create real competition between insurance for our insurance business; we are not letting one employer negotiate the plan and then dump it on the employees. But the question is, Can we have the same results as Part D by seeing the cost of health care reduced for all Americans? Well, you start that process when you eliminate cost-shifting. You accelerate that process when you inject what this bill does; that is, transparency in the price of health care that is delivered to you. Imagine the day that you can go online and you can actually see what your doctor's visit is going to cost, what the lab workup is going to cost, what a visit to the emergency room at your local hospital is going to cost. In markets in North Carolina today, some choose not to go to the hospital for the nonemergency care, even though that may be their primary provider; they choose to go to the community health center because the community health center actually delivers the same if not a better level of care. But one thing is for certain: They know exactly what it is going to cost them. And these are individuals who are insured. For the first time, all Americans have an opportunity at prevention and wellness. What does that mean? It means we can make decisions about our health care that have an impact on the cost of our health care to us and consequently have a ripple effect across the marketplace, that as more and more Americans make healthy decisions, the cost of health care overall comes down. It means we have freed up those valuable health care dollars to make sure they are there for the individuals who are going to be susceptible to disease--chronic or terminal illness. It means the relationship we have now established between patient and health care professionals means we have recognized we can accumulate the data we need so that Medicare reimbursements are no longer a shot in the dark where we pull a number down that may not be reflective of the cost of delivering the service, may not be reflective of the value of the service. The reality is that when we create that relationship, we are able to accomplish the accumulation of data that tells us what things really should cost. In health care, those healthy decisions allow individuals to make decisions about disease management. The most costly part of the U.S. health care system is the chronic diseases that exist and our inability to manage those diseases. The most expensive is diabetes. Today, we have electronic capabilities for diabetics and for coronary heart patients where, at different periods during the day, their vital signs can be transmitted over a telephone line to their doctor. The doctor can instantly know whether, if it is a diabetic, they are managing their insulin. If it is a coronary heart patient, they can determine whether the fluid buildup means they need to adjust their medication. What does that give us the ability to do? It means we can take a patient who up to that point got too much fluid on the heart, made an emergency room visit, and in all likelihood was admitted for 3 days as they get the medicine back in balance. Now, a doctor, 24 hours a day, as these reports come in, can change their diuretic, can work with a diabetic on checking their blood sugar and what their insulin intake is, can detect whether they took the right medication. We can extrapolate that across every disease because technology now lets us do it in a real way. If we are not able to do this, then we are not able to recognize the value of new technology. So much technology today that would benefit us in the Medicare marketplace is not reimbursable by Medicare. It is a decision they make because it is not tested in the marketplace; therefore, it has no value because they do not know how to reimburse for it. Well, the reality is, when you have a health care system that responds to the benefits to individuals, all of a sudden you have the market that creates a value for the technologies and for the innovations. So I am delighted to be here. There is so much to this bill. This bill is the most comprehensive transformation of the health care system in my lifetime. One might say it is difficult to do so big a bite at one time. I made that mistake. The reality is that when you look at the timeline we are up against every year we do not adopt this type of transformation of our health care system, more Americans become uninsured, more individuals with preexisting conditions no longer can afford health care, and the cost of everybody's health care in America goes up because we have not eliminated cost-shifting. With disease management we could do today if, in fact, people had incentives in their system to take the time to monitor their health, to take their medication, to counsel with health care professionals about changes they could make, the more money we can save not only for each one of us but for the total system. I am convinced that if you could only pick one thing out of this plan that you highlighted for the American people, it would be this: For the first time, we are presenting a very real way to insure 47 million Americans, the people who are most at risk in this country. If all of us were the beneficiaries in some way of reduced prices, more access, the ability to have transparency in pricing, the accumulation of data, electronic medical records that enable us to find savings, if that is the byproduct of us finding a way to use savings in the system to insure 47 million Americans, I believe that is the right thing to do. The President came out in the State of the Union and he presented a very similar plan. Our plan expands on what the President said. Our plan goes to the heart of the health care system and says: If we are going to change it, then we have to go through total transformation. This is that total transformation that at the end of the day empowers every individual in this country to have custom health care coverage for themselves, for everyone in their family, for their health conditions, for their income and, more importantly, for their security. So I commend the Senator for his work. I now look forward to working with him as we go through what I think will be a very intellectual debate about the future of health care in this country. As some look at Europe and look at other countries and say, Maybe we ought to do that in the future, I believe if we adopt this method we are going to have every country in the world looking at this model and saying, How do we do this? How fast can we do that?

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a college basketball team that this past weekend won a national title. I am speaking of Barton College in Wilson, NC, which beat the defending champion Winona State to win the Division II Basketball Championship. Through their win, Barton College also ended Winona State's Division II record 57-game winning streak. Now I have seen a lot of college basketball games over the course of my life, especially representing the State of North Carolina, where basketball is not just a game but a way of life, but this one ranks close to the top when it comes to exciting endings. With only 45 seconds left to play in the game, Barton down by 7 points--a deficit that would be extremely difficult to overcome by any team--and assisted by the stellar performance of his teammates, Barton's Anthony Atkinson scored an unbelievable 10 points in the remaining 39 seconds, included a buzzer-beating lay-up, to win the Division II national title by a score of 77 to 75. If you didn't see the game live, I would suggest you go on the Internet and watch the ending to this fantastic game. It is simply unbelievable and is reminiscent of Christian Laettner's game-winning last-second jump shot in Duke's dramatic 104 to 103 victory over Kentucky in the East regional final of the 1992 NCAA Tournament. For Barton College, a small private school with a student body of only 960 students, this win over Winona State, a relatively large school with an enrollment of over 8,000 students, represents a ``David and Goliath'' story for a smalltown North Carolina basketball team. Again, I congratulate the NCAA Division II National Champion Barton Bulldogs and head coach Ron Lievense on an extremely exciting end to an extraordinary season.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Jason Ray, a young man whose life was tragically cut short this past weekend while with the University of North Carolina basketball team during their trip to the NCAA Tournament games in New Jersey. Jason, a 21-year-old native of Concord, NC, was set to graduate from UNC-Chapel Hill this May majoring in business administration with a minor in religion. Jason was best known for regularly performing at sporting events as the university's mascot, ``Rameses.'' He was a member of UNC's cheerleading squad. I have seen Jason perform at the school's sporting events. I admired his unmatched school spirit and his animated, energetic interaction with the Tar Heel fans. The University of North Carolina community lost a dear friend in Jason on Monday. However, he left a legacy that will certainly last for the many generations of fans that watched him perform. College basketball holds a special place in North Carolinians' hearts. Jason's team spirit and dedication helped make rooting for UNC basketball a community tradition. I send my thoughts and prayers to his family, teammates, classmates, fans, and friends.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 976, the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007, which my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, and I introduced on March 23, 2007. Senator Obama introduced this legislation last year. We have worked together on some revisions, and I am proud to join him in cosponsoring the legislation this year. I believe this legislation will help improve the quality and safety of health care by providing a better understanding of what causes certain diseases. Through a coordinated research initiative and safer genetic tests, patients and doctors will be empowered to make more informed decisions about medical treatments. This bill will advance the study of human genes and their functions to better predict patients' susceptibility to certain diseases or conditions and better customize drugs and medical treatments to meet patients' unique needs. By facilitating genomics research, fostering a capable genomics workforce, and encouraging the development of high quality genetic tests, patients will be better informed about the medical care they need. I am proud that North Carolina is a leader in genomics and personalized medicine research. Duke University's Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Institute for Pharmacogenomics and Individualized Therapy are both conducting significant research efforts in this area and support a stronger Federal focus on genomics. This legislation will increase Federal support for initiatives at Duke and Chapel Hill--a win-win for North Carolina and patients. Specifically, this bill establishes an Interagency Working Group at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to pull together and accelerate genomics research by developing standardized terminology and establishing quality standards and guidelines for the collection, processing, and storage of genomic samples and data. It advances genomics research by establishing a national biobanking distributed database that collects and integrates genomic data to simplify pooled data analysis. The bill also develops biobanking initiatives at academic medical centers across the country, including biobanks containing biological specimens. It will improve genetics and genomics training by developing model training programs, residency curricula and teaching materials, and by integrating genetics and genomics into clinical and public health practice by developing health professional guidelines. The bill will also encourage drug sponsors and device companies to develop companion diagnostic tests, and it will improve Federal oversight and regulation of genetic tests by identifying which tests require review and which agency--the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or the Food and Drug Administration--should have oversight over specific categories of tests. It requires the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to evaluate direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests to which consumers have direct access and to educate the public about genomics and its applications. It also asks the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to assess the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of companion diagnostic tests that guide prescribing decisions.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I take the floor today to speak on two subjects and very briefly to address my colleague from Ohio. Mr. President, I wish to make an important point about why these collective bargaining provisions are, in fact, harmful to the United States of America and to the American people. It is a pretty simple point. Terrorists don't have collective bargaining agreements. I will say that again. Terrorists don't have collective bargaining agreements. Terrorists don't go on strike. Terrorists don't call their unions to negotiate before they attack. They are always plotting and, because of this, we must be always working vigilantly to protect our homeland. Today we are debating how quickly we are going to respond to threats from terrorists who are eager to strike us, and some in this body are suggesting that we should give the ability of the people who are on the front lines to collectively bargain. It is absurd. It is absolutely absurd. But I assure my colleagues, if this collective bargaining language stays in, we risk doing exactly that--accepting something absurd. (The remarks of Mr. Burr pertaining to the introduction of S. 765 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to talk about education, something many in this body take very seriously. I rise today to address the Nation's dropout crisis. Each day that our schools are open, approximately 7,000 students drop out of high school. That is 1.2 million students annually who do not complete their high school education. Almost a third of American students who enter high school in the ninth grade drop out of school and never receive their high school diploma. I know our students, our schools, our communities can do better. To ensure that these young people have a better future and that America maintains its competitiveness in a global economy, I suggest to all my colleagues that we must do better. According to a Manhattan Institute study, the high school graduation rate for the class of 2003 nationwide was only 70 percent. Thirty percent of our students in this country do not cross the goal line of graduation. Even more alarming, however, is that high school graduation rates for subgroups of students in 2003 were for White students, 78 percent; African Americans, 55 percent; Hispanics, 53 percent. Graduating from high school is a 50-50 proposition in 930 of our high schools in our country. Fifty percent of the students in 930 schools do not get their high school diplomas. In 2,000 high schools, it is a 60- 40 proposition. Sixty percent are going to get their diploma, 40 percent will not get their diploma. Just last week, my home State of North Carolina released its most current data on our State's dropout crisis. Our statistics, likewise, point to an urgent need to pay attention to our public high schools and these students. North Carolina's statewide graduation rate was 68 percent. Yet for Black students, that rate falls to 60 percent; for low-income students, 55 percent; and for Hispanic students, 52 percent. Nearly 80 percent of the Nation's high schools that produce the highest number of dropouts are in 15 States, and I am embarrassed at the fact that North Carolina is one of them. To retain our competitive edge in the world economy, America's youths must be prepared for the jobs of today and the jobs of the future, jobs which increasingly require a postsecondary education. Unfortunately, in 2003, 3.5 million Americans ages 16 to 25 did not have a high school diploma and were not enrolled in school. Individuals without a high school diploma experience higher rates of unemployment, incarceration, and are more likely to live in poverty and receive public assistance than individuals with at least a high school diploma. We know the statistics, but they are worth repeating. Mr. President, 4 out of every 10 people ages 16 to 24 without a high school diploma receive some type of government assistance. A high school dropout is eight times more likely to be incarcerated than a person with a high school diploma. I am fortunate to represent a State with a rich history in its commitment to higher education. The State of North Carolina is the home of the Nation's first State university, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which welcomed students for the first time to its campus on January 15, 1795. All total, North Carolina has 127 degree-granting institutions of higher education--75 public and 52 private. However, North Carolina and the rest of the country cannot rest on their laurels with their higher education systems. We should be and are proud of our high college-going rate in North Carolina. Yet while 64 percent of recent North Carolina high school graduates go on to college, that number is far too low. There is no silver bullet that will fix our educational system, including high school reform which many have talked about. I hope more and better research will give us a better direction and maybe better answers, but until then, there are a number of things that we can and we should be doing to improve what is a problem that must be addressed. In particular, we know the three Rs to making our public high schools work better for today's students are rigor, relevance, and relationships. Today, Senator Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico and I are introducing bipartisan legislation, the Graduate for a Better Future Act. This is to help turn the tide of our Nation's dropout crisis. Senator Bingaman has been a stalwart leader in the Senate on issues relating to dropout prevention. I am proud to join him in an effort to lower high school dropout rates and to raise high school graduation and college-going rates. This legislation will create a competitive grant program targeted at school districts and high schools with the lowest graduation rates, focused on those three Rs of high school reform: rigor, relevance, and relationships. Funds under this act would be used for models of excellence for academically challenging high schools to prepare all students for college and for work; to offer academic catchup programs for those students who enter high school and do not meet proficient levels in mathematics, reading, language arts, or science that enable such students to meet proficient levels and remain on track to graduate from high school with a regular high school degree; to implement early warning systems to quickly identify students at risk of dropping out, especially systems that track student absenteeism, one of the greatest predictors that a student may drop out of high school; to implement comprehensive college guidance programs that ensure all students and their parents are regularly notified of high school graduation requirements, college requirements for entry, and provide guidance and assistance to students in applying for postsecondary education and in applying for Federal financial assistance and other State, local, and private financial aid and scholarships; to implement a program that offers all students opportunities for work-based and experiential learning experiences, such as job shadowing, internships, and community service so that students make the connection between what they are learning in school and how that applies to the workplace that we want them to be in; and to implement a student advisement program in which all students are assigned to and have regular meetings with an academic teacher adviser. A recent survey of high school dropouts by Civic Enterprises presents a picture of the American high school dropout that is surprising to many. I know it surprised me. Eighty-eight percent of those students who dropped out of high school had passing grades when they dropped out. Let me say that again. Eighty-eight percent of the students who dropped out of high school had passing grades which would have enabled them to complete their high school diploma. But they dropped out. Fifty-eight percent dropped out with 2 or fewer years to complete high school; 66 percent said they would have worked harder if expectations had been higher; 81 percent recognized that a high school diploma was absolutely vital to their success in life; and 74 percent said they would have stayed in school if they had it to do all over again. Mr. President, this is the point where we get a redo. We get an opportunity to make sure students get an opportunity in the next generation so they don't make the same mistakes the last ones did. Over the past 25 years, the difference in earnings between workers with lower and higher levels of education has grown. As my home State of North Carolina has experienced, gone are the days when an individual with only a high school diploma or GED can find a high-paying job in industries such as manufacturing, textiles, or furniture. The global economy has changed the marketplace, and the competition is no longer the person who sits next to us. It is the person who graduates from the school we will never hear about or have an opportunity to visit. We know more education pays off. Over his or her lifetime, an individual without a high school diploma will earn approximately $1.1 million less than an individual with a bachelor's degree, $1.5 million less than an individual with a master's degree, and $2.4 million less than an individual with a doctoral degree. What is the message to our children and our grandchildren? Is it that the future is more competitive than the past, that to be competitive in the job market means we have to raise our educational skills, and as parents and grandparents, we have to make it happen? The answer is yes. The Senate can no longer sit by and accept rates of 30 percent of our students who don't cross the goal line of high school and accept that without a fight. We can do better, and we should do better. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and with my cosponsor, Senator Bingaman, to face our Nation's dropout crisis head on. This is a first start. This is the ability to educate parents and students about not only how we engage them in the proficiencies they need to be competitive but, more importantly, how we teach them that our expectations are greater than what they felt in the past. It is time that the Senate lead by example to begin to pass legislation that has a real impact on the high school graduation rates in this country; that we can look back and say it was this legislation that started the process, and it was quickly followed up with additional legislation that helps our youth compete, regardless of where that job is and regardless of who their competition is. As this legislation comes before the committee and comes to this floor, I urge my colleagues to pay particular attention to the impact it has on our children and our grandchildren but, more importantly, on our competitiveness in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.