Richard Burr

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. The gentleman is exactly right, and I think for the average American who watches the nightly news or reads the morning paper, they would probably go away from that news show or from that article in the paper thinking, my gosh, Republicans are over here and Democrats are over here as to who they are trying to help, and the reality is that we are both right here. We are targeting the same people who do not have an annual income that is big enough to afford housing and food and health care costs, where we are going to supply a government subsidy. We are looking at a group right above that where we are trying to figure out how can we do some type of phase-in subsidy to help them? Then we are looking at the group above that saying they are not all high income, but they have the capabilities to buy into a plan to have coverage. The discrepancies between the plans that are being floated in Washington are not about who is being covered. We are using the same $40 billion pot of money. It may be configured slightly differently. The President gives a subsidy to everybody on the front end. He lowers the price of everybody's premium so it is more attractive. We choose to have a market value on the premium, and we go to what we refer to as the stop loss, a certain dollar amount on an annual basis where we say to a senior if they reach this, if they really get sick and they reach this point, they do not have any additional cost past that. Their plan picks up 100 percent of it. There is no co-insurance. There is no copayment, once they reach that point. The President's plan does not do that. He subsidizes the premium costs. We subsidize the high risk so that, in fact, we can say to seniors and disabled who are eligible for Medicare they will never lose everything that they have because in any given year they have a significant illness. I think that is the role of the Federal Government. That is the definition of a safety net when things get tough, they are there. What we have tried to do is design a plan that says let us put value, let us be honest on what the cost is, let us give people confidence in who they deal with, which is usually not the Federal Government, that is why we chose the private sector, and let us say at what point their exposure stops, at what point do they reach where they do not have any additional costs. To some degree, it is criminal for us to ever present a plan that would suggest to individuals when they really get sick and they exceed a certain amount that the burden falls 100 percent on them, when they have reached that point where they might have 100 prescriptions filled in a year. That is when they need us to kick in. We are trying to design a plan that gives them coverage underneath and security underneath, but more importantly, security for what is unexpected. We know in health care that happens many times.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize WSJS-AM radio on its 70th anniversary. Since the first broadcast on Easter weekend of 1930, WSJS remains a treasured source of information and entertainment to the Winston-Salem community. Over the years the station has changed format, its broadcast hours, its transmitter power, its frequency and even its owners. But, the trusted service and the call letters have remained the same. Getting their start without a network affiliation, WSJS filled its air time with local programming, treating listeners to a variety of community talent--from the Winston-Salem Concert Orchestra to Jack Hawkins playing old favorites on his musical saw. Now a member of a national network conglomerate, WSJS communicates national issues with a local flavor. Preserving 70 years of tradition, local personalities like Mike Fenley and Glenn Scott have upheld their community reputation as a classy operation. The all-talk format is supported by an enthusiastic staff that continues to attract thousands in the Piedmont Triad to the medium of news radio. On behalf of the citizens of the 5th District of North Carolina, I honor the WSJS radio station for 70 years of quality radio programming.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me this time. Let me take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for their hard work on this issue. The fact is that education should be bipartisan. Every minute that we talk about education, we should spend looking for those new ideas that the gentleman from Indiana talked about, those ideas that affect our children, the children in this country. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before my colleagues today as a sponsor of this legislation, this small token, a resolution to create recognition for the success of charter schools. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, North Carolina is a participant in the charter school program. This year we ranked 11th out of the 37 States, so we have a great deal of success in this. North Carolina permits 100 charter schools to be created. Currently we have 75 schools chartered and up and running; and I believe this year, 20 additional schools will be added. One that has been tremendously successful is the kindergartners at Healthy Start Academy in Durham, North Carolina. They achieved an average test score in the 99th percentile for reading and the 97th percentile for math. What an amazing statistic, given that just about all of the children at that school are eligible for the Federal free lunch program and come from low-income families. What does this resolution do? Quite simply, it recognizes the success of new ideas, the success of people willing to put politics away and to let policy take over. In North Carolina alone, let me share with my colleagues some brief successes, some things that will happen this week. The America Renaissance Charter School in Statesville, North Carolina, is celebrating this week with a proclamation from the mayor, positive news articles, and National Charter School Week logo shirts. In Raleigh, North Carolina, at SARC Academy, the teachers there plan to go and meet with the general assembly members as our short session of the general assembly starts. In Chapel Hill where Village Charter School is, those students have been invited to a special performance of the University of North Carolina's Opera Work Shop just for the charter school kids. Mr. Speaker, this is a week that we ought to be proud of, a week that complements the work of this body, and really the creativity and the passion of the American people. I hope every State has the opportunity in the future to introduce charter schools to their communities; and I hope that this Congress stays focused on the bipartisanship that we approached this issue with. I thank the chairman and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for their great success.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush). This amendment deals with the crux of the problem Congress is facing on low-power FM interference. The FCC chose to eliminate decades-old third-channel interference protections in order to shoehorn in more low-power FM stations. The House Committee on Commerce said wait a minute. After hearings and debate in subcommittee and full committee, my colleagues and myself said low-power FM can go forward and should go forward immediately, but Congress must protect all radio listeners by maintaining third-channel interference protections. Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) have agreed that we should put into law third- adjacent channel protections for any radio station that sublets, if you will, some of their spectrum to very important blind reading services, services that the FCC ignores in their ruling. So the authors of this amendment are saying that the FCC got third- channel protections wrong for these unique and critically vital blind reading stations. But for all other broadcasters who may cover local high schools, sports, or provide Spanish language broadcasts, or our public radio affiliates, one cannot, and I repeat, cannot have third- channel protections under the law. What if stations decide to offer some of their auxiliary spectrums to blind reading services? Does the FCC then have to go back and protect the third-channel from interference and shut down existing low-power FM stations? This amendment is ill conceived and flawed. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, although yesterday was the day for the Michigan State men's and University of Connecticut women's basketball teams to shine, I wanted to take this opportunity to recognize the winners of the other national championship that took place during the month of March. While North Carolina and Duke both performed admirably during the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, only one team from Tobacco Road returned home this past weekend with the champion's hardware and only one team from the ACC will begin next year's season on a winning streak--my hometown Wake Forest Demon Deacons--the past Thursday evening in Madison Square Garden the Deacons easily disposed of Notre Dame to win its first national invitational tournament. Now the critics of this tournament will be quick to call Wake Forest the ``65th best team in the Nation''--a reference to not making the NCAA field of 64. And several Wake fans, in midst of a 3-9 mid-season slump, might have taken a 65th place finish, but the Deacons, led by Coach Dave Odom and his staff chose to turn this season around, winning 8 of its last 9 games, salvaging a 22-14 record and a national championship. Credit for this victory goes to all the Deacon players, from leading scorer Darius Songalia and NIT Tournament MVP Robert O'Kelley to strong bench support from Craig Dawson and Josh Shoemaker. The Deacons losing only two players from this year's team, look to carry the momentum of this late season success into next year's season, when they hope to readily hand over the NIT championship trophy as they make their way to the ultimate goal--the NCAA Torunament. Once again--congratulations to Wake Forest.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to be present for the vote on final passage of H.R. 3908. Had I been present I would have, albeit reluctantly, voted in favor of the bill. While I wholeheartedly endorse the provisions of Title III, I did have concerns about much of the new spending provided elsewhere in this legislation. Much of what is provided for in this bill could have been addressed through the normal appropriations process. Title III, however, addresses the true emergency needs of many in this country, and in North Carolina particularly. Thousands of people in my home state are still struggling to overcome the impact of last fall's hurricanes. The assistance provided in this emergency appropriations bill will be critical in helping my fellow North Carolinians return to at least a semblance of the lives they led before last September's devastating floods. I am grateful to the Appropriations Committee for providing this much-needed assistance, and appreciate their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to be present for the vote on final passage of H.R. 3908. Had I been present I would have, albeit reluctantly, voted in favor of the bill. Stated against:

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of a great man, Mr. Alonzo Folger, Jr., of Rockingham County, North Carolina, who passed away this morning. Lon was the son of one of my predecessors and the nephew of another. His father, Alonzo Folger, Sr., represented the 5th District of North Carolina from 1939 to 1941, and his uncle, John Folger, represented the district from 1941 to 1949. Lon Folger was a family man, an attorney, a community leader, a political activist, and a friend to many. I will never forget the support he, a leading Democratic figure in North Carolina, gave me, a Republican, when I ran for Congress in 1994. Lon not only supported me in that election but, from that time until his death, he was always willing to serve as an adviser to me on many issues we dealt with here in Congress. Lon Folger was the type of person whose word was his bond. A handshake could be counted on to be a valid written contract. Lon was honest and forthright. He was fair in his dealings with people, even those who he disagreed with. Lon was a leader in his community and, over the years, involved himself in numerous efforts to make his hometown, Madison, North Carolina, a better place to live. He could always be counted on to answer the call when there was a need, and he consistently devoted his time and energy to helping others. If we are fortunate enough in our lifetimes, we have the occasion to cross paths with a handful of very special people who teach us and are willing to help us understand where they have been before us. Lon Folger was that type of special friend for me, and I will always be grateful for the opportunity to have sought his counsel, knowing that I could trust his judgment. I extend my sympathy to his wife Elizabeth and to the rest of the family on their loss. Lon Folger's death is a loss not only for his family but for the community and the State he loved so much, and he will certainly be missed by all who knew him.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1749, designating Wilson Creek in northwest North Carolina as a wild and scenic river. Madam Speaker, one of the hidden beauties--and there are few--of the ever changing North Carolina congressional district map is that in any given election, with the blessing of the electorate, the members our delegation are given the honor of serving different parts of different counties for short periods of time. During my first two terms of Congress, I had the opportunity to serve parts of Caldwell County that we are honoring today. Although the majority of the legwork here in Washington was done by my colleague Mr. Ballenger and his staff, the reason the designation is becoming a reality is the process by which it matured. You see, Mr. Speaker, this was not a decision forced upon the people of Avery and Caldwell County by a Federal bureaucracy with little or no local input. This project has been the result of local initiative, spearheaded by county commissioners and community leaders. These officials, at every step of the way, explained the process and benefits of wild and scenic designation to the local community and landowners, enlisting the advice and counsel of the local U.S. Forest Service. The professionalism of Forest Supervisor John Ramey, District Ranger Mike Anderson and Recreation Planner Kathy Ludlow quickly put to rest any misconceptions or fears the local community may have harbored towards seeking this Federal designation. Madam Speaker, this designation will do more than protect the 23 miles of river which rolls through the shadow of Grandfather Mountain. What also is being affirmed here is an example of how our Federal conservation policy should be administered--from local decisions by local leaders working in partnership with the Federal Government towards a universal goal of preserving the most pristine and natural resources of our country. I thank Mr. Ballenger for bringing this bill forward and I ask for its immediate approval.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, another important thing: we save money, and there is no figure in there on the quality of life improvement that we have made for the individuals. No hospital stay, no transportation for relatives, the type of thing that for seniors today is a problem; just the dislocation from their home is a problem. We have been joined by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who also participated in quite a few things with us, and one of them was the expansion of Medicare in 1995, if I remember, when we made the sell that there were certain things under Medicare that we ought to cover, such as the PSA exam for senior males that checked for a certain cancer; mammograms for senior females so that we could detect at an earlier stage; not too dissimilar to the argument that the gentleman just made and that is if we find a way to detect things sooner, the faster we do it, the faster we treat, the less hospital stay that we have, the less cost that we have, a better quality of life that we have. Everything that we would chart as a goal in a health care plan we were able to achieve, and it should be incorporated into this drug benefit.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for making part of his time available for me to join him in this Special Order on the drug benefits that should exist under Medicare. I sometimes wonder if in 1960 when Medicare was created, whether they knew we would be here at some point in the future. The fact was that drug benefits were not part of the insurance package for the private sector or for any entity, and if they would have been, I am sure that those individuals who were in this institution would have included a drug package in Medicare as we know it today. But the fact is, they did not. In the last 30 to 40 years, we have seen significant change since Medicare happened. There has not only been change in the delivery system, it has been changed in the treatment methods that physicians use; there have been changes in the devices that hospitals are able to use for treatment; and there has certainly been change in the pharmaceutical world, which I call the high-tech end of medicine. As we discover new things that treat specific illnesses, that up until yesterday we might have thought were uncurable or uncontrollable, that is the era that we are in. The debate in Washington is not over whether we extend a drug benefit to individuals who make choices between food and drug. It is a philosophical debate in Washington over who we are going to offer a drug benefit to. The gentleman and I and others believe that it has to be universal; that we have to make sure that 10 years from now, people in this institution are not here on this House floor fixing something that had design flaws, fixing something that was not inclusive of 100 percent of the population. There is a difference between where the subsidy is, the Federal Government subsidy, and making available the option for seniors to buy in. It could be that our plan, employers might buy their retirees into this drug plan. It means that seniors' high income would pay for their premiums and those below a certain level of income on an annual basis might have that Federal safety net to pay their premium and their deductible. But there are certainly plans all around this town, as we have seen. The gentleman and I both shared an experience which was the modernization of the Food and Drug Administration, a 2\1/2\-year process that I remember well. When we started, people looked at us and said, it can never be done; it is too big. Granted, things happen slow in Washington that are big, but 2\1/2\ years later, I think even the agency would say that their ability to bring new pharmaceutical products, their ability to bring new devices to the marketplace to treat real people is better today than it has ever been in the history of that agency, while maintaining the gold standard of the FDA, and that is the safety and the effectiveness of their treatments. I remember through that process that the gentleman and I met hours and hours with individuals young and old who came in with chronic and terminal illnesses who did not have a tremendous amount of choices. One of the results of the Food and Drug Administration modernization was that we have had new applications, a greater number for pharmaceuticals than we have ever seen, because companies invested millions and billions of dollars in research and development. The human genome project is beginning to identify disease that exists in our senior population, and we are just right around the corner from those same pharmaceuticals finding a chemical that can stop that chronic illness that they have had for year after year after year. We have to make sure that drug benefits are affordable and accessible for the entire population, and we can only do that if we accept the challenge of presenting a universal plan, not a targeted plan like some have suggested. Clearly, it has to be universal and it has to include the entire senior population. As a matter of fact, the General Accounting Office testified in front of us today, the Senate last week; and they said to Congress, do not do anything that does not change Medicare in its entirety. Reform the whole process when you do the drug benefit. That is probably a goal that we cannot do this year. The question is, how long can seniors wait. However, we can get that portion of it that deals with drug benefits right: universal in scope, affordable in price, and accessible from the standpoint of coverage.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raises an important point that we need to remind everybody of. The House of Representatives does not have the ability to do it on their own. The United States Senate does not have the ability to do it on its own. Our Founding Fathers designed a very difficult system, but a system that works. It has its checks and balances, but it requires the legislative branch and the executive branch to agree. It means that we not only have to pass the test of our 434 colleagues and our 100 colleagues in the Senate, and the executive branch's power over whether something moves, but we have the American people to deal with, too. We have to pass the test of: Is this a good product to them? That is not just limited to the 30-plus million seniors, because certainly the payment in the subsidy, the safety net is created by the American taxpayer. We have not done a good job of explaining in the past what Congress did and why they did it. I think the reason that they did not was that we are finding they did not do some things just exactly right. We have an opportunity, as the gentleman said, as we head to a period where as we pay down debt, we could alleviate off of our annual expenditures $260 billion worth of interest payments every year, interest payments that we get zero for. We do not educate children. We do not provide health care for seniors. We get zero in services. That is the one area that infuriates me as a taxpayer, that we cannot get that interest off and we cannot do it until we pay the debt. As the gentleman knows, in North Carolina I have a mix of every type of health care in this country. I have some of the finest medical universities at Wake Forest and Chapel Hill and Duke and East Carolina. I also have some secondary hospitals that I think are models in the county, in Alamance County and Surry County, North Carolina. I also have rural health clinics and community health centers. They treat this population as well, and their livelihood has been Medicare. It was so important that we went back the end of last year and we beefed up some of the reimbursement changes we made in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, because we saw that we were falling short of supplying the best health care to the seniors in the community health centers and rural health clinics. We went back and in a bipartisan way, very quickly, without a lot of public debate, we found those areas and we strengthened them. Today, those seniors in North Carolina that go to the rural health clinic and in every State now have quality delivery, a delivery system that they are not going to worry whether it is going to be there next year. That is the opportunity we have with drugs. We can put aside the partisanship of it. We can commit with the President to do a plan, let it pass the test of seniors, let it pass the test of the American people, the American taxpayer. Those are the two most important. The least important is the personal agendas of individuals up here, whether it be at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue or the other. I am willing to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and with our other colleagues on both sides of the aisle and let seniors, the associations that represent them, the American taxpayer, judge our product at the end on the value of it to them and of the scope of coverage and of the quality of life that it provides for all of them.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman raises a great question. That is, a movement of 30-plus million people into a plan of coverage has a devastating effect on the cost of the items that are purchased under that plan.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. The gentleman is exactly right. The challenge for us as well is to make sure that the plan that we produce has a value. I think sometimes we leave value out of it because we are talking about this captured audience, and I guess that is how people can look at the current health care system and say, it is the best in the world. When we talk to seniors, they will point out every problem that exists in Medicare today from the standpoint of the limited scope of coverage to the cost and the out-of-pocket cost, $760 when one really gets sick and has to go in the hospital. That is an area we should look at, but we are doing drugs now. We have to make sure that it fits in that modernized Medicare system of the future. If not, our work would only be changed by somebody else's mistake later on.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the challenge for us, as everybody will agree, is that there are 30-plus million Americans who fall under this umbrella of Medicare, and it grows every day. We certainly know what the demographic shift is in America. We have heard the numbers as they relate to Social Security. We talk about it enough related to Medicare, but the fact is the senior that goes on Social Security is also the senior that will go on Medicare. The population will double in the next 15 to 20 years in America, and I think there is a responsibility that we have to make sure that the system is sound enough that it will go on. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to talk about some of the numbers that we hear on a daily basis as we discuss drugs. Individuals might see on the nightly news when they talk about the individual who is making a choice between food and drugs or drugs and something else in their monthly budget. The President's new proposal has a full subsidy at 135 percent of poverty. That income level on an annual basis is $11,727 a year; excuse me, the 150 percent is $11,727. What happens to that person that is at 135 to 150? Clearly they have the same choices that they have to make, maybe not as great as the person at 100 percent. But I think one of the things we have to do is we have to identify where is that safety net needed the most, whether there is a transitional safety net for people in the middle, because today we can look at 200 percent of poverty for seniors and realize that there is no State, Federal, or community safety net that fills their need, and how expansive we can be is only limited to how creative we can be at producing a new model.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in her particular case, it was not limited to osteoporosis, which is the case with a lot of seniors today who have multiple health problems or multiple health conditions. She herself said that she took 11 prescriptions a day. Now, one of the reasons that she came to see us is she is one of the fortunate seniors that is insured. She has an add-on policy that provides some costs for drugs; and she said, whatever you do, let everybody else have the opportunity who is a senior to buy, but do not limit me; let me stay with the plan I am comfortable with. That is a challenge to us, to make sure that whatever we design is equally as good, if not better, than what she has.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, she could have been from anywhere.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania as well. We are at a time where this week alone we saw the President for the first time say to Congress, I will sign a bill that eliminates the earning limits that we created on seniors, an opportunity for those that want to continue to work, that choose to work voluntarily, possibly stay in a private sector health plan; but the key thing is that they realize that the longer they work, the healthier they are. Those that make that choice will not be penalized now under the Tax Code. If there is an area that we penalize them, it is suggesting that when they get to a certain age the only thing we provide is a limited health coverage for them, and I think we have a responsibility and an obligation to make sure that we do develop a model that is universal, that it is accessible and it is affordable for everybody, regardless of who is paying the bill, a subsidy or an individual. I think that is a test that we will ultimately be under, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on it.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. I know the gentleman remembers well the visits that we had from young and old when we were in the hopes that we could modernize the Food and Drug Administration. I think to many Americans they might have looked at it and said, all that is being accomplished is to have a new version of an old drug on the marketplace and this is a process that will allow that to happen. In fact, it was not. In many cases, the drugs that come through that pipeline today, as we refer to it, are drugs that we have not had anything available to treat that chronic or that terminal illness. Today, as the gentleman and I know, we have a rampant increase in infection, in seniors predominately, but in all Americans; and it does not have anything to do with sterilization. It just has to do with the change in bacteria that goes on as we have treated one strain so long. The need exists in this country for new antibiotics but, more importantly, the need for patients to take all of the drugs that are prescribed for them so that the illness is eliminated totally. We know what happens to a senior when they get halfway through the prescription. They have another month to go. That means going to the drugstore. It means the out-of-pocket cost of another $50 or $60 or $70, and they have had a cold month and the heating oil is higher than they thought, they may say I feel great now, the signs that I went in with are gone, and they do not get that second month of prescription. Pretty soon, that problem is back; it is worse. It means hospitalizations. It means doctors' bills. We pay for that side of it, under Medicare, and it is time that we lift the shells that we have got the pea under and make sure that everybody sees them and realizes that regardless of where it happens in the system, somebody has to be responsible and somebody is paying. We have to make sure that we can say to the taxpayers in this country that they are getting the best value that they could purchase. We have to say to the patients, the recipients, the beneficiaries, they have the most quality delivery system with the greatest scope of coverage out there that we could possibly design. We are not there yet, and clearly we have seen a tremendous amount of options; but too many times we want to focus on the most at-risk and stop before we realize that an important part of this process is to make sure that we design a product that is as attractive to people in the upper income scale of seniors as it is needed in the lower income scale. Because by their participation, that pool of seniors grows and the purchasing power of that group, regardless of whose plan they are under, is that much better for their pharmaceutical coverage. We have seen it happen in the private sector in health care. We can see it in what is the public sector today, which is Medicare.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Carolina for yielding me the time. Dennis, Floyd, and Irene are not the list of newborn names but they are simply a list of hurricanes that devastated eastern North Carolina over the past 2 months. The brunt of the damage was leveled by Hurricane Floyd, leaving in its wake a destructive flood that damaged our State and is the worst that we have ever seen. I ask my colleagues to stop for a minute the blame game and to concentrate on those individuals who live in eastern North Carolina, the individuals that have lost their home, lost their job, are living with friends or relatives or in a trailer, individuals who are still making a home mortgage on a house that does not exist and are being offered, hopefully, grants to rebuild. They are the ones that our hearts should go out to today and, hopefully, that this Federal Government is responsible to help. Mr. Speaker, to echo the words of the President on September 17 and the days following the hurricane, he said, ``We're reminded that the power of the American spirit is even stronger than the power of a hurricane.'' Nothing could be more true. As the saying goes in our State, from Murphy to Manteo, the response for assistance has been overwhelming and it has come from every sector of our State. Whether it came from the banking centers in Charlotte or the churches and the civic club in cities in my district, no stone has been left unturned in our State to make sure that these people get assistance that they need to get back on their feet and return to a normal way of life. Quoting the President again on a September 16 speech at FEMA headquarters, he said, ``I know I speak for all when I say we do not want them to feel alone. We want to do everything we possibly can to be a good, loyal, helpful neighbor to them and get them through this.'' Mr. Speaker, the citizens of our State have been the good, loyal neighbor the President spoke of. The officials on the ground, FEMA, and the other disaster agencies have been the helpful neighbor as well. It is time for the administration to step forward and be the good, loyal, helpful neighbor we expect of our Federal Government. Every day that passes without a recommendation for emergency assistance is another day that the loneliness the President so sought to avoid only sets in as reality to storm victims of our State. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for bringing this resolution to the floor and especially thank the overwhelming support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and our delegation for this resolution. It has been said that in international affairs partisanship stops at the water's edge. Based on the support of this resolution, it can also be said unequivocally that when a disaster of this magnitude strikes in our State, partisanship stops at our State borders.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I can remember before I got here, sitting at home watching this institution at work, passing some of the legislation that they did, thinking why did we do it again? It did not work last time, and it did not work the time before. Boy, if I were there, I would change it. I have learned since I have gotten here how difficult it is to get people to release the power here, to actually rely on individuals that are closer to the problems to play a part of the solutions. It has been an eye-opening experience. Since I have been here, I have had an opportunity to spend time in schools, to meet with teachers, to talk about the problems, to hear firsthand, to ask questions and to hear them say when I ask, Why do you do it that way?, their answer is: Because you make me, you Washington. Let me make my point, if I could. I heard earlier that the purpose of Federal dollars was for Federal initiatives. I would tell my colleagues that I have a huge difference with the gentlewoman that said that. The purpose of Federal dollars is the same as State dollars and local dollars as it relates to education. It is to help our kids learn. It is to supply the resources so teachers can teach. It is to make sure that the tools are there. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that we cannot trust governors. I guess that means we cannot trust school boards or parents or anybody in the school system because they all play a part. This program is voluntary. This program is voluntary. States will choose to pick whether they want to participate or not. I truly believe that every person in this institution is after the same goal, and that is to increase the learning and knowledge of our students in this country. So what is the difference, quite simply? We have heard it tonight. It is over who holds the power. Some want to hold it here; some of us want to return it home to teachers and to parents and to educators. That is a huge difference. It is a difference that clearly, I think, makes a difference in the education of our children. It is startling to know that over half the paperwork required of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction in Raleigh is required by the Federal Government for only 6.8 percent of the overall funding. That is certainly not equitable. The single most important investment that we can make in this country is in our children. Congress has made sure that enough money is set aside for education. Now let us just make sure that it gets to the classrooms. Let us make sure that under Straight A's our kids have the computers, have the resources, that more teachers are in the classroom, that schools are safer, and that we guarantee academic results. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and trust parents and teachers.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to control the time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).