[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 137 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5646-S5650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISASTER FUNDING
Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the Presiding Officer's recognition.
Mr. President, this is a debate that has become the debate as part of
the Burma Sanctions Act, which if we were debating the Burma Sanctions
Act I would also be for Burma sanctions. But in the debate on
disasters, Missouri has played an unfortunate leading role this year of
all kinds.
We have had floods along the Mississippi River. We have had floods
along the Missouri River. Joplin, MO--one of the bigger cities in our
State--was hit by a tornado. We have evacuated a place in southeast
Missouri, a floodway called Birds Point, where, for the first time
since 1937, the Corps of Engineers decided that 130,000 or so acres had
to be used as a floodway. All the crops that were already planted and
up were, obviously, destroyed as part of that.
I was in that floodway for a couple of different days in August, and
I will say, the resilience of Missouri farmers to get about 80 percent
of that floodway back in soybeans means the economic loss, the crop
loss, will not be what it was. But the recovery loss is substantial, as
is the cost of rebuilding that levee back to the level it was before
the Corps exercised the long plan that had not been used to take it
down.
Tornadoes struck St. Louis at the airport and around Lambert Field,
in communities around Lambert Field. Tornadoes in Joplin were
significant. I mentioned on the floor of the Senate before that I live
close to Joplin. It was
[[Page S5647]]
in my congressional district for 14 years. I had an office there. I am
probably as familiar with Joplin as anybody who does not live there or
has not lived there.
As I went to the scene of this tornado, the devastation made a city
that I was very familiar with--at least a half-mile path, 6 miles
across that city--virtually unrecognizable by me or the local police
officer who was driving me around. There were no street signs left.
Every block looked like the block on either side of it--an incredible
amount of devastation.
There were 162 people killed either at the time of the tornado or who
within a few days of the tornado died as a result of injuries; 900
people were injured. A hospital was destroyed that will cost about $500
million to replace. The high school was destroyed. The vo-tech school
was destroyed, lots of elementary schools destroyed, 500 commercial
properties, 8,000 apartments and homes, and I think ``destroyed'' in
virtually all those cases would be the right word; some of them
salvageable, most of them not. Homes, churches, elementary schools, the
Catholic school--all destroyed by that tornado.
While we make headway every day, finding housing for people in that
community who were affected by the loss of those 8,000 homes, and while
the schools were up and running by the day schools were scheduled to
start 90 days later, in an incredible way, looking for whatever space
was available and turning that into schools for this year, there is
clearly a lot to be done.
This exceeds the capacity of an individual community or even a State
to do what needs to be done. I am in the process, and have been for
some time now, of discussing with GAO the exact right request, to be
sure we are not declaring disasters as national disasters that are not
national in scope, that we have not gotten into a habit of saying: That
is a disaster, the Governor ought to send a request to the President
and the President ought to grant it. We do not want to be doing that
when a State or a community could handle the problem. But we do always
want to be sure we have the resources necessary when States and
communities cannot possibly handle this kind of problem by themselves.
The tornado I talked about was one; the flooding in the entire
Mississippi Valley watershed, which is I think the fourth largest
watershed in the world. And whether it was the Missouri River or the
Ohio River or the Mississippi River itself, or the Arkansas River, all
of this flooding that occurred this year has set a recovery number that
does require national involvement. If we do not recover from these
floods, the right kinds of things do not happen.
I had a county commissioner tell me over August that the factory does
not open until the highway opens. And the highway does not open until
flood protection is guaranteed. And flood protection is not guaranteed
until we appropriate the money.
You know we should be and appropriately are focused on jobs as the
No. 1 priority in the country today, private sector jobs. But there are
a lot of private sector jobs in my State and others that have not been
there for months now because the factory is closed or the business is
closed. That factory is not going to open again until people can get to
work. And people are not going to be on the highway to get to work
until the levee is rebuilt. And the levee is not going to be rebuilt
until the Corps of Engineers has the money to do the job they are
supposed to do and meet their obligations. The Corps is responsible for
taking care of some of our most pressing needs, whether it is restoring
the levee at Bird's Point or levees in northwest Missouri in Holt
County, which has 165,000 acres--more than half the county--underwater.
A lot of that has been underwater now for 3 or 4 months.
I talked to a farmer in my office yesterday who went to his own home
for the first time in 3 months, by driving a tractor over some fairly
high water areas but passable areas. His home had not been flooded, but
everything around it was. So he had not been there for 3 months when we
talked yesterday until he went this week.
Whether it is water along the entire Missouri River, which has been
in flood stage through the month of August, recovering from what has
happened on the Mississippi River, we need to do our job. In our case,
the Missouri River, this has not been a-1 week flood; this is a 3- and
4-month flood.
I do not remember a time ever--in fact, I am not aware of a time
ever--when the entire Missouri River from the Missouri border in the
northwest corner of the State to St. Louis was in flood stage the
entire month of August, and in some cases has been in flood stage now
for what is 4 months. Community development block grants that help with
disasters provide communities a short-term and long-term way to meet
disaster recovery. Disaster community development block grant funds can
pick up where FEMA leaves off. I hope that is part of our plan as we
look for this disaster bill, which I am intending to support--or the
final, or another disaster bill that we can agree to with the House--to
be sure that we make it possible for these communities to do what they
could not do on their own or could not even do with State assistance.
In Joplin, it is things such as underground utilities and storm
sewers and sanitary systems of all kinds, owner-occupancy programs to
get people who owned a house but may never own one again because the
house they owned, through frankly their own inability or their
oversight or their decision not to have insurance--you know, if you own
a house and you do not have a loan, there is no banker to tell you that
you have to get insurance. We will have some people who are negatively
affected by that. But that was a decision they made. However, getting
them into a house that they do not own is something that there are
government programs for that are designed to help.
Community development block grants allow qualifying communities to
meet local matches and local needs without a whole lot of redtape, less
redtape than a lot of other things that the government does. And, of
course, with the most recent hurricane, Hurricane Irene, suddenly FEMA
says: Well, I know we made a lot of commitments to other communities
that are already in progress, but we now have to turn to the new
disaster. I appreciate turning to the new disaster. But you cannot
forget that a community has problems they cannot deal with that we said
we were going to help with, just because the TV satellite truck has
gone somewhere else. I think it is important that FEMA meets its
obligations.
As I said before, I think it is important in an ongoing way we are
sure that we have a standard for natural and national disasters that
truly are national in scope. With thousands of acres of Missouri
farmland still underwater, with communities trying to recover from
tornados, with commitments that FEMA has told them to move forward on
and now suddenly does not have the money that they had already
committed, we need to be concerned about that.
Programs such as watershed emergency protection and conservation
emergency protection that are in this bill that were in the Agriculture
appropriations bill that the committee voted out earlier this week will
have a big impact on meeting these obligations.
Despite the unprecedented year, my State and Americans everywhere are
responding to these disasters, this is a time when the Federal
Government needs to do what the Federal Government has said it is there
to do. Hopefully we will do this with this bill or some other bill that
comes quickly that allows these communities to meet their needs, these
farm families to get back to work, these factory workers to see the
factory doors open again. I am supportive of this effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized
without objection in the majority's time. Only 4 minutes is remaining.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, am I incorrect that the other side has a
speaker coming at 11 o'clock?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not have information about
that.
Mr. BURR. I will take whatever time the Chair gives me. I will yield,
when I need to, to the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURR. Let me add to what my good friend from Missouri talked
about. That is about the Federal commitment to disaster. North Carolina
happens to be one of those States that is probably the most recent. We
welcome the attention of FEMA, but we
[[Page S5648]]
also have the last disaster before. And just like he expects the
promises to be fulfilled, even though we are first in line now, we
expect the promises to be fulfilled to those who are already out there.
Our country is great enough to do it. It is the greatest country in the
world. But it means we have got to do it in a responsible way. Part of
that means we need to pay for it. I hope my colleagues will join what I
think will be a House effort to expedite the funding needed for
disaster relief but to do it in a way that we do not charge future
generations because of our fiscal irresponsibility.
I had the opportunity to participate in a colloquy earlier on reforms
to K-12 education. I wish to take the few remaining minutes I have to
talk a little bit more about that, because I think to some degree we
hear about education and the failures of K-12.
Senator Kirk alluded to some charter schools in Chicago. I want to
mention a school nobody hears about. It is called the KIPP Academy.
Technically, it is a charter school. It started in Houston, TX. Then it
expanded. Its second location was in New York City. Its third location
was targeted to be Atlanta, but halfway between Atlanta and New York
they found a little county in rural North Carolina. It is called
Northampton County, and a little community there called Gaston, NC, the
last place you would expect a Texas innovative charter school to say,
let's put a facility here. Predominantly minority; clearly below the
average income level of every county in North Carolina; challenged for
economic development. They do not have the infrastructure. But KIPP
looked at it and said: You know, no child should go without what we are
out there to offer. Today the success rate of that school is off the
chart. But it also is in every KIPP location that has opened.
When you have successes such as that, whether they are in Houston,
TX, or New York City, or Gaston, NC, the responsible thing is to stop
and take a breath and ask yourself: What have they figured out that
either we have not in Washington or what flexibility do they have that
we do not give everybody else?
When you walk into a KIPP school, it is markedly different as soon as
you walk in the door. Most kids are in uniforms. The school day is
longer. The teachers are partners in education, which begs me to talk a
little bit about Teach for America, the program that many Members of
Congress support.
Teach for America challenged the next generation of kids who want to
be educators to commit a certain portion of their life in these at-risk
locations. It is a program we ought to support because its standards
for its teachers exceed the definition we have for ``highly
qualified.'' As a matter of fact, not only do their credentials make
them one of the best individuals to put into a classroom, you match
that with their passion for their students to succeed, and all of a
sudden you have got a formula for success regardless of the
socioeconomic conditions of the child who came.
Well, I fear Teach for America is not going to get the attention of
Congress that it should. Yet across this country, when you find
successful, qualified teachers, they have come out of this program. The
commitment to be there for 2 years or 3 years or 5 years is no longer a
contract that they are waiting for the end of; they are looking for the
opportunity to make this a career.
It is those teachers, those Teach for America graduates, who are
finding their way to being the principals of schools, to being elected
on the school board, to being involved in areas that, for once, now
these Teach for America graduates are challenging traditional education
to live up to what this obligation is they have got. That is to make
sure that every child has the foundational education they need to
compete.
It does not matter whether the example I talk about is the KIPP
Academy charter model that was started in Houston or whether it is the
Noble Street charter that was created in Chicago. All of these examples
were not created here. They were not created in Congress or in
Washington. Yet what typically we do is we try to import the solution
from here.
I will be the first to tell you, a principal is much closer to your
children than the Congress of the United States. They are much closer
to the school. They are much closer to the school system. They have
greater influence on the outcome. Where have we been influencing
education? We influence it on the input side, not the output side,
because we say: Here is some money. We have got some money. But you can
only use it for this because we have determined this is the solution to
the problem. KIPP sort of broke the mold. They said: Our mission is to
educate every child. We want to see them succeed.
Let me give my colleagues an example. In Charlotte, NC, they opened a
KIPP Academy, K-8, next door to a traditional K-6 school. There is no
way anybody can look at it and say, this drew kids who were in a
different neighborhood. No, it drew kids from exactly the same
neighborhood. But if you look at the performance side by side
physically, the performance of the kids in the KIPP far exceeds the
performance of the kids in the traditional public school system.
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio assumed the chair.)
Mr. BURR. Why? Because KIPP officials have the flexibility to design
how they educate those children. The goal at the end is the same--to
meet a standard of performance, to meet an educational level that is
set nationally.
To me, it only makes common sense for us to see the ones that exceed
the goals we set and ask how do we import what they do into the rest of
our K-12 system? Part of it is recognizing the fact that up here we
don't have the solutions; we are merely a financial partner. That is
one of the reasons this morning I introduced a bill. What that bill
does is it takes 59 pots of money--59 separate programs that were
funded last year. In one area, we call it the fund for improvement of
teaching and learning, to say we can take 59 programs and combine them
into two pots of money; one is teaching and learning and the second one
is safe and healthy students.
In the teaching and learning area, we have consolidated about 24
funding programs into one. We have said to local educators that they
can use this money however they want, if their focus is teaching and
learning, and they can pull out of the other pot any moneys they need
for programs that address safe and healthy students.
We went a step further and said, if one of these pots of money
doesn't work for them, then we will give them 100 percent
transferability from one pot to the other. So if their objective and
their need is greater in teaching and learning, we will give them the
ability to take the safe and healthy student money and throw it over
into the teaching and learning pot so they can access more funds.
In addition, some communities across the country might need
additional help in title I, at-risk students. We allow 100 percent
transferability of both of those into title I. For those concerned with
title I, not only do we not touch it, we make it available to receive
additional funding if a school system decides to do it, not a
bureaucrat in Washington, DC.
Under the fund of improving teaching and learning, States and local
school districts may use funds for activities and programs that meet
the purposes of the fund for the improvement of teaching and learning
and their unique and individual needs. These may include evaluation
systems for teachers and principals that take into account data on
student academic achievement and growth as a significant factor.
That is exactly what Senator Isakson was talking about, the need for
accountability. But we are trying to take a majority of the
responsibility for accountability and send it to the local school
systems. All we can see are numbers up here in comparison to what our
goal is for people to hit. I am concerned that a community takes
ownership in the performance of their school system because that
community is reliant on their success for their future.
My hope is, school systems and communities around the country will
see this as a tremendous opportunity to once again not only take
control of local education but to be empowered to make decisions on the
way they teach our kids.
It reforms teacher and principal certifications, recertifications,
licensing, and tenure; alternative routes for State certification of
teachers and
[[Page S5649]]
principals, including mid-career professionals from other occupations,
former military personnel, and recent college or university graduates
with records of academic distinction who demonstrate the potential to
become highly effective teachers and principals.
There is this whole pool of people we exclude because they didn't go
through a traditional method of being classified a teacher. Yet their
base of knowledge, their expertise and, I suggest, their passion, in
many cases, exceeds those who might be in the classroom today.
Is it reasonable to believe that a pharmacist has the institutional
knowledge to teach chemistry? I hope so because we trust him every day
when we go into a pharmacy. If a pharmacist feels impassioned enough
that he or she wants to go into a high school and teach chemistry, what
they might lack in the educational process of becoming a teacher they
certainly have in knowledge; but more important, they may have the
passion to want to be in there and, more important, they have an
understanding of why the success of that student is absolutely vital.
It includes performance pay systems; differential, incentive, and
bonus pay for teachers in high-need academic subjects and specialty
areas and teachers in high-poverty schools and districts; teacher
achievement initiatives that promote professional growth, multiple
career paths, and pay differentiation.
Everywhere else in the world we pay bonuses for performance. In the
government, we pay bonuses even when people don't perform. I haven't
quite figured that out. When we introduce bonuses, it is not based upon
whether somebody--an agency or a department--succeeded; it becomes part
of their annual stipend. We have to revisit that. Why would we
institute it in government and then suggest that when we import this
into K-12 education, somehow it is wrong?
The only reason it is wrong is because the teachers union doesn't
like it because they don't negotiate. That has to change. The teachers
union doesn't know our children. The truth is, the only reason the
majority of the teachers actually join the union is because they are
the only source of liability coverage, liability insurance that
teachers can get. The fact is, you and I would not teach in a classroom
without liability insurance, based upon the accusations and charges
some families come up with against teachers. Ask them, if you don't
believe me. Maybe we ought to look at the Federal umbrella and allow
teachers to access liability from us and maybe contract with a third-
party insurer and give them the opportunity to go into that classroom
and only be concerned with educating children. I have never had anybody
from Teach for America talk to me about liability coverage. They only
come and talk to me about the success of their students or the need to
expand programs at work and about the need for flexibility at the local
level because they have gone to multiple school districts and they do
things differently, because that is where the administration told them
they had to go to get their Federal money.
I am suggesting a radical change: Taking 59 programs, put them into
two pots, shake them up, and say: You pick what is best for the school
system you are in.
With safe and healthy student block grants, the local districts could
use the funds for activity and programs to meet the purposes of safe
and healthy students and their individual needs, which are not limited
to drug and violence prevention activities and programs, before and
afterschool programs, including during summer recess periods, and
programs that extend the schoolday, week, and school year calendar.
It includes school-based mental health services. Some of these sound
eerily familiar because we have heard people in our community saying we
are not doing enough in mental health. That may not be the issue in the
community next to us. This now allows the flexibility for the school
systems that need to access it to access it. I think every Member here
wants to make sure there are afterschool opportunities for the many
families in which both the husband and wife work.
Up to this point, we said: Here is the program; you have to use this
program. Now what I am saying is: Here is the money; you decide what
program best fits your school system. It may not be at the local rec
center; it may actually be in the school. Think about it. It is already
a facility we own. We are going to have to heat it and cool it. Why not
utilize it other than just during the meat of the education day?
It includes emergency intervention services following traumatic
crises. It seems every year we have these events that happen, and
sometimes we forget the effect it has on these students. I talked
earlier about eastern North Carolina and the effect of Hurricane Irene.
I have communities right now where people have not been able to return
to their homes. The road is gone, the power is not back on, and the
only access is by ferry. Don't for a minute believe this doesn't have
an effect on a fifth grader. Maybe school had only been in effect about
a week, but they are traumatized from it. If it is identified by a
school system, now they have the flexibility to treat that, because I
can assure you that if they are traumatized, the ability to learn is
probably minimized.
There are programs that train school personnel to identify warning
signs of youth suicide. I would like to suggest that doesn't exist, but
the truth is, we know it does. In many cases, it is identified by the
people who spend the most time with them, which are the teachers,
coaches, and administrators. They don't have the capacity to intervene
in any way, shape or form. Now the flexibility is at least there.
I am not suggesting that any of these areas are things school systems
have to do. But I think, for once, we have laid out a buffet and said
they can pick and choose what works. If I could best summarize where I
think our focus should be in Washington on K-12, it is on the outcome.
Are our kids learning?
Last year, about 66 percent of our Nation's high schoolers graduated
on time. In North Carolina, it was barely over 70 percent graduating on
time. Let me assure the pages who are here and young folks who might be
listening to this, there is a Federal law that says every company has
to accept an application from somebody who is looking for a job. There
is no Federal law that says they have to interview that applicant. If
you are an employer today and you have 100 applications and 98 have a
high school diploma and two of them don't, I can assure you the two who
don't have a high school diploma will not be invited back for an
interview. They are out of the pool of selection because that has
become the base minimum for consideration of a job that might have any
upward mobility. It doesn't mean every child has to have a 4-year
degree. But it does mean, from a standpoint of the business world,
business has sort of cut it off and said our threshold is a high school
diploma. A high percentage of our kids are not graduating from high
school on time. If I was on the floor talking about health care today,
we would call this an epidemic and we would fix it. No, this is
education. This is somebody else's children. I have raised mine and
educated mine.
This is the future fabric of America. We can either fix education or
the rest of the world will clean our clock economically in the future.
The secret to long-term success is making sure we field a team of
highly gifted, knowledgeable Americans. If we plan to do that with a
high of 60 percent of our kids with barely a high school diploma, I
assure you the rest of the world will see that as an opportunity to
surpass us and bury us. We have an opportunity to fix it now.
We talked earlier about No Child Left Behind--the right direction of
legislation that was severely implemented incorrectly. It could have
been a real winner if people embraced it, but they didn't. Now, 9 years
later, 4 years after we were supposed to assess its success, make
changes, and reauthorize it, we are in the ninth year, struggling to
put together a reauthorization bill--in large measure because up until
now everybody wanted to try to create a Washington bill to initiate
solutions to elementary and secondary education versus a local approach
that Washington is a partner in that provides flexibility and
imagination.
We are going to spend a lot of time between now and the end of the
year because it is vital we get reauthorization in 2011. I don't think
we can let another class of students suffer through the lack of
flexibility in the school systems they live in.
[[Page S5650]]
Senator Kirk talked about the need to expand charter school
opportunities. I am for it. I cosponsored the bill. But just because
there has been a private alternative that works, let's also face the
reality that we are not going to put every child in America in a
charter school. We might ought to, but we are not. And unless we want
to say up front that everybody who is not in a charter school is going
to suffer and they are not going to have the educational foundation
kids over here have, then we better do both at the same time--provide
that new avenue of education, which is an expansion of charter school
opportunities; challenge the private sector, like KIPP stepped up; and
design a school that works and at the same time look at the public side
of it and say: What do we need to do as a country?
I would suggest, when we honestly look at that and we focus on
outcome versus input, what we will find is we have to empower more of
the local community. We have to challenge business leaders in that
community to hold the school system accountable. We have to challenge
parents to actually look at the performance of their children and to
hold those principals and administrators and teachers accountable for
the performance of their kids. We have to make sure a community sees
the success of education as the ability for that community to grow in
the future.
When you go into a community, the worst thing you can hear, as a
Member of Congress, is that when the kids graduate from high school,
they never return. They never return because the business opportunities
aren't there. Usually that is rooted in the fact that K-12 in that
community doesn't work because wherever you have an educated workforce,
you have a company looking to make investments.
I have heard my colleagues say that North Carolina has unfair
advantages in economic development; that we have 58 community colleges,
and that gives us something to sell that everybody else doesn't have;
that we have the mountains and the beach, and that is not something
everybody has. It is all a good thing to sell, but let me tell you what
North Carolina really has. Let me tell you why companies around the
world are investing in North Carolina. It is because we produce the
second largest pool of graduates of higher education annually than any
State in the country other than California. When a company invests $1
billion in North Carolina, they know every year they can reach into the
graduate pool and have a shot at getting the cream of the crop of those
students. Why would it be any different for a company looking at
locating in any community? If they look at a community that has a
pitiful performance in K-12, why would they ever think of making the
investment there? They will make the investment where the future
workforce is available. If they believe the kids graduate and leave and
never come back, they will look for where those kids moved to and make
their investment there.
If we want to keep communities alive, whether they are in Ohio or
North Carolina, we have to find a way to make K-12 a success in every
community, big and small, urban and rural, and it starts by legislation
that empowers those local school systems and, more importantly, shifts
accountability from Washington and puts it back into the community,
makes it the responsibility of the officials, the business leaders,
and, most important, the parents.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair for accommodating me this morning. I
noticed the other speaker didn't come in, so I am thrilled I was given
the extra time.
I urge my colleagues over the months to come to pay attention to the
K-12 reauthorization. There are many proposals out there. Not all will
work, and we are not assured any are certain to succeed. But if you
look for guidance, talk to the people who are closest to the problem.
What they are screaming for today is the flexibility to put the money
where it can have the greatest effect on the outcome of education, and
that is this legislation.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________