Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder]. I ask to speak to the House today only because we have carried the debate on this amendment over the weekend, from Friday to today. Certainly, the gentleman from Maryland suggested that there were people who would be supporting this amendment who had voted one way or another in 1995. I know many of my friends will support this amendment who are friends of vocational education and would not have been voting the way he suggested in 1995. I know for sure I did not vote that way in 1995, since I was not here in 1995. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about whether we are going to increase funding for OSHA or increase funding for vocational education. It is $11 million, the increase in the OSHA bill. Apparently, the vocational education, adult education appropriation had no increase. At one time, in the early information that we received, it said that there was an $11 million decrease in vocational education. That got me to thinking about why at a time when we are focusing on welfare reform, when we are focusing on getting people to work, when we have just made the significant steps we made to encourage education beyond high school with the tax bill that many of the people who are speaking against this amendment were appropriately and actively for, we would want to just leave vocational education in place and perhaps even cut vocational education, as the early analysis of the bill said we were going to do. Mr. Chairman, assuming vocational education is where it was last year, and we have $11 million, the question that this amendment really brings to the floor is whether we take that $11 million and spend it for more OSHA or we take that $11 million and spend it for more vocational and adult education. This process is about choices. This amendment proposes a different choice than the choice presented by the committee. I am a believer in vocational education. I think vocational education may very well, one could argue, be more important than it has ever been as we try to move people to the workplace that have not been to the workplace. Clearly, OSHA is not achieving the results in the workplace that we want to achieve. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], who mentioned the numbers of deaths appropriately, we should be concerned about those numbers of deaths. But the gentleman also mentioned that there are inspectors in OSHA that would allow every business to be inspected only once every 167 years. Mr. Chairman, I think a better way to provide workplace safety, even these two choices, is to train people before they go to the workplace so that they are better prepared to be there. I think that is a better effort to get workplace safety than an $11 million increase in OSHA would be. Certainly, the vocational education reforms that this Congress will approve spend money more nearly at the local level. I think that is a good change in vocational education. Ninty percent of the money will be spent for the first time under these new guidelines at the local level. This will be money that is spent to strengthen academics, to broaden opportunities after high school, to send more dollars to classrooms for people who are not headed to college. Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of American youth do not complete a 4-year college degree. Those people are very much in need of additional beyond-high school training. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that more than half of the new jobs that have been and will be created in the decade of the 1990s will take education beyond high school. Well, 25 to 35 percent of the people going to high school are not graduating from high school to start with in virtually any State. The 75 percent that do not graduate from college need that additional training to fill the jobs that are created in this decade, for many of them their first decade in the workplace. I think vocational education is important. I think adult education is important. By the way, this amendment does not say to take the money out of compliance or even to take it out of inspection. It takes the money out of OSHA and puts money in the Perkins bill vocational education. Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of that money goes to vocational education; 10 percent goes to programs for single parents; 8 percent to State level programs and activities; and 5 percent for State administration. Ninty cents of these dollars are getting directly to individuals. This is about choices. I am encouraging the choice that this amendment proposes and appreciate the opportunity to get to address the House on this day, the second day that we deal with this legislation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as has been read, transfers the increase in OSHA to vocational and adult education. In the last debate I believe I heard the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] suggest that we need to challenge the House to spend more money on training. This amendment meets that challenge, and may be more timely even because of that challenge, that we spend more of our money on training. I think increasing spending in OSHA, as opposed to increasing spending in vocational and adult education, really just does not make sense to me, so this amendment is to transfer that increase. OSHA would be frozen. OSHA is being studied. There are field hearings on OSHA. There is nobody who is a member of this body who does not believe that OSHA needs to be significantly restructured in the way it does its job. At the same time, vocational and adult education have been incredibly successful programs that are actually funded below the 1997 levels. In a bill that funds programs that are not even authorized, vocational education and adult education are funded below last year's levels. I find that unacceptable. In fact, as we match these two things together, the best place to ensure workplace safety is in training. The best place to prevent accidents is before they happen. The best place to have workers prepare to be safe workers is not on the job, but before they get on the job, and vocational education has a track record of doing that effectively. This transfer would make sense from the training point of view. It freezes OSHA at the 1997 level. With this transfer we actually fund vocational education and adult education above the 1997 level. I urge its passage. I think when we look at the number of people that work in OSHA, the average business that is affected by OSHA really can anticipate a visit maybe as infrequently as once every 10 years. That does not ensure workplace safety. Well-trained workers do ensure workplace safety. Vocational education money and adult education money get people to work who have not been to work before. They increase the skills of those people who have not been to work before. On the other hand, OSHA often encourages people not to create jobs, and there are examples probably in every district represented in this House where people keep their employee numbers below 50 just so they will not have to deal with OSHA. When the OSHA inspector comes, it depends on which part of the OSHA code that inspector is familiar with on how the inspection goes that day. Training, Mr. Chairman, is the key to the workplace. It is the key to workplace safety. Leaving these two programs at levels below 1997 funding in this bill while we increase OSHA funding I think is unacceptable, so this amendment would rectify that situation. I urge its passage, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, I would just like to point out that this amendment does not discuss OSHA funding. It leaves the funding for OSHA at the same place it is this year.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, we are here today taking a step toward revising the tax system and revising the tax philosophy that has too long been headed in the other direction. We are here today to decide that American families can spend their money better than the Government can spend their money. The only bad news in the bill for working families today is it is going to be 6 months before they begin to see what really happens when they have their money back instead of the Government having that money. A $500-per-child tax credit means to a family of three, a working family of three, $125 every month that the Government has been spending that they can now start spending next year. It is going to make a difference. This bill will make a difference as we work to make education more affordable. Vocational education, college education, $5,000 in tax credits over 4 years of college; tax savings accounts, education savings accounts that are going to be tax free, that allow families to save for college. We will not be taxing the interest on student loans any more. This is a great day for American families, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 310, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' personal explanation

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, we are here today as part of an effort to really help working families. We need to work together. There are people on both sides of the aisle that want to help working families. Let us not get confused by the calculations that are being used to determine whether people are rich or not. We know whether people work or not, we know whether they pay taxes or not. Americans would be amazed to find out that the calculations that are being used to determine their wealth include the rental value of their home. If they own their home or are making payments on their home, the payment on their home is less than their home would rent for. Suddenly, they get a big rental value added to their income. Those things that their employer may have given them as benefits are added to their income. More than half of the family incomes of teachers, of construction workers, of mechanics would be classified as rich if we calculate family income the way the White House wants to. We cannot do that. Let us be fair, let us work with each other, let us help working families make ends meet.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I saw that same report, I think it was from the Heritage Foundation, about children in our districts. I was amazed that in the 7th District in southwest Missouri, the southwest corner of Missouri, 74,533 children, by that moment's count, and there are probably a few more children than that now that will benefit, would benefit, 74,533, over $34 million in one year alone will go back into our economy because of just the $500 per child tax credit. That does not count the other tax benefits in our economy and our district. We do not understand, I think, how this process works as well as Michael, who you were referring to from St. Peter's at Fulton, a 7th grader who already understands that taking this money off of tax rolls may not reduce taxes because things happen in the economy when you let people keep their money. We constantly want to talk here in the Congress about giving people money, giving them a tax break. What we are really just doing is we are deciding not to take as much of their money. It is their money. They work for it. We have an obligation as Members of Congress to do all we can to keep the money that working families have in their family checking account, in their family savings account, in their savings account for college, in their savings account to buy a home or buy a new car. We have an obligation to manage their money like they have to manage their money, where every penny has to count. I think with this kind of new responsibility of leaving money with families, we are understanding again that they can spend their money on their behalf better than we can. Forty-one million children will benefit from the tax cut, the $500-per-child tax credit that the House has sent over to the Senate, 41 million children. One of the things we did in our tax bill that I am particularly proud of is we expanded the children that would benefit. In the original package that came down from the President, you only got that tax credit until kids were 12. My children are beyond the range of this tax credit right now. They are 26 and 24 and 21. I do not recall that they got a whole lot less expensive when they moved from 12 to 13. In fact it might have been just the opposite. And we are covering millions more children than was originally proposed. Millions of families will benefit that would not have benefited otherwise. Children born this year, between now and the time of their 18th birthday their family would have a $10,309 tax benefit to go toward college, to go toward expenses while they are growing up, $10,309 per child. You have got three kids in your family, that is $31,000 which you have over the life of those children between the time they are born and the time that they are 18, that you otherwise would not have, $31,000. We heard earlier this evening here on the House floor about people who would get a benefit from this tax break. The tax break we have sent for the mother with a daughter who is 14, a son who is 16, she gets $1,000, who is working, she gets a $1,000 tax break. That is almost $100 a month. Under the President's proposal we want to remember that that mother may possibly, that single mother with the 14-year-old and the 16-year-old and all kinds of expenses and all kinds of life stress got no break because those kids were over 12. And so this is a significant thing for American families. The first tax cut in 16 years. How great that the first tax cut in 16 years would have such a focus on families. We have a lot of ways in our country to say families either are not important or they are important. And in our welfare policies and our tax policies we really can take some massive steps to say again to Americans, young Americans and Americans who already have families, that this Government and this country value families. We think families are important, and that is why the family tax credit for kids up to their 18th birthday and then help for college beyond that is such a focal point of what we are doing here. I want to say to the gentleman, I think this focus on families is such an incredibly important focus, this first tax break in 16 years. We are going to do better than that. If we did not do better than that, this would be the last tax break, based on our history, for that child born this year who is going to save $10,000 in money they send to the Government by the time they are 18. If we go back to the last 16 years of history, they would not have any other tax relief but this. We are going to be looking I think in the future for what we can do to help families in greater ways, but a cornerstone of this Republican tax package that we got Democrats in the House voting for, too, so it is really a bipartisan tax package that we have sent to the Senate, the cornerstone is a cornerstone that says families matter and we are not going to take money from families because we know families can spend their money better than the Government can spend money on their behalf.

Mr. BLUNT. The other thing to remember here, too, is that as hard as we have worked on that and as much debate as we have had about the dangers of giving this money back to the American families and the American people, we are only managing to give back in this tax cut a third, one-third, of the dollars that we increased taxes by in 1993, the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. I do not recall nearly this much concern in the Congress about taking three times as much money away from the American people as now we have letting them keep a third of their money. We hear about giving them money, giving them a tax break. We are just again letting them keep their money, and still we have got a long way to go just to get the tax burden, the Federal tax burden back to where it was in 1993. This is the first step, it is a big step, but I just remind people of the country who are thinking about this debate, how much debate did you really hear in 1993 as that big tax bill passed about how much money we were taking away from Americans, or whether we were going to explode the deficit at some mythical point in the future or what was going to happen? Were we going to explode the American family at some mythical point in the future, at a time when we were taking three times this much money away? We are working very hard, I think we have taken a very important first step. We are just giving a third of that tax cut that is in very, very recent memory back to the people and the families of the country.

Mr. BLUNT. I have got a chart here that follows up on what the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] was saying and the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, was talking about that shows exactly where these tax cuts are distributed. This is your income on this side. Under $20,000, almost 5 percent of the tax breaks are for those taxpayers. Between 20,000 and $75,000, almost 72 percent. Over 76 percent of the tax breaks are for people that make less than $75,000. We believe that to be a real add-your-paycheck-up figure, add your check stub up and see what you are making. When families think about that, where I am from, $75,000 is still quite a bit of money. But if somebody in your family is making $2,000 a month and somebody else is making $41,000 a year, you are at $65,000 in your family income. This is a family income. This is your total family income. Seventy-six percent of the tax benefits here are for people who make less than $75,000, 5 percent are for people who make less than $20,000. These are real numbers. These numbers count. As the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] has pointed out, the tax breaks are very much in disproportion in terms of the taxes being paid today, but they are in proportion to what the Members of this Congress think ought to happen right now to make American families work. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hulshof] has talked about from the minute the alarm clock goes off until you set it again that night, you are paying somebody some kind of taxes. We are saying that is too much. We are going to have conservative Democrats, we are going to have Republicans voting again for this issue if we get to vote on this kind of issue again. Certainly we had those kind of votes when the Republican majority, helped by conservative Democrats, sent this tax bill over to the Senate.

Mr. BLUNT. If the gentleman would yield before we get away from the whole topic of how we calculate wealth in Washington. This is not the first time we have done this this way. The first time was 1993, when supposedly the biggest tax increase in the history of the country was only a tax increase on the very wealthy. Working Americans all over the country found out suddenly how wealthy they were when this massive tax increase hit them, hit their paychecks, this wealth that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaffer] has talked about. I call it stealth wealth because it is so stealthy they do not even know they got it. It is out there somewhere and they do not know it is there, they do not know they have that money to spend, but suddenly they become very rich Americans. And, in fact, if we look at the Treasury Department calculations, the kind of calculations that were used in 1993, if we look at those calculations, more than 50 percent of the people who have a school teacher in the family or an auto mechanic in the family or a construction worker in the family are among the very wealthy. Now, if we want, if we will accept that as our definition, we very well may be having a tax increase for the wealthy if the wealthy includes school teachers and auto mechanics and construction workers. Not only this imputed value of their home, but if they have got a health care benefit, any benefit that they have got that their employer gives them, the capital gains calculated back over the time that they might average those out over 20 years. I got to tell my colleagues, that does not help their budget much if they are the janitor at school and they mess around with a rental house every Saturday of their life to try to hold their money together, and suddenly someone says really this rental house some day is going to be worth, they paid $30,000 for it, 20 years from now with inflation it is probably worth $60,000. We need to take that $60,000 and divide it back up over these 20 years, and really they have got another $3,000 or so a year of wealth right there that they do not know anything about. All they know is that they are under that house on the coldest day of the winter trying to thaw out the water pipe. And those are people that pay capital gains tax, another element of this tax. This is not stealth wealth for them. It is trying to hold the money together in an economy that has had too much inflation. It is trying to make something for their children that they did not have for themselves. Forty percent of the capital gains taxes in America are made by families who have a total family income of less than $50,000. Now under the Treasury Department calculations they may have a total family income of $80,000. I do not know. But all they know is their checks add up, before the taxes are taken out, to $50,000. Those are the families that pay 40 percent of the capital gains taxes. They have absolutely no mechanism to avoid it. They do not have expensive accountants or lawyers. This is a tax break for them, as well. The taxes that we talk about are taxes that really give a break to work and productivity and families. And what should we be encouraging in America? Work, productivity and families. And we ought to be at least talking about the right numbers. We ought to be talking about numbers that when we ask our neighbors, or maybe not our neighbors, maybe our son, maybe somebody that would tell us what they are making, probably should be willing to talk about that when we say, ``What do you make?'' they tell us that that is the number that we would look at in Washington. Instead we come up with some number that nobody in their wildest mind would believe, and then we say and that means that this is a tax break for the wealthy because they are a school teacher and they are married to an auto mechanic or they are an auto mechanic and they are married to a construction worker, and they are now one of the wealthy Americans according to the way we calculate in Washington. They do not calculate income that way anywhere else in America, maybe not anywhere else in the world. And we are trying to fool the hard- working people of America into believing that everybody else who works beside them at the job is rich. Because they know they are not rich. This stealth wealth issue is an issue we have to deal with. But if we only would deal with numbers that Americans have confidence in, they would have more confidence in the Congress.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, as we look for alternatives today, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Duncan Hunter. My freshmen colleague the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Jerry Moran, a couple of months ago began to mention this concept to me as a concept that he thought would work. We are looking to new and better ways to do things. Clearly Members are not going to privatize or turn back to the States the obligation to defend the country, so we have to look for different ways to solve problems, management problems in the Defense Department. We are talking about an agency that spends 20 percent of its money just to administer its programs, and according to their own inspector general's report, as of March 31, 1996, 63 percent of the project costs were not reconcilable to the accounting records, 79 percent had inadequate documentation, 53 percent failed to engage independent auditors, even though their grant requirement absolutely required that. We are not debating today whether or not to spend money on the arts. The key here is not about spending money on the arts. We are for the first time really significantly debating where is the better place to make this decision. Should this decision be made in Washington, or can this decision be made better in the States? We got an opportunity to look to the States. The State art councils have done a good job distributing the State money. Thirty percent of the NEA-distributed money has gone to six cities in America. In the Seventh District of Missouri that I represent, of the money distributed by the NEA, even though our proportionate share would be a quarter of a million dollars, we get back $5,000. The State arts councils are going to do a better job in distributing this money. They are going to do a better job administratively in spending it. I urge support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a civic leader and respected member of the southwest Missouri business community, Clarence R. Wheeler, of Springfield, MO. Clarence was a devoted husband to Edna and his family was his priority. His presence will be missed by family, friends, the business community, and the entire region. Mr. Wheeler was another example that the American dream continues to live. Starting in 1948, Mr. Wheeler took a vision, molded it with endless hours of hard work, and created the region's most successful chain of 38 supermarkets. The patrons to his Consumers Markets liked his innovative and forthright style that brought them top quality products at competitive prices. He was a strong moral leader of the region and for four decades his store reflected his belief in what was good for families. His employees knew he had an open door policy and paid a fair wage; Clarence was a man of honesty and integrity who was a good listener to employees and customers alike. Mr. Wheeler also gave back to the community with the spirit of a giver. He was a generous giver to charities like the Kitchen, the Missouri Baptist Home, Blood Center of the Ozarks, Southwest Baptist University, and the Good Samaritan Boy's Ranch. He was active in civic clubs, the local Chamber of Commerce, and his church. His tough but fair approach won him praise from business associates who said ``he had as much concern about the employees as he did the company and the company profits. We need more businessmen like him. The world would be a better place.'' Clarence Wheeler's peers in the business community, others who hoped to build their small business as he did, charities in the Ozarks and around the world, his family and friends benefited from his life and example.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about this bill that I think could be handled in conference. I will be supporting the Republican bill that gives relief to American families today. Mr. Chairman, while I intend to support this tax relief bill today, I want the record to reflect my concern about two provisions of the bill that I strongly oppose. One is the limited renewal of employer provided continuing undergraduate education reimbursement. While the Senate tax bill extends the current law section 127 exemption permanently, the House bill extends sec. 127 until December 31, 1997. Nearly two-thirds of major employers in southwest Missouri offer this benefit, affecting over 60,000 workers in Springfield and Joplin alone. These employers include a chicken processor, a fan belt manufacturer, a paper goods processor, and a ball bearings producer. Without a long- term extension of section 127, many of these companies will discontinue this benefit, denying their employees the help they need to improve their skills. The second provision I oppose is the elimination of tax exempt treatment of tuition reduction provided to employees of educational institutions. Again, the Senate bill maintains the current law. The majority of people who take this benefit are staff members, not faculty. The person who cleans toilets for $7 an hour so that both of her children can attend college at the same time would have to pay taxes on a tuition benefit that far exceeds her income. Graduate teaching assistants at an institution like Tulane would pay taxes on a tuition benefit of $20,930 per year with an income stipend that is far lower than the tuition benefit. Let me be clear that I am not concerned about the president of Harvard or the person who heads up the medical program at Johns Hopkins. What I object to is raising taxes on people who clean chickens for a living or work as security guards at colleges. It is simply unthinkable that we would make it harder for people who make fan belts or work at a college to go to school, get a graduate degree, or work at a job that makes higher education affordable for their kids. While I do intend to vote for the bill today, I do so only because I have been assured by the Republican leadership that they will work to address my concerns before the final version of this legislation comes back before the House next month. The American people have long deserved the tax relief we are considering today, and I look forward to working with Chairman Archer and our leadership as the bill goes to conference.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, for more than 50 years, Donald V. Weidman has been an effective minister of the Christian gospel. Since 1987, he has served with distinction as executive director of the Missouri Baptist Convention, the statewide association of the more than 1,900 churches and 625,000 members affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Recently, he announced plans to retire effective August 31, 1997. As early as the 1940's, Don was a member and leader of gospel music groups that traveled extensively in the Midwest. Later, he would enter full-time ministry and serve as the pastor of growing churches in DeSoto, St. Louis, Liberty, and Kansas City, MO. As a denomination stateman, he served with distinction as second vice president of the 16-million member Southern Baptist Convention and as president of the Missouri Baptist Convention. He has been on the boards of trustees for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX; William Jewell College in Liberty, MO; and Baptist Memorial Health Care Systems in Kansas City. Missouri Baptists have experienced exceptional growth during his years as executive director. A crowing achievement of those years is the current missions and ministry partnership Missouri Baptists have with Baptists in the Republic of Belarus, one of the former Soviet republics. Don's work extends beyond Baptist circles, however. He has been active in civic clubs, Chambers of Commerce and United Way in every community where he has lived. Don's wife, Marian, has been a faithful partner is his ministry. Three of their four children are in full-time vocational ministry. Another daughter is an active lay leader in her church. Don Weidman's compassion, humor, and common sense have served Missouri Baptists well in challenging times. His faith and commitment to seek and follow God's will set a great example for denominational leaders across America.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, Route 66 conjures up memories about America's love affair with the automobile along a road into the Nation's heartland. Restaurants, motels, gas stations sprang up to serve the travelers and commerce as the highway moved west. Today, Route 66 is mostly a nostalgic memory. Many of those early American developments along the Route 66's old path have been bulldozed away. Traffic on old Route 66 in Springfield, MO, gave birth to the Rail Haven Motor Court at Glenstone and St. Louis Street which remains one of the city's busiest and best known locations. When it was built in an orchard, the motor court sat on the intersection of U.S. Highways 66, 65, and 60. No major improvements had been made since the early 1960's at Rail Haven. New owner Gordon Elliott, president and owner of Elliott Lodging, saw the real potential to save the deteriorating motel. In 1994, rather than bulldoze the historic old building, Gordon's vision included a renovated and expanded classic 1950's motel property. Gordon Elliott blended community renewal, development of a classic historic property, and risking private money to produce a successful venture that has rejuvenated one key intersection in his home community. The facelift for the property was completed without Federal grants, loans or tax abatements. Elliott's refurbished motel has been a hit with patrons of a new generation. Building on public interest in nostalgia and the appeal of historic Route 66, the property became the best Western Sycamore Inn. Elliott's has marketed the Sycamore Inn for lovers of Route 66, tourists and business travelers. It has been so successful, Elliott is renaming the property the Best Western Route 66 Rail Haven in a public ceremony on June 12, 1997, to reestablish its historic roots. The Best Western Rail Haven Motel's history has been featured in several publications including the quarterly magazine of ``The Route 66 Association of Missouri'' and ``Missouri U.S. Tour Book.'' The Route 66 Rail Haven is a look into our past with attention to detail in the modern transformation. Craftsmen will install the signature split rail fences long associated with the old motel built in 1938. The new 93-room lodge, joins nostalgic beauty and modern convenience. The spring 1997 edition of ``The Route 66 Association of Missouri'' features the Rail Haven on its cover and describes the facilities as ``a charming 1950's style parlor room, complete with chandeliers, old time radios and speakeasy telephones, or, if you're a business traveler, you can choose to relax in one of the elegant corporate-friendly rooms.'' Featuring celebrity theme rooms for people like Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley, Elliott's Route 66 Rail Haven has found customers enjoying the opportunity to relive a bygone era in accommodations. The Rail Haven is a Best Western motel. It is one of five motel properties owned by Elliott Lodging. The firm also owns and manages about 2,000 apartment units in Springfield. Gordon Elliott is a former Springfield City Council member and is a CPA in Springfield, MO.

Mr. BLUNT of Missouri

Mr. BLUNT of Missouri.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, Darlene Reinkemeyer became executive director of the Missouri Funeral Directors Association in 1992 and almost immediately members noticed something had changed for the better. With Darlene's directing, memberships increased sharply, membership services tripled, and the association's programs for continuing education seminars, licensure, and professional development were enhanced and scheduled on a more frequent basis. The MFDA Newsletter took on a new life with added information and diverse advertising. The newsletter is now regarded as one of the best in the country. Reinkemeyer was a key figure in restoring credibility to the Missouri Funeral Trust by developing effective contracts, folders, and forms and implementing a computerized record keeping system that gave the system new accountability, and reduced costs. The MFT now manages $30 million. The system Reinkemeyer authored has been copied in other States. Darlene also put the Missouri Funeral Directors Association into the information age, too. The MFDA is on the Internet and its offices are computerized. In the last year, she was instrumental in providing the MDFA with new offices and headquarters building. The Association, with Reinkemeyer at the helm, is financially stable with a sound process of planning and acquisition of assets and capital improvements. Darlene Reinkemeyer has decided to leave her position, and funeral home directors in Missouri will miss her. Her efforts have improved the profession in Missouri to the benefit of those persons who need their services in times of great bereavement. We wish Darlene Reinkemeyer the very best in her pursuits.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the upcoming nationwide ``March for Jesus Day.'' This event on May 17, 1997, will provide more evidence that America is returning to the values of belief in God and family that have made our country great. Last year church related groups and congregations in over 600 cities in the United States and 170 nations participated in the march. In Joplin, MO, almost 70 area congregations of different denominations representing 18 communities from the 4-State region will march together and in other southwest Missouri towns and cities Christians will step forward on this day. This Nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles that our country should continue to recognize and hold high. I am reminded of John 13:34 where Jesus said `` A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.'' The March for Jesus is truly an opportunity to show others the love which Christ modeled for us. Our Nation needs to be shown the love and grace of Christ Jesus. For too long, we have been willing to neglect the necessity of spiritual fulfillment and today we see the overwhelming consequences of such actions with families separated by divorce, drug use accelerating rapidly in our society, and juvenile crime out of control. As the Christian community gathers to March for Jesus it can truly be an example of others of the change He has made in our own lives and the lives of our families and friends. We need to live the command Jesus gave us in the book of Matthew where He said, ``Love your neighbor as yourself.'' What a great opportunity as Christians gather together to march to remember in our daily lives to show others Jesus and his love. It is important that we not forget to display the love of Christ to our neighbors by helping them in times of need. Christians should be guided by the words of the Apostle Paul where in II Timothy 1:7-12 he says, For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline. So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day. The March for Jesus is an excellent opportunity to testify to others about Jesus as families walk their city streets with fellow believers of all denominations. I am encouraged as Christians unite together to take an active role in their witness to others.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that, being from Missouri, I would be glad to tell the Governor of Indiana that, but I will also tell the Governor of Missouri that. I think this is a problem that, as we have seen crime decline all over the country in total statistics, we have seen juvenile crime rise rapidly.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of the rule, I rise in support of this concept. Normally, I would be on the side of my friend from Massachusetts on this issue, because I think these are issues that are generally best left to the States. But I think, clearly, juvenile crime has exceeded the bounds of the States. It is clearly an interstate problem. It is clearly a problem that trafficks easily from one State to another. I also disagree with the idea that this puts juvenile criminals in a graduate school for crime. They have already been in a graduate school for crime. We call that graduate school for crime gangs. Now, this is not about Dennis the Menace. This is not about somebody violating a few rules. This is not about Dennis the Menace; it is about Billy the Kid. And I think we need to stop Billy the Kid. I think we need to stop that pattern where actually, in gangs, they turn to the young gang members and tell them to commit the crime because they are not going to have to face the penalty. This is something that States will benefit from. States like Missouri and Massachusetts and North Carolina can meet the requirements of the bill and can qualify.

Mr. BLUNT. I yield to my fellow freshman, the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to come and speak in favor of the amendment. I would now speak in favor of the demonstration project idea if the amendment is to be withdrawn. I was the chairman of the Missouri Housing Development Commission for some time. We worked with housing authorities. We had even in 1985 a billion dollars in bonded obligations to assist with housing. I think we stand here today with a housing program that is well- intentioned but has failed. It has become a place where people go and stay not because of disability or age or infirmity, but because of no sense of being able to leave that system or having to leave that system. I think the idea of rotating people in and out of public housing, being sure that all people have access to public housing that would qualify for public housing, and also effectively giving notice to people who move into public housing on the first day that they are likely not there to stay, that there is some end in sight to their being in that particular subsidized environment, is a positive aspect. I think the problems we see in public housing with crime, with a lack of role model, with a life based on that kind of dependence on a government program, is largely eliminated by the concept that the gentleman from Virginia has offered as an amendment and now offers as a pilot program, that we look to see what would happen if, in fact, people are on a list, not only a waiting list for public housing, but a list that would have some opportunity to really become part of that system, a system where people are moving in and out as they move toward more and more independence; a system which, as the bill of the gentleman from New York, allows people to seek greater economic opportunity without being penalized for that opportunity by agreeing to a fixed rent instead of 30 percent of their income. Whatever their income is, of course, they would still have that option. I think we see a housing program, again, that was well-intentioned, that has not worked as it should work. It is time to make that program work better. And under this proposal, this is not a proposal that eliminates funding for public housing. In fact, this is a proposal that substantially increases funding for public housing. It just makes a commitment for housing that works better; makes a commitment for housing that does not lead to the many problems that people that are in public housing today have been victims of. I think the bill is a good bill. I thought the amendment was a good amendment. I want to speak in favor of the gentleman's idea that there be a pilot in this bill that would allow that to become part of what we are trying to do in housing and let us see if it works, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.