Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. That is exactly right.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. One of the things that we all worked for and voted for last year right here on the House floor was a resolution that did exactly what you and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and others want to do and the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) was mentioning with education. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) was an advocate of this. That was, let us get what money we spend where it does the most good. Let us be focused on education, not focused on bureaucrats. This is the right kind of solution that we need. I think 310 Members of the House, which means that lots of Democrats joined virtually all the Republicans, and we passed a resolution that said that 90 cents out of every dollar in every Federal elementary and secondary program needed to get to the classroom, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. And suddenly we are reducing all that money that is used up by bureaucrats, all that money that is used up by people figuring out new forms to fill out and by people that have to fill out those forms and by people that monitor those forms. We are saying, let us get that money to where it will do some good. Let us be sure that we do not waste $1,800 for every classroom in America every year, like we are doing now when we are getting about 65 cents out of every dollar in the classroom. Let us get 90 cents out of every dollar in the classroom. Let us let parents be involved in that decision. Let us let local building administrators be involved in spending that money. But mostly let us let teachers and kids get together. Let us put that money not in the hands of some bureaucrats in Washington, or even in all of our State capitals, let us put that money in the hands of a teacher who knows every child's name in that class. That can make a difference.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, last night in the State of the Union message the President set some good goals for America. He talked about a balanced budget, he talked about saving Social Security. He committed himself further to welfare reform; he is for education reform, he is against drugs, he is even for some family tax cuts. The question is not about whether these are the goals we want for America, but how to achieve those goals. For instance, the President said that a family of four that makes less than $35,000 should not pay any Federal income tax if they have high child care costs. Well, I agree. A family of four that makes less than $35,000 should not pay any Federal income tax. But it should not matter whether they have child care costs or not--$35,000 for a family of four is $35,000. Mr. Speaker, we ought to work for those American families, and we ought to work for better solutions for American families.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in opposition to the bill, and I do that reluctantly because of my great respect for the chairman, but I think it would be wrong to pass this legislation through this House and to do it in this atmosphere. We need more time to look at this. But more importantly, I would like to refer back to my colleague from Virginia's [Mr. Wolf] comments. There is surely religious persecution in the world today. This may even be part of it. But to pass this legislation to single out this kind of religious persecution in the face of what we know is happening all over the world turns our back on people who are in prison tonight, turns our back on people who are in slave camps tonight, turns our back on people whose lives have been given up over the issue of taxation. Now it could very well be, Mr. Speaker, that we should get to taxation as an issue we are concerned about, but we should not address that first. We should not address that at the expense of these other issues. We need to look at persecution, we need to look at it realistically, we need to look at it all over the world, and we need to address those cases first that are worse, not those cases that are about whether somebody is allowed to perform in a tax-exempt atmosphere or not, whether somebody's movie is boycotted in another country or not, boycotting would seem to me to be a pretty specific freedom of speech right that we would defend in America, or whether or not somebody pays taxes as a church in another country or not before we deal with people whose lives are in danger all over the world, people in Sudan, Buddhists in Tibet, Christians in Shanghai. We need to deal with those issues first. I urge my colleagues not to vote for this resolution.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this important measure. I appreciate the leadership of the chairman on this issue. Fifteen thousand members of the U.S. Armed Forces are currently stationed in the Persian Gulf to maintain peace in that vulnerable region of the world. We owe these young men and young women the safety that we can provide in a dangerous occupation and in a dangerous world. We need to minimize the threat to their lives that these actions that are being discussed here on the floor today create. We also need to minimize the threat to our ally, Israel, and to our allies in Europe, and to the stability of the Middle East. The acquisition by Iran of advanced cruise missiles like the C-802 model is a serious threat to the stability of the entire gulf and to the safety of our troops. Iran is clearly challenging the United States for control of the gulf, and I doubt if it would hesitate to utilize the 60 or more lethal cruise missiles pointed at our troops if the opportunity presented itself. The sale of these missiles and of missile technology by the Russians to Iran and by China constitutes a clear violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act and of our missile technology accords. The President must use his authority and the Congress has to give direction, apparently, that that authority be used to impose sanctions on China and on Russia. His continued failure to do so represents a clear abdication of his duties as Americans are under serious threat, our allies are under serious threat. Surely the 1987 example of the attack on the U.S.S. Stark gave us all the evidence we need; the loss of 37 American sailors should be enough. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution and protect the lives of young Americans.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House did something that every single observer 2 weeks ago and a month ago said was impossible, we turned the tables on the IRS to where citizens are protected; where taxpayers will have new taxpayer rights; to where, if people lose an IRS case, they have to pay, but if they win that IRS case, the Government has to pay. The resources of the Government are no longer overwhelmingly on the side stacked against taxpayers. But Mr. Speaker, the real villain is not the IRS. We want to change the IRS as we know it. The real problem is the IRS Code. We need to repeal that Code. We need to start over again. We need to give the American taxpayer a fair deal, a safe deal, a simple deal, something they understand. The only way to do that is to repeal the Code. We need to do that when we get back into this Congress next year.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be yielded time by the distinguished gentleman and to speak after he referred to Harry Truman, a Missouri President who understood responsibility. The responsibility of the House today and tomorrow and however many days it takes is to get our job done. The responsibility of the House is to do the work of the people of the country. We have heard these motions over and over again. I heard this morning that what the rule proposes to do is squelch the free expression of the Members of the House. I advance the idea that the free expression of the Members of the House is more squelched by consistently delaying the process of the real debate that needs to go on here. As the former chief election official of our State, I have looked at some of these motions that have been filed, and I think any reasonable person would be hard-pressed to argue that we are not debating and reading and seeing introduced the same motion over and over again while the real work of the country stands undone. This week should not be about dilatory tactics. This week should not be about motions to adjourn. This week should be about doing the job we need to do to direct the foreign policy of America, to have a defense bill that puts our defense in place, to decide the debate on national testing that 295 Members of the House said they did not want in the Labor-HHS bill. Certainly there was a motion last night at 11 o'clock to adjourn. The people in my district and I daresay the people all over America understand that there is a difference in 11 o'clock at night motions to adjourn and two motions to adjourn before 11 o'clock this morning. We need to do the work of the people of the country. It needs to happen. Obviously it is going to take this rule to make it happen. The people that sent me here sent me here to solve the big issues of the country, not to slow down the progress and change that is being made here.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this bill and appreciate the chairman's leadership in bringing really a complex set of facts together here. Under this bill, the current complicated system of regulations will become easy to understand and simple to track. Both the Federal Government and the livestock producer will benefit when these regulations are understood. For the first time, ranching families will be able to go to borrow money with some certainty about what their future looks like and it will make a big difference to them. The fee structure is changed and modernized and beneficial to the taxpayer as well. This is really a very family farmer, rancher-oriented bill. We have more cattle in our State than any State except Mr. Stenholm's State of Texas. We do not have any grazing land in our State. Not a single Missouri farmer will benefit from the grazing land provisions of this bill. But our folks will benefit from stability in the livestock production system that this bill creates. I am strongly in support of it.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Frank and Betty Stark of Stafford, MO, who Roseann and I have known for many years. Frank and Betty are the founders of Raceway Ministries a unique ministry designed to share the Gospel with race car drivers, their families, crew members and fans. Just as someone is called to the mission field in another country, I believe that the Starks were called to minister to those in auto car racing. Race car driving is one of American most popular and competitive sports. Racing demands much of its participants the drivers, the crew members and members of the driver's family. As with any sport everyone goes out to win and expends a tremendous amount of effort to make it happen. Given the tension created in preparing for a race and the enormous disappointment for those who do not win, it is easy to see why there is a need here to talk about faith based in Christ. Frank and Betty have helped to organize worship services at 13 of the 19 NASCAR Winston Cup racing events. Full-time ministries have been established at the Talladega Super Speedway, Atlanta Motor Speedway, and at Daytona. Frank's efforts inspired others to establish similar ministries at other race car tracks. In southwest Missouri alone he has helped to place six chaplains at three area race tracks. He served as the chaplain for the Automobile Racing Club of America [ARCA] for a decade and, in 1996, they awarded him the Bondo Mar-Hyde Spirit Award. The Southern Baptist Convention, Home Mission Board recognized him as well with the Ken Prickett Award for creative and innovative ministries. Roseann and I have been grateful for Frank and Betty and their friendship through the years. They have been a model of selfless service to others in the spirit of Christ. Thanks Frank and Betty for setting a great example.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct our conferees. The permanent extension of 245(i) really flies in the face of immigration reform. Whatever we need to do to work out immigration problems for people who are already in the country I think can be done within this motion to instruct. But certainly leaving this on the books, making it easier for people to illegally come to the country than for people to legally come to the country hurts people who are waiting to come to the country. It keeps people's families separated who have been in line, who have been waiting to come to the country. Ending section 245(i) will not be harmful to businesses who employ legal aliens. Those individuals are already protected under 245(a), which says if you fall through the cracks, if there is some error that is not your fault that puts your status here in jeopardy, without paying $1,000 you can get that straightened out. This is really designed to protect the people who are here legally, working hard, having their families together, not to open the door to illegal aliens.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the question today is, should we send more dollars to the classroom? This does not seem like it would be a tough question, but it is a question that we are struggling with on the House floor today. Who knows your child's name better? A teacher who knows that child or a bureaucrat in the beltway in Washington or even in the State capital? Our opponents on this issue say that we are already meeting the 90 percent standard. Well, if that is true, let us pass this resolution and ensure that we meet this standard in the future. But we have studies that suggest that we are meeting a 65 percent standard. The difference in the 65 percent standard and a 90 percent standard is about $1,800 for every classroom in America. Every elementary school principal, every secondary school principal can count the number of rooms in their building, multiply that by $1,800; that is the difference in what we are talking about here today. Mr. Speaker, this is the difference in whether we buy microscopes or not; whether we buy computers or not; whether a classroom has an overhead projector or not; whether there are chemicals for the chemical lab or tools for the shop. And Dollars to the Classroom can increase teachers' salaries, rather than create another form for teachers to fill out. Dollars to the Classroom is more accountable to the taxpayer because it would ensure for the first time by passing this resolution that, in fact, 90 percent of all funds earmarked for elementary and secondary programs get to the classroom. By doing this, we start the process of setting a new standard, the standard that says that Federal dollars that are appropriated here for education programs really need to get to where kids and teachers are. We have heard today about that study in the New York City school system that says that 43 percent of money in that district is spent on education; 43 percent is not good enough. Throwing dollars at education will not solve this problem. It is a worn out solution. We need to continue to work toward new solutions. The new solution we are advancing today is to get the money in the hands of teachers, get the money to classrooms, short circuit any bureaucracy, whether it is bureaucracy in Washington, in State capitals, or even at the local administrative level. School superintendents and administrators support this concept. Teachers support this concept. Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this concept. This bill is different because it sends dollars directly to the classroom where solutions can be found. I urge my colleagues to support this new strategy that puts our children first.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support H.R. 1779. This bill makes a minor adjustment in the boundary of the Devils Backbone Wilderness in the Mark Twain National Forest in the Seventh District in Missouri. Don and Laverne McFarland of Pottersville, MO, purchased their home in 1979. At the time they purchased their home they relied on a neighbor who had been part of the original surveying team to help establish where their outside boundary was and where the boundary of the wilderness area was. As it turned out, a later survey proved that his recollections from the 1930's were not accurate. That later survey left part of their improvements, a well, their garage, and their driveway, inside the boundary of wilderness land. The McFarlands are now in their seventies. They would like to retire and sell their property and move closer to their children and grandchildren. It is very difficult for them to do without this issue being settled. So I hope my colleagues will join me today in passing this resolution that will clarify this problem. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1779) to make a minor adjustment in the exterior boundary of the Devils Backbone Wilderness in the Mark Twain National Forest, MO, to exclude a small parcel of land containing improvements.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1779, the bill just passed.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this body instructed our conferees working with the Senate on the foreign operations bill to stay with the House position that relates to taxpayer dollars spent for abortion. Abortion is an issue that there are many differences of opinion of on the floor of this House, but there has generally been broad agreement that taxpayers' dollars should not be spent for abortions in the United States. We need to ensure that that same policy is extended beyond our borders and with taxpayers money that is sent to other countries. Certainly it was disturbing just a few days ago when the Vice President said that the biggest environmental danger in Third World countries was too many children, too many children in Mexico, too many children in Africa, too many children in Asia. That should not be the position of our Government. Our conferees need to stand firm. Taxpayers' dollars should not be used for abortions in America. They should not be used for abortions overseas.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Life-Choices Pregnancy Center, which has served the women of Joplin, MO since its inception in 1990. To date, over 4,000 women have received services from the center in the form of pregnancy testing, counseling for those considering an abortion, and support for those who have already had an abortion. The center also manages two programs that make a difference in the lives of many Joplin residents: Mom Care, is designed to help mothers deal with their parenting responsibilities, and the Virtuous Reality program provides valuable information to teens and parents about making responsible and healthy choices in their lives. As evidence of the good work of the Life-Choices Pregnancy Center, at least 160 babies who would have been aborted are alive and well today because of their counseling and support. On October 7, the center will dedicate its new facility which will enable it to serve more women in a number of new ways. The center will immediately begin to offer ultrasound imaging, physical exams, and other forms of pre-natal care for at-risk women. In the near future, they also plan to add testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, pre and post adoption counseling, abstinence education, and a 24 hour telephone help line to better serve the women of southwest Missouri. Life constantly presents us with choices, and there are consequences to the choices that we make. A woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy has few options, and often feels that she has no where to turn. I am grateful that the women of Joplin can turn to the Life-Choices Pregnancy Center because there they can find a friend who has the patience to listen and the experience to understand and give advice that many would not be able to give. And, whatever her decision might be, I know that the center will provider her with the love, support, and counseling that she will need to make it through such a difficult time. In closing, I remember the words of Mother Theresa. Speaking at a National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, she asked ``How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us.'' I thank everyone who made the choice to give of their time and love for the benefit of others at the Life-Choices Pregnancy Center.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, as I was walking out of the revolving door here yesterday after what I think was our fourth vote to adjourn, I was reminded of that Bill Murray movie ``Groundhog Day.'' Here we are again, right back in the same day, voting to adjourn, voting on the Journal, voting on the Suspension Calendar, and not doing the business of the American people. Yesterday, we also announced an effort to abolish the IRS Code, I say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], by December 31, 2000, abolish the Code, end the IRS as we know it, end those abuses, end the constant harassment of Americans by an agency that is out of control. The Declaration of Independence has 1,300 words. The Bible has 73,000 words. The IRS code has 2.8 million words. It needs to be eliminated.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize an institution in southwest Missouri for promoting and laying the foundation upon which character is built. The institution I speak of is Southwest Missouri State University [SMSU] where I had the privilege to earn my master's in history. The award is the ``Templeton Foundation Honor Roll for Character Building Colleges.'' Some 135 institutions were selected out of 2,208 eligible universities and colleges. More impressive is that of the 6 percent of universities that were privileged to receive this award, only eight were public institutions and SMSU was the only public institution in Missouri to receive this award. In 1995, SMSU began a statewide mission in public affairs that focuses on developing traits within students that help them to become responsible citizens. That is why it is no surprise that SMSU would meet the standards needed to be recognized as a character building institution. Those standards considered as determinants of the award are the extent to which students are inspired to develop and strengthen their moral reasoning skills, the encouragement of spiritual growth and moral values, community building experiences, a drug-free lifestyle and whether the institution conducts critical assessments of its character- building programs and activities. SMSU begins to establish each of these values when students start their first year through forums where nationally known role models emphasize personal responsibility and character. Freshmen also attend a mandatory class that focuses on responsible citizenship in a learning community. This class teaches that drug and alcohol abuse will not be tolerated but also demonstrates alternatives that encourage physical, social, and spiritual well-being. Frequent roundtable discussions focus on incorporating principle values that help a learning institution like SMSU flourish. More than 20 religious organizations on campus are very active and play an influential role in student life. The city of Springfield has benefited from the community involvement of SMSU where just last year students, faculty, and staff contributed more than 69,500 hours of community service. SMSU students also are responsible for coordinating the nationwide ``Into the Streets'' program for the city of Springfield. SMSU surveys alumni and faculty to assess the civic involvement and also studies other universities to learn their assessment techniques. While I know that students, faculty, and staff of SMSU will celebrate this award, the community of Springfield and every parent whose child is attending SMSU should as well. Employees can know that when they hire someone with a degree from SMSU they can trust them to be faithful employees of character and good citizenship. Parents can be confident that when they send their children to SMSU they will learn not only book knowledge but also the values needed to produce good character. Finally may I add that we remember the words of Herbert Spencer when he said ``Education has for its object the formation of character.'' Thank you SMSU for making that your object as well.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrated the 210th anniversary of the Constitution. The Constitution is different than any other document that was ever devised as a framework for Government on this continent or any other, and the difference in the Constitution is found in the first three words, ``We the people.'' No other document ever purported to be the framework for Government and get its right to govern from the people. The Magna Carta started, ``We the Barons of England.'' The Articles of Confederation started, ``We the States.'' This document has been the framework that has lasted longer than any other document that has been the framework for Government. It has been copied by country after country. One of the major tenets of the Constitution is the importance of State governments, the importance of communities, the importance of a Federal Government that acts appropriately in this Federal system we have. We will be bringing bills to the House later this year, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Rogan] has pointed out, that I am a cosponsor of, that we have cosponsors of from both sides of the aisle, that talk about giving more decisionmaking back to states, back to communities, and education. I look forward to that debate.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Postal Service, for his assistance in moving this legislation through his subcommittee. I would also like to thank the members of the full committee and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the chairman, for discharging the bill so it could be considered today. And, of course, I would like to thank the other members of the Missouri delegation for joining me unanimously as cosponsors of this resolution. The resolution we are debating, Mr. Speaker, will name the new postal facility in my district for the late John N. Griesemer. Mr. Griesemer invested his lifetime in his family, his church and in public service, and perhaps the greatest national impact of that public service, as my colleagues have pointed out from Maryland and New York, was his time as the chairman of the Board of Governors of the Postal Service. He served as vice chairman for 3 years. He served as chairman after that during his remaining time on the Board. He was dedicated to the Postal Service, and certainly to name a facility in the city, the city of Springfield, where he ran his business, where he was so involved in civic and church affairs, where he and his wife raised their 5 children, is, I think, an appropriate tribute to his service to community, and particularly to his service to the Postal Service. I want to really join the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings] in encouraging that the House move for the passage of this resolution, and as this facility is officially opened, it will be officially opened with the name of John N. Griesemer as the name of the facility, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. John Griesemer was born in Mt. Vernon, MO and grew up on a dairy farm near Billings. He graduated from Billings High School in 1948 and he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Missouri, Columbia in 1953. He served as a First Lieutenant, Engineering Officer in the U.S. Air Force from 1954 until 1956. After his discharge from the Air Force, John returned to southwest Missouri to work for his family's business, Griesemer Stone Co. He served there as president and as a director until his death in 1993. In defiance of conventional wisdom, John Griesemer balanced a successful career with family life and a dedication to community service. He and his wife, Kathleen, raised five children on a small farm just east of Springfield, MO. John was active in his church, having served as Chairman of the annual Diocesan Development Fund Drive, member of the Financial Advisory Committee and co-trustee of the Heer-Andres Trust of the Catholic diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, MO. He also served as Co-Chairman of the Margin for Excellence fund drive to establish an endowment and build a new Catholic High School in Springfield. John was an Eagle Scout, a Scout Master and, in later years, served on the Board of the Ozarks Council of the Boy Scouts of America. He was also involved with the Junior Achievement Program. In addition to his work with Griesemer Stone Co., John founded Joplin Stone Co. and Missouri Commercial Transportation Co., and served as president of Springfield Ready Mix Co. He was a director of Boatmen's National Bank and, in 1991 was president of the Springfield Development Council, a non-profit subsidiary corporation of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce. John Griesemer passed away in 1993, survived by his wife and five children. His legacy is one of service to God, his country and to his fellowman through dedication to family, business and community. Again I would like to thank Mr. McHugh and I would ask all of my colleagues to join in honoring John N. Griesemer by naming this new facility in the city, where he spent his life and spent it wisely, after him.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate my remarks with those of my colleague the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goode]. Certainly we are talking ultimately about a national test, a national test that will lead to a national curriculum. Anybody who is going to be regulated by this national test, who has ever been in the classroom, knows that eventually you have to make efforts to respond to the test. You do not exactly have to teach the test, but you certainly move in that direction, and that leads in the direction of a national curriculum at the elementary and secondary level. This is not a good way to spend $50 million. There are good ways to spend $50 million that encourage education. This is not a good way to do that. The States are already doing this job. Forty-seven States are in the process of adopting State assessment vehicles through testing, through monitoring, through grading of how efforts are being made in schools. Forty-seven of 50 states are already doing this job. I think it needs to be done at the State and the community level. In fact, education tests need to be really developed from the bottom up, not from the top down. The closer you get to where kids leave home to go to school, the closer you need to be to their house where that test is developed. For four years, Mr. Chairman, I was the president of a university, and during that entire four years we talked about whether or not the national tests at the university level were adequate vehicles to measure how students were going to do in college. The SAT, the ACT tests were constantly being criticized because of their inability to really measure how people were doing or how people were going to do. And this is not to attack those tests, privately developed, well-used, indicators, I think, of what can happen at the college level. But, remember, the people taking those tests were people who had gone to school 11 or 12 years, people who intended to go to college, people who should by that time have had some commonality of what they were talking about in terms of how you measure those skills. People at the third grade level generally do not have yet a national perspective. They do not have that at the eighth grade level. They may not even quite have that at the 11th and 12th grade level when they are now taking all kinds of national tests that really frankly do not measure people's ability to compete in higher education as effectively as we would like. A national test for elementary school does not make sense. Government involvement in testing at the Federal level does not make sense. We have handled that well in higher education with privately developed tests. The States are handling that well by encouraging local school districts to develop tests. Remember, geography comes into how you take this test. Where you live comes into how you take this test. Let us not try to act like that by the third grade, American students become so homogenized that they can react to a national test, because they cannot. It will be misleading, it will be a misservice to parts of the country. There is no way you can develop this test so that it adequately measures fairly children all over America. Of course, children all over America I think is what motivates both sides here. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Goodling amendment.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and particularly thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson] for working so hard to put this amendment together and to make it work. Mr. Chairman, I have been trying in this debate to find some additional money for vocational education. I think this movement forward is helpful. We had frozen vocational education at last year's funding at a time when I think we are working in every possible way to get people to the workplace, people who have not been there before through welfare reform; people who are out of high school or did not get out of high school who need additional training. Vocational education is critically important. I am certainly glad to hear both the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member, agree to accept this change to add this money to vocational education. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this amendment becoming part of the package that the House passes, and then I am hopeful that we will also be committed, realizing what I just heard about the importance of everybody being in agreement, to uphold the House's position and keep this additional $20 million for vocational education in this bill when it comes back to the House from conference. This is an important step, going along with the step that we have already taken in passing the authorization legislation that, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has pointed out, sets a new standard of money in vocational education that gets to the classroom where students are affected by it. That new standard of 90 percent, essentially under local control and maybe, more importantly, under the control of a local teacher, of the teacher in the classroom, as opposed to 75 percent, is an important standard for us to meet. To add to that some additional funding for vocational education in a program that is critical to the future of the country is going to be a good thing to see. I hope we see it in the final bill as well. I am grateful that the chairman and the ranking member have agreed to be supportive of this amendment and grateful to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson] for not only letting me work with him but for working so hard to put this amendment together.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words. The CHAIRMAN [Mr. Goodlatte]. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt]?