Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for yielding me the time. Let me say before I yield that time to another speaker that I am wearing a Father's Day gift from my oldest son. I am sure my colleagues have been admiring it and his good taste. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) who has in his district Buzz Aldrin as a constituent.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall), who has in his district the headquarters of the U.S. Space and Missile System Command.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on July 20, 1969, after a 4-day trip, the three Apollo astronauts arrived on the surface of the Moon. Upon arriving, Armstrong announced ``Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.'' These words ushered in a new era of human exploration as the first man flight to the Moon touched down with less than 40 seconds of fuel remaining in its tanks. The astronauts had managed to make one last- minute maneuver to avoid landing on a field of boulders and a large crater, demonstrating the importance of manned space flight, the human ability to adapt to demanding circumstances. After hours of exploring and experiments and those famous words ``one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'' uttered by Neil Armstrong, the astronauts left a plaque stating: ``Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all mankind.'' The plaque was signed by Armstrong, Collins, Aldrin, and President Richard Nixon. The final phase of President Kennedy's challenge was realized on July 24, 1969, when these three astronauts safely returned to Earth, splashing down aboard the Columbia, 812 nautical miles southwest of Hawaii. Prior to splashdown, Buzz Aldrin summarized their magnificent accomplishments with these words: ``We feel this stands as a symbol of the insatiable curiosity of all mankind to explore the unknown.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), my good friend.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2815) to present a congressional gold medal to astronauts Neil A. Armstrong. Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, the crew of Apollo 11.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on a clear sunny Wednesday in July 1969, the first human journey to the surface of the moon began at Launch Complex 39 of the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. With the liftoff of Apollo 11, Commander Neil Armstrong, Commander Module Pilot Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin were about to make history. These three men accomplished what others had been dreaming about for centuries and what President John F. Kennedy declared was a national priority during the height of the Cold War. In response to the Soviet Union's stunning surprise with the first manned flight into space, the Americans astonished the world by surpassing the Soviet Union's space program in a few short years. This accomplishment demonstrates the greatness of the American spirit, one based on free enterprise, determination and patriotism. Mr. Speaker, we should have honored these three men years ago. It has been over 30 years ago since this accomplishment. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), and I want to commend him at this time as the sponsor, the originator, of this legislation to honor the Apollo 11 astronauts. I would like to thank him on behalf of the entire House for bringing this legislation forward.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2815.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. We have hammered out an agreement that safeguards the legitimate interests and concerns of Alabama's coke industry and assures the long term viability of that industry. This is not only a victory for the coke industry and its employees, but also for Alabama's coal industry which supplies the basic raw materials for the production of coke. I was skeptical of this agreement at first because of my concerns about our national security and China's human rights violations. However, I am now persuaded by the support for this agreement by the Taiwanese government, dissidents within China, and reformers within their government that it is not only in our best interests, but will also encourage the likelihood of positive reform of their poor record on human rights and religious persecution.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues about several recent disturbing trends at the Asian Development Bank [ADB]. The Bank recently concluded its annual meeting in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Two of my Banking Committee staff recently attended the annual meeting at the invitation of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. By way of general background, the Asian Development Bank [ADB] was established in 1966. The Bank also operates a concessional, below market rate, lending facility; the Asian Development Fund [ADF] created in 1974. There are 58 member countries, 42 of which are based in the Asia-Pacific region and 16 are non-regional. The United States and Japan are the largest shareholders in the Bank, each with a 16 percent ownership share. The purpose of the ADB is to promote sustainable development in the poorer countries of the Asia-Pacific region through project investment lending, policy reform lending and advice, and technical assistance. Through 1999, the United States has received over $4.6 billion in business procurement from the Asian Bank Group. By tradition, Japan nominates the president who also serves as chairman of the board. In many ways, the ADB is a very Japanese institution. The president selects board committee members and committee chairs. He appoints Japanese nationals from the Ministry of Finance in Tokyo to serve as the treasurer, and the head of the important Budget and Personnel Department. Japanese staff occupies other key management positions, notably the head of the Strategy and Policy Department and at least one of the two powerful programming department directorates. Under the leadership of the Bank's previous president, Mitsuo Sato, the ADB established an enviable track record as one of the most progressive and reform-minded of any of the multilateral development banks. President Sato worked closely with the United States and other shareholders to inaugurate a series of sweeping and forward-leaning policy changes designed to increase substantially the institution's development effectiveness. Among these reforms was a decision to invest more in basic human capital (for example, basic education, health and sanitation), an effort to strengthen project quality, increase the transparency and accountability of its own operations, establish an information policy based on the presumption of disclosure, the creation of an inspection panel, the formulation of an explicit governance and anti-corruption policy, a coordinated effort together with UNICEF to improve child nutrition and early childhood development, a proactive policy for outreach to non-governmental organizations [NGOs], as well as a gender and development policy. But President Sato stepped down in early 1999. He was succeeded by Tadao Chino, a former Vice Minister of Finance for International Affairs. In style, outlook, and temperament, he appears quite different from his predecessor. More consequential, he appears to be taking the institution in the wrong direction--a direction that is far less multilateral and less inclusive. From the outset of his tenure, the ADB has become notably less open to the views of others, including the United States. Indeed, Bank management has aggressively advanced its own agenda over the concerns and even strong objections of the United States and other shareholders. Examples of the high-handed management style of the Bank's new leadership includes unilateral exclusion of the United States from chairing the Board's Budget Review Committee even after repeated protest from the Treasury Department; programming excessively high lending levels in order to accelerate discussion of a general capital increase; and resistance to formalized cooperation with the World Bank. More broadly, key policy and operational issues are advanced quickly over the objection of major donor shareholders when it suits Bank management, and capriciously stalled when it does not. The United States during the 1999 annual meeting raised many of these internal governance and management issues. But it would appear that precious little progress has been made. Whereas the Bank was once a reform leader, it now lags not only the World Bank but every other regional multilateral development bank [MDB] in embracing needed reforms and has been resisting calls for more substantive change in the Asian Development Fund negotiations [ADF-8]. To be fair, the Bank under President Chino has embraced poverty reduction as its overarching mandate. But this occurred only after repeated calls from the United States and other major shareholders that a poverty reduction policy paper be presented to the board by the time the ADF-8 replenishment negotiation began in October 1999. The Bank remains far behind in turning this policy commitment into operational practice. Most recently, President Chino is resisting the United States nominee for the Bank's American vice president. By tradition, there has always been a U.S. national as vice president, a European vice president, and a vice president representing a non-borrowing regional. The current U.S. vice president, Peter Sullivan, will retire this summer. Chino is mounting an unprecedented challenge to Treasury's candidate. Never before has a Japanese Bank president challenged the right of the United States to name its candidate for vice president. Why the resistance? I have no first hand knowledge, but would note that a recent issue of Emerging Markets speculates that if the strong-minded, experienced candidate were appointed to a vice-presidential slot at the Bank, ``she could begin chipping away at the power exercised from `behind the throne' by the small clique of Japanese `advisors' to the president.'' Whatever the case, it is incumbent on the United States to support its nominee and insist that U.S. prerogatives be respected. Moreover, I understand that President Chino has literally created a fourth vice president with wide-ranging powers without consulting the board. He disregarded concerns repeatedly raised by the U.S. Executive Director's office that the reorganization of the functions of the Strategic Policy Department should not be undertaken without consulting the board. The department director is a Japanese national. More broadly, President Chino's pattern of stonewalling the United States and other member donors has been repeatedly in his non- responsiveness to the concerns of interested parties outside the Bank. It has been reported that he refused to receive representatives of student and NGO protesters at the annual meeting in Thailand. He may even have been less than courteous to his Thai hosts at an important official function involving members of the royal family. In addition to numerous internal governance and the above personnel issues, there is also a growing concern that Bank management is trying to turn the ADB into a defacto secretariat for a future ``Asian Monetary Fund.'' As Members may recall, Japan earlier proposed to create an ``Asian IMF'' during the worst of the global financial crisis of 1997-1998--an idea that had only tepid support within the region and which was opposed by the United States. However, elements of this approach have begun to insinuate themselves into the organizational structure of the ADB. First, in March 1999 the Bank approved the ``Asian Currency Crisis Support Facility.'' This $3 billion fund, financed entirely by Japan but administered by the Bank, was established to provide guarantees to Asian crisis countries on sovereign bond issues, in conjunction with ADB loans. Among other issues, this mechanism inappropriately would allow obligations under the facilities to be accorded preferred creditor status. In addition, the Finance Ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN] asked in 1999 that the Bank temporarily house its economic monitoring secretariat. Over U.S. resistance, the ADB established and expanded this surveillance unit, in possible competition with the IMF. Contrary to view of some United States economists, like Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, I suspect few Asian countries would want to participate in a Japan-led regional monetary fund, in large measure because of what is perceived by many in the region as Japan's ongoing failure to confront and deal with its militarist past. On the other hand, many of these countries are borrowers from both the ADB and Japan. They may be persuaded to go along with Tokyo in a desire not to disadvantage themselves when they request the Japanese Government at the ADB for loans and to position themselves to receive additional foreign aid credits from Japan. Mr. Speaker, it sadly appears that the Asian Development Bank is at a crossroads. Confidence is eroding in the capacity of the institution to pursue effective development strategies in a manner that is accountable, participatory, and transparent. At the risk of presumption, it would appear high time that the administration make clear in no uncertain terms its deep concern over the present leadership at the Bank. As the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee with jurisdiction over the international financial institutions, I would simply note that both Treasury and the ADB should be on notice that an institution that pursues the narrow objectives of a few, adopts a haughty and intolerant management style, and now lags all other regional MDBs in key reforms is unlikely to command broad congressional support. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, wise leaders on both sides of the Pacific understand that, despite our occasional differences, the two major shareholders of the ADB--Japan and the United States--must work together if the Bank is to effectively address poverty reduction as well as help meet the many other needs and challenges of the Asia- Pacific region in the 21st century. I hope and expect our two great countries can work hand in hand at the ADB, as we have so often in the past, to uplift the lives of people throughout the region and reach our common goals to foster sustainable development.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). The people of Alabama and the people of American Samoa both share a love for Pope John Paul II. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach), to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was born in Poland on May 18, 1920, and is said to be the most recognized person in the world. He is by far the most traveled Pope in the 2000-year history of the Roman Catholic Church, having visited almost every continent and country where he personally addressed tens of millions of people on almost each visit. Pope John Paul II is one of the most important statesmen, diplomats, and political figures of our time. But he is far more. He is a great pastor, evangelist, and witness of Christianity. As spiritual leader to the world's one billion Catholics, the Pope has commenced a great dialogue with modern culture that transcends the boundaries of political or economic ideologies that has dominated the world since the beginnings of modernity in the 1700s. He is one of the most prolific writers in this century. His writings have made great contributions in the area of theology, philosophy, sociology, politics, culture, and science. Having witnessed firsthand the brutal inhumanity of Nazi and Communist regimes, the Pope understands the true dignity of each human being. He has heroically opposed the offences against human dignity that have tragically marked the 20th century. As much as any single person of this century, John Paul II has worked to protect the rights of each individual and to promote respect and understanding between cultures, nations, and peoples. To truly find world peace, the Pope encourages all people to answer the most important question we face: What is the ultimate truth about man and his relationship to God? As part of his pastoral work, the Pope has consistently identified the moral challenges facing free societies and the importance of resolving those challenges. The Pope has tirelessly preached against the dangers of unreasonable and unfettered license that pays no respect to the dignity of each person. His prophetic voice in the defense of the unborn, the aged, and the marginalized is well known. His defense of the dignity of all persons serves as a guideline for all Americans on how to treat each other with respect, based not on mere sentiment but on the deep and true respect for the image of God in each person. His ability to harmonize faith and reason sheds light on difficult public and ethical issues that plague modern society. John Paul's pastoral leadership gives hope and courage for millions of Catholics and countless others in America who struggle to sanctify their lives in the midst of the modern secular world. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is no question the Pope has been a beacon of light and witness to hope for countless millions. It is only appropriate to recognize these accomplishments and to show our appreciation by awarding him the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, the Members may not have heard all this debate, but we have heard that we deployed into Kosovo. We have been told that we are in Kosovo. We have talked about we are withdrawing from Kosovo. The simple truth is that none of us went into Kosovo. None of us are in Kosovo. None of us will come out of Kosovo. It is the men and women of our military. Yesterday I talked to four of them. I talked to a Major who has been deployed five times in the last 10 years. Ten years ago he had two people directly under him. Today they are his supervisors. I talked to a young man at the University of Alabama who deployed in May, came back in February, lost a year and a half of school. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the men and women of our military. It is a simple question: Do we make our European allies shoulder the burden, or do we make our own troops continue to shoulder the European burden?

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of discussion this morning to the effect that this legislation affects sales tax. Others have said that this legislation does not affect sales tax. We've heard that this legislation threatens funding for local governments and State governments. We have also heard that this legislation has nothing to do with reducing funding for State and local funding. The truth, Mr. Chairman, lies somewhere in between. The truth is that this legislation alone does not address sales tax. This legislation alone does not affect the States' ability to collect sales tax, to fund law enforcement, to fund education. However, there is a fear, a legitimate fear, that this legislation may slow the process of addressing the states and their ability to collect sales and use taxes. This is an important issue. Now, let me say first of all, we say that this legislation extends ``the moratorium.'' What is the meaning of ``extends the moratorium?'' Well, the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 banned taxes on Internet access and it banned multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. The Act did not ban the collection of sales and use taxes on sales made over the Internet. I repeat, the Act did not ban the collection of sales and use taxes on sales made over the Internet. So extending this moratorium will not ban the collection of sales and use taxes. Now, what is the current law? Under current law, sales or actually use taxes are already imposed on all remote sales. If the remote retailer has a physical presence in the State, a store, a warehouse where the buyer is, then the retailer is required to collect and remit a sales tax. However, under the Supreme Court decision, 1992 decision, Quill decision, they said, if the remote retailer does not have a nexus or sufficient physical presence in the State, then the State cannot compel collection of sales tax. The buyer, however, is required to pay the use tax to their home taxing jurisdiction. Now, there is the rub. The use tax is not highly enforced, the compliance is very low. So when these sales are made over the Internet, then the State, in fact, does lose a sizable chunk of revenue. They will continue to do so until this issue is addressed with some reliable mechanism for collection from remote sellers. The Supreme Court decision, the Quill decision has resulted in the situation where large Internet retailers, without stores in a State, are not required to collect sales tax, while other brick and mortar stores, or even an e-commerce firm with a warehouse or an office in a State, they are required to collect taxes on all sales. So we have an inequitable situation, and I think we all realize that. It's unfair. It's preferential. It should not be allowed to continue unaddressed. In the 1992 Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court actually said, this is a situation that Congress can address. I agree. This is something that Congress, under the interstate commerce clause, should address. They made it clear that we had the authority to take action to cure this inequity. We have not done that since 1992. Now, because I support a level playing field, and that is where in- store, catalog and on-line sales have the same tax collection treatment, I am introducing my amendment. I am introducing it also because, without this amendment, without us addressing this inequity in sales tax treatment, we are putting at jeopardy our local communities, the welfare of our children, the safety on our streets, because it is the sales and use tax proceeds that fund education in most States. It is the sales tax which funds local government. It is the sales tax which pays for police and fire protection. In my own State, almost 50 percent of all State and local revenues are sales tax. In some States, over 50 percent are sales tax. Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, there is a fear, there is a concern that merely extending the current moratorium does not address the main issue, and that is allowing States to require remote retailers to collect and remit sales tax. There is a fear among retailers and among 42 of the governors who have expressed this fear to us that merely extending the moratorium will only delay a decision on the issue of the States being able to collect sales tax.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the 42 governors have expressed a concern, and that concern is, will extending the moratorium delay a decision on the issue of allowing States to require remote retailers to collect and remit sales taxes. They have said that if that is the case, that we should not move for a moratorium. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have assurances that is not the case. I have assurances that the issue will be addressed. I have offered this amendment to address the situation. My amendment would authorize States to develop and enter into an interstate sales and use tax compact. The legislation would provide that States joining the compact would be required to adopt a simplified sales tax system. In turn, States adopting the simplified system would automatically be authorized to require remote sellers above the sales volume threshold to collect use tax on all taxable sales into a State. Retailers would also be provided a collection allowance to offset the cost of compliance. What that would do, Mr. Chairman, is give a level playing field to all sales. The legislation would provide a framework for simplification, allowing States to require collection when the States achieve simplification, and I think it is a reasonable and necessary step for this Congress to take to pass this legislation. Merely extending the moratorium while failing to deal with this underlying problem I think would be irresponsible. We can deal with it. This Congress can and should deal with it this session. I have assurances that the Committee on the Judiciary is going to take up this issue next week. For that reason, I am going to support the legislation on the floor. I am doing it despite my concern and that of both governors and the retailers, in that I have assurances that we will address this issue and that we will address it this year. I hope that my trust in this institution is well founded. Let me say, in closing, this: ``The governors have made this request of the Congress. They have requested Congress to create incentives for States to streamline and simplify their sales tax systems so that remote sellers, whether Internet, catalog, or whatever, can collect sales and use tax as simply and easily as other retailers do, applying them only when companies surpass a minimal level to justify the burden.'' I think there is almost unanimous agreement in this body that we need to move in this direction For that reason, I am offering this amendment. However, Mr. Chairman, I am told that it is not germane to this legislation, so I will withdraw the amendment, but I do so strongly urging this Congress to address this issue. If we pass this moratorium and we do not address this issue, we do it at the peril of local government, of educating our children, of all of the fears and concerns that have been raised by the opponents of this legislation. If we pass this moratorium and then we take up legislation to address this issue, then we will have the best of both worlds. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, when the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was before this body last year, opponents accused proponents of the legislation of bad taste, of offensive conduct. What was that offensive conduct? It was giving an admittedly accurate description of the gruesome act by which a baby's body is dismantled and mutilated and its young life painfully and unjustifiably ended. There is agreement. What a sorry spectacle. Unfortunately, ironically, there is no agreement--no consensus on an even sorrier spectacle, an even greater outrage. That outrage is not a description of a partial birth abortion, it is the partial birth abortion itself. Imagine a society too humane and too caring to permit the discussion of such a heinous act, but one which at the same time not only permits, but defends this outrageous offense against humanity, liberty and justice. Do not all of us have the compassion to agree that this should never happen to any human being? A violation of our God given dignity. Is not every partial birth abortion an offense against humanity: does it not weaken our conscience, harden our heart, and dull our mind. I submit to you that every innocent life taken by this procedure makes America less caring, less respectful of others, and leaves behind only feelings of guilt. Each procedure leaves scars that can last forever in our memory, in our hearts, and in our consciences. [We in America like to consider ourselves a compassionate people. We pride ourselves on wanting to protect the weak, to help those in need. But we refuse to acknowledge the suffering of a baby whose skull is cracked and whose brain is sucked out. Yet this happens at least 5,000 times each year in America. That means that every day 14 babies die hidden from our view. Babies need our protection, our care, and our concern. We have been elected to protect those who need our help, to make a difference in the lives of others. I, for one, feel the weight of knowing that all of those babies suffer so much and so needlessly. We have the power to stop their suffering, and to end this barbaric procedure.] A mother's womb is where a baby should feel safest, free from all harm and literally surrounded by love. Every partial birth abortion is a failure of love. Every partial birth abortion is a failure of justice. And every partial birth abortion is an unnecessary procedure. Not only are these types of brutal degradations not required, the AMA says they should never happen in a medically advanced country like ours. Let us all agree to go beyond partisan ways of thinking and consider what is really at stake: the life of an innocent, weak, and defenseless human being who needs our protection. Does not justice and conscience and respect for life cry out for passage of this legislation?

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, when the partial-birth abortion ban was before this Congress last year, the opponents of the act accused the proponents of offensive conduct. What was that offensive conduct? What was that bad taste that they accused the supporters of the bill of being guilty of? It was of describing, of accurately describing, they admitted that the proponents accurately described the procedure, the act, and they said that offended them. They said it was a sorry spectacle for people to accurately describe what happened to these late-term babies in their mother's womb. They said it was offensive conduct to describe how these babies' bodies were dismantled, how they were mutilated, how their young lives were ended. Let me say that is a sorry spectacle to describe such an act. As a civilized society, we should not have to describe such an act because it should never occur. Is it not ironic that the very people who say what a sick thing to do, what an uncivilized thing to do, what outrageous conduct, that they are the very people that rise in this body and defend the very act? This act has no place in a civilized society. It is a violation of our God-given dignity.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3591.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Wilson Reagan became the 40th President of the United States on January 20, 1981. It was a time when America seemed to have lost hope as a result of the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, the oil crisis, and a failing economy. We were divided, drifting, and seemingly void of purpose. Then someone emerged who never doubted us or our destiny. That man, Ronald Reagan, personally embarked on a mission to restore hope in the American Dream. He set forth two goals: First, revitalize the American economy and, second, rebuild our military capability and restore our position in world leadership. President Reagan stood as an example of a selfless, optimistic, humorous, and visionary leader in the crucible of Washington politics. He gave generously of himself and encouraged all of us not to give up on the American dream and to dare to believe in it again. I, for one, have missed his leadership, his confidence not only in his own abilities but in the American people, and his genuine what-you- see-is-what-you-get style, no airs, no pretensions. I suspect that a great many of the American people miss these values as well. This is most notably demonstrated in this year's presidential campaign, where we see almost every candidate attempting to take up President Reagan's mantle of conservative leadership in order to gain the support of those who find themselves so drawn to Ronald Reagan and his wish that every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill. Many will remember President Reagan for turning around the American economic machine and leading us like Moses out of the barren desert sands of inflation, gas shortages, and unemployment. Others will remember him for restoring America to the leadership of the free world and challenging former Soviet President Gorbachev to ``tear down this wall.'' But, in the end, President Reagan will be remembered and honored most for his moral courage and his never yielding dedication to the ideals that have made this country great. If today's historians looking back at the end of the 20th century get it right, they will surely say that Ronald Reagan, more than any other person, helped to restore the American dream. What was the American dream for Ronald Reagan? In 1992, he expressed this is his wish, that all Americans never forget their heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose their natural God- given optimism. I must also mention the great strength provided by former First Lady Nancy Reagan with her constant presence in helping, advising, and protecting the President. It was fitting that the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), in introducing this bill, sought to honor both President Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan. Mrs. Reagan became a leader in the antidrug movement and worked tirelessly to educate the Nation's youth about the drug use. She coined the phrase ``just say no,'' which became the guiding phrase of our Nation's drug preventive efforts. Mrs. Reagan understood that the bully pulpit was a powerful tool in the war on drugs, and our Nation experienced a steady decline in teen drug use throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. Today, as she consoles and strengthens President Reagan in his struggle with Alzheimer's, she has become a symbol of hope for all those who care for a loved one battling disease and illness. Mrs. Reagan is certainly a model of courage for my mother, who must deal daily in caring for my father during his own battle with Alzheimer's. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is there remaining?

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) who is the principal sponsor of the gold medal bill to honor President Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan. (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)