C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I will speak quickly because time is so limited. We are dealing with a constitutional issue in what we are talking about today. We have raised that issue many times. Section 9 of article I is very specific: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' But it goes further to say ``and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.'' If we were to agree to put into place an automatic continuing resolution, we would not follow the Constitution. We put the administration on auto pilot; and we let the Congress say that it is going to be a lot easier to avoid those difficult days and hours, those difficult decisions. Just go on automatic pilot with a CR. Ignore the Constitution. This is not a good amendment. This is not a good plan. I supported the first amendment of the gentleman, but I cannot support this amendment. I think it flies in the face of the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time, especially since he knows that I disagree with his package. But he also is a fair player, because he understands that the Committee on Rules did not give the Committee on Appropriations any time under this rule. That is strange, inasmuch as the Committee on Appropriations will be affected more than any other committee in the House based on what happens here today. Even so, we were given no time under the rule. But I voted for the rule, just to keep the process going. I want to say again, as I did earlier this morning, we need a budget. We need budget caps. And I have said that in defense of resolutions presented by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) on numerous occasions. As chairman, I need the budget caps to have the discipline in committee to keep spending from running wild. As a matter of fact, last year the Committee on Appropriations denied $18 billion worth of amendments that would have increased spending. But I do not appreciate his package. I think we do need budget process reform, and I cannot describe everything that I think needs to be done in the 2 minutes I have left. What I suggest is in an amendment I offered but was not made in order by the Committee on Rules. What we need is a commission or committee, bipartisan and bicameral, of this Congress, to sit down and thoroughly study the problems and make a recommendation, without regard to politics, without regard to this person or that person or somebody else. This Committee would make a recommendation to the Congress as to what budget process will work. Now, the one main reason that I am opposed to the budget process bill offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) is, first of all, it has multiyear caps. When it was first reported, it had 5-year multiyear caps with no numbers. No numbers. We were going to set 5-year caps, but with no numbers. Well, as of last night, a decision was made to change that bill and make it 2-year caps with numbers. At one point I was promised that my committee could have some input into what those numbers would be. I did not hear what the numbers were until I read it in Congress Daily yesterday morning. I think that we deserved a little more consideration than that. But the big concern is statutory caps, which is what this package presents. Statutory caps are different than caps set by a concurrent resolution. Statutory caps would bring the executive branch into the mix of setting a budget. That is not the role of the executive branch of government. The Constitution provides for separation of powers. The Constitution gives the responsibility of spending, financial matters, to the Congress. The President gets his chance when the appropriations bills are sent to him and he has an opportunity to veto. But statutory caps would mean that the executive branch, OMB, would be up here every day saying, no, we will not accept these caps, or we will veto these caps. That puts the executive branch in the driver's seat when it comes to setting our budget caps, and that is just not right. For that reason alone, I cannot support this package today, although I recognize my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has worked very hard. We do not have a budget this year. In the House we have a deemed budget, but the process did not work because the other body cannot get their act together on a budget. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has done a good job in getting that budget, and we are working under his budget. The gentleman has worked hard under difficult procedures; and he is right, the budget process needs to be changed. But it ought to be changed only after very serious thought and consideration. I really am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not make my amendment in order that would have created a bipartisan, bicameral committee or commission of this Congress to thoroughly study, and, in a serious, sincere way, recommend what our budget process ought to be. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for the hard work he does and for the time he gave me. The gentleman has an extremely difficult job. I agree with the gentleman a lot of the time. Sometimes I do not; but we are still friends. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this rule, but I do not support it. I do not think it is a good rule. I want to explain in just the couple of minutes that I have why that is the case. First, I think I should make it known, especially to Members on my side of the aisle who have heard recently that I have been opposing budgetary caps, that that is not true. I do not oppose caps on the budget. To the contrary, my colleagues have heard me here on the floor many times saying that I need a budget. I cannot help it that the budget committees cannot get together and give us a real budget, but I need a budget to have discipline in the committee when there are amendments on the floor to raise spending by billions of dollars. So I need a budget with a budget cap. However, I will not support statutory budget caps. This rule provides for a bill that provides for statutory budget caps. The reason I will not support statutory budget caps is very simple. It goes beyond politics, it goes beyond the House and the Senate. It is the Constitution of the United States that has established checks and balances by separation of powers. The budget process is the responsibility and the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States. Statutory budget caps put the executive branch into the mix. We would be hearing from OMB on a daily basis that they cannot accept this or they cannot accept that; that you are going to have to do it our way, or we will not sign the bill. That is what statutory budget caps are going to do to this process. The current process is already unworkable. We need real budget process reform, but we need budget process reform that is going to work. And the budget process that we are working under today does not work. We do not have a budget, and that is an example that the current process does not work. But let me say this: when we have had a real budget resolution, the Committee on Appropriations stays within their cap. Discretionary spending has not exceeded the budget caps since this gentleman has been chairman of the committee. Where Congress ought to be looking is mandatory programs, because mandatory spending, which is basically two-thirds of all government spending, is the spending that runs us deeper into debt every year. So I do not think the bill that this rule provides consideration for is a good bill. And I do not intend to support the bill. But I am going to vote for this rule, although I do not really agree with what it does. But in order to get the bill on the floor so the House can work its will, I will vote for the rule, but not for this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We were rather rushed in trying to get some of our speakers to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), chairman of the Legislative Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), who is one of the newer, but one of the dynamic, members of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me say that this appropriations committee is made up of very good Members of both parties. They work hard. They are here whether the House is in session or whether the House is not in session. This committee passes 13 appropriations bills every year, and two to three supplementals. Then we go to conference with the other body, and despite the suggestion that the appropriations process is broken, since I have had the privilege of chairing this committee, we have gotten all of those bills done eventually, some sooner and some later. And we have to work with real numbers. We cannot assume numbers. We cannot pick a number out of the air. We have to work with real numbers and with real laws. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget should understand the problems we have in moving 15 bills through conference because he has one budget resolution to move and he has trouble getting that done, not by any fault of his, but the fault of the other body. I know I am not supposed to say that, but nevertheless it is the fact. That information is not classified. The Appropriations Committee is a very good committee. It works hard and it produces good legislation. I would say that just in the last fiscal year, your Appropriations Committee defeated amendments that would have increased spending by $18 billion. Most of those amendments sounded really good. They would have been nice to vote for. But we did not have the money. We were committed to staying within the budget and we did. I would also say that it is the mandatory spending programs that we have no control over. We do not deal with them and it is mandatory spending that is causing this deficit to rise higher and higher and higher. I would suggest that just one example: we had a colloquy today between the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget on firewalls for the transportation bill, TEA-LU. I support that bill. We need to improve our infrastructure and our bridges and our highways in our communities. The problem, and what they never really admit and concede, is that there are guarantees in that bill. If the trust funds do not make up the guarantees, the appropriations committee has to swallow the guarantees. That means we have to take it away from education or health benefits or something else. The 302(a)s should be adjusted if we are saddled with a mandatory spending of this kind. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a very important member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, if he intends to use any time, and if so, maybe we could alternate.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, whose bill will be on the floor tomorrow. (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I offer this substitute, which includes many similar amendments to those we have already considered and others we will consider, as a total substitute for the bill. However, the primary reason I offer this substitute is because my friends on the Committee on Rules did not give appropriators any time at all under the rule to have a serious debate on our position relative to this bill. So we are taking this approach. Now, I want to announce to the Members that I agree that the budget process needs to be changed and needs to be improved. And I am not suggesting that my chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has done anything wrong. It is just the fact that the current process is not working, especially at the other end of the Capitol. But what I intended to do in one of the amendments I submitted and the Committee on Rules rejected, was to create a commission, a bicameral, bipartisan group of Members of the House and the Senate, to sit down and study this problem from all perspectives not just that of the Committee on the Budget, or the Committee on Appropriations, or the Committee on Ways and Means, or the authorizing committees--but from all perspectives. Everybody has something good to offer if they are given an opportunity. But my amendment was not made in order, so we are not going to do that here today. So what I intend to do, Mr. Chairman, is to develop a bill on my own. And I intend to seek and solicit the ideas and information from all of those committees that I have mentioned and then I will propose, what I would consider to be, a very realistic budget reform proposal. That is the way I intend to proceed. Now, although I am going to withdraw this amendment, I think as appropriators who are affected by this bill more than anyone else in the Congress, that we do have a right to have some additional time to state our views. So I will use this amendment to obtain that time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to tell the gentleman that I appreciate his comments. This is a way for me to get time and for Members of my committee to get time, but we are not going to pursue this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, who successfully passed his bill a couple of days ago with 403 votes, and he reports to me just now that the Senate has now passed it on a vote of 98 to 0.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for giving me the advantage of the additional time he had allocated to him. We have tried to use it in a constructive way. I also want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for the good debate and for the understanding, that he has exhibited, of our concerns. He said this is not about the appropriators or the Committee on the Budget. He said it is about us, and he is right. It is about the entire Congress, and that is what we are concerned about today: the prerogatives, the privileges and the constitutional responsibilities of the Congress of the United States. So I want everybody to know that the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and I are still very good friends. We were before this started; we will be after the final vote. We just tend to have some honest differences; and that is what this place is all about--to air the differences. If we did not do that, then I would like to be in charge and we would do everything my way. But that is not the way it happens. That is why we have this great debating society in the United States House of Representatives. I would say to the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), while he was walking down the aisle, that I complimented him for the conduct of this debate, which I appreciate very much. Mr. Chairman, under the previously agreed to unanimous consent request, I withdraw this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, a world controlled by terrorists or threats of terrorists is not acceptable. A world controlled by dictators or dictatorial regimes or corrupt regimes is not acceptable. The United States of America is vulnerable on many fronts to these types of threats, but the more effective our intelligence operations, the better we are at what we do in the field of intelligence, whether it is technical intelligence or human intelligence. The more effective our intelligence is, the more secure America is and will be. I believe we did very well in the area of overhead technology, as well as other types of technology, many of which we cannot even talk about here in this open session today, but we have not done nearly as well on human intelligence. And today's world requires a very effective human intelligence capability. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and I have discussed this many, many times, because, as we appropriate for the intelligence activities, we work very closely with my colleague as he authorizes intelligence activities. This bill, while I am sure you will hear much debate today that it is not a perfect piece of legislation, is a very good step toward making our intelligence capability far more effective. And I would say again, effective intelligence is good security. The more effective the intelligence is, the more secure our Nation and our people. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) for the good work that he has done in preparing this legislation. I know that there will be serious debate. There will be amendments that will be offered. But I have to give credit to the chairman for having produced a good product. I hope that the House will vote on this bill in big numbers. While we worked together in developing our appropriations bill that we passed yesterday, we actually came up with our own conclusions, but our conclusions were very similar in to those in this authorization. So I support the bill and I commend the chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Under the rules of the majority party in the House, the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) is term limited in his subcommittee chairmanship. And, in fact, this is the last time that he will present this defense appropriations bill to the House. In the 6 years that he has chaired this subcommittee, and I think he would agree with me that it is probably the best job in the whole Congress, he has done an outstanding job. His leadership has been evident at every step and opportunity. His partnership with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has served this Nation well; has served our security well, and has served well the men and women who serve in the uniform of our armed services well. So I wanted to take this time to pay tribute to and compliment the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) the outstanding job that he has done. He and his partner, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), have presented another outstanding defense bill that meets the requirements to the best of our ability during a time of war, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, and a war against terrorism, wherever it may raise its ugly head. And other than being able to bring a conference report back to us shortly we hope, this is my colleague's last bill as chairman of this subcommittee. Again, I just want to compliment him and pay tribute to the outstanding job that he has done.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this procedure is fair. We will have differences when we come to a vote on the procedure and on the resolution, but it is a fair procedure; and I believe that it will, in a constructive way, expedite the business of the House, especially as it relates to budgetary and appropriations issues.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider in the House House Resolution 685; that the resolution be considered as read for amendment; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except 90 minutes of debate on the resolution equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader, or their designees.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Naval Officer, Captain Doug Hughes, and to recognize his dedicated service to our Nation as he prepares to complete his service in the United States Navy. It is a great honor for me to take this opportunity to thank Captain Hughes and his family for his 24 years of distinguished service to our Nation for which he has proudly and selflessly served in the defense of freedom. It was during his last assignment as director of the Secretary of the Navy's Appropriation's Liaison office, that I first came to know Captain Hughes. In this capacity, he has proved to be an invaluable link between the Secretary and the Chief of Naval Operations to me, my staff, and to the professional staff of the Appropriations Committee. Captain Hughes has escorted me and other Members of Congress on several occasions as we traveled both home and abroad to review military operations and confirm the health and welfare of our troops. On every occasion, Captain Hughes performed his duties in an exacting and precise manner. But far more important to me and the members of the Appropriations Committee was the insight he shared with us concerning matters of national security and the Department of the Navy. He clearly understands the role of the Navy in providing for our Nation's security and stability, as well as serving as an ambassador for American values throughout the world. We have always been able to count on Captain Hughes' candor, intelligence, and steadfast devotion to duty mixed in with a flair of humor. He was an invaluable asset to me in Congressional deliberations in all matters regarding our Armed Forces and his perspective on the needs of the Nation with respect to our sea services will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, we all know that behind every service member there stands a strong and supportive family so I also want to recognize the Hughes family: his lovely wife Nancy, and his children, Reggie and Lee. They have been stalwart partners in his service to the United States. We can ill afford to forget that it is the strength of family, and indeed their love and support, that make it possible to honorably serve in uniform. My wife Beverly and I have the highest respect for those families who support and enable their sons, daughters, husbands, and wives to serve in uniform. We appreciate and honor all the men and women who have served, and continue to serve, in defense of freedom. In closing, my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and I want to express our thanks and appreciation for the special contribution Captain Doug Hughes has made to the United States Navy. We wish Captain Hughes and his family continued success and the traditional naval wish of ``fair winds and following seas'' as he closes out his distinguished military career.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to my attention a creative project by the Clearwater, Florida Neighborhood Housing Services which was turned an abandoned and polluted junkyard into an affordable housing site. This is the type of innovative program that can solve two problems for a local community. First, it cleans up an environmentally dangerous brownfields site and second it provides a source of much needed affordable housing. Through a combined effort between Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, the city of Clearwater, and the city's Economic Development Department, an 11-year-old junkyard is now the site of two single-family homes. Mr. Speaker, following my remarks, I will include a story from the June 15, 2004 edition of The Petersburg Times which provides more details about this project with the hope that other cities around the country will use it as a model to clean up abandoned properties and fulfill the dream of homeownership for some fortunate families. [From the St. Petersburg Times, June 15, 2004] Vision, Toil Turn `Junkyard' Into New Homes (By Lorri Helfand) Clearwater.--A rusted bus was parked on the lot. Scrap wood, tires, auto parts and metal drums were heaped all around. Pesticides, waste oil and hazardous chemicals were stockpiled there, too. It was a far cry from the American dream. But, over the course of a decade, Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, the city and environmental protection agencies cleaned up the junkyard and transformed it into a couple of cozy stucco homes with manicured lawns. The houses in the North Greenwood neighborhood are the first single-family homes built on a brownfields site in the city of Clearwater. Brownfields sites are basically abandoned properties where environmental contamination or potential contamination complicate redevelopment efforts. ``It was a junkyard. I'm happy we're seeing contamination going out and families coming in,'' said Isay Gulley, president and chief executive of Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, as she prepared to tour one of the new homes for the first time. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services is a nonprofit organization that provides housing and economic development services in Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough counties. North and South Greenwood are its two target communities. One house has been sold already to a 38-year-old single mother. The woman, who works as a nursing assistant, asked that she not be identified. But she said that it's a blessing to be able to progress this far and have a home. A prospective buyer is interested in the other, which will sell for about $139,000, though nothing has been completed, said Jennifer Smethers, home ownership center manager for Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services. The buyer will be eligible for up to $30,000 in down payment assistance from the city, which will not require repayment as long as the owner resides in the home, Smethers said. The buyer also will be eligible for an $8,000 low- interest loan from Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services. The three-bedroom, two-bath house is about 1,300 square feet and has a two-car garage. Beige tile lines the foyer and deep sand-colored carpet covers the floors throughout the home. Like all of the projects Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services develops, both houses have refrigerators, dishwashers and stoves. Neighbor Rhonda Cole, 55, came by to check out the homes, which were showcased as part of National NeighborWorks Week, an event that mobilizes community awareness of the need for affordable housing and neighborhood revitalization efforts. ``I think this is wonderful. I think our neighborhood is finally turning around. It's going to be a place where anybody would want to live,'' she said. Problems on the site date back to 1993, when it became a junkyard. The city eventually declared a house and a two- story storage building on the lot as unsafe. The home was demolished in 1996. But when demolition began on the storage facility, workers found a mysterious liquid leaking from beneath the garage door. Petroleum, metals, contaminated soils and an underground storage tank with waste oil had to be removed so demolition could continue. The city forgave about $38,000 in liens that accumulated with the demolition and efforts to rid the property of hazardous waste on the condition that the owner, Larry Bunting, donate the property to Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services. The city's Economic Development Department, through the City Brownfield program, provided about $150,000 in state brownfields monies for environmental assessment and cleanup of the site. Ground was broken on one of the homes last fall. Construction on the second began a few months later. Both were completed by spring. Gulley said her nonprofit organization has three goals: housing assistance, economic development and educational opportunities. The organization has built about 200 affordable houses for low- and moderate-income families within the city since 1991. ``Please know we have accomplished many things but we have a long way to go,'' Gulley told government officials, business leaders and community members at an event last week to showcase the homes. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services is currently planning a small residential subdivision on Tangerine St. and plans to transform a neighborhood bar into a Head Start day care center, ice cream parlor and professional offices, Gulley said.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the people of the 10th Congressional District of Florida who I have the privilege to represent here in the United States Congress, I rise in support of this resolution to pay tribute to the life of President Ronald Reagan and to express condolences to his family. President Reagan was a true American patriot who always kept life's priorities--God, country, and family--in order. He assumed the Presidency at a time when Americans were being held hostage in Iran, our fighting forces were fraying around the edges, and raging inflation and interest rates were stifling our economy, sending our Nation into the turmoil of recession, and driving our government deeper and deeper into debt. Beginning with his swearing-in as the 40th President of the United States, President Reagan restored in the American people a feeling of pride and patriotism that had been lost in the late 1970s. The hostages were brought home, the morale of our fighting forces rose, and the economy began to rebound. People flew the American flag with pride again. The United States resumed its leadership role in protecting freedom and peace around the world and at the pinnacle of the world economy. He stared down communist leaders throughout the world and set the stage for its fall in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe. He reduced the world's supply of nuclear weapons and allowed democracy to flourish again in our hemisphere and eventually in the former Soviet states. He battled Congress to reduce taxes to allow the American people to keep more of their hard earned money and to reduce the size and scope of the government programs and bureaucracy. He also ensured the long term security of the social security trust fund by leading a bipartisan legislative effort to preserve and protect the retirement benefits of workers long into the 21st century. President Reagan was our Nation's leading cheerleader and consoler. He used his wit and humor to entertain and to drive home an important point. He led a Nation in mourning when we lost the Challenger crew and our Marines in Lebanon. Throughout his eight years in office we laughed together and we cried together. In the end though, we all gained a renewed sense of pride in being Americans. He taught us the value of the simple phrases of ``peace through strength'' and ``trust but verify'' and he shared with all of us his simple vision of a nation where we would be the ``shining city on the hill.'' The United States and the world are better places today because of Ronald Reagan's service not only as President of our great country, but as a true patriot. He was a good man whose love and commitment to his wife Nancy was an inspiration to us all. Perhaps the greatest testament to his strength of personality, of character, and of leadership is the fact that even in death he can make us feel good about ourselves as individuals and as a Nation. You can feel the pride of our Nation surge yet again as we reflect on his life and times. Mr. Speaker, we all will recall that President Reagan would end his conversations with America by saying ``God Bless America.'' This week, Mr. Speaker, our Nation and the world say ``God Bless Ronald Reagan.'' Thank you for your lifetime of reminding us to always take pride in living in the greatest Nation in the world.