[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 131 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10730-H10733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              WHAT IS THE CORRECT DEFINITION OF ``CUTS''?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


  republicans support investigation into origin of illegal drug supply

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, many of us do support the investigation, 
because a lot of the drugs, about 90 percent of them, were purported to 
go out of Mena, ARK, when President Clinton was Governor. If you look 
at the Mena chronicles, in which a lot of those drugs went out, Malek, 
who was then Governor Clinton's chief investigator and coroner, ruled 
that two children that were killed on tracks had smoked a lot of 
marijuana and fell asleep. The parents got upset. They had outside 
forensics come in, and the children were stabbed to death.
  Since then, 18 people that were going to testify against Governor 
Clinton, Malek, the judge appointed by then-Governor Clinton, and the 
district attorney, who also canceled the grand jury investigation, 18 
people have been murdered. Yes, we look forward to that investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, I came here today to talk about something that a lot of 
people do not talk about. I think it is a legitimate issue for both 
sides, both for conservatives and liberals, on what does it really mean 
to cut; what is cutting and what is being cut, or the differences, at 
least, in definition. I would like to clarify some of those.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, in education, 95 percent of education is 
paid for by State and local revenues. Only about 5 percent of education 
in our country is paid for by Federal dollars. That 5 percent of the 
dollars, do not misunderstand me, is no small amount. The Department of 
Education, for example, has an annual budget of about $35 billion, and 
that is a B, with a billion. So 5 percent is not a small amount of 
change.
  The problem is, we are getting as little, especially in the district 
of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] who just spoke, we are 
getting as little as 23 cents out of every Federal dollar back to the 
classroooms. Why? Twenty-three cents on a dollar for every tax dollar. 
Did God create those dollars? No. He has to take it from hardworking 
American taxpayers. It comes to Washington, DC, and then goes back to 
the people that they took it from, at only 23 cents on a dollar. Why is 
that?

  This Republican Conference identified 760 education programs in the 
Federal system. Yesterday in a hearing the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Payne, a Democrat, and the gentleman from Oklahoma, J.C. Watts, a 
Republican, introduced a bill. In the hearing there were about 15 
different witnesses, Republicans and Democrats, appointed and asked to 
come by Republicans and Democrats.
  They identified over nine programs within their communities that were 
working on antidrug and against juvenile justice. When the question was 
asked, how many of them had those programs in all of their districts, 
none of them had any one of the other eight in their particular 
district, but the one that worked, they were focusing on and they were 
using.
  Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans have tried to do is direct the 
money to the local level, down to the people that have the Zip Code, 
that know the real problems of their particular community; not 
something one-size-fits-all, like the Federal Government does, and 
mandates that you will do this. If Head Start works, do it. If drug-
free schools work, do it. But the emphasis is driving the money down to 
the local districts, to the school teachers, to the parents, to the 
school boards, to the juvenile justice groups, and letting them handle 
the problem.

                              {time}  1015

  The Federal Government has 760 Federal education programs. Just 
imagine trying to fund that. Every one of them has administrations. 
Every one of them has bureaucracies. Every one of them has paperwork 
that comes down to the States that affects the 95 percent that are 
raised at State and local levels, just because they have to use the 
funds on bureaucratic redtape, on paperwork that not only goes to their 
State department of educations, the Governor, and then has to travel 
back to Washington, DC, 23 cents on the dollar, Mr. Speaker. You could 
not compete in business like that, and you cannot work education 
systems with 23 cents on the dollar.
  Let me give some classic examples of how government wastes money and 
that the other side of the aisle says that Republicans are cutting 
education. Let me define the term ``cut.'' The President's direct-
lending government student loan program was capped at 10 percent in a 
pilot project. That 10 percent cost $1 billion a year more, just to 
administer, than private lending institutions to do it. GAO conducted a 
study, said it is going to cost $5 billion more just to collect those 
student loans.
  When the Government shut down, the President says, ``Hey, this is one 
of my cornerstones. I want government to spend the money down and have 
the power to give it out, and I want to do that.'' So at conference, we 
let it go to 40 percent.
  But what the liberals did not see is, we put in the language that 
capped the administrative fees at 10 percent, instead of going up to 40 
percent, to restrict Government spending. We took the savings from that 
and we increased Pell grants to the highest level ever, grants for poor 
children that achieve and do well in school, but for some circumstance, 
they do not have the wherewithal to go to college.
  I do not mind my tax dollars going to pay for that, Mr. Speaker, 
because there are some disadvantaged children in this world that work 
hard, that want a piece of the American dream, and I think that it is 
part of government's role to make sure that those children are taken 
care of.
  With those savings from the direct lending program, we took and 
increased student loans through the private sector by 50 percent. Did 
we cut education? No, sir. We drove the money down to the children that 
need it, the poor children, in Pell grants, to the children that need 
the student loans to go to school.
  What we cut is the liberals' precious bureaucracy here in River City, 
in Washington, DC, and we took those savings and we drove it to where 
it is supposed to go in the first place, at a much higher rate than 23 
cents on a dollar.
  Let me give another good example, Mr. Speaker: AmeriCorps, another 
great program, according to the President. Everything that this 
Congress has argued over in the 2 years, Mr. Speaker, is power. That is 
what the American people are upset about. Power to spend money from 
Washington, DC, so you can send it down to your local interest groups 
so that they think you are a great guy or a great lady, so you can get 
reelected, so then you have got the majority, so you have got the 
power.
  And over here is a bureaucracy, whether it is a direct lending 
program, whether it is a First Lady's government bureaucracy health 
care system, or all the other programs that they purport, they want the 
power to spend the money in Washington, DC.
  AmeriCorps is a classic example. They want the dollars to come up 
here so that they can rain them down to different people saying, ``Look 
what good guys we are.'' Where does the money come from? Is there a 
cut?

  In the first place, the money is taken from the American taxpayer. 
Second, the average volunteer in AmeriCorps gets $29,000. In Baltimore, 
just a hoot and a holler from here, the average was $50,000 per 
volunteer.
  Can we do it better than that, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely. It is wasted 
dollars. Why? You pay somebody $50,000 for painting a fence, or pulling 
weeds, that is more than many of the steelworkers, that is more than 
many of your teachers make. I think we can better invest that, instead 
of letting the Federal Government, just because they want the ability 
to spend the money, force it down. And, yes, we wanted to eliminate it 
and use the dollars more wisely.

[[Page H10731]]

  Let me give another example. They say, ``Duke, why do you hate Goals 
2000?'' I don't hate Goals 2000. As a matter of fact, I think the 
standards that are lauded in Goals 2000 are pretty noteworthy. I mean, 
to say that you want to have the best math standards and the best math 
scores in the world is a pretty noteworthy and laudable standard. But 
if you read the bill, Mr. Speaker, in Goals 2000, there are 43 
instances in the bill that say States ``will,'' and if you are a 
lawyer, or even the American people, you understand the difference 
between ``will'' and ``shall'' in any legal document. ``Will'' is a 
mandate; the State will have to do this.
  What is one of the 43 ``wills'' of the 760 programs, Federal 
programs? Just one little tiny one. You have to establish a board at a 
local level. You have to establish an education program. They say, 
``Duke, you are able to establish that local program. I mean, isn't 
that what you purport? You want education, you want teachers, you want 
parents, you want students and the administration to establish exactly 
what they are doing.'' You have to establish a separate board. They 
have to report this program to the principal.
  My wife happens to be one of those principals, has a doctorate in 
education in Encinitas. She then has to give it to the superintendent. 
All of this paperwork from the superintendent then has to go to 
Governor Wilson in the State Department of Education in the State of 
California.
  Think about all this paper flow from just the schools in my district. 
Now think about all the paper flow from all the schools in the State of 
California going to Sacramento. Now visualize all of that paperwork, 
all of that time and energy that is going to all of the State capitals 
to be reviewed.
  What has to happen on a State capital level? There has to be a 
bureaucracy at a State level, Mr. Speaker, to receive and to review, to 
see if it is in compliance with the Federal regulations and the other 
``wills'' that come forward in Goals 2000.
  And then what does the State do with it? The State takes that same 
body of paperwork and sends it back here to River City, to Washington 
DC, to a giant $35 billion bureaucracy in the Department of Education. 
They review it to see if it falls within those 43 ``wills'' and some of 
those ``shalls.'' After they have done it, there is more paperwork that 
goes down that the administrators have to handle, that paperwork goes 
back and forth. And think of the time, waste and energy; is it any 
wonder that the United States is number 13 of all 13 industrialized 
nations in education, but yet we are purported to spend more on 
education. We do not spend more, Mr. Speaker, on education. We spend 
about one-fourth of what is purported because the rest goes to 
bureaucracy.
  What we did is, the Governors came to us and said to the committee, 
``Send us the money, do away with the paperwork, do away with the rules 
and regulations, let us establish our local programs and we can do it 
better.'' Mr. Speaker, I have yet to go to a graduation where you have 
students that do well, either on a high school or a college level, that 
you do not have parent involvement, you do not have the teachers that 
are lauded by the parents and by the students, and that teamwork and 
that fellowship. Yes, it does take a village to raise a child, and I am 
a Republican. But the problem is, under the Clinton plan, it takes 
another village to pay for it. We can do it better and we can afford to 
send other villages' dollars down into education where we can give the 
teachers the money they need to teach our children and ask for quality 
teachers.
  Those are just a few of the reasons. I could literally go on all day 
on different examples of what we have done.
  But you say, ``Duke, you've shown some of the problems. What is your 
vision for education?''
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families of the Committee on Education, I want to do for 
education what John F. Kennedy did for the space program. We can do 
that. We can do that as a nation. We can make an investment in 
education. Not cut it. Liberals have been cutting education for the 
last 40 years because they have been spending it on bureaucracy. They 
have been taking your tax dollars, sending it to Washington, and 
returning it at a very low rate. That is wrong. That is cutting 
education. We are increasing education and the resources. How do you do 
that? What is your vision, then?
  First of all, in the telecommunications bills, Mr. Speaker, we put in 
the language that encourages the AT&T's, the Baby Bell's, Apple, IBM 
with the computer programs, to be able to invest in our schools. Mr. 
Speaker, less than 12 percent of our schools in this Nation, the 
richest nation in the world, less than 12 percent of its classrooms 
have a single phone jack. We have had hearings where major 
representatives from industry have told us that over 80 percent of the 
jobs, both vocational and those that are professional-bound to 
colleges, are going to require high-technology equipment and a high-
technology education to meet the needs of the 21st century. I only have 
12 percent of the schools that are even wired for a phone jack to put 
in those systems. So what we did is encourage the Baby Bell's, the 
AT&T's, the Alcoa that lays the fiber optics, to be able to invest in 
our schools. The President jumps up and says, Look at V-chip. V-chip, 
yeah, it's good. But the idea in the bill we passed is going to enable 
us, let industry build up those schools, let them put in the fiber 
optics, let them put in the computers, let them work with the local 
districts so that that computer is not obsolete in 6 months.
  When you have teachers that don't know how to turn on a computer or 
even teach our children high skills, then think about that delta that 
the liberals talk about so much, about the successful and the poor, 
that delta, the difference between. That is going to grow even higher 
if we don't have a system to train our children in the future. We can 
do that through private enterprise, which we are doing now.
  Let me give you a good example. In my district, I have a school 
called Scripps Ranch. Scripps Ranch, we built and we got private 
enterprise to invest in it. We put fiber optics in it when the school 
was built. We have computers in every single classroom that the 
children use and other high-technology equipment, both in science, in 
math, and yes, in the arts as well. The students, those that are 
vocationally bound, are using those computers. They are actually 
designing modular housing units that they sell to other schools so that 
they can buy more equipment for themselves. Those that are college-
bound, the students in architecture or design, are using those 
computers. They have redesigned the entire school. And both unions--
union is not a dirty word--unions and private enterprise are hiring 
those children in the summer and giving them OJT in job areas so that 
they will have a better preparation when they leave high school.
  Take a look at a school like Mira Mesa that I have in my district 
that does not have any of that. Think of the difference in the 
opportunity for the children at Scripps versus the children at another 
school that do not have those opportunities. It is exponential. What 
can we do?
  A charter school is a school started up by teachers, parents, or 
local groups that is free from the Federal regulations, and they teach 
the basics, reading, writing, arithmetic or math, and vocational 
skills.
  What about choice? The voucher system is often talked about. I think 
the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, mandates too much. I do not 
believe that there is choice in schools right now. When my wife taught 
in a different district, my children traveled every day with her to 
that school.

                              {time}  1030

  That is choice. They did not have to go to the school in the 
District. They participated at Fletcher Elementary with the program for 
special education children, because they asked them to help these 
special education children. And that was choice.
  I think we should at least offer the option to States and localities 
and local communities. If they want to use it, then do it, but not to 
mandate it from the Federal Government. Christine Whitman, in New 
Jersey, has done a good job with it; Governor Engler; Governor Weld. 
Wisconsin has a voucher program. It works. It may not work in an inner 
city where you have great transportation costs that are going to take 
away from that education system.

[[Page H10732]]

  Again, the money should go to the local district and let the parents, 
the teachers, the administrators and the local groups that are in that 
zip code, because they know the particular problems that go on.
  What is another function? Education, Mr. Speaker, is, I think, pretty 
close to a wherewithal that is going to save this country. It does not 
mean that the Federal Government has to do it. It does not mean that 
the taxpayers ought to send their taxes to Washington and have it 
turned around at such a low rate. It is ludicrous.
  What about illegal immigration? In the State of California I have 
over, and listen to this, Mr. Speaker, I have over 400,000 illegals, 
kindergarten through 12th grade. Four hundred thousand, at a cost of 
$5,000 each per year. That is over $2.2 billion a year that comes out 
of California's education fund; $2.2 billion.
  We could put a computer and fiber optics into every schoolroom in the 
State of California. We could upgrade to where education for American 
citizens and their children and student loans are cheaper in the State 
of California. But, no, we have been mandated from the Federal 
Government that we have to supply this education.
  The school lunch program, just for illegals, costs $1.2 million a 
day, and we need to address that, Mr. Speaker. It is another problem 
within our schools that we have to face on a daily basis.
  So I look at the cost of education, what the Federal Government is 
killing and cutting in education every single day for the last 40 
years, and we need to change that, Mr. Speaker. We can do better as a 
nation. We can invest in education, and we need to do it at the local 
level.
  Let me talk about some of the things that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle said that we cut. Let me give you a good example of 
the lies, the deceit, the misconceptions and the rhetoric that comes 
out about cutting.
  The other side of the aisle will say that Republicans cut safe and 
drug-free schools. We put the money in a block grant, again to the 
States, and if safe and drug-free schools works in that particular 
district, they can fund it; if Head Start works.
  Now, get this. The Department of Education, the Department of 
Education, not exactly a right-wing conservative group, did a study and 
said across this Nation you can take two children, one in Head Start, 
the other not, and at the end of the training there is no difference in 
the results. But yet in San Diego we have a pretty good Head Start 
Program. It works good in San Diego.
  But across the Nation it only depends on the ability of the 
administrators, the teachers and the parents within that zip code if 
that is going to succeed or not. So what we do is send the money 
down to the local district and say use the money where it is effective 
to help children, and I think that is a big difference.

  But drug-safe schools. In 1994 and 1995 Democrats controlled. They 
controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, Mr. Speaker, and they 
controlled the White House. The request for safe and drug-free schools 
was $598.2 million. Let me repeat it for you, $598.2 million. The 
Democrats in the Congress, they controlled the House, the Senate and 
the White House, cut to $487.2 million. In 1995 the request was for 
$660 million for safe and drug-free schools. Democrats cut it $194 
million.
  We did not cut safe and drug-free schools. We funded it at the same 
level, and we sent the money to the local districts and said if it 
works for you, do it, and fund it. Do not fund it at only 23 cents on 
the dollar, but fund it if it works, because that is a program you need 
to save for children.
  Let me give you some fraud, waste and abuse in that particular 
program that we rooted out. In Michigan, Drug Czar Bob Peterson found 
$81,000 spent on a giant plastic teeth and toothbrushes for safe and 
drug-free schools. They said if children brush their teeth, they are 
not going to do drugs. It went to fund bicycle pumps. It funded sex 
education consultants at Clemsford High School in Massachusetts; they 
spent $1,000 to present a compulsory attendance on hot, sexy, and safer 
programs for students.
  Fairfax County, just right next to us here in Washington, DC, spent 
$176,000 for staff to spend a weekend on Maryland's Eastern Shore. They 
spent funds for lumber to build steps for an aerobics class and funded 
a field trip to Deep Run Lodge for the board of education.
  That is not what the money is meant for, Mr. Speaker, and that is 
what we are changing, is getting the money down to the local groups.
  Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations, drug enforcement. My 
colleagues were talking about a study into contra and drug dealings. 
What Senator Dole has been campaigning around the country with is that 
drug use since the Clinton administration started, the use in our high 
schools, is up 143 percent, an increase. When Ronald Reagan and George 
Bush were in the White House, drug use went down 50 percent.
  Yes, say no to drugs. With parents, it worked. It helped. Was it the 
wherewithal? Absolutely not, but I think there was an awareness that 
the Nation had a problem.
  Remember Noriega and the interdiction that we used in Colombia and 
other countries in stopping and going after the drug cartels? That was 
effective. But is that by itself going to stop the war that we have on 
drugs? Absolutely not. Are treatment centers? In our schools, are the 
safe and drug-free schools and the DARE by themselves? No. It takes a 
compromise of a lot of different groups to make it work.
  When we have a President his first week in the White House who cuts 
the drug czar from 154 staff to 25, and then in his next statement on 
MTV makes a statement, ``I would have inhaled if I could,'' is that the 
message we want to come across to our children in this Nation?
  Agents that are going out every day in our schools say there is not a 
case where the kids do not laugh and say, well, the President does it. 
Is that the message that we want to send to our children? Is that the 
message that we want to send with this nation's highest medical 
officer, Joycelyn Elders, who came across and said she wanted to 
legalize drugs in this country? I do not think that is the message we 
want to send to our youth.
  This President cut the Coast Guard. One of our most effective stops 
of drugs entering this country, especially in Florida and in 
California, is through our Coast Guard. He cut that $328 million. We 
put the money back in, Mr. Speaker.
  Foreign operations, State Department International Narcotics Control 
Program. We increased it $35 million that the President cut. DOD 
operations was cut by the President. Where? For drug interdiction.
  When we take a look across the board at where this administration has 
cut drug interdiction, he even cut the White House drug testing 
program. And, just, what, 3 weeks ago, in the Washington Times and the 
Washington Post and papers across this country, it was found out that 
in the White House staff was using cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogens. 
And, guess what, the President did away with the White House drug 
testing program before that, even when he was warned by the FBI that 
these people were going to go on his staff. No wonder he took away the 
drug testing program. And it is a fact, it is not just a statement.
  We have lost great support in our war against drugs, Mr. Speaker, and 
Republicans are putting that back. We elevate the war threat in the 
National Security Council, restore funding for interdiction efforts, 
restore funding on the ONDCP staff for policy support lost in 1993, 
restore for intelligence gathering that we lost between 1993 and 1995.
  So, yes, we have a critical problem. When we talk to lawyers, Mr. 
Speaker, and go to your lawyers in your local district, and ask them 
what the No. 1 issue for juvenile justice, if they could stop it, what 
would they do, and I bet 99 percent of them will say stop the flow of 
drugs into our schools and into our Nation.
  And those that are on it, let us help them get off it with our 
treatment centers. I know that personally because of my own son who was 
in a drug treatment center, Mr. Speaker, and it worked. But when he 
checked in, the staff there, Dr. Sambs, said, ``Duke, there is only 
about 10 percent of these kids that are not going to come back to this 
facility.''
  But we can save some of those kids. My son was one of those: Drug 
free

[[Page H10733]]

since 1986. And he even dates the daughter of a judge, so I guess he 
has to stay straight now. But it has been a success program, and there 
are other children like him across the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, we talk about education and the importance. I taught and 
coached at Hinsdale High School outside of Chicago. Evanston, Nutria 
are two other very fine schools in this Nation with good teachers. But 
you go just a short distance away, Mr. Speaker, and you will go through 
4\1/2\ miles of Federal housing projects. In that 4\1/2\ miles, those 
kids do not carry books, they carry guns. Their icons are pimps and 
prostitutes and drug dealers.
  The illegitimacy rate is above 50 percent for those children. The 
only male figure they ever see is an older male that impregnates the 
unmarried daughter. That daughter has a child, then they get welfare. 
And the only male figure they see is that figure. And usually it is the 
grandmother that raises the child.
  And then if it is a male child, where does that child end up? Where 
does he go? Usually, the only family that many of these kids have are 
gangs. And we are seeing the problem in our country of juvenile justice 
and juvenile delinquency grow exponentially across the Nation.
  So education, a hope for a job, putting resources into education, not 
wasting them on Federal bureaucracy, and purporting to do that, I 
think, is a noteworthy task, Mr. Speaker.
  What have we done in this Congress? The Speaker of the House holds up 
a bucket of ice. The last icebox where you had to put ice in it was in 
1937, but yet the Democrats have been, under Democrat leadership for 40 
years, have been delivering ice to this body for 40 years, two times a 
day. Two times a day. Do you know what that bucket of ice cost? 
$500,000 a year.
  Did we conduct a 5-year study? No. Did we retrain the ice deliverers? 
No. We just went cold turkey. We cut it. And can we save dollars in 
this body, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely. Right on down the line. For parking 
places for lobbyists that we cut. We cut the size of the bureaucracy 
and sold a building and saved taxpayer dollars. That bucket means about 
400 families that can receive the Bob Dole tax relief.

                              {time}  1045

  And the Bob Dole tax relief, let us take a look at it. A family of 
four, two children, earning $30,000, will receive a tax relief package 
of 86 percent of their taxes are going to be eliminated, 86 percent. 
And under this administration, if the tax system continues without the 
Bob Dole tax relief, you can send that 86 percent tax increase right to 
IRS.
  We are going to rip it out by the roots, Mr. Speaker. We are going to 
have a safer, fairer tax for the American people because they do not 
want to send the valuable dollars to Washington, DC and only get 23 
cents back on the dollar for education. They do not want to send it to 
Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker, and only get 30 cents of a dollar back 
down to welfare recipients. They want it effective.
  They want a lean, mean government that walks beside its people, that 
helps them and gets off of their back. And there is a legitimate reason 
to have Federal help. Poor children. There is a legitimate need in 
medical research for AIDS and for cancer and Alzheimer's and other 
diseases.
  States cannot do that, and that is why the speaker was insistent that 
our priority was to increase the dollars for medical research in the 
HHS bill, demanded it. And in many cases we took the dollars out of 
programs that some of us did not want, but overall it was a good 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2 years people say, well, Duke, is it really worth it 
to stay in Congress? Is it really worth all of the battles that you go 
through? And I want to tell you it is one of the most difficult things 
I have ever done including fighting in combat for my country because 
you make an honest effort. You know a system, Medicare, is going broke. 
My mother, who lives in Escondido, is not going to have the system if 
we do not preserve it and save it. My little mom, my little Irish mom 
who fits under my arm, you think we are going to do anything to taint 
that? Or my children in the future?
  But yet if we do not save it, and add the dollars that we need to 
over a period of time, we go from $4,800 to $7,300. That is not a cut, 
Mr. Speaker. And the most difficult thing in this body is to sit up and 
listen to all the demagoguery, to the smoke and mirrors, to the scare 
tactics when someone is saying you are cutting Medicare, when someone 
is saying that you are cutting education and what you are doing is 
cutting their precious bureaucracy.
  Why do the unions dump large amounts, $35 million, into their 
campaigns? Because they know and they want a centralized government and 
the power. What we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is turn that power away 
from the Federal Government and turn it back to the American people.
  That is a vision. In that we can increase education dollars, and we 
can do the rest of the things that we purport to do.
  I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the American people, 
when the elections are coming up on November 5, whether you are 
Republican or Democrat, take a look at the issues and take a look at 
the values, the character; take a look at the believability of the 
system and what we are trying to do. It is trying to make a better 
America, to preserve Medicare, to preserve the environment; not cut it 
but to cut the Federal bureaucracy that is taking away the dollars, 
that is taking away the American dream.
  Let us give the dollars back to the pockets of the people so that we 
can improve education and the other systems.

                          ____________________