[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H941-H949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AN AMERICAN DREAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jones). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about this great 
Nation we live in. I was reminded over the weekend just what a great 
country it

[[Page H942]]

is, and I would like to challenge all of my colleagues tonight that we 
dare to dream about what we can do next in this great country of ours.
  Back in 1980, I was teaching math, earning about $8,500 a year. We 
had two young children. I can remember distinctly the day we walked 
through the store, filled our grocery cart. As a math teacher, I added 
up how much the groceries were and we could not pay for them. We 
stopped that day and we said, we have a dream. We would like to live a 
better life.
  In this great country that we live in, we took a chance and we 
started a business in the basement of our home. We dared to dream that 
in this great country, the United States of America, that if you want 
to start a business on your own, work very hard, you could be 
successful.
  The business grew and expanded and eventually we were able to move to 
an office. That was in Milton, Wisconsin. Six years later we dreamed 
again. We said, we have this dream that we would like to build 
something. We would like to provide job opportunities in this great 
Nation where we live. We would like to provide other people with the 
opportunities to live the American dream as our company grew.
  We started building homes that year, 1986. We built nine homes. We 
lost $20,000 plus my salary, and it almost seemed like our dreams were 
going to be shattered in that year. But this is America. We would not 
let those dreams be shattered.
  We turned the company around the second year. We built 27 homes, 
turning a profit, providing 54 job opportunities in southern Wisconsin; 
and by four years later we had put this circle on a map. It was a 
circle, a 60-mile radius of Janesville, Wisconsin. We had this dream 
that we could build houses all through that 60-mile radius of 
Janesville, Wisconsin.
  By 4 years later, we were building 120 homes a year, providing 250 
job opportunities. We had watched not only our own company grow and the 
job opportunities that that company provided, but we watched other 
people in the industry grow right along with us, a heating contractor 
and electrical contractor, all the other people that were so actively 
involved in this home building business.
  We turned that business over to some other folks and ran for 
Congress. We lost twice. We had this dream that in this great Nation we 
lived in we were going to stop our government from spending our 
children's money. That was our dream. We left the private sector with 
this very positive business and ran for office twice.
  I ran against Les Aspin. Looking back on it, a person who had been in 
office for 22 years, a very respected Member of Congress, it was a very 
difficult task, but I knew in the United States of America if you had a 
dream you were allowed to pursue that dream.
  We ran twice and lost. We came back. The third time I was elected to 
Congress and I came here with a very definite dream.
  That is why I rise tonight. I want to talk about that dream and how 
far we have come with that dream and then I want to dare to dream as we 
look forward to this country and look at what we could possibly do to 
make a America a better nation for our children.
  When we got here in 1995, I dug this out to come over here tonight, 
this is a copy of what we called America's Contract with Our Children. 
In our first three months in office, with the help of lots of other 
folks, we put together a budget resolution, and we at that time were in 
an environment where we kept hearing about how we were going to promise 
the American people we could balance the budget by 2002. Many of us 
came in from the private sector, never having served in government 
before, and we had heard these promises, way back to 1985, of Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings. In 1987, we heard them again. In 1990 they said they 
had to raise our taxes to get the job done; 1993, they said they had to 
raise our taxes again.
  We came in with a different idea. We came in with a dream. We came in 
with this dream for America that rather than raising taxes on the 
working people, getting more money into Washington, that instead we 
would control Washington. And people looked at us and they said, you 
cannot get Washington spending under control. There are too many 
special interests out there. There are too many other people out there 
that are not going to let you control the growth of Washington 
spending.
  That did not stop us from dreaming. We put this budget plan together 
and it really, at that point it was a dream. The main components of 
this budget plan that we put together, and it was very detailed, it was 
not just a few sheets of paper, it showed exactly how to get the job 
done; we were going to balance the budget, and not in the year 2002. We 
were going to balance the budget in 1999. Our dream was that we could 
get there not on time but ahead of schedule.
  We realized that the right move was to control the growth of 
Washington spending so we could not only balance the budget, but by 
controlling this Washington spending, we could also reduce the tax 
burden on the American people.
  In this dream, this budget plan that we put together, in this dream 
that we had for America, we called for lower taxes, but our dream did 
not end there. We realized that this government had been taking money 
that was supposed to be set aside, much like a pension plan in my 
business that we used to run, a pension plan for our employees. We 
realized that this government was taking the pension fund called Social 
Security, but instead of putting the money aside that was supposed to 
be set aside to preserve and protect the system, it had been spending 
that money on all sorts of other things. We dreamed in this budget plan 
that we could set that money aside like any other pension plan and 
restore Social Security for our senior citizens.
  Our dream did not end there. Our dream recognized that even after we 
got to a balanced budget and set aside the Social Security money and 
lowered taxes, we still had run up a $4.5, $4.9 trillion debt to be 
exact, at that point in time. Our dream was that we could start paying 
down on that debt so that our children would not inherit this huge 
burden as we looked forward to their future.
  I brought this with me tonight. I would just like to refer to a 
couple pages in it, just to remind Members what it was like back in 
1995, as we think about this dream that we had back then.

                              {time}  1945

  Page 1-1 of this budget says that we are going to balance the budget 
in 4 years; that is by 1999. We are going to pay off the $4.9 trillion 
debt over a 30-year period of time. We are going to quit stealing the 
Social Security money. We are going to provide a strong national 
defense. Medicare is on the verge of bankruptcy, so we were going to 
restore Medicare for our senior citizens. We were not going to require 
tax increases to do this. And we were going to provide tax cuts for 
workers all across this great Nation that we live in.
  The next page in this proposal said what is the difference between 
this and what else is being proposed in Washington? Remember, this is 
1995. This is our class coming in here and laying out our dream for the 
future of this country.
  The difference, number one, page 1-2, in this thing: The plan calls 
for immediately setting aside surplus funds from Social Security. That 
was part of our dream. The plan sets out a path.
  Definite difference two: The plan sets out a path to repay the $4.9 
trillion dollar national debt by the year 2025.
  Difference three: The plan balances the budget not in 2002 but in 
1999. Not only that we provide suggested spending reductions for this 
government that exceeded the amount necessary to balance the budget in 
the year 1999 by $70 billion, so that we can debate what was the 
highest priority and not reduce spending in areas that were most 
important to our country but go after areas that were least important 
to our country. This plan laid all those things out.
  I would like to read through a few of the other things; the 
environment that we were in back in 1995. Here are a few of the things 
that were going on around the world back in 1995 when we dared to dream 
that this could happen.
  The U.S. debt had grown from $1 trillion to $5 trillion in a 15-year 
period of time. Orange County files for bankruptcy. Washington, D.C. 
experiences major financial problems. Barings Bank of England 
collapses. The dollar slides to record lows against the yen

[[Page H943]]

and the mark. Interest rates, not coming down like they are today, 
interest rates rise 3 percent in a 15-month period of time. The Mexican 
collapse is imminent or probable. Canada has serious financial 
problems. The January U.S. trade deficit is the worst on record.
  This is what we came into in 1995. Just think how much things have 
changed and how, by daring to dream, we have been able to bring about 
some of these changes in this great country we live in.
  So tonight what I would like to do is to challenge my colleagues to 
dare to dream with me again. I would like to dare them to dream about a 
future in our country, and I would like to dare them to dream about a 
few different aspects.
  We have already come to a balanced budget. We are going to make our 
first payment on the Federal debt three short years into this thing. 
Those dreams we had back in 1995 of a balanced budget before the turn 
of the century, it is here and it has happened. Our dreams have come 
true for the good of the future of this country.
  So let us talk about dreaming for the future of America and let us 
dare to dream about a better America for the future of our kids. Let us 
start by paying off the Federal debt so our children can inherit a 
debt-free United States of America. And let me translate that into what 
that means.
  For our children, if we could be successful at this, we could allow 
them to keep $580 a month for every family of five in America in their 
home instead of sending it to Washington. Because that is the amount of 
money that is necessary to do nothing but pay the interest on the 
Federal debt.
  So let us dare to dream. And for our seniors, let us dare to dream 
that we restore the Social Security Trust Fund. Let us stop taking that 
money and spending it on other Washington programs and putting IOUs in 
the trust fund. Let us dare to dream we can actually get this 
government to do the same thing any business in the private sector 
would do for their employees, and that is put real dollars or real 
assets into that trust fund so our senior citizens can rest assured 
that Social Security is safe and secure for them as we go forward.
  I want to dare to dream about the tax rate, too. Because in this 
great Nation that we live in, when we go to work and earn a dollar, 37 
cents out of every dollar goes to taxation of some form, whether it be 
State, local or Federal or property taxes. Whatever form we want to 
look at, 37 cents out of every dollar our American worker earns is paid 
in in taxes.
  So I want to dare to dream again. I want to dream about reducing that 
tax rate by a third and more if possible. But let us dream again about 
getting our tax rate down to not more than 25 cents out of every dollar 
that our American workers earn. And, frankly, I think that number is 
too high and maybe we should even dream for a lower number. But for the 
time being let us set our dream that we at least reduce the tax burden 
on American families all across this Nation by at least a third.
  I suggested this at one of our town hall meetings recently, or one of 
our meetings with a group of people, and somebody stood up in the room 
and said, ``God only asked for 10 percent. Where does government get 
off asking for 37?'' That person made a good point. And I think she 
said it half tongue-in-cheek, but she was also right on track. Why does 
it cost 37 cents out of every dollar of our workers' paychecks to do 
nothing but run government at all the different levels, State, local, 
and Federal?
  And I want to point some more about an education system that makes 
our kids number one in the world. I do not like these scores that I am 
hearing, where our kids rank somewhere 20th in the world. That is not 
acceptable, and I do not think that should be acceptable for us as a 
nation.
  So when we think about this thing, let us dare to dream that when we 
restore our educational system in America to a point where our kids 
finish not in the top 2 or 3 or 4, let us get our kids number one in 
education in this great country.
  How do we go about doing that? Let us fill in some of the blanks of 
this dream for education. Let us restore the ability to control 
education, put it back in the hands of the parents, put it back in the 
hands of the teachers, put it back in the hands of the local community 
so they once again control education.
  I know my colleague from California is here, but if I can mention one 
specific bill that relates to education to help us get to this dream, 
one specific bill was introduced by a good friend of mine, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). His bill would require that 90 
cents out of every dollar spent for education be returned to actually 
help the kids in the classroom.
  Because what happens today is our government collects that money, 
brings it out here to Washington, spends 40 cents on the dollar on the 
bureaucracy here in Washington, and then our government here 
in Washington makes a decision of where to send that other 60 cents 
back to. And that is not right. So this bill requires at least 90 cents 
out of every dollar be returned to the classroom. I think it would be a 
great part of this dream for the future of our country.

  Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to my colleague from 
California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Neumann).
  How can we do this? First of all, good government does not have to be 
an oxymoron like it is today. People want their tax dollars to go to 
fund good government not wasteful government.
  I am glad the gentleman talked about education. I have two focuses in 
Congress; one is national security and the other is education. I think 
both sides, no matter what the opinions are, education is the key to a 
lot of many different areas. It is anticrime, it is antidrug, it is 
antipoverty.
  My father and mother, who were Democrats, focused on education 
because they knew that that was the future. I remember my dad telling 
me, he said, ``Son,'' he said, ``if you get a good education,'' and 
neither my father or my mother went to college, but they said, ``If you 
get a good education and you work hard, you can make tomorrow better 
than it is today.'' And that was their definition, very simple 
definition of the American dream.
  Where are we today? We are sending billions of tax dollars to 
Washington, D.C. Now only about 93 percent of education dollars come 
from the State. Less than 7 percent come from the Federal Government, 
but yet that 7 percent represents about $35 billion. So that 7 percent 
is no small number. Now, what I would think that the American people 
want, if they send their tax dollars to Washington, is that they get a 
return on that dollar that is going to enhance education.
  The President, for example, wanted $3 billion for a new literacy 
program. California, the State that I come from, is 50th in literacy. 
So the gentleman can imagine the jubilation that the folks that said, 
hey, California is 50th in literacy; $3 billion for a new literacy 
program. That will be good. But if we look at it, the Federal 
Government has 14 literacy programs. Title 1, which is the biggest user 
of that $35 billion, is one of those. Title 7 is another.
  What is wrong with taking one or two of our literacy programs, of the 
14 that we currently have, and not just funding them 100 percent but 
increasing them because they work, and taking the other 12 that are not 
working, and getting rid of the bureaucracy? We have to pay all those 
salaries, the buildings, the overhead, the cost of paperwork, the 
retirements, which gets us less than 48 cents out of a dollar down to 
the classroom. In doing so, by having this other 12, we have to send 
our tax dollars to support this level. And that is wrong.
  That is what we are saying, is that government can be good 
government. We can reduce the cost of government and yet at the same 
time benefit the American people, especially in education. And that is 
just one example.
  And I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the next thing I wish to 
mention is an area the gentleman is also very concerned about, and I 
know of the gentleman's fine work in the area.
  As we continue this dream for the future of America, and I do think 
it is important we dare to dream, if we had not dared to dream back in 
1995 we would not be here today standing here talking about a balanced 
budget and

[[Page H944]]

lower taxes for the first time in 16 years and a Medicare system that 
has been restored. That was part of our daring to dream back in 1995.
  So today, as we look forward, I think part of this daring to dream as 
we look ahead is a strong defense system, a defense system that other 
nations around the world look at us and recognize us as the one world 
power as it relates to defense. That means we have to adequately fund 
the defense budget.
  I know that is an area the gentleman is very concerned about.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the gentleman, if 
he will continue to yield, that we just finished with a readiness 
hearing in San Diego. We had both Republicans and Democrats from the 
Committee on National Security and the defense appropriations 
committee. And I was proud of my Democratic colleagues because they not 
only recognized but praised the individuals and swore to help the 
situation.
  Our service chiefs will come and tell us that the budget is okay, but 
then between the lines they will tell us of increased operations of 300 
percent above the Cold War. Our equipment is 1970s. We have large 
numbers of our senior NCOs and aviators getting out of the service 
because they are forced to go away.
  Take, for example, the U.S.S. Constellation. She got back from a 
cruise. This is typical of all services. She got back from a 6-month 
cruise. She goes into port into San Diego. April, May, June, July, 
August. She has to go up to Bremerton for repairs. Now, all of those 
families are in San Diego. So those personnel again, besides on cruise, 
have to leave their families.
  They are having to cannibalize parts. Several aircraft or squadrons 
have only one aircraft to fly because they have to steal those parts. 
They call it cannibalization, take that part off those airplanes and 
send them to Bosnia and Iraq and where our forward forces are deployed.
  Mr. NEUMANN. To that end, I just interviewed a former lieutenant 
commander. We were talking about the possibility of him working in our 
congressional office. He told the story of every third flight something 
breaking down in the aircraft he was flying, and that is one of the 
reasons he left the service. It is a very serious problem.
  Again, I do not think we should get bogged down, that we look at this 
in a very pessimistic way, but rather we need to dare to dream as 
Americans that we can find it within ourselves to restore our military 
to the strong position that it should be in this world.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would agree with the gentleman. And instead of 
bogging down in the sadness of the state of readiness, there are ways 
in which we can actually make a three-cornered Pentagon.
  A couple of examples: One, I was able to get $12 million through both 
the authorization process and appropriations to copy all defense maps. 
All services for $12 million. That was a reduction of 1 to 100th of the 
cost. The office of Secretary of Defense held onto the money. They 
wanted to steal it. They wanted to reprogram it. They wanted to give it 
to NAVCOM. They wanted to do other purposes with it. And we fought for 
1 year to get the money released so we could copy those systems. The 
services continued at the old rate of copying those services. They 
copied 10 percent of those maps, costing $16 million.
  One of the things we can do is reduce the size of OSD by at least 35 
percent, and streamlining the bureaucracy in the military. That is just 
one of a thousand suggestions.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. NEUMANN. So what the gentleman is saying or suggesting is that by 
more efficiently using the dollars that are already being spent for 
defense and without raising taxes on the people to fund more defense 
spending, there are a lot of ways within the defense plan already that 
we could better spend the dollars that are already being spent to 
provide for a better defense of our Nation.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Exactly. And when we are trying to balance the 
budget, we can look forward that for all of those wastes, from the 12 
to $16 million for only 10 percent of what we could have done for 100 
percent, taxpayers have got to send their dollars to Washington, D.C., 
turn those around at a very low rate, we can totally eliminate it. And 
it is not a question of giving money back from taxes; it is having not 
to send it here in the first place to balance the budget.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I couldn't agree more. Going on with this dream, we 
talked about a debt-free America for our children and how wonderful it 
would be if when they had their kids, that they didn't have to pay $580 
a month to pay interest on the Federal debt. We talked about restoring 
the Social Security Trust Fund. And I think it is important that we 
have this dream that our senior citizens can again get up in the 
morning and not worry about whether Social Security is going to be 
there; and the dream of reducing the tax rates from 37 percent down to 
25 percent, that is 37 cents out of every dollar is going to 
Government, to down to less than 25 cents, a one-third reduction.
  And we have this dream about restoring our education system so that 
we are, once again, the number one education system in the entire 
world, not two, not three, not four. That is not our target. Our target 
is set, number one. And we do that by restoring the control of the 
education system back to the parents and the teachers and the 
community.
  I know my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is very concerned in 
this issue as well. I want to continue with this dream for the future 
of our country. I want to dream of a drug-free America. I do not want 
to dream of a America that has 400,000 or only 400,000 on drugs at the 
eighth grade level. I want to dream of an America where we eliminate 
drugs. I want to declare war on drugs in this country. And I want to 
devote as much time and effort and attention to the drug war as we do 
all the other things that are going on in this city right now so that 
our kids can once again feel safe going into school, and that they do 
not have to feel compelled to try drugs because so many of their 
friends are.
  We saw a study here that the average student believes that in one 
hour they can go out and purchase marijuana in virtually any school 
system in the United States of America, and that is not acceptable.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But that takes real commitment. We cannot just wish 
it away. And it is like fighting a war. We cannot just say education is 
going to stop drugs. We cannot just say interdiction is going to stop 
it. But we have got a gross base on which we have got to reach across 
and stop it. And that takes real commitment from the White House, which 
we have not had in the past.
  We can win the war on drugs. There are always going to be those that 
use it and sell it. Those are the ones that you put away and they never 
see the light of day. But what we are proposing is not just a word game 
to stop crime and drugs, but to actually fight it.
  Example: The $7 billion that we spent, and the quote was 100,000 
cops, just like a 100,000 teachers, there was no 100,000 cops. The most 
they could fund is 20,000, and it was to rain money down to the big 
cities so they could get support for reelections. What we want to do is 
take the money, give it to the local police force.
  Just like my colleague was talking about with education, we want the 
teachers, the parents, the community and the extended communities and 
the administrators to be able to handle it. Because they know the 
needs, they know the first names of your children, not a bureaucrat 
here in Washington.
  And the same is true in law enforcement. You put the money in the 
area. Do you need equipment? Do you need standby? Do you need more 
force? And instead of controlling with strings back here in Washington, 
it takes an all-out war with generals. And that is why we are calling 
for General McCaffrey to get on with it and give us some information on 
what he forsees on this real fight and we will back him 100 percent.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for 
yielding. And I listened with interest to my colleague from California. 
Because, Mr. Speaker, as I stand here in the well of the Congress of 
the United States, I am truly in awe not only of

[[Page H945]]

the responsibility my constituents conferred upon me constitutionally 
to represent them in this hall and in this Chamber, but also with the 
quality of people who come from coast to coast and beyond; and here I 
stand with one who distinguished himself first as an educator and then 
fought this country's battles in southeast Asia where he quite 
fittingly earned the title of top gun.
  And I stand with another who distinguished himself first as a 
teacher, as did my colleague from California, but my friend from 
Wisconsin, who worked so hard as a teacher, and then went into home 
building. And we really have the essence of the American dream embodied 
in these two gentlemen.
  But Mr. Speaker, I would simply concur with the statements that have 
been made tonight as we try to dream a dream that can be reality for 
our children. This is something achievable. And I especially, Mr. 
Speaker, appreciate the comments of my friend from California (Mr. 
Cunningham). Because what we need is not a war of words, what we need 
is a solid commitment to our families and to our children.
  Think if you would, Mr. Speaker, what we would say today if we sent 
an army into battle and lost 10,000 young Americans. Now, Mr. Speaker, 
think for a second. That is exactly what is happening. Indeed, Mr. 
Speaker, that may be an understatement of the number of deaths we see 
on an annual basis due to drug addiction.
  And, Mr. Speaker, as I travel the width and breadth of the Sixth 
Congressional District of Arizona, an area in square mileage almost the 
size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I hear firsthand in the 
smaller communities that challenges those small police forces and those 
rural areas are facing as big city gangs and big city drugs are sent 
from the cesspools of organized crime to the very heartland of America.
  So what we have, Mr. Speaker, is indeed a call to arms; not the 
traditional battle, nor the war on words so offered as Washington's 
version of Madison Avenue; a war on poverty, a war on drugs.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me give my colleagues a good example of coming to 
arms. I had a doctor come into my office about 3 years ago. And I was 
fortunate enough to write much of the welfare reform bill, being on the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce. He said, ``Duke, I had a lady 
come in my office with a 13-year-old daughter. She wanted to know what 
was wrong with her daughter that had just had her fourth menstrual 
cycle that she couldn't have a child. She wanted the welfare money.''
  Now, what happens to those children? There is one view that would 
continue to spend trillions of dollars in the old welfare system. To 
me, that was a waste. And we have to send our tax dollars there. But 
what we did is stood up to the plate, made a commitment that we are 
going to solve the welfare and slavery problem of the people trapped in 
the inner cities.
  Now, that child, what chance do they have of the American dream? 
Zero. Is it because the parents raised them? No. They are busy having 
other children. Is it the grandmother? Usually. If it is a male child, 
that child is in a gang. And if it is a female today, that child is in 
a gang. And where do they turn? Can they get a job? No. Do they have 
an American dream? No. They go to drugs and crime, and then it is 
perpetuated over and over again.

  But we stood up to the plate. And in many States like the 
gentleman's, over 50 percent of the welfare roles are coming off just 
because we said, you should go to work. The average welfare recipient 
was 16 years. That is a perfect example of stepping up to the plate and 
making a commitment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Speaker, makes 
an excellent point. And I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin for 
yielding some time as we talk about this, how we work through problems 
to solve them.
  The other thing we should note, Mr. Speaker, is that there is an 
achievable objective for success. And indeed, Mr. Speaker, what we have 
been able to do within this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats alike 
reaching across America, has said, when it comes to the dilemma of 
dealing with a self-perpetuating welfare state as we help people go 
from welfare to work, we now measure success not by the numbers of 
people who are on the welfare roles, but by the numbers of people who 
are out in gainful employment.
  Just this last Friday, in Mesa, Arizona, I had a chance to go in and 
work with a program. Initially, it was called Women Off Welfare, or 
WOW. Now they call it World of Work because nontraditional 
opportunities are opening up for women and men alike in our society. 
And the four people that were supposed to be there as part of the 
program, my colleagues, they could not be there to tell about what they 
have done because they were busy at work earning money for their 
families having a brighter future.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Reclaiming my time, listening to you talk is why it is 
so exciting. My colleague was here; he cosponsored this legislation, 
and we said we were going to balance the budget sooner than 2002. We 
said we were going to lower taxes so people could keep more of their 
own money and make decisions about how to spend their money instead of 
sending it to Washington. We said we were going to get Social Security 
taken care of for our seniors and start paying down the debt.
  Do my colleagues remember back in 1995, when we first came how they 
reacted? But we dared to dream. I think that is what is so important 
for this country and to these young people. Sometimes they have it 
taken away from them because they hear all of these class warfare 
arguments where somehow if you do not have a lot of money to start with 
that you cannot get ahead in this country. And I just point to our own 
example in my own family where we started with nothing and you can work 
very hard, and if you do work hard, there is an opportunity to live the 
American dream.
  I point to this booklet. I point to our dream that we can balance the 
budget before the turn of the century and lower taxes at the same time, 
but getting Washington spending under control, or at least taking a 
good stab at it. This stuff can happen and it is real, and it has 
happened in the first 3 years here and there is lots more to come.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And what is remarkable, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that 
this is recent history; this is within the last 3 years. I remember 
sitting here on the front row when we talked about the budget plan 
where we dared to dream, less than 100 Members of this body would join 
with us.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Eighty-nine, to be exact.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. They derided it as extreme. Now look at what has 
happened. We see that it makes extremely good sense to have Washington 
spend less so that families can spend more, to make sure that the money 
that belongs to the people in the first place stays in their paychecks; 
and in so doing, actually letting Americans have more of their own 
money to save, spend, and invest, create new jobs and new 
opportunities.
  Now, we are in a situation where the tables have turned. Oh, there is 
still work to do, as my colleague has pointed out; our commitment to 
our seniors in terms of the Social Security Preservation Act, which we 
cosponsored, the challenges we still confront in terms of ending the 
scourge on drugs. In a free society, it is an ongoing battle. But we 
have made the first steps toward realizing those dreams for our 
children.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, what the gentleman just said is what William Wallace, in the 
year 1312, I do not know how many saw the movie ``Brave Heart,'' in his 
death throes he screamed out ``freedom.'' We are giving those freedoms 
back to the American families that have given up those freedoms so 
Washington can rule and control their life.
  Just in these few short minutes we talked about a balanced budget, 
but yet a balanced budget in which we actually have education reform or 
education receives more and families and parents, administrators, 
teachers have more freedom to teach their children and the results are 
better.
  We can talk about DOD and reform, to have a stronger defense, but yet 
to have it reduced and more like a business, and welfare reform and 
saving Medicare. Remember the blast that we got from Medicare from the 
unions and from the DNC? But at the same time, this is the same 
Medicare plan that the

[[Page H946]]

President signed in the balanced budget, and everybody wins. We do have 
areas to go.
  When we have got a 50 percent fraud, waste, and abuse with food 
stamps and those areas in which, again, taxpayers have to send their 
money to the overhead of Washington bureaucracy to support, we can 
actually get more of the money down to the families, down to military, 
down to the welfare recipients and have good government, which, again, 
does not have to be an oxymoron.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Reclaiming my time, I would like to turn this into some 
very specific examples. Because we have talked about returning this 
freedom to the people and letting them keep more of their own money in 
their own homes to decide how to spend it, I would like to talk about 
some specifics for just a minute on this very topic.
  For example, starting next year, every family with a child under the 
age of 17 in the middle-income brackets will get down to the bottom 
line of how much they would have sent to Washington in taxes and they 
will subtract $400 off the bottom line because of the $400-per-child 
tax cut.
  In Wisconsin, sometimes I am out at these meetings and people look at 
me like, ``Are you kidding? Is this a political promise,'' or ``What 
are you talking about?'' This bill was signed into law next year. And 
starting next year when they do their taxes, they literally will get 
down to the bottom line how much they would have sent to Washington and 
subtract $400 for each child under the age of 17.
  If they have college students, I have got two in college myself, and 
I will not qualify for this particular benefit, but a lot of families 
that are in the middle-income brackets, they are going to qualify for 
this. It is tough to pay college bills; it is expensive. So if they 
have got a freshman or sophomore in college, again they go through 
their taxes and figure out how much would they have sent to Washington, 
but they subtract $1500 off the bottom line. This is very real money.
  I just want to add a specific family that I know of. I want to turn 
this into a very real situation. This family I am thinking of has one 
child in college, as a matter of fact, goes to the same school my 
daughter goes to. They have got two kids still at home in their family. 
And they are middle-income folks.
  I do not know exactly what they earn, someplace between 40 and 
$60,000 a year, I suppose. But with their household, with one in 
college, a sophomore by next year, and two kids at home under the age 
of 17, they get $400 off for each one of the two kids, or $800 for the 
two kids at home, and $1500 to help pay that college tuition. We are 
talking about a $50,000 a year family here, reducing their taxes by 
$2,300. That is a lot of money.
  When we talk about this idea of returning power to the people and 
freedom to the people, we are talking about letting then decide how 
they are going to spend their hard-earned money, as opposed to sending 
it out out here to Washington so people in this city, bureaucrats out 
here, Members of Congress, can figure out how to spend their money for 
them.

                              {time}  2015

  I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota, a new Member, and we are 
happy to have him with us.
  Mr. THUNE. I would like to, as always, commend the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for the bold leadership he has taken a number of these 
issues. We talk about the subject of daring to dream and again the 
enormous challenges that are out there in front of us as a country and 
some of the things that have been accomplished in the past.
  I want to again compliment the gentleman for the extraordinary work 
he has done to draw attention to the need to be debt free as we move 
into a new century and to do something that is very positive for our 
children, for our grandchildren, in the legislation he has introduced 
which would put us on a systematic plan to where we will eliminate the 
$5.5 trillion debt that soaks up more and more of our tax dollars every 
year just in interest payments.
  It gets mentioned often, but I do not think often enough that before 
we do anything else, the Committee on Appropriations in this Congress 
writes that $250 billion interest check right off the top, before we do 
anything that assists people who are in need of education. Before we do 
anything in terms of the other programs the government funds, roads and 
bridges, national defense, we take the first $250 billion and pay it 
off in interest.
  The plan that he has introduced would in 2026 completely eliminate 
the $5.5 trillion debt and put us as a country on a path toward being 
debt free. That is something that is absolutely historic in terms of 
what we can do for the future of this country. I would like to see us 
take that same sort of passion, that same sort of courage and 
leadership that the gentlemen did in the 104th Congress, and the 
gentleman from Arizona who is here and had a part in that process, in 
reforming welfare and in dealing with some very tough and controversial 
issues, issues that people said, ``That can't be done, we can't do 
this, this thing is just too complicated and too big.''
  Yet you demonstrated the courage to get that done. I think it is 
proof of what we can accomplish when we want to work together.
  If we could turn that same sort of intensity to the war on drugs, I 
was just reading today in the Sioux Falls newspaper about the 
methamphetamine crisis we are facing in our State. There is a quote 
here from a young lady. It says the powerful drugs also stole every 
good thing she had, including her three children and her freedom. She 
quotes, ``I have never in my life felt so helpless and out of control. 
There is no good outcome to meth use. You use everything. That includes 
yourself.''
  In fact, South Dakota has been designated as a high intensity drug 
trafficking area because of the growing methamphetamine traffic in our 
State. We need to apply the same type of leadership in this particular 
area.
  I hearken back to the 1980s when Nancy Reagan started her Just Say No 
campaign and the demonstrable impact that had on drug use among young 
people and the powerful and immediate impact that the message has. If 
we are willing, as a country, and if we could get the White House and 
this administration to take some leadership on this issue, we could 
work with them, because this is an increasing problem, particularly in 
rural areas.
  Again, another statistic here, in 1991, 14 grams of methamphetamine 
were seized, that has grown each year to this last year, 984 grams of 
methamphetamine seized by law enforcement officials. It is a very 
serious issue in parts of this country. It demands very serious 
leadership and something that I think we all need to provide as public 
officials.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I would just add that when we dream about the future of 
this country that is going to be a drug free nation for our children, 
when we have that dream about the future of America, I do not think we 
should temper it with not inhaling or some of the other things that we 
have heard from some of our leadership. This Nation needs leaders that 
are willing to stand up and say, it is not acceptable, drug use is not 
acceptable in the United States of America; and we have today declared 
war on the use of drugs in this country. We need leadership that is 
willing to stand up and say these things.
  There are many other values that we could talk about that would be 
along the same lines as what we just talked about with drugs. People 
need to stand up and say that a married couple, that either spouse in 
the marriage should be committed to that marriage and that it is not 
acceptable to go off with another person of the opposite sex; whether 
it be the same age or a different age or whatever, those things are not 
acceptable in the United States of America.
  This Nation needs leaders that are willing to stand up and say, ``Mr. 
President, if you in fact had a problem or had a situation with Monica 
Lewinsky or Gennifer Flowers, that is not acceptable as an example for 
our Nation and for our children in this country.''
  Somebody needs to tell our kids that it is not the norm that our 
President or any other leader in a community, or for that matter any 
other member of a marriage, whether it be husband or wife, this is not 
acceptable practice in the United States of America and we do not want 
to tolerate it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think that also goes when we are talking about 
drugs, not to come across to MTV and say

[[Page H947]]

they would inhale if they could, the leader of our Nation.
  I have talked to drug agents and I have talked to people in 
rehabilitation. The kids sneer. They say, ``Look, the President said he 
would inhale if he could.'' That is the wrong message.
  Let me give my colleagues another example. Remember the young man 
that was caned in Singapore for spray-painting cars? I am not saying 
that we cane people, but I would guarantee that that individual, that 
young man, when he went back to Singapore would never spray-paint 
another car nor would any other individual. But yet look at our streets 
and the tagging and the graffiti and those kinds of things that take 
place because we let it go on. That is just a symptom of the lack of 
commitment, from drugs to graffiti, that juvenile crime has gone 
exponentially up, a 600 percent increase and the viciousness of it has 
increased, to be paramount.
  Those are the kinds of things I think the gentlemen are talking 
about.
  We need a commitment, not just words and not the wrong direction. You 
do not say, let us increase rehabilitation dollars and cut off why they 
are getting on drugs in the first place. I want to stop it so I do not 
have to put as many dollars in rehab, and save those children.
  Mr. NEUMANN. When we think about the war on drugs or bringing 
education back to number one in the world for our kids here in America, 
can this goal, can this job of getting from where we are today to a 
drug-free America and back to where our education is number one in the 
world, can that really be tougher than what we have already been 
through between 1995 and today, getting to a balanced budget, actually 
lowering taxes, restoring Medicare for our senior citizens?
  When we think about this, a lot of people would look at this and go, 
``We can't do this.'' What I am suggesting tonight is that we dare to 
dream, because you have got to have the dream before you can bring 
about the results, and we commit ourselves to this dream in the same 
way we committed ourselves to getting to a balanced budget, to starting 
to pay down the debt, to lowering taxes for our families and to 
restoring Medicare for our senior citizens.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say this gentleman's dream has guided a lot 
of us on this House floor on how to balance the budget and how to 
achieve that. He has been a leader across the board in how to have more 
effective government and yet reduce the penalties on the American 
people, and I would like to thank the gentleman.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I think it has been a lot of us here together, getting 
this job done. But I do think that it is the American people that 
deserve the credit for sending a group of people here that were willing 
to commit to these dreams.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, this is the essence of our constitutional 
republic. The brilliance of our founders is found in the sense that 
they had the foresight and the sense of commitment to set up this 
unique institution where we can represent and where we can dare to 
dream, but then take the steps firmly rooted in reality to make those 
dreams come true.

  Certainly we have talked about a far-flung and ambitious agenda of 
where our dreams will take us, not only fiscal responsibility and a 
better future for our children, not only fighting this war on drugs, 
not only realizing the successes and seizing upon those for our seniors 
as well as the youngest among us, but making this translation work.
  Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the legislation offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin and the innovative programs that the gentleman 
from California has been involved in and the fresh new perspective the 
gentleman from South Dakota brings. In a moment of personal indulgence, 
might I also, Mr. Speaker, offer something that I have introduced, that 
the Committee on Resources just held hearings on 2 weeks ago, that my 
staff has taken to calling HELGA in one of those moods you get here 
where you have an acronym, for Hayworth Education Land Grant Act.
  It is born out of something that happened in my district, something 
that you may find in your districts, the folks you represent. In rural 
Arizona, there is a real shortage of private land. The little community 
of Alpine, Arizona, nestled there on the New Mexico border, in my first 
term in Congress came to see me. They said, ``We have scraped together 
enough money to build a new school. We meet right now in an old church. 
It's not exactly a one-room schoolhouse, but it's close. We have the 
money to build a school, but we don't have the money to purchase a site 
on which to build the school. This is a real dilemma.''
  What makes it ironic is the fact that the town of Alpine sits on the 
edge of a national forest, government-controlled land. They said, 
``Congressman, could you help us get a conveyance of land?''
  And so we did so. The good news is they are building a school because 
they could save their money to build the school and concentrate on 
students and teachers and the future instead of worrying about buying 
land.
  As Mark Twain pointed out, ``History doesn't repeat itself, but it 
rhymes.'' And so learning from that experience and the experience of 
Congressman Morrill, quite frankly, in the last century with the Land 
Grant Act for Higher Education that transformed higher education in 
this country, I came up with a plan that offers a standard, uniform way 
for rural school districts to apply for conveyances of federally 
controlled land, so again they can concentrate their resources on what 
is most important, the children and their education, and not worry 
about buying land and not have that economic impact hit them adversely 
in trying to build a new school.
  We held hearings, as I mentioned, 2 weeks ago, a subcommittee of the 
Committee on Resources. I am very optimistic about this legislation, 
labeled H.R. 2322. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to be 
involved, to take a look at this legislation, because it can do 
important things across America in rural districts for those school 
children and their future, because again as we all concur, Mr. Speaker, 
education is too important to be left up to Washington bureaucrats. We 
have got to maximize flexibility and innovation and what happens at 
home on the front lines to make sure that different districts are armed 
with different alternatives so that they can decide what is best.
  I would commend the legislation to my colleagues and move in that 
type of common-sense direction to focus on educating children, not 
worrying about the shifting of dollars but focusing on what works.
  A couple of quick admonitions I would offer. If you are worried about 
Park Service land, no Park Service land can be taken for this, nor can 
any Federal wildlife refuges be taken for this. But there is a uniform 
way to convey land, and I believe that it can transform rural education 
in this country for students K-through-12 not only in school districts, 
but in charter schools that have sprung up in places like Arizona and 
come to full flower and full fruition.
  And those types of innovative ideas, based on the best of what our 
heritage teaches us when applied to the challenges of today, those are 
the ways that we translate our dreams into reality. That is why I am so 
pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be here with men and women of conviction on 
both sides of the aisle, who are willing to look to translate those 
dreams into reality.
  Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleagues to take a good look at that 
legislation and join us in taking that step toward helping rural 
children.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Just briefly, I would like to point out that the great 
State of Wisconsin, as we find in many cases, is quite far out in front 
on this particular issue. When you develop land of any sort in 
Wisconsin, at least 5 percent of the land is dedicated to schools, to 
community or to parks. We find in many cases that not 5 percent, it is 
more like 10 or 15 percent of the land is set aside permanently for our 
families that then build in these subdivisions and realize the American 
dream in buying their own home. They then have this land preserved for 
them, whether it be for schools or for parkland or whatever.
  In Wisconsin, it is standard operating procedure that at least 5 
percent of your land is set aside for schools, parks, community 
recreation and community service. In Wisconsin, we are already doing 
some of these things. I certainly think what he has there is a pretty 
fair idea.

[[Page H948]]

  I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. The gentleman from Arizona makes a pretty compelling case, 
I think, with respect to what his legislation would do. I think again 
it points to at least one of the issues that we are discussing here 
this evening, and have been for some time, and that is how do we go 
about making sure that more education dollars get into the classroom 
where they are benefiting our young people and preparing them for the 
future.
  In South Dakota, we have taken some steps in terms of wiring the 
schools to bring technology, the high technology that is available to 
us today, to see that our kids are equipped so that when the time comes 
for them to transition into the workplace, they are ready for that.
  I think again that happens when you look in a very systematic, 
disciplined way at moving power and control out of the Federal 
bureaucracy, making the Federal bureaucracy smaller, the family budget 
bigger, the budget of schools and local and State governments; and I 
think that is something that all of us in the Chamber this evening are 
very interested in doing and seeing come to pass. I think it points 
again to the broad need in this country to address the real problems 
that real people are facing.
  The gentleman from Arizona made some reference to common sense, which 
is something that is very terribly lacking, it seems, here in 
Washington.

                              {time}  2030

  However, if we look at these things in a very commonsensical way, and 
in dealing with the issue of drugs, if we could eliminate the scourge 
of drugs in this country, the very best thing that we could do to 
preserve the future for our kids, making our future debt-free, giving 
them the resources that they need in the classroom to see that they 
have the very highest possible quality education opportunities 
available to them at the best value to the taxpayer, and working in a 
way as well to address the retirement needs.
  When we talked about welfare reform, and we did, we took some 
important steps in this last Congress, of which my colleagues were a 
part, and in the 105th since I have been here in terms of balancing the 
budget, reforming Medicare and trying to secure a better future for all 
people of all ages in our country.
  And in the area of retirement where we have so much to do in the area 
of professionals today looking down the road, looking at Social 
Security and saying, ``By golly, I just do not think that that is going 
to be there for me,'' and we need to give them some options. Now, for 
the first time, in a very bipartisan way, we are hearing people talk 
about what we might do to provide a better future and to ensure that 
the retirement needs in this country are met when the time comes.
  Finally, I would simply say, and my colleagues have touched on it 
this evening, lowering the overall cost of government on the taxpayers 
in this country, the goal of trying to get to 25 percent so that the 
Federal Government, the State and local governments are not taking more 
than 25 cents out of every dollar of the family in this country so that 
we can make the family budget bigger, strengthen families and not 
government institutions, I think that is the direction we are going.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, or less than 25 cents. I like the idea of 
going for a lower number.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, the problem is, as my colleagues know, is 
that they were going to put a cap on it, but they were worried about 
ever getting that high. So yes, probably 25 percent or less, actually, 
before it is all said and done.
  But that would move in a very dramatic way toward making again the 
Federal Government smaller, making the family budget bigger, and 
strengthening our families in this country so that they can address the 
needs that they have, whether it be retirement or health care or 
education or child care.
  As I travel the State of South Dakota and I talk with real people, 
these are real needs, real problems that require real leadership and 
not a lot of the same old Washington-based solutions that have 
dominated the agenda in this city for such a long time.
  So again, I am delighted to be a part of the agenda that we are on, 
talking about these issues and talking about real solutions. Again, 
leading by example. One of the things that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
mentioned earlier is that sometimes we need to be using the bully 
pulpit. The fact of the matter is, as C.S. Lewis once said, that we 
laugh at honor and are shocked to find traders in our midst.
  When we talk about the use of drugs in a very cavalier way, when we 
talk about the things, the values that we hold near and dear, the 
importance of keeping the family together, family relationships and the 
various activities that have been on the front page of the newspaper 
for the past several months, it is important for people who are in 
positions I think of public leadership to not only provide leadership 
in economic areas, but also in the moral area. That is something that I 
would hope that we will continue to emphasize and talk about in the 
discussion as well, that values be a part of our debate in this 
country.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, just one comment on that. I know the 
gentleman is alluding to a situation that many people here in 
Washington have taken a hands-off policy and are just plain not talking 
about it, but at the risk of making a suggestion to the President of 
the United States, I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to 
the President of the United States that he come out with a very public 
statement that says, ``No, I did not do that. If I had done that, I 
would immediately resign.'' That would be a very different message than 
the message our young people in this country are hearing today.
  The message, ``No, I did not do it, but if I had done that, I would 
resign immediately from this office,'' would send a message to our kids 
that he does not accept what he is being accused of as acceptable 
behavior or practice in this country, and it would be very different, 
what our kids are hearing, than what they are hearing today. I would 
encourage him to come out with that as soon as possible so that our 
kids hear a different message.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would like to 
compliment the gentleman from South Dakota. I know he has taken a 
leadership role in education. Again, a dream that the gentleman is 
talking about, a vision, it takes commitment. Mr. Speaker, those folks 
that started off to the West on covered wagons, they could dream about 
it, they could have a vision, but unless they were really committed, 
they would never make it.
  We look at Martin Luther King. He had a dream, he had a vision, but 
yet it would not have become a reality unless he was willing to commit, 
and he did that.
  But just like in education, if we get so little money out of the 
Federal Government down to the classroom, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, 
a State bureaucracy is just as bad as a Federal bureaucracy if it keeps 
the dollars away from the classroom. But if we get so little money, and 
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues have ever tried to pass a 
school bond in their districts, but I know in California it takes two-
thirds, it is very difficult.
  So if we have very little money from the Federal Government, if we 
cannot pass a school bond, how are we going to bring those classrooms 
up when we are last of the industrialized nations, 15th in math and 
science? And that was duplicated in a major study just this last month, 
where over half of the 4th graders could not identify the Atlantic or 
Pacific Ocean, and we got over half of our students coming out 
functionally illiterate.
  One of the commitments, and the President signed this bill in the 
balanced budget, and what we looked at is taking the 21st century 
education bill to where we take companies who are dumping computers on 
schools but the school did not have the technology or the teachers to 
upgrade them, and they ended up in a corner. So what we did is we said, 
okay, if you have a computer that is under 2 years old, you can write 
off that computer and we are going to give you a tax benefit for 
donating that computer.
  Now, we have a company, a nonprofit corporation in California and it 
is in 21 States, called Detwiler Foundation.

[[Page H949]]

 They take that computer and they use prison labor to upgrade that 
computer. If they do not serve so many hours in working on education or 
work, they do not get their privileges. So it brings a triple force 
right there. They then turn that computer down to the school, ready to 
plug in.

  So that is what it takes as a Federal, a private, and a State 
partnership. But again, the focus should be on the teachers, the 
parents, the families and the community to make those decisions. But 
that is what we talk about as far as commitment, and making it happen 
and coming up with those kinds of solutions, which means less 
government.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are very near the 
end of the hour here and I would just kind of like to wrap this up. We 
talked about daring to dream. We talked about my personal life where we 
reached a point that we could not pay our bills, where we started a 
business and turned it into something.
  We talked about starting the home building business and suffering 
through years where we lost money, and turning that company around and 
getting to the point where we were building 120 homes a year and 
providing 250 job opportunities. And daring to dream that in the United 
States of America, even if you have no political background, that in 
this great Nation that we live in, where if you want to run for office 
you can run for office, and we ran twice and lost, but we had a dream 
that it could still happen.
  We got elected and came in here with a very specific dream. We came 
in here in 1995 and we dared to dream that we could balance our budget 
before the turn of the century and quit spending our kids' money. We 
dared to dream that we could make payments on the Federal debt and 
start paying this thing down, so instead of our kids getting a legacy 
of huge debts and interest payments, that we could actually start 
paying down the debt and maybe give our country to our children debt-
free. We dared to dream that we could start putting the money away for 
Social Security so our senior citizens could once again rest assured 
that their Social Security was safe, and we dared to dream that we 
could reduce the tax burden on American workers.
  Those things have all come about in less than 3 years. They have come 
about far faster than anyone even dared to dream that they could 
possibly happen.
  Now we are here. It is time to look ahead and to look where we are 
going to. I would like to challenge my colleagues to dare to dream for 
the future of this country.
  For our kids, let us give them a debt-free, drug-free America where 
education is once again number one in the entire world. For our 
workers, let us reduce the tax burden at all levels of government by at 
least a third, so that they are once again empowered to make decisions 
about how they will spend their own hard-earned money. For our senior 
citizens, let us start putting the Social Security Trust Fund money 
aside in real dollars so that the Social Security Trust Fund is 
restored and safe for our senior citizens, and let us make sure that 
our Medicare system is solid and solvent so that our senior citizens 
are assured that their health care will be taken care of.
  For all Americans, let us make sure that we provide a strong defense 
for this Nation and a clean environment as we look forward to the 
future. Let us dare to dream that we can restore this great Nation and 
once again have the greatest Nation in the world. Let us not be afraid 
to dare to dream.

                          ____________________