Thank you Carl. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege to be with my congressional colleagues this evening. I respect very much the work that Charlie Bass and Bill Zeliff are doing; remarkable work for New Hampshire and for the country. It is great to be obviously with Arlen Specter and Bob Dornan during this quest for the presidency, to see Governor Hugh Gregg and Mrs. Gregg and Kathy Gregg. Artie wonderful opportunity, and Alice, great to be with you.

And with each one of you who mean so much to Nashua, as well as to our country. And Nashua means a great deal to me because my son Mark and his wife Deb and their three children at that time lived here for four years and they have moved to Washington with the MCI Company subsequently, but my business and my wife Chara's business in Nashua came not for not for political purposes for many years but for little league and to see our grandchildren and to be a part of this great community. It is wonderful to have this chance to return this evening to make three points to each one of you about what I believe our country must do.

First of all, I believe that our country must adopt a very strong foreign policy that makes certain that America leads the world. That we are guiding other countries through the enormous power and authority and opportunity we have.

I want to take a special focal point in these few minutes to say that the particular urgency of this tragic intersection in our in our history of the world. Between the weapons of mass destruction left over after the cold war: nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, those we made, those that our Soviet Union adversaries made.

The leftovers of this, give me a great deal of worry. They give me a special worry at a time that terrorists in the world, whether they are international terrorists or domestic terrorists, have (inaudible) to get their hands upon these weapons of mass destruction. We've had four significant arrests in Germany last year people with fissile material apparently coming out of Russia were arrested, so we know of attempted sales, we know of two weeks ago in Slovakia, 34 lbs. of Uranium crossing in a car there, apparently coming out of Russia once again, perhaps not quite of weapons grade at this point, but of people wanting to sell their material and buyers out there wanting to buy it.

Now that is the dilemma. Let me make very clear, the intersection between foreign policy and domestic policy becomes very stark as we survey the World Trade Center and the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and contemplate that destruction. And think of what would 've occurred if perpetrators had had nuclear material.

We face, and so do the Russians, the Chinese, the Ukrainians, Pakistanis, and everyone else in the world the potential destruction of our cities and a rearrangement of life as we know it. And that is why with the President of the United States at this point lacking sufficient clout to get even our NATO allies, Great Britain, France, and Germany to go along with a policy we've adopted of an embargo against shipments of our exports to Iran. Because they are about to import a cold-water nuclear reactor for what we believe clearly are purposes of trying to build nuclear weapons in Iran.

And and with Russia still prepared to make that sale, obviously our influence with that group has been negligible. The fact that the President has struck out in his ability to manage either the alliance or the previous opponents in North Korea. We have the similar incidents in which we are literally by ourselves having blown a relationship that might have been built presumably with Japan, with China, with the South Koreans, with the Russians. That is why foreign policy really has to be talked about cause we have problems in the world that are going to affect us grevously, if we are not effective

And I am trying to make a point based in my presidential campaign I am prepared to step up to that challenge. I believe that my experience over the last 15 years has prepared me to do the proper job for the security of this country and that is the prime requisite of the person you chose to serve as President of the United States.

Now let me add equally importantly will be prosperity here at home. I accept the fact that in addition to security in the world which we take for granted, the president will be a leader in that respect. Presidents must lead with regard to actual programs that might make a difference. In my campaign in Indiana last year for re-election to the Senate, I found many people who said "We are ordinary people, our wages have gone nowhere for several years and we don't we're not certain the American system works for us. What are you prepared to do about it?"

I did not have a sufficient answer in that campaign, but I do have one now. I have come to a conclusion. Two things must be done. One, Charlie Bass and Bill Zeliff have addressed and they are on the threshold of tackling a seven year plan to get the deficit to zero, we have to do that, deficits have literally eaten up the savings of this country. And it's just like the old Econ 101 course we took in high school. Savings equal investments, an iron law. You cannot have investment that leads to productivity without having savings in a country. Sometimes you'll get by using Japanse savings, German savings, but somehow they'll want them back. Our problem now as a nation we are saving below the (inaudible) we have to balance the budget. But we must do something more. A very significant change in our system of taxation.

I propose that we move from a system of taxing income and savings to a system of taxing consumption. It is a very large change a presidential campaign should be about large issues. I propose to make that change because I see no way of bringing about the savings investment productivity changes that are required to change wage rates.

Let me be very clear. I would abolish the federal income tax on individuals and on corporations, obviously capital gains taxes would go as derivative of that. I would abolish inheritence taxes and gift taxes; all of the income tax, savings free. And I would have taxation instead on consumption of retail services and professional services. With exemptions of broad groups of purchases or rebates to tax payers so the system is no more repressive than the one we have.

The consequencesof doing that will first of all be to save Americans five billion hours now spent in complying with the internal revenue code each year, the entire productivity in my home state of Indiana. It will be to take away the intrusiveness of the IRS, because we will in fact dismantle all those forces of the IRS that are dealing with the income tax situation will be no more.

What we will in fact, according to Professor Lawrence Kahlnikoff [sic?] of Boston University, who has done econometric models for the CATO Institute, bring about a situation in which savings increases from 2-1/2% of our national income to 7-1/2% that the investment pool available for investments increases by 30%, productivity goes up by 5% a year, not the 1% we currently have and real wages of people in this country go up by a comparable 5% instead of less than 1% change in real wages during the last 5 years for ordinary Americans.

Now that is a breakout that our economy has to have to make a difference for ordinary people in this country as well as for our competitive ability. We will export more because the income tax component will be taken out of the pricing we will inherit more investment from abroad because we are a great country in which to invest now and we will be greater still without an income tax.

In short the major problems our economy faces and that ordinary Americans face can be met by changing the stream of taxation. Now it is with great complications and those are worthy of discussion. And that is why I will discuss them throughout 1995 and with your help throughout 1996. And with a fair a very favorable chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee interested in these ideas we will attempt to enact legislation in 1997 and have a new system of taxation in the country in 1998. I think this is an important quest and I enlist your consideration.

Let me say that a third point which I believe is equally vital is is one that comes forward in the thoughts that Kathy Gregg had this evening and the thoughts about her. I believe in the importance of families. The importance of the marriage vows to begin with, of parenting, of grandparenting, of thoughtfulness about a supportive structure, to nuture our young people in communities that seem to have a great deal of disintegration presently.

We will continue to pass crime bills and welfare reform and we will need to do that. But at the heart of the matter must be a presidential discussion led by the President and joined by the people on what we plan to do to shore up not only family values but consideration of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of all that surrounds life, and clearly the importance of our marriage vows and our parental obligations.

And I intend to talk about those issues which I feel are very very important, absolutely vital to the health of our country. We can make our world safer and have a President of the United States who can offer great leadership too, and change the prosperity of our country and still lose the soul of our nation if we do not concentrate on human values, personal relationships and the importance of that concentration.

I am greatful for this oppportunity to celebrate with you in Nashua this evening. Greatful for your warmth of your greetings and for the great meeting which you have brought here.

Thank you very much.