Conversation 094-001

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

All right.

You're responsible for those first 11 posts?

Yes, I was.

We have a little bit of metal for you, and we've got quite a load of it that could bring back money for your office, for your collection.

I thought it would be useful this morning.

It would be very useful for me.

All of us who, uh, get a rundown on what we're supposed to be sipping on, uh, we can catch this for a long time on regular sharing with fans and on welfare reports.

When you, uh, when that happens for you to do that, I'd like you to go to the house with that report and see where we stand.

And before the next recession comes along, we'll help you out.

We, uh, uh, if, uh, if, uh, if, uh...

I'd like to have Charlie Walker take off on the record sharing and then we'll call on the committee to give their views.

I was looking, Mr. President, if you always like to pull a chair.

All right, I bet you do.

I know there's just a few members here that have been contacted.

Great, Mr. Byrne.

I'll see you soon.

Because we are in the second section in Waste, it means we've been in the second section off and on since July.

The hearings were recessed for the Labor Day recess and the first order of business.

We came back to Waste with the revenue hearings, but with the new economic policy tax measures put aside, it just got back to an exit.

In the new session, we were dislocating back because Mr. Mills did not get back until late because we're back late.

I think, first of all, I can summarize the two bills that are before the commission because an administrative administration bill was in one form or another done since August of 59.

Mr. Mills in December, I believe it was, introduced a bill which had been prepared in his request for cooperation between the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue staff and the representatives of the public interest groups, the governors, the mayors, and the council.

Very briefly, the Mills bill calls for a $5.3 billion per year fixed amount

for revenue sharing over a five-year period.

The administration bill starts at $5.3 billion per year, but it's tied to the personal tax base and would therefore grow, and it's permanent.

You can see the difference at the end of the five-year period.

The administration bill should be allocating around $950 a year.

The Mills bill is due at 5.3.

The Mills bill will begin on July 1st.

The administration bill is retroactive to January 1st.

Mr. Mills told the mayor yesterday that there was a hang-up in the committee.

On this question of retroactivity, to my knowledge, it has not been discussed whatsoever as yet in any of the executive sessions that we've made.

The Millsville has strains.

Our administration bill has no strains, but the Millsville strains are very, very loose indeed.

The major exclusion at the local level, this is the strains at the local level, the major strains, the major exclusion from what will be

appropriate spending, or educational funds.

In 16 states, this would be in part because in 16 states, the school budgets are in the city, but in the other states, they're in the city.

The major difference, another major difference between the two bills would be the distribution.

Mr. Mills' bill, as drafted, and he's backing away from this very strongly, would give a significant premium to any state, and that is state income tax.

Our bill is neutral with respect to the premium for tax record or revenue record, but there's no premium with respect to how it's raised.

You're right.

There's a floor in the mills bill which would say...

...regardless of the internal state income tax, would get a minimum amount.

For two years, after two years, they would be called and termed.

Mr. Mills has publicly dropped that provision from the bill.

Not too long ago, it's been dropped.

Yes, the two-year restriction, the two-year cutoff, Mr. Mills has publicly dropped.

The distribution on the administration bill by states would be on a combination would be basically by population adjusted for the revenue record or how hard the state tries relative to income to raise money.

Finally, would be reduced or rather distributed to the local governments within the states.

Mr. Mill's distribution would be on the basis of population, adjusted for urbanization, and a further distribution for a number of families with a $54,000 income.

Our distribution within the states to the localities will attend with this on-revenue effort adjusted for need.

This last adjustment will be discussed within the committee suggestions made by Congressman Burns and Congressman Black.

Incidentally, this $4,000 family income cutoff weighs this mills bill heavily towards the rural areas, people mainly.

A lot of people in this city's income is $4,000.

The local $4,000 in New York City, they're very poor indeed.

We haven't publicized this, but the mills bill distribution, which he's pretty well backed away from, would result in the greatest per capita distribution to Arkansas.

Two people in Arkansas or four people in Arkansas are in a lot of other places in your life.

Never forget your own.

I think that pretty well summarizes the two bills.

I keep my own impression of where we stand in the committees now, and it's very much compromised by one of Peter's directors.

You get the impression in this committee, after working in the Executive Section this long period of time, that you take one step forward and you're good and pretty good one day, as I was last Thursday, and then you take two steps backwards.

I hope that doesn't make any sense to you.

It's a darn thing.

You said this at the same time.

Yes.

and then go right against the bill.

Mr. Mills made a speech yesterday where he said we were hung up on retroactivity, but we're not at the least of our problems.

We've got into buzzing for this kind of evening here.

He said that there were only three Republicans in there that were 13 votes in the Committee for General Revenue, and 10 of which were Democrats.

If we touch in Democrats, we're going to have to build out today about 25.

I'm saying around 60 tonight.

We do have a very stark secret Republican co-sponsor that is much greater than this.

I think the votes are there for a bill in between the administration bill and the mills bill.

Last Thursday there was sort of that form of agreement.

work uh... uh...

Well, I think on the committee, there are enough votes there for a bill in between the administration bill and the mills bill, sort of informally, wouldn't you say, Barbara?

Last Thursday, there was sort of an agreement on a state distribution, which would put solid emphasis, and I just want to ask the Mr. Mills to look up his distribution of dignity to the states and the remainder to the local governments.

Split up that dictation.

On a farm, though, which would be a pain in the waist, it's a rescue effort.

In one case, it's no bias, regardless of how you raise your money.

Refugees have to pay for the income tax.

And that scene did horribly, and we checked it out, and we went into trouble.

Trouble with that farm.

But, Charlie, we don't have anything.

We have cuts in the states, either, for that matter, but I think you're right that...

uh mr bernstein's speaker himself but he was talking about uh the states basically designing the distribution or still prefer our distribution on revenue every city

We're meeting again this morning.

We're to meet tomorrow and Thursday.

My only feeling is that if we don't see some signs, if we don't see some signs that the committee is going to move in the relative near future, then we should leave.

If we won't run you there this afternoon.

I think you ought to see signs of the committee getting down to work yesterday.

We had a good discussion that Mr. Burns brought up on some aspects of the state.

You can hear it through taxes.

But beyond that, we didn't really get into revenue sharing except when Mr. Mills left.

The chairman has the staff to go back and work on a lot of other things.

Really, we've got the back and forth now.

We don't see any sign of that.

The jury came today.

The jury came last Thursday.

Well, I made it sooner or later.

several weeks, three weeks, I think we'll have some kind of bill.

There is a real problem in there in two areas that bother a lot of the committees.

One is how to, any form of distribution between

You know, you can pull them out of the air of all kinds, but in the end, it's important to get something in the paper since it's really setting you down on a formula of distribution to the states and you're going to get into the facet of distribution from the states to the localities and how you distribute that.

There are, it gives you a good rise to a lot of complexities and a lot of problems and a lot of discussion and a lot of opposition and fussing around.

I think another part of the problem, of course, is the, at least in our committee, there's a good body of opinion that finds it very difficult to put a $5.50 expense here when we're looking at the kind of deficit we are in.

And that affects our committee probably more so than most others because some people find that we cut free in the deficit.

Another facet of this is that the Chairman likes to get a consensus bill that has a large majority in favor of it, if you take the whole commission, all 25.

This is a little different in that respect.

There aren't 25 votes to do something.

There's quite a group that don't want to do anything.

I don't think it's appropriate to do anything.

So you're talking in terms of, and then with the complexity of the formula, who gets what?

You're probably talking about the possibility of a bill that may be 15 to 10, and the committee wants to report it out.

And that is not that.

This is kind of very what the normal impulse is within the committee as far as a policy or consensus you get.

And that compounds the complexity.

But I guess my judgment would be that the best it would come up was that the initial complexity, which we're all familiar with, of course, is the Lord only knows where meals is from one day to the next.

So all of these things kind of

a guy that I always thought was a pragmatist has certainly gotten way off of that line.

I'm speaking as the President does.

John, yesterday afternoon late, I ran into Wilbur in the pogrom, and after he gave me a review of his status in Hampshire, he talked about the problem in your committee.

And he said there were 14 votes against any revenue.

That was his quote.

And he urged me to round up the Republican Party.

He said that Betts was against it.

He just quoted Wilmerville.

Betts was against it.

Staley was against it.

And he quoted two others.

Well, he said, you were a problem.

I have not changed.

No, you have not changed.

He took a half hour to give me this rundown and urge that we wasn't going to get the votes.

It was a 45-minute conversation.

I listened for 45 minutes.

I think the chairman is deliberately stalling on this because he doesn't want to take up other things.

He's distracted by his ambitions.

He's got stars in his eyes, as John says.

And we are very much in tune to his leadership on that committee.

And he is leading the drift, and that's what's happening now.

And if he were to push for a minute, there were six Republicans who sponsored the administration bill.

There are 10 Democrats who co-sponsored the Mills bill.

There's no reason to believe that any of those people have changed their mind.

There would be variations in that depending on what formula we come out with because you have some states like Texas and Tennessee that have no state income tax.

So if you put a big incentive on the state income tax, the people from those states would resist it.

But it's a question of leadership and the facing up to the

to the fact that we're all in the same ballpark and all we've got to do is start playing ball.

This is the heart of the problem.

In fact, if you did not believe, this is a very beneficial issue for him.

And, well, I'll give you an example.

As a candidate, you know, it's tough if you get grounded twice on books, various places by books.

I'm sure that I can make you feel like I'm getting us to stay on the other side.

So could his attitude be changed by possibly that kind of persuasion?

But I don't know.

What do you think?

I don't think he feels that there's an awful lot of sex in the family.

That's what it is.

One of the average older, 32-year-olds, there's a great councilman, there's a great series of all of them.

Isn't that important?

I think that's the opposite of what I think.

I think Mr. Chairman, I think this whole discerning thing is what really affected him in the first place.

He doesn't do well in his primaries to become more disinterested rather than less disinterested in the revolution.

Mr. President, all of the mayors are in town yesterday and today.

He spoke to them yesterday.

I thought to him after he had had that exposure that he was gung-ho, at least in his conversation with me, and he was urging me to help and so forth.

As of yesterday, following his meeting with the mayors, I think he felt it was politically not a technical problem.

I think the moment right now is that it's pressed him.

Jerry told the mayors that the

The problem he had in the committee was with the Republicans.

There's no problem with most of the Republicans.

I've never been able to see

So that's what this is all about.

He said that he knows that kind of guy, so he says we probably should stop it.

It's very nice.

It's possible.

They never stopped it.

They never have.

Right.

He could be forced right now.

I think this is the time to really put the crunch on it.

And then where I would be responsible for the mayor's needs, I've got to ask for the mayor's needs.

I think the vice president deserves an awful lot of credit for creating a climate mainly for the city.

And now they've got their students there.

So we're going to get on the ball.

I think the thing that started seems to me now, and this is the only thing that I'll say,

And, of course, they'll get some, you know, if you're writing, whatever it is, you're going to have to, you know, sit down here about what you think is important to do that.

And I believe that, you know, that Chairman Mills has ever really wanted to run those shrines and had a real head of fire building, you know, these same level of social kind of things.

I agree with Jerry.

We're going to do something before these chimes wear us off and they can't hang.

We're going to be a lot more unique.

May I ask, may I ask, may I ask for the help of the Republicans and the Republicans in the United States to make it known that they are ready to go, ready to vote.

That'd be helpful, I guess.

Well, let me make it perfectly clear.

If you don't have any, you don't have any, you don't have any favorites, you don't want to be driving at a 64, which is about the way it's in.

That's pretty good.

If you've got a 613-2, the 613-136 can't stop 15.

That's right.

You know, so he did, he had to acknowledge that part of the trouble is the very different guys on his side who are quite adamant in their attitude, probably, what, five, six, and then the phone, and then the phone you're looking at, you know, that throws some people, depending on what phone you're looking at, one way or the other.

The thing that it might be helpful to do this year, maybe a member of the committee would want to say it, because there's a lot of interest in sharing it with somebody else.

I guess if he's going to ask for some care, he's going to love to vote.

He's going to take it from both of you.

And if it's not the day that he's going to vote, then he's never going to be not voting.

Thank you.

I think there's a very extensive majority that are in favor of getting stopped.

But you get into the problem of that majority drinking somewhat, and once you get into the complexity of the distribution formula and how that gets summed together, either favorably or unfavorably,

And that's why we have that bus service.

We have a very complex situation.

I would think that within maybe two, three weeks, the dust would settle and we'd get something.

I think it would be more negative if he doesn't say things that we want to keep him alive.

I don't think he would go away.

Frankly, if he is, and it's a real TV show, it doesn't show at all, let's see, here we go.

And all these pictures and hand shirts and whatever the heck goes on in there.

He's going to end up with a pretty bitter, disillusioned guy here.

And then, for instance, what that kind of guy does, the czar, all the legislative process, and he's scared to give him a question mark.

And I think that's what the vice president was saying.

Mr. President, I think another problem is that Carl Albert is not very enthusiastic.

There's a quote from him on Meet the Press a little over a year ago.

where he strongly indicates that he doesn't want to turn money over to, as he calls it, incompetent administrations at the local level.

So the speaker isn't pushing that at all either.

Well, except now and not many people in the local level.

We've got a lot of federal elements.

Charlie, have we made it to where sort of the public at least knows that we are ready to compromise from an administration position?

I don't know.

It's certainly clear in the committee.

We're very flexible in the committee.

That's right.

He said it would be very helpful.

There are the votes, and their course is up to the chairman.

I'd like to recommend that that be made clear as soon as possible, perhaps after this meeting's taking off.

No speech has to be reported in the paper.

You can't say that any particular bill might have the 15-10, but you can say there are at least six Republicans voting on it.

I can take it on that note.

But anyway, the liberty of Americans is built because of the ability to reduce global taxes in this zone that are of the biggest interest to Americans.

Well, it was surely a thought of yours to publish that, that you said.

Not entirely the origin of that, Inspector, as far as it is.

Therefore, all the political facts in the liberty of Americans, they ought to speak out of that direction.

This is not a partisan issue.

Here I think that some arguments could be made to be effective.

The, uh, we have here far better qualified listeners on, uh, where things stand in the Senate Finance Committee.

than myself, the person of the great member, Senator Bennett.

We also have, with Paul Griffin, with the members of the committee, too.

But the committee has been, from time to time, in the executive session, there's been a problem some days of getting poor.

But Paul Bennett is really in a much better position than I am to tell this group

where things stand and how we see them developing.

So, I'd like to be with you every time I make that decision.

Mr. President, as you know, the bill has two sections, two basic parts.

The first part is the Social Security Party and welfare at the end, because the welfare has many problems and we haven't tested yet.

We're still working along on the minutiae of the Social Security.

We do not, we have not, only once since we began our executive sessions have we been able to get a forum.

And the reason is that so many of our members are chairmen or ranking members of other committees.

from talent in agriculture.

And Nelson has been a committee chairman over on labor and public policy.

So only once we've had a quorum.

We worked at the list of sections that it presented to us.

Those of us who are there make tentative decisions, and we're going, we're getting behind this all the non-controversial things.

The sections that are truly controversial, we have to lay aside until either some particular man comes who is interested in that section, until we get it formed.

I think it would probably be the rest of this week.

Still, in Social Security, we have not yet addressed ourselves to the question of the 20% or 15%.

That's the big quiver there, and that can hold you home to the end.

So the chairman has indicated that one of the things he's going to look at is to see whether there are certain goodies that the House will put in which are not across the board.

benefits for widows who could get social security.

More benefits for widows and things of that kind.

To see whether those should be thrown in the pot to make more work available for an increase across the board.

We've also had some desultory conversations about a 10% increase now

by taking away some of these other partially and then maybe an additional 10% increase.

But we've actually not got down to work on that particular problem.

The chairman has one or two pet interests in this bill.

We spent a lot of time talking about them.

One is the catastrophic section of the bill.

And I kind of persuaded him, in fact, I more or less agree, to take a look at the catastrophic section in the administration's general health program, take a look at his, see if there's any way we can bring the two of them closer together, because I know we're going to have a catastrophic section.

The term's just got enough determination to stay with it.

He's also very well interested in a section which will make it possible to pursue welfare fraud.

He was very peaceful yesterday because he presented to us an indictment that had come down in Arkansas against the man, the attorney who stood at the head of the welfare department in Arkansas.

He had been indicted for fraud because he's failed to prosecute 25 cases that have been referred to him.

He just ignored them.

So they got a grand jury together.

This is the thing that, this is one of the things the chairman loves.

Senator Rivacoff, I'm not sure, but I'm about to say, I think his wife is here, and very young.

He has not been there.

And since he is the man on whom the liberals are counting to at least increase the benefits and welfare, that's another thing that's made him difficult.

It's been gone for a week.

I understand there are males.

I don't know.

They live in the same park as we do.

And she has been quite ill for over a year.

I mean, that's most of the time.

So we're all sympathetic to that situation.

The fundamental problem is the question of how we implement your concept of making this a real work fair good.

And there is some disagreement as to whether or not the H.R.1 would actually accomplish that.

The chairman has been feeding into the staff some ideas.

I have been feeding ideas into the staff for a year.

Trivia, but trying to get, trying to fill the middle growth.

It seems to me that one of the basic decisions, probably the basic decision we have to make,

Are we going to ask welfare citizens to work, leaving them in the welfare atmosphere, or are we going to take them out of welfare and say you are now employees, employees working?

You're going to be treated like employees.

The staff has developed a pattern which has been passed on to the White House as an H.E.W.

in an initial form.

They object to driving strongly, in general, some of the things in that pattern.

The staff has come back with more attention, and we have a tentative agreement that we'll have a meeting between the administration representatives, the White House and ATWN, and the staff, which I will certainly participate in.

And we'll try and eliminate as much of this disagreement as we can before any specific recommendation will be made up to the full committee.

And while I was away briefly during the Lincoln Day recess, the term took

Well, the chairman asked the staff to take this basic staff approach.

He discussed it with the Republican members of the committee, and with Senator Bergen and the council.

And it works now as though in principle the majority of the committee

support this approach that people come.

They get out of welfare and they become employees.

They have the worst history for us as the federal government.

becomes the inquirer.

Common comment is that the federal government is the inquirer at last resort.

To a certain extent that's true whether we see it fundamentally as the inquirer at first resort.

But the idea that these people who are separated from welfare

have received a salary from the federal government.

A corporation is created to become their employer, but the function of the corporation is to place it outside of the federal government.

It becomes a combination of the job-developing auspices and the personal procurement of propositions.

The details of this are beginning to emerge in the discussions we've had.

I think it's much closer to a understanding that we are together or an understanding of the areas in which we stand.

I think the majority of the committee may disagree with

I'm doing everything I can to try and eliminate this disagreement before the thing gets out in public and is discussed.

Now, regarding the question of whether a bill will come out, the term is important.

It's not going to be too hard.

I'm not sure that it could because of the committee's responsibilities.

He still insists that he's going to get a bill, and he's annoyed when he can't get it.

We're working at it.

There is no other decision that he is trying to stall it.

My guess is that if we could have a bill reported somewhere between the first and the second,

We can get one or two of these major things done.

And I think it will be a bill whose money cost will approximate that of the administration.

A river gulf is going to often have some mutual pain.

Of course, Harris has offered him an amendment which will add $150,000 a year to the U.S. government.

But I don't think he's got a chance.

What do you think of that?

Justice is curious.

It's one of the countries that's because Senator Harris has withdrawn from the presidential race.

He withdrew.

It was all of us on board.

Where are we standing?

Is it not also true that in the great language of it, Kennedy was trying to put on a section on the floor, but what happens to it?

What happens on the floor?

I think every, I think it makes the question difficult.

As many of you have seen the bill, or maybe even if you've seen the bill, it's 21, or 19, coming off of the floor that goes to Congress.

I think it's possible now.

Because I don't know how great, or how old, or how many of you have read this book.

I'll tell you how great it is.

Referring to this, picking up with Peter, the question about Kennedy Valley would be useful to ask John Burns, who are responsible for what they think are their prospects for action in ways deemed unhelpful because, as well as Ben said, Long is quite struck that it has catastrophic coverage, financed under the Social Security system.

to H.R.

1.

Now, you may remember his presence within the administration along around the latter part of 1970, and before he was admitted to health ministry, February 71.

And we gave quite a lot of thought to that possible route.

And one of the options before him, early in 71, was just this.

and the reason fundamentally why we we did recommend it to you at that time was that we concluded that considering the amount of money that would go into it two billion or so and then it was

dumping a lot of money on the back part of the delivery system, which in fact represents what you might call the last dollar gone.

We don't care.

And that it was important to assert leverage on the delivery system.

That surely is.

early diagnosis to prevent ambulatory care out of the hospital before people have to be hospitalized to bring in, uh, to the care bed and so on.

And so, we concluded therefore that although cancer recovery is important,

and needs to be part of a total package.

It shouldn't be an isolated state without comparable measures to meet the other end of the process.

I would narrowly call that a yes.

We'd like to think that it would be a state for the settlement.

to act on catastrophic coverage of a home, especially if it's a community one that is so strange to people, without full examination of other financing alternatives.

We would like to be able to say, please wait until you get a bill from the House, which will have explored all the alternatives in our country.

And at this, that leads to the point that

No dead yet a day is too late.

I'm worried.

So I went to the county exchange.

And if there is a cost for the house to act, it would cost both to trying to get the Santa there to hold up until it heals the whole person.

It would also mean they wouldn't have a chance for their Santa.

was present, I'd like you to comment on it, just in case.

And Russell mentioned it to me.

It's hard for him to sit over there always and have to take what comes from the house and work on it and hand it back.

He looks for things he can have to Russell on the way, and if he wants, he's arguing with him that he may.

But this is the way he does things.

The government will take a strong approach to the bill, which is much closer to the administration bill.

But we'll run it from the bottom and maybe, if I can get Wilbur to come out and support it next time, and we'll make it more possible for him to do it.

I think that's the way to go, because I'm just as good as I think you are.

We're going to take a strong approach until it comes out of it.

I mean, John Dean, what do you think the chances are that they're going to go again?

I don't know.

I think you've got to make some

We have a conservative majority, which is a majority that's part of the individual.

That's cool.

I think Herman and Terry Bird say that they're our own people, and that's a goal that I'm in connection with.

And I satisfy Russell.

He has to have something.

Well, it comes over a lot of time, where everything I can is today.

But you think that I would hear your voice if it comes to the time to hang it on HR1?

Russell had turned out there with an HR-1 before he takes anything else up on the floor.

That's my present opinion.

He's been going a little.

I'm not getting it out.

He promised to get it out.

In fact, we're going to get the HR-1 through before we come together.

He was very reluctant to take it out because of that scene.

I'm not going to get it.

I'm not going to take it out.

I'm not going to get it.

No, that was the father.

He said, why don't you do that?

And he said, and I did.

And the more I hear, well, I'm scared.

I'm scared.

Some of these things take place as president.

I think the best thing for the country would be the whole bill.

problems a lot, go out there smoking and start over again, because some of these things they're talking about is really, really, are really disastrous in my opinion.

Not as a welfare reformer, but I mean some of these things that they're talking about is so superior.

And even, this is a catastrophic deal, this is, you know, having a child got some of it.

Spirit's got a lot of political sex appeal.

But by and large, once you have that out, you're going to have a very difficult time.

And more importantly,

I mean, honest to goodness, solid, a medical care program could be.

Because if you pull it out there one eye and it's the other, that is quite volatile enough.

I don't think there are any means by which Russell could be persuaded.

You can put that along with that.

I think I have one more related thing.

We picked up a room the other day and Mondale was going to offer a 20 cent social security benefit increase to the debt ceiling bill today.

Uh, that, uh, I have no word on that, but, uh, well, there is a possibility that it could be anything, you know, that that's going to come.

And then, as we know, I'm a rock, and I've been a bird, and a lost, and a lost, and a lost, and a very, very lost person.

Well, I would hope that, you know, obviously, it's awfully hard to, the building has to, so it's going to have an increase, and the 5% increase that's in there now has been a lot, because of the marijuana.

But I would certainly urge, if possible, that they should be taken, that they should not be acted on without committing consideration, without full consideration of the financing problem.

The Mills proposal, had it submitted, had it not, $400,000 increase would increase the fiscal 73 deficit by a billion dollars.

And while there are ways of dealing with this,

by spreading out the interval over which the amendment increase goes into effect, making the wage-based increase bill proposed attached to an earlier date, and so on, that would reduce the impact on the fiscal 73's deficit.

Nevertheless, it should be clear that the amendment as proposed, and if on there it was unclear, anybody else would figure it out, would have that effect.

And it really could not be acted on without the opportunity to manage the village.

As far as what this system is going to be like in years from now, what do you think is going to be the trajectory of that system?

That's important to me.

Because it's how do you pay for it and then what system do you use?

Well, my point is that you run on occupants or have any chance of knocking them down.

Before you know it, I'll get fired and get some money.

You ought to be in practical mode if you're bringing it up.

Right.

There's other people's cases.

Why do you ask?

We don't sound this way.

We're so much of our people's defense.

There's no protection under old age.

I think it's tied to the Florida primaries.

We're talking about the trial three times.

We're asking your citizens, hey, primaries, hey, hey.

President, over on our side, we're wondering whether Wilbur Hagen suggested that we'll stand for a conference once we're all back.

He said he would on the floor of the home, so he proposed accepting his conference.

Yes.

He also told me the next day or a couple of days later that he thought, I'm hoping that he'll get, he would get split, Clark and Braylon and Jack and Ernie were over together at that time, but he said he'd like to see the, well, Senator said, because he'd buy more, though he was there on July 1 and on the 9th, on the 9th of May or something like that.

that he's assuming that somebody's going to hold the line from the center side.

I don't know quite how he expects that to happen in any way.

The important thing to the point is that we have the opportunity within the Finance Committee.

I think in this case it will be Finance Committee action first because Nelson said that he would not

Today is the...

As John Burns has said, there are very difficult, important issues of the financing of the bill.

There is the question of the impact on the budget and there are the questions of planning and so on.

The bill contains now the 5% increase it contains.

Another important point to emphasize, President, is that it contains your recommendations.

Or are they a cost of living escalator?

For all to take care of these things is not the living that would reign vile in corresponding upward increase in tangents.

This is not that concept that we have to forget about.

Over 35 minutes on the floor.

I think that's about right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Senator, it's gone spoiled.

Mr. Burns can correct me on this if I'm incorrect.

I think that the new house rules raise a strong presumption that if it's handed to the tenant, that it would be subject to a strong rule of germane.

It's over and out now.

All the trade measures and the revenue area is 71 because it wasn't germane.

You can slap this on the security guard or something.

But that is what it is.

It's a rule.

What did Wilbur say?

What he meant was not that we had a big cushion to deal with, but that it overfunded in the sense that we base our present benefits on the present earnings level.

And historically, the earnings level has risen.

So he's saying based on any reasonable expectancy, we can mortgage future earnings increases to pay present benefits.

He says actuarially that's the birth of his son.

Actuarially we'll tell you that, but it's not the basis on which we've operated for 35 years in the social security system.

He's casually changed all the rules here, and he's doing it so casually that it gets subject to some political comments.

That was the recommendation of the advisory council on social security, which did include

...representative of the major insurance companies and so on.

Well, the Congress has a responsibility for this.

Well, the point is, Brown, Spallard, and the rest of them, they both flip-flopped.

They determined that.

We, uh, we, there's been a considerable amount of research that we did in the United States, the President has had an opportunity to

to speak to your judgment on it, and because he hasn't, we haven't come to you on it, which we would do, of course, and this is simply another reason why this kind of measure should not be taken without more deliberate consideration.

Well, uh, Mr. President, I think the administration has to take a position on this entirely, frankly, because, uh, the senior citizens groups are tooling up.

You know, the newsletters that are coming out in the fall say middle proposes 20% benefit increase in first individual times.

We are being put on the spot.

Are they for it or are they against it?

And, uh, and unless, uh, something is set in the text and we have some very serious problems on it, a lot of people will get committed to this.

And it would be too late to do anything except to ram it through on the basis of this kind of casual decision that I made.

If my memory is correct, I think George and someone else testified someplace, some reservations.

Yes, sir.

We expressed with the reservation first that it would take to set the street by the $6 billion.

In other words, it's a move toward a renewal of demand and inflation.

There's no kind of way for price control to do anything about it.

There's a kind of minor restraint that we work in when it starts.

Second, that even taking the advisory committee approach,

not accepting it, but just instilling that you take their approach and then calculate the physical soundness of the bill's proposals, they fall short.

And it is the advisory committee's recommendation that you please don't stop a change in the Social Security system.

Not only when Barber mentioned of changing the way of something, he does have a big lever, John, under something by reference.

This is an equal soccer change from one in which at least it's described as a system into which you put money and that develops an annuity and you then draw from that fund, so to speak, as a matter of fact, in your own money.

Two ones where the system is based on the current cost of financing, pretty successfully bridged into the key one of the advisory committee report, current cost of financing.

And that shifts it essentially to a social compact between the working population and the non-working population.

That the working population will support the non-working population in their taxes, but the

The commission recommended that the impact and the funds be roughly equivalent to the following year's estimated outcome, one-to-one relationship.

And they said that if it could fall below 75%, you had really got yourself in an injured place.

And the bill's proposal, adopting the pre-commission recommendations, immediately takes it right below the danger point and takes it, I think, about three years from now to 71% rather than the one-to-one relationship.

So these are reasons to have some reservations about Chairman Milley's proposal.

We didn't take any decision because, as Elliot said, we have not had a chance to really discuss this with Addison, and we...

Welcome to the adventure.

I just happen to remember that today at 2 o'clock, six or seven big city mayors are due in here for public announcement of the summer youth program.

It would be very helpful if the leaders are going to say something about the position of the Republicans on the committee, and we could have a transcript of what they say to any of these mayors.

What is the recommendation?

This is going to be tricky.

I didn't know how to do the summary.

That means that the wing is now cleared for action.

The national leadership of the chairman of the committee.

That's the responsibility that we know that we have to embrace, that we know that the majority of the Democrats will, of course, and they've always been, will follow.

They're behind this, and they're going to have to go through this.

One question that's a matter of great thanks to my students, the president, and the people.

Technical point, I think it's important to ask retroactivity.

He told me that most of the mayors were counting on retroactivity, and I can tell you where he's wrong.

His bill doesn't, what ours, what the administration bill does now, are we in their destiny?

But the budget carries as of the 2nd of January, and that's right in the present budget.

So I can tell you it is not as good as it always has been over the last 10 years.

And so it would be difficult to say that we haven't really looked at the budget.

But we have the science, and we have the money, and the budget is great.

I spoke to Charlie Walker, he said the Mills bill was reported for, what is it, July 1st.

That is, sir.

That's not the, that's not.

You see, in the Mills bill, he started to do next July 1st.

He had verbally said to the mayor that he would like to make a resurrection on January 1st.

He's already committed to the resurrection.

Right.

He's in the police's office.

As we left the place, hitting the screen was not the phrase we dragged around in the administration.

No, I heard it was Captain Riker, and we left.

Now, he was not a known supporter of Reverend Jerry.

Jerry, what happened to him?

I think there are two questions that we ought to discuss.

They relate to what we have or have not.

Number one, I think this is a crisis.

The roadblocks we run into on Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.

Last Thursday, the speaker and I went over and talked to Mike and Hugh, trying to find out where the ride would be done.

We're at a terrible impasse in this matter.

He brought George Aitken in, couldn't find Fulbright, or didn't find him, I don't know.

We sat there, and the net result is, Mike reiterated, that we either took the Senate verdict or did a decision until, I guess, August 1 or nothing.

And there was no willingness at all on the part of us to push Boatwright to sign him to the church.

We're in this very difficult position.

The Senate countries will not sign the statement that they are in disagreement, or they won't sign the conference report that they're for it.

And it's hanging in limbo, and there's absolutely not been any other parliamentary way that we can move the problem.

Of course, I want you to bring it up.

There's no way to get all of those Senate speeches laid in Boston Channel.

went right over Mike's head and he just gladly said, well, there's nothing else we can do.

And O'Bride just disappeared and goes over the coal road and takes a trip.

He's determined to have his play on this.

It looks like the Wyoming votes go ahead and take the August 1st, which means this commune with the left over.

And that's trying to get a new bill.

I don't know what the rest of it is or whatever.

Well, I hate to capitulate to this.

Senator Polk writes that if we do that, he has totally won the battle.

It's just unforgivable.

Well, I suppose we'll try to work something out.

I'll talk to Morgan at my art assignment.

And the other problem is that they sent over the higher education bill and the emergency school aid bill.

It was originally programmed today that we would send it to Congress, but it's not been delayed until tomorrow.

We are going to move to instruct our contrarians.

presently instructing them to assist on the Roonville event, which says that pending appeal to the Supreme Court, there can be no implementation of any court ordered busing decree.

This is unequivocal.

In other words, no lower court decision can be implemented in the interim between the lower court decision and the order of duty.

On that amendment in the House, we want 235 to 125.

I think, despite the reluctance on the part of many, many members, including myself, we have struck conferees that we can win on this very substantially.

As a matter of fact, we've looked at the Mets and teamies, and I think we'll do better on this than we did in the original instance.

There's one problem on that, and already some of our southern friends have raised it with me.

They say, well, that's fine, but you are just banging yourself out.

Those of you who now have court cases, it gives absolutely no relief to those of us who have

and the problem, Mecklenburg County and so forth.

Now, what some people are going to try and do is to probably amend the motion to instruct, to include as a part of the instruction of our country what we call the Ashbrook Amendment, which is very tough, and the Green Amendment to the Ashbrook Amendment, which is also very tough.

But both of those in the color broken parts in the house are one by over 100 volts.

My problem is, and I voted for all three, and I think they're...

to a proposal that might in one way or another be moderated except Broomfield.

I do not think we can moderate the Broomfield Amendment period.

The others I think we might modify, but if we put too much in that package, we might do, I know we'll do less well, and we might be defeated.

I'm convinced we could win on a room deal, but I'm not very candidly and probably better than we've just spoken.

But what I'm concerned about really, Mr. President, is perhaps a broader problem.

Outside of the same court action by one or more devices,

I don't think any legislative approach is going to solve the problem, one I hope, as long as the court has predicated its decision on a constitutional ground.

There's absolutely no legislative ruling, none, that will solve the problem.

We have to stay in decision unless the court, in and of itself,

I would hope that would take place with our new tankies, but that's a hope, and I'm not sure that it's a reality.

It's very mysterious.

And if I can speak for the Santa Casa Greenies, they might well live at the Gloucester Elementary, because we've had some very close folks.

They wouldn't live at the other two, having been in that group.

What is the situation?

Can I take on that?

I'll be a comrade in the group.

Well, there'd be such one other person on our side.

You won't be any Republicans supporting the Gloucester Elementary.

There'd be two of us out of six.

But you can't get Javits to flog her, or at least not at this point.

And it is essential that we obstruct our concrete.

Is that what you choose to do?

I don't know.

Well, they don't combine them on both sides.

As a matter of fact, our concrete, on our side of the 20-pound breeze,

Seventy-five percent of them voted against the Broomgate Amendment.

So unless we instruct them with the problem you have, the whole thing will go down the drain.

It's just that kind of decision.

Well, Senator Packwood, and I believe Senator Chavis, and I'll get to that in a little bit, but a couple of times I said to him, I'm just going to thank his department.

I was on the House Committee of the Broomgate Amendment.

It might happen.

I doubt if they will in the others.

Mr. President, first of all, I'd like Jerry not to let my silence indicate that I agree with your statement that nothing can be done by statute.

Um, I think what we tried to do in one load, um, that is good.

I don't know if it's a good call center, but it's a good test of life.

They wanted to do it.

No, no, no.

Okay.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

I think that Rao has a lot to commend it.

Because there's no constitutional amendment that is going to pass the Senate this year.

There's no question that if it can't get it, then it's going to pass the Senate.

You're not going to get to a third state-wide structure.

If you agree to the vote, that's where it's going to play.

If the vote on your amendment really indicated that a constitutional amendment is not going to be passed in the Senate at least this year, in other words, if you want to act,

They care absolutely about the problem.

For those of you who want to ask a question about it, I'll take that time to do so later.

But if you would not be asking, that's your answer.

That's your real question.

That's my question.

I would agree on that, Mr. President.

You have a two-thirds in the House.

It would be very close.

Your vote that you just disclosed in the Senate vote was not two-thirds.

It was less than two-thirds.

You didn't have two-fifths.

You had two-fifths.

I mean, let me tell you, there's always been a lot of .

I have made a decision, a decision myself, to pass that decision.

I say that I'm talking about something, given the time, the length of time it's necessary to get it right.

I have approached you a terrible thing, but probably all of my views, my views of you,

I don't follow the education, basically.

So that question is, how do you add the fight, the fight that I'm trying to make?

Mr. President, may I just make a comment on Bob's observation?

Bob, if you had been successful

I think the House would have brought your approach without any question.

No doubt about it.

That's right.

Yes.

And I think that would have been very helpful.

But that's academic.

Our only hope is .

Now, I think in discussing the Constitution, because we have to look at it from two points of view.

There's no other vehicle that I'm familiar with that we could get Bob's Amendment on the floor of the House.

No House committee is going to report Bob's Amendment.

And there's no other vehicle that I am familiar with that I'm legislated with.

That's right.

That's correct.

We're holding hearings on the House Committee right now.

I don't know whether the House Committee on Judiciary will report it out or not.

But the substantive way, I'm absolutely convinced that you're not going to get any change in this court that's of any significance.

So if you really want to meet the issue head on, you've got to do something with it.

That will take time.

Now, I've got about 11.

Like I said, I'm just going to lay in my own mind for the rest of the time.

We've got a lot of leaders on the call, a lot of black men, but she's a very vicious guy.

I'm going to take this, but I'm not going to be extreme, but I'm going to do it.

I don't want to get in the way of black people.

I'm going to get in the way of black people.

uh

Now, we have two different problems.

First is the problem of now.

What can be done now?

And frankly, what can be done as effective in the school year, which begins in September and October, which is a great constitutional group.

We don't want that situation.

We need something more in the country.

Do you agree with that?

You see, what I see is this, that it's not the election and so forth.

I can see that this is a very central breaking point.

This is September and October, the beginning of the dusting day in every country.

And I'm not talking about the South.

We'll be resorting to that.

That's the problem.

You see, we've got to break this down into two different parts.

The Paris problem, Paris has this constitutional right.

And then there's the other one, what you do now, and that's where the legislature is ratting it.

You know what I'm saying?

It's not a question, it's where you get elected, that's what I'm saying.

Do you agree with the Broome bill that I have already mentioned?

We don't pretend it's only procedural.

It only delays the effect of the court order until we've had a chance to .

That's what it was saying to the cops, to say immediate cases.

I'm sure it might as well have said it in this way.

For a guy that didn't have immediate cases, I don't feel it.

Let me ask you, I mean, I'm scared you're living with this thing.

Is it the analysis of it that I am not going to leave the public with?

Is the analysis going to get them corrected?

The Constitutional Amendment does not, because of the situation in the Senate, does not speak to the problem, except insofar as it might have some effect on the court, which I think could be clearly understood.

The courts need the judges of money, but this administration and the legislature must.

I'm coming to you now as a lawyer, Mr. President.

I think you have to recognize the vision of the distinction between, the distinction between cases.

Cases which have been filed and not brought to trial.

Cases which have been brought to trial and decided in the trial court.

and the political fact is

Now, with respect to the divide, it didn't cost me much.

as a professional hunter, it's impossible to treat him in the time to be detected before the school year that you're accepting.

It's also probably unrealistic to expect a two-thirds vote in the House and possibly altogether realistic to expect one percent this year or next year.

But there again, I think it's a change of pace between the procedural possibilities and whatever political considerations may be involved.

And therein rests the fact that I might suggest a legitimate, not only for the President, but for the members of Congress to consider,

I would say, man, we would make an irretrievable mistake to underestimate the emotional impact of this issue.

And that impact is not likely to be less, but greater than such damage.

And I'd like to make one further distinction relative to the medical benefit of all this.

Now, Jimmy Beckel testified yesterday before our subcommittee, and called the election amendment unconstitutional.

Most people started out thinking it's a dream.

In addition to the precedents you cited in the labor law piece, I think we ought to remember that in the First Judiciary Act of 1789, the Congress did not bring any jurisdiction to any federal court to hear cases involving federal questions in the file until 1875 that the Congress gave any jurisdiction to any federal questions.

And I suppose what the Congress, I can't grant that Congress can take away, and I suppose the Congress can, what the Congress can do is hold it in its own hands.

So, in fact, in justifying the argument,

I think people could emphasize that significantly.

Mr. President, I have a memorandum concerning the constitutionality of the proposal that I submitted.

I'd like to be sure it gets before you.

I've given it to the staff.

George, you have brought a lot to mind.

I'm sure we must have.

I don't know.

And I think that we really have to remember, if I can speak to this one, the value of lawyer experience in Texas.

On an issue of this type of stuff, to get ourselves, to get fickle to bring a lawyer, or you can tell Carolyn on the right or the left, I think there's a lot of emotional considerations of this sort.

Lawyers don't work with anybody else, but they work with their hearts and not their heads.

And so therefore, you just control a lot.

Mr. President, the whole key here, Mr. President, is supporting what can be done without impaging on it.

And I would impage on it.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. President, I was there before we had buses.

And I will still be there.

And it will always be the idea of a promotional action.

That's what I'm talking about.

Mr. President, sir.

I don't think we need to be oblivious to something this year.

And unless something is done, standing in pursuit of good,

Or to get the AGW, the Department of Justice, to do something.

We could be in some trouble.

Now, the Department of Justice, in my opinion, can and ought to get into some of these lawsuits.

We're here to hear some interaction with us.

That's an honor that's been presented.

All right.

Now, the other point, and the actual green amendments affect this.

by saying that VTW or any government department cannot proceed to implement their ideas on what desegregation ought to be in a local school district.

Now, Elliot, we just had a classic example last week in Alexandria, Virginia.

Dick Cook is more knowledgeable on this than I am.

But I live there and I've seen and read about it and I've kept up.

But the local school superintendent is in bed with a man named Potten here over in your department.

And what happens is this.

Well, here's what happens in this document.

The superintendent calls the ATW and he asks for a letter

forcing Alexandria School District to undertake a massive busing program.

So that letter goes to the superintendent.

He then takes that letter to his school and says, look at what ACW has told you.

And so the school board then said, well, I guess we have to.

And they almost did, except somebody caught them.

And so I don't know who did it, but whoever did it did a dang good job.

They got the potter.

And all of a sudden, a new letter comes out.

And the new letter says, well, I didn't really mean what I said in the first letter.

And so now the school board says, well, what happened here?

And now things aren't moving like they were planned to move by these two people who were operating in concert.

Now, these people are undercutting, and they've got enough allies around the country who are wanting to do it.

Well, they're undercutting.

about 8% oriented against us.

Now, for the first three years of any courtesy of time we were here, they will work with us to understand the whole list of the mines in here and the shit in there and they can get away with it.

But they're not locked in here.

They're out to get us.

And so that's kind of a lowly thing to do.

Trust nobody in bureaucracy.

That's not said to you, but you ought to get that to every captain once you're here.

Mr. President, I have to say that, just the rest of you know his understanding, that Stan Topper is the Director of the Office of Civil Rights.

He has been for many years a very active Republican.

He was a Republican Assistant to the United States Attorneys in the California District of San Francisco and was brought here

Just shortly before, I think he was Director of the Office of Civil Rights.

He has been, I think, as Ed Morgan and others who have worked with him for the White House, in desegregation matters, would say, I think, conscientious and loyal in a very difficult job.

We are, on the one side, what is difficult, basically, is the understanding that

that while we want to limit busing as much as we can, at the same time we are expected to carry out the requirements of the law.

What are the requirements of the law?

They are what the courts have declared to be, particularly mobile and self-insured cases.

We have, uh, sought into the interval since then to, uh, walk a line that involved the minimum use of direction on the part of HW through OCR as to, as to what specifically is required.

Although there are situations in which we have said, following those decisions, that, you know, these questions have been suffered.

I don't know exactly the details, but I'd be very glad to be sure that I will follow it up and read the book, too.

And my guess is that on this case, it's an individual problem.

It's a higher level.

But, yeah.

and so forth.

I would suggest to the election here that we must assume that all of the ground is safe and that we're going here to talk and just recognize that they're sitting on top of what we're going to reside in over a huge bureaucracy.

Most of which, no question, was in the country, but most of which are no longer in the country that we know of.

And so, things like this, Jerry, is your question.

ATW, that's the point I was making.

I'm sure he's an able fellow and so forth.

I'll bet you, if you look down at his brother, one of his little lawyers, I'm sure that as the president, I would just sign the letter.

And I don't, in fact, I'd probably sign a whole stack of them.

Mr. President, I know that the decision the president has to make is different.

And I hope the president makes the decision with a grand mind, and he has more than two options.

Your options are not confined to one constitutional code or a legislative code.

But both of those, and the third thing, both the legislative and the anti-constitutional.

One for the short range, and one for the long range.

And I know that what I just said speaks on to the political values involved, and I think those political values are legitimate.

I think there is a difference, if I may say so, that there is a difference between a board of directors that could be a senator in Congress and a board of executives.

The legislature is just a legislature.

It can and should be forced.

And it can be for something, even if it's a cause that may not prevail.

I mean, that's what our system is all about.

That's exactly, he has to be in a position to do something.

And he is held accountable for what he does.

He won't be able to be for things and say, well, we'll get it this year, we'll get it five years from now.

So what I'm trying to do is to find a way to actually believe before something's been done.

And I believe before it because I have deep convictions on this that run counter to what the courts have been doing.

But the other part is counter to what many people would, you know, identify with.

And there is maybe, I'm not sure if that's the case.

The other part is that I feel that it's vitally important that I address myself to the bigger issue

that in September and October and something must be done.

And that's the reason why I used the term.

I met with some of the fellow speakers and brought them some work down there.

But I did not endorse the Constitution.

I said, all right, I'm going to consider that.

But I just used the term.

I said, I can assure you one thing.

We're not going to leave things the way they are.

Now, that speaks now, that speaks when I say we're not going to leave things the way they are.

If you'll note, just carefully decide to say, I'm thinking not just of what I can say, or advocate which might leave things the way they are, except for my position.

But, I'm doing something which would be effective.

I also suggested in terms of our discussion on this subject that it would not be, it would be unfortunate if it were indicated in the listener's discussion in a partisan meeting.

I don't mean to say in my assessment, I think the way that you should suggest it by managing the subject is brought up and getting it recorded, the legislative report on the legislation on the education bill.

It's helpful to be able to refuse because I know that, but I do not, this is a matter which is .

You were the putter.

We had a Senate debate at the vote, again, I believe, at 4 o'clock.

But, again, we lost, and in the first inning, lost minutes.

We made a decision whether to have Monday or Monday.

We then go on to a rather ubiquitous bill.

This is the Board of Registration Bill, or the GAIS, which is on 9-7-9-12-2.

And should it pass, I hope there'll be something, a SPAD bill.

And that might be indicated, and probably it'll bring up the Equal Rights Amendment, although you go for Equal Rights for Men, but that's all due to the Constitution.

We don't know what's coming next, there's not much we can tell you.

But a little bit of confidence is an appropriate area, Mark.

And you?

We're gonna be out of time, I'm not gonna go to registration tonight.

No, I don't think so.

I don't think you should, I don't think you should.

I think we've talked about that a bit, you know.

Well, it's great that you're back, I thought it was for the better.

I don't know.

I, the Vice President, remember that this was proposed in Roswell style, and they signed a bill that would prevent postcards voting for the President.

And it was up to the Vice President and members of Congress to rank the Mississippi in the one-man filibuster in the House of Defeat.

And he got a standing ovation from Edwards, I think.

I want to thank all of you.

I want to thank all of you for your labors and things.

I want to thank you.

I know the enormous importance of the great agony you go through when these kinds of issues are going on.

We're a mess here.

We're a mess.

I think we've done very, very well.

I realize that in this election year, you've got those great colors of strength like Robert Mills and others.

I mean, it's probably a mistake to wager political wins in the face of harder, but let's get back to what we ought to do, and that's not now.

I would suggest to Clark that you have to meet with Mr. Johnson.

And I think we ought to spend a half hour and quite a bit of time waiting for the rest of the year.

That's just enough.

I think what you brought up, for example, about the pension bill, it hasn't occurred to me, but I think if we can get that one to get something approved, that's a pretty good one.

I believe that for many years, as you remember, Tom Dewey,

After 11, I mean, after 11, say, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.

But it also raises a lot of .

If I made something in the discussion last service where it would have to be disproved, because we don't want to say, well, we've forgotten this and forgotten that.

But I think we ought to have some realistic talk about what is going to get through, what can't get through, and what is going to be in action.

and then let's set aside what we can do.

This is about trying to do a Jarex move and try to make sure that generally we have a tough problem and we can sit around and kid ourselves about what's going to happen in the committee, whether we're going to be able to get Russell to be reasonable or whether to come back home in Arkansas or whatever the case may be.

But we might have to come down to a flood to be able to get him there.

So we just have to deal with it.

And we only have four months to come.

I want to tell you something.

There's a little guy on the street.

What he thinks about your tips, both sheets of talent, is great, absolutely great.

I walked into a little shoe shop, and there was a huge event.

We'd never voted anything for the Democrats that day, and I couldn't get away from the guy.

He was for Nick, and he was in and out.

He thinks it's the greatest thing that ever happened.

And just time after time, it went down his feet in the new town.

Mr. President, can I bring up a matter of a point?

Sure.

It's a very short one.

Sure.

I agree with the reaction.

I would say it's the same as you described about the trip.

To get down to very, very long date points.

In the last few weeks, I've been looking at this very fine campaign bill to do the best

I have personally spent a lot of time studying it myself, plus many, many hours of staff work yesterday, the other meeting in which Peter and Bob and Mrs. Hedrick were present during the Sunday seminar that was here.

I think this is one of the most dangerous things that

Have you had any study, Bob, on the House side of this bill?

Yes, we have.

We're trying to interpret it.

Well, there are so many common places, and particularly in the areas of what are committees, there's an apparent exemption, perhaps, for example, for committees which spend less than $1,000, but it's not apparent at all what that exemption is.

Thank you.

13 files filed with the supervisors to be the clerk of the house or the secretary of the senate.

13 items in order to make that gift.

I could go on and on.

I won't go into the message here.

But we've got to find a way somehow in the gospel to give them the right emphasis.

I don't object to the overall expenditures.

I might be a candidate myself as well.

But I don't object to those.

I don't object to the reporting.

When you consider that there is a criminal penalty to attend, I don't believe that it's possible for any candidate

to go through this campaign without violating them.

I don't believe it's physically possible.

I spent six hours Saturday with a group of practical people and other people in Denver studying and analyzing this.

There is, for example, one section now which provides that anybody can file

a statement with the clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate objecting and stating that the candidate has exceeded what possibly exceeded this or violated the act this way or that way.

There is no oath required for it.

So the door is wide open for the Democrats and common cause people.

to file in the last few days dozens of complaints with the supervising officer and murder, literally murder existing.

I don't know what, we're going to try to approach some common sense ways of perhaps shaping this up in the Senate.

But I just wanted to call it to the attention of this group that it's a bad bill.

We're trying to get some of those guidelines in place.

We need to get those guidelines in place.

We have a big conference of times and believe me, more problems popped up.

I couldn't believe it.