Conversation 102-008

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Because I have a doubt that maybe we might be able to continue to do it.

Looking at the offensive weapons, that's a critical one.

Here's a pretty good question.

I argue about Hawaii.

Why does the United States need to freeze weapons for five years, and build weapons for five years, and at certain levels, and so on.

We are not widely built on that.

The answer is there is no weapons that are in the United States today, none, absolutely none, that was not begun in the Eisenhower administration.

There is no way in the field of submarines that we are going to be trying to use the staff that could possibly crack the program, or could possibly.

over the next five-year period.

What we're really talking about here is libraries of weapons to win submarines and land-based missiles against the United States.

As a result of not our decision, but of what we found when we came into office, there is no programs to be done over the next five years.

First, the other side of that coin is that in order to keep balance in this situation, we have to remember that the offense can reach limits over extreme heights of weapons.

The United States must continue.

It needs to be one program.

It must continue.

It must be all programs in some ways.

It must continue, of course, in America.

Because so good you will continue with all their modernization and underprivileging until, unless and until,

In our interest, we consider, in our interest, they consider their interest in limiting those categories of weapons.

And I should just say, in terms of the categories of weapons, in offense and breach, we can have all the talk for a long time about, well, the existence of them on Monday and the like, from a very practical standpoint, but you've got to look at what the United States...

Not what we could do, but what we, but in the radical world, but what we actually should, and the answer is none.

So we're talking about actually stop raising so much money.

Certain categories where they had programs will be moving forward at certain levels.

And as far as the vocations are concerned, they are raising at certain levels also, but they do not have programs.

To all those who are not on our insurance, besides the analysts, there are no programs in our country.

I had sight sufferings last week.

I'm here.

I'm trying to get that because I had sufferings and it's hard for me.

But it's certainly to our understanding.

We sat around this table with the Joint Chiefs in the last meeting before going to Moscow, and I said, well, in order to bring the department into position, I said, what can we do?

I asked more, what can we do in terms of, we ordered it, in the event they don't agree to their submarines, for a crash program of building more submarines, more than 41 guns.

And he said, well, we can do it.

He said, but it would be a very bad decision.

We should have just made copies, and in very suffering, we should go ahead and build the walls, which will not come off the lines of 1979.

So that, if you're looking at that, we're not, in the sufferings, we're not talking about tracing us at a level that we would be moving on in the next five years.

We're talking simply a very moderate practical situation, and we leave the other one open, which is what we're quite aware of.

And that doesn't mean they don't have to, but I can simply say that in the categories that we can move on, we believe in a very hard-headed deal, which is in our interest.

Of course, it has to be a fair deal, otherwise there's no deal.

So we leave it there and go on and on and on.

I'm trying that Fulbright and Dennis have an active correspondence going on on it.

That's what went up, I suppose.

The Fulbrightists had a meeting about it, and it says if you'd like to get on with the treaty right away.

Well, there it is.

I don't think there's any technical questions.

Come on, may I suggest that...

the various people here, but the, because it comes across the Defense Department, the State Department, and the Arms Control, all of them, of course, have certain confidence in this area, particularly in the Defense Department area, if you want to ask them on, I mean, the size of missile holes or something like that, you can go over and ask the Defense Department, but we have...

As far as the whole picture is concerned, we have the greatest overall competence actually in the National Security Council organization.

We have three awards from all the staff who can answer any questions at any time.

We have suggested technical questions that cut across everything.

by something within our own administration.

And they have some there.

The Soviets, interestingly enough, are not altogether that monolithic anymore.

I don't mean that they have a dove-hawk within their party, but there are those who are more interested in the development of the Soviet Union economically, and there are those who are more interested in the military side.

In other words, there's competition for their budget within the Soviet...

But on the other hand, in our case, in the general attitude of the arms control agencies, control arms, period, the general attitude of the Defense Department, of course, as it should be, don't lead in our defenses.

So if you go around, you will find that there is a phase of difference of opinion, although all agree that

By the time we find this, finally sign for this, this is everything, and I'll end this.

But if you're going to find the same thing, and you send it to the House, if you're going to find some of your does, you'll say, oh gee, this is great, but this will go far enough.

And then you'll find others, which I well understand, that will say, I don't want to make any deal with the Soviets, we don't trust them.

Or,

Why is it that the Soviet has more than we've got, and so forth and so on?

Why can't we have this without the other program?

Let me tell you, we've looked at all those arguments, and have reached conclusions that we have, which I think are of interest to the country.

But for very practical considerations, I come back to that practical consideration, that as we approach this, ironically, as we approach the Democratic Convention, we don't hear them talking about increasing the arms money.

We talk about them talking about a cut of $30 billion or something like that.

The plan had been adopted before I went to Moscow.

There was no bargaining position at all.

That's the reason why I say, if you want anything to do with AOL, somebody asked them to get into AOL, and Martin and AOL asked the question, well, on this ATM thing, do we have to build that second ATM system around Moscow?

The answer is, we'd be out of our heads.

I mean, because...

We wouldn't have had a deal unless we had something to give.

In other words, unless they wanted to stop something, we were doing.

What was it, BBM?

And, on our part, we have to realize, too, that this deal is only limited, it's very important, it's only limited, it's only beginning.

In order to make another deal in the future, the United States, I don't mean it needs to be belittled, I don't mean it needs to have a situation where we're looking down their throat, but it's got to be in a position of at least

Where they respect you, and where they want men to deal.

And if they were behind anyway, why didn't they want men to deal?

So that's why those in the beginning aren't going to find you, but you're going to find a lot of people that will rush up there and do too.

...vote for the arms control thing, criticize it on the ground, and then we'll vote against appropriations for adequate defenses until we get the next deal.

All right, that's fine, let's get our votes now for what we need, so we're as strong as possible.

Again, what I'm technically saying, responsible senators and congressmen who are really interested in arms control should remember that unless our people like them,

Like Margaret and Les and others have voted at the left end of the league for keeping our own defenses at a high level.

We would never have had to deal with the Soviet now, and we're not going to get it in the future unless we maintain those defenses in a credible way.

Those defense expenditures are hilarious for its fans at the present time.

You can try around pretty quick because it's likely that we will report out our procurement bill this week.

And if we do, the chairman said yesterday he'd like to get it ready for next week, Jerry.

I don't know if that's possible or not.

So we might get to try around some of this stuff in a regular direction next week.

Just attitude, pick up attitude next week.

None of this is coming out of the way because the procurement bill is all over the place.

Well, Harry's, as I said, will bring out a lot of technology.

I assure you, this is a...

I don't urge any of those who are not experts to get into it.

I have not been going to school.

I already called them.

Yes, sir.

I called them to...

Well, anyway, related to that, we have the, it seems to me, we have this about every six months over the end of the war resolution.

We've got it in the House again.

It's in the committee.

I think we would like, if we could, to have a discussion of that from Gregor and

I'm obviously very strongly against it, and of all the other border resolutions, this is by far the most irresponsible state.

It's a...

In addition to that...

But beyond that, it's a situation that he ignores the facts of the present situation in Vietnam, where the massive invasion of North Korea is now in check and being turned back.

and where the conditions are being, are being, in my opinion, set up where eventually the army will have to negotiate.

I'm not predicting, I'm not saying they are now, I'm not predicting, raising any hopes that they will at any certain time, but the negotiation only takes place after the conditions that need to be, will need to be introduced into society.

Those conditions are now being created, and now for the Congress to take the height of your response to the election, passing a resolution to this, would be good.

National security posture and further progress towards peace were made in the letter that you sent to Senator Scott in Mansfield last Friday.

We have copies, Mr. President, of the letter preached to the Republican leaders that will be given to you in the meeting today.

It's an excellent letter that relates directly to the proceedings that are on schedule in the Senate and the House in the next ten days.

Congressman Ahrens has already referred to the procurement bill and the outcome of services.

House of Foreign Affairs, at least the Democrats in House of Foreign Affairs, has been mandated by the Democratic Caucus to report out an end-of-war resolution on their wrestling of one-on-one meeting today.

And you have referred, sir, to the provisions in the current Massfield Amendment that are in two clauses for the first time.

Senator Scott, I think, has better analysis than anyone, but the first is the unilateral withdrawal after Clinton cut off for two and a half months, and the second, as you've indicated, is a very fuzzy provision that presents us with...

I wrote that out within five minutes, and he offered to deal with the NLP amendment.

And he said, verify it, see if there's any indication of booze to verify it.

That's basically all he wanted to do.

They still insisted on having a cruise.

That's my point.

Somebody who wrote that, I'm not suggesting that this ended with a mass kill, but I think it's just a fraction of something.

Mr. President has cut himself completely in that respect.

It's been referred to by one commentator as a resolution of dishonor.

I think it is in its second clause.

In addition to the masculine amendments, there are a number of Foreign Relations Committee provisions adopted in

We are seeking to strike on the floor of the Senate suite.

In addition to the Mansfield amendment, there is an amendment with respect to the Senate approval of agreements such as the Bahrain and the Azores agreements and others like them.

There is a severe restriction and a denial of the right to use funds for third country nationals in Laos and Thailand.

There's a very sharp cut in the Cambodian ceiling of $73 million.

Military sales have been cut.

Latin American ceilings have been cut 50%.

The military assistance program has reduced $180 million over your budget, which is a lot.

The reporting assistance has been cut to $196 million.

We'll be seeking to restore the budget figures that you pointed out, for the reasons that you pointed out in your letter to Senator Scott.

You have to reveal everything about your budget.

We have started to develop a team with Senator Scott, Senator Smith, Senator Stennis.

and others, both Senator Tower and others who have a particular interest in the proposal of Senator Adams, to bring this Foreign Authorization Assistance Act back to the chain which you recommended for the reasons which you outlined.

Senator Scott and Senator Smith, many of them, told me that they would do it.

That's appalling when an office that requires all of that information taken away from you.

So we have a lively

Thank you very much.

The way things are going in Vietnam is going to be a very unfortunate time, but some jackass have implied this to be the best.

We have worse done just a lot for the wrong time.

After all, the enemy agencies are fighting extremely well.

They have checked the enemy advances in area after area.

The mining is working.

They intend to fight the bombing of radio electronics, roads, and power installations.

Fuel supplies is working.

Under these circumstances, we have this sort of problem.

Because it would be totally irresponsible, and because I would certainly say so.

I mean, I understand that it would be a demand for fortunes for members of the House and Senate, but it's a very bull-brained thing.

Let me just tell you one other thing, could I?

About the general posture of the United States on all these other things.

It cuts to Latin America, it cuts down to Italy, with all the allies all around.

God knows we all want to be part of it.

We'd like to come on this.

They bring events like this in all countries.

People want to, and the United States basically reduces commitments around the world.

But there is one bit of...

I think it should be very simple and reflective.

I've never been able to understand why it is that in the Senate you have every time to vote for a more qualified one, like 83-15, or whatever the case might be.

And yet, you knock it down for Southeast Asia, I'm stating what Senate does, Southeast Asia, or Latin America, or you don't want to withdraw for Europe.

Let me just lay it right on the line.

Democratic friends have some sort of a debate about the survival of Israel.

The rest of it, oh yeah, we're all for it, but what will we do?

Well, we've got the 6th League and all that sort of thing.

First, if you cut the defense budget significantly, the credibility...

of the U.S. effort in the Mediterranean is subverting.

If the United States indicates a withdrawal or an unwillingness to stand by its commitment, for we have alliances around the world, we have them in Israel.

It's simply a commitment by various presidents, orally made over a period of time.

There are no alliances in Israel.

None.

But if, for we have alliances, the United States will use ourselves and indicates that we'll not back them up.

Put yourself in the position of anybody who threatens Israel, what are they going to do?

Third, when they talk about Israel, if you want to get into that, we can say, well, we'll just vote smart pass, and the rest, they take care of anybody, you bet they can't.

But Israel has no possibility of surviving if the Soviet Union decides to intervene.

It doesn't have to intervene the troops.

It has to intervene the people who demand missile sites and money, whatever the case might be.

And Israel, too.

But in other words, Naples to Israel wants to survive today.

Only one thing.

It's the fact that the U.S. maintains a balance in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, which keeps the Soviet Union pushing its clients too far.

A moment later,

that the United States' ability to maintain our dominance comes in question, either by a reduction of our defenses, or by a reduction of our commitments around the world, or by a failure to stand up in a place even like Vietnam, and end it with dishonor.

Believe me, the Israelis should all check out and go back to Germany.

They'd be safer there.

That's the way the world works.

So if you want to get into this double standard, if you have friends that are interested in survival of Israel, and all of us, if all of us want to run everything, just remember you can't have a foreign policy that says we'll Japan here, but not there.

It's the old figure that I acknowledge.

It's a U.S. foreign policy.

It must be a credible one.

It doesn't mean you...

You go to war all over the world, it doesn't mean you take one additional sentence.

It doesn't mean that you do fight for others to do it.

It doesn't mean that you don't restrict and reduce your defense in areas where they're overwhelmed.

I think foreign policy has to be a whole.

You have to have a strong national defense to keep your commitments around the world.

Otherwise,

If it is not a whole fabric, if you read it in one place, it's going to unravel totally.

Now, I can make the same argument, incidentally, or I guess you can make the same argument regarding Europe.

Why is it that the European states private some of them, or because they have their basic rules, of course, to do it now?

Oh, they private all of them.

I stand very firmly with the United States on who's around and who's speaking out in these critical areas.

They know that you have to maintain your defenses.

They know that you have to also have the words being on the line.

Because they know that even here at the Disputeship,

I don't mean they present a malicious thing, I'm only saying that the Soviets...

failure, or shall we say it, of strength in any area at this time, or its willingness to negotiate in any area, is directly related to America's strength and America's will to commit its strength.

The moment that America's strength or its will to commit that strength comes in question, your potential adversary has no incentive to negotiate.

That's what this is all about.

And that's why I think we have a very good 80% of the time in this country.

We've gone the extra mile.

We've agreed with arms limitations.

Many believe that we've gone that far.

That demonstrates that we're not just building arms for the state, we're building up the industrial...

military complex, it does indicate that we want to limit them and that we eventually want to reduce them.

But we want to do it in an orderly way that will not damage the security of the United States.

That's really what this is all about.

That's what Vietnam is about.

That's what these other things are about.

The intentions of this administration are very clear that way.

And I think that I think that on this whole foreground and

where some of our opponents try to say that perhaps the peace issue is on the ground, they will cut defenses and they will reduce our commitments around the world.

So, on the contrary, that's not the road to peace.

That's the road to a very dangerous, a much more dangerous world.

The only force in the world which can discourage aggression in the United States of America withdraws

or reduces its ability to discourage that aggression.

Once the ability to discourage reduction to aggression is reduced in any place in the world, the chance for aggression and for war is increased.

That's why a strong United States in all of these areas is essential if people want peace.

Another way to look at it.

Mr. President, we're surprised at the...

Committed to you in the way of the democratic leadership of the House in postponing the consideration of one of the cornerstones of your domestic legislative program, general revenue sharing.

What we know, as Speaker Albert was on the telephone from Wilmington to Utah and the Senators in May here, we're working with the mayors, two mayors' organizations, with the National Association of Counties, and of course, mostly through the Vice President's office, with the U.S. government, with the Governance Association.

We must support that, as well as the Vice President's office.

I don't know where we'd be if it hadn't been the leadership of the Vice President of the country, showing support for general revenue.

President, I say this is the first time he's been here.

It's been confirmed, so I didn't even call him.

If you're trying to get away with some money, you shouldn't be doing that.

You're in the wrong position.

Well, yes, sir.

That new tie is up to you.

We've got very much new to say about general revenue sharing because it's been so thoroughly debated.

by the Vice President in the Ways and Means Committee.

But I think there are a few points related on the substance of it, because I'm partly one of them.

I think the first point is that the bill reported out in the Ways and Means Committee seems to me has to be put down as a major victory for the President and the President's program.

Because philosophically,

It is about what was proposed.

It has a distribution to all units of general government.

It has the practical effect of a no-strings-attached type provision.

That is, it does talk about expenditures in certain broad areas, but with no maintenance to them.

Thereby having the practical effect of being a no-strings proposition.

And it provides for a five-year planning horizon for the units of governments that receive this money.

While the formula is different in the sense of the present proposal tying to the income tax base and this being specified amounts, by the time you add up the totals,

that will be distributed, they both come to approximately $30 billion over a five-year stretch, so that in terms of the amount, in terms of the general philosophy behind it, this program represents a full conversion of the president's program.

The principal difference, I would say, is in the allocation formula.

And then here, the nature of the formula is somewhat different.

There's a split, explicit split between the states and the cities and counties that you know.

And this is both a nickel flow from roughly a 50-50 flow as opposed to about a 65-35 flow.

That is built back as the program goes on because the additional amounts each year, as you know, are added to the state side and not the city side, so that by the time the end of the five-year period comes, it is approximately 50-50.

But the general shift moves the allocation somewhat more favorably to the urbanized northeastern sections of the country, I would say, if you describe it very broadly.

So there is that difference in the impact of the allocations.

Our analysis is that if some such shift as that hadn't been made, it would have been very difficult to get the votes that were gotten in the way the means committee would get the bill out.

And at the same time, our feeling is that in the hearings, probably the physical crisis insofar as the city is concerned, will seem to be a little bit more severe than the state, so there is a certain amount of equity here.

On the other hand, it's quite plain, I think, from the resolutions already introduced and talked about in the Senate, and by just looking at the structure of the Senate Finance Committee, it would be very surprising

To me, anyway, if the allocation formula or the impact of it came out of the way it seems, would stay intact as it came out of the Senate's menace committee, so that I think, as this goes over to the Senate, one could expect this to shift back more toward the rural distribution.

I would like to say just one word about it.

I know it's debated, particularly the automatic authorization contained in the bill.

So philosophically, as we have looked at this, it is essential to have assured appropriation in order for the philosophy of General Residence here at the GMC, because the whole idea is to give these units of government an assured flow of funds that they can plan on and use in the manner that they think fits their circumstances the best, so that if

They then, they check it, so that each year they don't know whether next year they're going to get any of this money or not.

They take away the whole ability to make any plans and to look ahead and use the money in the most effective manner possible.

We have talked about this, the notion of having an assured flow, and establish what that is ahead of time, is very much at the essence of this bill.

Finally, I would say that, as all of you know, because you've all played around with the distribution formulas for all kinds of things, including this one, it's very, very complicated.

And when you start flunking around with the distribution formula, at least as we have done, you're often surprised at what apparently relatively minor change does

There's no substitute for plugging it in, and working it through, and seeing how the facts play out.

To that extent, I would say, the sort of amendment on the floor procedures on the distribution of parking may very well...

I think it is a real victory, considering that when the president first proposed this, Wilbert Hill said that he was going to hold hearings in order to hold the bill, and went around...

I think

Unbelievable progress has been made in the House a year ago.

It was dubious that we could get this far.

I think we're on the brink of being successful despite the diminished Democratic leadership.

The real test comes on the rule.

If the rule is approved,

Hopefully at a closed rule, I think the votes are there at least three to two or maybe more for final passage.

We have some deference among ourselves on whether a closed rule is obtainable, but through the work of Mark's office and those associated with him and our whipjack and others,

I think we on our side have anywhere from 100 to 110 out of 178 to 180, which is a pretty good batting average, a good percentage.

If we had 110 out of 255, there wouldn't be any doubt about a closed rule.

I think their apprehension...

was unfounded, but nevertheless they didn't want to gamble.

And that result was, unexpectedly, without any forewarning to me, any notice to me, sometime between 11.30 and 12 o'clock yesterday, they decided to postpone consideration from today and tomorrow to next Wednesday and next Thursday.

In the meantime, while we're going to continue our conversation,

Hopefully we can keep our 110, and hopefully they can add to their forces.

We had a meeting this afternoon called by the speaker, where he is trying to have Dale Boggs, Chip O'Neill, I presume Wilbur, myself and Les,

I understand some representatives from the League of Cities and various other organizations that are actively on behalf of this.

We have a fallback position, and I'll make a comment or two, and if Al wants to add to it, why, he can do so.

The principal opposition and the most effective in the House comes from the Committee on Appropriations, headed by George Mahon, who

It feels very, very strong, and this is a bypassing of the Committee on Appropriations, and he's tried both before the Rules Committee and subsequently to convince people that the rule should not be closed.

It's a partially closed rule, and Al Smith has drafted...

A rule that would coincide with what George is seeking to do.

George would like to open the rule to the extent of giving members the opportunity to vote on the formula, but not vote on any tax provisions.

It goes across to the appropriate, but about five other committees also, so you're going to have problems from those committees, because they don't like to have their authority taken away from them.

Neither of those is the first time any procedure, as far as I know, has ever been advanced to its means.

The only point of order is the appropriation.

Language could be changed on that.

The title of 1 and section 121.43 is my substitute to it, which I think has been adopted.

The bill has been long since passed by the House of Representatives without any serious trouble to it at all over the two years.

The extra year time leave.

And no tax law can be changed.

Nothing on the books can be changed in the revenue code or out of the revenue code.

But there are some other tax provisions for businesses and others.

I'm not going to get titles 144 through section 144 through the rest of the bill, title 2.

You're not going to be able to change anything with oil inflation and small-field tax rates.

I think you would have accomplished, I have to disagree a little bit with the procedure, because I think you would have accomplished your points a week or ten days ago if you had proceeded with that suggestion.

Actually, I thought that was a great release when I talked to some former leadership.

I thought we had that, but then they never got a vote.

We should have heard it, so they wouldn't have an opportunity to vote.

Otherwise, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to do it.

We came to a fallback position.

If we aren't successful on the proposed rule, because Al will take the lead in imposing the proposed rule, and thereby he would be recognized as a speaker to offer the alternative rule.

It has to be that way because it never comes to the proposed rule.

We would like to see that include the first two years as being

I can't

You're ahead of yourself, so you're doing it in two-year steps.

Then our thought is, well, let's have the first two years done.

Right?

With this bill.

And then you move along in a step after that.

Otherwise, I might say, there is no possibility of paying any of this money out in the fall.

If we

pass this bill, and then go back through the appropriations committee process, you know, through all that.

And after that is done, the whole mechanics of getting the payment process set up has to take place.

Well, I think you have to think... We will have another supplemental important adjournment, at least one more.

I don't know why it's impossible to put this money on a supplemental appropriator.

Well, it isn't, except that...

I think I can assure you that if the...

I really think that all it will take is a supplemental budget request and...

The appropriation was, I think, the forthcoming in a very short period of time.

I didn't, unless you changed the date, July, January 1st.

But I don't think it's possible to get the support of the Appropriations Committee for a proposal to put the first two years in as the appropriation in this bill, because that's the whole purpose for the other years.

But John, I think I didn't do it because of the time.

Facts are...

We've got 50 close months as the top tells me.

I think some favor the mandate, but there are 50.

Russell Long has promised to wait as representative, so it will not die in committee, but H.R.

1 is due out today, I think, Bob, finally.

And the time is running against us.

We need this out of Senate finance.

We need the bill from outside.

I'm trying.

Mr. President, I wonder if I can ask Jerry a question.

There seem to be those who assume that it's a matter of adopting a substitute resolution, and then we have to hear his statement.

Once the House turns down the closed rule, Jerry, don't you think that we might be in some considerable difficulty from those that want to tinker with the formula, and those that want to use it for tax reform?

I have the real feeling of assurance that once the closed rule is adopted, that the revenue sharing isn't going to leave the shore and be launched automatically.

John, that's why I think we have to stand as firm as possible on the previous question.

Once you beat the previous question, you set a standard, and they could then beat the previous question on L's resolution.

And if they ever beat the previous question on that, then it's open to amendment by those that might want to revise the Internal Revenue Code.

John, the thing that bothers me about the appropriations committee, and I come from that background.

You should.

The argument is that we want the opportunity to consider the justification of the appropriation.

And yet, for two years, you're willing to put in the total amount without any justification except the last presentation.

So I really think the argument for the opportunity...

to analyze the budget presentation really isn't a very valid one in this case, if you're willing to give them two years with partial launch authority.

There's another problem, and I don't know what we can do about this.

If we get to the point of a motion to recommit, Mr. President, Johnny Burns has that prerogative as the ranking Republican on ways and means.

I've talked to John because I'd like to know what might be forthcoming.

And I believe John at this point is thinking of a motion to recommit with instructions to change the date.

It's just a matter of adopting this substitute resolution, and we haven't cared to say it.

Once the House turns down the closed rules, Jerry, don't you think that we might have some considerable difficulty from those that want to tinker with the formula, and those that want to use it for tax reform?

I have the real feeling of assurance that once the closed rules are adopted, that the revenue sharing is going to leave the shore and be launched automatically.

John, that's why I think we have to stand as firm as possible on the previous question.

Once you beat the previous question, you set a standard, and they could then beat the previous question on L's resolution.

And if they ever beat the previous question on that, then it's open to amendment by those that might want to revise the Internal Revenue Code.

John, the thing that bothers me about the Appropriations Committee, and I come from that background, the argument is that you want the opportunity to consider the justification of the appropriation, and yet for two years you're willing to put in the total amount without any justification except the last presentation.

So I really think the argument for the opportunity

to analyze the budget presentation really isn't a very valid one in this case, if you're willing to give them two years with first launch of course.

There's another problem, and I don't know what we can do about this.

If we just give a point of a motion to recommit, Mr. President, Johnny Burns has that prerogative as the ranking Republican on ways and means.

I've talked to John because I'd like to know what might be forthcoming.

And I believe John at this point is thinking of a motion to recommit with instructions to change the date from January 1 to July 1.

It would save the federal treasury, thereby cut the funds for the recipients by two and a half billion dollars or thereabouts.

I think we can beat it, but that's pretty attractive to a lot of people.

How far would that undercut the commitments we, the administration, has made to the mayors, governors, etc.?

It's over.

It's the hardest of the total.

They all figured it would hang off lots of them and put it in their budget on January 1 until it came up.

But, Barbara, you had one question.

Well, I didn't have a question, Mr. President.

You see, there's substantial quarreling with the procedures here.

There's a very strong constituency for revenue sharing.

And those who oppose it have gone the procedural route because they don't want to meet it head on.

And I think we're very close.

I think we've made a very serious error to convert this into just another aid bill.

This is a revolutionary concept.

It's your concept.

It's the one major domestic administration initiative that we can bring to fruition this year.

And I hate to see us falter because we wanted a quarrel about the procedure.

Unfortunately, the most effective opposition is coming from Republicans.

And I don't know, obviously a strong-minded Republican can't be affected on something he's already made his mind up on.

But I think it would be a tragedy if we chickened out at this point after having brought it this far.

Yes, sir.

I imagine when I say something, I want to speak along the lines of John.

I don't know.

I'm taking a sample of the Senate Appropriations Committee, but upon a ring around the rosy with the appropriations process, there's going to be real trouble in the Senate.

From my viewpoint.

And the reason for this is that

are very disastrous experiences in the past.

This type of thing, even when it comes to the appropriations, appropriating two years in advance with HUD, and particularly in the field of urban renewable housing and things like this.

What we have found out is that when we do this, we get to the end of the two-year period, and the administration is not sure

It didn't happen until the administration had promised these people a certain amount.

Well, you had 1 billion 300 million this year, so next year we're going to have 1 billion 800 million, and your share will amount to X dollars next year.

Then you put the Congress appropriations process into this, coming into this money, without any right to exercise any...

You have to keep in mind, too, that we only have exercisable control over 30-31% of the budget today.

Mr. President, let me make myself clear at one point.

I'm not taking this position because I'm opposed to revenue sharing.

I'm not indicated that at all.

I'm taking it simply to protect...

Thank you for watching!

fellows like Bert and Royce and all those, they like to love to have an open room, so I want that clearly understood here at the White House, and I'm not opposed to rather sharing, I'll let them vote in for the bill, but I have to ensure it doesn't affect you.

Mr. President, the Republican members in the Appropriations Committee are certainly not opposed to rather sharing either.

We made it very clear in the full committee the other day, one of the chairmen made a rhetoric action plea against the whole bill,

that we would not, under any circumstances, help him to kill that bill, that it's a Republican bill and we're for the bill.

But we do feel quite strongly about the appropriation process, and it's not just a matter of pride, it's a matter of legislative oversight, George.

If the appropriation is made, if we appropriate the first two years without going into the situation as we will,

It's still the next year we have a chance to see what has been done, and no other congressional committee will be doing that.

And we think it's rather necessary that this be done furthermore.

As far as the situation is concerned in getting a bill, the situation improves dramatically, I think, as far as votes are concerned.

When you vote on the Smith resolution, as against the resolutions the committee has reported out, you will find many more votes for that, because the appropriate Republicans on appropriations committee will support the Smith presidency.

And three other states yesterday have seven in one Democrats.

So I want you to know that the Republican members of the Appropriations Committee are helping, they'll work for it, but we think that the strongest position possible is the Senate position, not the Democratic position.

Well, Chairman, will it aid the Democratic vote?

No, not under that circumstance.

I think George may not vote.

He told me he would.

I don't ask him.

Well, some of the Republican members in the Appropriations Committee will vote.

Well, the meeting this afternoon, Mr. President, I think will confirm the votes we have, and I believe will strengthen the votes the Democrats have.

And it's programmed pretty firmly for next Wednesday.

Hopefully we can make it next Thursday.

You know, you have, uh, financial concerns, uh, on the other side of the tunnel, you know, on the other side of the tunnel.

Well, we're on there.

It's a double track now.

It's three o'clock, so we're probably ahead of everything.

Because we need air.

Well, it's hard to be out there.

It's a couple of what we do at the next meeting.

Thank you.

We have laid on a number of amendments to the committee's recommendations.

It's possible that I have served with John Pastore and John Dennis, and I'll have watched.

And we'll try...

...restore some reason and logic that you tell before it leaves us.

I'm not too sure what we can do with the masculine memory because it's all muscularity, but we've got to try to chew it up and go after it.

It's many flaws and weaknesses, and it does most damage to the cat.

It is getting along pretty well on it.

So for nations to understand, the House will have all their appropriations over to us before, isn't that right, before the Democratic Convention?

No, it doesn't, of course.

Hopefully, but not probably.

It depends on what happens to the military, for sure.

Well, that's not the reason we're doing that.

That's about where we are with HR.

I believe it's finally out today.

It will be out today.

I think it's a far more important today because it adds up today.

I want to talk about that.

Please.

Well, I was looking at the schedule for the time

Yesterday, there was five weeks of sessions between the Democratic and Republican Convention.

That's correct.

And we have two and a half weeks now before the Democratic Convention ends.

I think it's a foregone conclusion we'll be back here after the recovery convention if they're going to do anything.

including some of the necessary things, appropriations, etc.

So, my best judgment is that once you come back after Labor Day, we'll be closed October 1st before you get out.

Just take tax.

Tax control.

All of you know that you cannot get a responsible tax bill in an election year.

Take HR1.

The possibility of getting a responsible welfare bill out of the Senate is nil.

You aren't going to have a responsible welfare bill.

I'm not going to be quoted to that effect, but you know and I know that with the jackass amendments...

Yes, sir, it's your turn.

Yes, sir.

Well, anyway, one of you is right.

Well, that's a pretty good one.

But the kind of amendments that are going to go on that bill, it's going to be an unbelievable hodgepodge, which the House will interject.

That would be my prediction at the moment.

What I'm getting at is, on the one hand, you say, well, after all, they'll be coming up for elections, and they have to be responsible.

Not on your life.

I have never seen a Congress in an election year that was responsible.

Never.

They all, I mean, all they do is spam, and particularly when you're, when we have that situation where the Congress is on the other side, then the executive, they're out to get us.

There is a technical problem that seems to me everyone should be aware of.

The Democrats have programmed the expiration of the debt ceiling for October 31st.

So they're giving us this extension from June 30th to October 31st, and something will have to be done between those dates.

About that, because if it expires, then all sorts of very drastic steps have to be taken just under the law in operating the government.

The Senate will have to practice this.

I think that consciousness is a problem that we'll see friends put there.

Georgia, don't you think that confirms my observation that we'll be back after the convention, because they are going to bring that extension up prior to August 17th or 18th, whatever the date is.

They'll put it beyond, or they put it beyond in the anticipation we would be here after Labor Day.

That's the only thing you can read into it, but maybe that lasts a second or so.

But maybe I guess if we go away...