Conversation 103-007

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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 as they work to write it, they discover some contradictions and some problems we hadn't anticipated.

But we will meet again when we come back after the convention recess and review these things, and we'll have an opportunity again to review the cost estimates and take another look at that.

The first one.

For myself, speaking solely for myself, I recognize that there are political imponderables in this situation.

And if, in your judgment, you feel it would be necessary or wise to see that this bill goes over until after the election, I mean until after the new administration comes back in where you start your second term, my heart would be broken.

I think all of us feel that we're going to add to our boxes.

And we're getting close to the end of things.

They're gonna open Pandora's box this week on the debt ceiling extension.

You may quit social security.

With a 20% social security.

Well, as far as the chairman is concerned, I don't think he's going to start very actively on revenue sharing.

until some pattern emerges with this one, because we've been on this one since the first of February.

I mean, I wanted to bring that up at a later time, because we don't have a chance to talk to you.

Let me say that that's very important for us to know unless we're changed.

Do you believe, in other words, as far as revenue sharing is concerned, that until this is

worked out that he's probably going to go with who?

You have to have that, but revenue sharing has to be, has to go through your committee.

That's right.

It can't be hung on some bill.

It can't be, I suppose.

That's something you mentioned at the day.

That's right.

It can't be hung on a deadline.

Oh, God.

This is our situation, Mr. President.

Just give us your feeling on that, and if you or any of the others, it's important for our, from our tactical standpoint, to know what's going to happen to revenue sharing.

We've got the rest of this week, and we're going to be involved in the debt limit at the end of the week.

And we've got a hearing on Wednesday to handle that.

Then we've got an opening hearing on revenue sharing on Thursday, which will be entirely a chance to come up and say something about it.

And then we go over it.

When we come back, we'll have to have the executive session on HR1.

And assuming that we have an executive session and report it out, then it goes to the floor.

And if the leadership decides to bring it up, then the committee will be involved on the floor all day long.

They've been working on the floor.

They're in at 9 o'clock.

and if they if they devote all attention to hr1 then the committee will be on the floor with no opportunity to hold hearings and do committee work on revenue share if if it should be decided in other words when hr1 is on the floor you will not have here it'll be difficult

It would be very difficult.

Now, we might be able to split it off.

So this is our problem.

Of course, we will say to you that our solution of the AFDC people who remain on welfare is a form of revolution.

It belongs here in your building.

That's a form of revolution.

We say, well, what about the Percy proposal for this $1 billion?

Well, this state has had a chance.

We won't pay any attention to it.

Of course, he draws on the fact that H.R.

1 says that the states will be held harmless.

It's one of the programs.

Yes, Master Chairman.

That's what he's drawing.

I mean, just reach into the grab bag and say, well, here's $1 billion for the state regarding this $1 billion proposal.

Let me say one other thing about the combination of revenue sharing and H.R.

1, the legislative situation.

Chairman Long is convinced that he's got enough votes on his side, that if we can provide 20 to 25 votes on our side for the Senate version, workfare version, that it will pass.

He's determined to make the fight

As of now, he's burning the trunk.

He's very judgmental.

Oh, yes.

He's judgmental of the other members of the AT&T and other scientists.

that your vision could pass.

The pitch that it's made, as you well know, but it cannot.

And, of course, the pitch that it's made on the other side is that it's very helpful that, uh, that moving toward Rigopov could pass.

Although, although, although, they're, of course, uh, uh, when it gets into the hassle of it.

Long has given me a list of Democratic senators which he says he can deliver.

24 firm, six possible.

He's got that many.

We only have to deliver half of ours.

This is for your bill.

What's your opinion?

Well, Mr. President, I think while I summarize it very well, I think that Chairman Long would never let this bill pass.

He's got 100 amendments that he offered.

Now, this is a very important part for me.

In other words, when they, when the figure, Elliot is now, he's a really honest guy, and he's trying to, but his point is that he reports that Rivikov, that their toll shows that they get 51 votes, that they have 51 votes.

Your point, Walton's position is that he'll screw it up.

Right, that's right.

I don't think they've got 51 votes.

Is there anybody smarter than Walton in the Senate?

No.

What do you think, Jack?

I doubt very much that they'd have 51 votes.

You doubt 51?

Because this is the point that's always dead low.

You see, here's the thing.

I'm just talking.

I will not move toward the Rivikov position.

I will not move toward that position because I believe it's like a little pregnant, and that even though they have a compromise which they have prepared, which just moves a little way, which Rivikov says he would accept, I am sure that if it goes that far, it will go further, and that they will get an astronomical cost after all we have done.

coming out for one scheme for $1,000 and the other scheme, 650, the 650 business of the 65, $6,500 a year on this for the welfare rights outfit and the rest.

Well, you know what's gonna happen if you start moving in that direction.

At least that's what I think will happen.

That's my concern about the Ribicoff thing, apart from some other things.

The other, on the other side of the coin,

As I said, I have some concerns, not about all the provisions, but about some of the provisions here.

The directions that you take, the speeches that I do, are directions that generally appeal to me far more than the directions of going more toward Rivikon.

The problem, of course, gets down to financing, among other things.

So it is my present intention to stand where I am on H.R.

1, which is already a compromise and which already, as far as costs are concerned,

uh costs we are blocking welfare reform by not moving toward arguments being that river cost got 51

And if we moved our river cut, we could get welfare reform.

So that's why what you all tell me here is going to have quite, I've asked that question as I may be the next time I go to the press conference.

I want to, could I say in effect that there is great question that it would have the votes.

Would you agree?

That river, that move, you all agree with that?

I do.

Yes, absolutely.

Well, some of the things that he has listed,

For instance, the ones on the Percy letter will not stay with him.

Well, the point is, it isn't 51 votes that matters anyway.

There are lots of things that have got 51 votes.

The question is, are they going to start the Long's Amendment?

Long, is he an alterably opposed to Republican?

Absolutely.

Yes, he is.

Right?

Yes, he is.

Well, as a senator, let me ask you this.

If you were Russell Long, an alterably opposed to Republican,

And you had this Senate meeting in this sub-start period, sputtering along between now and the election.

Do you think that that could pass the Senate?

That is a practical question.

Could it pass the Senate?

That's the point.

In fairness, I think, Wally, you might have to agree that the liberals probably would filibuster this.

Well, that's the problem.

Why do the liberals object to your bill?

It works.

Well, that's a part of it.

But another part of it is they like the 3000 instead of the 2400.

And if I could just interject an idea here, Mr. President.

One possible way of breaking that impasse with those liberals might be this.

And I talked about this extensively with AGW, and the committee knows all about it, but that is to take this 2400 and allow it to be varied upwards

or downward, depending upon cost of living differentials in regions of the country.

Now, they're not refined enough to do a precise job on this, but they're refined enough so that they can make some differentials.

Obviously, $2,400 in New York City is not going to go as far as $2,400 down in a little town in Alabama.

You can pay the chips.

And there is an incentive on the part of some of these senators from the larger states with large populations.

I suppose, Bob, to Detroit.

California.

And if we allowed that kind of a flexibility in that $2,400, I think it would ring a bell with an awful lot of people

It's obvious that $2,400 is not adequate in New York compared to $2,400 in Littletown, Alabama.

I think you would find that this might have the effect of not adding quite as many to the overall welfare program because

There are thousands and thousands of people in some of those southern states where they probably wouldn't be receiving less than $2,400.

And I don't know whether there would be as many to offset that in the increase over $2,400.

But you know, Jack, one of the arguments that has been made against that is the fact that that emphasizes the magnitude of the city.

In other words, why do people move out of the South Band, parts of the park, to the city?

Because they're here to get more money, not actually to get less.

I don't know that the cost of living differential would be that great.

I think it'd be worth checking that out if, for example, in New York it ended up to be $2,700, and in Bowtown and Alabama it was $2,000 or $2,100.

I'm not so sure they'd upgrade themselves and go up there, especially when they realize the cost of living differential, which is a scientific thing, right?

But that might be one way of getting some of the Rivikov people to move towards us.

Because they, frankly a lot of them don't like the workfare, but I want to be fair, I think there's some Rivikov supporters who are not adamant against the workfare.

They like the $3,000.

Now this is one way of moving closer to the areas where they probably would need more.

I think the chairman, he said to me, look, I was the witness.

So he said, I know how to count noses.

And I shouldn't put that list in my pocket.

He's given me a list of people that I give you a copy of.

I've got my own center.

But it seems to me that...

We will go into a prolonged and protracted debate.

Once it gets on the floor, it will come on the floor with the majority of the financial, with the work fair program.

We're not going to scuttle that in committee and report.

So it'll come on the floor in that form.

And once it gets there, it's gonna be a long and protracted debate.

And that's why I said I think maybe we should be giving serious consideration to the question of your situation and the situation of our Republican senators.

And also what this does, for example, to revenue sharing.

Yeah.

I don't want to take you too long,

Ribbikoff and his friends have run along the wrong way.

There's no question about it.

I'd like to make a few observations about it because it's very much a problem.

First, let me say, why acceptance?

All your speeches are welcome.

It's popular in the country.

There are certain developments, the way the ball bounces, but the end result is far from that.

Now, I think it's safe to assume that if a social security increase is passed, and you won't be facing the decision of vetoing or approving any welfare reform.

So is that right at all?

Now, I can see the political stakes of changing your course now, or being accused of studying a little bit.

I don't think that should be done.

We'll get a much, much better welfare reform that's done after the election next year.

That's your prediction?

Yes.

Now, here are some of the political problems with the concept of H.R. 1.

It is totally federal administration law.

No one completely proves that.

The governor's all come in and say, oh gosh, give it to us.

They don't buy it.

You can't keep it from slipping in to guaranteed minimum income, which is totally rejected by the government.

Now here's where the problem arises.

Here's a family on welfare, and maybe they're getting more than they should, and here's another family over here that's never been on welfare, lives on less.

The defect of the Family Assistance Plan is instead of dealing with this abuse over here,

They say, well, let's give a benefit over on this side.

Well, then it becomes the guarantee of government income.

I maintain that when you put people on any kind of a government statement, it matters.

I think the children and the families of the people who are poor and they work with how many nobody has the quality of life that those who get something do not.

Now, that

But that leads to the political abuses.

Whether it's a welfare rights organization or a Rivercoff or a Governor Hines.

Now, Rivercoff's amendment is full home with 70 million people getting some sort of welfare.

70 million?

Yeah.

The Governor would put 97 million.

I'm not sure about those figures.

H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-

There's where for the people of the country.

I followed your speeches, and I've proved it.

They think I'm going to put more on.

They do.

No, they're not going to sign your speeches.

They make that distinction.

But the country does not accept welfare expansion, welfare reform.

So if we can get rid of all this political now, in common sense, the finance bill has much support.

Under, whether it's river cost of $3,000 or the H.R.

1 with $2,400, if your earnings are zero, you get $2,400.

If you don't work for $2,400, you get cut down to $3,000.

The rewards under the finance plan are the rewards.

If you work, you get more.

Now, I'm a minority of one, I guess.

I'm unhappy about the Finance Committee's plan because of the cost of it.

And I don't think I've gotten my ideas over.

There's one place that the Finance Committee's plan has had a cost of, according to Bob Myers, of $1.7 billion.

And that is over.

Extending the income supplement and the work bonus to people who've never been on welfare.

It's not only that concept here.

You've got somebody on welfare.

Here's work support that's getting less.

Therefore, you've got to do something.

If we were to eliminate that, that's $1.7 billion.

In the adult category,

of aging blind and disabled.

We've got that pretty high.

We also have a principle in there of disregard of income, which costs several hundred million dollars.

Well, I don't mean to cry to tell you all the details,

The concept of the family system plan wasn't intended for Gary, but it slides in that direction.

We can't stop the people.

Well, I want to know what you think.

If you can't move the people, the people will end up that way.

That's what they're after.

The people, as Lynn George would say, anybody, Democrat or Republican, can go out and get himself elected by attacking each other in any district in the United States.

They can do that.

I'm not saying it's putting more people on welfare.

It's expanding the role.

Let me put it this way.

Part of it, I think, it might just be the...

I think it's been a pretty exciting speech to say at the present time it's shocking that 12 million people are on welfare.

It is shocking to find that in the city of New York, for example, 1,300,000 people are on welfare.

It's gone up 100% in the last 20 years.

Other plans that are presently being offered by our opponents

They increased the number of people receiving offerings.

Denying it.

If you want to put 75 more million people in welfare sitting on their ass doing nothing, you can't send them up the wall.

And one of the things, let's go back to what you said.

You didn't say that about teacher and law.

Well, except that we don't, the only thing is that if I were to suggest that I don't mind the tax, I mean, I can see your taking of it.

My view is, rather than the, I just zero in on theirs, what theirs would do would increase the welfare rose from 12 million to 90 million.

Yeah, not really what I would be taking it.

Do you want to put 90,000 and half the people of the United States on the loan?

Or the $1,000 plan, of course, puts down everybody.

The point is...

I think you've got a good point.

It opens us up for an option, and there'll be some bidders on our side of the aisle.

Yes, sir.

Yes, there will.

They'll raise this candy, and there's no... Oh, some of ours will outbid the others.

Oh, right.

And the totalitarian, the totality of the testament, as well as our own observation is,

that it's the federal administration that creates the abuses.

Every governor and every welfare director will tell you, if we can run our show, we can eliminate these abuses.

And there's terrible things that would happen to the country if we had no federal administration.

Why was it that you were one of the great supporters of some proposition earlier, when Secretary Schultz was on the email yesterday,

Explain that thing, the curse of what we're doing.

Private pension.

He's got a foot in your leg.

Talk about that analysis.

Do you fellas know about social services?

Do you know that the next step, that we only have four days and we can't do anything about it, that due to something the Congress passed, that all the states are lining up hat in hand, including primarily our Republican governors from California, from Illinois,

and from New York with their hands out to hire social workers, and we pay the bill as if it's been $3 billion.

They're moving from a 50-50 matching over to a 75-25 American social welfare.

It goes further than that.

The thing that is shocking to me is that what we're doing, Carl,

There's so many mistakes.

Look, go out and hire a lot of social workers, and if you do, we'll give you 75%.

Is that what it does?

We're urging them.

This is not for the purpose of medical care, to help the poor lady get her leg fixed, or have psychosomatic...

you know, therapy or whatever it is.

What this is is really, it's a subsidy for social workers, the lowest form of life.

In this country, we are dealing with the seeds of our own structure.

I don't think there's any question about it.

Now, under the committee plan, 60% of the recipients are assumed never to be able to work

On that, we give a block grant to the states.

and let them write their own statements.

And they'll stop those things.

This is a committee, Mark.

Yes.

Well, now, I'm not trying to get you to agree.

I don't think you should.

Well, I can't do that.

No, I don't think you should.

You all understand.

If we were going to do that, we had to do a concert or something.

But I believe that...

You see, the part that we have to make here is this.

I think as realists, we all know that the worst time to pass any responsible legislation is in elections.

That's the problem with us.

But the Social Security, it's going to be irresponsible.

It's going to be too high and not adequately financed properly.

unless some mastermind works this thing out, and so on and so on.

Here we have the same true tax reform.

It shouldn't pass any tax reform bill in an election year.

It'll be a mishmash.

It'll be terrible.

Now, in this case of welfare reform, on the other hand, you have welfare, having submitted it in August of 1969, having pressed for it all this time, I have to stick to the decision.

I've got to stick.

I will continue to take the position that I'm going to wait to see what the committee finally recommends before commenting upon its provisions and so forth and so on.

As the position of the administration is concerned, the administration, I mean, GW and the rest, let me say that we will do our best to see that it's an even-handed approach.

That's what we need, because we can't be in a position where...

I mean, if I'm going to stay, stick with the present position, which is in the middle of everybody, and I think most of you would say the position in the middle will not be needed,

You certainly think that your people will not, your disposal will not be in control of your case.

You don't believe that Rigopas could.

And even if it could, you believe wrong, the filibuster, so that it could not get through.

But this in mind, the prospects appear rather dim.

However, I think it would be very unfortunate if you, as members of the Senate, after talking to me, would go out and say, well, the prospects look very dim.

Then maybe you ought to put it off.

I mean, if you said it on your own, that's one thing.

If, on the other hand, you must not indicate that, I think the position has to be on the standpoint of the administration.

But I believe that my present position is the correct one, that I've already indicated publicly that I'm not going to move to a different bill.

I've listened attentively to the members of the committee express your views on several provisions of your bill.

There's several of those provisions that I think have merit.

I will say that I'm not yet ready to comment upon others, particularly those that might involve excessive cost, until we have a better opportunity to appraise the new medical job.

That's about the position.

I think you could even hedge, to some extent, we've seen them on the sentence.

Yeah, but I mean, rather than get too hard, the thing that I don't want to do is basically to kick the members of the Finance Committee, which is a responsible committee, in the teeth.

So we'll avoid them.

After all, you came out with 10% Social Security.

I was highly responsible.

Of course, we'll prevail.

We're going to offer it as a substitute for the 20% on the debt ceiling.

It won't give us a chance to vote.

Yeah, the difficulty there is that the 20% is trying to just revert to that for one moment.

It has to be financed.

And where you're gonna get the finance out of that, I don't know, but that means you can't just leave six months and two or three billion dollars hanging out there, not in finance.

So that's the position of the members.

We can't, I can't, we all know as realists in this room that I cannot veto the Social Security bill.

For your information, we're gonna veto it.

Having said that, for your own information, you should know.

that i have decided that any bill which is substantially above the budget request that i have made no matter how meritorious is a veto candidate regardless of the political consequences looking down the road now there's always an exception to such general rules that one is social security

destroying the Social Security bill would be an idle act.

I mean, you'd roll that in a matter of about one hour, right?

In both houses.

So it's no sense doing it.

So therefore, I just ask you both to do everything you possibly can, and Johnny Burns will be your great ally in the House, everything you possibly can to get the damn thing to the name.

It's a shocking amount that's going to be paid for Social Security out of it.

It's getting clear out of control.

Do you think that a veto would be overridden in the Senate on a 20%?

Yes.

Social Security?

On any?

Sure.

No, I think... Do you agree?

Yes, I believe that.

Now, since he's done...

Since he's done, they've already signed for the 20%?

Yeah, I know, but they didn't even know what the financing was.

Well, let me say, let me say, I don't want to...

will be signed, I'm not saying that, but I am suggesting that the way that it's going at the present time, it will, that'll be tough today.

I may not, and although some of you are probably going to be enthusiastic, when that water bill comes down, that's going to be vetoed, because it's too much money over the budget, and it'll raise all of the environmentalists, but that's too bad.

It's just going to be vetoed, and that veto will be sustained.

If it isn't, I don't care.

But the point that we have to make, as you know, we face a horrendous problem

It is really horrendous.

And the, we've got to get this in a position that the responsibility for it to have problem rests squarely on this Congress.

Because if you stay within the budget, I mean, then we have a narrow, we have a narrow margin where we can, but that's why in these things that we come up with just awfully tough laws.

Mr. President, can I say something on H.R.

1?

Sure.

I run into this all over my state, and there's a lot of people who don't like H.R.

1.

They don't like it when they find out, for example, that in the case of Puerto Rico, under H.R.

1, you've got 2.5 million people down there, 250,000 of them are now on welfare, and under H.R.

1, 800,000.

would be eligible for welfare.

They know that.

Well, I tell them that.

They don't like that.

And another thing is that... No, I wasn't against it before.

I thought you talked to Governor Perry about this.

He said, I don't want it.

He said, it's the rule of the character of my people.

And...

And I want to underscore what Carl Curtis said about the people who think this is a guaranteed annual income type.

They do.

The National Chamber of Commerce has done a pretty good job on it.

But I must tell you that our staff on that committee tore H.R.

1 to pieces, and they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt by innumerable examples

then it would be better to sit and work under HR1, and this is contrary to your policy.

I just want to tell you that so that I know that you know that.

John Williams told me quite a bit.

He doesn't tell me that.

Go ahead, sir.

There's one subtlety in the financing of a social security increase that concerns me.

People seem to have moved in their thinking to a current cost financing

way of thinking about Social Security.

And according to the ACW Advisory Committee, the trust fund level should be the equivalent of the following year's outlays.

In other words, 100%.

Now, it's very easy to say that you're finessing

and increase properly under this system by just lowering that percent and say, we'll set it for 75%.

which I understand is very much in the air.

Unfortunately, you can say, well, we have met this criteria, and we have provided for this big increase in outlays, and we don't have to raise the taxes because of this move.

And that is $100 million on the deficit this year.

And that will be church amendment.

That will be the church amendment.

We'll have a 75% in the executive finances.

Unfortunately, the advisory committee said that it would be all right if it should.

They didn't consider it as a permanent level, but they considered that it could go up or down 25% of the way.

And that was graphed very quickly in the advisory committee.

Good.

I just want to make two points.

Number one,

I have a feeling that the environmentalists have been far overrated on the basis of votes in this country.

When you come right down to it, I think a lot of people are listening more to Peter Drucker and other more reasonable voices recognizing that jobs are important, that this environmental appeal doesn't reach as many underprivileged groups as some people think it does.

Talking about that with me, may I just respectfully suggest that as far as the environmentalists are so-called ecologists are concerned, this is for the underprivileged.

That's for the underprivileged.

You're exactly right.

Who in the hell gets out to the bird sanctuaries?

Who gets out there?

I mean, people you know, those, listen, have you ever talked to a doorman in New York in an apartment house?

I remember the little guy, his birthday was the same day as mine.

Wonderful ivory guy.

And every time I'd come back across the country, gee, how was it?

And who are the clowns that are pushing for all this crap?

Well, the people that want to die.

be out there.

When I saw a beautiful area, you know, out there when I was out with Mike Mansfield and so forth, I made a presumptuous suggestion that in order for some people to be here, we ought to at least set up some kind of decent area for trailers.

So that ordinary people, oh, that's terrible.

That'll spoil the environment.

So only the rich can go.

And not us.

That's exactly right.

Secondly, just one word about HR1.

I agree with Carl Curtis that your speeches have been popular with everybody.

They're popular with working people because there still is in this country, I think, a strong work ethic.

I think most people feel that everyone who is able ought to work for a living.

And as a consequence, though there is great magic to this word reform, I don't think we have to buy just any kind of piece of legislation because somebody says it's reform.

I think we can support you.

Without your having to say anything further, I'm certainly not going to be quoting you, but I think that what you've said in your speeches rings a bell with most people.

And I agree that if they take Social Security out, as they intend to do, and tie it onto the death penalty ceiling,

I think the rest of this, they can die a natural death.

And if it does get to the point where you have to veto it, I believe we can build up enough bipartisan support for your position that it isn't going to hurt a bit.

Let me say something.

Let me say something so that you'll have no doubts in that story.

No doubts what?

The welfare bill.

Well, I think we on the committee should just go forward.

If we're asked what happened here today, we had an opportunity to discuss this with you.

And you reiterated the fact, already publicly stated, with respect to Rivikov and with regards to support of this proposal.

Now, we'll come back at the end of this next recess.

We'll do our work.

We'll report the bill out.

And if it's that, I'm going to pass judgment on your proposal until the committee has word on it.

We'll see what it is.

I'm just trying to say that at this point.

but I expressed concern about the cost features.

Anything over the cost is something we'll have to have a very...

I don't think any of us want to say now that you threatened to veto it.

You just expressed your concern that it would be kept within cost limits.

Then it comes out, and it's the first...

It's last week in August, and it seems to me that then the problem turns to the leadership.

Do you want to face a filibuster?

Or maybe at that point, somewhere along the line, you have to express a desire to have revenue sharing ahead of this or something of that kind, which then moves it into the arena that we can't control, but which is the arena in which its fate will be decided.

It depends in part on whether we're coming back after Labor Day and how long we'll be in before election, whether we're coming back after election.

But knowing that Russell's position, I'm sure he's perfectly willing to make it plain to mass people.

At some point, the leadership has got to decide whether they want to spend the next four or five weeks discussing this or whether they want to lay it aside.

And so I don't think we should abandon it.

But I think we might be in a position where we reluctantly agree that the leadership is for the .

Yeah?

Well, Mr. President, I think that when they start pushing the 20%, they acknowledge that they are not going to get a welfare bill through this year.

Many that I've talked to just .

This is the end of it.

They're not going to get a welfare bill through without .

That's right.

And so they want to go for the Social Security.

Russell Long is very much on your team on this workfare program.

He calls this bill your bill from the standpoint of what you have said.

In other words, and we do too, as far as that's concerned, when I'm making a talk, I quote you, and I say this is exactly what the President would like to have, which I truly believe.

There's another thing we haven't talked about.

I'm going to increase the cost of the committee bill.

And that is the minimum wage.

Because our bill ties in with minimum wage.

We've solved that.

We've solved that, but it's an additional cost.

We've solved the number of hours.

We reduced the number of hours for which we paid these people, 40 to 32, so we're still $2,400.

We haven't shifted on that.

Now, Mr. President, I don't have anything to add except to support what the chairman said, the leader said, Bob, Carl, and Jack.

I was pleased.

I think we've really reached an impasse on welfare in this session.

I don't know if the committee reached that conclusion independently, because I believe, as Mr. Smith said, Rivkoff will go back to the committee version.

I know that the chairman of the old cluster, Ribicoff, none of us like H.R.

1.

That goes for both sides.

So I think we've reached a genuine end to this, and I think it's all right that we have, because I think we're talking about it.

Crossroads legislation, we're talking about whether we, one, whether we're going to go down the road toward nationalization of wealth, whether we're going down the road toward the philosophy of people are entitled to welfare as a matter of right, not as a matter of need.

These are, this is crossroad legislation.

I think it should be put off for another year.

So I think that the name's going to work itself out without any scarred on anyone, but hopefully another year, and I won't be,

But hopefully, another year, people will square away from this thing and take a good look and see what direction the country wants to go.

Because every time I talk to another, not from my state or elsewhere, I say, how many of you want to go down the road to what a guarantee is?

You can't get anyone.

If they just hunt you down in their chair, cold as your hands, they just, they're ready to come on deck and get caught scratching his nose.

And how many of you, how many of you would go for work there?

But we're up big time, up big time, because we understand that kind of thing.

And the country is with the kind of thing that you've been saying, and the kind of thing the committee's been working on.

But the time is too short, and the election year is not the time and place to implement.

And I can still take it after the whole too much comment on the Senate.

I just couldn't still go after the Senate as I did.

You can actually say, Mr. President, that you recognize there are two strong forces out there.

And until after they work their problem out,

But it's kind of a thing that's very strange, you know, because Bobby Grissom here has been pushing me to get to, you know, and I've done it over at Weinberger, and I've got $80 million to buy those buses to Detroit.

Mr. President, after two years of effort and more than that, and to see this all go down the drain at the end of this Congress, it's going to be kind of too bad in a way.

And I just wonder what can be salvaged out of it, if anything.

Would there be a possibility that we could have some genuine pilot projects around the country that would try out?

I mean, I think the committee's bill here has got a lot of good ideas in it.

I don't know whether they would work or not.

We don't want the APW to be in charge of deciding what's going to be charted out.

But I just wonder if there's any possibility along that line.

Or perhaps what is going to be called for is that here's an actual point, a new committee of some kind of top experts around the country to come up with a new welfare reform program.

Next year or something.

Steve Irwin is going to say, I don't think I have anything to say.

There will never be another time.

I'm going to get food stamps.

I've never seen one that didn't come at all.

It's on the Jackass program.

So the committee has a good deal to, you know, if you want to find an answer, give it to the committee.

Well, just read about Uruguay.

They've done, they've gone through this whole operation on there 15 years ago, and it's a pretty sad story.

It's worth reading.

You know, the interesting thing about Uruguay, take a minute on that.

He's there in 1958.

They had a screwball deal where instead of having one present, they cast it around and eat it or something.

But the sadness of here and here, it's a rich country and all of the very intelligent people, very, it's primarily Spanish.

I mean, I mean, European rather than, rather than India.

I mean, there's no reflection in India except that their literacy is 95%.

Splendid University of Montevideo.

The non-heads from the United States who came back, and all the Uruguayan students that went to the United States came back socialist.

And so they took Uruguay as too bad.

You know, they, they, there was more concern about me than the Uruguayans.

Plus the hell of an export.

And in any country in the world, I just didn't decide.

As a result of how they have screwed it up, they took over harbor, they took over swim.

They so ruined the agriculture, which is their major, now the agriculture of growing and packing, that now your way of stocking in for meat, and it's down the tree.

Now they have 50% welfare.

50% say on Social Security, whatever it is, it's not just who the hell's gonna pay for it.

Are you right?

1,600% inflation in 15 years.

Well, anyway, I appreciate your time, but can we say that, can I also ask this, if you're doing this, you'll have a debt limit on the Social Security, and the Social Security on the debt limit, right?

Okay, thank you.

May I ask, Mr. President, will that move be made, Wallace, in committee?

Will that 20% move by Church and Long be made in committee?

I don't know.

I don't think so.

We would like very much if all the Republicans on the committee would fight hard for a clean bill.

And if the bill is going to be amended in committee, that you...

give some support to our request that it be the CNP-465 running until March of next year rather than October 31.

I'm sure we'll consider that.

Russell smiles about it.

He says, you know, what Russell says, what Russell's attitude says to me is I'm not for the 20%, but I know it's going to

and I'd better be on it when we go to conference if there's any chance to change it, I'd better be that.

So I think we can keep it clean in the committee.

Would you also to this I would like to say that I raised the problem of revenue sharing.

I've got your judgment on it and I urge that the committee find some way to get revenue sharing as quickly as possible.

Now we all know the problem here.

I know the practical problem, believe me.

We've got the county officials in town this week, we have the mayors in New Orleans.

We've got a rocket caller.

I mean, speaking of our friend, has come to the forum all the time.

And if they felt that we did not have a meeting like this, etc., I'm going to share anything they said we didn't mean.

So I raise it.

What do you know about that?

rules of the House, specifically Rule 20 and compounded by the Reorganization Act of 1970, there is no way if you add non-germane amendments in the Senate for the debt ceiling legislation to be finally concluded this week, that the House will require either a complicated procedure to deal with the Rules Committee and bypass a conference, or to go to conference and a layover for three days.

So you're in the next week if the Senate adopts non-germane amendments to the House-passed debt ceiling bill.

And so Wilbur has been quoted

as saying that he would oppose the 20% increase added on to this bill.

But Frank Church tells me that as a result of the meeting he had with Wilbur, Wilbur has changed his position.

Now, I have an appointment with Wilbur at 2 o'clock today.

It was originally set for 11.30, but changed at Wilbur's request at 2 o'clock.

And we're trying to determine exactly what Wilbur's view is.

I've talked to him twice in the last week.

Did you let us know?

Yes.

Wilbur's view this time.

Totally.

Exactly, Mr. President.

It inspires me to take whatever Wilbur says with some reservations because it could change tomorrow depending upon how the winds are blowing in Miami Beach.

Senator, are you going to block that ceiling at the door?

I suggested that to Russell and I think he will simply because if he doesn't,

But first, I think he'll block, he'll stop it at the door, leave it at the desk, and then we'll hold a hearing without specifically having the building for us.

If he doesn't do that, somebody can ask to have it lay over three days in the Senate.

That just compounds it further.

So that's not anything...

that would be done to kill it, it would be a time-saving device.

He last night got together with Church and Bob Ball, and they changed already the effective date of Social Security to September 1st.

Bob Ball is very happy that he saved $2 billion.

Well, that's nice.

We lose $4 billion, but we save $2 billion.

And Long thinks that the first checks will be in the mail in October rather than in July, as he originally had.

making it even more palatable to get more votes on it.

Let's go back to the Senate.

Easy.

Well, let me say a conclusion, and you say it's not the best the Senate can do.

There's no half-injust and half-inverse made about the Senate, and some of its responsible actions.

I don't know how long you've held it.

I'm keenly aware, in rear guard, basically, if that's what you are fighting, there are responsible men who...

Despite the fact that there are ladies that are running around the country saying anything, voting for anything, help with the college, et cetera, et cetera, are responsible and remind yourselves to try to come up with answers.

And we're constantly, for the purpose of embarrassing you and the church.

Mr. President, would you be aware of that?

I'd like to ask George how much time to go on July 1 to get along without that student changing.

There are different kinds of things that happen.

As you know, we cannot incur any additional debt.

That's being done daily through the payroll savings government bond program.

So we have to do something immediate about that.

There's no time there.

And our problem is not even before the next paycheck comes out.

So it's on the withholding.

Well, paychecks, of course, how they come in an employer's payroll varies a lot.

That's on the withholding of a tremendous number of people all over the country.

Now, that's a problem.

Then there's just the question of paying bills.

We have about $6 billion, which will last us probably less than a week.

And then we just have to get an answer to this.

But it is a very serious thing to come to the point where people can view of this in a way in which the debt ceiling is used as a device to hang all kinds of things on and to come right up to the end and so on.

If it is going to be amended, if the House bill is going to be amended, then we very much prefer to go back to the administration's original proposal on the debt ceiling of $465 million extended through next March so we don't have to go through this all over again after the Republican convention and have whatever program stuck on it or something.

We are planning right now to take the position before your committee tomorrow that we prefer the 465 and we'd like to see a spending ceiling.

On the other hand, we recognize the seriousness of not going beyond June 30th and therefore

The proposal is to just take the House bill as a clean bill and pass it so that it doesn't have to go to Congress and doesn't have this three-day layover.

Now, that's the position we're planning to take, but if there's going to be the layover anyway, then we certainly would like to see it on the economic cushion.

Mr. President, in a colloquy with Senator Albert, Senator Robert Byrd said we will stay in now.

In other words, in the next week, he said up to 7 if necessary.

Two-fifths is out of the way.

I have one final point.

I think by far...

There are 12 million people on welfare.

This is a proposal that the president needs to have a program to get people to head off of welfare to get a proposal that we trust and of course this will be in the Democratic platform from a very general point of view.

Seventy-five million people to the welfare rolls.

Just crack them on that.

Seventy-five million people will be at the welfare rolls.

Who's going to pay it?

That's a murderous thing.

I think the fact, I mean, then you get away, you get away from the fact that, well, is 2,400 enough for a person to live on?

The answer is probably 6,500 isn't enough if you're going to live with other people.

Maybe 10,000 is, but my point is that if you put it in terms, if this proposal would have 75 million people in the welfare roles in that district,

half of all the people in the United States of America would be in the public chip, getting welfare.

Now, who's going to work for them?

The President said, those who want jobs should be provided with jobs.

Just those who want jobs.

There's many.

Before you go, we have to thank you that we always give out these cufflinks, but these new ones are in living color.

And so we have some for all of you.

These are more expensive than the others, so don't give them to any of you.

And for your wife, we also have a new little thing we've got with other people.

This is one of the things that you wear.

Also in color.

So...

You don't have to report it yet.

Just as I said, keep it below 5 o'clock.

This is close to 5 o'clock, so don't get ahead of yourself.

Only members of the finance committee get such a deal.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Donald Russell.

Uh-oh.

You'll be able to get one extra one for Russell Wallace.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'll be there.

Goodbye.

Which we will do, if I am asked, well, what are you going to do with this?

Let's just say we'll use it to the extent that we can get away with it.

But that, quite frankly, we're pessimistic about it.

It's not the kind of clear-cut, concise tool that we want to have.

One of the things that you ought to know, and as a lot of close friends I've got, and we're in this area,

Bill has got an age of being considerably softer and more liberal than I am, I know.

And... Is there somewhere I can help you on this?

No.

No, I don't really... You're going out there to help the President, primarily, and I...

I just...

If you're aware of that, fine.

I want you to know that.

But there are some issues in some areas where I think Bill can strengthen you.

This one, it might not.

Well, interestingly enough, he's moving to us on this issue, and he's probably more aware than I am, and he called me after the Roth decision, and he was really, uh, sprang up to get over it with us.

And so, uh, this, this meeting is his instance, and I take it as a, as a symbol of his wanting to align himself with more of the community view of the president and the president.

and then talked to the president about this, and he said, why don't you go away, we're trying to get over it.

And so, that's what I'm hoping to do again.

At our state of public convention last weekend, she just asked me, did everything she said to endorse the Constitution.

We didn't go that far in the recognition of knowledge.

Yeah.

Okie doke.

I've got a big three inch grip.

I'll see that you get one.