Conversation 104-010

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Thank you very much.

My purpose today is to

for the various groups that are here to get your views on anything that we here at White House want to know in regard to the role of work by the economy, and also to indicate to you the strategy that I think we should follow in order to win this vote.

In speaking to the governors two weeks ago, or about ten weeks ago, there's about 20 of them over here that's speaking in behalf of the rest of the sheriff.

I found that there was, as you might expect, a considerable amount of disagreement among governors as not to the goal of revenue sharing, but how the breakdown between the cities and the upstate or downstate, as the case might be, or outstate areas or rural areas, and what the formula should be and so forth.

The tax...

I emphasize this point.

I only say this because I know that within this group there's probably very honest disagreement as to whether this formula

It is not before the Senate.

The one that the House has approved is just the right one.

You should state your views because we should know.

I would just like to say one thing, that as we come down to the time when the Senate may consider this, and may vote it up or down, and it will certainly vote it up in some form, we have to remember it has to go to a conference with the House.

You have to remember that if it is in the Senate, if the Senate does not have the rule which remains, you know, the House amendments, and it's a lot of estranged amendments, or twisted out of shape in such a way that it's too far away from the House version, then we're hung up again.

So what we have to do, I'm not saying we have to take the House bill as it is.

The Senate can be a House bill.

It will.

It recognizes its priorities.

On the other hand, if we present too much of a divided...

council as we go before the Senate, I think it could in the end abstain the whole bill.

So what I am suggesting is that as your presentations start, here you should make your presentations, just what you think about it, so that we can take into consideration and do what we can to work with the managers of the Senate and the conference committee on getting their views reflected.

On the other hand, in appearing before the committee, the main thing is to remember the main object, and that is to get it.

Now, I would like to say one other thing.

We got it in the house.

We didn't get it past the house.

Some of the votes we got were one-time votes.

We got them now, and we may not get them again.

So my point is, with this bolster of insurance, we would like to get it before the Republican convention.

I think if you would wait until after the convention, the kind of session that comes then, they're likely to get my left hand used to basically a lot of political matters that they may think are more important than this.

And when you have something rolling in any legislative body, you know, the only thing you can do is to push.

You're down there in the five-yard line, right across there, because you may not get it on there again.

So, I think the time is of the essence.

We'd like to get a vote in the Senate.

We'd like to get it before, in the next four weeks, before the election.

Thank you.

I would urge the senators respectfully not to hang extraneous matters on it, because extraneous things related to the revenue sharing are very, very distant related to if it will have profits.

in the context of problems of getting approval by the House, which will have to approve the contract.

And the final thing is that we should remember that we've come an awful long way since 1969.

We have no action in 69, no action in 70.

All year in 71, as a matter of fact, I've met now in one way or another, at least they've all invited every member of the House Republican Democrat, every member of the Senate Republican Democrat, a number of mayors, representatives of mayors, county officers, a number of state legislators, a number of governors, all on a bipartisan basis.

There has been sometimes a tendency to look upon government sharing as being an administration proposal, and in the last few years it will be an administration paper.

I think we should just get that view right off our heads.

We realize that, for example, a majority of the senators and house members are Democrats.

A majority of the mayors are Democrats.

A majority of the governors are Democrats.

The majority of the county officers are Democrats, and we could not pass it without Democratic support.

We kept this on a bipartisan basis all the way, and when this victory is won, it's going to be a bipartisan victory.

And many more than that, it's really going to be a victory to believe for a historic attorney government.

Where global government, state government, gets funds without strings, and I should emphasize some of that point comes up.

I'd be sure to fight right down to the line any attempt to put strings on this.

Because if you start going down the line and putting string lines on it, it isn't going to be really representative sharing at all.

It will be the same whole business.

You're going hand in hand to Washington, having to meet certain conditions, and you're not having the funds in a way for you to determine at your own levels, but how they best need to be used.

So, we've come this far, and now we need to make sure that this body of people here can always represent those of others, and others who are across

That's somewhat of our own thinking here.

We'd like to hear now from the representatives of the powerful lobby movement.

I say this, as I said to the governors, but I would say it perhaps even more to you, because I think you put more heat, if anything, more heat on, if anything, because we're more hungry on the Congress than on the governors.

If it had not been for what the Congress has been hearing from mayors and from county offices and from the revenue sharing, you know, to...

And it's because you put the heat on that it's there.

That's the way they carry it.

I mean, it's threatening sharing itself with Poland.

If you get it across the country, you'll find that most people support it.

But it isn't a gut issue.

It doesn't excite people.

It isn't something that's going to defeat a congressman or elect him.

And so there are many other things that would come ahead of it.

On the other hand, there's mayors...

and his county officers, and his state legislators.

He's likely to do it just to get rid of you.

There's not a thing you're going to be down there every day.

We'll give you the first check, the first shot.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I think you've been peeping when you said that you would do that in order to get rid of me.

I think he would.

I'm wondering if you're sharing some of your facts.

I recall listening to a radio broadcast and hearing someone talk about what should be done in terms of financing needs in local communities, and I thought, this fellow is for me.

I listened carefully to find out who it was, and it turned out to be Richard Nichols.

So the idea then was one that I thought was absolutely necessary, and of course today we're in a real trouble that we're in, it's even more necessary.

And I agree with you, it had to be done on a bipartisan basis.

But when I said this in the radio broadcast this morning, I heard, incidentally, may I tell the gentleman here that there's been a change in our status.

I heard on the radio that

I was having breakfast with the president.

And that I am the president... You didn't have to make a liar out of me.

And I also heard that I am...

I also heard that I am president of the National Association of Counties and Mayors.

I don't care about that fella.

I don't care.

But, yes, it did take a bipartisan effort, but I do want to thank you for the effort that you've made, and for the marvelous work that our Vice President has done in helping bring this about.

You don't really have to bring roles.

And he certainly has.

That's that part of him.

I get his responsibility.

And sometimes...

I sent a letter to the editor, as he knows,

The Baltimore Sun said the president and the vice president didn't really care about revenue sharing.

And I sent a letter to the editor, and I've been pounding on them ever since.

You've got a lot of interest in the Baltimore Sun.

Oh, yes.

I thought there was something about it.

But...

My own feeling, I'm an optimist.

I'm the world's greatest optimist, but I'm a practical one.

And I think, as you do, that if we start looking for changes today, we're liable to end up losing the package.

And my own feeling, and I'm sure that I'm speaking for the counties, is that there are other things that we'd like to see in this and that would be helpful.

But we'd rather at this point take the package as it stands today and be sure that we get it.

As time goes on, there's always room for amendment.

As far as strings are concerned, you know, there are times when I answer to the name Judy.

I think we're all like puppets punching Judy.

We just must not have strings.

And as we have told some of our friends in the house and in the social categories,

We are suffering from hardening of the categories, and we just really shouldn't be going down that route anymore.

So I would fully agree with you, Mr. President.

Although it isn't perfect, I would prefer that we just take the fact as it stands, and that we put our efforts in that direction.

Mr. President, as President of the United States, let me express our appreciation for your leadership in this program.

Let me report that, actually, unlike the governors, we probably are pretty much in agreement about certain amendments that we think would be appropriate.

However, we are not planning to propose them.

In fact, we have agreed not to propose any amendments to the strategy you suggested.

You can always remember that it curbs, and let me say I would not presume to suggest that people should not indicate what effect it should have.

We've considered that, and we've checked the tactics.

But you must remember that if we get the foot in the door, we get this first one, and if we go along, there will be changes in the alterations.

It's not going to be perfect.

Some people say, well, look, the cities are getting bad.

Some cities or some country areas are this far from as bad.

This state is getting too much.

tax secretaries, they know there's quite a lot of controversy about that, but it can be changed.

One thing that can't be changed, if you don't get it now, you may have a very great difficulty in getting it.

Just forget it for this year.

I know a lot of people already spent money this year.

Look at, we're ready to send out the checks.

In fact, I understand that you've got them already signed, Charlie, but we're working on this.

Laughter

38,000.

38,000 checks are ready to go.

We are all ready.

Mr. President, how do we go to the U.S. Congress?

The U.S. Congress is the mayors.

A few minutes ago, the governors and the mayors had a number of bills to be done.

We understand that.

Also, the White House had done its work, and the armistice that goes through the House, would already have been adapted, right?

I think there's not a man among the mayors, or a lady among the mayors.

Now that I'm president of the Mayors Association.

We have a number of lady mayors, but I think all of us would prefer the administration's original bill, which had no categories.

Let it open to each governing body to make its decision on local priorities and be actionable to local electorates in the event that they didn't properly follow the priorities that were number most in the minds of the electorates.

We have a bill.

If it's changed, we'd like to have a part in assisting in determining those technical changes to make it a better bill.

We're not here as advocates of change.

If the bill is opened up, it can be approved, and one of the ways it can be approved is to go back as closely as possible to the intended original bill, and say that if it is unarmored, it may be spent for any local property.

If they want to exclude certain things, it would be better than trying to enumerate those which are high priority.

I'd rather they give us ten more priorities than to try to give us four or five high priorities.

But nonetheless, we look forward to that.

If it is changed, we'd like to go back to that.

We appreciate it so very much.

It's just that you, your staff, the Vice President, his staff, have given us in bringing the bill to this point, and particularly...

I think that they have been chosen at random, these mayors have, for example.

This election has been made.

Governor, pardon me, now Senator Fanning is on the committee, and John Griggs at Randall.

It's been so long, he's chairman of the committee, that Randall Moonlandro has been chosen.

Mayor of Salt Lake City this year just at Randall with Senator Bennett.

Thank you.

I don't have anybody on the committee but I'm here just more or less as a moderator for the first few minutes.

We are grateful to you for all your advice and I too express that

and that we should fight in every way possible to avoid extremism.

...legislation tying it in to Fort Barrett Farm or anything else.

It might delay it and get it bogged down, and Fort Barrett cannot pass this thing.

And then if you could emphasize, Meredith, this thing.

Now, whatever happens, let's move on this thing and not move around and delay and so forth.

Delay is going to kill it.

Debate will kill it.

I might just...

know what'll happen here, because as you get along, see, if you come down to probably the Republican Convention around the 18th of August, all right, if you haven't got enough of that, then they're back clear after Labor Day.

That's about the board.

So we've got to quit, you know, sometime before the first of October, around that, in about three weeks.

You can imagine what's going to be up there at that point.

So if you can push it down, it could be very, very long.

This is our purpose in being here, and each of us is going to do all that we can to make sure that this bipartisan effort of yours is a success.

Mr. President, Mr. John Conner has the National Legislative Conference.

There's no legislative attitude that says a half a loaf is better than none.

Looks like today a half a loaf is better than none.

So, where many of us differ upon the wording of this bill, there's never been an issue that joined together state legislators, and there are Republican state legislators, there's never been an issue that has brought us together

working together through the whole lifetime of this bill.

There will be a group of state legislators there to testify today as they get in the House and work with the various committee staff trying to hammer out a bill.

We wish that state legislators have been more responsible in supporting your program through federalism, such as no-golf insurance,

Maybe legislators can't do all that's right in one year, but we appreciate the part that we've had to play.

We appreciate your help, the Vice President's help, in giving us the direction to go.

I'm hoping that we can add pressure, knocking on the doors, and we'll be notifying our 7,716 legislators to be doing that at our conference next week in New Orleans.

where we are looking for a nice conference, and I hope that we'll receive a greeting from you.

You mean in New Orleans?

New Orleans, next week, International Western Conference.

We'll must have you on that, and invite you to join us next June in San Francisco.

We'll do that now, without reservation.

They're both mine, Cindy.

Not to be outdone, Mr. President.

We'll invite you to come at any time you need it, and we'll have our meeting.

Tell us where, and that's where we'll meet.

Mr. President, how much trouble would you say retroactivity is in?

Would we stand a good chance of getting retroactivity because it's real bad trouble?

Charlie, what's your judgment on that?

Charlie Walker, he's been living, I was going to say sleeping with those people.

He's a very good politician in addition to an expert on the Treasury.

Charlie, what's your judgment on that?

There's very wide support in Congress for retroactivity.

The vote to kill it and waste it in this session was swamped.

So I would thank you and hope with your help.

With your help, we can hold it in the Senate, and I think you might also get those straight.

Mr. President, I think we think you're one of us in this business.

This is the heart of our thing, and I know you've been talking about federalism and so forth, and the willingness to delegate to us responsibilities.

of running our governments, even state, county at some point, is really the heart of what we think.

And we think that the only real solution to this complicated structure in this country is to really give us the revenue which we can't derive from ourselves, and allow us to set our priorities.

And your leadership in this, as a sort of fairly lone Republican on the State Action Committee after we lost John Lindsay,

John here, he's still a coroner, isn't he?

Oh yeah, absolutely.

Joe is bipartisan.

We really do share, we've really been together.

And with the Democratic leadership, if you could watch Moon pound away at Airbogs and those guys, they really are important.

But without your Ostegosh commitment, it really wouldn't work.

I think we could really, we say that normally to ourselves, but we say that to the country, because we think we're at the heart of the issue.

We appreciate it.

Let me say, we have put this ahead of a lot of other things.

Just for the reason that, as I say, recognizing the realities, it doesn't have a political point.

Just because it's so complicated, and people who are in government understand it, even if we've seen the benefits of government, or it's that people don't understand it.

Nevertheless, we know that for the future of the country, the future of people, this is going to be a good thing.

But we've got to do it.

If we can just... We should also point out that...

The historic nature of it, if this were a one-shot deal, like a disaster relief, that would be one.

When we think of the fact that this is just the beginning, and then it goes up, and it's a, you know, it's a part of us, and we're adopted.

over periods of years, and the whole new, basically, we may use that term, it's a whole revolutionary new concept relationship between global government and federal government is developed.

And a new concept is developed whereby the funds that you so desperately need and find so hard to get can be found at the national level where we've got

More stroke at bracing taxes than at the present time.

So what we don't need to make exactly the preaching required is to tell you all these things.

But what about, let me just tell you how important our friends from Louisiana are.

I don't mean the town of Great Texas or the United States, but what do you think of the power that's there?

You have Allen Ellender, who's the chairman of Appropriations and Senate.

You have Russell Long, who's chairman of the Finance Committee.

You have Neil Boggs, who is the Democratic leader in the House, or either.

And it's quite a powerful group.

I would say, yes, that without the support of Louisiana powerhouses, we wouldn't have a chance.

So, Mayor, you're going to deliver all of Louisiana, of course, without strains.

President Appleson is going to help you with this welfare bill.

I think that...

I'm optimistic about it.

We'll go get my best today as we have for each of the other committees.

He has a slight idea, as you know, Mayor, about a few strings.

I would hope that...

Well, I can hope that could be discouraged.

Every elected president responds to what he knows.

Senator Mahomes has to cue you.

Things which he responds to in Louisiana, that are very, very safe, property tax and choice, he has to react to that.

He has to respond to that.

...his horse there, and she's very enthusiastic about it.

One thing about him, too, is that some of these, I mean, those of you that don't know him, that in terms of just basic intelligence, there probably isn't a man in the Senate that is, you know, that surpasses him in quickness.

And still, while she was in beauty, he was a real goer, and...

If I talk with other people, they won't know what he's saying.

We'll do well.

Mr. President, can we have an assessment from you and Mr. Walker about the question of need?

We know it's desperate today.

Is the Senate sold on the need?

Excuse me.

Is the Senate sold on the need, as far as the need is concerned?

We experienced, for example, before the House of Representatives,

until we testified and indicated the circumstances in our various cities

That message got through.

Is that kind of sale necessary in the Senate?

Well, let me try to answer from my own knowledge of the Senate.

The answer is it shouldn't be necessary.

But in terms of the point that I have made, the urgency of action now always hit the knee.

I don't know if you're desperate.

I would say it's a problem.

It's true.

I don't know.

The budget for this is really a crisis of enormous proportions that if you go back, I mean, if we don't get action this year, it's going to cause very serious upheavals and crises and so forth and so on.

And if you just can't, it's a desperate need.

And we need it now.

We can't wait.

No, I think the need thing has to be now.

They all know there's a need.

I mean, the crisis of the city has been written about for the last 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years.

But if you just come in there and say that now...

We had our hopes up.

We counted on this.

We need it now.

This is going to have a great effect.

Then, of course, the other parts need to be made.

I don't know.

Don't you think they ought to get back to?

I think they'll get that very strongly.

Not just in terms of getting the bill.

I think you're going to get a bill.

The Senate problem is what's in it and what's on it.

You've really got to pay your attention to it.

But the quicker they move...

We're going to start writing those checks because we've got to get authorizations and this and that.

Could it be lost in Congress?

What?

If you get the bill on extension, believe me, it will come out in Congress.

Because you don't have the...

You see, it would be Wilbur Mills and Johnny Burns.

Wilbur Mills and Johnny Burns and Jim Burke and... Well, I'm in the top level.

That's right, Johnny Burns and Bill.

They know how to make a conference move fast, even when they're pretty far apart.

But if they're not so far apart, you get them quicker.

The only thing that can really follow a conference, if you were to take it,

something that we want another thing.

We want a separate welfare reform hanging on this.

Then forget it.

I mean, first of all, if you try that at the Senate, that is going to fail.

That's going to fail.

And then that might, by hanging the two together, you get the enemies of both together, and that kills it.

You always unite enemies.

You say unite friends with something, but the most important thing is to unite enemies.

Welfare reform by itself, in my opinion,

This will pass the Senate.

It will pass the House.

All we have to do is to get action.

Roughly in the same form it is now.

Just don't stray too far away.

They're due down there in quarter to ten.

The press will want to see the four spokesmen, I assume.

Yes.

I would simply close the meeting by saying we appreciate your coming down to support this.

There are many other concerns that you have in the city, but we always want to hear from you as long as we're here.

Thank you.

Right now, this is subject to both the board of the press and the board of the Senate.

Just to get another whang out of it.

I really appreciate it.

Don't let me just say that I shouldn't have to say this to a group of sophisticated political leaders.

Don't assume that you're going to get a big news story out of coming down here.

You will at home, I hope.

Because there are always other things that are up.

We have sometimes been disappointed to get all those cameramen in here.

We've got some very important stuff like revenue sharing and so forth.

So we get two steps back to the personnel.

But my point is this.

The most important thing about this meeting, of course, is what you say to the press.

It dribbles back to the Congress.

It will get on the higher general health event and so forth and so on.

Thank you very much.