Conversation 106-003

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

At the proper time, when you're ready to discuss the legislation and what's going on, when Jerry and I are, we have our heads together on things to look at.

Well, that's the first item on the agenda for this.

Yeah.

In case it looks like on an HAP,

the tide boat is being maneuvered and the quickest I can know about it is I'm allowed to be in there.

They're not going to build you off of the tide boat.

They knew I couldn't get by.

They want me to follow them.

But what we thought would be useful today, I have two thoughts for them.

One, as we meet here today, I'd like to have Jerry and Hugh go over what each of them sees as the possibles.

What do you think will pass?

What ought to pass?

You know, where it stands.

We'll go to Hugh first, and then Hugh.

It's a good start.

You both can learn.

Jerry and I were just talking about it.

I had to have the bipartisan leadership meeting.

We had agreed that that would be a break.

We could have a 30th, which would be the end.

And I spoke to Mike yesterday and asked him if he would continue to urge the

and I told him that

The preventive saying is maybe repulsing and suppressing him.

I'm told that I have my information on his side as well as Al's.

It might not be yet, but by the quorum after the 30th of September, we've got a plan accordingly.

And he has agreed, subject to action that he took on Tuesday, to cut off all legislation in committees as of Friday, September 15th.

that should prevent some of these last-minute political, candidate-type, adventure, in the way in which Friday Leap has been.

Marbury, he's agreed.

He's agreed.

He's subject to getting his, his caucus to approve it Tuesday.

And he'll let us know, Gordon, before I watch it, so it's Tuesday.

So that comes, that comes.

Well, I'm just taking care of it, so that's how it comes.

I believe we should kind of stick to that.

I've asked Jerry to get the word going, but now she's going to leave, come hell or high water, whether we stay or not, and that'll put a lot of fire on the candidates on our side.

Can I ask a question before that?

Jerry, is that really in the interest of the House?

Let's look at it.

Is it not in the interest of what we are trying to be their encompass to keep them here longer?

Or do some of them not want to stay to go back and be hung up government?

In other words, which is in our interest to you?

Is it better if Congress don't go out on their own?

Well, I think you could argue it both ways.

some people particularly the southerners don't want to be home if mcgovern's going to be any place in their vicinity and i suspect that's true in a number of northern states so for that reason they'd like to stay on the other hand

It's a very interesting conversation with the speaker yesterday.

We were going through the routine of work this bill, and we were sitting there, and I asked the speaker what he thought the time would be for a chairman.

And he said it had some Senate House leadership meetings on that, and clearly it was a target.

And the speaker said, well, I think he'll probably slop over until the next week or the first week in October.

He said to me that he was very tired.

He was being called upon to make a great many speeches.

He didn't like his schedule.

And he said, I don't care whether the president gives us the devil or not for having a bad record.

And I think they want to get out.

I mean, I think they're just dead tired.

I was going to mention that they may want some time to keep it going.

Yes, you asked us whether it's an advantage.

I think the advantage is to have this happen, get this call, is making it happen.

Have the Democrats anxious to get out on the other side.

I think Whitey's anxious to get out on our side now.

Most legislation, according to the majority of webinars, is the interim agreement, revenue sharing, correction of lead, military construction appropriations against, revenue sharing, revenue sharing, interim agreement, and I'll come back to those.

Military construction appropriations, military procurement appropriations, foreign aid, H.R.

1, supplemental appropriations, debt renovation and extension,

various conference reports, and maybe the Federal Road Technicide Act, that's published.

I don't know if it's technicide or technicide, but it probably has something to do with it.

That's really that schedule now.

Yeah, bussing's not on there.

Bussing is not on there.

I'll come back to that also now.

On these pending measures, we report on that.

Boy, first of all, as Bob has pointed out, there are 32 bills of conference.

There's a lot of stuff around.

We're on the two-track system currently.

We take up...

Interim agreement, and then we move to revenue sharing.

We have to do it.

And we have some votes today on the revenue sharing.

Now, there are 28 amendments to revenue sharing so far.

I was supposed to call last night, but I don't know if at all, but they called out the big fights over the gun one on jurisdiction, which we brought on today around 11.30 or about this time.

And then we vote about 5 o'clock on the Mansfield Amendment, which we understand now there's no opposition on either side on the Abraham O'Brien, in order to move toward the Jackson Amendment.

That was reversed, you know, exclusively.

It is.

Mansfield Amendment is known and it's all on file tonight.

Right.

Well, I said it was the reverse here.

Yes, sir.

The last minute, last night, they did reverse it.

to accommodate some side of the case.

Other amendments that are up, the past amendment, it seems that most amendments would be beaten back, except to that one aspect of the covenant.

Now, on the interim agreement, can I ask you, let me come to a specific point.

Do you believe you will get revenue share?

I think they want that legislation more than anything else.

Well, the point that I think of is that it has to do with a major thing that we will proceed with.

We get it.

we want to have we want to make quite a that's going to be one of the few things we got done on this congress so like man on that point mr president i was talking to wilbur day or so ago behind the rail and wilbur

is, I think, leaning toward the Senate version.

I don't know what.

It gives 12 million, or 18 million more to Arkansas.

Is that why?

Well, he doesn't know the reasons.

He's not sympathetic to the Senate version.

He says they're just trying to embarrass him.

Approximately, when would you get it?

Oh, without a Congress.

Here, here.

Now, on the Interim Agreement, do we have had daily meetings running an hour or more a day with Jackson, Fulbright, and various ones interested on our side?

And they have got nowhere.

This is the personality fight between Fulbright and Jackson, and it's a territory fight.

And so yesterday Mike announced, and I backed him up, that we'll go with local culture next week for these two.

both heads still get together on this.

I had several meetings with Scoop yesterday.

He is up to 44 or 45 sponsors as of today in four of the various other programs.

So we either have an agreement to vote that next Monday or Tuesday or down tax and all we have vote closer perhaps by filing an issue in Monday.

Of course, H.R.

1 is supposed to be in the report in the next two or three days, but I would doubt that it's going anywhere else far.

I expect it there when we try to keep the money on that back, and that's one of the areas of vulnerability and debt to comment on.

Foreign relations, could I ask this question?

Looking out to a title, looking to HR1 in terms of the passage before the Senate, is your opinion that we will or will not get an HR1 this year?

I would encourage it.

No, I'm asking, no.

Anybody disagree?

Are the differences still irreconcilable?

We couldn't have a conference in South, unfortunately?

I think it would be basic.

We had a bill, I think, with Skye Adler.

of our body and it's going to be a bill that whoever came to the president, he'd have to be telling.

Yeah, I suppose.

Would it be useful if you, would it be useful for you for the new McGovern plan to be introduced?

Well, we have the $4,000.

We've had some random thoughts of that.

Up to now, it's been dismissed.

So, yeah, Congress might treat it as too cute, but there's another aspect of it we can handle.

I think on the area of vulnerability, I think we should campaign on the Congress to consider any of them without the programs.

rather than put one in and let them make all of the excuses and evade and take the right time to do it.

But to fail to do it, then it's too late for them to dismiss, of course, all the other conditions, dismiss the convention from the public side.

You can take it, leave it off of them.

As a matter of fact, the only tentative offer they ever made on the government program was to cut it for three days in defense, so they lost 19 Democrats, and they lost the whole thing two to one.

Your theory about the strategy here is to say that this proposal is so way out of the sense of being perceived.

That's my thought.

If you offer it, you give it credence.

And it isn't deserving of credence like that.

Well, not like that.

So I think the point is, in some other sense,

But for a moment, think of introducing anything that slowly shifts in the government.

Oh, yes.

Manila, you know.

You're all on it.

Manila, you're on it.

Oh, yes.

You know, $4,000.

Take away my job.

There are 12 million people in this country who get jobs

Full-time jobs, you get less than $12,000, $4,000.

There's no provision for it.

And you cannot pay, and in principle, I think we ought to get very, very hard.

It is wrong for anybody on welfare to receive more than somebody that works.

We know that all of us squabble about HR work, and it's fantastic.

I don't know if you can get into that.

The point is, when you go to $4,000 instead of $25,000, it is, of course, a panic to draw people off.

$4,000 is wrong for somebody on welfare to get more than some hardworking person who works.

12 million people, 12 million wage earners in this country get less than $4,000 a year, or all about it.

It is.

Well, that's $4,000.

And that makes it appear that you're helping the welfare.

Not when you say, we're against paying more people on welfare.

or what knowledge you're getting on another issue, too, you know, below first or beyond.

$4,000 for a family of four is still $1,000 in personnel, regardless of how many people.

That's why we can't.

Oh, that's right.

At the end of this, we believe, and it's so bright this morning, at the meeting of foreign relations, we'll plan to re-report the foreign aid bill in the form in which we tell it must go with the Brook Amendment on that.

Great.

If he does, I think that our tactic should be, if I'm sure, to kill out Stevens and get, I think, possibly Cook, go ahead and try to kill the Rook Amendment.

But failing to do that, we may have to consider killing the Milligan.

I'm going to go on with this continued resolution which Joe Dakin has made.

I think that's what we're going to do.

So does that take care of what we have as part of the conference?

It removes from us the opportunity to argue with students and others like that that you haven't had it.

I don't know what I should do with that.

I think another one on which they're quite vulnerable is the failure to do anything on the best ability of the tech.

We had hearing sessions.

It's right.

and popular, I think.

It sure is.

Particularly among the middle income and upper middle income.

Your fellows in Michigan understand that, don't they?

They sure do.

Otherwise, what it does is to make the worker a servant tied to his job.

He cannot move.

This provides for the opportunity for a worker to move a little bit.

He's got a choice.

Otherwise, he's still the same.

Of course, your business guy either likes it or doesn't like it too well.

And I don't like it because they like to keep these people.

Just let them fail and pass it.

Let them fail and pass it.

It's a good issue.

All right.

A good issue.

It's a little harder to use portability.

I don't quite understand.

You say that a man ought to be able to change his job without losing his pension.

Otherwise, he's tied down in a job.

He works 20 years in a job.

All of a sudden, he decides, oh gee, I got the lumbago admission and I'm going to go to California.

That's all right.

Well, it's the party of the people that can't do anything for the people's pensions.

It's not like it's the party of the people.

Mr. President, when I was helping, when I was sort of helping Harlow write this book,

It was told to me that portability is a bad word among the movies.

It belongs to the man.

He belongs so he can take it out if he leaves.

The youth leader doesn't particularly like portability.

Because they don't want the turnover.

On the other hand, looking at the individuals,

The individual should not be hung up, tied down.

He ought to be able to move right, go to a better job, and not lose his pension.

This is basically individual oriented.

It's a damn good issue.

Our department's put me up in the long run.

You've got Concord for five years.

I don't think we can now.

They know that.

Mr. President, you were prompted back on this bill by Will Rimmel.

I don't know if it's your substitute word for voting transfer.

Where is that?

I think that's too big of a question.

It's a committee.

I don't think we've had any hearings.

We've had hearings.

Wait twice a minute.

I think the best way to put it, rather than the best way to say it, a man shouldn't lose his pension because it changes his job.

That's right.

And I add this.

These people who are 50 to 60,

are fearful that their pension programs are not going to be available to them after they've contributed and after they've planned on it.

I find that, for our part, more important really than so-called portability.

Portability is the best thing.

The funds are going to be available when they do retire.

Well, they remember the two-faker situation.

Oh, I see what you're hearing.

Well, yes, I guess the company will go out.

That's a very good point.

You're right.

I think that I strongly urge the Vice President to do so.

I think one of the problems that you may run into is that you may end up with a bill on your desk that will be a lot more costly and a lot more, will go a lot further than the one that you have.

i think the best thing is not to talk about it so much now

and applying the same benefits to working men that he himself would already get out of the federal law.

What seems to be going on is

There are ten senators, five on each side, who are opposed to the bill, and they'll hold meetings, too.

What may come out of it is the agreement for a time to vote, particularly if these ten senators think they have that vote for them, or a substitute.

But I think it's very difficult to predict whether it's going to be passed or not, but that's the information all the way through.

It just has a very low priority to give to busing.

I think Bob ought to recognize that.

Mr. President, if I could suggest that it would be very helpful if our Republican Senate

would take the position that this legislation has been being so close to what the president is recommending, ought to have a vote, ought to be voted on.

and would not join in getting a majority for some weak substitute or something that fuzzes up the issue.

Now, I think that you know that they're not going to pass it in the Senate, because what will happen is that the session will end with the liberals filibustering the bill, and that's a hell of a good way to end it.

What to say here is .

It also could affect a few other places.

Now, the Powell decision, and I referred to it in that later .

I wrote it in on the last one.

The Powell decision clearly indicates

Well, it holds that the Grovefield Amendment is inadequate to stop busing.

You don't need to go into law and all that.

And anyway, that's what Powell, and Powell is a guy that would, if anybody was struck to mind, he would do it because he's against busing as a matter of conviction.

Therefore, the Supreme Court, through Mr. Justice Powell, has now ruled

that Roanfield Amendment isn't accurate.

If you want to have, stop new busing orders, you've got to have the President's language or something close to it.

Now this puts Father in the spot.

And if you, some of our guys, even at this point, knowing they're not going to get it, knowing they probably aren't going to get it before, but they can say, let's have some action on busing things.

to rectify the situation.

Otherwise, we're going to have the kiosk of the Powell thing.

And this Lord hanged him down.

He's hanging over all these people.

That's the argument.

Well, I think they should do it, and that's a good point to throw about this.

Because Bob and I don't want to tackle it.

No, really, because I'm trying to confuse it as much as I can in the background.

It's that accomplished.

Bob is there.

I want the leaders to know this.

and I want you to say that I consider busing a busing amendment of the highest priority.

I consider it a must piece of legislation this session because there are major school kids whose lives are going to be affected by failing to pass it.

If you don't pass it now and this Congress goes home without it,

is going to, the Congress has taken a blank for the racial distress and for disturbing the education, also for reducing quality education.

That's right, I should reveal a conflict of interest.

I don't know none of that.

My wife is my cousin.

They had to put them in private schools because they're two good public schools, most of them, and they're not sure they're getting a bus fee to one of the good schools.

So it was all back in the 60s.

I'm afraid it's very easy to get on the market.

10 days in Colorado following the suspension, I talked to the mayors and county commissioners.

all over the southern part of the state about revenue sharing.

Their one concern is that they will get revenue sharing .

And this is where we may find all of ourselves on the .

then the representation in all of it, at least I think, of people in Colorado become valid.

And frankly, it is going to help them an awful lot.

Well, the strings in the House bill are very modest.

Well, we keep on going with it, or I think we did yesterday.

We have no problem with the house bill.

We all have it.

The house bill, they'll pay for it.

They prefer it without it.

They know I'm going first.

We started down the road yesterday with the

And very well, we all fight for that.

And if you got on that, we're not supposed to get any more than five guests.

I'm thankful they carried out all the mandates I got yesterday on that.

And they succeeded and they helped politically.

But there's more of those who may have lost one vote yesterday.

So I think we have to watch out.

And if you agree to do it,

Thank you.

My list doesn't vary too much from Pew's.

We've got the reconsideration of the labor AGW appropriation bill and I just haven't heard anything on what they're going to do in the committee.

I've talked to Bob Michael and apparently they haven't come to any conclusion whatsoever.

We've got defense and John's on that subcommittee.

Yes, we're marked up.

We built the full committee on Monday and the store on Thursday of next week.

Military construction, I think that's all ready.

Foreign aid, I'll ask them.

He stopped me on the floor yesterday and he said, I want you to know that I'm going to give the President everything he wants in military, foreign aid, and this other category, I forgot which primary is over there.

Well, he's going to give the President everything he wants.

on the floor regardless of whether or not

Well, you should look at our schedule this week.

poorest legislative schedule I've seen in a long time.

And we're not even meeting tomorrow because there's nothing to do with the bill we've got on the floor today.

It's just inconsequential.

There is pressure.

Should we get both of those appropriate until the next week now?

It's possible.

In my conversation with Bob Michael, apparently they come to no conclusion whatsoever.

Well, this is from a Republican.

Maybe the Democrats have gotten together, but I heard Jerry Goldstein's book collapsed last week at Pennsylvania.

He was on the floor yesterday, but I suspect this is the time he's been out since that time.

So I'm not sure.

Well, it was in advance.

You know, I regret it.

It was me that started mourning for him.

They were going to write a new bill.

Well, that may be an agreement on the Democratic side in both the House and the Senate, but they haven't communicated that even indirectly to me or any of the Republicans.

I mean, the strategy was in some way to see what the House did, but he did indicate that he got it going on, which is not, I don't think, in any formal contract.

I thought they were going to rewrite it.

As a matter of fact, when the bill was, when the president's veto was first sustained, Madison was, you know, was enraged by it, or was, I don't want to say enraged, but he was enraged by it, and he said the hell with it, we'll just give him a resolution and let him get along on 72.

uh...

And I would think that if we got it, if we finally stocked up that loophole by some kind of a definite ceiling on social services, it would go a long way for a lot of the insurgencies in the bill.

He told me yesterday, I said, what?

What do you want to do?

And he said, well, let's wait and see what the House does.

And that's why I was interested in what you had to say.

There's no signal that I could get before this meeting this morning on just what they were planning in the labor AGW appropriations area to which you were in charge of this.

The last, of course, the end of yesterday, the end of today, I am James O'Brien, Senator of the House of Representatives.

And he told me that what he wanted to do today was to have a meeting and to take off about one and three quarters billion off of that bill.

And he wanted to know if they had the meeting and recorded the bill, if we could hold it.

And I said, well, what in the hell can you do with Maggie?

And this is the key to the thing.

and he said well i don't know what what can you people do i said all i can do is promise to help but this is his thinking it was his thinking as a 5 5 30 sb after him so if they would report out of building in those pictures i think on the floor of the house we could hold

and send it over to you, and then it's up to whatever the Senate can do and committee around the floor.

Maggie is unreasonable in this attitude, but you can't expect

Uh, some of the rest of us had to get up and carry a ball.

And then it begins before the Senate, you've got Kennedy with his great, uh, all his grandiose schemes of running the biddies and the biddies and the, and, uh, Cranston and the rest of that bunch.

And, uh, again, it depends on Maggie to stand up and fight for us.

You know, he's the, he can do most of that for me.

But, but Maggie himself,

So when I talked to him about it, he said that was quite reasonable.

He said we should cut that bill, and I know some people who cut it.

There's a couple of places he doesn't want to cut it, but we cut that bill six or seven percent.

Or if we can't get down as good as that, we can get in a ceiling on the social services, which is a tremendous, would be a tremendous saving of billions eventually, because the government is just great.

It's amazing that they're lobbying us all the time and they want to

They've got themselves up to four or five billion dollars now on social services.

The government's committee has got a proposal of three billion ceiling plus, 600 million provided on population.

Well, that's more than three and a half billion dollars and it's ridiculous.

so that the 8% of the governors in the campaign

It would be far, far better just to continue the 72 appropriations on the resolution than to put through any kind of a bill without the sound, Stephen.

On the, on the, uh...

This Maggie's got to go around.

She's got to go around.

Uh, I'm not so sure because Maggie is still...

Well, there are one or two other items that I think we ought to discuss.

Water pollution, the Water Quality Act.

I'm told that there's near an agreement in conference on that legislation

with some substantial concessions to the House.

I don't see anybody here from that conference, but if that's true, we'll probably have a conference report on the water quality bill with a figure of about $19 billion and more reasonable regulations and objectives and so forth.

I think it's important for us to pass that.

I don't think that's too much beyond our dollars.

Over a three year period?

No, it would require expenditures that would run, we don't know when they would fully outlay, but they start, it would probably be over a billion and a half to 374.

plus contract authority you don't contract authority so you can't withhold then i asked nari so the prospects are getting those four nominations for acc well they don't have anything they've set a hearing for the 14th i've been pushed and pushed and pushed when maggie personally agrees about me and

He saw about that because he had a man.

I think.

I don't think, however, that he is.

I said, are you trying to scour around until you can hold these off until after the election?

He said, no, I give it my word I won't do that.

So I don't know whether I agree with all of them.

But I had to keep pushing and pushing.

They had me here this morning on the case.

of the Zurich, and the four nominees for ICC, September 14th.

And I'm never to be quite sure of the reasons for saying he, but the things that have been put in no longer exist.

It really is the statement I had to write,

There's one very important piece of legislation

has to be passed and that's the increase in the debt limitation you're holding next week i understand i had been told that wilbur was agreeable in the consideration of that legislation this was before the recess

to put on it the $250 billion debt limitation, which is a $250 billion spending ceiling.

Now, that's what he told us before the recess.

Right.

I understand he's backing off of that.

I don't know whether it's because the government promised him the drive of Secretary of the Treasury or not, but anyhow, we're behind 1,000%.

On the other hand, I heard that George Mahon, as a matter of principle or a matter of committee jurisdiction, is going to fight it if Wilbur does try to do it.

But in my judgment, it would be very helpful if we could get Wilbur to go along

And we'll do our very best to try and get him included as a part of the death on the patient's package.

So that brings up a rather important point in the platform.

We call for the appropriation of seating at the beginning of each session so that the jurisdiction is right.

And first, I think we'll give something to the other.

It's attached for our procedure.

Well, he's still considering, Mr. President.

I saw him yesterday.

George Shultz will see him today.

Yeah.

But it's still the odds are against him.

If we don't go to... You will.

You will?

What would that...

If you put that down here, it's a... You and Jerry are going to talk about it.

I consider that a must piece of legislation.

That's a vote against higher taxes.

Well, if we could get it in the bill and committee, then we have no germaneness problem on the floor.

If we don't get it in the bill, you can't, through the parliamentary procedure, Mr. President, open the rule and get it...

offered because of our tremendous problem.

So it's awfully important if we really want it in the House to get Wilkerson in operation.

I understand that George Shultz was meeting with Wilkerson yesterday or today.

And we talked with him quite extensively before the recess.

He was very strongly for it.

I understood George was going to show whether George has talked to him.

Yes, sir.

And if George feels it would be useful .

There's one other matter I'd like to bring up, Mr. President.

Both the House and the Senate have passed the OU authorization.

Yeah.

There's $200 million over your budget request.

It's $700 million less than the original conference report.

that knocked out the obnoxious legal services portion in the original Constitutional Court.

I would hope that you would not veto it and make your pitch as you did and as I think we can for fiscal responsibility on two items.

One, the labor AGW.

appropriation and two on the 250 million dollar, billion dollar statements.

You say that legal services is out.

It's out in the entire, it's not the whole thing.

200 million over.

200 million over your budget request and this is only an authorization so in the still allowable bill.

That's just catered by anybody.

I know, I should have had it at the beginning.

But they did not shout at all.

But I think you can control the spending and the appropriation.

And you can control the spending by earmarking the funds or refusing to release the appropriation funds.

and i think we're on better ground to make the fight on spending on labor hdw and on the 250 billion dollars and i think that view was shared by a lot of our people maybe not everyone that's right don't you agree senator that uh

The strategy, and I'm talking not for Columbus, but for the Constitution.

If you're for anything like this, we can kick it out of there.

We know what you think.

I don't think there's a...

It would be very difficult.

Probably would be difficult.

I'm not sure we could get more than the 97% votes.

I don't think it would be good, Mr. President.

I'm not sure it would be good politics.

You're growing up.

No, I have a nice one.

I think they're awfully close to agreement.

They are being reported out of the conference this week.

The free payment by the states that went out in advance, is this inherent in the bill?

Is money going to go back to the U.S. so it's set up in those...

House bill and I think the Senate bill has a great name too.

So that's the assumption by whether it was the original bill or the additional line.

It's about $600 million.

And I think that's set up to be paid out over and above the $6 billion a year that was in the house purchase.

Anybody here?

No.

I'm on it.

I haven't been there much.

What do you think?

I don't know.

I'm a conference man.

I'm a public works man.

What do you think of that water?

I don't know if the concrete would take some of the house or it would be a better bill.

I mean, it's a question.

I don't see.

You want to go over the question?

No.

That's the issue.

The work features, the back doors, but no.

This is not an authorization or anything.

This is nothing you can withhold.

This is just contract authority like the highway.

and republicans oppose this and all through the committee on both sides and uh i don't i think it's sustained but if we could get the 250 billion spending limitations uh that's why that's right

That bill passed Senate 86 to nothing.

We had one bump in the bill.

Well, but that's not proven.

Mr. President, but it might not be worth it.

On the spending ceiling, there was an unfortunate statement made to the effect that it was the equivalent or identical with a retroactive item veto, which is very unpopular with a great many members.

It is all quite different from that.

An item veto keeps the program completely off the books.

The spending ceiling allows the program to be asked in the amount of the budget request

And it doesn't forbid that program.

It just says you can't do more.

But I veto you.

I veto you.

You knock out specific programs.

So all this does is say, look, you've got to fund them at an amount that is responsible.

It's one of those things that's whether it is a good thing.

This is one of the things that bothered Wilbert Mills is this idea that it's the same as an item veto.

And Mahon, George Mahon, has used that too.

Well, he's very equivocal on it every time we talk to him.

He says he likes it.

He says it could never pass.

Could he have any influence on it?

Oh, yes.

I have.

We will again.

We plan to.

But I don't.

I would certainly think so.

Do you understand?

I don't.

But let's suppose we do get it in the House.

What will happen?

Does that mean anything?

I don't know.

Mr. President, do you have any?

Well, the way that it's not going to be in a conference, then, if we go to a conference, there's a chance.

Is there?

Sure.

The Senate's already passed.

No, no.

What was the Senate for action?

Well, it said it would be a part, we hope, of the debt ceiling legislation.

I get the question, and I get the point.

The Senate doesn't have to go about your whole thing.

If they filibuster a spending ceiling, I think the Democrats are making a bad pact.

It's a very good issue among us.

I don't think they would be there for it.

They're voting for higher taxes.

This is the one thing that could almost show and extend the session.

Except the present continuing resolution only goes to October 1st.

Or is it October 1st?

One that's changed the Senate.

It was October 31st.

It changed October 1st.

That's right.

We're going to have a lot of strife in the Senate.

Rob, you still have to go to conscience.

And also have 44.

That might be a nice one.

Oh, I'd love to have a tie on that one.

No, motion to strike two.

I'd be there to vote on that anyway.

You've got a right.

I think you do.

How many times have you voted on it?

I voted on it.

You'll have a chance.

One of the most important ties you broke, Mr. President, was the Bill of Rights.

I don't believe in Bill of Rights.

Which side was I on?

You were on the right side.

Mr. President, George Maynard opposes this spending scheme.

I think it will be mainly on the basis of committee figures.

He has a vague feeling that the Appropriations Committee is being capped by this.

And I really thank you for calling in.

Maybe you ought to agree with him a little bit and say, well, George, why don't you impose an appropriations limitation on it?

But until you do, wouldn't this be the best way to attack it?

He always says he's for it.

The House will never pass it.

He personally likes it.

But he never has done anything to help move it at all.

Right.

Well, that's, I understand.

I got the issue.

But anyway, whatever they are all for, I want you to hop in.

They're for it.

The administration must.

And if they don't do it, you've got a good issue.

You do have one last.

The biggest problem on the deadline in the Senate is the Christmas tree.

Yeah.

and what you got we've got social security

F***.

BEEP

Thank you.

you

I remember some time ago there were less than 4,000 draftees in Vietnam.

Is there any way by which those draftees could be asked if they wish to stay voluntarily or if not be rotated to somebody else?

There's so few.

Give every speaker we've got a chance to go to the draftee.

by saying there is no person in the armed forces who is not there by his own choice.

I think it's a very powerful statement to end up with.

We are not sending ground troops.

That's all right.

You could say more than that.

There is one more step, no bad, no good choice.

That really takes a limb there, Mr. Bigelow.

With the cowards in the college.

Cowards go to jail.

Thank you.

who wrote a classic study on .

They fired him at Harvard.

They fired him.

That's where they're supposed to have, you know, freedom or anything.

They throw him out.

When I say firing, they just didn't renew this contract, which is the problem of firing.

That's the first time they've ever had a man, a distinguished scholar, who had the temerity to write on the busing thing.

All he was doing, he just, he had missed a study, and found that busing, instead of improving education, actually made it worse.

That's a whole other point, isn't it?

What's the third thing?

The third study is Buchanan here.

I'm sorry, yes.

Yes, welcome, sir.

for the armors.

Tell them, Mrs. Kennedy, to come back.

or or or or or or or or or or or

particularly with young children, has a .

That's what the game is.

Mr. President, is it black or white?

You don't want to .

Well, you know that what the other name is David.

But in the paper this morning, there's a new study, a new Harvard study by a fellow named Shanks, which corroborates the study, uses that, and expands on, and arrives at the same conclusion that is directed at blessing .

The Jack study goes to the question of whether moving kids to upgraded schools is going to help their education.

I think that was the conclusion.

It would only do so very, very marginally.

You see, you put a kid in a school when he's behind his class, that's the key to them.

You put a teacher in a class where the kid doesn't have a three-year accomplishments, that's better.

In other words, upgrading the teachers' kids where they are is terribly important.

That's why we've got to be for all the education thing.

It's a demanding nature.

But you put a kid in a student, and you're busing them for four to five

It's the first

in some school districts on a very scientific basis with a control group of kids that were bust and a control group of kids that were not.

And it's an armory.

He's not a Harvard or anything like that.

It's a compelling and easily understood report.

It leaves you no room for argument.

Do we have any particulars on Armour's firing?

They fired.

Who was responsible?

Was it Eric Locke, the new president?

Sure.

No, it was .

And the mathematics department, he's a statistician .

Thank you.

We ought to go on if we could.

John, could we have your report?

I want you to be sure to hear this in about 15 minutes.

uh... uh...

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

You got my proxy.

Thank you.

Well, we'll have to close.

I have a morning with the cat, if you'd like, for breakfast.

We thought we'd let them sort of carry about where we stand on the legislative thing.

What we're not going to do is the charge of the left wing.

uh... uh... uh... uh...

Second, there will be no tax report to guys.

There will be no increase in taxes.

There's going to be no tax reform.

Third point is that our target here, and what we are working for, and we haven't got all of them, is to decrease the property tax.

And we...

is now recommendations to us on this matter.

And we will dig on it.

But I think the main thing at this point is that we do not want to jump in.

So we say, well, we'll do this, do that, and do the other thing.

We say there's not going to be any action.

Let Kittsburg be the issue.

That's the second point that we put.

On the other hand,

Probably because it's tied to education.

It has to be dealt with, and that's a matter of .

I think you said last time here that if we could get the $250 billion spending, no increase in taxes would be necessary.

There'll be no increase in taxes.

I think you've got to leave one escape hatch.

Unless the Congress goes completely irresponsible, then they have to take effect.

So that every time you have a vote exceeding the President's budget, the Congress, you say, you're voting for tax reform.

Put them off you right on their back.

On this tax reform issue, I hope we don't get schnockered into saying, oh yeah, we need tax reform.

The point you made about what was done in the June 6th Act is the point...

And the fact that we've created about 2.8 million new jobs in the last year shows that these were sensible reforms that didn't stifle

We go to some of these other fancy loophole ideas, the economy won't be able to create any new jobs.

But we have a tendency to say, oh, yeah, sure, tax reform.

Why do we need to do that?

We should be against that so-called tax reform.

Thank you.

You talked about your legislative program.

I think I had to tell you it was 11 o'clock.

the most radical committee in the Senate, being the economists in there, they wanted to send into the Senate a consumer protection bill that was wide open.

It was a class action.

They said they were going to send into the Senate a bill that intended to build a several billion dollars American railroad after the campaign announced that we don't want no legislation built on it.

Mr. President, we also heard that Wilbur continues to say that we may have an educational tax credit bill.

He's got Cardinal Cook up there this morning, and he's playing games with it.

I really think it's impossible, but the Catholics have launched a tremendous writing campaign on this.

And he continues to say, well, I think we can ram this through, quote,

Yes, yes, but I think also there's likely to be added some educational equalization costs.

Thank you.

Amen.