Conversation 117-001

Transcript (AI-Generated)

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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

Yes, we are moving on that now.

I think the meetings that we have had with the mayors that have been in town starting this past Sunday have been extremely beneficial, at least from my standpoint.

I got on through them to speak for them, but from my standpoint, they have.

And that we are finally beginning to deal with these areas of concern in terms of specifics.

We went through a brief period where all we heard was horror stories.

And we never really got down to the nitty-gritty of it.

And I think now we have had an opportunity and are continuing to have such an opportunity to present what are the administration's alternatives to take care of some of these entities which we recognize and wanted to meet.

In some cases, we are learning some things where our solutions perhaps don't work out exactly as we thought we might.

I thought they might and therefore we are going to be taking that into account and seeing if there aren't better things that we can construct so that the needs and the concerns expressed by the mayors can be met.

Now this isn't something that we can solve in a couple of days but I think the thing we have to do before we adjourn today is to figure out a process

whereby over the next two weeks we can resolve all of these issues here to everybody's satisfaction, hopefully, or perhaps we get to a point where some are dissatisfied, but we do our best to resolve them.

In Baltimore, we have a five-year program for a number of years.

We directed our lady, George Manzauer, to set up a full program this year, starting last year,

We now went to all the communities and asked them what projects they wanted us to fund and what projects they would like us to have done.

We have about 5,000 youngsters that we can put on productive jobs.

Now I'm faced with the alternative of having no money.

Now the alternative for me, and we've already done it, is not to say that there won't be a summer program, because I interpret the budget as saying there will be no money available for summer program enrollment.

I'm going to have a summer program for a million dollars to go out to industry and ask them to give me some money.

travel ships and launch from another place.

Now, what I'm saying now, if there's a possibility of the federal government coming forth with this money, it's a little confusing how this manpower money gets involved with that.

The thing is, if there's any hope that there will be a federally financed summer employment program in Baltimore, fine.

But that two or three weeks, it can only be two or three weeks.

And then after that, it's too late.

Because we do need a planning time to do this.

In the past, the fallacies with the summer youth program has been, we've got the money, we had this started on July 1, and the money was wasted.

We've set it up in such a way that we know it's an orderly process, just what projects that we can do, how many kids we can handle, and get the maximum amount.

All of a sudden, I find it costs an extra $3 million.

We're not that rich in Baltimore for $3 million, but we've got to have a summer program in that city.

And whether we do it through industry, or whether we do it through the federal, or whether we do it through local, we have to do it.

And the point is, I'm trying to get to, is the time.

We've got to know soon.

And if we're going to get some help from the federal government, then other plans that we have to mobilize industry to help us with other problems, such as masterminds of business and so forth, will be diverted away from that.

Mr. President, if I may.

Sir, I submit that I must respectfully disagree with at least my understanding and our understanding that we have spurred staff, at least as departments and mayors, but the bottom line is not that.

This coming year, sir, we are concerned about the transition period.

Let me just give you a quick example of what it is we understand.

Mr. Linton's department, Mr. Linton's department, the bottom line is $2.007 million this year.

next year it's 137 million dollars fiscal year 75 it's 2.3 billion dollars there's that gap there's that transition that's what we're concerned about an inflow in that list of cutbacks zero land space uh zero uh urban renewal which was a large billion something is 127 million uh and down the list

So I think there is a misunderstanding, and we'd love to have it clarified, because, sir, the principle that the transition period, this 15 months' deliberative time, is, we are being shortchanged.

We've looked at it, we've analyzed it, we have good staff, and there appears to be a basic misunderstanding based on your statement and our information.

That's a tough time.

If I might, Mr. President, our people spent, I think, a total of three and a half hours yesterday afternoon with a group of six people from the department working with the mayors.

It was a very popular session.

It was very well attended on the mayor's side, and it will be a follow-up.

Again, trying to identify the specifics.

as to where there may be a hard place in the road in the transition.

Looking at Floyd Hyde's figures overall, we have some, first of all, three-quarters of our funding for the current year will not be completed until very close to June of this year, and that's over a billion dollars, I think, in urban renewal money and a half a billion dollars in model city money.

It's yet to be committed in this term fiscal year through June 30th.

Now, notwithstanding that money that has occurred over a time period to help ease the transition, and notwithstanding a total of $7.4 billion of committed funds that have not yet been put to work, which we think will ease that transition tremendously in past years, there may very well be certain selected areas of management, carryover, and so on,

where there may be some real difficulties.

But until, before we can consider those, we really have to flush out the specifics of them, and that's why the conversations yesterday and the follow-through on those will be very, very worthwhile.

If I could elaborate on that, Mr. President, for the Mayor's suggestions, we can't really compare the development situation for Pat and the summer youth.

Because we have these carryover spots.

And actually, as far as ongoing activity in renewal, for example, the actual outlays for Pistol 74 would exceed the outlays for Pistol 73.

Now, as the Secretary of Defense indicated, that's the global picture around the country.

What we're trying to do now is identify.

In fact, I thought I saw all these problems for you yesterday in the session.

What we're trying to do is identify, and I have my people in the field actually going over, with the mayors included for the first time, an analysis of their renewal program.

We're studying that process to go along the way so that they get a better understanding of what their transition problem is, what funding really is there that they cannot do without.

We hope to complete that within your time, Mr. Chancellor.

And that's what Secretary Hyatt said.

We'll be meeting with the area office director to go over and detail each of our renewal programs.

We've done that ourselves already, but we can copy this.

We could go ahead, Brown and Pritchard.

Every program in our city and what its impact will be.

But I'd like to say a word in support, not only of the public employment program, but with this new approach.

Here's what it's meant to our city.

We have now 400 people employed.

We have altogether about 700 job opportunities under this program.

Ten percent of the people employed under the EEA have now been introduced into permanent employment with the city, even though over the last few years we had a net of 90 fewer employees.

I don't want you to think we're just putting on people.

I've said many times, Mr. President, the best program to come out of Washington during the previous administration of those designs to deal with the problems in the cities because it's been an excellent example, in my opinion, of the government as the employer of last report.

And it's turned out to be the best kind of job training program because they've been the kind of apprentices to the people who live and work.

I think it's a fine program.

Like nothing more than to see the funding arrangement, to continue that program, call it what you will, full visual manpower package.

But don't interrupt that, it's the best of the manpower programs.

Even though the design, I know, is just to ease temporary situations.

Well, I think this is the thing we need to look at as we're writing those regulations for the manpower programs.

And that is how, if the mayor so chooses, he can continue that kind of thing.

I think the basic thing we're trying to do.

done with the money that comes into his city.

And that there's not some federal big daddy, as I call him, sitting over his head with a club trying to beat him into doing something that he doesn't want to do.

And so in the process of writing these, I think we need to take that into account.

Mr. Murray, you had the...

I was wondering if I could get back to the question of community development.

Yeah, sure.

Again, going back to the budget,

The real concern is not what's going to happen in calendar year 74, because there will be enough programs from 72 and 73 that will be continuing on.

But it's the fact that in fiscal year 74, with $137 million only there for urban renewal and everything else being frozen, that the last time of the

of no money in fiscal year 74 means that in 75 and 76 is when it really affects us in the cities in the sense that the housing starts and these other things don't happen.

Now with the freeze, especially as of the 5th of January, on no new acquisition of land, that's the thing that will, the last time that will make it rough was in 75.

So again, can we hear...

or fiscal year 74 creates for us the problems of calendar year 75, 76.

And all I can do is what I, all I can mention is what I've been taught by Floyd and others is that again, even if we have the full same levels of new budgets

appropriations over this coming year.

As far as dirt flying or the actual buying activity of the land, the odds of it happening are very, very low.

And as I understand it from Floyd, with the Better Communities Act approach, you have that money so that when it comes in, it's there and you spend it just like that if you want to in accordance with your priorities on the community development.

and that it would be our fault for looking at the timing of the Better Communities Act money beginning in July 1, 1974, and taking the transitional money of the $74 billion, including the $1.4 billion that we have, yet $1.6 billion almost, that we have to admit that that shouldn't be that much of a problem.

Now, of course, there can be certain circumstances from city to city where there may be some transitional problems, and that's what we're trying to get a feel for, to see what that impact is.

But on the whole, looking at it globally as a country, it would look like there isn't a national problem in this regard.

But what Floyd was trying to do yesterday with his assistance and his following through on, how precisely, city by city, does this impact on you in a way that is not tolerable?

As a result, excuse me, of the point you mentioned about not acquiring land, since I've had my people to do, I've found where there needs to be some relaxation of that effort.

I've sent out some clarifying instructions to cover that.

I said yesterday it's out of color, but not unlimited.

Let me caution you.

It's one of the reasons I came down tough on you, not just going full speed ahead with land acquisition by your renewal agency.

I'm convinced as I am sitting here that they would start acquiring all the land they could to lock you into a position for the next 5 to 10 years that that's the program you're going to have to plan.

And I want that decision to be made by you gentlemen on this table, not by your renewal agency directly.

That's what comes with having to get a mayor, Mr. Odom.

Excuse me.

Mr. Odom, do you want to add something?

Yes.

I would endorse the exchange that's just occurred.

In Columbus, Mr. President, we're willing to live with the lag of which Mayor Maddox speaks.

We're willing to live with the cutback in the model cities.

Some of this will be painful, of course,

Secretary Hinn has spoken, read articles in the lead time and so on, and we'll have greater starts this year and a lot of things, and we can get through all that.

But I really want to emphasize that this summer is the problem.

I would even respectfully say, I'll worry about the summer of 74 and 75 during this summer, but I want to get my worries about this summer over within the next month.

I don't come up until 75 and I don't hear that.

I'm not worried about this summer.

How do we get this money that you said is before coming in this year that we know we can put any program to work that we want to?

I have several programs in our city that we would like to get started.

Now, who do I see in the lobby to get them started?

That's the one I hear all the time.

That's the one that I heard yesterday when I met with the mayor's mouth.

I have to go meet the ambassador here for a little while now.

On behalf of all of you, in this administration, as you know, we've tried to be a good friend of the city for the last 40 years.

That's what revenue sharing is about in life.

The second part is that we think that in terms of our goal, our long-range goal in special revenue sharing,

in the interest of every responsible mayor, because rather than simply be all that administers programs, somebody else makes up, he'll make decisions.

Third, I think all of you want to be sure you don't get less than you got before because of your problems, unless your problems

The other point is, of course, is that, and this is the tougher one, I would say that on the general proposition, I would hope that you could support, especially what I'm sharing, because I do think it is a long-range interest of America's cities and this country.

to have all of these programs put up, put the money out there, and you make the decisions as to how it is to be spent, I'd like to give up.

And they blame you if you spend for a long way, rather than us.

That's very good.

You should do it that way.

Some of you may want this one, some may want something else.

But I think the key to this question, which Maylor has raised, and I see that in a few others,

He said, what happens this summer?

So we've got to get into that, what happens this summer, and let's do it on a case-by-case basis.

Some places it's not a significant problem, I understand.

Other cases like Detroit, do you think so?

John, do you think so?

Columbus, it is a significant case.

So let's take a look at all these cases and see what we've got, because we don't want to be in a position where, as a result of

an intervening period that the summer months come and it becomes a little bit odd.

So this is the job that you've got.

We work with you on the score.

You can't make any grandiose promises about this, and I'm sure it would.

Write the text.

And that we will retain because basically we appreciated the fact that the mayors have been tremendously responsible.

Most of the mayors in this country are basically nonpartisan.

Some are Democrats, some are Republicans.

And I suppose the more Democratic, the more the citizens are Democratic.

Basically, the mayors,

The mayors have taken a big view.

They've taken a long view.

That's why they were the ones that primarily, I think, put the heat behind the general legislature.

One of the county officials, Dr. Rappaport of Frank State, believed it was a national problem.

Now, especially if you have this in this county.

But I could see how the mayors could not support that.

if they saw that it was to be implemented in a way that would give them such a jolt this summer that they just wouldn't take it.

That's really what our problem is.

Of course, we have a problem, too.

And also, another thing we have to do, whatever we do this summer, we, of course,

And then this gets to the point here where we don't want to get a little bit crazy.

In other words, the idea of, I can see a great difference between a program for summer youth, that one that would say, well, write a flight check, because that's a long lead time thing.

Summer youth is a different thing.

That's right now been done.

And it's still the future.

If I haven't overcommitted the Office of Management and Budget, maybe you can help me.

If I have, you know, put it to rest.

Well, Mr. President, the only thing I said to him yesterday, and Ken repeated it this morning, I think all of us have a tremendous stake in this inflation issue.

If you look at what it costs the mayor every year, the increases in costs and the lag time on property taxes and the rents,

I ask that at the same time they're assessing their priorities and where it really jolts them, her job, to keep that broader picture in mind, which means a damn much to them, too, of trying to run a city.

We have to be very, we have to be, shall we say, restrained on the budget.

It is not an austerity budget.

I'm sure you're getting $18 billion more than last year.

It's twice as big for the message.

We're glad they're cool.

We don't want them to heat up again.

But let's in making this, let's just not continue what we've been doing at the same lower price tag.

We want to continue to expect a change in this new approach.

And we hope that we can bless your support for that, provided we, shall we say, to a certain degree, satisfy some of your concerns.

I hope we can.

Mr. President, if I may add just one other thing.

This is rather bold.

I just conferred with some Republican members of the House, and they are subject to the same kinds of pressures that the mayors are, because all the mayors, and many people under the mayors, keep these pressures very under-distanced.

And particularly in this manpower and summer employment thing, I think they would like some word how they can continue to support you and special revenue sharing, but make some allowance for the summer employment thing.

They are afraid to make a move now because they feel that to do so

tear down from the position that you are wanting to establish in which they believe in and in which we believe.

They don't know how far to go if they're under these tremendous pressures.

Well, we appreciate all of your time and so forth.

We will try to cooperate with you as closely as we can.

working on specific problems.

I just wanted to say, I'm sorry, my speaker, everyone here, we appreciate you taking the time to meet with us and giving us the benefit of your judgment as it stands now.

It is, as you have touched upon, a very serious problem.

We're concerned about it heating up at this time.

It's a very real concern because of the tremendous impact during the transition period

It's very complex.

There are other areas that we hope, with your approval, to continue to discuss with the members of your administration.

Means of relief that will reduce the impact.

That's how we do this.

I agree with you, Mr. President.

If you want to reply, we mayors are nicer to governors were last week.

Because the main reason we are here in Washington needing help anyway is because governors haven't been mayors and they don't understand the problems of the city.

What do you mean that you run for mayor?

That's the dead end.

Now, you really ought to get down there and say, we've always been here, and we've always done a little of the dark things.

Let's see what we can do in certain instances where we can't.

Let's be honest about it.

Because the worst thing is to have

May I go back and say, well, you know, I'm going to give this a nap in time for something and then have somebody say hi.

So let's see what we can do.

We hope that as a result of all of it, we get our special revenue.

So I've got to get my plug in, too.

Thank you.

Okay, it's 24.

If we are prepared to go on, if you are, or if we want to get one very loud and buzz here with regard to a summer youth program, I don't know.

I don't know if you're on that kind of thing.

There are other things that we need to discover for whatever it is you're helping to take.

Where do you get on there with summer youth?

Well, who do you know?

Who do you know?

Summer youth program.

Over here.

Let me say honestly, as a stranger to this thing, I don't quite understand what you've been saying.

And that's the first time that I've known you, because you're looking at one of the ablest, most articulate people in this administration, and I have to admit, you left me a little bit.

When this program was first started, it created a two-year authorization in the amount of two million.

This program?

What's this program?

This program.

Okay.

Two million.

It's the lawyer.

All right.

Let me talk to you again.

The original authority provided for $2.250 billion.

There were two one-year increments.

The first increment was to be $1 billion, and the second increment was to be $1.25 billion.

In the first full year of funding, the President requested the full amount authorized, which means $1 billion.

And we ran the program in fiscal year 1972 at the $1 billion box office.

Now last January, that is January 1972, the President sent to the Congress a budget request for $1,250,000,000.

The full amount.

The full amount for the second full year of the program, which was under the authorization of the creative program that had been in last year of operation.

Right.

appropriation is bound up in a broader appropriation for United and H-E-W, which is a $30 billion appropriation, all right?

The Congress sent it down here, I guess the first time in July, or early in August.

And it had in it, the total bill, $2 billion more than the President had requested.

And you might be interested to know this by, in passing, that the President had himself requested a $2 billion annual increase.

It was a level that he proposed the year before.

So this was two on top of that?

All right, so the President's view of that bill, when he sent it down here,

And the labor ATW fell under advisement again.

They weren't able to override his meeting, but they looked at it again.

And they essentially sent the same bill back a second time before they went home in October.

And the president viewed it again because he said he wasn't willing to take $2 billion more over the level that he had proposed.

And it was already an increase because he didn't believe the country could stand that much more federal spending.

Now, Trump has a way of dealing with a situation where you don't have an appropriation.

It's called a continuing resolution.

And what they did last July 1st was to pass a continuing resolution which says,

Mr. President, you may continue to operate all of the programs covered by these appropriations at the levels you operated them last year until we finish our business on the appropriations.

Mr. That was at the level of the fiscal year second year.

Mr.

Right, all right.

So since last July 1st, we have been operating and you have been operating at the local level a program that's consistent with an allocation nationally of $1 billion.

All right?

The President has continued to insist that he'd like to have $1,250,000,000 under that authority.

Okay?

Last week, the Congress passed a continuing resolution that's very unusual.

It's, I guess it's one of two that I can remember over the last 12 years.

And what it does is this.

It says on behalf of the Congress, we give up.

We're recognizing that we're not going to be able to pass a bill this year that the people will support, that we'll be able to override your veto.

So we're going to tell you to continue to operate the programs.

But in the process of passing this continuing resolution, there was some legislative history created in the process.

We believe that that legislative district indicates that we're going to be able to operate a PEP program, or an emergency employment program, if you will, at a level consistent with the President's request of $1,250,000,000.

And what that means to you operationally

is that in the next few weeks, you're going to be advised by your regional and area managers that you've got your pro-rata share of that $250 million coming to you.

And what we're saying to you is this.

That since you've been operating the PEP program and the regular PEP jobs at a billion dollar level, you've been doing your planning on that basis for the last eight months,

We think that you have an opportunity to take your slice of that $250 million and use it for summer programs.

We'll use it the way you want to use it instead of in the way we've done in the past where we contracted with people through NYC.

OK. That's where we see it.

My son always says to me, why didn't you explain it to us the first time, Tom?

How does it get that different from New York?

When?

When is the very point to it.

Last year it cost something just under $500 million.

If you just take literally the $250 million.

It's about, you know, $500 for what?

For the summer.

So you're saying that half of what was a little more special year 72 for this purchase.

Is that what you're saying?

There's another component to that.

What's staying with this?

I'll get it back in my head to see if I can remember what the number was.

There's still going to be a transportation component.

There's still going to be a summer sports program that provides slots for about 45,000 children.

There's still going to be the recreation components.

Um, I can't remember what the number was, Mr. Merritt.

My recollection is it was about 350 or something like that, but I hesitate to say that definitely because I don't remember.

That's pretty close because that's the number we mentioned last night.

I think 350 was where we came out in the process.

So that's 350.

Next question, I think it's Mr. Merritt who has a question.

Well, let me tell you how the process works.

When the Congress passes anything, the President has ten days to consider it.

This is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation we've been faced with.

I've had a lawyer sitting over in my office right now working over this claim.

It's very important that the President looks at this thing and decides whether to put his name on it for the American people or not, that he understands all of the legal intricacies.

And as a lawyer, as the lady can tell you, some of the things we do with each other, the government is incredibly complicated by the lawyers.

All right?

In any event, the President is going to have to decide what to do with this ten days from last Thursday.

My guess is we'll probably be able to put it before the end of this week.

Once the decision is made, you'll get your allocations and your notification of allocations very effective.

There should not be any, there should not be any slowness in that process, and you should be able to .

Well, you're saying that that $250 million is on top of summer recreation support, summer youth transportation?

I don't know who's gotten any notification of our getting continued funding under a summer recreational support program or a summer youth training.

You should have heard something out of the physical fitness and sports people.

For the last four years, they've been running a program.

We have funds delegated from OEO, and let me tell you, this guy who pledges them, they have the money this year, just like they did last year, over $3 million to continue that summer sports program.

I talked to my youth director, and we went over to summer program.

The transportation, the college work study, and non-aligned was all funded.

I met with the people I got together a few days ago and I said, I want to go over what money do we need for the subcontroller.

He said, everything's in line except NYA.

Yes, are you saying the level of funding to this continuing resolution to approve will be substantially the same as last year so far as allowing for EDA as well as the NYC, is that your concern?

Yes.

Are you applying enough flexibility in there to accommodate NYC along with EDA close up?

Well, let me make sure that I don't misspeak.

In 1972, you were running the PEP program at a billion-dollar rate.

I don't know what your local allocation is.

All right, so you've been getting a special allocation, okay?

And you've got an allocation for our fiscal year, 1973, that was the same as what we had for 72, right?

That's how you've been operating your program because that's all we could give up.

The President has requested $1,250,000,000 on a national basis for that program since January 1972.

And what I'm telling you is, I think, if I understand your question correctly, yes, you've got the equivalent of last year's $1,000,000,000 program.

And as a result of this continuing resolution action, you're going to be notified that the rest of that $250,000,000 that the President has asked for for the 13-month channel is going to be available to you

and you can use it for summer slots if that's what you wish to do with it.

But not in the end?

No, that's not so.

If you want to use it for typical EA, use it for that.

But what we're saying to you is it can be used for summer jobs.

All right, thank you.

By your statement, let's assume that the local contact date is November the 1st.

Right.

It's dead.

Right.

We'd have the two of us not to make sure.

Right.

In addition to that, you're saying this is $250,000 left over.

$250,000.

Left over for PEP programs, whether that be EA or PEP.

Uh-huh.

For whatever kind of public service jobs you want.

That's what the law says.

But it's still 100,000 to 100 million short or more depending on the numbers as compared to the last number, whether that's to be determined.

Well, you want to verify your figures.

I think the total we were talking about is the total of one of these programs, including some of the other things we talked about.

Let's verify the figure.

We know what the mix is.

The point that I was going to make is the point that I made in the letter to Mayor Kerr, and I don't think that it's that big a point, but it's one of the other components of the summer programs, and that is the summer meetings.

I think you got my letter, or at least I hope you did, indicating that that funding was at a 50.9 level, which is equal to the funding for last summer.

One of the important aspects of that is that last summer, all of that funding was not drawn down.

So it's conceivable that even more money will be actually drawn down this summer.

That was drawn down last Sunday, notwithstanding the fact that the amounts are equal.

There's no air money in that order that you can't carry out?

No, it's not carry forward money.

It's the same level of money.

We need to check out on the transportation thing, too, because what the past year has been having, we've had about an expedite, but we've heard no word on the car.

Let me get back to you on that, and you can make sure everybody else gets a word on it.

Mr. O'Neill, I think it's important, too, that this information be made public because the media are getting us into the problem that are sowing seeds of discontent for this summer.

I don't care whether I have it straight on my newspaper.

But what we've got is a little time here, right, to get this legislative history

to the point where you're comfortable with it, and then take it into the present.

So what's your timing in that connection?

Well, as I indicated, I think we can probably put it in front of the president five years later.

and decide how it's going to proceed.

Mr. Mayor, let me say to you, I am practically out of voice in trying to explain to people what we're doing.

You know, I have been talking to mayors, and I've been talking to governors, and I'm just absolutely amazed.

Every time I go and talk to a group and tell them, it's not true what you've been reading in the paper, the president does not propose to get rid of the Head Start program.

The president's budget provides $15 million more for Head Start six years than we provided last year.

They look at me like they don't believe me.

I respectfully suggest that maybe voice isn't the way.

A letter on our desk is the way.

Yeah.

Well, let me tell you, at night after everybody else goes home, I sign letters trying to tell people this is the way it is.

You know, it's just a phenomenal job of communication.

Let me ask you.

Do all of you have copies of the president's budget?

Not just the neat little handy special guide, but the budget appendix and your people have it?

It's there and it's there and it's there.

This whole story, thank you.

I think part of the problem is it's difficult to put it in precise form.

And I'm just wondering, as we've been talking here, Jim, I wondered if we could do sort of a budget summary.

That is, you know, understandable for Jim Lynch.

That's what you're explaining.

I don't think we can make it understandable.

However, you've given us accounts, and I don't know if we can see them.

Well, you're right.

But what it does seem to me, of course, and I'm sure Paul's aware of it, that just as soon as we get the cut, the decision, I should be able to make the decision.

on this kind of a matter, then what we're saying is you need a piece of paper that just sets it forth in two pages and this is it.

When the local press keeps screaming about it, they get off my back.

And from what it seems to me is that what you needed is zeroing in on these specific ones that are causing your heat.

And I can see what you can get from these things, too.

The best single-shot way, or all at once way, is to reach us through the National University of the U.S. Congress of Mayors bulletins.

I know I look at them.

Okay, that's really helpful.

We've been talking to John and Diana, haven't we fellas?

But again, we're talking in global figures and numbers and pipelines.

And the real problem here is that we've just been visiting here a little bit, but we walk out of a meeting like this, or the mayor walks out of his office having read the letter, and all of a sudden somebody calls him back and says, we just got another notice that something else has been cut off.

And so what is happening is that the regional offices and all these agencies are coming in and they're cutting off this program, cutting off that program, facing back this.

And while we're talking in global figures and, you know, the carpet's being pulled out while we're shaking hands.

Let me quickly add, gentlemen, that we're reaching a point in an effort to understand and to work with.

We've got something that's satisfactory to you and tolerable for us, but we're reaching a point where the Congress is starting to call us fools.

Because they see this, people are being laid off.

And I think the time is upon us that this has got to be resolved.

Because we're at that critical time.

And I don't agree with this.

I got a little different philosophy.

And I don't entirely agree with the position that you have nationally.

I think part of it's our own fault.

I think some of it.

Well, you may not think so, but I do.

I think some of the confusion is caused by some of the measures and some of the bulletins I get.

It looks good in the newspapers, it looks good on television, and so forth.

Now, I don't subscribe to that at all.

I think that, I don't have this great fear and confusion.

I actually really read it, but you can guess by standing in front of the television and saying, we're not gay in any place.

Now, I don't, I think that part of it's our own fault.

That may not be the popular thought that you all have, but I want to, I've said this before and I say it again.

I certainly agree with this.

I don't care whether the news is good or bad.

I just want to know exactly where we stand.

I can live with Jim Lynn's promise of a glorious tomorrow and what we're doing this year together like there is tomorrow.

but his point is when he makes a statement i believe what he happens to say i don't think he's trying to fool me maybe i'm so naive and i've only been around for 17 years maybe i'm so naive but i want to believe what he says and what he said the other day and what mr ivan says i'm a little confused at the beginning of what you were saying but i got that clarifying some of the things now i hope what you say is exactly the way it is i don't have to distrust

of some of the others have towards each person.

And I want to make that perfectly clear.

We're going through a transition, and we have just as many problems.

We have just as tough as you have to beat for it, just as tough as they have in Tampa, Florida.

But to stay here, that we're all in agreement, and then walk out and start last minute fighting because it's the thing to do, I'm subscribed to that.

Mr. Mayor, I think you can be the correct characterization that we were cautious about our comments.

And that's the point I was making.

We've been cautious.

We've been scrupulous in our evaluations.

Not everybody, because it's a matter of policy.

Especially the resolution the board directed to the National League of Cities last Sunday.

The resolution was the first time that we had a clear indication on how some of the other ones felt.

I think some of the statements that were made before were made by a certain group who had a certain philosophy.

I don't know if it was described in the statement the other day.

It was moderation that made sense.

Well, this is the first time that anybody has told us that we've got this bad news.

to the summer, that these summer programs are going to be funded, and we don't have to worry in our city about these complications.

And I'm concerned that in our town, as you are in your town, you are in your town.

We don't know that yet, because the president has decided we don't have the numbers.

That's right.

He has made a commitment.

That's right.

That we can say.

That's all.

We agree with the numbers and the wind of it.

I think all we're saying on our side is this, that just like we can't get our advice from reading the papers, neither can you, Pete.

That's right.

Now, we have a responsibility on the other side.

You have a responsibility if you hear about something that looks like it's going to impact your homework and what your figures are and what the inflection is.

We have a responsibility to respond promptly.

Now, the federal government doesn't always respond promptly.

promptly.

Have you heard that?

Have you come across that from time to time?

On the other hand, I can say that to you.

I can say that to you.

You're all right, so you've got the same problem.

But the one thing we're trying to do, especially the second time around, and the staffing of these departments, is just to become a hell of a lot more responsive in getting back promptly with what our analysis is.

And if we're not ready to do it, to say, look, it's going to take us 24 hours or 48 hours, then come on in and we'll see.

For example, I had Boyd Hyde and his crew

working over the weekend until a wee small hour is getting certain kinds of data together for those briefings that we had last night.

Now, I like to look upon that as a new look, that we're going to do that around the government generally.

But I think the call here is that instead of responding and having knee-jerk reactions with regard to it, for God's sake if you're baffled, we may be baffled too at that point,

But come to us.

Go to Jim and start there.

And I'll tell you, Jim has developed a knack in a very short period of time of bothering the rest of us over the head.

He and Jim are trying to get responses.

Try it.

You'll like it.

We've been here before.

I know, but you've got some new boys in town too, huh?

We're trying.

I agree with that, Jim.

I like to say something the best of the least in the conference of mayors, and that is that during this period of need and so forth, we had mayors who, on their own, expressed their own feelings.

And there are popular mayors throughout the nation.

They represent a large city.

They use really strong language.

And sometimes the cryptic line is that maybe it doesn't come from the mayor on the national level.

But they did do that.

They did not represent the board of the league or the conference of mayors.

The mayors, the board had met just a few days ago after evaluating the entire proposition that was before them, and I think they did a public statement.

I'll take for granted the position you've taken.

I just happen to have with me a headline from one of our local papers, Mark.

Sir, the U.S. is trying to bid for 300 Gs.

This is a rejection of our neighborhood facility requirements.

and it's getting down.

I would like to suggest, and I said I'd be happy to wait for it, that as a result of this meeting today, there'd be a brief statement which would be agreed to by NLC and U.S. Conference itself, because there's a report waiting, at least two reports waiting for me when I get back, and it should have two or every one of us, and they want to know, well, especially when I hear that we met here, you know, what the President said.

I don't want to misrepresent him.

I just want to say I couldn't be more pleased with the attitude this has been spreading throughout the city.

Especially what's been demonstrated here today.

And it's unfortunate that some people before getting any real details on it, they would come out and it was just paper that, you know, people read it and think for granted that's what it is.

As far as I'm concerned, what I've worked with, that I'm extremely pleased with, not only David in the past,

I felt that I could talk to others up here and get a clear answer to what we were doing.

I think we have a tremendous responsibility, Mayor, and I think everyone in this room, and most everyone in Congress, felt this way.

Not to act like some of the people on the street, the hollering slaves, but certainly until we've gotten all the facts, this administration is most willing to provide those things.

And I would say that I'm appreciative, and I felt that that was kind of the mood of the

of the total conference, of course, appreciate it for the day.

It seems like some, you know, when you develop it, you just begin to come into focus and somebody's trying to interpret the whole thing.

All you got to do is wait and ask a few questions.

Generally, it's all clear to everybody.

We appreciate the way you're doing it, certainly.

Especially what the president said.

We had four or five people talk to us in this conference and contradict everything he told us here today.

I'd like to know who they are.

And I've come up with a hundred for one as well.

Okay, he does.

I've got his name.

That's pretty good enough for me to sit here today.

And I think the one point, excuse me, I erased earlier maybe something about institutionalizing in a way or structuring how we narrow these issues.

And I'd like to get back to that because, as Alan pointed out, and as the Secretary mentioned, we have talked about global figures in the CD transition.

It is clear that there will be individual instances we're trying to identify, but the point I want to get at is, you know, how do we focus in on those, and at what point, where's the entry point here, and how do we start getting that kind of response?

may or may not be able to help that situation well i think i think you're absolutely right i don't want to see this end as just another meeting that we've had which has been a good meeting from from our standpoint i hope from yours and it's a dialogue that we hope to continue with anybody who wants to continue it with us

We're here.

My door is open.

My phone unfortunately rings all the time.

And I can't get away from it.

So when you have a problem, we want to talk with you.

But what I would like to come out of here with is a way in which

We can either finally agree to agree that what we are doing as far as the transition is going to work and is right, or finally get to the point where some of you perhaps won't agree with us.

So you need to tell us what the best way for us is to communicate with you in terms of specifics.

We'll do it any way you want to do it.

We can't tell you what's going to make sense to you.

You've got to tell us what will make sense to you.

And I'm open to any suggestion you have.

What's the information that will be going to supply the money for these summer programs as quickly as you can and then tell us where to work on them?

Because back home, we don't know how many jobs we've got before we can begin to go to work.

There's a lot of groups that are upset by what they say in the paper, that there's not going to be any jobs.

And these young people are going to be on the street.

It's two months from now.

Some places it's next year, it's in May.

There's other places in June.

But two months from now, we've got to know specifics and then we should know as soon as we can so we can lay the groundwork for them.

Well, I think we've covered this point, but I'd like to get to CD and housing, because I think that is important.

Community development and housing is still important.

I understand it.

CD legislation is being massaged and being put together.

I think what we've got to have there is a commitment as to the scheduling, like a critical path chart as to what's going to be happening.

I still go back to this point that

We're going to be working, again, on 72-73 funds, recognizing that maybe even if someone were to apply something today, it takes 39 months before it gets out at the other end with the signature on it.

But what about the amendatories?

What about some of the things that are going on right now that are going to be stopped without any funding?

Because there is, I mean, again, is there transitional funding?

Is there transitional funding?

I just have to go back to that.

And the other one is, again, the point I said to you yesterday, Mr. Secretary, this question about hoping that we don't just get a bill at the very end and

be given to us, and then say, well, let's have your comments on it.

I would rather have our stand as a league of conscience working together.

That's what's going on here.

How many meetings so far?

Four meetings so far.

Are we picking up from where we left off in terms of where we were in agreement before and starting from there and moving forward?

We're not starting with a brand new piece of paper.

I think that's a fair statement.

I think our answer is, yes, there is.

as much as you want to see the transition work.

And we think the transition is funded.

We think there's some places where we have to explain perhaps better than we've explained and be able to develop a mechanism for communicating with you so that we can communicate our explanations to all of you in the easiest, most efficient, effective way.

That's really what I think we want to come out of here with today is a means of communicating to you how we think we can work things out

so that you don't have any bumps in the road.

We don't want you to have any bumps in the road.

The success of the Better Communities Act, I think, really, is going to rest on this transitional period because to not have anything during this highest period, so to speak, between now and, between Category 1 and 1 July 74, to not have anything in terms of the

Cranking of costs at that point is so much greater without transitional funds, without adequate funds.

But let me say, I sat in as an observer in part of the discussion, the final discussion that Secretary Romney had with Paul O'Neill and others, the OMB.

where Floyd Hive would come in, meeting after meeting, where he had identified another transitional problem, and watched Paul shake his head affirmatively.

Knowing him as a very negative guy, it came as a surprise to him.

But I'll tell you, if there isn't transitional money in there, because Hive would raise one thing.

Well, now you've got this kind of problem.

You've got a closeout cost over here.

And this thing going so far, it makes sense to carry it to this point.

And you've got to carry over a personnel over here.

And I saw Paul nodding his head.

Now, I'll tell you.

From where I sat, thinking of a confirmation hearing coming up and that I was going to inherit this job, I felt pretty good about that transition, being somewhat of a stranger to it and not understanding specifically what was being said in that regard.

I just have a stinking suspicion that if you fellas sit down one at a time with Floyd, you're going to find that it's a lot like the pep thing, or at least what we hope the pep thing will be at the conclusion of the president's review.

and that there is transition built into it.

Now, it may not be exactly the same kind of transition you're talking about, and it may mean that something has to wait four months or six months before a new idea gets started up.

And that's why they're talking about a mechanism to do it, and I think that makes a hell of a lot of sense.

But just like we've talked about on the PEP and the Neighborhood Youth Coordination, what we're saying is we have a stinking suspicion that in our programs as well,

that it ain't as bad as it's been painted.

And for Pete's sake, sit down with our people and take a look.

And if you aren't satisfied with the people you've talked to who are the technicians, I'm sure you'll scream loudly to Floyd.

We've retired to it.

And very frankly, sometimes the guys down the line don't understand it fully either.

And that's one of the problems we get up against.

When you get into something that's totally new for an area man or a regional man, and this isn't part of their regular program.

Sometimes I think they have enough difficulty understanding the regular program.

to screw it up from time to time and what they tell you.

And if that's so, I would hope the damn thing comes out of the channel.

The other thing that we're trying to do is pursue this conversation, that we go ahead with community development and not wait for housing legislation to be tagged with it.

I think they have to be kept separate.

And this is the thing I've been saying to Congressmen all day.

I talk to them about CD legislation because a lot of them are saying, well, we're not advising you to do something on housing.

That's right.

George Gross made that point in our session yesterday.

And I do need a little time on the housing side, as I said.

Yes, but on the CD thing, I think that should come out as quickly as possible.

The chairman of the CD committee for the U.S. Congress.

Excuse me, I'm not even supposed to be here as president.

I think that we need to decide some logical method of going about asking these questions.

Thank you.

See you again soon, hopefully.

Thank you.

The thing that disturbs me about this, Ken, is that in some of these areas, what you're really suggesting is a one-on-one negotiating situation on every trouble spot.

I don't think we need to do that at all.

Well, honey, we're able to do whatever you want to do.

We've got most of the time a nice question that you can filter and get to that.

That's what I'm saying.

I think part of it is a basic policy.

For example, in the summer, it seems to me that we ought to be getting together now during the next push to charity.

We ought to be getting together three checks a week or ten days, whatever this time frame is, and preparing the material for dissemination of information so that the cities have been ready to move with it, whether it comes out from you or not from us.

They're ready to go.

But the community development piece, the transitional process, it really seems, Boyd, what seems to be happening is that a lot of you, I know in your state, are initiating these figures and assuring us that there is enough.

But the problem is coming back that what we're getting are constant area and regional actions which are undercutting your credibility and undercutting our credibility and undercutting the credibility here.

Because the policy does not seem

It's a, it just isn't coming to grips with the issue in a way that people can understand it and know that it wasn't the right thing to do.

Yeah, we caused some confusion there that I perhaps should cover and hope every once in a time, but it just takes a moment.

Going back pre-budget time, I understand.

been working a long time on finding ways to create and inject some reasonable management in the renewal programs.

Because I knew, you know, there'd be a day if we didn't get our bill this year to be next year that we had to get it into a manageable position.

Because frankly, the mayors for the most part would have a separate agency and most of them do.

Or at the mercy of what goes on.

I felt that was important.

So what I put out early January 11th

was really a management approach that really was unrelated to the budget.

And that's where we got no acquisitions for this year and whatnot.

Now, my name on the field really just clamped down and read it.

Much, much tighter than it was intended to be.

Now, what I did do is I necessarily put my people out in the field and go through project by project.

The result is this past few days' issue of verification, which I said I would do, which eases up on that but points out the rationale so we get some reason out.

It looked like they were really shutting everybody down.

And that was a goof.

Getting at those issues now.

We did the same thing with Model City to hold the line so we could count up our money and see who needed it to get through the next year.

And some don't even.

They haven't spent what they had.

That kind of confusion, I think we're beginning to get on top of it.

Now, as we do that, we will identify, again, on the individual problems.

It may or may not look so strategic.

One final thing I do want to say, I mean, this is an embarrassing call, but we did, we did freeze on the three programs, open space, water, sewer, and TML.

We did have actually legitimately approved it at quite a significant level.

Now, as far as the cities know, that's all dead.

But we are now analyzing and about to complete it.

And notification will go out that those are approved and those projects move forward.

That's going to take a lot of heat off of much of what you're getting out of that gallon.

I think the assumption out there, even by our people in the field, was that was all stopped, period.

And I don't think we can get that solved.

If the notice of that goes out in individual letters to individual communities that they now have can go ahead, that word is going to hit the papers.

And the first thing you know, everybody's going to be up in arms because they didn't get anything.

And I think the point of the communication is that there's got to be a policy statement of what is happening so that people understand it, so that the communication is there, and they don't find it out on the basis of the school, because they got it, we got it, and why aren't we getting it?

And that's what creates a kind of confusion that seems to be unique.

We're releasing certain things because they had a message they didn't understand.

Well, the clock is not here and I don't think we're going to solve this by debating some means of communication right here.

So I'm going to ask you and John to please talk with the mayors and determine so that you and I can get back together again with Jim.

What the best means of communicating is we know from the meetings that we have had here during the past week now what basically in terms of specifics your concerns are.

We believe that most of them are covered.

We want not to go out and communicate with everybody that we can as to how we believe they are covered, where there are specific concerns.

We'd like to look to you to

tell us how to reach everybody that's concerned with these things and can only say, I can't figure out any better way to resolve that here at this meeting other than to say, if you will talk with the mayors and tell us what the best way to go about it, whether it's through a series of task forces on these issues that involve mayors and staff or whether it's through written communications or policy statements or what have you,

We're ready and willing to do it any way you think that you people could make the most of it.

That's what we're all about.

We'll tackle it any way you say.

But time is, as Mayor Gribbs has pointed out, of the essence.

We are moving on these things.

We are moving on the Labor-ADW bill.

We are moving on the regulation of manpower.

We are moving on the final touches on legislation.

So we cannot really wait past the end of next week.

So we're out until week five right here.

We need to hear from you on the process of all of that.

I just hope, however, that the administration will realize that transition is more than accommodating the EPA and the NYC needs.

that until CED becomes reality, we are laying off people, and we're laying off Model Cities people.

We don't have to right now to make the decision as to whether or not we should continue the Model Cities program as it now is being operated.

We now have to worry, finally, that we will get a certain amount of money

It stands to be above what we thought it would be, but it still needs at least a 30% cut over a 16- to 17-month period.

So we are laying off people out there in these program areas, but the most critical areas, as you've heard so often today, are those of employment, especially in terms of EPA and those cities.

But I think we're all are typing up task forces to take a look at all of our programs, and we've been meeting regularly

is involved in any kinds of programs.

And a lot of good in that regard will come from, we appreciate that.

We've run about two hours, and I guess other people have time to catch.

Do you want to put the cast on on this?

No, I think it's been fairly discussed.

Let me just indicate that we've got some words to NYC.

Well, you're going to refine it.

You're going to elaborate.

You're going to explain it.

Hurry up, folks.

I'm glad to make a shot here.

As I've said, you know, I feel I have a fairly decent staff back in St. Paul.

And I've got a whole list.

You know the list.

programs that are being shot right in the fanny.

I get out into the community and I sit at a model city meeting until 2 o'clock in the morning.

I hear the programs are going, the people that are going to be unemployed.

I know we're not going to have a summer program.

We've got holes all over a damn ghetto.

And we got a memo from you that made it even tougher for us on your correction basis.

And I wish you would have told us in the first place, really, but the program was being shot.

You know, we're not going to have an immediate program.

So we took a look at your first directive, your first memo, and we found out a whole lot of ways to get around it.

And we got back a letter that really said, nice shot, guys.

You're very creative in your methods.

And here's correction letter number one.

And I was, in the first place, told that we've got a whole lot of programs that we're supposed to extend out for a period of time that are three-quarters done or four-fifths done.

And we're sitting, for example, with many, many parts of the land that are just to the fringe of being developed.

We only need that last push, and we have

somewhere around here is 75, 80 million dollars worth of additional development going into them.

And we're getting caught with our pants down.

Sure, we bought a lot of land, but we also planned this for the kind of developments we were gonna have.

We got all these damn programs, and I'm sitting here and I'm told we're missing four.

Well, then darn it, I'm not gonna shoulder that blame.

I'm not gonna shoulder all that blame.

I'm only 90 months old here as a mayor.

And we're putting together a new government.

I don't suppose we're so untypical of a lot of American cities.

We need to be told better.

If things aren't hurting us and they're not going to be bad, then we sure have been missing form bad.

And yes, I do come from the land of Hubert Humphrey.

We blow a lot of hot air out there, but I'll tell you something.

I want to know.

I want to know where is our money, when is it going to be there, how are we going to have it,

And I was told we have some sort of conferences around here.

We talked to Secretary Hyde.

I thought after I get out of this door, I'm never going to be able to talk to Secretary Hyde and get past all the red tape and such.

And I go into your area, people, in our city of Minneapolis.

It looks like a funeral procession around there.

Those people are carrying caskets.

And your people are sure fooled then, too.

Your folks down the line think that this is the end.

So as mayor, for me to think that it's the end, I see, I have this frustration, and I'm not any clearer today.

I understand that we're going to probably, because everybody's scared the hell out of everybody, that our towns are going to burn down, and we're going to get some program for summer youth employment.

Okay, the heat's been put on.

We'll get some summer money.

But what about senior citizen programs?

What about our housing programs?

And all these other things over the next, it's not just 15 months.

In some cases, it's gonna be two years, it's gonna be 30 months.

And what about administrative drag down?

What about the time to gear up?

I haven't had any of these things yet.

One of the most effective arguments.

You listen to this, the same kind of frustrations that I went through somewhere.

So why do I have to change this damn federal system?

I want to change it.

And if we don't, you know, if we don't do it now, I don't think we'll ever get it done.

And no matter how you slice the culture, there are going to be transitional agonies.

There's no way around it.

We know that.

We're trying to minimize it.

to the extent possible, but if we went on, we went in and refunded these programs, reauthorized them, you'd still have that confusion out there.

You'd have my people out there running around, they'd give you bad signals, me issuing wrong orders, and then having to change them.

You'd still have all that nonsense.

And because... Well, and let me just add one to it.

When you start enumerating,

You then enumerate a whole year of them.

You go through a whole inventory.

And I hope you were there yesterday morning.

Were you?

All right.

Now, you slop in housing.

There's going to be housing for two years, you say.

What did I say about housing yesterday?

First of all, I said we're going to be coming up very shortly with what we're going to do to meet specific program commitments, didn't we?

No.

All right.

Now, what are you doing telling me in this meeting that there's going to be housing for two years?

When I asked you yesterday to hold your water for a week or two to see where we're coming out on specific program commitments.

If at that point, plus you're looking at what you've got in the pipeline and with the schedule we come up with as to making housing proposals to the Congress and with what you think the Congress is going to do in that regard.

you still feel is going to be on the beach with rusty saws and hammers all over the landscape of your city, then give us help.

But what really does get me is when people get this broad sweeping inventory of problems as if they haven't heard a word we've said.

That's the thing that bothers me.

If you want to zero in on a specific program area where you know you're going to be here, fine and dandy.

That is fair.

But to come up again and hit the housing thing,

When I would have thought, I'd like to think when I appear before a group like that and say something, he'll at least give me the benefit of the doubt until we've had an opportunity to come up with these announcements.

We had programs that were just on the outspouting pipeline that had been all signed and ready to go that we don't have.

I'll go over specific programs.

I'll have people come out here and show you the contracts and everything.

But what happened to them?

Canceled.

Housing.

Yeah, housing contract?

Yeah, canceled.

Yes, sir.

Well, that'd be great.

We've got a Wilder Foundation, one of our most conservative organizations that we could ever get involved.

When polls scale out on housing, we get some front-end money, 393 units, it's gone.

We're ready for our ground raising.

I think it's specific, so I'd be glad to.

You know, there's a contract with HUD.

to furnish the subsidy for the housing.

Yes.

Well, I'd be very interested in that.

One quick final question that might be useful for everyone to hear.

I know Jim talked at a meeting this afternoon talking about the summer lunches and that program.

There was some rule of regulation tightening that was becoming prohibited.

Has that been resolved?

I like you, Mayor, didn't get to make that meeting because of this meeting, but I had one of my fellows go to the meeting.

Mayor Steve May is there also.

He's with the people of agriculture.

I also got your reply to my letter and the list of questions about the regulations and

That isolates the question.

We can provide you specific answers.

We think we have the people, we think we have the tools, we think we have the answers.

We want to make them available to you.

With respect to one of the specific questions that Mayor Cohen raised on some repeating, I signed my initials on this staff report saying his staff is wrong.

I think they're wrong.

We want to make certain we get the best information to you on the tough questions, on all the questions that we can possibly give you.

We're not going to tell you in every instance.

You're going to like what we're going to tell you or totally agree with us.

But we think we've got the answers, and we think that the worst thing in the world that could happen to us, all of us, you and us alike,

is to try and communicate through the newspaper.

Absolutely.

We're hanging on.

We're talking to you indirectly.

We're very, very circumspect, and we'll continue to do so.

I think it's probably time to wind this up for us to say thank you for your patience.

That's helping us build the understanding.

Mayor, I'll pray for you.

Let's begin now to make sure there's no further misunderstanding by issuing an agreed-upon brief statement as to what went on here and what we can look forward to.

Well... Dick.

Yeah.

Chair, I don't even know where I'm at.

It's only 5 o'clock.

I was just going to take the facts of Allen and Jerry.

That's what I'm here to say.

And after that, it's up to you.

I'm just saying, for what the President reaffirmed, the stated position of General Revenue, I think it's important to do this.

What General Revenue is sharing was no money.

That's what he said before that.

That's what he says today.

Number two, he was made aware of the fact that this NYC program was very critical to the cities.

And as I answered what he said, that there's somebody coming there.

He hasn't overcommitted.

I know that's what I say, but subject to budgetary reviews, there's an intent there to grant some relief.

But we've discussed a number of other areas dealing with that.

This is just a discussion, Mr. Secretary, called Transition Problems.

We were seeking to identify and try to do that.

Very shortly, Mr. Secretary, we'll have seen policy and policy, and we'll further refine this explanation of transitions to lacks or needs or gaps.

That's what I think .

I just have one point of clarification that I think is really important.

There shouldn't be any misunderstanding about this .

intent to give relief, because what he posits with every other program in the federal government, then, is the dice has been broken and everybody can flood in.

So using words like intent to give relief really hurts us with every program on the Hill, agricultural, you name it, to cast it that way, that believes that there is funding sources for this.

or that there is in our budget.

I think that there was an indication that under the continuing resolution there's a belief that the full amount requested by the president originally for the PEP program is going to be available and that $250 million will be available for summer programs for the first time.

It's not going to be available in the past.

Forget that language.

Yeah, forget it for the first time.

Yeah.

But I think it is better to stick to the facts on that rather than characterizations.

I don't think that $30 is available for it.

We believe it will be available under this continuum.

It may be available.

What happens if it isn't?

We believe it will be available.

I think that if you're going to give that connotation, the press is going to want to be in a way where they look at the alphabet and you can't have it first.

Well, you know, it far be it from me to tell you to serve a general president who writes and claims on spot directions and papers.

I don't want to be in that position.

But, Ken, there's just one other thing I'd like to clarify.

Mayor, there's just one other thing I'd like to clarify.

And it's part of our communication about myself.

I think you mentioned that you were talking about problems that are concerned with senior citizens programs.

I don't know that you know where we are on senior citizens programs, but let me tell you very briefly.

Until about a year and a half ago, we had $47 million available to the Office of Aging to make indefinite for senior citizens programs.

The President has been proposing to the Congress for over 18 months that they make available $200 million to the Office of Aging so that we can have a senior citizen program that really works.

$100 million worth of nutritional money and $100 million worth of special project money, okay?

The Congress hasn't been able to send down a bill that's acceptable.

It keeps sending us defective bills.

The President in almost every area that you mentioned has asked the Congress to move forward with reforms and restructuring and more money.

And let me just briefly give you a picture of what grants and aid to state and local governments looked like over the last three years.

In 1992, the federal government provided $35 billion in grants and aid to state and local governments.

The amount the President requested this year

when you make the adjustment to the fact that we're going to take over the responsibility for the adult category of public assistance on January 1, 1974, is over 46 billion dollars.

In the years 1972, 1973, and 74 in total, the federal government will provide more money in grants than any of the state and local governments, than it was provided in the entire decade of the 1960s.

You know, the facts are phenomenal.

Well, okay, can we go through the statement once, one more time, because I'm not sure that we're all going to know what it is.

Well, the first two, I take it there's no objection.

The, all right, the General Railroad Fair airing program, that summer program, you are going to say.

Well, I'll adapt the terminology to that.

Okay.

Or after that, you know, I can't argue with that.

Yeah.

And the department of the OMB believes that this bill is signed by the president in addition to the other sources of funds.

that are available for some of these programs, because you mentioned the other stuff, the transportation.

Okay, and I will respond to Alan exactly where we are on transportation.

I'll do that as soon as I get back to my office.

Okay, what about in reference to special consideration being given to specific transitional problems?

I know that everybody thinks his problem is

Is it fair to say that the results of the discussion on that point were that one, that the President and his staff again reiterated the need to have specifics with respect to it and there was extensive discussion of manners to bring those specifics to the attention of the administration.

Is that fair?

Thank you very much.

Yeah.

Except where?

You wouldn't have been from behind.

You wouldn't have been.

You wouldn't have been either signed by me or what do you mean?

I'm not going to sign you up.

All right.

Do it.

Okay.

There it is.

I don't know.

Because even though you might have gotten a hold on yourself under one set, that means that the suspect should have started, but now they've started to let it roll, and then you can pull it out without regretting what Robin has said about you.

And without a void, they can look at the cover and think, well, that's what we're going to do.

So what I'm saying is, you may be entirely right, and you may be entirely wrong, but you give us a chance.

Sure.

But if we want to, we're going to have to turn the door off.

Right?

Well, I don't know.

Don't call me a friend then.

I don't want to call you a friend.

You have my back.

I'm just kidding.

I don't say anything.

How's it going, Jim?

I'm glad I asked about that damn business, but I shouldn't have done that.

And I can imagine what kind of feedback they have.

It's tough.

Some of them are really great.

Now, I hope that the last telegram is on iron, except for the one that is partially good in publication.

And then they...

I don't know.

I have one of the guys up in my department.

He said, what's your viewpoint?

But it's not on mine.

We're saying that on telegram, some of the ones that are in there...

I think that's just with all of them.

They're very much better.

They're very much a great group.

Let me ask you a question, Mr. President.

It's hard to deal with this.

You've got to get it done.

It's called here.

Every state apology that a guy or a policy runs, they know their income is back.

They know it's coming back home.

But that ain't the point.

That's the point of our money.

So if you're going to be able to support our meetings, I want these guys to be able to understand.

I'm going to be a portion of that.

That's the best way to do it.

We're just talking about your duty, I think, budget and stuff.

because what a whole bunch of that's what that whole thing is our reports are and our conclusions

That is the case.

For the city?

Yes.

For the city.

I don't know.

That's funny.

So I couldn't buy into that conversation.

Because I started saying, well, depending on how you're looking at it, on our community development,

But it certainly wasn't so.

But on the other hand, on Outlays, I knew it was so.

So I didn't know, and then I didn't know what the totality of the city programs were, so I couldn't help finding out.

I was glad, in a way, that you did raise the point on the urban renewal and so on, because it did give a chance to air that whole thing.

But I don't know the answer on that particular one.

Let me tell you something about somebody else.

Let's think of a guy that made the survey I'm going to tell you about today.

Oh, that was .

Oh, I was going to go .

.

. .

See you later.