Conversation 124-005

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

But before,

So at the end of that, I'd like you to take a look at one of his events.

He's going off to Paris today, and he's desperately trying to find something.

And some rather important developments have occurred in terms of our relations with the Europeans.

Very important developments, and very positive.

And what happens in Paris is going to be the end of the world.

Let me first talk about Iceland and then I can make a few remarks about that.

Respect to Iceland.

I want to understand what the president is attempting to do with Europe, so-called Europe, Europe.

And secondly, how Iceland fitted respect to the Europe, Europe.

that the policies of so many of the European countries, the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, have become oriented more and more towards relations with adversaries, and less and less towards relations with friends, that the alliance structure was created by 25 years ago.

The conditions have changed dramatically

There is a sense of great relations within the alliance, in line with the existing .

They have grown up within the alliance a whole series of partially overlapping, partially conflicting approaches.

In defense, we are on the basis of an integration structure.

In economics, the Europeans are assuming their regional autonomy and is heading towards it

foreign policy, each nation is conducting its own national policies, and this post of socially overlapping, mostly conflicting approaches is going to have, over a period of time, a disintegrating effect from the alliance structure, and while the policy of relaxation of tensions, which is one of the cardinal principles of the president's policy, has been a massive

That, however, depends on strength of dissent.

It depends on strength of the United States and it depends on strength of the alliance.

And this is why we have started a series of negotiations with the Europeans, designed to bring about a more consistent approach in which we want to rationalize the common defense.

very in line with the reality of the situation where both sides now have enormous nuclear passwords, where economic negotiations are related to an overriding political good, and where the foreign policies of the atonement are related to the foreign policy of the alliance, and brought into a good and present.

This is what the president has meant by the year of Europe.

And this is what much of the discussion has been about.

The difficulty that is faced is that every European country, with the political exception of Great Britain, has massive left-wing pressures on them, so that any negotiations with the United States also involves with India, each European country, a domestic problem.

And each European leader has a great temptation to take a free ride, not only on our defense, but also in the negotiations with us,

himself in a position where he looks to be standing up against the United States.

Now, nevertheless, it's been the President's conviction that the policy of relaxation of tensions, which we haven't pushed forward substantially because the President has required equally great effort in pushing forward the alliance structure.

And in this respect, France was absolutely

and it is absolutely key, because it is a Kennedy business.

Allied cohesion was deeply weakened by the constant clashes between the United States and France.

By the end of the United States, we imposed its banner on all of the European countries.

And given France's crucial position in the common market, it had to be important to bring France along into a

We are being built to operate with us in the objectives that the president has set.

The press has made a lot of the fact, the press has presented Iceland as if we had made certain proposals that were rejected.

This is total nonsense.

If you gentlemen want to read the briefing I gave to the press, the President's instruction on the Tuesday before we left, what I said we were trying to achieve on behalf of the President, with what was in fact achieved, you will find that we achieved exactly what we set out to do.

We did not set out to do to get a summit meeting with the French, because the President's attitude towards the summit meeting with the French or with anybody else

is the attitude that we have followed with the Soviet Union and with China.

His administration goes to a summit meeting when it is well prepared, when there is a complete program on which to agree.

Nothing would be worse than to bring together a European summit before we have a complete program.

Secondly, we did not want a substantive discussion with the French on the whole range of precise issues before the alliance.

We didn't want it for two reasons.

If we had agreed with the French, the other allies would have complained that we were only a Franco-American partner.

Secondly, on many issues, we had a lot more support among other European countries than among the French, than from the French.

Seriously, it would have put Punito into the embarrassing position domestically, where he would have had to look as if he had came to the president on substance.

And fourthly, he had one primary item said he wants to raise with us, in which we have no interest in supporting him, which is the French version on monetary reform and return to the gold standard.

So for all these reasons, the president never proposed this.

The president never proposed a substantive solution of, say, issues of strategy and so forth.

What the president did do in a

The answer is not to try to get introductory assurances.

The answer is to establish a European-American relationship that is so close in which consultation takes place on such a regular basis and in which

In many ways, the pattern between the countries, there are various countries, is so late that the United States will come to look at the security of Europe, at its own vital national interest, and where in economic and other negotiations.

Both sides keep in mind that there are no winners in trade wars, and that the attempt to squeeze unilateral advantages out of these situations will be longer.

us children, which is a very, very important thing.

Now, Pompidou started from a very reserved position.

And in the course of the day, by the end of the day, we got from Pompidou exactly what the president had set out to get.

And what was that?

We wanted the French to agree, first of all,

about the necessity to do something in the area of Atlantic relations.

That is to say that we cannot continue with patterns that were established 25 years ago, with defense policies that are the vestige of an age of nuclear monopoly, with trade policies in which each side attempts to maximize, especially the European zone, selfish, narrow-minded, and with foreign policies in which each country flies out in all directions.

He agreed that we would address this range of problems.

He stated publicly that the objectives of the United States and France were identical, that the only thing that remained to be done was to work out methods to implement.

We agreed that we would proceed as follows.

And again, if you...

read the President's annual report to the Congress of Foreign Policy and what we said on Tuesday before we left.

We agreed that there would be discussions starting immediately in established forums on the concrete issues before Secretary-designate Schlesinger is going to the U.S. Planning Committee in April this week and is putting before them a rather tough but very honest statement

of how we see the problem of common defense in the next decade and the life of the trenches in Appleton.

Secretary Shultz is giving a speech at OECD this Wednesday in which he will lay out our approach to the principles that should govern trade between the two countries.

The President's instruction, I'm seeing for a minute, is to lay out a plan on suicide

to see how this all fits into a general forum.

The French agreed that they would proceed in all of these forums to see what the basic problems were.

They secondly agreed that sometime in July there would be a meeting at the Deputy Foreign Minister's level that would bring together the demands

economic and political approaches into one coherent path, which is exactly what the President had said we should do.

But up to that point, the French had resisted, because the French thought we were trying to blackmail them in order to make some specific economic concession.

And at meeting then, it will be decided whether there should be a summit at the time that the President goes to Europe, or whether it should be at the end of bilateral meetings.

All of this will be tied together through a series of bilateral meetings, to which the French also agree, which is, in their government, conducted at the Joubert level, and is their foreign minister, and here at equivalent levels, in which I'm conducting negotiations with Sir Bertrand from Great Britain, Joubert of France, and Egon Bahr from Germany, in which

Given the fact that we deal with 15 European countries, we are trying to harmonize the views of these four or five key countries in order to give some interest to this public sphere.

The major point of this is, despite the press reports, that the meeting in Iceland was really a very great success.

It marked a great move to Europe.

that we are trying to accept it.

And it will pay off later this year.

Now on the issue, should there be a summit when the president goes to Europe?

There is a non-issue invented by the press.

We have never said, we have never proposed it up to now.

If there is a common statement of principle, there will certainly be a summit.

The press won't be able to resist it.

If there isn't a document that they all can agree on, there shouldn't be a sign.

But many of these debates have been innovatively resolved by regulators.

They've been resolved because we now have a procedure where we will be talking with the French in forums where we have a majority on our side.

I talked yesterday at the President's instruction with Sir Bertrand,

And he is very optimistic that we can proceed along this road and ensure that we have Guilty Hero Bureau on track, that we will have French cooperation in their Cartesian, sometimes nasty way, and that frankly, they have agreed to a procedure

Uh, we're speaking in this room.

They'll have no choice but to cooperate.

Because at every moment in which they have to breathe, they will be outnumbered.

They'll be the minority of one.

The trouble, the problem was to get them into these forums.

Once we are in there, we have already made our deals with the British, with the Germans, with the Italians, and the smaller European countries are essentially on our side.

Now this shouldn't be repeated that way.

I'll tie up this room.

I'm trying to give you a sense of why it was not in our interest to have a very prolonged substantive discussion in Reykjavik, and why it was in our interest to get a procedural approach settled, and why the French essentially agreed to the procedures that the President went there to get.

Let me say a word.

about that matter and if you want to do it, that's a question.

Well, don't get it.

But it's vital that you understand that.

I would say that in the French, originally, the disastrous policy in the Kennedy administration was wrong.

We all know that the union ended De Gaulle and the ranking and we've been trying

since 1969 and have made some success.

I would say that today that the French and the United States are closer than they have been at any time since President Eisenhower's administration.

This is very important, very important because France, with all of its hard teaching difficulties, which Henry and Stile, etc., Henry pushed to, France is indispensable Europe.

But Europe can't get along with France, and of course France can't get along with Europe, and he didn't get along with America.

That's the issue before him.

And this understanding is very clear.

Pompidou, of course, has a very difficult domestic problem for the reason that he was a Gaullist.

And to move precipitately away from the Gaullist position, instead of

independence from the rest of them.

It is simply impossible, but on the other hand, for him to agree at this point to a process by which we will try to discuss, we will discuss the principles in which there can be a new Atlantic relationship to be built, since the old one is no longer speaks to our time, for them to go there.

is a very significant step.

It's an absolute step.

It's a very, very enormously impressed by him.

The Germans are impressed by him.

We're both, we breathe a sigh of relief because their problem is that they all feel they have to deal with this.

The other thing that should be mentioned is this.

One of the reasons it's so important for us to have a European American

A new understanding between Europe and the United States, taking on the economic system and so on, but on the political and national and security area is quite candid.

Otherwise, there's going to be an unrestricted race to Moscow, each individual, and the Russians will eat each individual alive.

It's like that.

On the other hand, if the strength of the alliance can't be short of reasserted, etc., then the Soviet Union will have something to deal with other than the strength of the French going through the parade, going through the Germans, going through them.

A lot of this has already happened.

That's why this move has to be made.

We have no problem dealing with the Russians on a bilateral, equal basis.

But it's impossible for the French, or the British, or the Germans, or the Italians to do so.

And therefore, to avoid Soviet picking on the great nations of Europe one by one, it is essential that we participate in revitalization of the lines so that we can speak as a group, basically.

That's at the heart of the matter.

I suspect the point that the president made is really crucial, because the French, under de Gaulle, had taken the view that they would engage only bilaterals and folks who were there to engage, but everyone.

And it's in these long conversations that we'll be doing with the president, in which there's philosophy with the labyrinth, that really constitutes a breakthrough in French-recognized, unless they've participated in this effort,

exactly the situation Mr. President is going to have to put aside.

And the President made the point then that we welcome the strong France, that we wanted a strong Europe.

And that brought about what is really a major trend in the French facility.

If you compare it to the attitude they put in 61 and 62, just to say that on the other hand, we need to learn how you have to go

I don't know.

I'll take a minute.

I don't want to restrict you.

I don't want you to take the time to do it, Jerry.

It's an hour for unstructured talk.

But let me say briefly, discussions will be taking place in Paris.

The purpose of the discussions is not to make a new agreement.

The purpose of the discussions is to shore up the agreement which we have, which is perfectly fine.

It's adhered to.

So have they just conducted a number of discussions on this as I parted out to a bipartisan meeting in Cabo.

They continue to infiltrate the violation of the agreements.

men into South Vietnam and materials beyond replacement material into South Vietnam.

And the other point is that they have not complied with the MIA permissions.

So what we've been working very, very hard to do is to try to get this together again.

Henry will be going over and

either when you turn from there.

My part is to be the results of this, if it all occurs okay.

Sometimes, in fact, what has gone on and what you're trying to have me achieve, that the Peter Hewitt systematically really knows Vietnamese, all the provisions of the agreement on the Chinese side has at least been applied.

and try to look up concrete measures by which the implementation can be improved.

As the press reported out, there's nothing wrong with the agreement.

The problem is the implementation.

No one can be saying or can really come up with an agreement now about improved implementation.

This guarantees that it will be implemented.

It will be equal implementation.

It's a brutal fact.

It's a threat and an incentive.

There will be consequences if it isn't implemented.

And the possibility of what might be done in the way of economic assistance if it is implemented.

If both of these things are taken away from us, we can write this one glorious agreement in history.

And it will not be carried out, no agreement in history has ever implemented itself.

Now, we've made major progress, but I will say two weeks ago,

And we are at the side of an agreement, at least on major areas.

I'll be the Cambodian because of the actions that have been taken because of the local situation.

We are hopeful that we can make very significant progress this week.

And as the President pointed out, we will hopefully have an opportunity to report this at the Black Lives Matter meeting.

If I could ask you not to speculate too much until these meetings take place, we will know within 48 hours after I get there whether what's been achieved two weeks ago

It states that military remaining sanctions that need to be worked out can be worked out.

We don't know that, sir.

We've been forced to.

That's a $64 billion question.

No, sir.

But we are in a position that if you tell the North Asian people what you will under no circumstances do, you're really making life very difficult.

And it's one thing.

One, our own intentions are, and another, to put it down by let's just let it be done in such a way that any schoolboy in Hanoi can help, can figure out the price and soon that.

If there's a margin of uncertainty in their mind, that is important.

But that issue, in fact, doesn't arise in the negotiations.

What arises in the negotiations is how we can get the agreement implemented.

What is your timing?

Friday or Saturday?

We will run it in Saturday to be able to report something.

And we will, when we get something, we'll have a briefing here.

That's what I call a snap basis.

just to highlight partisan fears.

We have all of you on this occasion.

We have three Vietnamese parties that have to be brought along, so it isn't easy to give a precise time.

But as the President's board has done, we will be able to meet three Cambodians, three Laotians in the event.

You want to talk about the whole bank.

That's right.

Right?

That's right.

But we've done that.

But we said we'd make considerable progress.

Up to date on this, we're thankful that we have the problem of Cambodia's most difficult for a reason.

There are three major parties who agree only on one thing.

They want the North Vietnamese out of there.

And that's the only reason.

Thank you.

Have a good day.

Thank you.

Mr. President, very bad.

I understand you can't have everybody for reasons of this sort.

I feel that we would have done much better on the Cambodian Amendment.

On the Cambodian Amendment.

If Henry or Bill Sullivan or somebody had called to a number of people in the Senate and had some sort of reading session for them so that they could understand it.

I got that word, unfortunately, he was abroad.

But we will, even though he has a number of other duties.

And now, hey, they're going to handle it very well.

But just to start on the previous discussion, you can have a bill for meetings, if you can set them up on a basis where, you know, it doesn't get into debt, so that you get enough people together.

You can send policy committees, you can get a conference, or whatever you want, if you want, or house policy committees.

You know, you've got various organizations.

And Henry will be available.

And Al Haig will be.

And as we have some reorganization, I'm sure, a couple days, three, four days in, others will be very impressive people.

Because I think it's very important to do that.

I will help out too by bringing people here who know I've had

They've had a great number of meetings with members of the House.

I didn't include Democrats last week, but there have been three Republicans in meetings.

It doesn't tell me if you can't get everybody at one time.

We've got that many.

You've got to get a few senators one day.

You haven't given us so much yet, though.

We will.

Yes, sir.

Well, I'm glad that you're waiting on one that we've looked at.

Yeah, I mean, you can't have a whole section.

You're going to have to have smaller groups.

They'd like it if we can't have one.

That's all I mean.

Yes, sir.

Please, senators, we'll speak to each other, you know.

Yes, sir.

Some of us are saying that.

Not Mr. Dodd.

Get out of this, Mr. Dodd.

Okay.

Not even me.

That's not it.

The House guys come out of this.

We will make this bipartisan thing.

I hope I want to commit to it because it depends on what progress is made here.

in the event that we have something that's working, that's between two divisions, we consider constructing two important, I'll make it very big, it'll be a big bipartisan, but what we will do is we have to bring in, that one we've got to bring in Armed Services for relations and appropriations, right?

Correcting and checking and everything, so that means you can't bring in the entire leadership as well, but we'll go down as far as we can in our leadership and in theirs on that occasion.

I think it's unanimous among our leadership and among our membership that having once every third time a meeting of this kind is highly beneficial and in conjunction with this

meeting today.

We got our leadership together and we laid out the things that seem to be the most important from our point of view in discussing with you and your people at the White House the matters of some substance.

We have found to some extent that the thoughts that we put together two days ago are somewhat transitory.

There's been some

improvement in the situation and other matters that have come up.

But we have this agenda and you and I have discussed the combining of numbers one and two.

And I'll read them to you.

Number one, prompt follow-through on submitting legislative requests containing the presidential messages and free consultation on proposed legislative proposals.

senior Republican committee members and leadership.

Number two, earlier administrations signal on their position of those before hearings.

I had my staff put together a list of all the messages from the White House when they were submitted and when the draft legislation was set up.

As of the moment, I think there are only two, maybe three instances where legislation is not up at the present time following a presidential message.

There was some time lag, but looking over the facts here, we find that there are 53

messages as of, I think, yesterday.

All the bills are now up to the Congress and have been introduced except in two, maybe three cases.

But this is important that we do as well, if not better, in the future.

Because if we don't, the Democratic leadership always can say,

Well, we're ready to move, but we don't have something from the administration to work on.

That's sort of a defensive maneuver on their part.

Nevertheless, if we have a message, a bill that's come up more or less simultaneously, then we take away from them that opportunity for an alibi.

Now, the one that

As of today, it's not up, and I think it's a very important one, is the spending limitation.

Your message came up February 22nd, and as of today, we don't have draft legislation in that regard.

It's important because Dick Bowling came to me last week one day and said they wanted to move on an anti-impoundment provision.

and they also wanted a spending limitation.

I said, we're in favor of a spending limitation, but I think the best way for us to handle it is to take this joint committee proposal

I think 32 Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate all agree on it.

And we want to be in a position where we can offer that.

He said, well, I don't think we can go that far.

I said, we'll have to try and open up the rule if that's going to be your position.

But if we had something from the administration that would

and be also available, I think our position in trying to get something done would be better.

Now, the second part of this, and then I'll stop and others can join in, because I don't know if this is just my dialogue with you and the White House, but we have had trouble with people from the agencies

not making their position known to the public.

The public members of various committees, well-known, there wasn't enough coordination prior to the hearings that were held on a particular bill.

Again, we find, I think, an improvement.

Yesterday, for example, people from OMB were up and met with us.

I think they met with the Senate.

on this new office of our department, Department of Energy and Natural Resources.

We had a good meeting and we're going to meet next week further on it to see what our suggestions, what input our suggestions, what the impact was and what their final recommendations might be

This is good.

It will be highly satisfactory if we continue it and expand it.

At least in my judgment, we're making headway now.

Others can comment if they want to.

So our ranking members have very strongly stressed the desirability of the earliest possible consultation so that we can avoid what happens from time to time on a ranking number

has a bill on grass submitted to him.

He happens to be against it, and he blows up, and then he submits it by request, but the request is usually that you ignore it.

It's not a very good way to have a ranking number to submit a bill to the rest of us.

And I bring it up because it has happened, and I think people are much more aware of it.

I noticed, for example, that the county members seem more aware of it now.

I think that's all came through.

But we do need that because it is essential but impossible to have the right to have a strong advocate.

It almost goes without saying.

And we want to avoid it happening.

Mr. President, I'd like to go back, if I may, to a very important point that Jerry raised, and that comes up in conjunction, Jerry, with your comment that Dick Bolling came to you on the Senate and Parliament legislation.

The Democrats are very anxious to get through.

I just have sort of a visceral feeling that there's a great opportunity in that situation for some overall compromise between the Congress and the administration.

on this whole question of number one, stealing, number two, some limitations on impoundment, but in conjunction with the Congress moving on the reform of its own budgetary procedures so that we don't end up in this awful situation that we do every year of having spent more than we should.

And I would just like to publicly express the hope that somebody from the administration's side could really give some

Thoughts to an overall proposal that we might be able to come up with and try to sell.

You see, the Democrats have moved, at least today, but correct me if I'm wrong, the Democrats have given me the impression that they've moved completely off in the House with the urgent proposal that would have required an affirmative resolution on the part of the Congress before the President could act to impound any funds.

They're almost completely swung over, I think, to the main line.

which would stay present, it could go ahead and impound, and then within 60 days, one house could, as reorganization plans, you know, vote against the impoundment.

But I just think that there's a little movement there, but if we all really got together, we might work something out.

To whom do we work?

Well, I think Dick Bowling has these very key, very key comments.

Well, here's a suggestion, Mr. President, that John Rhodes made yesterday, and I think there's some merit to it.

We have a policy committee, and John has an executive committee of a policy committee.

I think people from OMB or from any one of the departments could very appropriately, at least on our side of the Capitol, meet with that group

in addition to the people from the appropriate committees, whether it's appropriations, ways and means, it wouldn't be too large a group, and I think it would be very constructive if we had this kind of a setup, you know, without the right people.

Yes, but what about the Senate?

Who do you meet with each one of you?

I think if you're none of the right members, you'll have to have a chance whether they want to support the committee in which they want it.

If I can make a pitch on that, there are going to be times when younger guys are going to be carrying your program, Mr. President.

and your cabinet people are the newer guys.

Either way.

Seniority is not always the criteria.

I think it's a good sense of political common sense if you want to be sure that the guy that may ultimately end up carrying the bill in the Senate be included in these discussions.

Two seconds.

proposition, and a brief meeting with the ranking man, leading to a meeting with all the Republicans on the committee.

We don't have so many on the Senate.

I think it would be better to have them all in, but let the ranking man have enough of plans so that he knows what's coming up, and so he can smooth the way if there are any problems.

Mr. President, I have a good example of that gentleman over at HUD.

He did very good.

So they not only drain men's blood,

But in consulting the staff as well, he has considered the need to talk to the minority council and monitor the treatment of the bill that occurred to have the living available.

That's for the other cabinet members.

Yes, sir.

In fact, I would like to have a cabinet meeting just on the procedures for all cabinet officers' departments and maybe you and Jerry could participate in that to talk about some of these problems so that Jim can tell his story on how he works with them.

Mr. President, it seems to me that really has to work into a matter of routine, Bill, and before a legislative proposal goes to the Hill.

so that the checklist would indicate that this checking hadn't been done enough.

Whatever your plug-in turns out to be, on our side, I suggested the executive committee, the policy committee, as the initial one, but recognizing the fact that you would also, given whatever subject it might be, would want to call in the members of the various committees on an ad hoc basis, depending on what the subject is.

Mr. President, I want to underscore the importance of what I think is the consultation and the formulation stage of the legislation, rather than after this legislation has been, uh, spliced up here and then come up and tell us what it is and expect everybody to collect their heels and march.

Uh, I think if you give these fellows a chance to get some input, and you don't need to,

Your people don't need to tell them what you've decided, but at least give them a chance to have their hand at the formulation of the state, and then they're more likely to do it.

At least some of them are going to go out and work real hard.

We've had some problems where the view was impertinent.

I mean, it's a block they referred to where we couldn't get a single Republican to get out on the floor and defend the administration bill.

Well, what was done yesterday on our side on this new department of energy and natural resources was the right way to do it.

It hadn't been frozen in.

they were still flexible and we had an input and they're coming back next week following our meeting was trying to perhaps incorporate our suggestions and at least we were told there wouldn't be any finalization of that until the meeting that we had in a week or 10 days.

I think that's the right procedure.

It worked extremely well.

The health bills last week have been the wrong way to do it, too.

Well, somebody must have got to work for the 1600th, because... Yeah.

Cap's a good guy, but on this particular issue, everybody in the committee, the entire Republican side of the committee,

uh, favorite extension largely because they, they felt they had no alternative.

Nothing, nothing else had been suggested and there was no opportunity to work out the compromise.

Fair talk.

I'll talk to Cap about that.

Yes, sir, the, uh, Cap appeared twice before the committee, the subcommittee, long after they had their hearings and got Washington.

Now, he appeared as a witness.

And Carlucci appeared as a witness.

They had two breakfasts, I guess, at Capitol Hill Club.

Sam, I think, you hosted a meeting, too, with... Yeah, so we had Carlucci, Kurtzman, and the cat, but everything was locked and cemented at that point.

And then they sent up... Yeah, the problem is the disagreement between the members of the committee and the administration on continuing Bill Burton and the regional public health centers and so forth.

Emergency medical services?

But there was plenty of discussion.

Many times it sucks when you disagree.

I disagree.

But I think the net result, Bill, based on the dialogue we had before the floor action and the dialogue that took place on the floor, that is now Cap and Painter and Jim Hastings and the rest of you can sit down and agree, I think, if we can get over this one year's hump,

we can come up with something that is a viable alternative.

Well, the cabinet has indicated willingness and they're cooperating totally now, but this is a problem to go over.

I think you probably emphasized both talking about right here.

I'd like to say one word in praise of the cabinet members because I started to say there's ever been some worry from 1600 because now when you call a cabinet office, you get the cabinet office, you don't get the deputy assistant secretary.

Nobody minds talking to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, but it's essential to get that five minutes for the Cabinet Office to first, and now we're getting it for the time.

Mr. President, I talked to you about this.

And they all want to, you know, they just want the words right.

You know, now I'm simply going to say that the President gave a very firm message to the Cabinet meeting before lunch that they all clearly understood about the absolute essentiality of consulting out with the Republicans, but the Democrats as well, in that respect.

reflects some of the change.

Part of the problem, as you know, is that they have to run the departments also.

What you're referring to, I think what you're referring to is not to go off on a formal hearing, I mean that's all done, it's frozen, but you're referring to the idea of

That's the discussion that's going on.

All of you are prior to the time that the final deal was made.

Well, I think before the deal was made, the discussion started to compromise, even discuss compromising publicly.

What you do is you make the compromise in the back room on account, right?

That's the way it's done.

And is that what you're suggesting?

Yes, sir.

Rather than just the fact that the formality of a hearing and batting it back and forth and who beat whom and so forth and so on, and then a vote up or down, I think this is the first skill of the public to see the defense and whether the cabinet obviously has it.

Some of them have, some of them aren't getting it.

I'm not surprised though, he's pretty good.

He's got a big department.

This anti-encomment and the spending limitation, they're not academic because they are attached to the Senate version of your car value legislation.

And unless something is done,

In order to avoid a confrontation right now, that legislation might be held up for a substantial period of time.

On that point, the Democrats yesterday caucused and came out for three months.

This brings up the advisability of having some free consultation on how we respond to that and whether there will be alternatives or whether there will not be.

because they have ordered to attach it to the first appropriation bill coming out that, uh, I don't know what will be the first one, Bob, if we get State Department authorization, perhaps, to agriculture.

The only one you have over on the southern side is the one for the Congress.

We have destiny at the moment.

Well, what about the destiny, Bill, if you want to have a destiny in the next eight minutes?

Well, aren't you going to have one?

Yes, you're right.

They want the tempo that the Congress legislated for appropriations, I don't think.

Because they've got little, little goodies in there.

Cakes and nails and stuff.

I think, Mr. President, regarding to, uh, finishing the, uh, time, we'd better move on.

Although I, I could sway, sway very fast on the other one.

I don't think we need much time.

I must understand, just from the point of view, uh, on the political appointments.

This is now working in that, uh, in people who have a patronage here, both from here and from George Bush's office, uh,

and meet with us every third week on Mondays or earlier, or more if necessary, and tell us what you're searching for down here, and ask us to advise them if we have any suggestions.

And I have so advised the Politics Committee, Mr. John's approvals,

We have said that if they have the input, fine.

What it concerned us was not that so much as the president, particularly with Democrats.

They've been pulling Democrats into vacancies on commissions.

We'd like to know who they are, and Republicans do, but the Democrats particularly, because they might turn out to be the former campaign manager of your opponent.

It takes like that to happen.

So we think the Democrat who wasn't there earlier is not subject to the same inspection as the Republicans.

So, Mr. President, there's a strong impression in the Congress that there are a great many vacancies here unfilled.

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

We have no way of knowing.

constantly in dealing with our offices report to us that they can't get a decision and it's because there's a guy in the in the slot we thought 2000 there was something like 56 two weeks ago and some of those that didn't fail well uh that may be that i'm trying to get the impression that's the problem the problem of course

days ago and so forth, but it's now down to 25, I think, out of 2,000, so, and there's, you have that money that are never good, you know, there's just people going in and out, but watch that, if you have it, yeah, you bring it to them.

Well, I'm trying to, I don't want to be impressioning, I don't know the statistics.

No, no, no, no, no, I don't care what that means, but if you, if you get any specifics, I mean, or something that isn't billed, we'll, we'll get somebody around and see that they get it done.

Two things that Jerry Jones has agreed with you and myself on, and I think they're important.

Number one, that we will have a prospective list of job openings or position openings.

So that people will know in advance what's possible.

so that suggestions can be legitimately made.

Number two, that we will get at an earlier stage the name of the person that's at the head of the list.

So we're not getting it after it's frozen in or embarrassing to make

I'm getting a co-incident with the beginning of the FBI investigation, because if you get it later than that, I have never known a man being investigated as told, first his wife and then his friends, and then the papers get it.

We'd like to get it before he's assumed he's got the job and then embarrassed or embarrassed us, or some senator wants to put a blockade on us.

What has gone on?

Mr. President, three steps, really.

The first one is that Jerry Jones and his organization received recommendations from the Cabinet, from members of Congress and business groups and government groups and governors and everybody else, and they interviewed

candidates, those that have some potential.

And then they prepare a memorandum outlining the qualifications and the job responsibilities and circulate it by senior staff for their comments here.

And at that stage, I have an opportunity to go to Jerry or Hugh.

This is even before the presidency.

He says, what do you know about this guy?

And I kind of thought that's great.

We get your input before it comes to me, I know.

Even before, because I have to incorporate it, you're always going to be famous.

It's always on the homerun.

on the list of people who have looked these over, and I assume that you were checking these.

That's right.

At the time the president gets the approval of the candidate, it comes back out, and at that point, the FBI has started it.

And that's when Jerry Jones goes to Hugh and Jerry and talks about the candidate and says, the President would like to know if this guy had any problems.

And then after that, it takes about two weeks generally.

And if that's all clear, then George Bush and the Republican National Committee does another clearance with the members.

Normally, the Republican Senator should stay, and the representative is the Republican in the district, the candidate, and the committee, the ranking member of the committee.

And if all of those are cleared, then the announcement is made, and our office notifies those members who have an interest in the candidate that the announcement will be made so they can get a lease out.

All right.

So we really have

The Federalist system is working on that.

I recall the other day they gave a question about a person from Illinois who they did not know, and they asked him if he was a representative of Illinois.

I don't know if he did not know.

Well, he was supposed to, Chris.

Anybody in his district?

Yeah.

He said, well, we've got you as part of the leadership.

Well, in the case of this new procedure, I think it was yesterday, he had four or five names.

I looked it over and I told Bob Hartman and my staff to check with our leadership since the individual came from their respective state.

going to Barbara, or somebody from California, or somebody from Florida.

But at least at this stage, we ought to go back to the state, or to the member who comes from that state.

Now, I assume Bob chairs the people, and he's supposed to report to me today whether any of these people

Uh, had any problems as far as...

I can only agree that, uh, the old, the old cabinet here in the administration has ever gotten more strict orders for checking on this personnel thing.

And when you, when you were around the house in our administration, remember, there was never any checking.

Yes, you remember?

Uh, I do remember.

Yeah, I'm talking about candidate managers.

Yeah.

But, uh, it was rough.

But that was not a fault of mine.

This was basically a non-political, uh, administration.

But why are you here checking, by the way?

There's just a question that something falls between the schools.

It's a question of the future bill, and let's be darn sure that these guys have the bill passed.

Well, that's a lot that I know.

It's not that it really isn't approved.

Well, you have much to question.

You see, George has got the responsibility of the committee, and I think he's carrying on extremely well.

We, Bill's name, I don't, I never make an appointment with his name on that list.

Mr. President, we've caught some real turkeys, too, through this system.

Sure, we have.

Well, sometimes we go down the road with some guy, and we think he's going to be the other secretary, and he finally is, basically, the campaign manager of, say, somebody else.

And I'll dig over it.

Don't worry there, sir.

We're highly sensitive.

Hey, we have, speaking to the other side of the coin, cabinet officers.

particularly those that are not quite as political as Raj Martin.

So I'm extremely put out because we, the White House, are so sensitive, so insistent that there be a political check.

We insist on a political check.

The position of the average guy, he's got these jobs.

It's very hard in cases, particularly of some of the, some of the, you know, are very important, but don't pay for it.

He wants confidence about everything else.

Somebody who's confident.

He says, why in the name of God do I have to take a dumb Republican if I've got a smart Democrat?

And of course the answer to his question is, is he loyal?

Uh, and that overrides whether you're dumb or smart.

No, it's fine.

We've had so good a time.

We've had all the great fun we've had.

I can assure you we've been around and around on that thing for the past four years.

We've been around and around this again.

And, uh, if there's anything that needs to be brought up on this, uh,

Well, I think they got the word.

Well, I think everyone here that's

individual cases.

I can't report to you that we're satisfied with the way our thing is working.

No, but it's getting better, and the communication, sir, that the leadership is talking about is working better.

We've got more awareness in the EOB about the political facts of life.

It's not working as well as Bill or I would like to see it, but we're going to keep on it, and I'm talking to Donald Hague about it, and I'm going to...

Just think, in a couple of weeks we're going to hand these benefits to him.

Don't you think we ought to move?

Yes, I think we ought to move.

I think a fairly simple one.

There's a feeling that we should be developing some kind of a fallback position if the revenue sharing programs fail in terms of the attitude of the administration towards appropriations.

How they should be structured.

if the revenue sharing fails.

This, I suppose, goes back to each cabinet department that has been involved in a particular revenue sharing bill.

I'm afraid that if a pullback position becomes well known,

We've had all the government officials, Congress, and the governors, and the county and city governments.

But it'll weaken our chance of getting this.

I agree with you that we ought to have a callback position, but the question is, how can we do this?

structure a fallback position that doesn't immediately say to the people who may be for you and putting the heat on the congressmen who are against the program that, well, they're going to cave on it.

They've got another position that's going to tell them they're not going to get in any way affected by it.

I'd like to hear a lot on this because I'm going to leave here and go out to the governor's conference.

I'm sure I'm going to be asked a lot of questions about special education.

Can I respond to that?

I think what I think of as a fallback position may be somewhat different from some of the other people here, but I'm not suggesting a fallback position as an alternative program.

What I'm looking for is what can we give in a trading situation

to get the votes to pass special revenue sharing.

In other words, what compromises can we make?

Can we lay $300 million on EDA in order to get special revenue sharing?

The distributions of federal support are, in fact, a lot heavier than anybody's supposed.

The front page article on the fact that the federal share has not diminished at all.

It's increased.

But it blows out a lot of the objections that all these people are getting hurt.

They're not getting hurt.

We have a whole harmless position.

They're better off.

It seems to me that we don't want to weaken our chance for getting this fundamental benefit of greater flexibility than in the line, which is very saleable to mayors, governors, and stuff like that.

But indicating in advance that you're really not serious about this, we don't want that.

Well, Mr. Vice President, I'm not saying that we're not serious.

I think we're all absolutely committed to the special energy sharing program.

But there are times when you can lay on a $50 million compromise in order to get a $5 million.

There was something, I think, however, we're talking about two levels.

And the vice president's position has to be one of just out there, balls out, selling special revenue sharing.

What you're talking about, Bill, is a backroom consultation with the estimates where we develop a position and where we don't put the position out on the papers so that everybody knows down there what we're not serious about the thing.

And that has to come at a very late date.

But, Mr. President, the people that we get with at OMB,

taking an absolutely hard stance on these stops and stuff like that.

They just simply are not in a position to negotiate because they're not dealing in an independent posture.

And if we had any method by which we could, you know, get a little bit more political rationale applied here, we'd get a whole lot more votes.

Bill, let me take this specific case.

Last week, we had a meeting on education and revenue sharing because it's, you know,

We discussed that at the meeting that I attended, you know, over the years.

Right.

Now, we had Mr. O.M.A.

and Kathleen Berger and his staff and Bob Michael and Alec Wee and others.

We are in a position on that one, where if we are smart and tough, we can get special revenue.

The President of...

primary-secondary education legislation expires June 30th.

There's a one-year extension, and then it dies.

And we had this meeting, and my opinion was that Kat Weinberger was going to sit down with Al Queen

and work out some way of folding in those 30 programs into the five or some variation of it.

And in the meantime, we would proceed with Bob Michael's appropriation bill so that in fiscal 74, you would have sufficient funding

Under the existing law, but with a firm understanding that when they came up with the Education and Labor Committee, they would have to have new substantive legislation.

And if the Democrats wouldn't buy it, then we had to expect a veto and we had to anticipate the sustaining of a veto.

Now, this is a concrete case.

But the net result, Mr. Vice President, is we can't get it.

in fiscal 74 because they got the majority but we also have the position with the president vetoing the extension of the legislation and our anticipation we can sustain the veto we can force an answer

in fiscal 75.

Now, that's where we are on that one, on the House side.

But I think you have to take each case individually.

Now, I'm not as familiar with housing as Better Communities Act as I am with education.

Maybe Bob Michael can fill us in to a greater degree as he lives with this problem.

Well, just very briefly, we're going to be marking up tomorrow the Health Education and Welfare Appropriations

And I think in a general sense, we will stick to this year's figures in the education field, except there's going to be some increase again for that impacted aid thing and probably Title I, but it won't be nearly out of balance.

as will the health portion.

And of course, going together, the one that we didn't have too good a rapport with the legislative committee, and having that been passed as big as it is, yet we got no alternative to fund those programs.

And if I just alert you, Mr. President, if I was to make a ballpark figure, that AGW bill is going to be in the neighborhood of $800 million to $900 million.

over the budget when we go to the full committee and i'll be willing to make a stand on each one of those little individual items just go down one at a time and that's i think a strategy thing i think we have to work out among ourselves too here it's much easier for you to take that overall package to other american people in a billion and beat them but when you get down to the individual items

Then we, and put them to a record teller vote, we'll lose every dog on one of those individually.

And the sum of the little make the big.

And I don't know what kind of strategy, if we want to go down the road, we have to go after one to feed after another.

But at the end of the day, I'm sorry.

We have them, I believe, in a position where if we're tough and smart, we can come up with education and revenue, Sharon.

I mean, some degree, maybe not precisely the way it was set up.

Now, the health's a little different than the original.

That's right.

But the education, I agree with you.

but with an automatic extension for one year there's no compunction on their part to do anything until they get right up to it next year when there is no automatic and then it seems to me we come in with our substitute even though perkins wants to go his way and say

Now, here it is.

We've got to go one way or another, and we can pull together on that.

We can win on that one, for smart and tough.

But it needs a one year delay.

Well, it needs a one year delay.

They don't get caught by some...

delay or the expiration of some program, but there's nothing coming into them, and they're suddenly, they suddenly have an ongoing program they can't fund without a big increase in the state prices.

Mr. Fisberg, that's the other side of the coin, and that's what we're all trying to avoid.

It seems to me that we need some help from OMB in a study on the whole area of revenue sharing, because there are some areas that are further along where we have a better chance of getting legislative programs this year than others.

And if we didn't have some guidance, you know, so that we would know better where we can put the pressure or perhaps you have to rely on the appropriations of committees to just put in money over the budget.

I don't know.

John, one thing that bothers me is if this committee gets to the position, say, at $70,000.

It's the spring of 74, the summer of 74.

They can demagogue it up, and we can take a beating in the congressional elections.

Now, one of the things we've had in the last couple of elections is real good support.

from the professionals that gravitate around state politics.

And this is grassroots political support that in our congressional election in 74 is darn important to us.

But this support will go very rapidly if, as you say, some of these programs fall flat on their face, because we're standing up here waiting for a revenue share.

Absolutely.

Mr. Vice President, if you would give us some figures.

with the presence of approval that when I talk to some of our governors out there, that they make direct inputs to congressional leaders.

about their fears of what's going to impede the map and what the dangers are and which areas they lie.

Do you think that would be helpful Mr. President?

Sure, as far as revenue sharing goes.

But then get right to work on that and make an analysis and get it to the conference.

I would prefer to have OMB do it, really, because I think they have more of an overall knowledge of the whole government.

I'm not sure I need binges, but why not let them do it?

The governors don't necessarily agree.

If they knew the facts, they would.

But we've got to be able to document our case.

We can have the governors send their appraisals to LNB and let LNB screen them and get out.

This is Cole going out there to the governors.

Yes, sir.

He knows the facts on this.

I'm not sure.

I haven't discussed it.

Is he?

Yes, sir.

He's getting out there and getting the figures.

Yes, sir.

You tell him to get in touch with the Vice President on these very points that we're mentioning.

You've got some of them already.

He may have, you know, figures on them.

But just when you know, oh, he's ready to get down to it.

It's like when I met with the mayor.

It's easy to be darned by what happened to us.

Mayor Pittsburgh, you can hear what happened.

Columbus, Ohio.

You know, everybody's working actors on stuff.

How much do I get?

There's got to be a record down the line there.

Well, Mr. President, that's true with general undersharing, but we're talking about something more than money.

We're talking about flexibility.

Flexibility.

We're talking about...

I know, but the funny is, if you're talking about money too in this sense, they want to be very sure that money is special revenue sharing, and that the whole program does not give them less than these grants would.

See, the way the money, and it doesn't have to be investment, so there's no giving to the money.

The way they're affecting money in a very important way is that special revenue sharing, which eliminates maintenance of vendor and matching,

gives them the way they can control what are now locked-in expenses under some categorical grants, where they've got to match programs that they can't project, particularly in an area of inflation, where the costs of hospital beds go up.

You budget at one figure, and by the time you get halfway through the year, you have another.

So they may have to tail off of that special revenue insurance, gives them the right to make judgments on what programs

they want to support, and to what extent, rather than being locked into a specific contribution under these categories.

And that's why it means money to them.

It means money to their ability to control their budget, not what they get from the federal government, but their ability to control their own budget.

Very important.

Mr. President, we can figure out this, but I think if I go to one of the discussions, I don't believe it hasn't been done.

And that was that we were suggesting that the White House Chief of Staff, Lieutenant Kerry Oliver, join our Senate leadership meetings on the deal.

And you have advised me that General Hayden, Andrew Kissinger, and whoever becomes the head of the Domestic Council,

will be available for the .

But in some instances, you may prefer that it be Henry's, for example.

He'd be a better .

But Al will be available right now.

Yes, sir.

But Al will determine.

In other words, you'll be in touch with the two of you.

Do it through him.

He'll schedule.

And these people of this highest level from the White House will be available.

Is that really any kind of, for example, in the Cambodia thing, we have two other things.

One at the end relates to apples.

The other is, is compromise possible on any of the remaining bills subject to possible vetoes?

That would be true on the way possibilities of vetoes do.

What we were concerned about is the need for us to know what you would take.

Are there alternatives and has there been one case where I believe you said you would take, was it the Irwin form, who was that?

Irwin form.

You know what the situation on the hill was?

The compromise, as you know, the Vice President made a critical point there, is a very delicate business.

You indicate before the battle begins, or before you know you're going to lose, that you're going to compromise, you will lose, just make that sure.

Within those parameters, the OMB and the Master Council and so forth have very stern instructions.

But let me say, there are some instances where we just can't compromise.

I think my decision that they send out an ACW bill with $50,000, we're not going to compromise $300 million or $400 million.

Or maybe he's wrong.

Who knows?

Am I right?

Yes.

And so they're, and they're the idea of compromise and possibly sometimes you're going to have to give veto.

Everybody understands that.

And you fellows both in the House and Senate, and you, even the Senate, have sustained vetoes.

Thank you.

Obviously not to have them.

Man, it's no fun to veto bills and put everybody to the floor.

You know what I mean?

I mean, I say what you just started, even though you're saying to veto, you'll get a majority.

And that's a real telltale ticket for house guys.

Come on, we don't want them.

The real problem here is to give us the leeway that you don't force a compromise until the time that it is necessary.

Our people know what they can do here.

But there's some areas that in the past it was domestic for a special reason.

Well, Mr. President, we've got one coming up this afternoon on the floor of the House.

the greatly amended Vocational Rehabilitation Bill, which you did veto and Senate sustained, and Al Quay and others working with OMB, and I guess AGW, worked out a compromise, which is less in dollars and far better administratively than anything that Congress has passed or thought about before.

Once that agreement was made, the House Committee reported out the bill with only one dissenting vote, Earl Landry.

Now, subsequent to that, I'm told that ATW and OMB went over to the Senate, and they thought they got a somewhat better compromise.

But in the meantime, the House people were left out on the limb, having already agreed with OMB and HEW.

Now, today, we have to vote on it under suspension of the rules.

It's about 300 and some million dollars or more, less than the bill you vetoed.

And it has substantially eliminated the administrative difficulties that Kat Weinberger and others were objecting to.

I don't know what the Senate's going to do, but I'm convinced the House is going to pass this overwhelmingly.

And it is, in dollars and administrative structure, a great improvement over the bill that was vetoed.

And at least in this case, in my judgments, you ought not to veto it.

Because it's going to be, in light of the substantial changes, very difficult to sustain.

And you have achieved about a 75% victory.

Is that right, Bill?

Unfortunately, it has in there such sums as might be appropriated, so you can't fix the talk thing too precisely because we don't have the appropriation committee.

But let me interrupt, Bill.

That's exactly what the administration wanted in the way of language.

And when we first came up, Al offered only four of our eleven minds.

Oh, good trip.

which is really the Senate version.

As far as House Republicans, I agree.

I think they'll vote for it and hope that in Congress we can get something approaching the Senate version, which is really our best plan to do it.

What is the dollar?

Why is the dollar going up?

Well, if you also have the EDA bill, which ought to be discussed in the picture.

We have reached compromise on REA, on older Americans, on emergency farm loans, on the Economic Stabilization Act.

I think we worked very closely with members of Congress in getting something that was acceptable.

I think some members of Congress and some people in the administration didn't like any of it, and that probably made it acceptable for both sides.

We are working very closely with members on the highway bill, making great progress.

We started working on rivers and harbors.

We're working on vocational rehabilitation, as we've indicated, on veterans' cemeteries and veterans' health benefits.

We're working closely with the committee on that and work out something, I think.

On the EDA, of course, we're working very closely on that, and I think we'll get a bill that the President can sign.

It'll be a little over, and we'll continue the EDA program for a year, but I think it'll be within reason.

Air Force Airways, good bill, I think, out on that because we work very closely with them.

members of the Congress.

The Farm Bill, we know how that will come up.

Butts and his guys are working closely with senators where we can and with the House members.

So lots of movement in this area of compromise and concession.

There will be some that will come down that I'm sure the President just will not be able to sign.

But generally, I think the record's pretty good.

We started the Farm Bill in September under a time limitation.

I know we're pressed for time, and I want to bring up the last item on the agenda.

It goes far, far broader than this, apples, and far broader than Virginia.

30 states are strongly and greatly affected by

an action of the Department of Labor in exposing, on an emergency basis, certain limitations on the utilization of pesticides.

Let me quickly give you the department.

Yes, under the OSHA.

OSHA, OSHA, yeah.

30 states, all right, here's the sequence.

About a year ago, Ralph Nader's group initiated a law school, saying that

certain pesticides were harmful and used in orchards as far as migrant labor was concerned.

Some judge down here in the District of Columbia threatened to force the Department of Labor, the executive branch, to take action.

A couple of months ago, the Department of Labor imposed, under an emergency procedure, certain regulations that in effect eliminated the utilization of most pesticides.

And under the emergency procedure, the people affected cannot come in and object, which is unusual because ordinarily when OSHA

sets forth in the Federal Register their proposed regulations that give them 60 or 90 days to have a hearing and to submit their objection.

But under the emergency procedure, they are precluded.

And the net result is you're going to have a number of other lawsuits already started all over the country objecting to this procedure.

seems to me that the people who object to this unusual procedure ought to have their day in court.

And 60 members from the House signed a joint letter, including myself, urging that the Department of Labor at least change the procedure by which they are imposing these regulations.

It includes not only

but it includes a number of agricultural commodities.

Well, it revolved around the issue of reentry, but workers can go back in, so they weren't in the fields, and so on, and that's what they've done with the Department of Labor.

They've got a court case that they are trying to get dismissed, and that's why they put the regulations out, so they get around the court case.

Brennan himself, I think, was cited by these migrant workers, so it was sort of a ploy, the emergency standards, to get the court case dismissed.

That's not been withdrawn.

It's a six-month period, and they're going to have periods around the country during that six months before they have permanent regulations promulgated.

But the mini-tribal bill, they are enforcing it, and you're going to have to have it.

in orchards and agricultural areas all over the country.

There's a lot of booze, of course, under the ocean.

Yeah, under the ocean.

Now, the president says that the worker can't go back into the orchard for five days.

Now, a perfect example is George Dundick, whom you know.

He said, you know, he said he spent 55 years in orchards, drinks with himself for seven days a week, and I guess he's helped her die.

And no, no, no, they can't find him.

What does that mean?

One fatality has resulted in his dismissal.

They allege.

Uh, in some Senate or something, 800 people lost their lives one year, and it's never been documented.

I agree with you.

Our Senate committee made this frivolous statement.

I think labor at least should have used a regular procedure to give people an opportunity to come in and make their point, and then if the proposed regulations were too drastic, they could have been amended.

The utilization of this emergency procedure is totally unjustified.

Have you talked to second room?

I talked to John Stender, who is in charge of this, and frankly, he's asked, and I haven't talked to Fred.

But it just seems to me that you're hurting an awful lot of our friends, and I don't think the facts justify the action that they took.

Well, now this was put into effect on the 16th of May.

You know, I'll take your topic right now.

Okay.

And take it to that other center in the country to see what the situation is.

You would like someone to do this, would you?

Okay.

Whether you need this or not.

Sure, Schultz is on top of it, too, because he's been working with me, but I can't... Well, that might be when I give it to Schultz.

I'm going to tell Schultz as far as I'm concerned.

I think it's a good idea.

We want to turn it around.

Okay.

If we can, to the extent that we can.

I understand we have to comply with the war law.

Tell Schultz that's the way to do it.

Okay.

That's all we can do.

That's right.

All right.

We'll make tests.

Oh, unless somebody wants to ask a question.

We want to thank you very much for letting us.

Well, yeah.

This has been a very valuable meeting.

And I want to say to all of you, we will do this one out of three times.

I'll do this one.

You need one out of three.

And normally, we're going to take the first 25 minutes or so of the three.

But today, it's useful to do a message of courage.

I think we have an hour and a half for what we like to do during the meetings is to run them from 8.30 to 10.

That gives the chance for the leaders to get out and make the news and for you all to get back to the committees and so forth and so on.

So we'll run the meetings for an hour and a half.

but that'll be a good session for you and you might be able to bring up anything you want to call up for political matters and so forth and so on next time.

Let me say that you know I know you're spending a great amount of time with the, which I'm delighted to do, with various groups of congressmen, senators, leadership groups.

We'll try to get, shall we say, not down or up to the back benches a little more.

That is a problem, as Sam knows, and Bill, that's probably what you referred to.

But you've got to get your leaders first.

Absolutely.

And we've been doing that.

And if you, Jerry, if you, if we do have systematic measures, you'll always be informed.

But I know you're all for him.

And you'll be, of course, invited if you want to come.

That's what I'm doing personally.

Beyond that, the cabinet has got this sternest instructions, the sternest instructions to cooperate with everyone.

They want to, believe me.

There isn't any question about their desire, just a question of knowing how, where.

We have a very responsive cabinet and they're all really young and they're playing with a great team spirit.

Third point is that the, in terms of your own activities, I think if we can have this kind of thing that we, that what it does too is to create a team spirit,

rather than just having the captain here say, look, here it is, boys, take him, leave him, which we'd never want to do anyway.

We want some of this to come from you folks, you know.

And that's right, it's a cross-fertilization.

And so the only thing I would suggest on this that we might want to do sometime, and I speak, I say this to the leaders, when we have this meeting next time, you might want to ask you,

You know what I mean?

Maybe not to have wild cards and stuff like this, because you can't have a protest-ranking discussion when you've got people who are not in the leadership.

But that's up to you.

You make your own decision on that.

As far as we're concerned, I'm concerned, the whole of it.

White House staff, the cabinet, you've never found, you'll never have a group that is more anxious to work with the Republicans.

We think you've done just a fantastic job on vetoes and everything like that.

It couldn't be done if it weren't for the leadership you were provided.

We know that you're getting a lot of heat at this time.

And there'll be some more of that.

But the important thing to remember is that, despite all the kicking around we get, is that the reasons that we won the election are still quite known.

The principles we went on are overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

And the foreign policy people, David, for example, the people approved the fact that despite some congressional lack of support, and I'm putting a British understatement, that we were able to get the word out.

and that we are now brought with a piece of honor.

They approve the fact that we are trying to build a new situation with regard to not only Europe and Latin America and the rest, but we're going forward with our Chinese initiative, which I'm working on, and the Soviet initiative, which will begin in the east.

And in the domestic field, the American people approve our efforts to avoid spending the money to a tax increase, to avoid spending the money to a price increase.

They approve what we are trying to do in terms of getting rid of old programs, programs for the most part that were adopted during the so-called Great Society years, which no longer matter.

They don't want those things.

Those issues were all brought out in the campaign.

And despite all the smoke that has come up since then, the American people are still burning for those positions.

And we're gonna fight for it.

We have over three and a half years to fight for it.

And I think with the kind of a team we got in the cabins that you're gonna have in the White House, and we should compete that reorganization this week,

And that you're, with the cooperative spirit that we have here from the leaders, that we will have even more success in our second four years and our last four years with a spirit of cooperation.

But it all depends so much on you.

And that's why these leadership meetings, for me, will be as much as anything else listening sessions.

I mean, I'll be here.

Because we want you folks to be with your party, where you're not just here to take the orders and rumble about it and so forth.

And we made a decision, let's go.

Let's try to do the best we can to carry on.

I think it's very funny, yes, there are very many more statements from Republican members of Congress who have done a lot to stabilize the,

public opinion reaction, and I have in mind this stock market, the dollar, the gold, all the rest.

I'm fine talking to these orange testers, but they are waiting for us to say things of reassurance as to the strength of the country.

And I think more and more Republicans who can speak in terms of strength, of ongoing strength, of belief in the country, belief in the system, the system is working.

and that we have pride in it and that we're going to go right ahead for these three and a half years and make it work.

We'll put some confidence back into the economic community.

Well, actually, this is, is, does work for us.

That's what we talked about three months ago.

Thank you, sure.

This is a matter we haven't talked about on the radio.

It's a matter which I won't comment on this time.

I'm going to be meeting some of my people later tomorrow on.

But generally, I don't think you would be interested in our last victory after I return.

The point that I make is this.

You wouldn't know it from the press over the last two or three months for obvious reasons.

There's one story in town that played.

But we are going forward with our foreign policy initiatives and our domestic initiatives.

And we're working, you're working, and we're going to continue to work.

And eventually, that will be the biggest story in town.

And we'll make it the biggest story of what we accomplished.

Yes, sir.

Mr. President, I think we're going to start marking up our procurement authorization.

Now, the other night we had with me, you made a great statement about maintaining some of those very positive .

Now, I understand this, and I think most of the men in our community will reduce that organization some.

And in the right spot, I believe in the judgment of that 42 member committee.

So when we get on the House floor, they're going to start pot-shotting attention from all ends.

Now, I wish there was some way, no matter how, that we could have the whole conference together on a table and have someone talk to us about it, to get across to everybody and remember just how essential it is that we maintain a fast position when we get on the House floor, otherwise it's going to get all done.

And I think it's going to be interesting to hear what 40 Democrats do.

Well, let you keep in close touch with this, and when you get to really the top, let us know, and I'll return.

We're going to do the best job.

All right.

I mean, conference.

Some of these boys want to know the fact of life about why it's that important.

Mr. President, I'd like to go back to something you talked about down in the wild cards down here.

You've got some strong and potential allies in the freshman class in the Senate.

I was getting them down here sometimes by themselves without the leadership so that they don't feel overshadowed.

And perhaps the same is true of some of the newer house members.

We had a freshman house member down on occasion.

He was glad to do that.

Mr. President.

But anyway, here he is.

But anyway, here you go.

What we have to get, though, from your suggestion, you see, Bill, when you send that recommendation, we get your leadership.

See what I mean?

And I understand why.

You know, we'll have the webs, we'll have these leaders, we'll have the policy groups, we should, and so forth and so on.

But in order to...

In order to get in the back benches, it's gone on hard because nobody speaks for it.

But everybody around here thinks there should be back benches and I'm delighted.

I want the leaders too, you understand.

But you remember, you can do just so much and we've got to spread it around.

Do you think the time is for the back benches from the Senate to come in?

Fine, let's go now.

Okay, good.

I think that is good.

Mr. President, I think we ought to review that the President has had 20 leadership meetings this year already, half with partisan and half bipartisan.

A number of individual meetings with members of Congress, all of them that were ranking members of the chairman, and as the case may be, sent out over 1,200 social invitations to members of Congress for different kinds of events, and covered 450 different members of Congress who received at least one invitation, both for public and state, to worship service or something similar.

done pretty good in trying to cover the whole Congress on socials and not a lot of bipartisan parties.

Yeah, and in addition to that, the special meeting, I've had Blair announced, and my wife has been over to the room the other day, and so on and so forth.

Well, I'm all for it.

I'm delighted.

to do it, but you fellas have got to, being the latest that hasn't once been a backbencher, you've got to sneak up and say, look, here's some backbenchers.

Because otherwise, they'll never get in.

Okay.

My judgment is that no matter what they are, they're not going to see any kind of God.

All right.

I don't know.

Yeah.