 It would be helpful to me in observing it, but I would not, if I were y'all, I'd stay back in the hallway back next to my little room, so that they got room. And I'd clear the chairs around, but I believe that a hunter so can get in there, and that's all that they need, and that's twice what they'll have. I think our general demeanor, I'd like to have you all thinking on it. But I think I ought to try to make my replies risk and breathe, and not try to explain anything to them. Just try to say yes and no as much as I can, and have a little humor in it. And I do think we ought to have every question and answer, and we ought to circulate a little more you and Jack and George out among them to get their feel on what they're saying. You might find out what Scotty Reston's got on his mind. Did he see you yesterday? He was in for an hour or so seeing Bundy, and you might drift in there and say, well, what's Scotty thinking these days, or find out? I think I ought to try to see Lipman today. That's a good idea. Because I've never had any of this church stuff at all, and I'd like to get, Jack will get the letters that I wrote, church, and he wrote me. I've forgotten who drafted it. You drafted the church. Somebody did. It was good letters, I remember. He wrote me a nice letter, and I wrote him one, which kind of proves that there's no truth to this stuff. But I think that Lipman may be a little sensitive to it. Did you read him in Newsweek this week? No. He has a fairly negative calm saying that the president really does not believe in debate, apparently, because he doesn't believe that the American people in Congress ought to debate Vietnam. He said this is where he differs with the president. Well, he doesn't understand that I'm debating it every night. I try to do a week with all of them, and I've never objected to anybody debating on that. If you call him in, Mr. President, I think, for example, I have a transcript of one of those sessions when you were very good, when you say a lot of the things that I know he believes. You might show him that, one of those briefings over there. Just let him read it off the record, not the publication. I've been just showing what's going on. I have one question. Has anyone talked to you about the consideration being given on the Hill, not making the Social Security benefits retroactive? There is a movement afoot among some to drop the retroactivity part of the Social Security benefits. Gardner, I think, Kirby Gordon and others feel that this would have a serious effect on the economic situation toward the end of the year, and we need to make a determined fight to keep that retroactive pause back to January 1 in the bill on Medicare and Social Security. My judgment is that it ought to be retroactive. I have not analyzed the pros or the cons. My reason, though, is not because of the economy. I think we use the economy too much to spend money. I think that I just tired of these old clichés that we just got to do it now. We don't do it if it's agricultural payments at all. That's never justified. And you and Kirby and Gardner never have recommended we dump a billion extra for cotton farming, or a billion extra for a wage an hour increases over the United States. But you do on withholdings, and you do on this. So I don't think that that would be my basis. I believe we come to the same agreement, so it's unimportant. And I would be glad to hear somebody ten minutes on each side. But my reason would be saying that I agreed to go $400 million on health. I've never seen an antitrust suit lie against an old-age pensioner for a monopoly or a concentration of power or a closely held wealth. I've never seen it applied to the average worker. And I've never seen one have too much health benefits. And when they come into me and say we've got to have $400 million more so we can take care of some doctors, because I'm worried on health. I'm pretty much worried on education. I'm worried anywhere it's practical. And I mean by that, do you see the problem about your poverty bars now? They're dragging a heel and they don't want to go testify because they haven't got the money spent. I told them that last year, but oh no, they already had more of it and they'd be going at such a rate. You remember the screams? If I had them, it would make them look like children now. But I anticipated this and I tried to get them to be moderate and I wouldn't give them $400 million at lunch. But now they're holding back and won't go get their authorization because they haven't got the money spent and they're going to wind up. They wind up with a continuing resolution, not getting the hearings and they at least ought to go to the Senate where they get friendly in this or someplace and start putting in the basic stuff and dodge this issue and then estimate how much your allocations are going to be. They ought to be starting that thing and getting it along because they don't get caught in this thing. They're not going to do anything during March. Then Easter's going to come, everybody's going to home Easter. Then they're going to come back and May is going to be graduation month. And we're not going to get anything through. But anyway, that's the only reason to hold down on poverty because I didn't think it's practical to make it look bad and I'd be for $2 billion instead of $1 billion for it. If you had it out and if you had a good construction man running it and if you had a hard-nosed administrator that had a real reputation of Moses or somebody that you ickies that you just knew couldn't be touched. I'd be for all you could shovel out at the bottom. Therefore, summarizing, my inclination would be and the weight of my judgment at this moment would be that ought to be retroactive as far back as you could get it and I would guess January because none of them ever get enough and that they entitle to it and that that's an obligation of ours and it's just like your mother writing in saying that she wants $20 and I'd always send mine $100 when she did. I never did it because I thought it was going to be good for the economy of Austin. I always did it because I thought she is entitled to it and I think that's a much better reason and a much better cause and I think it can be depended on a hell of a lot better basis. I don't think that you ought to justify shoveling money out just I think we do know that it affects the economy and I think we do think it's balanced and it helps us in that respect but that's not the basis to go to the Hill or the justification we just got to say, my God, you can't treat Grandma this way. She's entitled to it and we promised it to her and we held it up last year and we're committed and we're obligated and we'll get Russel along on the phone and let him give out some interviews and I wish I'd recorded that I'll go and tell the pastor's owner that he's got a test-phone retroactive element. I've got to hear ten minutes of it on each side. I'm just playing multiple heads. But that's my information and that's what every guidance is worth. Okay, anything else? No, sir.