 Mr. President, what do you think of M. X. Missiles? I'm not saying I'm a low-individual because I know we're going to get through here. Mr. President, as you know, these are National Federation of Independent Unions. They represent 70 independent organizations and approximately 75,000 workers throughout the United States. They were very supportive of you in 1980 and endorsed your candidacy and have been very supportive of your approaches to the economy and to National Defense. We're delighted you're here today. 1980, very well. Congratulations. I'm not good at things that you are. We appreciate you taking the time to be confident, especially when it comes to balancing the budget through basic awareness of action from the area of civil rights. It's all a few years ago, the light at the end of the tunnel, and it turns out it's a great year. Thanks to you and the administration of you. I want to thank you. I want you to know. Also, we've come to help you more specifically. You are not here for a potentially tremendous later force. The independent unions of this country. Because the independent unions are in the plants of all the jobs today. They are closer to the thinking of the actual. Here's the true voice of what you are. The true voice of you not here. The voice is not filled with first-person power workers. Later power workers. We can help you to hear this voice. It's the aim of the AFIU. Unite all the independent unions. That communication between government and this tremendous later force. Mr. President, it was you and members of your cabinet, particularly Mr. Donald. Our voice is being heard last. With your continued support. We look forward to years of growth and service to our country. Our many thanks are expressed by this plaque. It brings with us its deepest respect. And I would like to thank the President as I do about the support of the AFIU. Incidentally, thank you also for the article in independent news. And for the remarks about unemployment and retraining. We, I know that unemployment is still unacceptably high in the country. And yet, just since December, it's down by a dense percentage point. On its way, hopefully, to a single-digit level. And we've extended, as you know, the childless benefits. The measures to encourage new creation of new jobs. We've sent the legislature bills that would assist in displaced workers in programming for job vouchers. So the person could take his unemployment insurance as a job voucher and take it to an employer who would then get tax credit for that amount. Or hiring this individual into a regular job that would last for a period of time of the unemployment insurance. We think that the job market is only going to improve as the economy improves. That's why we've fought hard against any of the usual temporary quick fixes that we've seen in the past recessions. And we think now that we are beginning to see a result. An eight-month decline, eight months now, the mortgage interest rates, the lowest it's been since September of 1980. The leading indicators, February up to the sixth straight month in a row. And housing starts are now in million seven. And that is also higher than they've been in several years. The best help I think for bringing any economic recovery is reducing federal spending. And I'm having this checked out now. But I believe the figure with all the talk today about the deficit. Lord, we hate the deficit as much as anyone else. And we're going to try to get them down. But some of those voices that are raised with regard to the deficit are ignoring the fact that if they had given us the budget cuts we asked for a two, 83. They would reduce this deficit by about 40 billion dollars or more. That's how many of our reductions that we didn't get. So I think it'll be who's someone to criticize the idea of having a deficit when they themselves are the ones who would go along with the efforts to reduce it. But our goal is going to be one in which people can earn a fair wage where they can have homes and raise their families in freedom and security. And I know that we have your support in that. And those goals. And I thank you very much. Now man. President, I have the opportunity to address this wonderful group. The key points of my talk are how great the individuals and the independence and service nation in this group, I think, are great. I think the same thing is there. I was struck particularly, I must say, with your words about not being broken through other people. Years ago, the Union, of course, that I was president of in the Guild was a negative in the Seattle Union. It became a time back then when the graduated income tax was such that it was a very definite contributor to one employment in the picture business. People would, stars would agree to make a picture but would not accept another picture when they were only getting six cents on the dollar because of the income tax. So as president of the Guild, I came back here to support an income tax reform bill before the Congress. I was representing 32 unions and management. All united together for me to come back and make this case before the House Ways and Means Committee. I might say that appearing before that committee was a little like going over Niagara Falls in a barrel, the hardly upstream. But I have never forgotten at that time that when I arrived here, I was greeted by two representatives of the AFL-CIO and they handed me a book. The book was the AFL-CIO tax policy for the year. It did not advocate what I was advocating. It called for about 12 billion dollars more in taxes because they had 12 billion dollars in social reforms that they wanted passed. And they thought I'd like to have that before I went in to see the committee. And I said to them, I said, I'm representing 32 AFL-CIO unions and none of us have ever seen this. And no one ever asked us if this is what we wanted as a tax policy. But I was sent back here to support the organization and that's what I'm going to do. And it is true. There's an increasing wide gap between the rank and file worker and the hierarchy and organization. The less of breadth of freedom and representation of the worker that you march and lock stuff together, not as they do taking a leverage of paths. Great before that. I'd like to say one thing, Mr. President. We as the independent workers, I come from Michigan, where my colleague is 22% unemployment. We are not coming here as an independent organization to ask you what you can do for us. We're here to tell you that we know that unions share an equal responsibility in the future of this country and the survival of our situation. We're here to support you, help you, and we hope you will tell us what you need done and what will all be your workers to do to get this country back on the street. I bless you. That is the proper approach. A man who originally created what became the American Federation's labor single copters said that labor must never forget their partners in the whole industrial community and one can't prosper without the other. I think he'd be a little disappointed today in some of those in organized labor. But to Indonesia and then to Saudi Arabia and finally Turkey, the primary reason I asked for this meeting was to convey to you personally the message that was given to me by President Mubarak and the Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I realize that the discussions have been intense in the Middle East recently. You may have gotten messages also from those same people or others. I promised them that I'd deliver the message personally and they were very effective. So I'm here today to deliver that message and that's probably the primary responsibility and I have one other subject that I think is primary. Right to it. Well, I thank you for joining us. I spoke to Iran's resolution before the House and I think we share concerns that motivate a nuclear freeze but however well-intentioned the freeze at current levels is called for and there's a lot to resolution to do probably more harm than good. First and foremost it would send precisely the wrong signal to the Soviets who blame their own account are neither unilateralists nor philanthropists. How can we expect to make further progress toward arms relations if the Soviets have no incentive to reduce? I think we can do better than a freeze. In talks in Geneva we propose a 50% cut in strategic missiles and elimination of the entire class of intermediate missiles in the INM discussions and it would be best to have none than some of these interned missiles but as I said recently if there must be some it's better to have few than many. We've made some progress and I believe we can achieve more. It was NATO's interned missile deployment plan that brought the Soviets to the negotiating table and start the Soviets have already gone further in discussing reductions than they have in any prior negotiations going all the way back to World War II. I think a freeze would remove Soviet incentives to agree to reductions that would be virtually impossible to verify and the freeze supporters disagreed among themselves during the House debate in March over what is to be frozen. A freeze risks undercutting our long do-over modernization program and we therefore oppose any freeze-first resolution in support of bipartisan Broomfield Price-Skratten resolution which expresses support for ongoing nuclear arms reduction negotiations in Geneva followed by a freeze at equal and substantially reduced levels. We hope this resolution will receive wide bipartisan support as did a similar resolution in the past House last summer. I also urge you to support the amendments that deal with issues of modernization and dual-purpose weapons systems, those that have a conventional and a nuclear capability and any other amendments that correctly made your flaws in the Zabaki resolution. And I hope that you tell your colleagues that I am totally committed to substantial, verifiable, equitable, and moderately significant reductions. I haven't been since before I got here. I still am. Sunday and some of the shows that were on the air I was disturbed to hear people saying that I'm insincere with this one. If I am, I'm going to offer a long way to carry my insincerity to the Soviet Union. I think a freeze resolution just simply sends the wrong message to friends and foes alike. And now I'm going to ask George Bush and Cam. George, as you know, the Vice President went to Europe to ask you to meet with the LRL on these various subjects, particularly in INF. Mr. President, I would only add that when I went on that trip to Europe and then P.S. trip to the non-basic, the trip was to the basin countries and then up to Canada, which is an important country that's under its leadership, under fire from some of the groups on testing. But in all those countries, all the seven countries I went to. That was insane. I wasn't sure that you could go to the right or go to the left. Mr. President, as you know, we called this trip together on very short notice to come to this meeting today to discuss the issue of the poll and the spokesman for the poll. There are two William Kennedy, the President of the American Bankers and the Chairman of the National Bank of Congress and Paul Fryer, the Chairman of the United States Legal Savings. Well, I thank you all for coming here and doing so on such short notice. Let me just, I know you, as you know, withholding is coming up in the Senate soon, and I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss it with you. I welcome your views, but I hope you'll remember that old saying that the best way to get the right word is to say I agree. We spend months around the stable figuring out how to fashion a budget that is fair and balanced. One thing, I needed to get the budget cuts and we must have to have a revenue component. I'll turn around now and give up on the revenue side of the budget. The rest is jeopardized. We could lose the spending cuts we need, the tax cuts that stimulate business and we'd send a signal that I back down when the bill gets rough. I regret that this issue is straining our relationship, but it's a question of defending a principle that those who owe taxes must pay their taxes rather than asking those who are already paying to pay more. It's not just a problem of reporting, it's a problem of collecting and withholding is the most effective collection method we have. It isn't workable to collect taxes just through reporting. That would require as much as a 200% increase in audits and we want less, not more IRS involvement in the people's lives. It's the alternatives. Higher deficits are new taxes. You don't want either one of those and neither do I. Congress is looking for ways to spend and not save more and I just can't step aside when I let those issues go because there's political opposition. I know we disagree and I want to hear your point of view. I just hope that the recovery that is beginning that we can cooperate to our positive action to stimulate growth and prosperity by keeping spending down and lowering interest rates instead of fighting within the family over issues that should have remained settled once decided. Let's have some more words before we get into the discussion here.