 I've been looking for several weeks. I know we have some tough issues coming up and I wanted to discuss this agenda with you this morning. Before I turn to specific issues, let me just remind you that highest priorities, the one that you shared with keeping a Republican majority in the Senate over the past four and a half years has given great support. And for that I thank you and the team work has served as well all of us. And it's this special unity that will continue to work for us now and right through November of 1986. Now I just mentioned the deficit here and I know that several of you, Lauren, Phil, others have been working on deficit reduction plans. And I made some suggestions in this area myself and have repeatedly called for a line item veto. I've asked the Congress to balance budget constitutional amendment and I've sent budget recommendations to the Congress outlining specific areas for funding reductions. And I welcome all of you to reduce the deficit but work with you to reach some viable method for doing this. But I hope these deficit plans can be considered on their own and not as just amendments to the deficit. We need to get clean and definite bill. And I know you will soon consider one issue where teamwork will be critical and that is increasing the debt ceiling. Jim Baker tells me we've already reached our current ceiling of $1 trillion, $824 billion. And our cash balance will be exhausted by October 7th. I expect the Democrats will force Republican votes to pass the deadline as they've done before. And I know that this isn't an easy vote for any of them. I don't like it either. Just as anxious as you are to get to the real cause of our problem, which is the debts. The moment we have a responsibility for the American people to honor our financial commitments, both here and abroad. So I ask you to pass the deadline. There's another item I want to discuss with you and that's our tax reform proposal. You might have heard a rumor about that. As you know, I've been on the road quite a bit recently talking about tax reform. The reception I've had is very encouraged. If you find yourself in a town of 14,000 people and you're talking to over 20,000 people and not going around it, and you've been standing there for a couple of hours in the sun, you figure they must be interested in tax reform. As a matter of fact, they have made very elaborate banners and signs. They have as big of that wall over there in support of the tax reform. There is strong support out there. Changes in the current tax code to ensure fairness, simplicity, and economic growth. I think there's also a lack of understanding in part of many people yet as to what is in that program. I know that time is short, particularly with a complex issue. Pressure will come from many interest groups who may resist some of these changes. But I believe we must move this year to complete action on tax reform. And again, I ask for your cooperation. I think I've talked long enough here. I'm anxious to hear what's on your mind. So I'll ask our majority leader to open the discussion with any comments he may have. First of all, Mr. President, thank you for inviting us. We want to indicate that we certainly share your view with reference to the Republican majority after the 1986 election. And we're very optimistic. I think the chances are excellent in understanding some requirements that we didn't want to happen. But they both promised to be certain that the seat would be maintained, retained, sustained, whatever. So we're fairly hopeful in that area. I would also indicate to be, as you pointed out, the agenda is going to be rather a busy one the next 30 to 60 to 90 days. Debt ceiling, of course, is the most immediate thing we'll have to deal with. There are a number of very good amendments floating around. The Graham-Rudman amendment is one of those. I was really enthusiastic about it until I saw the Washington Post that indicated it was good this morning. I want to go back and take another look at it. That amendment, I think, is one that puts us back in the sort of the mold of fiscal responsibility, deficit reduction. I just shown at this table a recent Lou Harris poll where he's told the American people on whether Republicans in Congress or Democrats can do the best of all these areas. And he points out that in every benchmark we've improved our position over last year, particularly in the area of deficit reduction, we picked up a number of points as far as Republicans in Congress are concerned. And so many of us believe that this might be an opportunity that I can understand the need for a clean debt ceiling. I share the view Bob Fack would probably express. But that's the matter that may take some debate. There are a number of amendments. I won't go through all the amendments, but I would like to put the line item veto on there. The armed strong has an amendment on rescission. Senator Sanders has an amendment. Somebody else says there may be South Africa legislation, art, Jordan arms, anything to be offered on the debt ceiling. We also have the reconciliation bill. And I'll just mention that it's yet to be completed. We have a number of appropriation bills. We also have a farm bill that I think is key to Republican successes or chances in 1986. We have a number of farm state senators and a number of farm state senators where the polls indicate that the farmers are more than a little displeased with Republicans. So we have a real problem there. We've been trying to figure out something that's within the budget, as you requested, and as I think you've probably requested. And it'll still be perceived as a positive step for the American farm. Jordan arms sales, that's just been received that notification trade. I think Mr. President, in my view, your speech was very helpful. There will be a bill, a textual bill offered on the first appropriate dick. I'm advised by the distinguished senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, whether or not that passes or whether or not a veto will be sustained. And then we have tax reform. And I think it makes a point, we don't quarrel with any, I'm doing it, just a question of whether we can do it this year. If we don't receive it, we can't pass it. The Constitution says the House acts first until Thanksgiving. I don't believe the thought-back would can mark it up and pass it, go through a conference and have it on the President's desk by the end of the year. That seems most unlikely possibility. But we're not unlimited. And if they give it to us, we'll act on it, and we can't act on it until we receive it. Let me just get something. The other night I was speaking to the Senator here at the Inner Circle. And I went something that was an amazing pre-section of God. And without a final election, we know that there are going to be some legitimate primaries. And I harked back to 1966 when I ran for governor of California. That was the first year of the 11th Commence that I was born in California. It was the 11th Commence that I shall not speak ill of another Republican. But God bless them the better in Republican women. They passed a resolution statewide that they would not support any Republican candidate who violated the primaries, the 11th Commence. And so we had a campaign in which the Lord and the Governor raised over a half-dozen months. But no one ran against another Republican. You ran against the Democratic incumbent that you were trying to get rid of. And it worked. And none of the years have gone by, I think we've kind of forgotten. And I made a proposal to these people who are going to be supporting our candidates at the Inner Circle. That they should use their influence because theirs is principally a fundraising thing. To insist that we go back to recognizing and practicing that 11th Commence. And believe me, it works. Because if you can't be against each other in the primaries, one is going to win. And then the opponents for their campaign and the general have all the things that the other Republicans said about this. When they can quote and say, look what his own party said about him or her. And if they don't have that to go on. But if all of the primaries have been pointing their finger at right, there should be a Republican elected in state. The Democratic incumbent. Why, you could have a Senate without Craster. Mr. President, I can understand the sentiment for a clean debt ceiling. Because obviously we don't want to get it tied up with a bunch of extraneous issues that really hamper our ability to do what we know we have to do. And that is to raise the debt ceiling to pay the bills that after all Congress ran up. But I would urge you to look at the possibility of using this vehicle to not only pay the bills, but call in the credit cards. What could be more appropriate than using the debt ceiling where we admit that the budget process has failed to try to reform the budget process? And let me remind you that the problem in trying to do that, the way the rules for the Congress are set up in the Budget Act, is that in the House, if you try to reform the Budget Act, it's referred to the one committee where all the members are appointed by the Speaker. So this may well be the only shot we get to try to reform the budget process and set out a concrete proposal during your administration where we could balance the budget by the end of this decade. And I know that's something that you support. And as a principal co-sponsor of this provision, I can assure you that if we make the effort, that number one, I'm convinced we can win in the Senate. And we can send this over to Tip O'Neill and let him tell the American people where he stands on an issue where by four to one margin they think it's more important than any other issue. But if we do fail, I can guarantee you that having had a chance to debate the number one issue in the country, that if we go through the process and we end up losing, I for one would turn around and support the debt ceiling. So I'm not trying to be an obstructionist. I want to use a vehicle that focuses the public attention on the number one problem in the country to remind the people that the Republican Party is the party of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. So I urge you to look at that proposal to see if it might be something that you can support. Well, I think our fear about it doesn't have to be with something as worthwhile as that. Our fear is that because it is an absolute essential thing that you have to have, that that's the opportunity that there are some who seize upon that to get things that they know otherwise we would or could never approve. I admit that I was talking here that I found myself willing to compromise and accept an amendment with regard to the lineup. Mr. President, in terms of tax reform for a moment, obviously if tax reform is put off until next year, the coming on of the congressional elections will make it that much more difficult to resist the special interest groups. Bob Dole's observation is of course correct that the Senate can't act until the House sends us legislation. May I suggest that the White House, in its political operation in this connection, begin to make that point to the American people, that it is the House and the Democrat-controlled House and the Democrat Party that is holding up tax reform. The public Senate is ready to act on it this year, but it has to wait for the House. The communications I've seen from the White House, including your great visit to my state, I didn't hear that point made and I think it would be useful putting heat on the House if the White House would begin to make that point. I'm worried, very frankly, I'm worried that he may have his sleeve hanging on long enough to get it over as late as possible and then have an item in which he can say, look at the Democrats passed this tax reform and the Republicans preferred to go home and wouldn't act on it. Now I agree with you, we've given them some issues for the past few years, every once in a while and we shouldn't give them another one, but let's make sure that they are not cooking up some of them even when they pass it, but they can do this to us. President, with the trade issue of the tax reform and the entire protectionism, I am very frustrated with the direction of our energies being generated more in the merits of one particular application of protectionism opposed to what I feel is what Americans basically want in America's industry and that's access to foreign markets. And I see a great effort by the White House to urge my colleagues not to support the text of bills, those shoe bills become a task and that in my opinion is not really what we're looking for as far as relief. We have accessibility to foreign markets and if our energies are expended in opening up those markets, which is really an equitable reception in the matter of free trade, well then I think we would accomplish basically our purpose which is to compete throughout the world on the basis of a free enterprise system of trade but getting mired down and while I know it's great to adopt policy that's uniform and then you have behind you these particulars, I think these matters of trade are such that the American public is going to want to see some positive achievements and I just don't believe they're coming along fast enough because I don't think we're specifically asking for it. For example, the matter of automobiles, the Japanese are bringing in this country 1.8 minutes, all those automobiles come in in Japanese carriers, Japanese ships or ships controlled by Japan yet our units and our steamship companies are willing to go to Japan, build automobile carriers in return for contracts to advertise Nissan and so forth but the administration won't come up and say to Japan this is what we would like, we would like to participate, we're the country of origin but we're not participating and I think to expend our energies internally fighting the merits of protectionism what all we want is a fair shape, I would respectfully suggest that we direct more of our energies into demanding, simple justice for its partner accessible. Well, this has been our position in all of the economic standards ever since I've been here. Is this our drive for free trade? We've made some progress with some of our trading partners just because of this insistence. We still want another round of the gap to get at this very problem and we're going to continue to work on that. I still have to say that when it comes to protectionism that no one can win in a trade war and that's what it has done. We'll do everything with regard to unfairness, the thing where you say they're holding up a market of theirs and shutting us out of economics there, we're going to use our economic persuasion of power that we have and we'll continue to do that. But we've had it, the classic example of all was the smooth hauling in the Great Depression and I was around looking for my first job in that Great Depression and if you look at the patent of that, how in 1929 before the crash smooth hauling had come and one house had passed it and you had the big, great black day of the stock of the market going down and then you had a great campaign on that it should not then come through the other house and so forth and the recut, believe it or not, the market actually began to recut a bunch of what it had lost in that big day and then if you look at the schedule I had here before me, I've got it in my desk you'll find that then when it went ahead and passed at both houses over a thousand economists petitioned the president to not sign and there was another drop, almost as big as it was and of course worldwide it spread the depression and there we were with our 25% unemployment that Great Depression, the only thing that brought us out of the depression was World War II but it was a trade war that would have still been, if it was still going on there hadn't been the other kind of war I don't know what would have happened, I think it would have been a complete collapse and for us to have been down that road I know we talked and everyone's got to feel concerned about the people they're going to lose a job but all right what about the people that lost a job in the automobile industry simply because they switched to robots for welding instead of a man at every welding spot we've always had industrial changes and yet as long as we find ourselves with more than 8 million more employees then we had a short time ago we must be doing something right more than when we came here we've got that many more employees so I think we just have to look at it now the funny turnaround that has happened the republicans were the ones that went for the high tear that was republican policy the democrats were the party of free trade until the democrats then a new deal made there on holy alliance with labor and all of a sudden there's been a turnaround and it's a funny thing to find out how much the republican party of the day is like an earlier democrat party and how the democratic party is the one that has definitely made the changes to protectionism and things of that kind but I think we've got to tread very lightly follow up? that's my very point if we have market accessibility I don't think we have fight internally over protectionism and I think if we demand that we receive what is equitable in that consideration and I think we're coming up to a very important philosophical point on this vote context because it's representative not of an effort to encourage protectionism but to met frustration over in that inequity that they're not addressing you know that in this whole trading balance that is somehow attributed to this we have not reduced our exports we're still the biggest in the world trade we've increased our imports because with our sound recovery which our trading partners have not shared their goods are bargains now as they recover and we're certainly trying to help them in every way this money begins to correspond in valuation to ours then we're going to see a change but I think we've got to recognize that in many instances when some things that we're talking about we're talking about people losing jobs here because of imports if you look at some of the countries we're talking about they actually have a trade imbalance with us that we're selling them more things and more dollars worth than they are than they're even selling to us and you have to say look if we suddenly shut out or close down on them on some particular product through protectionism that is one of their principle exports well they're just going to turn around and look at their own imports and say well we're going to climb down and shut the door on those American imports that we're buying there's one thing I've told I know some of you I'll repeat it anyway I always remembered when I was governor I picked up a truck home one night from the office and I hadn't seen one of them what he had in his bumper since it was the Great Depression that it was by America he was driving a Toyota and all of a sudden we lately had the cars there and the other had to look at it this way Toyota and Nissan that one has built and another one is going to build and I'm going to be planning our country to make them here they're going to hire Americans to make those cars they're building those plants with the dollars the American dollars that they got from Americans buying their cars but it all comes back to us in their investment here in this country Mr. President I would urge you to in the White House to give their strong support behind the grant Rudman proposal added to the deadline I can tell you from working I'm one of the class of 86 we were elected at the same time you were there's 16 of us in here that work the national debt at that time was less than a trillion we're getting ready to cross two trade and I can tell you that in my opinion that's probably the biggest liability that we have as far as re-election is the fact that the national debt has doubled since we've been in office and I think we need to show something concretely that we have actually done we have not been successful in getting the deficits under control this in my opinion is probably the best plan that I've seen that actually does show us by passing a law that will make us have some responsibility maybe if it needs to be amended let's amend it let's get behind something as a republican party and pass it I can't vote for the debt limit unless we have something like that on it and I guess there's probably several others in here likewise so it might help you pass the debt limit likewise that politically if we show that we pass something that shows some fiscal responsibility and send it then we make them address it over in the House the House would love a clean debt limit they didn't have to vote on it they haven't had to vote on anything responsibility so I just urge you to support this give us something so when we go back into our states say yes the debt limit did double in our first term but we're now on a track where it's going to be balanced in another four or five years don't worry about it we're not going to ignore that we're doing a lot of talking on this particular plan that we've been talking about to fill here at the table about a similar thing than before we knew about this so we're dragging on that let me give you some answers if I can some of you have them already about this idea that it is our big deficit and we did this for 50 years there's only one or two years of section we have run deficits more than 50 years and this is that we had both houses and now we've got five years here we had the one house the senate all the rest of us 50 years they have been in charge now the deficit is structured it is built in for the government structure and it was greatly worse in the late 60s and 70s after the great society was passed and Lyndon's program was going to put a war on poverty that's a low poverty law but if you look 1965 to 1980 the budget increased 1980 the budget was almost five times what it had been in 1965 the deficit was 50 times what it had been in 1965 and in 1980 before we came here was the largest deficit up until that time 74 billion dollars and yes it is bigger now as the whole economy has gotten bigger not that much bigger if you look at it as a percentage of gross national problem instead of just counting the actual dollars so this is a thing that is structurally built in and this is what we have to turn around and so far we've had opposition if we've gotten the cost of beginning in 1981 we ask for in our budget proposals the deficit would be some 50 billion dollars less right now but we have to we're going to have to be the ones to face up and challenge them with programs that never should have been passed in the first place and should be eliminated with further reductions in others and it's going to be our responsibility to do it so I'm for all of you on this proposal but again don't listen to those ideas the debt the national debt at a time when we were having the highest tax increases in our history before we got a national debt tripled even though that only brought up a little bit it was not yesterday going to the other video God only knows where to go if we don't get this structure changed but what have we done that anyone could point to in these four years I've seen this thing and even some of us are content to say oh it's the defense spending and it was the tax cut program we started in 1981 and didn't go into effect completely until when in 1984 but that doesn't figure out because in these four years of ours with our tax cut revenues for the government had increased 42% as of today but spending has increased 60% now before everybody jumps on if they're trying to do us a favor defense spending today is 26% of the budget it was almost 24% in the Carter administration and his five year projection as to what defense spending would be actually is higher than what we've been spending so the things that they're trying to tag and blame on us it wasn't the tax cut it considered a potential labor pool today the highest percentage of that pool is employed that has ever been employed in our nation's history so every figure you're going to sound like blame but I'm with you and I think what we're all talking about and we all get together is a program not just this thing here or that thing there but to save a few dollars here or there that they have a program that then they've got to bust a budget and know that they're trying to break a program that is aimed at balancing the budget and I say I guess you know what I'm coming for in my judgment the race next year is going to depend on two things one is the way we handle the deficit and the other is the way we handle the trade policy now since you've been in the text of industry has lost four hundred and fifty five hundred and fifty thousand jobs my state's lost twenty four thousand jobs you've got textiles in parallel in every state in this nation two million people engage in textiles in this country two million more are interrelated jobs and I just want to say that more than one head of all the goods used in this country in textiles in parallel comes from abroad in this country John Hines had both textiles jobs in this state and he had steel jobs one tenth of all the manufacturing in this country is in textiles one hundred and twenty three billion deficit in trade sixty and a half billion is in textiles alone fifteen percent but the first department says that textiles rank second to steel in a matter of national defense in ten years it's estimated you won't have any textile industry here where you're going to get your uniforms from, where you're going to get your parachutes from to have a walk I just want to point you attention to the fact that this is a violent industry in this country and it's being dissipated I think you've made the best product and I've said it publicly in the thirty one years I've been dissent but on this matter you've had bad advice and my journey you've got to do something about this matter I've been waiting waiting to see what's going to be done I put off in everywhere I could and three days before I see you notice against this bill all the points against it one point was mentioned by the head to consume billions of dollars well I've got some things that a share could cost $8 or something, you save almost $7 cents if the goods are made overseas. Who's making the money? It's safe. It's hard to consume what's being saved. It's the retailers and the brokers making the money. And that's the crowd that you're about to now contact over this country. Retailers, brokers and others to propagandize the Congress to stop this fear. Now I just want you to know the facts because somebody has misled you. This is the press attention that I'm supposed to be. They can pull around and everything. They say bad advice. Maybe it's bad advice I'm giving because I'm giving the advice. President, could you have trouble having an agreement on some of these? I don't know what you plan to do on the debt seeker. It would be helpful if you would go and walk the thing on the debt seeker and they could have a letter to say, you know, read to the bill if there's anything on it. It's very frank that you're going to have to handle this on the floor. I think Graham and his brother had a good chance of passage and I don't think that's the only thing they had a good chance of passage. You know, I've cluttered up the bill. I don't think that happens in the House. But if I had a letter that said you'll veto it, if there's anything on it other than the debt seeker extension, that might be helpful. So I can remember you're going to respond to strong trade because Frank Borkowski touched a point and strong touched a point with two different points and I don't know how you resolve it. Frank's writing about opening foreign markets is a valid one. How much it helps us in terms of the trade deficit but psychologically it makes a world of difference that our business leaders aren't coming to us and say, I can sell in Austria, I can sell in Canada, I can't get into Japan, I can't get into Hong Kong or I can't sell insurance in Korea or whatever it is. Those are actions that you've got to be prepared, Mr. President, to take retaliatory actions against them, maybe closing some of their markets in this country if they won't let us in. That is the protections. That's retaliation. Secondly, you've got to be prepared to defend against unfair trade practices. Now notice the semiconductor industries, while I don't know if the allegations are true, but if the allegations are true, it's unfair trade practices. They're dummy. The greater problem you face, however, the way we face is that most of the industries that are going to want protection are going to want protection against fair competition. Many way trade differences and I was struck by a witness that testified on little things rather than big things. You see the difference? Because on the Israeli-U.S. free trade agreement, which the administration supported when we passed and is going to go into effect in over 10 years, we'll have free trade with Israel. Now, it's a small country. They can flood us with textiles inside it. We'll make that much difference. But the usual witnesses appeared against the textile industry and the leather industry as well. There was one witness speaking for the textile and apparel industry. Bob Eisen is in good luck. And I posed the question to him. Mr. Eisen, could the American textile and apparel industry compete against foreign fair competition in the United States? Fair. He paused for a moment. He said, textiles, yes, apparel. Those are the fundamental questions you're going to have to resolve as certain industries may not be able to compete against fair competition and wage differentials are not counted as unfair. They cannot exist in this country any longer. So whether you're going to protect them from a standpoint of national security or whatnot, and there are tough decisions to make. And the great reason I was so struck and how a little difference the next witness represented the California avocado growers. Didn't want the Israeli avocados. And I thought to myself, national defense, what can you do with an avocado? Mock hand grenades? And that is the issue that's going to come. And Strom puts it very well. I'm going to be on your side. It's not Strom's side. But what our manufacturers are going to be asking is for protection against fair competition where they can no longer meet the competition, mainly because of extraordinary wage rating differences. I don't know how you solve that. But part of the help in solving that is the first two things I talked about and Craig talked about, open foreign markets and very firm action against unfair foreign countries. I appreciate that. Let me just say that the other end of the hall in the East Room, short time ago, some, few of you were present also with all the trade leaders gathered there. I made a speech on trade there where I emphasized that we are going to move in every direction where there is unfair practice. Up until now, the 301 actions and so forth have been brought to us by the industries and the trade representatives and so forth. And then we have taken action. This is the first time that I've ever said we're not going to wait for that or wait for an industry to complain. We're going to take the action ourselves and that's going to be our policy and we will be doing it. Where it comes to the difference in simply wage rates, we do have a high standard of living in the world. If you go all the way back to that economist Adam Smith, the basis of trade, if it's fair, this is not sliding over into giving anything else. The basis of free trade has always been those who can produce the best for the least have gotten the market. And we have always managed to have enough things that as I say, we're still the greatest or the greatest exporter in the world today. And how do some of these lesser developed countries, how do they become a trading partner and how do they develop an economy in which they can now raise the standard of living for their people unless they have a market for things to sell and if we turn around, as I say, and look at other directions we find in buying other things from us. So it isn't a simple problem and I know what is this dressing problem for an industry that faces that competition and finds itself shrinking but you have to turn around and look at what industries are growing because of our ability to provide something to these other countries. Now the fact of a trade imbalance now I'm not talking about some industry that is having a state out there but just the matter of a trade imbalance in all the years of the Great Depression when we were flat on our backs with government putting ads on the radio saying don't leave home looking for work there is no work. We had a favorable trade balance. Now Japan had an unfavorable trade balance in all those 20 years after the war when it was coming up to the level that it has today. As a matter of fact they've got a deficit that's a percentage of gross national product there is comparable to ours but the trading balance has never been a setback. When we had a trade imbalance in the 90 or so years from the beginning of the 1800s on up through that century we had a trade imbalance against us when we were growing and becoming the greatest economic power in the world the greatest economic growth we've ever had. It isn't a simple problem we want to cooperate and work with all of you and get a signal here that we're all supposed to go back to work. President, I would like to say that I don't share your enthusiasm for tax reform and that I think that we have pooled with tax codes as you often very frankly. I also would respectfully suggest that if you had talked to the members of the inner circle about tax reform or talked to people in general they would tell you that it is a low priority compared to the deficit and those of us who talked to the inner circle and indeed pulled the inner circle found that to be true and I find that to be true among my constituency as well. I think it's a rather poor itself to try to talk to my constituency at least about a percent of gross national products about 50 years of democratic hegemony and say that this is their fault and that all of us in the last four or five years I find that a difficult thing to solve. I might just say that I also agree very much with your trade policy and also agree very much with the ideas of the Electoral Command that you said a little earlier. I must also respectfully tell you that your own White House is not always abide by that rule. I try very carefully to do so myself but I don't find that members of the White House do an obligation. I was particularly struck by the way that Mrs. Heckler's resignation was handled and I could get the same reaction very frankly in the same action in the White House that I do in her agency when I have a constituent problem I would be very pleased indeed. So I can't paint for her against the fall of anyone frank. I have known her over the years and don't have any particular reason for defending her except that I believe very strongly in the Eleventh Amendment and would be happy to discuss how I think the members of the White House could enhance that belief. Let me just say with regard to that last thing I am planning before the day is over to amplify what I said to the press as they said angrily yesterday. All of this whole campaign this isn't the first time. The lynch mob which consists of a great many of the press has done this to any number of people in our administration and they leave off on one having done their hatch a job or tried to go to another. I had asked Margaret Heckler to serve as an ambassador. I really wanted her to do that. No criticism of her job nor have I criticized it at all and all this talk of dumping and everything else is just that and that's what I'm going to tell the press. I have no... I quite understand that. However, my problem is the fact that the great deal preceded your own discussion with Mrs. Heckler and it was a matter of reporting it through the press and having her pretty well tried and ordered beforehand. You asked me do we have people that leave in the administration as well as on the hill and they do, yes we do. If you ask me if we tried to find them have we beaten our heads on the walls saying what we'll do if we can ever locate some of these, you bet. On the other hand, I do think the press magnifies that and many times to say what they want to say relies on that unnamed source and then just goes ahead with their own story. But I'm going to try to quiet that. She's taken a bum rap and undeserved and we're not going to hold still for it. And as I say, these are my plans. I haven't had enough good against coming here for breakfast and talking to our people about timing and so forth, but I'm going to say that and some of the other points you raised about the tax reform, is that the main thing is the bulk of the people in this country do not know what is in the tax reform. Now for anyone to suggest that we don't need tax reform, good Lord, the only thing that Jimmy Carter said that I ever agreed with is when he said our tax system is a disgrace. 250,000 people work for General Electric and pay more tax than General Electric does. Well it's making $8 billion in profit. A tax system that has people, I know when I was getting some of that if money in Hollywood, my biggest problem was to try and avoid a 94% tax bracket. And how many times people like myself out there offered a script or a picture said you know I can't make another picture this year because I'm going to get a dime and a dollar if I make it. And when you didn't make that picture, how many times that picture wasn't made so the other people that were sitting at home from the bit players to the grips to the technicians, they didn't get that phone call saying report to the studio we're making a picture. Well this is the kind of tax policy that we've had. Now we've helped some with the reductions that we made in 81 and they paid off. We're getting more money at those rates than our friends on the other side of the aisle at those rates. But tax reform is basically going to give the people of this country a tax reduction without reducing the revenues that the government is going to get. I don't know how anyone could argue with a simple thing like that. And I'm not going to give up on the fact that your constituency is not pounding on your door on this. As I said they don't know what it's all about yet. And we haven't been able to do that. I heard a discussion program in the air between some of the correspondents, some of the leading commentators and they were discussing how they weren't going to talk anymore. I go out and make speeches on trying to explain the tax reform. They weren't going to report that anymore because they reported it once so it isn't news. In fact I'm in a different town speaking to a different audience. No they find something to talk about getting up on the dais or that was the joke I told so they're not reporting. We're going to have to get the message out what is the tax reform program? What does it do for the people? What it does for the people is it catches up with some people that right now we're losing about 95 billion dollars a year in people that are not paying the tax they fairly should be paying. Now they're not stealing and they're not out there breaking a law. They're evading or avoiding, not evading, avoiding the tax legally through the provisions that are in the tax code and that we can correct and that shouldn't be there but I know I'm going way over there. Thank you.