 give and take have done pretty good in the others here. And I wanted to come by and see if you've got everything solved for the year. 1986, I think, I've called it a year for opportunity. I think it is a challenge for all of us both legislatively and politically. But I'm convinced that by working together, we can show the American people that their elected Republican office holders continue to provide and produce positive results. Next week, I'll send you my budget for fiscal year 87, which will meet the requirements of Graham Rudman without raising taxes or threatening our national defense. I also want you to know that I do want a reconciliation bill. Our last year's bill was unacceptable because of many provisions which increased spending or made ill-advised policy changes. I'm hopeful that we can work with all of you to reduce a reconciliation bill which confines itself to reducing significant necessary budget savings. On tax reform, let me reiterate that I would not sign the bill which passed the House. However, you've helped to keep the process alive, which I deeply appreciate, and I'm going to assure you that we shall work closely with the Senate to obtain a bill which achieves real tax reform. On the foreign policy front, we have a number of vital issues aimed to freedom fighters in Nicaragua, Angola, and elsewhere. Defensive arms for moderate Arab states, isolating Qaddafi, and of course, issues related to the forthcoming summit with Mr. Gorbachev. I imagine you've already covered some of these items this morning. I really want to hear on your mind. So on stop before I start the problem ground, you're going to go over it. Let's start the discussion, and Bob, would you like to read off? Well, Mr. President, we've already given some preliminary remarks of recommendations to the administration that won't burden you with that. But Dell, that was about to make whatever observations he made. I think we ought to just proceed as we've been going here, and I feel you'll want to be acknowledged next. And then I think Bill Frenzel, so why don't you sign off? It's a great time. I'm just sounding off, but politically, Graham Rudman is going to be a tough act. These cuts come up there, and we cannot lose sight of the fact that this past of Congress, the United States, of the bombing. And you're merely following through on that mandate of those cuts coming up there. Because the word I get is accurate. Bob, you can probably attest to this. That Tip O'Neill might take that budget and send it right up there for a vote. And I think we've got to be looked out for that with what these cuts in there. We've got to be prepared to support that and to throw it right back in there a lack every time you mention Graham Rudman and these reductions. Will you vote on that? You know, when the president and the Republican are merely following through on what the Congress mandate does to do. I could agree more. And I just may have managed to say one thing about this. No, that's our deal. I just want to say that I think if you really look at it, this is the first time in 50 years, for 50 years, our side has been mainly against the continued deficit spending. Here and there, there's been a single year in the 50 where we maybe balanced the budget very briefly. But if you start to think about it, it was the first time there has been a plan. No way to balance the budget in one year. There's been a plan that says we start here, and out here, we have a balanced budget. And anybody that wants to break this process on the way is breaking a whole five-year plan and getting us back on the track of continued deficits. Well, Mr. President, first I'd like to compliment you on the speech you made Tuesday night. Bob and I, a number of members, have talked about it. And the seven presidents we both served under, that was the finest speech I've ever heard in my life. And it was right on target. And I think everybody here would agree it's just outstanding. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I have heard recently that one area that's under consideration is increasing foreign aid. Now, I want to compliment Don Regan for arranging this meeting so that we can talk about some of these things. But I think this is the time, if we're going to talk in capital a little earlier, spoke about the distressing situation as far as the defense with a reduction of about 6% this year, I think it would do your whole situation as far as the budget real well if you could come out and say, we're going to cut foreign aid 6%. Now, I had an excellent meeting yesterday with the Republican members of the Foreign Affairs Committee with your new National Security Advisor. And I recognize there's some very, very sensitive areas that you need additional money, particularly as it affects the Central American area. Now, I just wonder why it can't be some reprogramming. I'm not against whatever figure you come up with as far as helping the Contras. I think it was nice to see Israel offering some money bag. But how much better and how much easier it would be for all of us in the House of Representatives if we could say, we're cutting foreign aid, even if it's just a little. But don't increase it. I think it's going to be the hardest thing to sell if we're reducing domestic programs and trying to increase the defense as to what you need. I'm only speaking from a person who backs you 100% on this program. But I really think it's going to be very, very hard to sell a budget and sell an increase in foreign aid. Read program, do anything you have to do to give what you need on some of these sensitive areas. But don't increase it. Hell, Israel and some of the others can take a cut this year. All right, May, I just say one thing about the whole thing there that I don't think has ever been made clear enough is that foreign aid is not just a case of helping out, let's say, the economies of some countries. A large part of it is health and security, which is far more economical, where our interests are concerned than if we had to provide that security that would be far more expensive. And so in that case, we're kind of dictated to by the circumstances of what we're up against. Bill Frenzel, do you want to be recognized next? Yes, thank you. Mr. President, I really wanted to direct the question to Mr. Miller, so maybe it is inappropriate. Yes, please. Mr. President, I'd like to bring up the question of immigration reform. In the winter of 1981, there was the first capital travel task force that you formed. It became a priority as an administration, and during the three congresses of your presidency, the Senate has passed legislation that you approve of three times. The last time the House passed in 1984, the measure after 10 days in conference couldn't come to a resolution for a couple of issues. And one of them had to do with reimbursing the states with the cost of the utilization of your own state of California was particularly concerned about the burden of public assistance that you could be forthcoming from the utilization. The bill now in this congress has passed the Senate once again overwhelmingly. And the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the committee of primary responsibility, Peter Adino, said early on, here we go, that the price for his really putting the shoulder that we are in finally getting this issue resolved this year in this congress was a strong commitment, personal commitment by you, plus an early resolution of what will be the proper dollar figure for the states. I have carried this message to many of your subordinates in the White House and the Justice Department, and really for the last almost a year, there's been no such commitment in response. And I'm dedicated to immigration reform, but I do hear more and more that the question, well, does the White House really care about it as much? Does the Justice Department care about it as much as William French Smith did when he was there? I just want to take this opportunity to pass this on to you directly this morning. Thank you. Well, when you started out, I thought you said that we were, you saw me, I had to turn my button up a little bit here. I thought you said the immigration bill? Yes. The impact, but because then later there, I thought maybe you were on something else and I was getting a little confused. Well, no, I do feel very strongly. I think that our borders, we've lost control of them and the first basic responsibility we have, and I believe that maybe that you haven't heard me say anything because of the other things on the plate that we've been so busy talking about taxes, Graham Ruddman and so forth, but no, I'll be very frank about that. Feel free to speak out, and I'm sorry that anyone's got the wrong impression. I believe we've missed that immigration legislation to get control of our borders again, and I'll be preaching for it. Here he goes. Yes, thank you. Mr. President, it's the last year it became very apparent that the Democrats were going to attempt to make trade one of the major issues in the coming campaign. Don Regan mentioned very early on his comments that the economic news that we'll be hearing evidence is that trade imbalances continue to be difficult. I want to bring your attention, Mr. President, the fact that Bob Michael and the leadership to recognize that as a potential issue early, the leader has introduced a bill, a Republican bill that places emphasis upon open markets, upon the impact that our dollar can have upon trade circumstances. We're seeing some improvement there. An effort to recognize that free markets will make the difference and barriers are not the answer. I would hope, Mr. President, in this area, that you'd instruct your people to get in the middle of this early, work with our leadership, way before the Democrats try to get the issue. It will be critical this year and I think we're way ahead of it. My cousin wants to talk. I don't want to touch that one. Just to reassure you, Jerry, we had the first of what will be regular legislative strategy sessions on trade protectionism in the light yesterday. Had all the players there. Had George Schultz, Jim Baker, Mac Baldwin's play item, and the light so that the White House and the White House would be able to see and the light so that the White House and the partners will be in concert on this. We have made a firm resolve. We are going to be very much against legislation that will set up trade barriers. But we will definitely be enforcing and we'll soon be hearing about this 301 and 201 cases. And we're going to pursue a lot more of those in the near future coming up with that. I hope you look at the microphone carefully. Oh, yeah. The health bill up. Right up. Could I just say one thing that you mentioned here when you said about the dollar? I just said to our people the other day, I think we ought to stop talking about reducing the value of the dollar. What we are interested in for our opponents, bringing their currency up to match the dollars closer. And it's there being so far behind an economic recovery that leaves us up there all alone. But let's talk about keeping a valuable dollar but let them come on up and match us. Just a comment on that, Mr. President. I think you're absolutely right. When we talk at home about reducing the value of the dollar, it's kind of like tearing up the American flag. You know, it's just really a bad valuation to talk about reducing the value of the dollar. But if you just talk about increasing their value to match ours. I can remember a few years ago when we had a dollar at this level. Some friends of mine were on a deep-sea fishing trip down to Lower Baja in Mexico. They came back horrified. They'd gone into the village to do some souvenir buying, bring presents home to the family, and so forth. And the Mexican shopkeepers refused to take their American money. They didn't get over that. And Jean-Marie Blané from Paloma, I can tell you. I think this is a very important meeting for unity of purpose. And as the ranking committee, I'll have some other issues to talk about. It used to be the dimension case. Council. And the problem with this housing, as I mentioned yesterday, Jim Milner will take a pretty good hit in this budget. And I can handle that. That'll give me some heartburn. But the representatives from the Comptroller's office at the IC have said that there would be cuts if one are known as non-appropriated funds. I don't know if this is... I thought I should mention this meeting. Funds which come from fees and assessments against those, and they don't have to make substantial cuts in their operation. The other point is, and this has come up for a foreign aidist concern, and I agree with Milner, but we have to make some cuts for foreign aid, it seems to me. But what about the multilateral development banks? That's within the jurisdiction of our banking committee, and the thought has been that these are legally binding commitments that we've already made. We make cuts there, or what's the party line as far as our concern? Jim, do you know the exact figures? No. Let me answer the challenge this way. What we have done, I don't think you'll see us asking for any new increases in the capitalization of these international banks of the fiscal crisis here at home. What obligations that have been obligated from the past we will have in the budget. But no new funds for any new starts, and what we've been trying to tell, as you know Jim Baker's statements in the light, is that the World Bank should reprogram itself, not look for new funds, but reprogram its existing funds and put those to better use. Mr. President, that was directed pretty well at all of us. We look around this room, for example, and she's the only woman. And we tend sometimes in our discussions here to forget that there's extra special dimensions of a woman's point of view. She addressed herself more in particular, I guess, to find some of the cuts that will take place that have an effect on minorities maybe, not exactly, maybe the way you said it does. So that the President gets the full flavor of what we were talking about here. Mr. President, I think it's very important to remind the time you've got some hard miners around here that anything you say will do it. But we know in a practical sense up there in the floor in the house where we have to live every day and really get things done that there's another dimension to that. And there are those who, for considerations back home with their own personal feelings for whatever reason, it takes those views, melded with those of us hard rocks to give you the full flavor of what your legislative liaison people really have got to deal with in a practical way. So live. I never intend to speak to the Republican leader again, but... Mr. President, you understand how stubborn people are from Northwestern Illinois, so I will go ahead. My point is this. I guess I won't be insulted by not being called a hard rock. I... I have been with you on all of your budget cuts in non-defense programs. My point, and I will repeat it, is this. In this room where the only minorities probably were the waiters, where there's only one woman, I believe that your administration suffers sometimes rightfully from the perception when you're making these non-defense cuts announced by rather wealthy-looking white males that there is no understanding of what those cuts will mean. Now, I know you understand and I know your personal feeling for everyone, and certainly your cousins and Kathleen Burgers and Jim. I'm just saying we've got to do better in that area. And in a budget where you're going to have a real growth in defense and perhaps foreign aid and all the cuts are going to fall there, may I at least suggest psychologically there be more of an effort to look as if you care and more people around you that bring that dimension to your white house. Was that nicer than I was? Mr. President, I agree with what Bill Ruefield said. I think that if we took an increase in foreign aid to the floor, and I'm not sure our committee chairman would need to do that, of course. A lot of Republicans, even a few, used all of your talents to do so, and the Republicans would love, I think, to have you in the position of increasing foreign aid or cutting your white house. That would be something. I would hope that in doing the foreign aid we keep in mind that if there are reductions, I think that's what's going to happen, that we do it even in a stand where they tell us when we had a military dictatorship where you gave so much money we expect to get at least as much. And now that we have what they call a democracy, certainly moving in the direction. And they are very, very sensitive to this sort of thing. I think we can get away with not increasing that as they were going to ask us, but we sure couldn't get away with increasing, for example, I think another thing, too, with regard to ensuring Jury is exactly right that is an issue that's shaking up. I think we could do a better job probably have to do it quietly, with our allies in Japan, Korea, Taiwan have started to by emphasizing how their failure to take appropriate steps to help us could result in hurting their security. I told you Tuesday what I told some of the Koreans, if they didn't handle this issue right or help us handle it right, they could end up with another Jimmy Carter who got their picture. I think it's very important that we do everything we can to get them to take some of the steps and infuse that issue, because as you know the Democrats have sent an override on your text on the veto for August, right in the middle of the campaign. If they should succeed, it might be just horribly disruptive, not only to us but to the internal just terrible friendships and also I just want to tell you this is believing all of those things are a bit interesting. There aren't some difficult things where security foreign assistance problems that have been raised. The other day one of those problems was the person the little children was in my office. They were kids, I don't know where any of you have seen them from Afghanistan. They were weird tots. They either had one leg gone or one arm gone and one had arms and legs but was horribly scarred and literally gargoyled all from the Soviet bombings in Afghanistan. Things like that just pray on us. But Lynn, I just wanted to tell you because I know you know that I'm on your side in these things you know we have among our military aides now the first officer of the Coast Guard that has ever been a presidential military aide. Also the first woman because that Coast Guard officer is a woman. And the other day I just, I love this I was kind of teasing her about something I had to do with the meeting I had with an admiral and she listened and then very quietly said Mr. President, you understand that the Coast Guard is the unit around which the Navy rallies. Frank Martin, if you want to wrap it up one of the things I'm particularly concerned about I've just finished office hours up in my district I was four counties I saw on a one to one basis over 2,000 people I'm going to start next to Friday with another about nine days and I'll probably see another thousand people and one of the things that in upstate New York I come from Rochester and I got in early this morning and opened the mail and I brought along with me a copy of Telling Land which has been sent to you this is from the mayor of the city of Rochester but it expresses one of the things that I've heard from many of the mayors county executives and so forth it has to do with the budget cuts as it relates to the domestic programs. In our area we're losing a lot of jobs and we are very much concerned about the Syracuse for example which is not in my district but my district is right around it. GE has just announced closing the plant 450 jobs, the Bristol Myers is closed and that's several other hundred jobs in Rochester, New York, Kodak laid off something in the center to 700 people, flak and decker are closed down and there's a number of those in the state of New York and this telegram I think expresses some of the concern and I might mention also in our area I don't know if it's true in others but many of these municipalities are unable to meet their insurance costs, their liability to meet their municipal insurance cost just on out of the site. But this has to do with the Federal U-Day program. Since I'm urgently, this is a telegram address I'm urgently requesting your reconsideration of the decision to defer indefinitely the Federal U-Day program coming on top of the proposed elimination of revenue sharing and a rumored 15% deferral in FY86 community development funding. This announcement strikes at the heart of the efforts of the urban areas of our country large and small to revitalize themselves and create sort of needed jobs. The city of Rochester used U-Day program to spur downtown renewal and industrial expansion U-Day grants received today that leveraged over $220 million of private investment in the creation of over 1,800 jobs. That is an important problem in our area and I think in others and one of the things I just like to ask is that there be consideration given on the problems of these cities and these counties so governments are having and some of these programs like EDA, the problems that they have with regard to sewer, water and this sort of thing are very serious problems in the North-East Midwest areas and I would hope that there could be some consideration given so that we can revitalize and keep our industries and our area and keep these jobs that we're apparently losing. I know but I think also that all of us have a longer-range look and recognize that some of this unemployment and it's spotty that you know we can't go by the national average. The truth of the matter is we have a higher percentage of people working than we've ever had in our history and right now we have wanted as in Sunday papers around the country that multiplied and are more than we've had in a number of years of employers asking some of these those things we have to face are not because of the economy they're simply because of our increasing high tech that is now making some jobs obsolete and some some areas are going to have to face the fact of maybe even replacing I'd like to suggest again there's a thing up there before all of you call the enterprise zones that could be a very productive feature in this a number of states are already trying it on their own and without federal government doing it and every instance is successful but our job training partnership has been more successful than any federal job program that we've had so far and here again the use of that I think but it could mean that mayors don't want to be in the position of suggesting that people leave time but part of this problem is going to be relocation where industries just are no longer existing simply because technologies has taken them out of the competition or the need for that many employers all of this is what I guess I'm trying to say boils down to the before we follow the old roads that we've taken in the past with regard to economic recessions let's make sure that we're embarked on a path that is going to use the marketplace and not just displace it and that is going to treat the problem on a permanent basis and believe me having looked for my first job in the Great Depression and I have an inbred sympathy for what is happening to these people that are being laid off President, I thank you very much for your time and thank you Thank you I just think there was one thing I'd like to hear from you yesterday afternoon I phoned all the families of seven heroes and without exception before the conversation was over every one of those Greeks could have said to me but you must keep the programs going Thank you Good to see you