 Nick Russell called me and I told him, he said that he wanted to offer his substitute but you talked to him about this tabling, that he thought that I was making a terrific mistake by agreeing to that because he thought that there would be doubt left as to my authority and it would be an open sore and be coming up the full rights and the doves all the way through. I told him I didn't think so that I would favor letting Morris make his case and try to rescind it and then without hurting anybody or getting personal, get up and make a statement that the questions whether you want to rescind it or whether you don't and there's direct vote on it can be had by tabling but I sure don't want the motion at table to imply that any dilution of that resolution because if it does, I'm in the hell of a shape as the Commander-in-Chief and with other nations too. I don't think that it would in any way. Well it will unless you make a case for it when you make the motion at table or get somebody to do it either make Russell or somebody say, here's what the authority of this resolution is. Now Morris wants to take that away and our position is that we're not going to take it away because if we leave me in doubt there whether I have authority or not, hell, I'd rather turn the authority over to Fulbright. I've got to know what authority I have and I believe I have unquestioned authority as Commander-in-Chief 162 cases according to the Attorney General in there. Without the resolution? Without the resolution. With the resolution I've got them in there with me but is this motion at table in any way in the light of what they said diluting it? Now if it does, I'm against it. I think it ought to be, case ought to be made that Morris wants to rescind it and we're not going to rescind it and thereby by not rescinding it it stays just as it is. That's right. And that we want the ever-dictated in the world to know. We don't want P. King. The case is made Mr. President without even saying a word. I don't agree with it without saying a word. I think it ought to be in that record for that roll call and that's the case he makes. I'm far tabling it and I don't want to rub anybody's nose in it like he does with Melson and the rest of it but I do think it ought to say Morris wants to repeal this. Now we're not going to repeal it. I'm going to move the table. If you want to repeal it, you vote with Morris. But if you want to leave it just as it is with all the authority that it contains, why you vote the table? If you don't, why you go on and vote with Morris? Because? I just want some would-be fellow that's waiting to see what to do depending on the Senate to misinterpret this because I know what happened to us in a couple of hours by misjudging our intentions. I'm controlling this thing just as carefully as a human can. I'm watching it just as much, but I cannot have them in doubt about my ability as Commander-in-Chief. No, but you had that ability, you had that responsibility, keyed without a resolution. I agree with it, but to all the play, Mike, all the editorial, what's going to be done this Senate? What's this group of 20, 30, 40 senators? Are they going to take away authority? Are they going to hold it back? And they may interpret this and the propaganda and all the morning papers is that they've kind of agreed and they, so I think when we make a motion to table, please see that someone points up the fact that this leaves the President without a bit of this authority changed or diluted. Okay, Mr. President. Thank you, Mike.