 Why do you have to see you this way? See, I'm right here, and I'm going to put my eyes on that suit right here. Hi, Jimmy. Hey, how are you? Very good. Good to see you. Good to see you. Really? Good to see you. Morning, Jerry. Hi, drying. How are you? I'm good. How are you? How are you? She's really pretty, too. Hi, Jess. Hi, Jerry. Hi, Mike. Nice to see you. How are you? Nice to see you. How are you? Nice to see you. Nice to see you. Nice to see you. I know it's a situation none of us have ever been in, in which I would be asking someone to vote for something, and I have promised I will veto. It comes out the way it is, but I do believe that this is the best way for us to have a chance of getting into it. It gives us a chance to get back in the high ground and take away this false image that we were some time ago. I repeat everything I said yesterday. Well, no, but I'll tell you, we were able to call and tip and tell them last night that we had 50 votes on the both of the bill and the rule. But there seems to be some erosion and we need to be safer than that. We need more. I'm here to appeal for some support first on the rule and then be on the bill itself that we've got more and got enough votes after our call. Mr. President, you said yesterday you wouldn't sign this bill as it now stands. And I understand process arguments, but we've always got the opportunity to go against the countenance report, but still we've got to go back and live with our constituents. A very strong advocate against this bill was your former chairman of the Missouri John Powell over the timbers. John called me the other day after I boarded against the bill and said it was the best dog run bull ride cast since I've been here. And the timbers are terrible, of course, in my district. It's a $2 billion industry in Missouri. And mine, 90% of the lead is produced in the United States. It's produced in my district. They're already in the Superfund and this on top of it, the lead industry is going to close down. That's jobs in my district. Well, the temper thing I can tell you that we've already talked about on the Senate side and, of course, as you can imagine, that's of interest to him, too. And said this has to be changed in the Senate bill. If we get this through the House, that must be changed in the Senate version. That's hit me. I'm trying. Seeing our officer present, you get to sit out there and get thrown. Oh, God. Hey, we're going on a journey. But I don't know how I'm going to purchase the money. We've got Greg in there. Are you? I'll show you. I'm going to see more of them. Steve Gunn. Hi, Jim. Hi, Jim. Steve Gunn. How are you? Jim and I. Fine, Bill. Good to see you. Good to see you, sir. And down. Well, now, let me see. I'm going to repeat everything I said. No, but I'll tell you. I was able to call a tip last night and tell them what they are. 50. And Bill is going to be providing a list for the bill and for the bill and the passage. But there's going to be been some erosion. And we feel that's safer if we had more than the 50. We were talking about it in the very 50. Both for the rule and for the final passage. And I can't add anything that I said yesterday about it. I know it's a queer situation. I'm asking for votes on something that I promised on veto. If it goes down in that same way. But it is to get into that process. And then my feeling is that in the conference, the Senate version, there couldn't be any just feeding concrete on the other side for the Democratic bill. That's the one that's passed. Because our conferees will be able to say that that bill will be vetoed if it comes out that way. Which I think should lead to some negotiations and improvement that we could all live with. That's the first time in all the years I've been in Congress as the President that we have to do this. But I came down after listening to you yesterday. Convinced it was the only way to keep the process going. And I particularly appreciated the fact that you outlined the areas that you thought ought to be changed. And were willing to put it in the letter. And I'll tell you what you've done to this country. I'm looking all the way. I'm not kidding. I really believe that the people will understand. And if we don't get this cleaned up in the Senate. I'd probably vote against it on Wednesday. And I'm willing to give it a chance. Thank you for all of those. Thank you very much. I think this is a night off. You've got bad advice on that. Excuse me. I have bad advice on this. Did you like the show? I had your review of the show. It was a very wonderful and enjoyable week. Thanks to all of these wonderful people here. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, before that. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Absolutely. Sorry. Thank you for one of the departments on its budget. It has been through the OMB pass back routine. It has been through the budget review bullet. And now on the field to you. On the fence, obviously. And as a conclusion, after you've heard both of this, we will give you a decision memo. Make a decision. Sometimes after this meeting. So if that cap is received. Mr. President, you're never supposed to open with an apology. I'm sorry to be in here. I see more money. I used to stick with Jim Miller's. I always reject these things automatically. So there are two points that I think are very important. One is. Normal sleep. Normal sleep. Okay. All right. Thank you. What do we say? Well, guys, might as well get in. All right. President, we know that that was one of your favorite subjects. And we're both scintillating discussion. Other things to mind. But actually Jim Baker, he's not even here today. He's tied up with something called tax reform or something. Asked me to present this on behalf of both of our cabinet councils. We have come to a meeting in the minds, thanks to Mack Baldritch and Debra Riggs of this department. Doug Innsworth, who's at the end of the table. The head of the antitrust division, Department of Justice and others. We've worked very hard with our cabinet council to put together a consensus position on antitrust reform. And I'll ask Doug to explain the basically the proposal we have before you today. Thank you very much. President, I know you have a memo from the policy councils and so I'll be rather greedy going back over the legislative recommendation for reform of the antitrust laws and ask your approval to pursue them vigorously as soon as the Congress becomes January. The unifying theme of these proposals is to fully update the antitrust laws for the first time in some decades. First in order to reflect modern economic conditions and especially the emergence of global markets in the period since World War II. But secondly, to reflect modern economic thinking. The simple fact is not surprising to perhaps we understand how competitive markets work better now than we did 20 years ago, let alone 50 or 70 years ago when these laws were written. As a result of work in the last 20 years economic thinking and antitrust thinking have really undergone a revolution. And I think it's fair to say that it's conspired in large part by the work of some of your appointees to the courts. Especially if professors Bork and Winter from Yale, professors Pozner and Easterbrook from Chicago, all of them were put on the courts of appeals. And the new markets can and often do perform competitively. If government regulation doesn't create a barrier to the entry of new firms into those markets consumers will rarely have reason to fear that they'll be faced with a forced upon monopoly crisis. As the Attorney General said in 1981 as Attorney General Reese has reiterated since then bigness isn't bad enough. Thank you very much.