 I just received word that the Senate committee knocked out that Section 608 requiring we take face voting to the Congress vote of 10-3. Secondly, we did get distributed to all of the staff of the senior associate with our armed services. May I be briefed by our committee? That's good. Now, I think that you have spent some time with your friend Mr. Kennedy. I get distributed to him, but for your information, I think you have a bunch of laws for it. I think that he's functioning in this Vietnam field, the Dominican field, a little bit over time, and he and some of his districties very much against us. And I think his general feeling is that we should not have asked for the 700 million appropriation by asking for it and saying that we have construed this as support of our position that he wanted to demonstrate his independence while he wasn't voting against it. He would make the speech that he did and as a consequence, he's touching up Javits a little bit and different ones around. Certain senators tell me that they talked to him in the courtroom and they hear little snide remarks about the situation. I think it could very appropriately say that the defense department took the position that we were spending more than we had appropriated. We had ample authority under the existing law to transfer that money, and that's what we planned to do. We told them that. We told them that if they wanted to, we could ask for the money now, or transfer it and ask for it later. After explaining the pros and cons, all we wanted them to know was that we were digging into an account that was going to be overdrawn. We had to come back and leave Frank and Candid with them and forward made suggestions. We asked for it now and he thought that was a better way to do it. He had been physically responsible and worked with the House committee. We thought that it would give an opportunity to anybody wanting to debate it and discuss it. We didn't object to that. We're not calling for the debates. New York Times had been advocating debates and we sent it up there and we don't object to what he said about it. But we do want to know our reasons for doing it and they were based upon an attempt to keep substantial support behind us and the Congress. Each day, the New York Times and I know he's conscious of it and they're going to be agitating and chavits. Bobby's going to be in the background because the operates could deal that way, but they're going to be asking for a new personal debate, a new resolution of sport and telling them that we have been willing to ask for that. We don't think it would be wise but that we have asked for it right. If he thinks we're going to have a new resolution, we've asked Mansfield and we've asked Dirksen and we've asked Russell. They are the man in this field in the Senate. You'd like to ask him. If he thinks that new resolution will be won, that's so much on that general feeling because that's in the columns and the stories and the newspaper articles and so on and so forth. And of course when they talk to him, they come right back and talk to us and so forth. I think there's another tactic to talk to him about the new pause that's been proposed in the New York Times, proposed young pause. And Mike has kind of had his feeling of the pause. I understand he's talking to you about the pause. Now, if we had any indication the pause would do any good, be fine, but we're afraid that if we do pause, we got hell knocked out of us while it did. I think American people would be awfully critical of us. And I just think we ought to talk to him about it because this is where most of our real trouble's coming from. It goes back, you'll remember, to the real flare-up came on this statement, this 700 million. And that's my intelligence. People tell me that that's the backbone of it. And since it's your 700 million and since you heard the Ford thing and since you know that we think that it's all right for them to debate it, we don't object to the government and the church and them. They won't say these things to them. We don't agree with them. We don't think they help. But we have never asked one senator, not Steve, to ask him. Now, we put on the pause, but see what else he thinks ought to be done. I think that's a very potentially dangerous to our general cause on that matter. I think that in time it's going to be like the jail professor said. And it's going to be difficult for us to very long prosecute effectively a war that far away from home with the divisions that we have here, and particularly the potential divisions. And that's really had me concerned for a month and I'm very depressed about it because I see no program from me that defends our state that gives me much hope of doing anything but just praying and gasping to hold on during monsoon and hope they'll quit. I don't believe they're ever going to quit. I don't see how do we have any way of either a plan for a victory militarily or diplomatically. And I think that's something that you and me have got to sit down and try to see if there's any people that we have in those departments that give us any program or plan or hope or not. We've got to see if we have you go out there or somebody else go out there. Take one good look at it and say to these new people, now you've changed your government about the last time. And this is it. Call the Buddhists and the Catholics, the generals and everybody together and say we're going to do our best and be sure they're willing to let new troops come in. Be sure they're not going to resent them. That's not why you all can run over us and have a bunch of your own choosing. You can't take these changes all the time. That's the Russell plan. Russell thinks we ought to take one of these changes to get out of there. I don't think we can get out of there without treaty like it is with what all we've said and I think it'll just lose us as a base in the world.