 I'm not going to tell you what's happening with the urgency of the scandal in Nicaragua and the schedule is going on, the toxic tourney, so I'm only going to have an hour I can spend here, which I regret very much, but since we've been doing this for a few years, and the economy's been doing pretty well for all those years, with your advice and counsel, I think the best thing I can do now is ask for you for a summary of, and if it comes out with some projections as to what the economy looks like, and where we're going, and any observations of the deficit, I'll be very pleased. Hi, Mr. President, as you know, trying to summarize this group is like any sense of economy sometimes. We had four subjects you were asked to address, the first one was the strength of the dollar and the economic implications. I think the points were made that trade restrictions put on by us would raise the price of the dollar rather than lower it, and therefore they would recommend against doing anything like that. The point was made that the jobs that we lose through imports are highly visible, but the jobs that we gain are invisible. The point was made, I think, that to say the dollar is strong is sort of a mechanism of the dollars where the people will pay for it in the marketplace. And while it can be equated with purchasing power, parity, and so forth, it nevertheless is the market price that is paid. I would argue that efforts to tinker with the international monetary mechanisms such as have been obtained would not be very useful. I believe that the information standard has now replaced the gold standard. One moment here, and thank Bob Wood very much for this approach. The idea that we can stand united in the matter of the technology involved and for security, I think it would be a wonderful thing for all the people. Because of the kind of innovations I'll make, I'll get you first and then give you Bob. Well, thank you, Mr. President. I know we've taken out another meeting, so I just want to indicate where I believe we may be. Under the law that was passed, and we do, I've since checked, tomorrow we have an answer to that. We're going to be on this, maybe tomorrow. And it's not subject to amendment unless we can suspend the rules that state 67 votes. So there are a couple of options. One would be to take up the major reported by the committee. Perhaps with a letter from the president indicating certain things that would not happen if that major were passed. That would usually work out in the language of the letter with the key Republicans and Democrats. The second option is to figure out some way to launch an amendment if we have enough bipartisan support. Senator Byrd has indicated that for a possibility if you want to try to help suspend the rules, we would offer an amendment and then move on with the process. So I would hope that two things. First, to finish this shortening, there might be a working group opposed to some of these groups we have here, plus the White House. And secondly, we're serious about trying to put something together on a bipartisan basis. If we all adhere to the rule we've adhered to so far, that's not going to press with it until we see if we can negotiate something. Senator Byrd is very concerned about that. I share that concern because once it gets into the public domain, that makes it more and more difficult to negotiate. So that's sort of where we are. We've had a meeting in the last 30 minutes. In fact, about the last hour, the Republican members here, there are seven of us. That was by the far and Don Reagan and others. Senator Byrd met about three hours yesterday. They dig in this morning. So we would hope that we could see what we do this afternoon without binding the press. And I know you've just barely seen them opposed. So having said that, I'll be at 5.30. But the call came to you on Thursday from me indicating that my colleagues would be very willing to enter into discussions to see if we could arrive at a compromise approach which would dispose of this resolution which is to be called up tomorrow. And we've welcomed that tomorrow. And they're all very easy to alter at this point. We heard back that you would be willing to have such discussions. And we then met again, my colleagues here and I, and some others in the Senate. Met on Friday in an effort to develop a proposal which would represent some give and take on the part of every senator who was in the discussion. Then we were to meet again on yesterday at 3 o'clock in the afternoon to further develop our proposal. Looking forward to coming to the White House on yesterday afternoon at 5 o'clock when we would enter into discussions with you, Mr. President, and your department heads or staff of the White House and with the Senate of the Republic. Yesterday afternoon some of us worked until after 7 o'clock. On this morning, last night there were several telephonic discussions as to the contents of the proposal we were going to make. Those contents were not revealed to the press. And until this morning we were not revealed to the Republic. Mr. Dole and I talked last night. I agreed to supply him this morning with our proposal. I felt that the Majority Leader was entitled to have those proposals. I felt also that the President was entitled to have them. Enough in advance to respond in whatever way he might wish. And let me say this about Bob Dole. I have an excellent relationship with him, working relationship, and we will continue, I'm sure. Each of us has some responsibility to each's own party and we try to fulfill the responsibilities and be able to still work with them in a real and friendly way. We have here a proposal which has been put together by Democrats on all sides of the ideological spectrum. There are those here who would vote to unfence the 14 billion, there are those here who would vote not to unfence the 14 billion. There are liberals, there are conservatives, there are some who may turn themselves into the voters, which I like to do, the voters to myself. And there has been give and take and the product is the result of compromises which we ourselves have engaged in. Danny Inouye is the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with foreign assistance and John Kerry is here who has just returned from Nicaragua. Tom Harkin was with John Kerry in the effort to cut down on the size of our realizing that the Republicans would be expected to ask for a similar number quite rightly. We flipped the coin to the side of which, whether it would be Mr. Kerry or whether it would be Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Kerry carried the coin. So he's here. Now let me say this. This compromise has received contributions from all of these Democratic senators here and most particularly from John Kerry and from Tom Harkin. And they at all times demonstrated a willingness to be reasonable, to listen to other Democrats and in several instances have modified their own approach and wishes. And I'm sure that there's no person here who has exactly what he would want if he had to fashion the package for the Senate. I don't know what you say either. I don't know if you would ask me how great it was. I wish everybody loved it. Thank you very much. Mr. Kerry, that's a point, Tom. Thank you so much. It was terrible. It's going to be a hell of a report. How are everybody sitting down? How are you? Nice to see you again on this. How'd you get through the demonstrators out there? How are you? Come on, grab it. Reminds me, who do you think was the first one that said that about the streets? Herr Gerbos, who said, yes, take it into the streets and if you can control the streets, you'll control the nation. And that's where the Nazis were the first. They used demonstrations and so forth. Right in that situation, in that case, wasn't it? Well, listen, I know you've got concerns and I don't know whether to go into a pitch here and make a strong pitch first or to hear what your concerns are and see if I can respond. We believe that, first of all, and I have to say this much, I believe that this situation is not one of us skipping in something or nosing into something that isn't our business. Every evidence, every fact confirms that this is another case. Confirms that this is another Cuban. This is a Marxist, Leninist dictatorship. Their people are miserable and unhappy with it. We're not out trying to ourselves overthrow a government. What we're saying to that government is, sit down and negotiate with your own people to see if you can't restore the goals of the revolution. And I, maybe you're aware of it. During the revolution, they appealed to the Organization of American States, the revolutionaries did, and said, would all the countries, which included our own, appeal to Somoza to step down to stop the killing? And the Organization of American States said, well, what are the goals of your revolution? And they provided them in writing that the goals were pluralistic society, free labor unions, free press, free elections. You two guys look like demonstrators. I'll let them through the gate. I wouldn't allow you. I wouldn't have thought that President was asking about it. What kind of placard did you carry? We would have, come on. I'm down. How are you? Good to see you. I'm down. How are you? Good to see you. I'm down. How are you? Good to see you. I just, I feel very strongly in this, but I think we also had proposed something. And we've got some senators working right now with Democratic senators on them. They have a position that we think we can meld the two that meets some questions that they have. And Bob Bird has said that he would like to be able to have the Senate come forth with a thing that is not partisan, that is the result of Democrat and Republican consensus. Because the situation is, I think it boils down to the bottom line of are we going to have a communist, totalitarian state like Cuba here in the mainland? Or are we going to support the people of the country who want the democracy that they fought the revolution for? But I know you've got some concerns and I better let you have one and I'll try to answer them. Well, go ahead. I know I could sit down there. It's been a weekend. Of course, it's hard. Of course, quite honestly, it's the most oppressive place and the only thing we can do is keep them from making things worse and all of a sudden go over on to the rest of the life. I came back really more confused Terry Bruce from Illinois from your home. How are you, Mr. President? I'm good. How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? Come on in. Slide in. I think we ought to have some handy placards that the situation of this kind would have send up so you could be down curing a placard and you'd walk right through. Well, listen, I know our time is limited and all and I appreciate very much your coming down. And I know that you have got some concerns about the situation there with Nicaragua. And let me just say one thing. I also know and understand how many of you had people in the districts and so forth who were on the other side. And I can only say about that whatever we do I think we've got to when I say we, I mean the government has got to do a better job than we've done of getting facts to our people out there because, yes, I think polls indicate a lot of people are concerned about this and are opposed to this or that but I think it's because they've been subjected to a disinformation campaign that is very sophisticated and very well funded and it is operating on behalf of the Sandinistas. And we just haven't been able to get the other story through. I'll make a recommendation to you about the State Department putting on a roadmap that just came up a few days ago. It's one of those tall ones and slim. We can read it in about 15 minutes but it is about as good as summing up in there as I've seen of the misconceptions and then the facts and not a marking but a rhetoric or anything but the facts, the actual situation of who did what and when they did it. And it would be most helpful for the discussions of what's going on. But now let me just say this plan that we proposed is aimed at ending the killing. It's aimed at getting the Contras and the Sandinistas into a conversation. They were all part of the same revolution. The Contras right now have got to always talk about them being dominated by the former Somoza government is not true. There are leaders, many of them were imprisoned by Somoza. They are made up, their growth at ranks has become due to the desertions from the Sandinista Army. The kids that have been drafted down there in the desert, they don't go home. They go over the Contras. But all that we want to see and all this talk that we're out to overthrow the old government. No, we said from the beginning what the people of Nicaragua want and in large numbers is they want the revolution that they fought. They want the same goals that were given by the revolution. I see you. Hello, Paulica. How are you? Good to see you. I'm glad to hear that because I'm just loaded with solutions here. But I just, we were talking this morning about it and it was a case now I think of, I know what's up and I know the thing that we've done. And yet, we're still cutting in the area of you might say growth because the non-defense part of the budget will be the biggest it has ever been in history with, even with this plan. So what are your worries? 22 percent of my voting population on Social Security and I'd just like to tell you what I think. Congress has already approved taking Social Security off budget during the 1983 exercise that we get on Social Security minutes, but they didn't make it effective until FY1993. I think through both of them and with the President's leadership we should introduce a bill to take it off budget in 1986 at least in 1987. I have already introduced legislation March 20th to do that. It's 724. Social Security does not affect the deficit. It's not a discretionary spending program competing for scarce funds out there and a general revenue fund as you know. I've heard you give the speech. It's a self-financing program and by law we can't touch that on me. That's their money. Any money saved from decreasing Social Security can't be used for any kind of purpose and you and I know that. I've said that many times. I've heard you say this. What we do? Good. Good. How are we organizing? I think this speech was good. I like the growth part and the tax part more than I like the budget part. The whole thing was for the budget is that we're having we've got more wiring full response than we ever have in that speech. Someone said that Bob Byrd's response was just panning by shales this morning in the Washington Post. Oh, among other things they commented on his hair was looking a little blue and evidently it's just really... He did. Terrible. Did you say it? He didn't say it was Bob Byrd's response.