 breakfast, and I know you've been having some give-and-take on Don, and I want to come see if he solved all the problems. That's what it really came in for. But our breakfast on Wednesday, as you know, I mentioned that one of my highest priorities this year is to maintain a Republican majority in the Senate. I know that most of you will face reelection this year, and we want to be supported in any way that we can. Shortly, I'll send the Congress a fiscal year, an 87 budget, and it'll meet the requirements of random Republican colleagues without raising taxes or threatening our national defense. I'm also hopeful that Senate will act expeditiously on tax reform. And I'm counting on you to make some changes in the House passed bill so that I can sign the shape working measure because when I called on the House to get it out of there and keep it going, I told them I was asking to go for something that I would be told to reach my desk in that form. So you've got some changes that have to be made. I imagine you've already covered some of these topics this morning. So I'd rather hear what's on your mind unless somebody has already a little bit said anything about it. Happy birthday, Obama. President Douglass, we thank you for your positive power. We look forward to the successful 1986 as you led us in 1980. I have one suggestion, as we look to the individual campaigns. And that is where it might be possible for you to identify individual senators who are for re-election on some accomplishment that is consistent with what you think ought to be done. I thought it was very effective when you picked out Senator Mattaway. You made a bad choice. As a generalization, when you decided him on the lion item veto in one of your State of Union speeches, it was very effective. I don't know in my case if you could find anything to talk about. My colleagues, I know that all of them have done something which would be specific and we can feed them to Mitch Daniels. And if it comes up in the course of one of your press conferences or speeches where there is that kind of a national focus, it gives quite a lift to an individual senator. And we are not oblivious that we may extract and use it, perhaps even a piece of crash that's used in a commercial. And that could be a centerpiece and enormously helpful. Well, I think in many cases it could have been in with some things that we've tried to help you with and that you would endorse. I think it's a good idea. And feed them in here. We'll see about years from then. Let's hope that all of them will be as sensible and brilliant as there was many of these. I might just add to the fact that the senators have got something quite obvious. The more that they support a piece of your legislation, it's just like a finger on the button of my adrenaline. Mr. President, you're going to hear a lot about economics this morning and I just wanted to switch for a minute to foreign policy. As chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the Appropriations Committee, one of our jobs, and looking around the freshman class, I don't think there's any group of senators that have been more supportive of your Central American program, the money for El Salvador, the necessary things for Honduras. We discovered Pete Domenici, who was a member of your Central American committee there, and a bunch of us discovered the other day in the Working Papers in the State Department, they are reading Grant Rudman to reduce Central American funding by roughly 20, in certain cases, more than 20%, and taking development assistance money and other money and putting it into other parts of the world, which a number of us think and I would read you would think, have a much lower priority. In other words, rather than taking the same percentage cut across the world, they have cut Central America at a much greater amount. Now, the hardest money for us to get is a Central American money. And I would hope that Don and all of you, that no one's here from state, but we've got ourselves out there, trying to promote the program of peace and democracy in Central America, and right now in the Working Papers at the State Department, they're taking a disproportionate cut out of Central America and spreading money all the way around to these countries, including one of my least favorite, Los Amigos, which gets a much least, much less cut than some of these people that have been our friends. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. And secondly, I'd like to say that in most of this field that we're on a great positive roll right now in terms of aid to resistance fighters across this world. And I'm pleased with what seems to be now a little bit of a shift in a policy toward Angola. But once more, I think all of us in this room, the freshmen of the Republic and the sweet 16 group identify with you when you start talking about Afghanistan and Angola, Nicaragua, the freedom fighter movements across this country right now, this world right now, are on our side, and all of them ought to be supported. I'm just pleased, I hope that trend continues. But if you can, I would hope somebody would take a look at taking money out of Central America. It's the toughest money for an Ames to get. And then to throw it out, I think it's counterproductive. So I don't make notes over there. Because I agree we cannot allow communist satellite to be established here on the mainland. And the evidence is irrefutable now about Nicaragua particularly. As a matter of fact, the state positive that Nicaragua is still funneling arms and ammunition to support to the guerrillas themselves. Mr. President, I'd like to just return to politics for a moment. I have a state of the Union message. Following up on what Arlen said, obviously it's not possible for you to have a state of the Union message that mentions each of the 18 running for reelection. One thing you could do, it would be, if you had the time of your schedule sometimes there to advance the state of the Union to take for four or five minutes with any interested one of these critters. A special message that the Republican government could then beam out as part of the coverage of the state of the Union message that night. After you speak, we all go out and help our way through the cat-a-show in the rotunda. And a, but periodically a more or less contemporaneous film clip with you which allegedly could have taken that little holding run that you always go into before you give that state of the Union message. Promoting whatever it is any of these people have done, if they've done anything in the five years they've been here would really be a big boost to that. It would be something we've never tried before and would take some time out of your schedule which I know is tight. But it could be an enormous boost and would solve the problem of how you give that amount of credit for appealing contemporaneous record keeping without necessarily loading up your speech with what might be perceived as a whole bunch of blatantly partisan Republican preferences. Apart for the day, once again, I just want a loading hole that you mentioned is tip on me at this office. I want to present it to you, Mr. President. A little plaque was made by about an 85-year-old senior citizen who can barely speak, but as you can see, he can write. He made it for you and for the White House. He said, bless this house. He signed it on the back and had a little letter explaining this gentleman, Mr. Marx. Am I not related to Carl? R-Y-C-H. And he said, bless this house. If you can hang it somewhere around the White House. He said, meet the lights. I'll take it back. Mr. President, I think that we're all gratified to see the economy doing that service during the strengths of your presidency. But the thing that I feel that you've done most for this country is in the area of national security and restorative respect and credibility of our nation. Along those lines, one of the things that you've changed on an attitudinal basis, and I can see it because of Madison advertising people, you have induced a great deal of skepticism and questioning of the Soviet Union along the areas of trust. And I think it's proper. I think it's good for our nation. One of the things that is going to be a problem and it's a difficult thing when I sit down in my home state of Indiana and start talking about defense matters is the area where we have said and documented time and time again Soviet violations of the treaties that they are in fact have been will and continue to cheat. But where is our response? We have not yet responded specifically to those violations. And someday, I'm afraid that we're going to run out of our credibility on telling the American people rightfully so that the Soviet Union has violated these things are not to be trusted. We do not take some responses and talk about these responses. I think that we lose a little bit of a risk of going downhill in what you have done and you have turned this around more than anybody else. So I just indulge you to look at some of these responses that have been suggested to you specifically responses to the Soviet violation so we can't sustain that credibility with the American people. But I think in a few times we may lose. Well, they've been creating violating treaties all the way back to the big four treaties before the agreements at the end of the war. And we haven't talked about it right now. I must say that since the summer and this doesn't mean that we are changing our mind in any way about them and their non-pronar expansionism and so forth. But the one thing that I did lay down with our private members at Gorbachev was this distrust between both sides. And they do distrust us. They brought the things a lot. It's moral for them to cheat because we're such bugs. But the thing that I launched and I think we've got to give it a try is, and I launched it, yes, okay. So there's mistrust on both sides. And I told them that there's only one way we're going to resolve this. And it's going to be my words. We're going to have to have some deeds and we're necessarily going to provide deeds to prove our intentions and our intentions are non-hospital and so forth. And it's that. Or you might as well face it but they're going to have to put up some graces with us for the rest of time because we will never allow them to achieve great and dangerous superiority over us. So judges now are a little not wanting to apparently take a trip to Geneva than just to... One of the other things I said, I just think we have to at some time address specifically their violations as they continue to have to do that. Mr. President, I want to compliment you when you came to Oklahoma, you did give me credit for natural gas and me in effort to de-regulate natural gas. I hope that in your State Union address you don't need to mention my name. But I hope that that'll be part of your push is for de-regulation. I've already talked to Secretary Harrington as led yesterday and he mentioned that he would be working towards it. That could help this senator. If we can pass a natural gas de-regulation bill this year it can help this senator and I think of and I hope that we'll be successful. But in talking about the state and our state in Oklahoma our economy is very bad. Very, very bad right now. Primary energy and also because of agricultural de-regulation natural gas could help. One comment, and we talked about it briefly Wednesday. Somebody mentioned oil import fee and you mentioned your objection to additional taxes. You campaigned in 1980 as this senator did for repeal windfall profit tax and we haven't done that and for a lot of reasons. Right now it is not so much for disproportionism or just to raise money but we could have as a bare minimum I think an import tax to equal our domestic production tax that windfall profit tax. Because right now we penalize domestic production and encourage imports. There's a heavy tax on domestic production there's no tax on imports. And so I don't even see that as protectionism I see that as more just kind of a level playing field and it would raise a couple of bucks but it right now we are encouraging imports and we penalize domestic production because we still have windfall profit tax and it's not a good tax. And so you know one I hope that you'll make it in the state union address a call for total de-regulation natural gas and two again on this issue all import fees and so on and the house pass bill and you were very helpful to us the Treasury too was much much better the house pass bill is a disaster and if it comes to the floor of the Senate you won't get a tax bill if we're not able to make improvements I'm confident the Senate Finance Committee will improve it but when you're looking for some revenues even without getting into this protection syndrome I think you could have an import fee to at least equal windfall profit and real sound economics trade measures we're really looking at everything and all of these things except that we feel right now we've got to keep the emphasis on cutting spending and we're going to going to get there and get the job done but nothing will be left out and also I believe that in regard to tax reform it doesn't stand sign and pure as revenue we're not using that as an excuse to get more money anything else is going to be treated on the outside of that but incidentally we haven't until the State of the Union address is going to be quite bit shorter this year and it's going to be more of a general theme but then the next day you will all be delivered a catalog of all the specifics we've found that trying to put all the specifics in the speech by the end of the speech we haven't got anybody tuned in on that Mr. President Mr. President I have a first of all a thank you for signing the farm bill I appreciate that very much I wanted to state a fact that even with a much better farm bill than we anticipated maybe a year ago we would get I don't know if other things are going to be really much better in 86 and 87 I don't know if there's much in Washington we can do about it it might not be very good for the next five years and for sure they'll interest rates from down on the value of the dollar come down it won't be very good now you don't hear a lot of us from the Midwest talk about it across to the spring even invited to hear a sign and the only thing I guess I would ask in regard to some of the things from the Hill is that from the USDA and from the White House we would just get a feeling that things were being considered that doesn't mean that every idea is thrown out you gotta say it's a great idea but just not outright rejection of some so that we at least can get the point of view to the farmers in the Midwest the White House and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is sensitive to the extreme problems that we have out there and a lot of the things that are going on like what the farm credit system is going to do it's not a government agency anymore there are going to be foreclosed on a lot of farmers and so there's going to be extreme upheaval out there in a way of high percentage of farmers going out of business and people will be speaking about that and we maybe even making proposals and maybe they're proposals that you can't accept but if you can just let us have your ear and then you'll consider them that's all that we would ask and I think that in turn would show that we've got Republican Senators and a USDA a White House that's at least sensitive to the problems even if maybe you can't do anything about it I think there's been a great false image created of us I don't know of anything in any specific item in the bill that we've spent more hours on than we have on that we do know that the situation is very unequal some of you come from areas where it is truly a great problem if you take the overall farming common it's really only a small percentage that are affected but that small percentage happens to all live in the same place it's pockets of that but we are sensitive to it we do want to do something and we will listen to everything that's suggested Mr. President just before you came into the room there was a discussion about whether or not from a political standpoint the summit might best be scheduled in June or in September I'd like to kind of for you and for the people who work for you my view on that subject and I suspect every other subject that's been discussed in here this morning I think the good policy is the best politics and as Jim Miller told us the best predictor for success for us is if we are still have a prosperous economy and the people have a firm of attitude I think that they will but the summit it seems to me should be scheduled on that basis as well if the summit is received as being successful it won't really matter whether it's in June or September you have spent five years subject to a great deal of criticism on your attitude toward nuclear disarmament including some criticism from some people in this room and you've been right and the critics have been wrong and it has been the fact that you have been American strong which has given you an immense opportunity today in the last three years of your presidency really to go down perhaps as the greatest of all peace presidents if I could urge you to do anything usually as you know I speak on different subjects but different subjects when I have an opportunity I should just like to say that you really do in one sense the Soviet Union in the corner a different set of ideas obviously they're not totally or completely acceptable yet they've got them operating in a far different way than they were before or that they would have been and we've been engaged in unilateral disarmament over the last three or four years and I would just like to urge you to follow up the answer that you made in Antwell to make every possible effort that you can to see to it that we do make progress toward the point where we can be working down rather than working out in these nuclear arms and there is any gift that you can give people here or the American people themselves that will be more valuable than that if you can make the next sum of the success by what you've done in the past well I haven't retreated from what I said in 1980 in the campaign but any time we meet with regard to armies and that has been we've tried to meet with them 19 times since World War II they have always been the foot traitors this is the first time that I can recall that they have ever come forward that the Soviets have ever talked of actually reducing the numbers of weapons my position as a Canadian is still remains the same there's no more of those agreements where you agree to limit the increase or stay even or anything and start legitimately reducing the number of weapons and I said it before he did eventually get rid of all the nuclear weapons you did one of the reasons for our timing on wanting it earlier because first of all getting up to September is going to be I have a nice offer to do a new campaign but also they're pretty sophisticated about us and about problems the closer you get to the election the more they then might push for concessions that they would think I might have to give to them in order to affect the atmosphere in the election for our side so we think that if we can get it in June we're a lot better off we can devote our time to that and then there I think it would continue to be a good feeling if we can make some more, some accomplishments in June now it may have to be ordered some but we don't want them to get too close to our election because we don't want them trying to play their politics with our election how about I would just like to say as president some of the governors that are really in Florida are regarding the war on drugs and lamenting any concert of house or extended access to the foreign affairs whatever committee you want they can pull the leaders down and have a joint hearing and all the governors are the witnesses stating that you lost your desire you lost the attention span it's now gone from that war on drugs and they increased crossing with the border bringing opium in heroin instead of a marijuana it's alarming in Florida and it's increasing level if you could just re-state our position as in a very heavy plank and we're continuing to have interest in waiting for war on drugs it may put a lot of things headlong so waiting for war well, thank you I know we have savings over and over again because we didn't know we could win this President Biden was talking about agriculture it's everything state-of-the-art it's all we have out there and we said we're going to improve the economy this year that's great but improving the economy is a great deal all the South Dakota I can tell you right now I said we want to but it doesn't create any more dollars we know we're having great troubles and I know the pleasure includes but it's still going to be tough and next Wednesday the state-of-the-Union message is absolutely imperative we touch on agriculture and we show the concern for agriculture in my case a man who was running against me the congressman in the house he's been chosen to comment on the wrath of a Democrat that we speak on the subject of agriculture and I can already hear if you failed at least and talk about it it is a very, very serious thing and I can't see that it's going to get any better when they tell me at least this year before the election still I was warm-blooded that both of them is happy for my state-of-the-art and for the state-of-the-Union it's the right thing to do especially if you can't be programmed to run for everything and agriculture is going to go there I just want to say I help hearing the baller down in Arizona a few a couple of weeks ago a couple of Democrats made a hearing they called me and it was good except in exchange with Van Roth the commissioner both of my colleagues they had papers with an exchange back and forth between OMB and customs that I don't like Van Roth but they didn't think about it they got some queer people someone in customs they didn't do some very, very severe cuts in customs we just put these P3s up in the air and they're not even going to be flying let me tell you about that we don't have enough money to keep airplanes in the air we're in the fight budget of what they'll do these P3s are kind of radar we're making a dent on this but now we're going to put our strength we move it somewhere else but that's extremely important and the last thing I want to mention we're going to cut programs and we have programs back to the state I have kind of I'm not this guy back here I have to deal with the unprogrammed but the one thing I think we ought to do is keep the restrictions and requirements and imagine when people who are less small as we can have a part of the state and we need all these different standards and tests that we've put to them I know you've come out for a block grant you've had the problems on the Hill but maybe now you can get somewhere blocking that way with less dollars that I'm sure all the members of the Congress are going to be hearing from their state governments and it may be awfully tough for the states to match the dollars we send back well I appreciate it I have to tell you from my own experience as governor there are many federal sharing programs and so forth there were more before we got done some good that as governor I put my finger on program after program where if we had been free of the hundreds and hundreds of pages of regulations imposed on us by the federal government we would have done the job better and saved a lot of money but I just want to I just want to tell you that yesterday I addressed the National Republican Committee here in the East Room and spoke to them the associates in there on the way out a very attractive young lady stepped up and grabbed my hand I thought she was going to say something nice about me she told me she was a fan of yours I will have to pay the last question Thank you Mr. President for having us down I have to be one of the ones that favor putting all the sacred cows under the tent of the Grand Residence I don't suppose that is going to happen but I think it may catch up a lot easier if we had the whole budget in there from a defense standpoint but there is one area I would like to just mention President Eisenhower was the president who started the general highways program and you are the president who built a fire in here and I think that you gained enormous support and politically Republicans have gained a lot more support from the highway lobby which reaches across all party lines and I think a lot of us in this room didn't realize I am very conscious of it because of the transportation subcommittee but if we are not careful we have set aside the sacred cows social security but the highway program is going to get massacred in Grand Residence and I am going to have to be in a position to take it out also unless the rest of you are going to put everything else back in the Grand Residence so you could end up for all of you that voted for the highway bill which I did we raised the tax 5 cents a gallon on the drivers and then we only give them back 2 cents a gallon and we use that 3 cents to help balance the federal budget and I think that Jim I have submitted some questions to you on that yesterday but I think there is a political downside to this and I just want to alert all of you that that is very important people are very sensitive about the funds that get back to their states from the highway because they are all paying for it and I hope you will look at that and one last thing in the west where we have these massive acreages of the feudal system and all this land out there I hope when you appoint your new Secretary of Agriculture and I think you have two outstanding candidates and Dick Lang and John Orton and I keep your rumors that they are going to pop and I can certainly as one person be happy with any one I hope you will emphasize that the Secretary of Agriculture needs to concentrate on what is happening in the US Forest Service because the Forest Service is getting filled up with environmentalists because they don't sell trees anymore we have been beat over the head of Canadian timber and we can't get forest plants out through that bureaucracy that provides an iraq product for our 300 rice almonds out in the west if we can get timber available we can compete with the Canadians but we are not making much head and I hope you will get that settled first when you get your new Secretary of Agriculture but that person is directed to spend some time on leading the Forest Service and of the danger of bridges and that one day we could have a great tragedy of collapse maybe with a screw bus on it or something and that it was to be used specifically for transportation we had to compromise a little with regard to the mass transit people on that but basically the tax was for that I agree I don't think that we should be trying to balance the budget on that Mr. President in fact of all of these fine public servers I want to say one thing in conclusion in 1985 a year ago in January this was a very able politically strong group but as we are here in January 1986 we have a much stronger group of incumbents than you and me had a year ago they worked hard but and your staff and Mitch Daniels and Don have also worked hard you have gone literally to the corners of the United States campaign for virtually all who have asked and we need you and I know you're going to do more and we would be however very poor guests at your breakfast this morning we did thank you not just for your hospitality this morning but for all your efforts and your staff efforts on our behalf and we thank you very much for your wonderful job you're going to visit here thank you I think we have we improve our chances greatly if we are seen as being united in the working time together rather than giving some oppressed people a chance to talk about views and fights and so forth because then we look at the people out there as if we're capable of governing since they had 50 years of the other side I think that would be a big plus so thank you all for coming and let's stay in touch we have to disagree some of us we have to agree we have to agree we have to agree we have to agree we have to agree we have to agree