 I know the law will be called for September 29th, and I'm not used to anybody doing things early. It's the Constitution Day today. So we thought we'd do that. I know it's also another day. It's the, I know the 198th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, but it's also the 39th anniversary of your 39th birthday. Right. It's not really a gift, it's just a little souvenir of the occasion here. We'll have many copies of these very sharply over for distribution within your own staff, and I think we'll be sending copies to, if you don't object, to all the members of the agency heads, and of course some of the speakers and vice-presidents and all of them. Listen, I think they want us to come in and sit down here in a good atmosphere. We decided that the menace will use the day and the occasion. Do they see the entire Constitution in the back of this place? It's a little hard to read, though. I think, of course, this is wonderful, and I think the 200th that's coming up is, I made it a point to read a number of constitutions I've been able to read, including the Soviet Constitution. I was surprised to find that there's some terms in there and things that they're guaranteed to their people, sings in ours. Exactly. Except that they have never implemented them or let them have those freedoms. In 77, I was over in the Soviet Union on a personal invitation which Brezhnev had attended, and given an email, I was here at a White House dinner before him, and when we had our session in his office in Kremlin, I gave him a very special copy of our Constitution. He said, oh, we have one now, a new one, just like yours, just like yours. It's about that thick. And I didn't cross-examine. I thought I was a guest, and I'd better be a little polite. But then I suggested to him that he could have saved himself a lot of work to just take ours and copy it. Then I presented him with a facsimile of the inkwell that was used to sign the Constitution. I don't know if it registered with him at any rate. We had a little funnel bridge. Well, you know what? I can't claim that I've read all the constitutions in the world, but I read enough that I believe. Hello, President. Let's go back to North Carolina. Hey, Jack. I think we're going to have to sit for a minute or so. Hello, Jack. What are you doing here? I'll tell you the front. We've got a thunderous ovation at MC State University. Two weeks ago, a third. Temperature changed a little bit together. It's a little warm here. I'm still trying to get used to students' cheerleaders. They burned me and effigy then. These kids were judgmental. Cheerleaders. I had told them outside. I did that. They said, what did that mean? I told them, that's deaf language where I live. They said, great. What does that mean? I thought they were giving them fingers. I don't know what I mean, I don't know what I mean. I did. I returned it. If I was those cheerleaders right down in front, I didn't get the sign. Oh, they got delighted with that. 18 September 1985. This is a meeting with the president and the speechwriters in the Oval Office, right on camera. Right on record. I have a care budget. And there was one of all things that I've never seen in there. If I was holding up a sign, break off relations with abandoned Israel. But no, they were most enthusiastic. It was a very rewarding experience there. So if you got your distance in Boston to you, you were going to have a few of them. Probably came down from the bottom. Mr. President, this is just to get together with the speechwriters. And we thought it would be advantageous for them and for you. Maybe there would be sort of an interchange here. You could speak your mind on what she wanted in some of these speeches in terms of trolley spending, trade, animal, east-west relations, foreign policy generally, whatever it is that you just tell them what you want to see in those speeches. Well, first of all, I'm dissatisfied. But I've always, years passed out there in the mashed potato circuit, I've always believed that specificity is the soul of credibility. And by that, I mean we're possible where something of fact and figure can be used instead of eloquent appeals and rhetoric. And maybe I've subjected you to this one before, but I remembered years ago when I was talking about big government and this was long before I was any part of government and thought I ever would be. But I remember an example once, an old farm program. And believe me, back there, it was just as controversial as it is now, just as harmful. Now, you're going to go on for a whole page talking about freeing the farmers and what should be done there. But I got one figure example that did it all. And that was that, if I remember correctly, the numbers that I had found. That was that there were six farm programs, federal programs, to encourage poultry raisers to increase egg production. There was a seventh government program to finance the government purchase of surplus eggs. Well, I think that tells it all. I found another one like it was, a country club that had some landed on to just alongside a couple of its fairways. And it wasn't used at least to a farmer who raised corn on there. And then the country club got to the place where they decided to use that land and extend the fairways and two holes longer and all of that. They got a check from the government for taking corn land out of production. This is great. Hi, Mr. President. How are you? Good to see you. Good to see you. Thank you. Good to see you. Chairman, how are you doing? Good to see you. You're offering my wife as a recommendation. I'm glad that that. My wife is going into the whole antique business. The bank is giving her a problem. You know, they take the chair. They go, oh, Mr. Baker, will that be enough? At first they had to give way to Mr. Baker. She says, I think maybe I could get a letter from the president. It might take a little longer. Would that be as effective as they gave you? Listen, mom, I want to hear from you, but this thing, you know how I feel about the tax reform when I just come from hearing tens of thousands of people in a mass outdoor rally cheering wildly every time I mention it and every facet of it. And I know what you're doing and I appreciate very much the cooperation. What I'm concerned about very much is, and I know the leadership has talked about maybe having to go home before we can do this when that means next year. But I think there's something we have to consider politically. Danny Rastinkowski is working as hard as he can to get this thing out. The worst thing in the world that could happen to us for next year is to have the Democratic-dominated House pass a tax reform bill and have the Republican-dominated Senate go home on recess, leaving it there until next year and how they would use that against us. Let me tell you where we are, because I think we can do it. I have said in the past, get it to me by October 15, we can make it this year. Really, I can do it even if I don't get it till 1st of November. Assuming that the Congress stays in, if Tip O'Neill and Bob decide to go home Thanksgiving in the adjourn, then I can't make it, but presumably they would keep us in for the tax bill. Or at a minimum, let the people go home and leave the committees there. Let the committees work on it and go to Congress when we have to call the Senate back. We can get it if they don't go. What I'm worried about, more importantly, is trade. Because if I were the Democrats, what I would do is put a barrier. I'd like to briefly describe the current approach towards being per diem, and then also outline the legislation that we're proposing for your approval. First of all, as far as the current system is concerned, we really have today a two-tier system for some 400 high-cost cities. We're reimbursing the federal travelers for its actual cost for meals and lodging up to a ceiling of $75 per day. It's a very expensive, very paper-intensive program overall. For the smaller cities, we're reimbursing the federal travelers for its actual cost for lodging and providing a flat rate $23 a day for meals up to a ceiling, an overall ceiling in those cities of $50 per day. Any change that we make in the ceiling requires a congressional approval. Just to put it in perspective, the total travel cost food and lodging for the cities all through with similar legislation. I think there are really three major issues that we need to deal with and three problems that we're having overall. The administrative costs in the system are too high. We're spending $160 million a year administering food lodging in the whole per diem system. That's roughly 10% of the budget for food and lodging. The problem we have is very paper-intensive. Yes, what was President, I would like to have you in this scope be a very thoughtful reading type, study type post. No, I've never seen you with your hand to your face, right? You do, you do it across your legs and you do anything like that but here, when you read your hand and study, I'm not trying to say that. I'm usually great. Just like you're this, yeah? Or I can turn. You can turn this way. Cross your neck. That's it. That's it. All right. If you don't want us to feel right, but if you do a thought and do a little bit of the window just for your body in that position but look towards the window because if you're just in a thoughtful type of balance, I'd also like to have you just very thoughtful. Right about it here. If you'd like to be looking towards the window, be looking in that direction. If you just have a, if you just be looking as if you were really here, there you are. I don't want to take it. I don't want to take it. I don't want to take it. My hand has a hand. No, it's okay. It's all right. If the light comes out, if it, if we get good color, it's okay. I can look at it. Oh. It's an ocular case. And on the way, I just said that I'm the first president I made in this place was truly, what is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this?