. . . the little . . . by joining the little countries [unclear]—[buzzer sounds]—and taking young people who’ll go [unclear].

[Unclear.]

But . . .

[Unclear]—

Looking at it [unclear] in this office, [unclear].

[Unclear], thank you.

I haven’t spent . . . [Richard] Goodwin spent one day on the [LBJ] Ranch with . . . the ranch surrounding it, because we were going down—I was going to the University of Texas, and I wanted him like [Ted] Sorensen to have a chance to see the ranch, like I had George [Reedy] down, like I’ve had you down. He’s one that had never seen it and is working. Had him down.

Yeah? Yes, sir.

Well, the pay bill has passed: 243–157.

Congratulations! Congratulations! That’s wonderful. 243 to 157.

That’s right.

All right, now that—

I’m meeting here with a mutual friend of ours who just walked in off the floor. I’d like to have him say hello to you.

I want to talk to him, but wait just a minute now. That gives you your . . . That gives you your tax bill, your civil rights bill, your farm bill, your pay bill. Now, you get me a rule on poverty next week, and we’re really moving. When you going to get it reported in the Senate, your pay bill?

Well, we’ll . . . [Johnson attempts to speak]. Things [have] been getting a little sticky over there, you know.

Mike Monroney told me this morning the vote’s 72 against 10,000 [dollars].[note 2] Mike Monroney was a Democratic senator from Oklahoma. He had met with the President earlier in the day. The original version of the federal employees pay bill had included $10,000 congressional, Cabinet, and judicial pay raises, but the resubmitted version of the bill cut the raise to $7,500 in order to blunt opposition to the bill. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1964, vol. 20, pp. 416-19.Mike Monroney was a Democratic senator from Oklahoma. He had met with the President earlier in the day. The original version of the federal employees pay bill had included $10,000 congressional, Cabinet, and judicial pay raises, but the resubmitted version of the bill cut the raise to $7,500 in order to blunt opposition to the bill. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1964, vol. 20, pp. 416–19.

Well, he . . .

And O[lin]—

It’s [unclear] that he’s done a good job of lobbying the damn committee.

All right, that’s what he told me. He was in here and said they’d never report 10,000. I told him they had to, we committed to.

Yeah.

But Olin Johnston called me and wanted to name a big Cabinet officer or sub–Cabinet officer. I told him we had no vacancy, but then he said he’s going to get the bill out, and I said, “When?” He said, “Pretty soon.” I said, “Please do it this week.” I called Mike and asked— Mike Mansfield—and asked him to try to come in a little later and let them have a morning or two this week to report this pay bill now before the opposition builds up to it.

Yeah, yeah.

Let me talk to who—who you got there?

Wilbur Mills.

Wonderful, wonderful!

I’ll put him right on, Mr. President.

All right, are you going—are y’all going to come to see me together, or are you going to wait sometime?

Well, we’ll see—

All right.

—they just walked in. They just finished the roll call, so we haven’t chatted yet.

All right. . . . All right, OK.

Yes, sir. You feeling all right?

I’m just feeling good. Did your wife ever get all right?[note 3] Clarine “Polly” Mills had been ill for several months.Gordon Gray had held Bundy’s position in the Eisenhower administration.

[with the President acknowledging] Oh, she’s able to do some things. Still not back completely yet, but she’s a lot better.

I went up to Massachusetts yesterday and had a . . .

Glad to see you were up there.

Had a mighty good meeting.

Did you see the little Negro girl from Little Rock that was here yesterday?[note 4] Johnson was referring to Jacquelyn Faye Evans, who had received one of the presidential scholar awards given at a White House reception the previous day. Evans had been one of the small group of African American students who in 1960 had integrated Little Rock High School under the protection of federal troops. She had earned straight A’s and won a scholarship to Radcliffe College. “ ’A Nourishing of Excellence,’ “ Time, 12 June 1964, p. 59.Johnson was almost certainly referring to the recently released 1964 Republican campaign platform, which stated that “we will insure that an effective planning and operations staff is restored to the National Security Council.” “Foreign and Domestic GOP Planks,” Washington Post, 13 July 1964. Upon taking office in 1961, Bundy and President Kennedy had drastically reshaped the National Security Council and its staff, increasing its role in foreign policymaking, usurping significant authority from the State Department, and effectively raising the agency to Cabinet level. Bundy’s most significant structural changes consisted of the elimination of the NSC’s Planning Board and Operations Coordinating Board, both of which had been created under President Eisenhower. Andrew Preston, “The Little State Department: McGeorge Bundy and the National Security Council Staff, 1961–65,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 31:4 (December 2001): 635–59.

No . . . Bill Fulbright and I were supposed to have had lunch with them yesterday or the day before—yesterday—and neither one of us could attend.[note 5] J. William Fulbright was a Democratic senator from Arkansas.Tape WH6406.11, Citation #3784, Recordings of Telephone Conversations—White House Series, Recordings and Transcripts of Conversations and Meetings, Lyndon B. Johnson Library. We had to send our administrative assistants to eat with them. But they were both—both of them were very much impressed with all three of these—

You sure would have been proud of Arkansas.

Yeah.

Now, just . . . you and Bill Fulbright, and the Rhodes scholar, and the Harvard graduate, why, you’d have looked a—that little girl was integrating the first group, and I was out there last night about 10:30 when they about finished up. Lady Bird and I went out to tell them good night and thank them for coming, and she was on the front row right with “A” begins with Arkansas, and . . . I talked to her, and she was as cultured as she can be and smart as a whip, and I was real proud of her.

Well, she—I understand, she’s smart as a—

Well, you had—

—[unclear] three.

You had three.

Yes, two of them were [unclear].

You know, we hear a lot about football players.

Yeah.

But the old boy got up last night telling a little joke, and he said, “Well, I’m so proud to come down here and give my talent.” But said, “Heretofore, I’ve always given it to the heroes, the football players.” And said, “They’re back home driving beer trucks now.” And said, “I’m glad to be out here with the people who are going to own the city.” [Laughs.]

Now, incidentally, we’re coming up Wednesday and Thursday this week, I understand, on our excise and debt ceiling.[note 6] Mills was referring to the upcoming House votes on bills authorizing a one-year extension of the federal excise tax and a $9 billion increase in the federal debt limit. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1964, vol. 20, pp. 540, 582.See Johnson to Bill Moyers, 6:03 p.m., 23 April 1964, in Guian A. McKee, ed., The Presidential Recordings, Lyndon B. Johnson: Toward the Great Society, February 1, 1964–May 31, 1964, vol. 6, April 14, 1964–May 31, 1964 (New York: Norton, 2007), pp. 191–99; “R. F. Kennedy to Speak at W. Berlin Dedication,” Washington Post, 20 May 1964; Arthur J. Olsen, “Kennedy Renews Pledge to Berlin; 70,000 See Attorney General Unveil Memorial Plaque,” New York Times, 27 June 1964.

We got a list from you, and we’re going to work that list very care—

Well, I think we’re in good shape, fairly good shape on all that. There’s some of them that maybe you can touch that none of the rest of us could do . . . not that whole list, now, I don’t want to worry you with all that because Larry and Walter [Jenkins] and the rest of them can make some of them. [President Johnson covers the telephone receiver, muffling his voice.] But I’ve picked up some that I had on the list already.

[Makes a muffled, unclear comment to someone in the office.] Wilbur?

Yes.

I got a poll in Vermont that I’ve just looked at, and do you know what my weakest point is?

What is it?

We’ve done nothing for the old folks.

I know it, now. We’ve got—

It’s not on any particular part of the old folks, all the old folks, and I’ve got two—

Yeah. . . . [Unclear] do something about it. Now, I’ve got in mind that this cash benefit increase is going to be worth a whole lot, and then, too, I want to lower the age—and I’ve already talked to the Secretary about it—for widows only where they can begin drawing a benefit at age 60, which suits him all right, he said.[note 7] Mills was probably referring to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Anthony Celebrezze, or possibly Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz. As passed by the House of Representatives, the Social Security Amendments of 1964 would have granted a 5 percent increase in monthly Social Security payments. The amendments were adopted after the Ways and Means Committee on 24 June delayed a vote on Medicaid for the year. Later in the summer, the Senate passed the Medicare bill, but a conference committee was unable to work out a compromise between the two Social Security—related bills, leading to the demise for the year of both Medicare and the Social Security Amendments. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1964, vol. 20, pp. 234—40.Dorothy McCardle, “Her Buddhist Mother Deplores Mme. Nhu’s Acts,” Washington Post, 24 August 1963. For Nhu’s letter objecting to an initial rejection of her visa application, see “Madam Ngô Đình Nhu to the Honorable Dean Rusk,” no date, “Folder 6: Vietnam Memos Vol. XII: 6/14–27/64,” Country File: Vietnam, Box 5, National Security File, Lyndon B. Johnson Library. They’d draw on an actuarially reduced amount, which wouldn’t cost any more. Labor would go along with that. They don’t like to have us do it if it’s going to cost any more.

And then, too, I want to set up a category under public assistance— you think about it—of aid to widows who are 50 years, 55, something like that or older, who are unemployed.

Mm–hmm.

Now, we’ve got a provision in the Aid to Dependent Children to take care of the unemployed father.[note 8] Mills was referring to the Aid to Families With Dependent Children—Unemployed Parent (AFDC-UP) program, which extended eligibility for the primary federal welfare program to any unemployed parent, whether male or female. It had been established in 1961. Previously, AFDC had covered only families with a dead or absent parent (usually male). Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 87th Cong., 1st sess., 1961, vol. 17 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1962), pp. 280—82.The stated purpose of Madame Nhu’s visit was a book tour, although the topic of her proposed speech to a conservative group in Flushing, Long Island, was “The Truth of the Viet-Nam Affair.” Abba P. Schwartz, “Memorandum For: The Secretary; Subject: Impending application by Madame Nhu for a visitor’s visa,” 11 June 1964, “Folder 6: Vietnam Memos Vol. XII: 6/14–27/64,” Country File: Vietnam, Box 5, National Security File, Lyndon B. Johnson Library. You remember that?

Mm–hmm, mm–hmm.

[with the President acknowledging] We did that just a year or two ago. This is a . . . would be a state program in which the state would start it. We would participate just like we do with old–age assistance.

But I think one of the most serious problems we’ve got is the problem of the woman who’s left a widow at 50, 55, 60 years of age [the President whispers “OK” to someone] who’s never had a job, wouldn’t know how to go about getting one. Nobody wants her, and she can’t be trained to anything. Now, what’s she going to do, die before she can get her Social Security at 62? That’s her present question. And I want to—whatever we do on Social Security, I want to put some things like that in this year. I believe it would help us.

And find some way to do something on [the] medical thing. Just a little.

Well, that’s [unclear] up to [Robert M.] Ball, now, on—[note 9] Robert M. Ball served as commissioner of the Social Security Administration and was deeply involved in the negotiations over the Medicare bill. Along with Mills, Ball was one of the leading experts on the Social Security system. Edward D. Berkowitz, Robert Ball and the Politics of Social Security (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003).Frederic G. Dutton was assistant secretary of state for congressional relations. For a draft State Department telegram indicating that the application would be approved, subject to White House approval, see Benjamin H. Read to McGeorge Bundy (and attached telegram), 15 June 1964, “Folder 6: Vietnam Memos Vol. XII: 6/14–27/64,” Country File: Vietnam, Box 5, National Security File, Lyndon B. Johnson Library.

Well, you’ve got—if you go for it, you got 13 votes and—

Yeah.

—[can] probably get 14. Right, Democrats. You get 14 out of 15 Democrats, that’s about as strong as you’ll ever get.[note 10] Johnson was referring to Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, which had jurisdiction over the administration’s Medicare bill.Johnson was referring to State Department Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs Administrator Abba P. Schwartz. Although willing to accept a denial of Nhu’s visa application, Schwartz had actually recommended that the visa be granted on the grounds that on 14 November 1963 President Kennedy had publicly stated that the United States would allow Madame Nhu to return to the country at her request, as well as “our policy of allowing free discussion of all viewpoints.” Schwartz, “Memorandum For: The Secretary; Subject: Impending application by Madame Nhu for a visitor’s visa,” 11 June 1964; and “Excerpt from President Kennedy’s Press Conference,” 14 November 1963, “Folder 6: Vietnam Memos Vol. XII: 6/14–27/64,” Country File: Vietnam, Box 5, National Security File, Lyndon B. Johnson Library.

Let me read you this. “Providing jobs: favorable, 59. Selected national issues, their importance, and President Johnson’s job rating on them.” This was taken in June ’64 by Oliver Quayle, a survey of the presidential race in Michigan.[note 11] Oliver Quayle was a prominent pollster whose work was frequently employed by the White House. Robert Dallek, Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times 1961—1973 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).A few days after the Kennedy assassination, Madame Nhu sent Jacqueline Kennedy a letter in which she compared the U.S. President’s assassination to that of her husband Ngô Đình Nhu and his brother, South Vietnamese President Ngô Đinh Diệm, and stated that the First Lady’s “ordeal might seem to you even more unbearable because of your habitually well-sheltered life.” “Mrs. Nhu Recalls Saigon Coup in a Message to Mrs. Kennedy,” New York Times, 25 November 1963. Now, I want to just give you a summary, but I believe . . . I believe a good deal of this. [Pauses]

Let me ask you—

“Johnson, all voters, 57; [Henry Cabot] Lodge, 43.” This is Michigan. “Johnson–Nixon, 60; Johnson, 60, Nixon, 40. Johnson, 84, [Barry] Goldwater, 16.” Now, that is . . . that is in Michigan in June. Now, they say, “Give us the issues and how you rank him.” “To provide jobs”—I guess that’s our tax bill and other things—“59, favorable, 41, unfavorable. Lowering taxes: 67, favorable; 33, unfavorable. Keeping the economy healthful: 71, favorable, 29, unfavorable. Working for peace and disarmament: 74 and 26. Handling [Nikita] Khrushchev and the Russians: 61, 39. Maintaining a strong defense: 76, 24. Obtaining unity among our allies: 54, 46. Supporting the United Nations: 73, 27. [deliberately] More help for older people: 43, favorable, 57, unfavorable.”

Yeah. Mm–hmm. May be true of us everywhere.

“Congressional reform: favorable, 43; 57, unfavorable. Latin American relations: 52, favorable; 48, unfavorable. Handling Panama: 66 to 34. Catching the Russians in space: 63 to 37.” That’s what I’ve been strong on, you see. But more help for older people—that’s Michigan.

[to someone in the office] Do you know what day in June?

What day?

The last ten days [unclear].

I’ve got two that are coming out Sunday, June the 14th from Gallup.[note 12] George Gallup ran the nation’s most prominent polling organization. Madame Nhu had been on a speaking tour of the United States at the time of her husband and brother-in-law’s assassination. Ibid. And what people like and what they dislike. “Handling civil rights, 6 percent, dislike; handling foreign policy, 4 percent; poverty, 2 percent dislike; personal conduct: driving fast, pulling dogs’ ears [Mills chuckles], et cetera. Bobby Baker”—that, this is a major part of the Republican campaign—“2 percent dislike it. Nothing I dislike, 68 percent.” [Laughs, and Mills joins in.]

That’s pretty good.

What they like: “His personality, 20; experience, 10; dynamic approach, 8; War on Poverty, 5; domestic policies, generally, 34; other answers, 14; no opinion, 4. Is there anything you particularly like about the President? What? Is there anything you particularly dislike? [reading quickly] Chief among the lists of strong likes are his personality, his character, he’s admired, honesty, friendly, dignity, as well as for desire to help everyone. The reasons cited second [unclear] most often [by] this group are those who have helped sustain the President’s high popularity ever since he took office after the death of Kennedy. These are his political experience, his dynamic approach to the job, his carrying out the Kennedy policies. Specific programs, policies [of the] Johnson administration such as civil rights, foreign policy, come high on the list. The following tables show the percentage of persons who voiced particular likes and dislikes,” and then that lists them.

“Percent President Johnson’s popularity holds steady in the latest survey and that shows: approve, 74” . . . No—“latest figures in the trend since Johnson: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Johnson’s handling the job: Approve, 79; disapprove, 3; no opinion, 18.”

That’s unbelievable, isn’t it?

Yes, it is. On this thing, now, here’s what I’ve been trying to do: is to get something that we could say was so different from the [Cecil] King bill itself that those of us who have repeatedly said we wouldn’t vote for the King bill could vote for it.[note 13] Representative Cecil R. King, a California Democrat, had sponsored the administration’s Medicare bill in the House. New Mexico Democrat Clinton Anderson had sponsored it in the Senate, and it was commonly referred to as the King-Anderson bill. Mills and others on the Ways and Means Committee had opposed the bill. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1964, vol. 20, p. 232.Tape WH6406.11, Citation #3785, Recordings of Telephone Conversations—White House Series, Recordings and Transcripts of Conversations and Meetings, Lyndon B. Johnson Library.

That’s exactly right. That’s what you’ve got to do, if you ever make it acceptable.

That’s right. Now, I’m going to lay it hold for a week, think about it some more, and give the departments an opportunity to think with me, and have these excise taxes on the 15th, 16th, and possibly the morning of the 17th. Then the excise tax bill and the debt ceiling bill on the floor Wednesday and Thursday of next week, so we’ll be busy anyway.

Mm–hmm.[note 14] The Presidential Recordings Program revised the following section of text in 2021 for inclusion in The LBJ Telephone Tapes, a project produced by the Miller Center in partnership with the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library to commemorate the library's 50th anniversary.

We’ll get back on this Social Security bill, then, the 22nd of June, and I’m going to wind it up that week to where we can have it reported, whatever it is, and ready for House action, perhaps even before the Republican convention.[note 15] The Republican National Convention was set to begin on 13 July in San Francisco.After surgery to remove the tumor, Robert Humphrey made a full recovery. Robert Mann, The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1996), pp. 427–28. We can decide on that, whether we take it up before or after. But we can get—we can wrap—we’ve got most of our language written so that there won’t be a long delay from the time we make our final decision, and we—

If you do that, that’ll do more for us this year than any other single thing that we’ll do except your tax bill, and that’s already behind us. But [Mills acknowledges] it’ll be the most positive, affirmative, future thing that we’ll have. And—

Well, now, let me ask you this to get your judgment on it.

I’d rank it number one.

If we pass—if I can’t get something that I can get more than 13 votes on—I told you in the beginning, and I thought you and I both felt that it ought to get more than that—[note 16] Mills was referring to his desire to have more than a minimum 13-12 majority on the House Ways and Means Committee for a major bill such as Medicare. For a discussion of this position and its implications, see Earle Clements to Johnson, 4:18 p.m., 11 June 1964, in this chapter.Mills was referring to his desire to have more than a minimum 13–12 majority on the House Ways and Means Committee for a major bill such as Medicare. For a discussion of this position and its implications, see Earle Clements to Johnson, 4:18 p.m., 11 June 1964, in this chapter.

God, what percentage you want, 13 out of 15? That’s 90 percent, isn’t it?

Yeah, but I mean 13 out of 25.

Oh, no! No, no. Well, you don’t ever expect to get the Republicans. They’re going to be against any proposal I make. All of them against poverty. Every single one of them.

But they’re not always against Social Security. I’ve got them in a bind if they vote against reporting this bill.

They won’t always be against the other either, if you ever give them a taste of it. I’ll tell you this: they all voted against Social Security when we enacted it—[note 17] Medicare would be an extension of the broad Social Security program.Medicare would be an extension of the broad Social Security program.

I know.

—when we started it, but they won’t do it if you give them a taste of it.

No, I know that. And they all want to be for these cash benefits, you see.

Mm–hmm.

This increase in cash benefits, and that’s going to—that too is very helpful. The Secretary said yesterday in the committee before we quit that what we’re talking about is the last—this three-prong approach, he calls it, which would have some hospitalizations connected with Social Security, this cash benefit increase, plus improvements of the Kerr-Mills [Act]. [Unclear]—[note 18] Mills was referring to a compromise proposal apparently made by HEW Secretary Celebrezze. Sponsored by Wilbur Mills and Oklahoma Senator Robert Kerr, the Kerr-Mills Act had been passed by Congress in 1960. It established a program of federal matching grants to state programs that provided means-tested health care coverage for the indigent elderly who could not meet their medical bills but who did not qualify for public assistance. The Kerr-Mills Act gave states discretion about coverage levels, eligibility requirements, and whether to create a program at all. By 1965, nine states had not passed the state programs that could receive Kerr-Mills funds, and most of the remaining states provided highly limited benefits under the program. Julian Zelizer, Taxing America: Wilbur D. Mills, Congress, and the State, 1945—1975 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).Mills was referring to a compromise proposal apparently made by HEW Secretary Celebrezze. Sponsored by Wilbur Mills and Oklahoma Senator Robert Kerr, the Kerr-Mills Act had been passed by Congress in 1960. It established a program of federal matching grants to state programs that provided means-tested health care coverage for the indigent elderly who could not meet their medical bills but who did not qualify for public assistance. The Kerr-Mills Act gave states discretion about coverage levels, eligibility requirements, and whether to create a program at all. By 1965, nine states had not passed the state programs that could receive Kerr-Mills funds, and most of the remaining states provided highly limited benefits under the program. Julian Zelizer, Taxing America: Wilbur D. Mills, Congress, and the State, 1945–1975 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

I’d be for all three of those, if you could put that fourth one in on it, your 13. If you didn’t, I’d wait till I could get them all together, because I think if you don’t, why, you just murder the other one, and I think the other one’s what’s got the sex appeal.[note 19] Although Johnson’s meaning is somewhat uncertain in this passage, he appears to be referring (here and in the exchange with Mills about the Senate that follows) to the necessity of including hospitalization provisions in any compromise legislative package. Removal of the “sex appeal” of hospitalization insurance would “murder” the overall Medicare bill to such an extent that the Senate would not even consider it. See Zelizer, Taxing America, pp. 225—26.

They have—Now, if we didn’t put it in, what—would the Senate put it in?

I don’t think so.

You don’t?

I think that—I don’t—I doubt they’d ever even take it up. I imagine if you don’t get that out till July the 1st, I’ll have to get them back here between conventions to handle it.[note 20] The Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey, would begin on 24 August. And I just—I would do that if you had it, ’cause I think it’s the best thing that we can have for 50 states, and I’ve been in a good many of them, and I’m going to a bunch more this weekend.

When I get back next week from California, I will have been in states that have a hundred million population in the first six months of this year. Like yesterday in Massachusetts, like the day before in Pennsylvania. And when I get through with Michigan and California—I’ve already been to Michigan and to California, too—when I get through with them, this last run, I’ll have a hundred million. My judgment is, that is by far the most popular thing that we’ve ever touched and will do us more good than all the other put together. And I’d put taxes and civil rights and poverty and education bills, all of which we will have passed—I don’t think they’re this one’s comparison.

You remember what President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt said: "You don’t get any mileage politically out of taxes."

Well, I think we are, because we’re having prosperity.[note 21] End of 2021 revisions.

Well, that part, yes, but . . .

I think if you’ve got—I think that you’ve got . . . you’ve got unemployment down to 2.6 [percent] for married men. [Mills acknowledges] So 97.4 married men have jobs, and by God, they show it. Yesterday I saw 200,000 in Worcester, Massachusetts. Every single one of them, Wilbur, were frown—were smiling. Now, when I was here in Hoover’s administration, they were frowning and cussing and spitting. But they were all smiling yesterday, and you can sure get a . . . and if you hadn’t have passed that tax bill, and hadn’t passed a good one, why, we wouldn’t have that kind of a sentiment.

Well, I agree with you.

Look at this poll, now, in six months that I come in, a Democratic administration before an election: December, 79; January, 80; February, 75; March, 73; May, 75; June, 74. Now, we’ve run from 79 to 74 in 6 months, of all this hectic—problem, and that—the reason it is, people are happy with the prosperity.

You find that no matter where you go, don’t you?

Yes, sir; every place. And if you’ll give me that bill, I’ll underwrite it, and I’ll give you 25, 50 more Democrats too. You just give me the one you were talking about the other day, and . . . you just— I think we can get 14 out of your 15; that’s about as unanimous you can get on anything that’s controversial.[note 22] Johnson was referring, once again, to votes on the Ways and Means Committee. Then I think that you can get 250 votes out there in the House proper, maybe more. I think you’ll get 40 or 50 from their side.

Oh, I can get more than that.

And, if you—

[Unclear.]

If you get . . . if you get this moderate thing that you’re talking about, we’ll go to town, and we’ll improve it as the years go on, but that’ll be the biggest day you ever had and you ever did for your country, I can tell you that. And all these other things are important, but that’s the important one.

Well, we’re still working.

OK.

Fine.

Bye.

Bye.