Conversation 857-004

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

All right.

Well, let's get all the environmentalists over here.

Let's see, we'll put them here.

There you go.

I appreciate the comment.

They're going to say it all later.

Well, I'll come back in a little bit.

I'm going to have to get a part of this team in place.

And I'm going to have to come to go to the dock.

And it's not just going to be clear.

I'm going to have to go back to the station.

I'm going to have to go to the dock.

And I'm going to have to go to the dock.

I'm going to have to go to the dock.

It's a seal.

Well, the purpose of this is to, of course,

What is the trust that you all are going to try to set?

Well, we're going to try to make the major points that your interest in land management, in the area of land use planning, and in the area of mineral development through a whole new ethic.

mining.

Those are the big ones.

And then we've got some basic conservation elements of endangered species and parks and that sort of thing.

But the major, I think the major thrust as far as we're concerned in the interior is in land use planning and in the old development of the mining ethic in key areas.

Let me come back to something.

Basically, in 1970, the major financial thrust, of course, was water and sewer mines.

Yeah, that's right.

The major, that from there on, we came up with around 70 people on the air.

Of course, 70 had everything in it, but it's like everybody's talking about those musketeers, I guess, for water, and now we're going to be here.

Of course, we're working on the sea.

Is this, are you suggesting that in addition to going forward with what we're doing,

in terms of what is new, what is a new trust is our land management.

Really, I thought it was the lead.

That's what I'm trying to look at.

The lead is more insistence on one position that you've already taken rather than overlay of anything

Every one of these bills have addressed themselves to the problems that you already have.

This is a rerun in that sense.

But I think we ought to put more emphasis.

I don't see how this is going to come out.

The press and the Congress will attack on the basis that we are cutting back on the funds, or that we're not spending them.

You, of course, have a good answer on that.

We're spending a hell of a lot.

And the better answer to that is, well, we're not spending as much as the Congress wants, but it's certainly as much as can be absorbed in the rest.

But the better answer to that is, if there is anything that has a new trust, I mean, when you talk about land management, it's just getting the whole business

Sure, the power plant siting aspect of it.

No one in Paris, though, has stated responsibility.

It is to encourage them to exercise their responsibility.

That's the thrust.

It is not federal intrusion.

And, of course, Mr. President, as far as building is concerned, this is all new money, and it's all in your budget.

I mean, the money for the land use bill, the money for mine, the land active money for...

What can you say about the budget for the environment this year?

Is it basically a basement counter budget, or is it still a budget that is actually, as far as we're concerned, an interior?

Of course, we have no problem with it because not a single one of our environment...

I think we could say that we, let's first tackle budget problems.

That, you know, there's a debate about budget, because there has to be a limitation.

The views of the Congress can't say this.

The President must subtract.

But in this case, we are not subtracting.

you're not subtracting men, of course, or sons, but say we should spend much more.

But on the other hand, this is, you could say, it's a full-thrust budget or not an adequate one.

It's too weak in terms.

I think you should say that we're not sure that the environment cannot be, that that's why the budget in terms of clean air, clean water, land use, and the rest is one of them.

that moves forward in a very positive way to accomplish our objectives.

And the reason that the environmental budget is one of the stronger elements of our budget is that the environment is one field that you can't put in the back burner.

It will be too late.

Did you say something like that?

Sure.

It's a new money budget.

I mean, this is one that you're, yes, that is, there's some elements of the budget where you're not providing for money because the budget restrains.

I get that.

Here we have an area where we do provide for budgets because as the President indicated in January of the first in California that this is an area where we can't just wait for four or five years.

Here's also an accurate word.

The money that we spent is money that has proved to be useful to spend.

In other words, that is for the most part.

Basically, this is money spent on hard projects rather than soft projects.

This is money where money stands for the results.

We have learned in our environmental programs that where the money we spend in these areas produces results, and therefore it is one where we are not coming back.

It is one where we are going forward.

It can be well contended, of course, that you can go forward with more, but because of the enormous demand,

For example, even in the water area that we have placed on the existing manufacturing facilities, spending more would be simply more expensive than what we said.

Yes, I think that point that you make is right.

That's what you all...

I think the thing we're making progress.

Yeah.

I think that's right.

It began with the proposition that the last four years, that this great environmental thrust began in the year 1969.

And frankly, it began in January of 79.

And the last four years, you would say, really January of 79.

Well, it began in January of 79.

And these last three and a half, three years that we've seen,

in many instances not unnoticed, but we've seen a great movement forward.

We have tackled the problem of the environment, the battle of the environment, which we're losing.

And we have turned the tide.

And now we're winning.

And we're going to continue to win because of the budget.

And that's why this budget.

And we have also been on the money in our expenditures over these last three years on the environment.

case where dollars spent produce results that we can see.

That's why this is not an area where we're cutting back or cutting out.

It's an area where we're going forward.

Is that a correct statement?

Yes, that is.

The only trouble is that Congress has said we've spent $11 billion.

We only spent $5.

But the way it's done is the way it's done in your statement.

It says, look, we've increased spending pursuant to the treatment plan 15-fold over the last four years.

That's right.

And also, the question to find is that when you go to

our so-called grant program, beyond what the manufacturing facilities can produce, that all it creates is inefficiency in the rest.

The best kind of plant may not even have been conceived yet, manufactured.

Some of them are obsolete that we can buy, not where it won't stand.

But then let's come to the more esoteric things, which I think are frankly more important.

The land use, you know, making the country more beautiful.

We've got, of course, clean water, you know, and all that, clean air, you know, like Joe did.

But people want to see this country housing land at all.

And I know we've got the problems with our farmers and the rest, but the land use thing, which is your deal, let's be very positive on that.

We're not going to let America be despoiled.

We want to, because we see these, like I said, in the United States, we see in our deal that it's come back speaking to them.

It was such a heartwarming feeling about America, this beautiful country.

We want to remember it is beautiful, but our land is from the major trust here.

In addition to continuing our water program, in addition to continuing our clean air program and our clean water program, that we're going to move forward on the program of

Well, basically, Russ is the old, all of us, old concubations, let's say, of conserving and renewing the natural beauty of America so that people, generations ahead, say, we, these four, in our time, that we turned the tide at a time when it seemed to be that this battle was being lost.

I think, to tell you the truth, people, you can.

average person doesn't give a damn about the clean water, you understand?

It is, you know what I mean, unless the water's pure and all that kind of thing.

The average person doesn't give a damn about clean air unless he happens to live in a city where there's a problem, and that's with all of them.

There's a lot of cities in this country, and that's why 75% of the people in this country don't give one damn about clean air.

They don't care about any of the floor.

Not at all.

There's no slob in the floor.

Because it's flat.

They care about it in Los Angeles.

They care about it in New York.

People don't worry a hell of a lot about it in Washington.

But my point is, they care a lot about the beauty of this country.

They don't like the seasonal bourbon.

They don't like to go out through the country and see these horrible monstrosities that are created out there.

Basically, I'm one that's a great believer

private enterprise system and so forth, and I think some of the environmentalists are pure nuts.

I'd rather say it would be loony bird and it wouldn't feed people.

I do think that we are doing something here that will legalize our legacy.

Our legacy in parks, for example, is plentiful.

Quality of life.

It's the quality of life in America.

Man needs water and he needs air.

But he needs something more than air quality.

He needs beauty.

And by the way, we're going to make this a little country.

Conservation groups have just done a poll, which I read this morning, with land use as the top priority.

And if you decide land use in Missouri, Congress, it's on us.

We knew it in the game.

In your conversation with me, with the president, we're very proud of our record in clean air and clean water.

Because everybody needs clean air.

And everybody needs clean water.

This is basic.

But life is far more than clean air and clean water and having a poo.

Life is the beauty of our surroundings.

To get that, and also, let's find out the responsibility of the individual to clean up his own surroundings.

To get off his ass and clean up his neighborhood.

We've got a lot of black people who say that.

Well, so be it.

No, not that black people.

It's awful.

We say it.

The last thing here, though, that we've got to do, because when this energy message comes down, we're going to have to say that we're not locating any of our refiners.

We're not locating any atomic-generating consumers.

You can say that I have also what you should say.

I want to arrest you and you and Raj to hit this.

The president particularly indicated and has indicated one of the reasons we're taking our good time preparing the energy message.

It is energy is vital.

We can't live without air.

We can't live without water.

We can't live without power.

But looking at power and energy.

The president said, we can have power, we can have energy without despoiling the environment.

And that's why we're being here.

Is that right, John?

There's a development side of land use planning.

Land use planning is not all set aside preservation or beauty.

It's a way of putting free enterprise where free enterprise should be and not having it held up.

Uh, let me tell you something.

I mean, one of the great achievements of this predecessor, Rudolph, you go down here to Florida, you know, down there to Everett, you follow the Earth.

What are they doing?

They're leaving them in so stinking swamps and so forth with the birds.

So nobody can use them.

It's unbelievable.

They build a golf course on Kiva's King.

It's built by the ITP.

They build a golf course on Kiva's King.

Now, one of those powerful things is the mangle.

The mangle.

They sting.

Of course, people say, well, the birds have to be on you.

So that they won't laugh.

They won't laugh.

It's marvelous.

They won't laugh.

What do you think of mangroves, Manolo?

Mangrove, true.

Very nice.

Why is this okay?

What do you think of these people as okay?

Those mangroves are the base of the food chain for all the fisheries that feed in the Gulf of Mexico.

Do you want to keep all?

Just come out and go from the Gulf.

I don't want to come all out.

The point is, we just say, there they are.

Just leave them that way.

What you do is you leave it.

It's a sensible move for all of us.

It isn't really, Russ, it isn't a question.

I think one of the things about the environment is you go overboard with it.

Nobody can touch it then.

Nobody can grow this or that or the other because it would spoil the environment.

Believe me, it's a loser in the long run.

The thing to do is this sensible program that you can have growth and you can still conserve because we need both.

People have got to live in this damned earth.

The earth was a hell of a lot more beautiful before people ever came here.

That's what everybody says.

Well, it was a lot more beautiful, but now we've got people living on it.

is the who knows is the city people some think so some people prefer to go out and sit on a farm

Three of you got to get some of the positive thrust.

be very positive that we're not shortchanging the environment.

This is the place we're not.

We are not.

This is not a bargain base.

It's not a budget.

Surely, the budget is always a question.

You could spend more.

You could spend more for the military.

You could spend more for the issue.

You could spend more for schools and the rent.

You could spend more for anything.

But it is also, this is within our budget limitations, but it is one which is a forward-looking budget.

It's one that's active for the great challenges and addresses ourselves to

to the subject of land use, to the subject of energy, et cetera.

I mean, that's been hammering the fact that you should be really making progress in this area.

People ought to start to understand that not listening to all this controversy we're spending in the north sometimes.

I mean, it's going to result in a lot of .

The way you need to get that across is to say that you observe with a smile and you don't.

You know that it's rather customary these days to say that the blame is for messages not getting through.

And you don't do that because you know that the great majority of members of the press cross your feet and say that the members are trying to report the fact.

But let me say, one of the great untold stories in the past three years is the enormous historical turnaround that's been made in the environment.

The progress that's been made.

that we have been so obsessed with what has not been done and with our problems that we have not seen the progress.

Now, let's be obsessed with our problems so we can continue to deal with them.

But let's not overlook the progress.

But we have made enormous progress.

And generations ahead are going to look back to the period of the 70s as the period when America discovered its environment and restored it and renewed it.

I heard the President's situation to mention that the pipeline was discussed here last year.

I think the problem was just that it had come to the President's attention and that he raised it.

Can I say that for you?

Sure.

I think you should say that the President said that the pipeline is an example.

That there, without, of course, the President being critical of courage, that he could still appeal it.

The President said that the

There we have to choose.

We have to choose our interest in the environment.

Or we have to choose whether we're going to freeze to death because of lack of power.

But you can handle both ways.

You can argue that the job of the Interior did on environmental aspects

established that one could do both.

The ecology and the need for energy.

Of course.

Well, we haven't lost in the courts on that issue.

We've lost in the courts on technicality.

With the right way, which it was a decision that was made in some... Those damn technicalities are never reasonable.

And he wanted to be clever enough so that it was going to be very difficult to unravel this particular situation.

But now what we're doing is we're studying all the options.

I think the legislative way around this is just the fact that it was discussed here this morning may help that legislation.

Let's remember that this is not something this administration has discovered just recently as one of the great networks has discovered.

I'd say that with a little smiley.

So CBS, of course, started running it.

They got through with 100, and now they're going to be at 100 and die.

which is an illusion, but why is it, as we said, we've found the first energy crisis has been under intensive study, and that we're attacking them on all, it's a, we're attacking the problem of energy on a worldwide front, in fact, a worldwide front, because it's a world energy crisis, not just a U.S. energy crisis.

And why?

Because, and frankly, in a way, it's not just a shortage

I think you should emphasize this.

The reason for the crisis is not so much a shortage of energy.

There's more energy in the world by multiple figures than there's ever been before.

But the reason to have that crisis is that people's

Abilities to use it.

It's the right standard of living.

It's all over the world.

I think, for example, when I went to Southeast Asia and around the world in 1953, there was only one room.

The American ambassador in Saigon was there today.

Now it's difficult.

I know.

And he said, here's the thing.

That costs money.

It costs energy.

It costs power.

Clean water.

There was no clean water except in Hong Kong.

They have it every place now in Asia and all those places.

How does that happen?

You know, they have to clean it up, or they have to boil it out of the sea.

It's world crisis energy.

It's just here in the United States, like the world food crisis, you know, meat, meat crisis.

Help people eat more meat.

It's marvelous.

But in Tennessee, here we have to see this great energy crisis should not be looked upon for the doomsday attitude.

We should look back and say, isn't it great that in this earth in which we share together, that now millions of people have demands that they can satisfy?

The demand is not up.

And we, therefore, have to find new sources of energy to meet the demands.

And if we're distributed in there, it's still a problem.

Also, legacy of the parks.

We will be taking part in the next year.

We will move more land off federal rolls.

It will be really hard.

Rather secure and environmental, if you will.

And I think everybody's very interested in it and so forth and so on.

But in terms of something that really gets to people, unless they have a power shortage, then give one a damn.

Unless it's cold, unless the fuel oil goes up too high, they don't care.

They should care.

We have to care because it's vitally important.

But what people really care about are the surroundings, the outlooks.

And let's go, I'm not speaking just a beautification program, but I think this thing that you're told

I think people care a hell of a lot about how this place looks.

And let's, let's, let's have a call.

Everybody's had a song and a fight in this town.

Or every farmer's had a subdivision begin to accrue.

And everybody's been attracted to Jake.

And that's the answer.

That opening up the highway trust fund, Mr. President, for the first time, is in your environmental message.

And that is a...

I want you to get that.

I'm not going to test on it.

I want you to say, the President feels

President, one of the most important aspects of this message is the need for the Congress to act as quickly as possible, on the earliest possible time, on opening up, whatever you call it, the highway, so that we, or most Americans, are going to be spending most of their time on freeways, rather than in their homes or in their offices.

I am speaking as a Californian.

You get the traffic jam on the goddamn freeway and you're there for an hour or two hours.

Same in New York, right?

Now, go to the highway.

We're going to find, we're going to have our cities, small and large, choked with traffic, choked with smog, suffocating with smog, et cetera, et cetera.

And by opening up the private trust fund, it means that we can move in those areas of transit which will enable people

to go to and from their places of work safely and also without this terrible congestion.

Another point that you might make is a small one.

The president mentioned that he was riding on the freeway several times in California and also in Florida around Christmas time.

He took rides.

And as he went around, he mentally computed the number of cars at that one time

Three out of four cars in California, and three out of four cars in Florida, had one person in the car.

One.

Now, this cannot go forward.

We have families with two, three cars.

We have people driving every place with one driver in the car.

Now, if we continue that way, even with the population level up, as people get more funds, they're going to buy more cars, and we are going to be, it's actually a choke with traffic, a choke with traffic.

I've hit that mark.

That's through here.

The average occupancy rate coming into the city is 1.4.

It's 1.1.

Is that right?

One of the things I think is we've got to have a bad journey.

One thing that will get the attention, as you said, right now.

And I said, you've got to do something about it.

Use those personal examples.

One driver, I watched.

One day we drove for an hour, an hour on a freeway in California.

And I drove for an hour on the highway going down to between Key Biscayne and the one that goes very down west to the airways and so forth.

Highway 140.

And I saw thousands and thousands of cars.

And I counted for a car one day.

I said, my God.

I'm a little worried about the term open up, though, as far as I think.

I think what they brought in the base of the Highway Trust, brought in the transportation base.

It gives them excitement.

They think somebody's going to put their hand in it and grab it, whereas if you brought them the transformation phase of the highway, that's more of a positive.

That's right.

Okay.

There's another one.

I see her.

Open her eyes.

She grabs it.

She grabs it all the way down.

If we could tell, it's a wonder.

I'm thinking one of the other ones.

I thought she was right.

I can see her.

Bye.