Conversation 056-004

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Well, let me also say that the president's made in the Middle East.

In fact, we were able to cease fire.

It's gotten a tremendous amount of attention, and although it hasn't been so really appreciated in this country, because of our cooperation here now, I think more and more it's going to come to the fore, because in these other countries, it's been almost ten months since we've been fighting, at least, and if somehow we can muddle through and keep it,

It plays so there is no continuation of fighting.

I think this is going to be very useful.

Exhibit to point to in the election, because really the rest of the world, the United States gets total credit for its opinion.

And the fact that there were significant right-wing solutions in the international press, I think you might be interested in seeing some of the accounts in the international press, even for the exception of the Soviet Union.

Even France and London, they were a little skeptical.

This is true in almost every country.

Let me start out by saying that this meeting was in London, which is about the CEDAW meeting.

CEDAW is an organization, Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, consisting of Thailand, and I say Thailand first because really now that's what it's all about, the Philippines.

Australia, Brazil and United Kingdom back to the United States.

Because the French have dropped out, and because of the Indochina conflict, the CEDA organization provides commitments of all agencies to their secretaries to take seriously and to take some action.

The fact is, though, that it involves piloting,

Yes, it's a very important organization in that sense, because Thailand is a key country here in that part of the world.

But also because it would present a major problem for us if Thailand was attacked by an outside force, particularly by Red Chinese.

The Philippines are less important now in terms of how it's going to be attacked.

The government is not very strong.

The United Kingdom has really been active, and so we financially and militarily haven't played a very active role in that area.

In fact, you know the Labour Party has announced a policy

So, the attitude of the Thai government is particularly important.

And without going into the depths, this was the best meeting I had a chance to speak to.

You're not calling this appointment a good plan.

It was very good, and it was very hard to go up against the policies you presented.

You're carrying out a lot of excellent things, particularly in Florida.

There's a policy for China, but it's just moderate, just enough, not too much.

It helped him with his problems, and so forth.

We were, as you might expect to do, royally entertained by the Queen, and supported by everybody else in London.

It was quite a successful meeting.

All the nations there were highly supportive of Preston.

Then we want to anchor Turkey with a central regional organization.

There's another organization, a similar character, involving Iran, Turkey, and

Pakistan is Pakistan, I say Pakistan is Pakistan, because initially it was an organization designed to protect against communist China.

Now because of, I mean, of the Soviet Union, now because of Pakistan's involvement with the Soviet Union and with China, they have not put in, they have not paid on it.

Obviously, so they're concerned, because they would have used it with India.

But Turkey and Iran are very important.

They are a very important country.

They are a strong country.

I might say this connection is that working with this type of government contrasts to the last in England.

It's a great pleasure.

Not that the other government wasn't cooperative.

But this government sees eye-to-eye with us on every foreign policy and almost without exception.

Furthermore, they go to bat when it comes.

LHQ made some of the best statements since the meeting about the threat of the Soviet Union and Communist China that I've ever heard.

So we didn't have to bag him along, as we used to have to do in the case of the Labour government, to sort of support us.

We didn't have a killing there.

We were reluctantly supporting each other, feeling they were out in front cheering for us.

They gave a reference to him for what he's doing.

L.A. Cube made one reference to Vietnam, saying he thought it was a masterful performance, getting out and providing stability for the U.S. at the same time, so forth.

Turning out to the government of Turkey, it was really referring to seeing a new government of Turkey.

The present prime minister is a much stronger man than the previous one.

He has martial law in effect now.

He got the license to go to the parliament, and then he promised his hand when he declared martial law.

It's not a very popular move.

He had a lot of opposition among young people when he started, and that's fighting now.

He has the military behind him.

He's very pro-West, he's very pro-United States.

I had a long talk with him about the opium problem.

He agrees with us, he's going to do everything he can.

He had a news conference, and I left saying so.

I said, we're not going to retaliate against you, we're not going to expect anything, but we think you should do something.

I said, not just for us, but it's a world problem.

You can become a world statesman if you can stop this.

You can have Turkey out in front, everybody in the world associates drugs with Turkey.

You can eliminate that and you'll be remembered for having done it.

And the president told me that

where I took this bit that we would help financially to be supportive to you.

And he said, I understand.

He said, I think that's the right approach.

He said, I'll do something about it.

He said, he had a press conference the next day, and he was very good at thinking about it.

So I was quite encouraged.

Well, there again, I think the central meeting was a good one.

I think Turkey ended on.

We were both in a good humor there.

One of Mr. Ron is quite a guy.

He was married to Michelle Jordan one time.

He felt that it was a good meeting, and both Ron and I was very pleased about how we settled the oil matter.

They were particularly pleased about the exemption we got, about having sent John Jagger over.

They gave us high marks for helping work it out, and our relationship with Ron and Chuckie, I think, are excellent now, much better than it had been.

In the absence of a leader, like the present leader of Turkey, I don't know what we would have done, because the country is really backward, they have a lot of trouble with young people, and it's a good problem, and all the other things, but they, I think, now have a good leader, and if he can stay in his harness, he'll be a wonderful asset for the West.

Did you know they're tremendous fighters?

You know, they're great fighters, and they've got a good army, and he's prepared to use them in the army.

Well, that doesn't trouble me at all.

Turkey, we went to Saudi Arabia, and that's where it's changed.

Saudi Arabia is way out of the Middle Ages.

King Faisal is still in command.

Not in very good health, but he's still running it, I'm sure.

We went to Riyadh, it was like 5 or 10, something like that.

Got a lot of new buildings there.

His cabin consists of his relatives, and

They're all fairly young people, fairly intelligent, vigorous people.

His concern is principally about Jerusalem.

He's also interested in refugees.

He's not much interested in the quarrel between Egypt and Israel, but he's quite interested in Jerusalem.

Joyce, sometime when we have a chance, we're going to talk about Jerusalem, because it not only has a tremendous emotional and spiritual impact in that part of the world, but it also does in this country.

You've got to take that into consideration.

It's a very strong Catholic feeling that what's happening in Jerusalem is a crime.

And you've got to take some action to see if we can't change that.

Faisal is, as I agree with Tania, actually the biggest...

Not Spacel, we tend to call him Spice, but Spacel, said his heir apparent, his father, F.A.U.D., a very good, young, attractive fellow,

In fact, he's just been responsible for the arrest of about 300 people in the army and other places that were out to overthrow the government.

And he's used a lot of modern methods.

He's almost as good as J. Andrew Boone.

He didn't put that after that.

Good best day.

And Faisal said,

I just want you to know in the United States that we think the Middle East is tremendously important.

We think Jerusalem is important.

We're upset about what happened.

We don't like your policy very well.

We like what you're doing now.

But I want you to know, no matter what happens, no matter what you do, however you play your hand, we're going to support you.

So don't ever forget that.

He said, we've got tremendous respect for the United States.

We have 2,000 Saudi Arabian students in the United States.

When you do anything for us, if you agree to build buildings, we know it's going to be a good building.

We know it.

He says, your American business people are tough negotiators, but once they negotiate, they perform.

We know that's distrusting.

He said, you never have to worry about our support.

And I think, John, you correct me on this, but probably Saudi Arabia has the greatest oil reserves in the country.

The king is about to discuss the...

He said, would you like to see the city?

And I said, sure.

He had conditions of not being able to run around the city.

He said, fine, get in.

So he jumped in his car and drove me all around the city himself.

Then I said the next day, I said, I don't want to come all this way out here and not see some things.

I want to see the country.

And he said, fine.

So he got this top military man who's extremely capable.

He's a Bedouin, and they're tough.

And they flew me from the Dead Sea all the way up to the Sea of Galilee.

And east back to Jordan.

These men were fascinated to fly below sea level.

We were 500 feet below sea level in the helicopter.

The Dead Sea flew up east back to Jordan, along the side of the place where Christ was baptized, up to the Sea of Galilee.

Landing opposite the Golan Heights on the Jordanian side.

Got a beautiful view of Israel, the whole area.

Then we flew over the northern part of Jordan where they had tank battles with Syrians.

Saw that tank slots were still there.

Flew over the border of Syria.

Headed back, and when I left Jordan, I shook hands with King at lunch and said goodbye.

He said, well, don't say goodbye.

I'll go with you.

And I said, oh, well, I don't do that.

He said, oh, yeah, sure, I'm going to do that.

He said, come on.

So we went up the hill.

Got in his helicopter.

He flew me to the airport in his helicopter.

Planted it.

No jobs, no prospects, nothing to look forward to.

Nobody's really giving much thought to them.

They're hostile.

My wife visited a couple of them.

She said it was just tragic.

He's concerned about that because in the long run he can't survive.

Well, anyway, then I want to...

He's a great friend.

He supports it.

He feels a little left out at the moment.

But he's a good friend and will continue to be.

He's highly respected in the area.

Then we went to Lebanon, which is a very tough country.

They have no government strength.

The cabinet consists of different, a combination of different religious groups, and that's determined by the constitution.

They have to have a Christian president, an Arab prime minister, then they have a division in the cabinet according to religious sects.

They have a small army with no strength.

Their army consists of about 12,000 men, and they don't really have sufficient strength to deal with the federation.

The federation are now making Lebanon...

for the headquarters for their operations, and the present is fearful.

The whole cabin is fearful.

They're fearful of Israel and fearful of the Fed.

They know their system is not a very good one, and yet they are the bridge between East and West.

They're very smart.

The most advanced of the countries.

And somehow we have to strengthen their hand.

And it asks for

military, some more military assistance to help them deal with the general situation, and I think we should give it to them again, that's pretty much.

But they can't, if they're, the way, they're in the same position Jordan was in a year ago, and that is they don't have a government, they just have a, at least they don't think they have a government, the government's not strong enough to do anything.

In fact, when I went to the airport, I had, I was the first fellow that was gone from the airport to

To the city by automobile.

I gave each a choice.

Do you want to go by helicopter or automobile?

And they said it's dangerous by automobile.

And I said let's go by automobile.

And it was surprising that that was the headline story.

Secretary of State rides by automobile.

And...

She had two tanks.

A tank on her side, eating her.

It looked like an invading army.

So the next day, I said to everyone, it didn't seem to me, everybody was cheering, it seemed very friendly.

So the next day, I took a leap out of the president's book, I've seen him do this.

So we're going along with the tanks and everything, and I said to my security man,

I said, I gotta stop downtown, go to some busy section, let me stop.

He said, you can't do that, we gotta stay.

I said, come on, I wanna stop.

I said, furthermore, they tell me there's a shoeshine course on the street, so I had a shoeshine boy, and I wanna get a shoeshine, and so I got him, and I was screaming, he says, yeah, you know, he said, this is your course, and he said, the secretary said he wants a shoeshine.

So anyway, I stopped at this street in the middle of the day room,

And within, well, before I had one true kind, there was a crowd of 500-600 young people gathered, applauding, cheering, yelling my name, saying hello to the United States.

And when I left, I bet there was a lot of people in apartment buildings all over cheering, yelling at us.

Now this was a country where they all said you couldn't do it anymore because, you know, you were just screaming.

So there again is a tremendous best worker of will in the United States.

How about this?

Egypt, and that's a fascinating country.

One statistic you might be interested in, George, there are more Egyptians born since the 67th war than the whole population of Israel.

So that shows the problem that Israel is going to have if they don't, we can't work out a peaceful settlement.

You just can't have that number of hostile neighbors over a long period of time and survive

You can get along, but you can't survive in the nation.

I know this will be under attack, but the indefinite future must be something to be worked on.

Sadat is a very interesting man.

He's not what we expected at all.

We never used to, we used to do reports of Sadat.

Incidentally, they got rid of Ali Sabri just before I got there, and he told me my visit was responsible, not responsible for the Jew, but responsible for the tiny, because he said, I couldn't wait.

If I got rid of him, I'm at the Jew camp.

Everybody would say it was because of your visit, so I had to hasten his departure.

He is an attractive fellow, speaks English very well.

You met him, didn't you?

Yes, right.

Of course, that was at the time of the funeral, so he was...

This time he started off the conversation by saying, Mr. Secretary, we all have different systems of government.

He said, in this country, the system is I am the president, I can make decisions.

Anything I want to do, I can do.

So when I speak, he said, that's the voice of the country.

I just want you to know, I'm the boss, I'm in charge, I make the decisions.

He said, don't believe anything else.

Thank you very much.

Well, I work with all the things he says.

He's a very likeable man.

Very likeable.

Very straightforward.

He professes an interest to improve his relations with us.

He says he's a likeable Soviet Union in the sense that he has to rely so heavily on us.

He says he's prepared to disassociate himself with them up to a point if something can be worked out.

He says they helped him in a time of need.

He had to defend his country.

He had to turn somewhere, and that was the only place he could turn.

He says that he is paying for everything he gets in hard cash, sterling.

He says he pays the Russians who are there, their salaries, on the SAM sites.

So he says all the right things, and he says he has great respect for our country.

He's married to an English woman.

He's very attractive.

He indicates flexibility.

He's willing to consider any reasonable practical solution to problems and so forth.

I won't go into the details.

We don't have time.

At least it's encouraging that he was so friendly, that his people were so friendly.

I must say, of all the countries I've visited, I think the Egyptians were the friendliest, uniformly.

They gathered the people on the street, and not demonstrably so, they just went in.

There wasn't a possible sign.

Incidentally, if you didn't know that there was not going to be a fire, after you don't see a sign of Masser, nobody mentioned him.

I sat down and raised the question about him.

I said I wanted to see Mrs. Masser, so they said fine, but they didn't suggest it, so...

He had no intention of presiding next to shadow.

Men went to both fatalities in Jerusalem.

He had said that both of these countries had tremendous fatality and great ability to people.

The government is in a mood now of complete uncertainty.

They can't make decisions.

I met twice in a whole cabin, headlong, a couple of times rather.

It's a good word.

Changes.

Difficult.

The first meeting was particularly difficult.

Because actually when you analyze the position, what they say is you just give us the arms and the money and leave us alone.

And I pointed out to them that we can't do that.

They don't have any support in the world at all for that present position, 1796.

I pointed that out to Mrs. Mayor.

I said, now if your position is asylum, you've got to be able to get some support somewhere in some part of the world.

She said, well, Ethiopia supports this in private.

They want it public.

Well, I said, that's not going to be much help.

You've got to be able to find some nation, if you want the United States to help you, you've got to be able to find some nation that supports your present position.

Now, essentially what's happened is, for years the United States has urged the Arabs to say, we're prepared to live in peace with Israel, provided we've got our land back.

And that's always been a stumbling block.

The Arab world would never say that Israel had a right of sovereignty, Israel had a right to continue to exist, and that they would not interfere in what Israel's right to exist.

Now, Sadat has said that.

Sadat has said all the things that everyone has asked him to say since 1967.

And he's done it in opposition to many of the Arab leaders.

In fact, Sadat told me Qaddafi from Libya just called him a traitor for doing what he's done.

So he says, lookit, I've done everything the United Nations wanted me to do.

I've done everything you, the United States, wanted me to do.

The whole world has promised that if we're willing to sign a peace agreement with Israel, then we'll get our land back, or at least most of our land back.

Now he says, we find out that that isn't true.

We're convinced now that Israel only wants to keep all the land.

And we're not going to approve of that.

We're just not.

And it's true.

That's his position.

So I said to Israel, you've got to come up with something.

You just can't stand taft because we're going to have a major blow-up in the United Nations this fall.

Nobody, I mean, England is another CETO country.

It's another CETO.

Everyone says Israel's position is indispensable.

We had a second meeting with the cabinet.

It was much better.

It was a business-like meeting.

We actually got down to exchanging ideas.

It's just like it was.

I met with the Knesset, at least the foreign relations in the face of the Knesset.

They're a tough bunch.

They don't give an inch.

You can see why Mrs. Miller has trouble making decisions, because she has to get approval from the Knesset.

They've got all kinds of points of view.

All they end up saying is, because we can't agree, let's just stay where we are.

I said, we can't accept that.

It's harmful to the United States interests.

We're going to lose our friends all over the world, and particularly the Arab world.

And if we lose Iran and Saudi Arabia and all these countries, in the long run it's going to be very detrimental.

It wouldn't be so detrimental immediately, but that's where Europe gets its oil.

Japan is 95% dependent on that oil.

And we just can't afford to back Israel no matter what they do, and without any other supporters in the world.

without losing a great deal in terms of foreign affairs.

When we left the, I must say, and I thought possibly because some of the stories have been written on me personally, that it might be hostility to me in Israel.

Not at all.

It was very warm support, and every time I got back to the hotel, it was very warm.

It was 130 at night, there was about 400 people.

Applause.

This is a political campaign so that Israel still appreciates the support that the United States gives to it.

As you know, we've gone, I had Joe Sesto go back and say, so now I can.

We've still got that ball in play.

If we can keep the ceasefire in effect, if we keep trying all these different initiatives, something's going to work out one of these days.

And if we can get a little more time so that we don't have this fighting started,

til after the election.

But then I think we've got to make sure to even if we don't settle, but I do think we've got to put a lot of emphasis on Jerusalem, because we really have a feeling, and then I'll express it, but there's no doubt it's there, if you read it in those papers, that because of the problems here we have politically, particularly because there's support here, that there's no one to offset that.

You know, they say, well, how many Arab voters have we got?

Well, there are a lot of Catholic voters,

Charlie's very concerned about Russia.

I stopped in Italy on the way back, and Italy's very concerned, and the Pope himself.

Incidentally, the Italian government was stronger than us six months ago.

It looks as if it's going to make it.

I can't tell for sure, but I'm just quite sure it's not.

But I spent a ten-hour audience with the Pope for an hour.

He stood up and made a speech for five or six minutes in front of all of our groups.

highly complimenting the president in the position we take him in our efforts in the Middle East, and how much it meant to him, and how much it meant to Chris in the world of football.

If that had ever been a public statement, it would have been worth, you know, three million votes.

It was absolutely perfect.

My wife was tearful as a result.

But he emphasized how vitally important Jerusalem is to the Catholics,

how much they resent the fact that it appears that the character of Jerusalem is being changed, that it's being cheapened by the buildings and so forth.

So he pleaded with us to help in any way that we could.

I told him that we could do it, we could do that.

This is the third time I've introduced him.

I've never seen him more supportive of the United States.

I think all in all it was worthwhile.

The press started out very hostile

Ended up really quite satisfied that at least the men were alive and had done the right thing.

And I think that this is an area of the world where we can keep the ceasefire alive, so no fighting is going on at the time of the election.

It's going to be a big plus.

I agree.

Unusual, the success of the trip, to me, in spite of all the sensational news that was around here, it got excellent.

It really did.

Quite a lot of front and back coverage ahead of time, and we were having all the disturbances here.

I think it was a very successful trip, a very difficult one, but I think we really handled it well, and I'm sure that everybody in the cabinet is pleased to have the first-hand record, particularly of the new personalities, and I don't know personally if Sadat may have any.

Now we have a report on the desalination of Dr. Green, and

Do you want to move up here somewhere?

I'd like to risk the people on the outside, Mr. President.

It's scheduled to July.

Well, the thing that's going into my hand is that the contestant has one very interesting story.

It should have been what I said before, that she's committed murder.

And he was...

They were going to ask questions, so that he's making a speech.

His speech was going on about 20 minutes in.

And he started quoting something I said, so I dropped it.

So, you know, I never said anything like that.

He said, oh, yes, you did.

I said, this is a major speech of mine.

I wrote it.

I know what I said.

I didn't say that.

And he said, well, I know what I did.

I said, look, it's my speech.

I wrote it.

I didn't say it.

I don't get it.

He said, look, the rules look in essence.

You know that I'm being permitted to continue.

I said, I don't care about the rules of the country.

I'm a guest.

I'm not a father of rules.

Everybody applies.

It is now a feasible technology, along with our other water supply centers.

We can set a valuable role.

It has that nice characteristic of most fine technologies that it's open-ended.

It's further work which helps us travel a little further along and bring us further improvements.

And the U.S. involvement in the installment goes back a very long way.

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson in 1791 sent a report to the legislation firms in Congress in order that the results of this work would be used on board all ships of the U.S. as a version of the source of water at Ferguson River.

In 1952, the federal government established the Office of Saving Water, described in broad terms here, within the Department of Interior, with the specific objective of developing the technology for low-cost consultant water.

And now, after 20 years, there has been great progress due to that program.

There's still much to be done.

Over this 20-year period, actually 19 years, OSW has invested something like $210 million in this program.

And we estimate, although we don't have an accounting, that the industrial contribution to this technology is about the same.

At the present time, the water program, the opposite side of the water program, is funded at $27 million a year.

The office has a regular policy of transferring the technology as it's developed to industry.

It does that as soon as it has demonstrated the technology of the technology in a pilot or a demonstration plan, and some of its activities are indicated here.

They typically set up pilot and test facilities to demonstrate various technologies that are going to be described.

Now, the total water supply available in the United States today is about one gallon for every dollar of GMT.

That's an interesting way to think about it.

Not necessarily as you do with the parallel 12 billion gallons per day.

And we would draw about one quarter of that water for use, and we would turn most of it as waste water.

This water, in fact, can be used many times, although it's not particularly advertised.

If you think about it, the water flows down a river from a source to the sea.

It's probably used many, many times in many different cities.

About a third of the water that's withdrawn is actually not recovered, and it's consumed.

That's what these figures over here are.

And that's due to evaporation, primarily.

It's interesting that irrigation is the biggest user of water.

About half of the water that is withdrawn is used for it, and about 80% of the water that's consumed is being used in irrigation.

Dissolving water is not likely to be cheap enough to be used for irrigation, unless very high value crops can be thrown with it, or unless there are some other circumstances which go along with it.

In our cities and towns, each of us uses on the average about 160 gallons per person per day.

Out of that, about a quarter of it is actually consumed.

The rest of it is returned, as I say, as waste water.

Dissalted water, in the context of personal usage,

This is a place where the salt water is going to have its first and closest impact.

The amount of dissolved solids, which includes all salts, is usually stated in parts per million, and TDS means total dissolved solids.

The federal standards for drinking water is less than 500 parts per million total dissolved solids.

Simple water, on the other hand, contains about 35,000

Bars, provision, total dissolved solids.

So there's a large gap here.

And in between, the dissolving plants will be most favorable in terms of their economics, where there's a huge supply of energy.

So we need to use energy, and we need a way of disposing of the brine, and we think both of these can be solved.

As the price of dissolved water comes down, it will be more attractive in an increasing number of places, of course.

But where we'll first see it used is probably on a large scale within Southern California.

The way it affects urban areas, there's a large growing urban area on a coastal region that has a high water demand.

One thing about Southern California...

Seawater will be used in urban, arid coastal areas.

As I mentioned earlier, there are many cities in the country where the only water available is brackish, and there are about 420 communities of that kind, and in those communities with total dissolved solids, their water is above 1,000 parts per million.

It would be nice to dissolve their brackish water and give them pure water.

A city that's actually done this is Plains, Texas.

Another proposal along that same line is to build a desalting plant across the reservoir here in Clinton, Oklahoma.

This plant would make available fresh water from salty water, which is very salty, 1700 parts per million.

This is our water.

As water passes through the city, it picks up waste products, of course, but these are removed by conventional sewage treatment.

But it also picks up a good deal of dissolved salt, and this is not removed by the usual sewage treatment plant.

So, if you wanted to reuse that water right away, you would have to use this technology of desalting.

As I say, it's not an immediate problem, but it's something we must look to in the future.

Some industries require very pure water, water which is as good or better than drinking water, and so this technology gives industry a technique for getting that water out of the water supply at a relatively low cost.

Now, the state of the art in water removal as far as the salt removal from seawater is talked about here.

The process that's used is simple distillation.

All of our salts are removed by distillation in one step.

This is the process which is used by 95% of the 700 desalting plants which are actually in operation throughout the world.

Most of these plants are relatively small, but it's the large ones that are of interest because they yield at a substantial economic scale.

The largest plant in the world is in Rosarito, Mexico.

It produces 7.5 million gallons per day, and that would supply a city of about 50,000.

The energy source for that plant is steam from a black-tinted plant, which is incorporated with the salting equipment.

And it cost, the water cost of that plant was about 65, 75 cents per 1,000 gallons.

On this curve, that plant falls at this point in 1970, cents versus time, and this is what happened to the cost, and we're projecting out into the future in terms of the economy of steel, and we can get something of that kind.

QS Florida also obtains part of this water supply from a diesel plant.

The cost of water there is 95 cents per thousand gallons.

It's not quite as advanced a technology.

The next step forward in the distillation technology will take place when a 2.8 million gallons per day test module is constructed in our county.

The contract construction of that will be awarded next month.

The test modules will be constructed there as a piece of a 15 million gallon per day unit.

About four and a half million dollars of federal funds that go into that in the Orange County Water District will supply about 3.2 million new projects.

And though it's an experimental plant, it will provide a very economical way of seeing what the complications of building a really large plant, 15 million gallons per day, would be.

Orange County plans to use the output of that plant to recharge its groundwater from becoming a branch

Now, distillation technology has developed to the stage where the next logical step would be to build a really large size prototype plant to demonstrate technology.

And there's a study underway to determine the feasibility of building a plant at Diablo Canyon, California.

And this plant will be coupled with a nuclear power station that's now under construction by PG&E.

The study isn't complete, but offers some exciting prospects for advancing technology.

The water cost as projected here, and the total capital cost, which would be between 35 and 40 million dollars, are not hard figures because the study has not yet been completed, and we, to talk about the feasibility of this, we really must await the cost of the study.

Before you leave that, 130 cents is going to come.

All that's required is an increase in the size of the plant and a lot of money.

It's a combination.

But it can be done.

It can be done.

The scientists believe that if we were to decide today that we want to get some 30 cents, could you do it?

As a goal, I believe we can get there.

Would it require a nuclear power plant, probably?

I probably would.

The 30 cents, it depends on the cost of energy.

This would be a 200 million gallon day plant.

It would use nuclear fuel.

I suppose we might have the same question.

What is the plan here?

You know, we were talking about the breeder reactor for us, of course.

In terms of the, I still want to reason we're going on that, is that not only is it a source of clean energy, but it's a source that's less expensive.

That's right.

That's looking forward about ten years.

That's looking forward about ten years, but with the breeder reactor, and not the first reactor, but after the first few

We would hope to have energy down, the cost of energy down to the point where you would reach these 30 cents per gallon.

So if we look at the breeder reactor and put it into the insulting business, put it on a massive basis, we could get it done better?

That's right.

If you're going to look at the breeder reactor, you should look at it in this way.

Suppose that you made a breakthrough on the fusion.

That's what you were talking about the other day.

Longer range.

That's longer range.

Is that less expensive?

We have no way of knowing it.

That's right.

One of the goals of fusion...

is to not only obtain the energy, but obtain it economically.

One could picture a solution that would enable us to build fusion reactors and get the energy, but at a prohibitive cost.

So we have the twin goals, and we don't know until we solve the problems whether we will, from fusion, get economically competitive.

It's a real reactor, assuming that we go forward with it.

You could visualize getting to 30 cents.

That's right, and more than that, we could visualize these large energy centers that, in addition to desalting water, produce fertilizer and carry out the industrial manufacturing processes and become focal points for a whole region.

Is ten years a realistic goal for the breeder?

Yes, for the breeder.

The breeder goal is 15 years at the present rate of funding, and 10 years or so if we make a decision to go ahead.

Our understanding is that if we make a decision to bump it, you can't get below 10.

Realistically, if I define the goal as the ultimate large 1 million kilowatt economically competitive reasonable reproduction time for the reactor, we couldn't get that unless we can do it.

Yes sir, Mr. President.

I have a question.

Some year, five or six years ago, there was a plant under design, it was no longer in Dallas, it was in the Long Island area, where they were trying to combine incineration with the desalting process.

Yes, has that ever been built successfully?

I don't believe there's a plant, where they do...

The water is all used in the plant.

There's no water available for distribution.

In other words, it was just a self-sustaining thing they were talking about.

We're looking at some very interesting studies now from the solid waste disposal.

operations at EPA where it indicates the solid waste of a city if it is incinerated that heat would provide.

operations at EPA, where it indicates the solid waste of a city if it is incinerated, the heat would provide enough water to dissolve 20% of the city's water supply.

That heat would come to us at the projected zero cost for that city because of the credits it would have for disposing of the garbage.

so that it offers a very low cost opportunity for steam.

There's some interesting synergistic effects that have been obtained by S.R.

from many other ones.

He knows that very carefully.

Mr. President, there's another aspect of it, too, and that's how you account for it.

If you have a multi-purpose plant, one that's producing energy, one that might be producing other byproducts, in addition to salting, it gets down to how much you charge against the salting operation and how much you charge against the energy, so...

The day could come when you might have to charge more for the energy side in order to produce the necessary water.

What's the old story?

That's exactly right.

So I think you have water for irrigation.

It could be very cheap if you just charge the energy and vice versa.

Right, John?

You've all been through it.

Well, it is.

But this is what you have to think in terms of when you're thinking about these large, cumulative plants where you're at present

Just throwing the heat out, you're developing tremendous capital cost and reduction of heat.

For example, this plant down here on the step seat will have a fantastic cooling operation, which if you recapitalize that in terms of salt water, desalting water, you can come up with any figure you want to on the water.

The next thing that I want to talk about is how to get brackish water to the drinkable state.

And here you could use distillation, but because there's so much less salt in the water, there are more economical processes, and they involve semi-permeable membranes.

There are two processes.

One is known as electrodialysis, where the electric current forces salts through the membrane and out of the salty water, so you get fresh water.

The other process is called reverse osmosis.

And there...

The saline water is under pressure, but only the fresh water passes through the membrane and the salt is left behind, so you can't get fresh water.

In these cases, electric power is used as the energy storage rather than steam, which is the case of distillation.

In both of, in Siesta Key, Florida, an electro-dialysis plant has been built which produces 1.2 million gallons per day.

And it's used to treat brackish groundwater.

And the cost is about 35 cents per 1,000 gallons.

And you notice here that, of course, the cost of water in these processes, because we were removing much less salt, is less.

Reverse oposis gives particular promise of considerable further development.

I'll say more about it later.

But it's interesting that commercial companies picked up this development and contributed to it in a fine way.

Two examples of the kinds of membranes that are used in the process.

I think they share a package there.

This one is a rather standard looking tube, which is put together by General Dynamics.

And the water flows from outside to inside.

That's like that.

Inside to outside here.

Of course, the more membrane area you have, the better.

And here we see...

DuPont's spun fibers, each one of which is a tube, has a hole that runs all the way down it, and a full package of this has an acre of surface area, and John told me yesterday, we put the water, the salt water on the outside, and take the fresh water out to the inside of these fibers, and so this is the kind of technology which industry has been contributing here.

The single largest plant of this kind is in Greenfield, Iowa, and it uses the recently developed hollow fiber technology of EMR, and the code cost of water is reported to be about 37 cents per gallon.

In addition, there's going to be a number of spinoffs of these two kinds of technologies in other areas, the direct adventure moisture that we like.

It's interesting that in this kind of process, distillation plants, or reverse osmosis plants, can be much smaller than distillation plants, and still be economical, and that's an important factor in some cases.

The role of the federal government in all of this, I think we should offer our hats to the Office of Civil and Water and Materials, because they've been in charge of the program over the past 19 years, which as I mentioned before, the total expenditure has been about $210 million.

They've had contracts with industry, universities, and other government agencies.

A limited amount of other work, important, and quite closely related to this, is in the ABC, the National Science Foundation, and DOD.

Well, we're just consulting the question.

Is $27 million a total amount of all government effort in this field?

Or does that not include the amount that you have at the U.C.

National Library?

The amount in the Department of Interior is $27 million.

$27 million is the Interior budget, but the amount additional is quite small.

It's just a few cycles.

They don't cost much.

They don't cost a lot.

I think it's going to go to the way that's known as...

I think his whole attitude is changing very rapidly because of the fact that, for example, Lake Mead has now got a ton of salt for acres of water in the Colorado River.

The whole saline issue, as far as our relationship with Mexico now, is how company is priming here, and I think that we've had a lot of talks about it, and I think it's, as we understand that this new technology has got to really be a worldwide, have worldwide application.

I think I could be of help with it when I could, too, because I think it's very important.

It's,

It's the only subject we had to discuss with the next committee.

We've never done a good job with him on this.

There's always been so much interest as far as he personally and some of the other western members of the Congress are concerned, and overridden this thought with him.

The big problem this week is to solve out irrigated lands, to get rid of them.

Basically, it's a new ballgame.

I asked Pat O'Meara, who's sitting here, he's the acting director of OSW, where did all this technology come from, and he prepared these charts for me.

As you can see, it came from a coalition of industries and universities in a very interesting way.

You can read that chart as well as I can, I hope.

But I think that if we try to single out the important contributions, they came from two universities, the University of Florida and UCLA, because that contributed to this reverse osmosis open-ended effort, and the contribution of DuPont and some other industrial firms to develop the kind of technology that we saw here.

Well, what's the place of U.S. industry in the world market in all this?

It's an interesting point, since the Secretary of State has just been released, and released is the place where most of the world market is at the present time.

I think that it's very clear.

that there is a great potential for an export industry, although it's not very large at the moment.

And yet the U.S. seems to be falling somewhat behind in the sharing of this expanding market.

The competition is France, England, and Japan.

The Middle East, as I say, provides the principal market at the moment.

U.S. industry prices are not competitive, apparently, because other countries are giving special assistance to their firms in steel.

How much cooperation do we have scientifically?

In the British, you know.

My impression is that we are ahead of them in our technology.

We, of course, have scientific contacts, meetings, and that sort of thing, but I think there's very little contact on the technology level.

The reason they sell more is because they're costable.

They're costable, and we think that it's a subsidized technology.

Well, what are the frontiers and opportunities here?

They're searching and developing as far as possible, and we're consulting and supplying the technology.

However, I think that the state of it is not well appreciated by what we want to supply for fame, and I think we have to undertake a demonstration program, probably at the rest of the summer, to talk about it.

We have this opportunity to build a 15-minute gallop per day site in California.

The center of this invisible water district is an interesting and important one.

Again, I think I should caution you that it has not been staffed to the degree that we would like to see it, so that we are confident of the costs and benefits.

But it is a very interesting possibility.

In addition, we think that research in desalting should be continued.

There's a new horizon for distillation, and it's reverse osmosis.

We should be able to continually improve the reverse osmosis process, and one of the most exciting and interesting possibilities is that that process may become good enough that we can use it for desalting seawater, and therefore it might take the place of distillation altogether, and this could be a really new breakthrough.

I think it's interesting to note, Mr. President, that there hasn't been any point in this 19-year history where we can say there was a tremendous breakthrough, a steady, slow progression, and an effort by a large number of people working under the leadership of OSW.

And I think it shows what dedicated people over a long period of time can do, even though the problem is a very, very difficult one.

Mr. President, consulting is a viable technology with a very bright future for serving society as a vital part of our life supply right now.

Let me ask you.

Do you have a scientific standpoint in the...

By coincidence, we just did a study of that with OSW.

My office and OSW together produced a report.

The point is, we have a five-year plan.

Is that chart available fast?

Which will...

It will cause an expansion of the program of about 30% next year, and about a doubling by the year 19, a little later on, 1991, and taking off towards the turn of the century, and projecting out that by that time we will have a viable industry which will be doing its own research.

So we see a build-up over the next 10 years in the government effort in the opposite side of the water, and then a decline after that.

So this is a program we recommend, and your program is about taking into account the possibility of a free-to-react development.

It looks at many different sources of energy in the free-to-react when it comes...

I might make a comment on the role that nuclear power might play.

There are a number of possibilities for using the presence of nuclear reactors in this.

A reference was made to the interests of Mexico, and you know, as Secretary Rogers knows, we've had a

be ready to build now, or at least the first such plant, although this is a tremendous investment.

This would cost something like three quarters of a billion dollars.

And then also there's the MEDIS study.

They study, you know, that Secretary Howard Baker has, that Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee has such an interest in, and

Ex-AEC Chairman.

The idea there of building a presently available type of power plant that would furnish electricity, produce fertilizer and so forth, and dissolve seawater, perhaps one in Israel and one in the UAR, or perhaps one jointly.

The idea here is to contribute to peace and stability in the region, and here they have in mind

flaks that would produce about 200 million gallons of sea water per day in about 500,000 kilowatts.

Again, the big roadblock here is the capital investment, but the feeling is that the water would be in this range, pretty close, some say less, some say more, 30 cents per 1,000 gallons.

Can I ask you a question, by the way?

Assume that the government made a maximum effort, could we expect to have a predominant position in the world in this field?

Absolutely.

We're losing our predominant position in so many fields.

There, planes, and so forth.

We have in some fields what we're losing in others.

Is this one that we actually could gain predominance?

Well, I think so.

We're doing more, but we've got two universities, two major universities, University of Florida and UCLA University of Florida.

We've got some of the classes gone.

We've got the ASC.

We're just looking ahead ten years and so forth.

I don't know if we can create a reactor, but I know you've got a big thick book you're studying to go through to go along the next 20 years the way you did the last 20 years, and maybe 70 years from now when most people die and the first people find the answers, but that's fine.

And probably that's the way it'll work out.

But is there any... Could you take a look at this without the inhibitions of the financial cost and all that sort of thing?

Talking to Steve Borg on the reactor thing, assuming that the plant will go forward in that area, and taking it in terms of...

This might be an area where we could do it.

There's no easy solution.

There's not going to be any breakthrough in all of that.

But it seems to me that this is supposed to be one of those areas where if it's a question of power, cost of power, etc., and efficiency, then by God, the United States of America ought to be first in the world.

We ought to be first a hell of a lot faster.

So that's it.

Put it another way.

You answered your own question.

I think that if we had the resources to be first in the world, I think this world could be expanded very considerably.

We could make it a major thing.

It could be happening.

Could you use the mic?

Mr. President, I think we have a fairly adequate level of research effort underway.

We have developed a lot of technology that needs to be applied.

So you need money for applying to come out, which of course is the big cost.

In the applications that we're enforcing in the five-year plan, we propose to do this on a 50-50 basis, cost-sharing, which is where our location would be.

We could accelerate that very rapidly, at least assume that to be a federal responsibility, and apply this to demonstrate we could do it.

This was the thing to accelerate the program, to apply the technology we do have.

A second way I think we could accelerate our technology is that we rely on industry, and we rely on experience.

The major markets today are the foreign markets.

It's obvious that the foreign countries are giving incentives to their dissolving people.

We have no incentives for ours.

If we had a small incentive for U.S. industry, we could get a lot on the market.

We would gain the experience that we would need.

We have the world leadership in technology.

We're hurt simply by our proximity to the markets and the labor rates that U.S. industry must pay.

Isn't it fair to say that we need to build a large demonstration plant in the 50 to 100 million gallons?

Yes, we want to move immediately as quickly as we can.

Why do you think that's the problem?

We have to study under way, under all the...

I want to do it.

Within one year, we can get construction.

I think where the big money could be put into this program now would be beneficial in terms of really big development would be in the establishment of new prototype plants.

to move from the demonstration type to the real prototype operation.

I think that's the next big step.

Would you agree?

Yes, that's true.

Yes, Mr. President.

Well, this came out, they'll tell them what you saw out there.

Well, when you fly up on the east side of the Jordan River, which is a small, wide river, it's not so big.

You can see the canal that the United States connects.

Well, the Jordan Canal comes down from the Sea of Galilee area.

And it's a small canal on the top of the land.

You can see it all the way down there.

Halfway down it's been blown up.

So it's not operative.

Northern Square is operative.

It looks like the Imperial Valley.

Soft of that, it looks like a barren desert.

The land is deteriorating fast.

And you can see that the potential in that area is just exactly the same potential that exists in California.

All you need is water.

What I was wondering about this, we South Brazilians and I sat here and listened to the discussion about spotting.

We were behind in 1950 and 1957.

We hadn't done really very much.

And it wasn't until we were challenged by the Russians dramatically that we all got off our duffs and did something and we finally surpassed them and got to the moon first and so forth.

But it took that kind of challenge before we really...

watch all our energies and our resources and so forth.

And I wonder if maybe we're not doing the same thing here, if we are being left behind, all of a sudden we'll find a Japanese or somebody else.

As a matter of fact, the Reich is our building, a large demonstration plant, a nuclear plant that is operating interim on oil.

Once that happens, and everybody says, oh my God, the Reich...

We're now in a position where we couldn't develop a prototype plan.

You know, we can make the same arguments about, I guess, I mean, why should we subsidize something that we can't make it go on?

It's a great parent.

The world has changed.

The world has changed a great deal.

I mean, Sputnik was something that had to be a government operation.

We all know that.

But looking at this, which is not government, you realize that it isn't just the communists.

We've got the British, the French, everybody else, right?

They're all those, the Japanese, I mean, they've got that problem about waiting until things become viable for private enterprise.

They don't, is this correct?

And what we really have to look at here, in terms of your application, we have to look at here, let's look at that 50-50 part.

Let's look at this land.

And if the problem is, because of the costs, the animals and so forth, the private industries are ready, and they're saying, well, wait a minute, let's get it down a little cheaper, then maybe we'll do it.

If we wait that long, we're going to be way behind if there's any questions, because there are other countries that aren't waiting.

Now, we can't get behind in this area, and also there's another reason.

It's enormously important looking at the cost thing.

for us to realize the benefits that can flow.

And we're all just sobering to know that there's going to be a huge break-in.

But it's perhaps even more reassuring to know they can be done over a period of time.

Now, what the United States is good at, certainly, is application.

Some think we are too good at the basic research, and I think we should both.

But we are awfully good at application.

We're the best in the world, aren't we?

And it seems to me that in this area, where application is involved, we ought to get home.

We ought to get together.

We ought to provide.

It has to be 90-10.

Let's do it.

My God, we have 90-10 to build.

But I think what we would like to have, and I think we can have this taken up with Mr. Oswald again, let's try to have it set up with the highest level of integrity

I think various people have to participate.

Actually, the Department of the Interior, like ADC, the scientists and people like ADC.

Let's take a re-look at this in terms of what we could do with a major effort, with a major effort in this field.

And have in mind, too, again, what is being done in other parts of the world.

But it's not just for the purpose of being competitive with them, but in terms of our own needs, and in terms of some of the enormous consequences of having some practical plans that we could use in this country.

Texas could use one of them, or Southern California, and a few other places.

But abroad, the impact is inexplicably enormous.

This is a very fine forest affairs tool.

We all talked about it.

I just wanted to add a thought that, quite apart from the indirect commercial and foreign policy matters, that it has, it seems to me, all kinds of implications in terms of

a better future for tons of millions of people.

It's an exciting prospect when you think in terms of population growth and the crowding of the world and so on.

The crowding is a crowding partly because of the denial to population of vast areas that are presently not arable or productive.

And this is a kind of, it really does have some of the kinds of overtones, I think, of

The only hope, the only hope is sausage.

There is no way, there is no way in the end Pakistan are ever going to make it.

I mean, they can grow more wheat, which they've done, and they can cut their population, which they've done, but it's terribly overpopulated, and it's dry, and so forth and so on.

That's just a sleet out of the business.

Is there any people there to speak of anyway?

And so it would compare to what there are there.

But there in South Asia, there's 700 million people living in the most godforsaken place in the world.

It's a horrible place.

I don't know why they ever went down there.

I can't understand why they would reduce it.

But coming to this one, I think there's another thing we want to do in this setting.

When it comes to the reactor thing, and the whole thing, let's have a mind for the fact that there are some minuses that people fear.

You know, the planet might explode, maybe we shouldn't do this, and of course there's the competition of the other sources of energy.

But it seems to me that if we can move on this, and I'd like to do this on a very fast basis, if we can move on this field,

I would like to tie that into this.

In other words, if we look forward to the greater reactor, I mean, let's look at it as one of the... After all, isn't that one of the major things it might accomplish?

Yes, yes.

It is a source of cheap energy.

Energy is the whole thing.

You just...

When I was in Green Island in the Pacific, we used to say that we were very careful with water, and that's why nobody ever took a bath.

All the kids became hippies after it was our kids.

But anyway, it was a gallon of water and a gallon of gas.

That's about what it used to cost.

That was 20 years ago.

But at this point, the breeder-reactor thing, the breeder-reactor, a new program in this thing, a program that goes, and I think you put your finger on it, you have to, it's application, it's more scientists.

Apparently we've got to find out what'll work.

But we shouldn't just wait until one of the companies wants to take a risk on this thing and go, I'll do it.

That 50-50 thing isn't going to work.

You disagree, John?

No, sir.

I agree.

Your money's not going to work.

I agree.

But don't you think we have to move this field?

No question about it.

And we're long overdue.

I've got the precise figures, but I think it'll cost for a thousand.

You can tell me.

I believe many cities can bear this kind of a cost.

If they have to, I think industry can get to that.

It's probably 30 cents.

Agriculture, for example.

To really be meaningful has got to be about 15 cents, if I remember the figures.

Now, this, of course, in the present day is costing.

In the future, it may be less or more.

But I don't know of anything at all today that says there's much hope, there's much promise, not only around the world, but in the United States, right?

Yeah, I think it might be right to remake this thing.

Now, the time when we're spending billions of dollars, literally, for hundreds of millions of things to build a bank,

...to provide water and storable water.

The truth of the matter is that if we could utilize existing waters, inland, and if we had these modernizations, the point where the coastal cities did not have to rely on the reservoirs, where they had an effect to preempt the waters of the rivers of this country.

The coastal cities have.

Well, if we can ever get desalination effective, and it's Peter and Ed just said to desalinate the ocean waters, and it is the inland British waters, we can, in effect, utilize and appropriate for the inland cities, all of the waters in the rivers, and let the coastal cities rely on desalinated ocean waters.

It can change this whole nation.

You mean like the inland cities?

No, no question.

You mean like the inland part of the United States?

You know, the aspect of it is that in the impoundments today, you're just increasing the salient content of every major impoundment in the West through evaporation.

And if you're really going to distribute the population in this country, and I have a tremendous...

More than we've got now in the coastal zones, you're going to have to do it.

There isn't any alternative.

The impoundments today have needed a ton of salt for acres, but today there will be some point when that either has to be desalinated or drained.

They're mining their water.

And it's a question of time until they're through.

And this is why I suffer from all of the irrigated lands in Texas.

I have an enormous impact on the whole economy of that country.

But that country is not just foreign, it's significant.

It's transportation, it's ports, it's facilities, it's everything.

Well, we have a unique opportunity for the country right now.

We need to develop this technology right now.

They have applied for a $650,000 loan, $650,000 grant.

With that money, they would be able to move immediately with the construction of a three-minute gallon per day desolating plant to make that water available for Clinton in the heart of a drought area.

Mr. President, if we could move on that now, we could have that plant ready for dedication before the next election.

Laughter

There is a very specific example of yours.

Usually what we're doing is something like this.

We're creating areas for saving people.

When they're leaders, there's not much left.

Here's the chance.

We'll move in.

Sorry, we're getting...

I've got a point.

We'll get some new money for this.

Bob, this is fine.

We appreciate it.

We'd like to have five minutes for the...

I'm not going to be with him on the internet.

It's not a great situation.

I'm going to be with him.

I'm going to buy it over and sell it over.

Mr. President, President of the United States of America.

Then, for some reason, various German officials began talking about the money flowing in and the instability, and one thing or another, they just kept on and kept on, and last week they had four out of five German institutes talk about the property necessary to float the dollar.

Well, what happened immediately, the speculative money started to be moved in enormous amounts, a billion dollars in 50 minutes.

in Germany at one point.

So they closed their exchanges and the rest of it, you know, many sources.

But that of what's occurred is simply this.

The Germans are now floating.

They did not change the basis of parity, but they're floating in violation of the IMF rules, which

They'll get an exception for it, I'm sure.

The Dutch are doing the same.

The Swiss actually revalued up 7%.

The Austrians revalued 5.05%.

Frankly, the Italians did nothing.

The Belgians are using a two-tier system and a basic system of controls.

We don't know whether that's going to work or not.

It didn't work very well for them, but it's primarily to keep their capital from flowing out of the country.

Now, whether or not they can reverse it and use the system of controls...

To keep money from flowing in, we don't know.

But yesterday, after all the weekend activities, not a great deal of money moved.

We thought some of the money would move out of Switzerland.

They accumulated quite a bit.

The German mark went up about 4% and fluctuated substantially in the Dutch Gilder.

It's a very strong currency, went up less than 1% over the 30, so I don't think there's anything for us to do, very frankly, but sit and watch.

There's tremendous dissension within the countries in Europe, and I suppose if this goes on for any appreciable time, that those feelings will intensify, but...

We tried not to issue any statements, as you well know, that would indicate that it's all of their problem.

We tried not to indicate that we're happy about it, simply because we think that it is irritating them all the more.

And they can hurt us, and they are hurting us.

And this is something that's quite sensitive, and I hope it won't be discussed out of the room, but we only have about 14 minutes.

14.3 billion dollars in foreign assets and euros, only 10.9 billion in gold.

And these little countries like Switzerland and Belgium and Holland, they just always want gold.

And yesterday we had to...

We paid the French 280 million dollars in gold, but this was a long-standing commitment.

We have no complaints about it.

The French have not been critical or uncooperative.

This has nothing to do with this recent trouble, but we pay them because they have to make payments to the International Monetary Fund.

The Swiss now have 950 million dollars in grosser bonds.

We renegotiated those on yesterday.

They took in their old ones, took their lost, and we gave them new ones.

But in addition to that, they've got a billion dollars uncovered that we got word yesterday.

They want a hundred million dollars.

The value is always that they want gold.

Yesterday we paid them a hundred million dollars, 85 million in gold, and 15 million in special drawing rights in the house.

The Dutch have about 500 million.

So you take the Dutch and the Balians and the Swiss, every time they get hold of a dollar, they will convert it into gold.

So we're moving just as slowly as we can, and we've got a man over there, and we're saying to him, now y'all just don't be...

You may not like what you get, in fact.

It's tight, everything's fine.

We're going to show you the fact that the dollar's not as weak as you think it is.

That's about the net of it.

I don't anticipate that there's going to be any tremendous reaction.

There's a great deal, as a matter of fact, there's a great deal of...

Exciting on the part of many people in this country who think that many of the world currencies should be revalued.

They don't think, which in effect is us devaluing.

And although we're getting some bad headlines, Pete and I talked about it yesterday afternoon about whether or not we ought to try to say much about it.

I would frankly not want to do it at the moment simply because

Let's wait a few days to see.

It's not having that much of an impact, to my judgment, on the border.

And we don't have a lot we can worry about, even though they've re-voted, and SWIFT has determined it's floating, and Harvey is slighted.

They're doing it because the devaluation in effect is the reverse devaluation of the dollar.

So I think we don't gain a lot by trying to explain it.

It's almost impossible to explain to every citizen in any way they care.

And my judge, he's just not that interested.

He thinks that's something for Bill Rogers and everybody else to worry about.

He's not concerned it's not going to affect him.

Now, most of the activation comments want foreign currencies to float.

Most government economists don't.

They want to fix Perry.

And I would advise you to find five of them.

There's three of them.

That's about it.

You may want to disagree with the rest.

And I say this in all candor and in all honesty, there's a tremendous difference.

That ought to be structured, Bill.

The thing to do is to keep quiet and let itself down.

They get the problem they have now, and they get some revaluation.

I would sit tight for the moment.

We're from strength now.

That's right.

We're trying not to ruffle anybody.

I don't think we're hurting one man.

And I don't think we're going to be hurt, very frankly.

But I don't think we ought to be out beating our breast, or talking about it, or saying a whole lot of things.

We're apologizing.

That's right, we're apologizing.

That's about it.

It's silly, but it's true, though.

Det er svært svært svært svært svært svært

Yes, it has made it difficult, and unless this bill settles down, and this is where we may have set in, the United States may have to supply sandership here in two or three weeks, where frankly the key to that is to blow it apart, because if it goes into the summer, as bad as it is right now, it's going to affect the formation of the Utes.

I'm ready to say that if it doesn't settle well,

It's completed by June or July.

It's probably a dead issue.

That's right.

And this could make it quite impossible.

That's all the last time.

They've been discussed and settled down.

There's been a lot of waste made here because of this.

A lot of resentment against the Germans.

Yeah, no question about that.

Our incentives are very good, whether it's accurate or not, it's relevant.

It's like the house and the lawn.

It's like the house and all the other currencies, like the lawn.

And when the lawn grows up, you mow the lawn, you don't cut down the house.

That's right.

Okay, Dave.

How's that look?