Conversation 060-002

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

So, let me tell you, on that issue, we're likely to look, unless all of our projections are right, we're likely to look more hopeful on the inflation side.

The inflation side is extremely difficult.

CDI's rate of increase has happened.

The first quarter has happened what it was a year ago.

Whether it be in the second quarter, and in fact with the close sale price index moving up, it remains to be seen.

But at least we continue to battle.

The main point is, get one or the other looking back.

Not have both look back.

Now we come to your issue, the content.

In terms of doing something about unemployment, there is nothing that does more about it more quickly and more visibly than housing.

Now, therefore, in terms of cost, instead of talking about a huge WPA, a lot of damn make-work jobs around, and this may be, I know that Arthur and probably all the bankers over at Treasury and all the rest of the goddamn bankers in the country will say, oh no, we can't do anything about interest rates.

to keep it down and so forth.

But if the key to getting housing a first is this kind of activity, it ought certainly to be considered not because of housing, which is important, but because of its effect on employment, which is enormously important.

You see, George, therefore I think this has to be considered, John, a bold aspect.

What, has anybody got a better thing to do?

Well, we're doing one thing that could happen in your field,

In this whole transit field, in terms of what we can do, what can be done quickly to affect jobs, and we're only talking about affecting it by one-tenth of one percent.

In other words, if the number goes from 6.2 to 6.1 to 6.6, that's quite a bit, and that's 100,000 jobs.

All right.

So what can you do in a transportation deal?

Well, I don't know.

We've got a lot of things going on.

But when you build, I mean, that's jobs, right?

Now, of course, we all know there's lots of problems.

You've got living costs.

You've got a lot of other things.

But in this deal, if we're going to have money, if something is going to be done, as it will be done by the Congress to work on unemployment,

Isn't it far better to have it be done for something that really builds, that is constructed, like housing, like transportation, and to have it tossed away in these nutty things that there are a lot of things going on, parts of the idea, I mean, that's fine, but we'll have that forever.

The other deal that I would mention just briefly is that

Where are your other subsidiary issues that appear to be coming into the focus, you see?

All right.

Suppose the war is out of the way.

International.

All right.

Let's talk about that.

Let us suppose that unemployment is starting to move down.

There's nothing that politics or the borders more than the back.

Then they move to something else.

Then they move to the next meeting, and the question will be the issue.

So you fight it out on that floor, and here we come to health.

If the media can make the environment an issue, they sure as hell will make health.

Because the health of Teddy can't be considered.

That's why health, regardless of where it is in the present poll, we vow to go up.

Not to go up because it will go up in health costs, or out from the doctors, or, you know, getting people bad medicine, or not giving them an offer, it's costing them too much, whatever the case might be, and so forth and so on.

So, we're complaining, and the health team is very indifensive over here, inundating, of course, to try to deal with the real problem, dealing with the fact that this, as opposed to, I'll just say this, I couldn't agree more with John Collins, because we're scattering too much.

Scattering too much.

People can understand at most three issues, usually two, and...

And many times, most students, many can only understand one, just one.

And we get in 30, and none get across.

The one thing that I noticed in this national committee poll referred to,

is that despite more speeches made by cabinet officers more and more effectively on telephone programs and arrests and so forth, that a clear identification with various issues has not come true on these tweets.

And the reason is that there hasn't been a zeroing in on one, two, or three.

It couldn't be more right that Mrs. Johnson handled the beautification they first was equipped him to do,

But second, it was done with great public relations skill.

We kept walking around, running around, until finally she was fully identified with it.

And in that case,

Who would care less about beautification?

The average guy doesn't look to the right or to the left when he goes down the highway using blind rock anyway.

So what's the trouble is that the other hand, beautification, it affects folks.

Mr. President, on the Secretary's point about taking a pilot project or a demonstration project, I think that...

Introducing the entire trial, we all know that the subject of crime, we've done that.

And with some degrees, the Department of Justice has zeroed in on this district where we have jurisdiction.

And perhaps we expect in one or two other major cities, this has been the only major medical narrative where we have had good results in terms of crime.

Before you go to that, could I, Mel, Mel has some comments for me.

Go ahead, Mr. President.

I'll make it very brief, I get very interested in this question of issues, and I think our problem is that we have gone for too many issues and haven't zeroed in on a few important issues as we prepare for the campaign.

I don't think we should take a holier-than-thou attitude either about make work.

If we have to make work, we should be willing to make work as we get into 1972.

I listened to the debate up on the floor of the house the other day.

I went in there and sat for an hour and a half.

And as they debated, we were not communicating our position.

We got into a lot of technical arguments.

over an application of what we call revenue sharing, which doesn't come true to anybody, because it doesn't tie in with the property taxes he's paying on his home.

And the way to sell that is to tie it into that property tax issue that is a big issue in every state in this union.

Now, we got into the thing about how we as a party were going to do all this training, and we were going to make the best use of the money.

And certainly that was the right approach.

We are right on the issue.

But we couldn't get so tied up with being right on the issue.

We're unwilling to face the political problem that we're going to have in 1972, and it's going to be the issue of jobs.

It's going to be that issue.

Is that something we can do something about?

We're not going to be able to control this inflation issue.

We're going to have a hell of a time with that issue.

Nobody can do something with jobs.

And so the problem, as I see it, is one of...

Maybe we'll have to go along a little bit with this thing.

And I don't think we should get ourselves tied up to a philosophy here that every damn dollar has to be just absolutely effectively and efficiently used in 1972.

Wouldn't you accept the proposition, though, that it's amazing work and it made more sense?

to make it through housing and transportation and things like that.

And now the tax has been cut back.

That's why Bob and Pete said a moment ago that, well, we can do, we can do, we can have, we can have one million nine within the existing budget.

That's all well and nice, and let's do that.

My point is, maybe we have to think bigger, if there's a market, if there's a market.

Because in a housing figure, it's, we can argue the burns, you know, because you refer to housing as being open factories.

I agree with you up to a point, but one thing that bothers me is when you say make work.

Now, we have a make work program.

In our men's cars training and the special revenue training, the big distinction about our program and their program is that they make permanent jobs where people are going to be on the federal payroll or some state payroll forever.

And we have a two-year limitation in which they must be converted to the private sectors.

I can't employ people forever.

Let's not lose in our efforts to create the distinctions that make us different from their party, because it's this...

The total move toward government subsidization on a permanent basis of everybody has gotten us into darn much trouble nationally.

And this is something that a lot more people understand.

Really, the fundamental difference between our parties lies in this issue.

We can't, in our efforts to move quickly and politically to meet the job crisis,

Allow ourselves to be sucked into more of that same point of view.

We've got programs that can make work on an intelligent basis, the way Jim's plan has survived.

Also, remember this on the revenue sharing.

I think this is something that really isn't seen as much as it should be, Mr. President.

This is an issue.

that may not mean a whole lot to a man in his home, but it is cutting the very fundamental support out from under the grassroots of the Democratic Party.

It's cutting the county judges loose from the national party.

It's cutting the county commissioners loose, the legislators.

These people seek for the first time a chance to get some assistance in the labor of every form of resources.

That won't help them.

And they are, if this issue is tearing the Democratic Party apart, we must let go of it on the basis that a man in his living room goes and understands it.

Because those legislators understand it, and those governors understand it, and the mayors understand it.

And the more chaos that we can create by pushing this revenue sharing issue,

The better off we're going to be politically now.

We mustn't forget that it has a great political value that doesn't necessarily relate to the crisis identification in private citizens.

Well, I agree with you on that.

There's no question.

But I think it does have to be related to those local problems that take place in Russia.

That's the other hammer on the basic assumption that the Congress has no confidence in any level of government.

That's the whole one point that I can make on the legislature, and that's to put it a little closer to home, to that home and that family.

If you read very carefully, I agree that the political company causes chaos among various political people, by some of their people opposing the national government, and some before it.

That may or may not be the case on our side, which is rather interesting.

But, in terms of revenue sharing, as it affects the innovation,

Get the individual in terms of salt.

He gets the idea that this purpose is simply to rescue states and cities from actual chaos.

He couldn't care less.

If it's put in those terms, if it's simply in the case of making government work better, he doesn't care less in those terms.

If he sees it in terms of, for example, of a revenue sharing, he's going to be able to accomplish something that's insane for him.

He won't care.

Let me put it another way.

I think he may have gone too far in revenue sharing.

It's simply in the sense that we're going to add more money and give more money to states and municipalities so that they can spend more money doing things for people.

As a matter of fact, there's one loud, clear signal that came through, I suppose, it was the people.

They were asked generally about...

They want to cut revenue rates.

So if you present revenue sharing in terms of the federal government giving a hell of a lot more money to cities and states so they can spend more, that is a spell.

That is who you are.

Oh, it's true if you ask if you want for your government to spend more for education, yes.

You want for this, that's right.

but not state citizens.

On the other hand, if revenue sharing is presented in a way, tied in such a way, that the individual knows that he is going to get relief from increases in property taxes, or relief by reductions in personal goods, it will be a real shock.

I mean, for the individual.

There's no reason why it shouldn't be.

What I'm really getting at is this.

I think that if we

I think Reverend Strang is right as a constant.

I think he's right for a number of reasons we all know.

But I think in terms of relating it individually in a way that he's going to support it, we have to bear in mind the fact that an individual has to see in terms of how it's going to help him, not how it's going to help the mayor, not how it's going to help the county commission, not how it's going to help the county judge or the governor balance his budget.

He's starting to be concerned about how it's going to help him, and to him there's taxes.

And that's why John was you, John, you and I talked about, we've got to get this thing put in terms of taxes one way or another.

Property taxes.

Property taxes, if there's one thing that has impact, it's the income taxes.

The property tax, they get a bill every six months.

They all look at it.

They know how much it is.

They haven't got the money.

Then they say, ah, my taxes are out.

And I don't disagree at all with what you said, regarding the validity issues, regarding the fact that it's one that divides our...

Our potential opponents.

But I think in terms of long-term issues, we have to get Morton's gutsy political sex appeal to the issue for the average guy.

And he's got to see it in terms, well, at long last, maybe his taxing's going to stop.

He mustn't see it in terms, well, these guys in Washington are just going to have to.

All the money that's being wasted.

At the local, at the state, at the present time.

Mr. President, so I think we can do a tremendous amount of make work without appearing make work.

To take up the slack of ordinance procurement, to take up the slack of reduction in the space program, for example.

The big employers are people like shipbuilders.

Air pollution control devices can put up $2 billion in the economy short term if we can use a tax credit device or some way to stimulate industry to do this.

These would be the type of people who are highly skilled, who aren't necessarily the same people that would be involved in much of the housing construction.

And these are short term things, though.

Thank you.

Determine where a dollar spent has the best job effect, what the cost-benefit ratio is really of dollar spent in this area versus dollar spent in terms of employment, in terms of jobs, and in terms of areas that are now depressed, in terms of the west coast cities, for example.

and other cities.

I think we can all, all of us, I certainly, in our department, we can swing the priorities toward employment if we have the right economic criteria and data to do it.

And if we can get back to the tax credit, I know that got unpopular, and George Bush and I

Thank you for watching!

through either tax credit or special loans in some way, we in the machine shops and in the job shops and in the fabrication shops and in the steel mills, we'll up production across the board because we're looking at having a pipe that's probably four to five billion dollars worth of goods over a decade.

I think you have to look.

Roger, what problems does tax credit have?

Everybody knows.

Well, I know I have an appointment, but what I meant is, it's certainly something we can advocate in January of next year.

I'm going to be wasting my time, so I'm going to ask for a prayer to give them the pass on the tax legislation.

It already does, right?

But the thing about it, Mr. President, is that jobs are the result of capital employed.

And if we put our money in short lead time programs, it's going to have an effect on the number of people employed in 1972.

Now, in the case of mass transit, the lead times are such that

If we dedicated ourselves to four or five billion dollars, now, in that case, you couldn't get it spent over less than four or five years.

Secretary, if I might, I just want to hammer home what you just said, and what I think President John Connolly did on it.

Unless you turn any issue into a gut issue, the American people don't remember.

And this business of property tax and jobs is the way we sold after 14 months our sales tax master.

We just kept repeating it, repeating it, repeating it.

Not 14 issues, not 19 issues.

but only two or three.

And the way it sold is that it was going to reduce their property taxes, and also property taxes was industry which provided jobs, and industry was leading Massachusetts, therefore we had to have a limited sales document taxed in order to keep those jobs.

I did come back from overseas, and one thing that I noticed particularly is that unless we as a nation start to really come up and trade with this R&D and technology,

France, particularly, is going to pass this out.

You and I know exactly what Western Germany and Japan are doing, but I certainly feel that this is an area in which, as Barry Goldwater said in Paris after we bought the Concorde, I just can't believe that my country is backing out of this race even before it got to the starting line.

The opinion makers, yes, are going to do the job for us, whether we do it or not.

But I think that we have a tremendous opportunity here.

They talked about beautification.

They did a great job.

But not a single billboard has been torn down.

The Congress has never appropriated but two million dollars.

For beautification, until we fought our heads off for it last year, and we've done it.

We haven't had any particular credit for it.

We are trying to dramatize it around the main, toward down the first billboard.

We're going to be tearing down a great many more of them, which hasn't been done before in the sea and highways.

But I think it's a case of where we have to dramatize these things, and I guess it's a better way to have done some tasks, i.e.

I think that the international trade thing is something that our American worker is getting so productive through the mechanical means of technology that unless we can sell more overseas, we're not going to have enough jobs to keep our men busy.

And therefore I think it's essential that we...

A look at this international trade situation with a few toys really being able to sell to some of these countries like Yugoslavia that right now is starving for technology, is very anxious to get upgraded both in mass transit and a lot of other things.

And I think there are potentially good customers for us, and I think we ought to cultivate those areas where they...

It's a sign of western methods rather than communist fields.

I would hope that through the means of the GACD, the improved railroad systems, we're going to divide the mass transit, which we're working at, and you'll start to see some real developments, I think, before the election of next year, even though it won't be the long term.

We will have the very rapid transit systems in California and San Francisco that will open about February of next year, to which the federal government has contributed not a large share, but about $175 million.

This will be open, so it will really tell a story, as well as merit not the American public.

We're using public transportation, and this is what we have to push.

I would like to make one observation on that issue.

Looking at some of those changes in the polls, particularly with respect to race relations and civil rights, I think we have to reexamine how some of the programs that we have on the books are administered.

I think that the reason the race relations question of civil rights has gone down is because the government has had a little hot rhetoric in leading the marches in some Alabama.

Yes, I was getting that, Mr. President.

We have had more accomplishments than the previous administration in any field that you want to look at, and yet that has ceased to be an issue because we have not exacerbated the situation, but we have recognized in all cases there is two sides to the problem, and we have carried out our statutory and constitutional responsibilities without...

churning up the communities by leading the strike.

And I think that probably also is true with respect to the campus situation where leadership is provided.

And I see this same situation rising in the environmental field and other fields, where we have to be very careful as to how these programs are administered.

Carry out your responsibilities and do your job.

But be sure that you recognize that there are two sides to these issues, and both interests have to be protected.

I think that's something that we all ought to look at all of our programs.

program our activities, and particularly the PR with respect to it, recognizing that there are these deals in which there are multiple interests.

I don't think that I'm a citizen here.

I might go through the whole criminal justice system for you, but sometimes I'd be glad to do it.

Besides, I've got to go out and testify.

I'd like to just follow on that point for you.

There's no question about the conflict in strife and making issues.

And Labour, Johnson, I don't think was quite as clever as we're given our credit for, I think, if I recall the history right there.

One of the things that made that history was that the Republicans in the House fought on a late night session, and it got dramatized.

It wasn't the spending of the money, it was the fact that there was a big battle over beautification.

We were pro-junkyard.

And when there's a fight, and it's wrestling, as John Mitchell said,

Well, John Clegg is a dirty dude.

But to reverse what John Mitchell said, he said that you might want to reduce the strife and conflict in some instances.

I think the other is true.

You might want to escalate the strife.

And if we know the economy is going to be an issue, no matter what we do in 1972, then we darn well, I think, better be involved in

working and fighting visibly in conflict and in strife with those things that are inhibiting the economy from functioning.

And I think that takes aggressive public posture on the economy.

Visible.

Then we ought to coordinate it to make sure that we're all tracking together.

Well, that's right.

If you're going to take a position, as we've done, I guess, to make work kind of jobs, then that's also the kind of thing we're talking about in housing, and the kind of thing we're talking about in the environment.

To create real jobs, to go after those things.

As a matter of fact, we need to separate out the job provision and the revenue sharing.

That might be a way to do it.

We're looking to separate it out.

Kelly, you wrote down something a moment ago.

It was very dissimilar.

Yeah.

We thought of the point that you made with John Volpe while we were in court.

He and I worked together on the promotion of this.

He was my man.

It would add one small thing that was very effective.

It's to keep hammering on the point that this is the real estate sector.

Tax on the whole is the most progressive tax, and we found it made a lot of use of tax.

It boils more heavily...

I'm the lowest rent payer than anybody else.

And as you go down the income scale, the real estate tax bears more and more heavy.

And if you walk out with a point there, which everybody will understand, the fact that the person was up on his income...

The cost of shelter is a higher portion on income, but another factor is that as you go down income scale, a relatively lower portion of total overhead for the land board goes into the maintenance and care of the shelter itself.

So the very lowest, poorest portion

Slums, of course, what you see is the situation in which the only overhead paid by the landlord is his taxes.

At any rate, the proposition that general revenue sharing is a program for the taxpayer, I think is very strong.

proposition and a very valid proposition, because what you're doing in the long run is shifting part of the cost of government to a broader and fairer tax base from the most unfair, most progressive, most subject to the

pure accident of where its taxable property has to be.

I used to contrast, for example, in my speeches for John Bowling's program, the gaunt skeletons of the vacant textile mills in Fall River, across the river from the town of Somerset, where there happened to be located two large power plants.

As a result, in the town of Somerset, they had more taxable real estate and more revenue than they knew what to do with, and they were building extra fire stations for the money, buying new equipment.

And this is, of course, just an illustration of the arbitrariness of that situation.

And what we're trying to do is to create a fair decision system, etc.

And I think there is a lot of violence in that.

There can be.

...be effectively translated into English.

We've got to be gentle.

Well, Mr. President, I think, though, that's the point.

I don't want to be misinterpreted on my remarks about jobs.

I think you're understood.

I'm rather not sure about the job thing.

There are a lot of things I think we all can do right now in decision-making that make jobs available next year.

Decisions have to be made now, whether it's in housing or any of these other areas.

The question is, you come back from, you see what the French are doing.

Well, the French are financing their sales abroad.

We've got to compete with them.

We can make some decisions now and sell a few of this equipment to make jobs in the aerospace industry.

They've out and sold a million dollars worth of equipment outside of their country within the last nine months.

They've done a hell of a job, or he knows what they've done in that area, including Latin America.

They travel 500 million dollars worth into Latin America.

Well, we've figured out a country-crush report.

There's many people that are yacking about the climate and so forth.

We must sell military equipment to Latin America.

Latin America should spend their money for cleaning up their ghettos.

On the other hand, Latin America spends the lowest percentage of its national income in any section of the country, 2% of its GDP for military equipment.

Secondly, they're going to spend it anyway.

And so the point is now the French are giving up so much rather than us.

Now, which is better, to have the French there with their influence in Latin America, or ours with our influence?

Our influence hasn't been too benevolent at times, perhaps, if you look at the Chilean experiment and a few other things, but it's certainly a hell of a lot better than having a French there who was simply there to fish for those waters.

And also make sure I brought that...

I just wanted to address myself to one point that was made here earlier.

I would agree with John Connolly that

Business programs doesn't create any gratitude in the part of businessmen.

Business doesn't vote in elections.

But there are many things that businessmen can do in elections and can be helpful.

What I'm really driving at is that I don't think we should ever address ourselves through a program that helps business so much because it helps business.

It's because of what it does for the economy and in turn what it does for people.

In fact, business is a very large part of the economy.

And all the statistics we talk about, whether it's unemployment or sales or credit or industrial production or gross national product, are the consequences of business activity.

Which leads me to the question of the environmental issue and its effect on business.

Right today, there are billions of dollars of expenditures being held up because of environmental issues.

Public plants, the Alaska pipeline, business expansion, and so forth.

They're being held up?

Well, let's get going with those damn things.

Now, that's just silly.

I don't think they are being held up, Corey.

They're just being held up because of the damn environment.

Let's get going.

Well, that's just silly.

Well, they're being held up by the processes of dealing with them.

Well, in that sense, you find out that it blocks us into the requirement that there be a 102 statement and that kind of thing.

Well, the problem is, if you go ahead with a project of that kind, you get an interruption in five minutes.

That may be true, but I'm only stating it as a fact that the Alaska pipeline might have been built a year or two ago.

A lot of power plants might have been built a year or two ago that hadn't been for the environment.

A lot of business decisions are going to be further because of their concern about the environment.

Let's see if we can get a list of these, and then we'll talk directly to Ruffles.

Let me point out, President, I will do that, but the 102 statements necessarily have to come out of the departments and agencies.

And I must say that the response of a subject operating at an agency is something less than C, in terms of any one of those things.

I can't think of anything that is more important than at least doing it fast, turning it down, turning it down.

But let's get going.

Nothing should be held up because part of this is the screwball that you end with.

If you have a statute that has to be finalized with, and sometimes the agencies are taking 6, 8, 10 months to get it finalized, they can get it done.

I'm going to work a little over time.

I don't want anything delayed, because nothing is going to be delayed.

Every goddamned department is going to have a report in a week on these things being held up.

They're going to listen to me.

Well, like that, that's pretty...

The main thing we want to do is build the elastic pipeline and we've got...

Four or five suits pending at the moment.

I think we're going to have the stipulations and the requirements and the input.

We haven't got all the industry input.

The project description from industry is not in yet.

From industry itself.

But the Coast Guard work now is about to finish.

The Corps of Engineers work is about to finish by September.

We're going to be able to determine, and I think it will be a permit, Mr. President, that we'll fly through the courts.

And if we get one that doesn't fly through the courts, we're going to be in court for three or four years.

Looking at all the points that Maury says about the power.

I know about a lot of these expenditures.

Those are the ones I'm talking about.

I think we can speed this up, and hopefully this powerful and exciting bill of ours will go through up here and help this.

I couldn't agree with you more that one of the things that's difficult, and I'll be very candid about it, is that I think that in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, these not being the rest of the agencies that are involved in the environment, we have created for ourselves as many problems as we've solved.

It's not because of any particular position of anyone else.

I think Rutgers has done a terrific job that we have created within the system here

A head-to-head consultation about it that makes it a very difficult thing to administer.

One of the things that I'm concerned about in our reorganization plan is the things that are not going into the DNR, because there, I think, again, you leave yourself wide open to long delays, difficult interagency conflicts that are going to be...

are going to be required more each time and more difficult to be solving the problem.

The point I wanted to make, which I never got a chance to express, is that of all the environmental actions, the main thing we ought to do is to measure the economic impact of the action by the reach of balance between the environmental improvement and the economy.

We have, we have throughout this government, whether it's consumers, or just for the sake of development, airbag and all those other things, whether it's in the field or the environment, we are not going to study these things in here.

In fact, not on jobs.

And it is deep down.

The thing about it, John, is that I cannot believe, I know it's bureaucracy,

Don't let them tell you it takes six months to get something through.

It takes six months to get something through.

We want it through sooner.

I really feel we can.

Do you feel that the FI creates a following interest?

I think it creates a reason.

It's supposed to get it going.

It creates some difficulties.

I think one of the things is the new agency, and we have all of us in response to it, but I believe that...

I believe that in the environmental area there are tremendous jobs and job opportunities coming forth.

And solving them, there are also a lot of jobs that are being denied because of the restrictions, because of the lead time.

It's the time factor that both ends up in.

We've got these four big power plants, for example, under construction down in the Four Corners area, and the whole thing was slowed up.

But now I think we've got it on track again and going, and if we would have...

Put environmental controls in a positive way so that we begin to stimulate industry to take these actions.

We're talking about thousands, literally thousands.

I take the same water area.

I can put 50,000 people to work within a year if we would go on saving water.

Really, no, we're not going to use it automatically.

It's right on time.

So, yes, sir.

President, we...

So I've assumed our time, and a little besides, I know there's a county committee that wants to meet in the other room, I've just been speaking, so I'll turn it back to just the fact that I've passed around one thing that you're asking us, and we're doing these polls, and now you're going to be thinking about the public perception of the county.

And it's a fear that, in terms of climate, it would indicate that some questions regarding the American public history would be consistently encountered.

That's always the case.

The one point I think we should all be clear of is this.

This shows the need to hammer in on food.

We will get no credit for that.

Except in heaven if we go there.

My point is that as far as the issues are concerned, you mentioned it, what John Mulkey did, there were two property tax jobs.

Everybody knows Jim Rhodes.

He was a very successful Ohio politician.

He only had one team of jobs.

And then he got into the Senate.

Problem is that by the time these guys are done around, we have a big video of them.

We can go around and have all these expectations by the time we get down to it.

We've covered 15 or 20, and that's why there are no starting pieces.

You get down to just a few that are very important.

And of course...

It's one that may be one for the farmer, and there may be one for the city guard, and there may be one for you, and there may be one for the others, and they may all understand.

But in terms of the telling of doing it very simply, that comes first.

The other point is, the thing that Roger's comment brought on, it seems to me that...

Not only looking at the environment, and the environment is a good example of it, we can look at it either way.

We can look at it in the number of jobs that we can create by cleaning up the environment, or we can look at it in the number of jobs that are being denied or delayed because of environmental decisions.

Now, we should go out both ways, because throughout this government, we've got to examine our situation, see whether our own government activities are responsible for the need they send in some of these employment problems, and also to see what areas of opportunity arise.

What if I don't think?

I've got to emphasize, well, I've long been a believer in tax credits, the rest of it.

And I think we should propose some new initiatives that John and Connie are working on for the next time around in January.

Let us recognize that in anything that we try to, that we come up with now, as to what we can do now to affect the employment situations,

This fall and next spring.

But remember that you aren't going to get a tax bill from the Congress this year.

There's no way that you aren't going to get one unless you may hang something on it.

And you might not get one from the spring of next year, and that's too late.

So what we've got to think of are those initiatives that do not require a new tax bill.

Do you agree with that, sir?

Besides our bill, that we think is a milestone in the kind of partnership that we can be created to solve a major public problem.

And the creation of Railpack, now Amtrak, I think is a real milestone in that

It gives us the opportunity to drop those inefficient routes where you have only six passes a day or 50 passes a day, which in some cases pay for the entity.

It doesn't say anything about all the other costs associated with revenue.

These were dropped, and we had a rather abrupt timeframe to get this job done.

I announced a basic route system in late November, and we received comments from many many people, Congress, Governments, etc.

And 60 days later, in January, I announced a final system plan, and this is the system plan which provides the basis for, of course, the specific route selections by ANZAC.

I just want to say, Mr. President, that this board of legislators, which we selected, will help some of us.

It's been one of the hardest working groups of people I've ever met, because I have dealt with two railroad men, pardon me for saying this, but dealt with one railroad, and it took me five years to negotiate a agreement with that one railroad in Massachusetts.

We negotiated a contract, so this board did, with 20-odd railroads,

That was a four-month period, which was really a major undertaking, and to be able to get the kind of men and energetic women sitting right there, who were able to get this on the road on the 1st of May, something which many times incentives and others had just couldn't be done, was a task that I think that this group was commended for, and I'm sure that you've already expressed it.

So I can, without any questions, say that we have done a fantastic job.

I'm sure we have done a great job.

What happened to the water?

It's in reorganization, my friend.

I have to say, Mr. President, that during this period of preparing for the takeover on the 1st of May, we had the good fortune, not only that in the group of dedicated people, but also having

Mr. President, actually, I don't think I've ever had more fun in my life.

I can tell you one thing, and it's perhaps looking at it, not the easiest thing to do.

We expected to put together eight of us, all of the employees of yours, all of them of equal stature, and have them row together in a boat.

I had nothing to do with it, really.

They did it quite with a job.

Perhaps on having eight people run a railroad, this is the real way to have a railroad run, but it's the best way I think that I'm going to get it started.

At least it was done that way.

Actually, I can't, and I'd like to say this right now, I can't tell you how much we appreciate the people in your staff, the people in both your staff, and the kindest assistants.

The big problem was that we had no management, except eight so-called directors who were doing the job.

All we learned how to do was to say no, to say in the reading about us, that's how we got that.

We said no to a certain group, we said no to a certain town, we said no to an awful lot of things, but we finally got none after May 1st.

We are not able to get the flexibility which the Act, which you signed, gives the directors of this corporation to do, and to have a viable railroad, which may, a railroad passenger service, which may be in service here or there, and make changes as they may come up.

And I can say this, one of our really tough problems is finding a new chief executive officer.

We knew about Roger.

I've known him ever since I worked in this building.

So beautiful.

But I struggled to get him to tell them.

We've been overlooking that.

He lives in New York now, too.

We used Catherine for bait, and we got her on board, and I'm sure it's going to be a great job.

Speaking for the incorporated, we thank you and we thank your staff.

May I, before I ask Roger to say that we've had some tremendous cooperation from every one of the members of this board.

I'd like to take a tribute to General Besson, because he has no, or somebody had to, Dave was there just about all the time, but Frank Besson was a tremendous help in this operation, because it was not only those five organizations and the experience for us there,

I have everybody on the stand to have our organization first moving forward.

I guess I should ask, I just have to back it up now.

I have to get you back to all my tables.

I think we're scheduled tomorrow, but not Thursday.

But Thursday is Sunday.

I should notice, where is the office?

It was in Washington.

I'm writing.

I came down on the coach on Sunday night just to see what it was like.

And what it was like.

I think that our big job right now is to get our organization together, and I can say with confidence now that we're going to get a good group of executives running, and we're coming aboard to put their careers and states and lives into it.

And I think they all reflect an attitude which I find in talking to other people, which is the desire to have

We're in business to find out.

selling the service and so forth.

And I think that we all have a conviction that there's a place for it.

There's a role and mission problem here, just as there is in that five-sided building.

It's a question of if we render service as the public wants railroad service, then it's got to have a share of the resources that are available for transportation in this country.

We know we're not going out to talk about 500 miles an hour trains, or the dazzling future we're going to start in

as workmen to improve the service where it needs improving, to sell and to try a lot of things, to get the ridership up, and I think that when we do those things, and we certainly will, that we will be entitled to and we will get public support for it.

Now, we start out with advantages the railroads never had.

We've got freedom with respect to rates, we've got a losing proposition on a cash basis now, but

The railroad structure is about half the size it was when this organization took over.

The only thing we know about that structure is that it isn't just exactly right.

I mean, there are some other things that have to come off, and there are probably some things that should be put on.

And our attack on the problem is to get an organization of people that will go after this question of rioting.

We have a very intimate and a very important relationship with the railroads.

We do not operate.

We hire from the railroads.

There are 13 railroads who are members.

Pennsylvania is the biggest.

The new thing here, of course, is that we are now in a national system.

This is a form of corporate...

This is a corporate structure which, as far as I know, hasn't been tried anywhere else before.

Again, we don't know whether this is the answer, and the answer will have to come from the public.

If they ride the trains, they want the trains, well, we don't end the service.

And if that's a part of the traveling public, this form of transportation has got an average share of the resources that are available.

And so we know all the questions at the moment, or most of the questions, very few of the answers, but I'm confident that we've got two things going for us.

We've got a better structure than the railroads ever had for success.

We've got a good will on the part of the public to show me attitude.

And I think we can get a group of people around and we can have solid working relationships with the railroads which are going to improve this service.

Now, if we improve the service and the public begins to ride, we're home free.

If we made the car try and we find that they won't, well, that'll be another story and then we'll have to see what we do about it.

But I believe it's...

Let me ask you, what is the situation?

You probably don't want to hold it in this video, would that be useful?

I wonder before, suppose you're trying to make a, you're trying to make a, determine whether or not it would be useful to have it determined.

I don't know, I don't know either.

50 miles an hour, something like that, in certain places.

I suppose you just see what kind of reaction you have to that kind of transportation.

Bolling is most of the exact science, despite the upholsterings and the lines, and getting to talk to people in terms of what are you doing in this field?

That kind of research.

I'm not familiar with any of them.

I don't know whether this guy has been to us.

I don't think this bank must do a lot of Bolling.

It must be done.

You couldn't make those huge investments in those fast trains.

That's the way you want to write the narrative.

We have the capability now, Mr. President, to have central between here and New York for operating at 120 to 125 miles an hour and many acres.

Back this last week, we ran the turbo drain between here and Baltimore, and it got up to 120 and 125, and a real comfortable ride.

And the American public has shown that it will use it.

Well, the American Federal Line has proven successful, and it's more than 70-75% off these years compared to...

25, 25, or lower, in other words, that's your best call.

I suppose there's so few areas that you've got that kind of concentration.

We have two things that we can do.

See, this freedom with respect to race is not very important.

It may be a price sensitive question.

And we can experiment.

And I think we just have to try a lot of things.

Some of them may look very silly.

Some of them may have been tried and not worked before.

And...

This is a very big country.

It doesn't take a lot of people riding trains to make this a pretty good business.

But I think we've got to attack it on the basis of first letting people know that there's a service there, and it keeps trying to be competitive with other forums where it can be competitive.

And then as we discern what it is the public wants, we'll try to adjust to it.

I think if you put a...

It seems to me that in all American life today, we see, despite all of our UHBR programs and each other's duration and quality of service, I'm not speaking of speed, but that's one thing.

And I'm not speaking of safety, that's another thing.

We take those things for granted.

But I see just the grace of life.

Now, one of the reasons that the airlines did so well in the beginnings, and they're still doing so good, it is to cheer you over.

DWA comes along, and it will get better than America.

We're going to have Americans coming back, and the United States is going to have a great future.

It has great maintenance.

It allows for service in many areas.

It's come up a bit.

It's managed on the pieces and so forth and so on.

It's closed down channels.

They carry trains and so on and all the other stuff.

You come right down to it.

The general response is that the real competition there is just in terms of race.

In other words, the stewardess has to be pretty, she has to be nice, doesn't it?

And the problem is that at the present time, at the present time, it's not there.

There's been some deterioration in the ground throughout the mountain.

We have to base it on the railroads in Lausen, in Stuhlhausen, because basically the attitudes of those railroads for many years has been that you should take the cloth and take a look at it.

And you can't do it.

When you really get down to it, you need a new spirit in the railways.

The spirit has got to be one of service.

We're competing against the bus lines and the airlines and all the rest.

Maybe we take a little longer.

That is the real thing.

Riding a train.

Let me put it in another entirely different way.

More and more families are going to travel these days.

I know, of course, businessmen and women traveling is the bedrock of any kind of transportation and so forth and so on.

But when you consider your competitors, let's take the highways.

Your real competition there in terms of services is the fact that on the highways today, you have an increasing number of very good places for people to stay and to eat.

When the kids are in, I mean, they're just sitting cool, holding a belt, and the kids, when the signings are out, they break their backs and so forth, so it's rather fun to get in your car and drive down with the kids and so forth.

I can remember when the train was that way, no more.

It's lousy, it's terrible.

Oh, there are a few exceptions.

I know, I've seen them at Medicine Island, and I see somebody come on, generally speaking.

The attitudes for us is that, well, this is sort of a die industry anyway.

We can't be competitive.

You're damn lucky to be on the train.

I can tell you that you can have the fastest trains in my group.

You can be very fast.

You can be very safe.

And safety, of course, is what making the train offers more than anybody else.

That should be emphasized.

But in terms of getting that, the whole emphasis in the last 30th century is going to be on the quality of service.

That's the real difference.

People can get places, but what is the quality?

Here we've got to talk to some of our union people.

They've got to realize that, sure, they can hunch up the weights and rest fine, but the real effect

More and more families are going to travel these days.

I know, of course, businessmen and women traveling is the bedrock of any kind of transportation and so forth and so on.

But when you consider your competitors, let's take the highways.

You have competition there.

In fact, on the highways today, you have an increasing number of very good places for people to stay and eat.

When the kids are in it, I mean, it's just living cool, it's all about when the kids and the signs are out, and they break their backs and so forth, so it's rather fun to get in your car and drive down with the kids and so forth.

I can never walk the train the same way, no more.

It's lousy, it's terrible.

Oh, there are a few exceptions, and I know, I've seen them in Tennessee now, and I see somebody coming out, generally speaking.

The attitude was to us that said, well, this is sort of a die industry anyway, and we can't be competitive, and you're damn lucky to be on the train.

I can tell you that if you can have the fastest trains in my group, you can be very fast, you can be very safe, and safety, of course, is what making the train offers more than anybody else.

That's what we have to say.

But in terms of getting that, the whole emphasis in the last 30th century is going to be on the quality of service.

That's the real difference.

People can get places, but what is the quality?

Here we've got to talk to some of our union people.

They've come to realize that, sure, they can punch up the wages and the rest fine, but the real impact is, these are people who serve people, who serve these various people in the transportation medium.

They've got to realize that they're in competition with a lot of other people who are trying to do a better job

So maybe some family wants to come from Boston down to Washington, to Washington, which is more likely, for a holiday, so they can drive, maybe they can take the train, and so forth and so on.

Whether that experience in training is going to be a puzzling experience or just getting on, it's a big, big gap.

The ticket seller is, of course, doing it the way they used to do it 50 years ago, standing in line, no help with the baggage and so forth and so on.

You compare it with an airline.

It's very intimidating.

I think, of course, the Lord, but I've just seen one who's brought many, many people.

I think a lot more people can ride the train once it comes to the city.

I think it's the quality of service and the fact that it has deteriorated.

And the people that work for Railroads, generally, they want the public to have an advantage.

And they do.

I've been on enough trains to know.

Now there are some that don't.

The western world is trying to do a little of that out there.

I think one of the reasons is just some of them have remained highly competitive.

It's the fact that when they break in their backs, some of those guys don't get it from the service side.

Mr. President, the word that she used, grace, is something that unfortunately the lack of grace seems to have permeated the great name of society.

We realized this when we first went to work on it.

I recall mine had customs.

Austin Tobin told me that the board of New York, or he was sending all of his people who had to do with the public to brain schools and to courtesy schools.

And he suggested maybe we try it at customs.

And I suppose there is that approach, but...

We, when we first started talking about the job which we had in front of us, the work which we do, the service that I think, courtesy and gratitude, the attitude of people, the attitude to me, what do you get on the camera, what do you read, feel at home for that.

I'm really convinced, I take the airlines, I bring them along, I don't take them over, but I describe them, and I would deliberately take them along,

where I just knew that they cared for me more.

And it varies.

Perhaps one of the worst lines in terms of passenger services in the Northwest was

I think they've improved a little since then.

One of the reasons was that they've been in competitions.

You went to Minneapolis no way to go except Northwest, and they didn't care what they went to.

They believed in lousy services, terrible food, and all the rest, and so on.

Now, they made money.

Now, as the competition comes up, it changes.

I personally have been to many meetings at a time now,

The airlines, of course, they're having to fight back.

Our mobile travel is not pretty quite as pleasant as it once was because of the traffic jams.

But...

I would be surprised, but in terms of the railroads, and I only mention this because I know you're going to take care of it, you're going to have safe roads, and you're going to have efficient ones, and they're going to be as fast as possible, and that's all good.

But I think that the real complications...

Which is the attitude.

It's an attitude that's got to not only weigh on those recipes.

You ever try to eat some television tips?

That's what we have to do.

We've got to get a spirit.

And if I were talking, I'd focus years and years, and I hate to put personal plans over things that are not just sometimes delicious.

But that's what we really need.

They've got to take the best thing they can do, and what I really wish, is to get a feeling of real respect.

If you're in the industry, you ought to be proud of it.

You know, some of those people on some of those competing airlines, see, they've just become proud to be an RV hostess, or a PWA girl, or so forth and so on.

They stick their chest out.

The kind of ads, the roads on the railroads that I have,

It's fun to ride the train, you know.

It's fun because we're glad to have you.

And we're going to give you a better service if you can have your own.

A better service if you can get Howard Johnson to do your own job.

Believe me, they'll do it.

And also, there's this other thing.

People are drowning more and more and more.

They get tired of doing it the same way.

Once you've driven from New York to Washington in a car, next time you pick the train, you know, you hear the sign, you see a big billboard, next time pick the train.

That's fine.

But that means you get on the train and somebody kicks you around.

Next time I'll drive you a car.

I'm the first one to admit that the unions have run off too much business off the trains and the railroads.

I've ridden trains that represented people.

I've had old conductors that make you think they're doing you a favor by letting you ride with them.

If you didn't do it, I could ride that though y'all.

You're not going to change that overnight.

No, I wouldn't say that.

I was in St. Louis the other day and a conductor came to me and...

He found out during our schedule that the train was leaving Kansas City about five minutes before the train got in to California.

And he yelled at the train five minutes for 17 passengers that tied the fire mode.

Now, that don't feel very good either.

You know it?

They said they wanted to leave on time.

They left without anyone telling them to.

But it can be done.

Now, hang on.

They had what's called a glamour course.

And they gave it to the people that operated the train system over there.

Oh, I'm glad.

A glamour course is the nickname for it.

I don't want a glamour course.

That's what they nicknamed it.

That's what they made the people feel like they wanted it.

And when you call up for a reservation, some old man acts as a phone, goes off somewhere, has a couple of calls, and you're waiting on the other end of the line, you're not going to call the second time.

All of this is going to take time, but I think it can be done.

I know the train is rough working, but I remember years ago, before you were a lady, and a couple of people were going to receive some thanksgiving day, and my wife and I wrote a poem in the supper.

which was a great train at that time.

And it was a great experience.

It was a fine train.

But second, they were highly competitive.

I must say, everyone, from the moment you got on that train, the guys sold, the people, the conductor, the people that served in the place, they all were proud to be in that train.

Everybody felt like they were on a holiday.

And then,

And let me say, I don't mind about banking the railroads.

There are plenty of airlines that are having problems today, mainly because their services become lousy.

They get back, they got the only line.

I've named two or three because I don't want to get them in trouble.

I won't name any, particularly a railroad I haven't ridden in 50 years.

But I do know this.

I do know that the great opportunity is that we can really get across to our business people.

The business people have got to understand the management side of it.

That the real competition is the quality of life, the quality of service.

You can get your cost down, you can speed up, you can get your efficiency up, but you finally come down as a human relationship.

And if you can make people think they've had a good experience in their road, you've got to provide.

You know, like all of us, when we go back, you go back to the same hotel.

It may not be the newest hotel in town.

It may not have the most modern plumbing and so forth, but you like them because they treat you nice.

And I know some of the best train hotels in the world, I won't name them, but I used to stay in them for years and such.

I would go near the places, because they treated you so badly.

And, well, anyway, that's the course of the state.

I want to leave for all of you, the little drink that some of you may have, is that we always give the people who serve beyond the fall of duty a drink.

Thank you for watching!

So that your wives know that you have been trained.

And Dr. Washington, this is a little bolder than that.

You already have him on your secretary.

Make sure you tell your wife.

Thank you a lot.

We'll try to carry the message to Garcia.

I can't go see you Thursday.

Roger that a lot.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha