Conversation 078-005

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

That's what I say first.

I just got back from South East Asia.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin this meeting by saying that the purpose is really, in a broad sense, educational as far as Secretary Richardson and Dr. Carlson vote on occasions, many occasions for that matter, when we have legislation.

or other actions affecting education have presented views to people around the state.

But they feel, and I think very broadly, that those views should be presented directly, I mean, so that I hear it directly from each of you, to the extent you want to.

Underline what you've already said, what your suggestions, your, you know, your

I think it's very important to see a place

a lot of the university presidents that we've met with, that is the University Association of Black College Presidents, and we want to know your college partners and their representatives.

But this really represents the people that are frankly out of the barricades, those that are out in the arena doing fighting, rather than those that are administered arrest and all those.

PTAs, parents, and so forth.

And so, even though I've been exposed to all the other kinds of news, they're now coming to me.

And we are all of us grateful for this opportunity to share your very, very good time and calendar.

And we agree with you that this is an occasion for the President of the United States to hear the most important people, the elected leaders of the various parts of the House of Education at elementary and secondary level in this land.

And that's the point that I was going to emphasize.

We had higher education, including universities and junior colleges.

There's a trial from about one to five.

We've been in that very hell.

But we have not had it where we've been kicked out of the secondary school.

That's why we want this to go ahead.

So I thought, Mr. President, it would be appropriate to agree happily to hear these leaders and to listen to their concerns, to listen to the way in which they counsel you, that you would just like to steam it around the table and I will try to direct traffic with you together.

And I have no particular sequence or order, but John Geisinger, are you in a position to speak as the president of the American Association of School Administrators, remembering

about 19,000 school executive officers.

Thank you, Executive Morland.

I'd be very happy to try to make this very brief because everybody wants to know.

Your organization is a private public school.

We are a public school.

Yes, sir.

Oh, yes, sir.

So our public school will be the voice here at the three-fifths of an hour public school night.

We have in our membership some university people, some boards of education, but primarily it's school administrators, superintendents of schools for the most part.

So I have to address myself to that clientele.

And we, too, are thankful to you for affording us this audience.

This is a very unusual opportunity for us to speak with you and voice some of our concerns.

And we represent, as Secretary Martin has said, the eight national institutions.

education in the United States, teachers and parents, board of education, school administrators.

We congratulate you on your leadership in foreign affairs, the economic problems of our country, the SpaceX formation,

and other associated problems that we've had during your trip to Alaska.

Although perhaps not your lack of food during that trip.

And your approaching trip to China and elsewhere.

You have traveled a great deal and made it into our association in the past year.

I guess I've traveled about 100,000 miles.

John and Maris just got back this morning from Moscow.

And we did get around a bit too.

We're concerned about the education of some 50 million children in the United States, and we speak, I speak at the moment, for the public school children of America.

We do have a representative, a 38-year-old representative, who brought it to the private and parochial schools.

Before we go to sleep, unless we forget, we would like to applaud your appointment of Secretary Richardson and your appointment of Commissioner Mark.

We were just so pleased and so happy.

We have such a feeling of confidence and pride in these two appointments.

And in particular, since we are interested in education, particularly the appointment of Commissioner Marlin, who has come through the ranks as a teacher and an administrator, and who is really one of us and can speak for us.

And we saw some of the features of your educational programs.

It's not in their total statement, but in general, and we mention such things as the National Institute of the Revenue Sharing and some things of that sort.

Others may be common ground.

And we request this conference in a hope of laying before you some of the critical problems of schools in America.

and we agree that there are serious problems, and reconciling some differences which may exist between some of our clientele and your office.

And we'd like to suggest some means of relief, among which perhaps is our desire that you lend your own prestige, Mr. President, that of your office, to the improvement of the image of education in the United States.

Through the public recognition of the many contributions that public schools have made, the preparation of anybody around the table here through the offices of public schools and so on, and by statements which you might use might be both expressing your confidence in public education and attesting to the tremendous contributions of education,

While it may be fashionable in some circles to decry the failures of America's public schools, it's less than reasonable to fail to recognize their many strengths and contributions to the American nation.

The vast majority of Americans listen with respect to the pronouncements of their presidents.

And any positive statements concerning public education would be helpful to all concerned, including the president, if I may say so.

Among the most severe and critical problems are those in the big cities.

As president of the American Association of School Administrators, I read most of what was done in some 20 cities in the latter part of August, asking them to document their problems and suggest methods of relieving them.

And I will submit to you, sir, the replies of these superintendents, and this will be further documented by Dr. Manchin, but they agree to these organizations.

I would point out also that suburbia is the trouble, although it's pointed out as the wealthy suburban area.

There are financial problems.

People are disenchanted.

with the direction of efforts to these cities, and they are disenchanted, too, with the implications of the recurring financial problems that they have.

And rural America has, of course, its own peculiar and different problems.

There are serious problems.

And we need your support, Mr. President.

The schools are in trouble financially, in very serious trouble, and these letters will document city by city from Philadelphia to San Francisco to Boston to the numerous places that have answered.

The priorities of education are not really very high in the 19th-century American people at the moment, which is very distressing.

It seems that nobody really seems to

care and be concerned.

The Gallup poll a month or two ago indicated education is about the 14th priority.

And yet, the children are going through our schools every day, and we're very much worried.

We feel we can help you, Mr. President.

We're available to be with you at any time you wish.

We're available to lend an input of our ideas and our suggestions.

Our officers will be glad to meet with you, any of our groups.

And meanwhile, we just, in closing, like to say that we are looking to Dr. Weiland as our spokesman.

We trust him, we're very, very proud of him.

And we would like you to hear constantly and frequently, we hope, sir, the voice of education as spoken by Dr. Walton.

We're very, very happy at this appointment.

We thank you for this audience.

Thank you, John.

Would you like me to continue to spread them around?

Yes, sir.

I guess what I'd like to do, my good friend Dave Sullivan next to me said, Dave, you want to be next?

He said he's willing, so Dave Sullivan may have the key.

Well, Mr. President, I don't know whether you're aware or not, but we opposed the appointment of Dr. Marlin very strongly.

He was suggestive and he even caused confirmation.

But I want to say this, that

Since he's been on the job, we've been able to get more input into what the Office of Education is doing than under any previous commissioner.

We've found it more accessible than any of the other fellows, and this is not to detract from them.

We got along with them well enough.

But it is a quality which we appreciate.

We're able to

call him on the phone and discuss problems with him.

And I think that's very important.

We don't expect the Commissioner of Education and President of the United States to agree with us all the time.

Our constituency is a little different perhaps.

We do want to be able to communicate, and we haven't been able to do that.

I don't want to also make extended remarks, except that I have one basic concern in my organization.

I think teachers throughout the United States have a basic concern.

about the underlying philosophy of the administration towards education.

We appreciate your concern for educational research, and we understand that the National Institute of Education now has a pretty good chance of being adopted if you initiated that effort.

In time, it probably will produce things which will improve the effectiveness of our schools.

But in the meantime, we think that we have an obligation to put into effect the best knowledge that we have.

And it's gonna cost us money.

And unless we're able to face up to that, accept that proposition, we're really not gonna get anywhere in education.

There's another thought I'd like to leave with you.

There's no easy answer in education.

We've been educating the, largely, the easy to educate.

And by easy to educate, I mean cheap to educate.

When we go to the other half of the population, the half that even by our standards is not being educated at the present time, it's going to cost more and more for child basis.

not just additional embossment, but on a per-child basis.

Because it's just the way it is that they hire to educate, require more educational service.

There may be ways of doing this more effectively than we're doing now.

I'm in favor of efficiency in education.

Even so, even with using the most efficient methods and latest devices, it's going to cost more and more.

Unless we're willing to grapple with that fact and accept it and try to do something about it, we're going to have the kind of social unrest that I think has characterized our age.

of people continually thrusting against the barriers of society to keep them from realizing their full potential.

Education is their only hope.

And unless we provide the kind of school system which will justify that hope, we can look forward to another age of perhaps even more serious social unrest.

That's the way I see it.

I very much appreciate your patience giving us the chance to express these views.

Thank you.

Good to have an administrator voice, a teacher voice up here, you know, current voice.

Good to have the president of the PTA action.

The CPA chairs the concerns of our professional friends about the need to reorder national priorities and get education higher on the list.

And we are making many efforts to try to help that along and welcome the support of your high office in this effort.

We equally recognize the fact that the point Mr.

Sellers has made about the added cost.

One added note is that as an organization, our components across the land have been watched over the spending of

school monies we're the best accountability people in fact we stimulate citizen watchfulness in the public schools which we will continue to be sure not in a heartening way but actually we consider this one of our responsibilities and also the responsibility to help educate the citizen

that these things do cost money and the citizens are going to help them out.

They'll pay for it and do this kind of education job as we move ahead.

It has been done in places we would like to do it on a national scale.

Let me ask a question.

Your point about the Gallup poll, I think I've stated, with regard to the lack of interest in education, right?

That might be, it might be due to the fact that

people just get a list of things and associations and it's way down the list.

We're getting to a more precise question about the PTA's membership.

How, is it growing, coming down?

Is parenting just big now, small?

Is that a hell of something?

Yes, well, it has been glinting for a number of reasons, whether you feel it or not.

This school district reorder made the same thing, which eliminated it.

Some at the present time, of course, with the problems of reorganizing southern schools, we have a temporary lag.

Our trend last year was, well, frankly, we didn't lose as many members as we budgeted to lose.

We have seen evidences now that many states are now at this point in the membership enrollment, which is just beginning.

way ahead of the year, of last year.

We feel that this is not Pollyanna speaking, that we really are on the upswing and the number of social forces that seems to be making the general public realize that they have a responsibility and we offer them the way.

But this blending membership is still 10 million people.

Well, Hawaii is a powerful organization in a great part.

Part of the reason, perhaps, for this group winning membership is the great competition amongst the groups of the instructors.

When I was going to school, we all know the PTA was perhaps one of the few three or four organizations that people belonged to.

Now they've got so many things to belong to that they don't.

The other point that I think on education, it may have gotten that kind of an answer, and John, you know, we had a domestic council for this too, which came out quite differently.

the way they've done it is because of the money.

Isn't it possibly true that when you ask the question in a way that they think, well, if you're for education, you're gonna raise your property taxes and the rest, you get an easy answer.

If you act, if you say that you want more for education as compared with more for, shall we say,

There are two ways of getting at this business priority.

One is, what are the pressing problems in the nation?

And you've got a certain hierarchy.

Then when you ask, what are the pressing problems for your family?

You've got an entirely different hierarchy.

We ask the question, and it has to counsel for both ways.

When you put it in terms of the nation, everybody, of course, puts themselves in the position of the president and says, well, they're not much Vietnam.

It has to do with China and all the rest.

But if you say, now, what is the pressing problem of your family?

They're not going to think of the federal budget.

They're going to think of the family budget.

They're going to think of the kids.

Isn't that what you got out of this?

And it's kind of a different group of folks.

Education is about, wasn't it Sanford?

It was third.

It was third in that hierarchy.

And all the economy.

And all the economy was third.

So I'm just going to let the section tell us, and then education.

But very often, I think that the problem is not as difficult as it seems.

that it's very much tied into the finance problem.

The property tax report is a very real one.

You might have very bold shows.

I think that the poll, which was dated June 16th, announced June 16th in the New York Times, asked the question the first way, what in your view are the priorities for the country, right?

And the Vietnam, drugs, economy, and all these kinds of things.

Eight, nine, eight, and 14, and then just what they have them think of it, or what they have them think of it.

Sure.

I'd like to introduce now, Mr. President, Jim Rowland, who is the president of the State School Swords Association.

I might add, almost everybody at this table except me is the president of something.

I guess you get to resign as various presidents.

But Jim Rowland brings to this table the wisdom that you should hear, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to even address the president to say nothing about the purpose for which we come here.

We want to commend you on having given us the opportunity to share that knowledge with you.

And on behalf of the National State Boards of Education, which is not a numbers alphabet, but represents the policy making

boards of education of the states, the various states and territories of the United States, which if we all came together at any one time would not be more than 500 people.

But these are people who have much to say as to what goes on in the various states and so far as programs of education consist.

We would like to commend you on the several matters that are now before the Congress, which I understand that this is to represent a part of the education program, because we believe that they will aid in the long run the development of education programs in the various states.

We think that money should come into the state, ought to come into the state, handled by the organizations that are now there instead of creating new hierarchies to handle a second segment of education.

We suggest that whatever the agency that is downhanding education money, that it's offered to have the fellow money offered to travel through that agency in order to strengthen what is already there.

We would also suggest that, as a court of campuses,

that there is no question that education cannot prosper unless more money is found somewhere.

I believe that education locally is in trouble because the local taxpayer paying directly locally is probably taxed as heavily as he is willing to bear.

And we believe that probably some programs should be designed on a federal level where they have the access to the programs of taxation in a way a little different to what we have on a local level.

Offer somehow to provide a larger amount of money on some basis so that it fits back in to the development of quality programs on a local level.

Now in relation to that, I just want to call your attention to something that's already been alluded to, which has to do with really the programs and disadvantages of things like the milk programs, other lunch programs, and so forth.

We'd encourage that kind of thing because we believe that we're going to develop the personalities of people who otherwise wouldn't get developed unless they get some sort of assistance.

which we see as being possible through funds coming from the federal level to aid the men.

But we do believe that a point of emphasis might very well be to see what can be done for those couple of groups that I've mentioned, and any other such groups, is that we certainly are happy to come and share a few moments of views with you, and folks that may be here, and that you are here, that you get to as well.

that more programs like those several that were not mentioned in the amendment, you know them better than I, that more programs will develop which in the end will stem it down to the speech of your great United States.

Thank you, Jim.

I'm Don Morrison.

I'm the president of the EPA.

Just returned last night from Moscow, which is great.

Yes, I was a little sleepy.

Thank you.

See you next time.

No problem.

Perhaps, Mr. President, I could start out explaining the spirituality on integration as I have experienced it.

The members of our organization over the past six or eight years have spent a substantial amount of their budget

achieving integrated professional organizations in the states where there previously have been black and white organizations.

We're aiming to achieve that in all the two states, and we were forced to disaffiliate some of our members in those two states because they would not support this program.

But I say this because this reflects the teacher's attitude on all matters that relate to an integrated school program.

They're proud of the fact that they're the only national professional organization, to my knowledge, that has achieved this type.

The lawyers, the doctors, even the ministers have not achieved this on a national level, I think.

It's true of a banker, it's true.

I know this side of the city is a black group, so I remember meeting with the black lawyers, meeting with the black newspaper reporters, meeting with the black bankers, meeting with the black doctors.

I remember we had the black doctors, and I've met with every one of these groups.

And so you're exactly right on this point.

I don't think you could gather black group of teachers to come separate from the president.

We've never had a request.

Secondly, I would just like to comment on the tax situation, perhaps in a little different way.

I think it is tragic in this country when we force a person on a fixed income to take out his frustration on taxes against schools.

When a grandfather has to cast a vote against the school budget in order to maintain the home that he's in because of fixed income.

And I think

Many votes against education are really not against education, but against the taxes at the local level that Jim Rohn was talking about.

And it seems to me that one of the big challenges, in other words, the part that the Justice and Investing Council, Mr. Oates, is in charge of the study, is this fundamental.

The problem with education, public education, particularly elementary and primary at the present time,

is that the major source of revenue is the property tax.

The difficulty with the property tax, it is not an indirect tax.

It's like an income tax where they take it out rather painlessly.

Twice a year, that bill comes in.

When they add to that property tax, they think, what is that money going for?

And the school becomes the donor.

So actually, the purchase that wasn't too high, he delighted to pay it.

He likes to have a nice school.

But if it comes down to the point where he can't balance his budget, he's going to blame himself.

I mean, he wouldn't care what it was.

If the property tax were being used as the primary way for hospitals, he would vote against hospitals.

I mean, he would vote against living.

Isn't that what our study shows in New York?

It's going to bring us all the answers.

The problem is, we've also studied this, and the disturbing thing is that at the local level, see what you're talking about now, but with the Congress, when the Congress passed a billion and a half years, or the past four billion and so forth,

Getting the Congress to act is not nearly as difficult as it is to get your local people to vote those property taxes.

And that is why we have to consider, as we look at the needs of education,

whether there is a way to find a source of revenue different from the property tax, right?

I mean, is that what you're looking into?

We're starting to talk into a wide variety of other sources.

You know, it's nice to ask, excuse me, to start on, and while we're on it, there are at least two other seriously defective features of the property tax.

It is the most progressive form of taxation.

Studies show that it bears more heavily, proportionally, on the poor.

As you go down the income scale, a proportionally higher share of the income is devoted to the property tax, etc.

The greatest needs of education are by and large in the communities where the per capita taxation is lowest.

So that in dealing with the problem of those, that half of the children who need the most intensive efforts, they tend to be found in the communities that are also at least capable of meeting those needs.

I'm sure that all of my generation will remember we all heard the most regressive tax, the sales tax, and because it's good, you know, it applies, it has to stretch the income tax.

But the interesting point about the property tax is that it's far more than that.

Not only the reason he mentions that it hits a larger proportion, for example, when they're alleged to go for that tax.

The other thing is you go up an income, you write off your tax, you deduct it.

Now as far as the individual who takes the standard deduction is concerned, it doesn't make any difference.

And the whole tax system, our income tax system, also helps to make us a double play to make the property that's more aggressive than the poor people.

So we're, having made all those points, let me say, I don't want to suggest we've got an answer to us, come on, but we are looking.

Because I think fundamentally, in terms of education,

And I guess Dr. Marlowe would agree.

Every time you come, you say we need more money, right?

In every one of the programs, you may say that there are more money needed.

And the real problem is, where are we going to get it?

And the question is, well, let's get it out of the federal government.

That's one possibility.

But when you come down to this property tax at the local level, unless you get at that fundamental problem, we're not going to get it, in my opinion.

once you get at it, some sort of reform there.

Now let me say that in that it's a package.

As I'm sure you know, that revenue there, looking to the future, will have enormous effect on the system.

Because as the local communities, the states, and so forth, get more sources of money from the federal government and so forth, thereby they can use it any way they want.

And they want to put it in education.

I'll be very brief.

Related to this, I think, is the money of a couple million teachers, which if you figure local, state, and national dues, $150 million a year is spent by teachers

And they're forcing the position of spending a substantial amount on this just trying to maintain the support, the financial support of education at all levels, at the local and the state.

Now these teachers are certainly concerned about getting into the improvement of instruction, but their energy is taken up by being disciplined into this constant battle to maintain the funds, whether that is the local school board or state legislature or the National Congress.

So I would see this extra reward, at least I would be idealistically seeing that if we could firm up the financial foundation for education, the teachers would be able to use their money in a way that would help children greatly more than they do now.

You mean teachers serve by the dues that the teachers spend each year?

It owns $150 million a year.

If you take the local state and national resources and the $150 million that you lose, and you say, of course, a great proportion of that is for the purpose of supporting the school system, it has to go into just supporting the financial support of the school system, the financial support.

Yeah, in other words, fighting the battles for the moms and so forth.

And this is a ridiculous point.

Teachers have to...

$150 million a year.

Now that's outside of what David's organization spends.

I haven't added his money.

David, you know about $150 million.

Now, of course, that goes to, if you have an organization or anything that's going to spend on them, you stop them.

Let's say half of that goes for the purpose of simply getting the organization to support it financially.

That's not very interesting.

Related to finance also, I feel that this nation for a century has been able to sit on what we would call the C2 of business.

I think in the past states have been able to identify their goals and objectives in education, and that pretty substantially was able to meet both the national goals in education,

And I think about this period of time, and when we call for a full one-third partnership with the federal government, we're not only talking about one-third share in access to education, but we think that there should be a full share in the role of goal-setting, decision-making, and education.

Now, I know how psyched the American people are on a federal role in education, but I think there hasn't been a shift there.

I think they have recognized that there are national problems and goals in this country that need attention.

And I think the challenge is to come up with a decision-making role for the federal government

that is compatible with the kind of decisions that must be made at the local and state level.

It's a very dramatic statement for NEA to be making, Mr. President, and it's an important one for all of us here.

It's a very significant, historic kind of benchmark.

In other words, the participation of the existing web of counselors, apparently with approval, is a willingness in the teacher profession and in education

All centralness in terms of priorities to grow out of the administration.

Is that right for translation?

I think it's quite a place to shift because you see the mood forever in our history has been we want no interference from the feds.

interference means control, and control means subordination with the local power and so on.

What Don, I think, is saying, and saying wisely, is that there is a, the tide may be changing a little bit on that to the extent that this country can afford to reinvest a deal at every crossroads all over the land in the kind of central messages and greater efficiency of delivery.

When the goals are clearly spelled out, I think they're going to be acceptable.

But I think it must be a full role with one other department, yes.

I would want to continue.

I don't want to continue with someone else's.

I would like to say that I find this unrelated too.

less fear of the federal government and realizing the problems of defying local solutions and acquiring a core and a vector.

Well, if you wanted to, Mr. President, if you wanted to raise Wade's bloody spear on this issue, you'd talk about control.

If you're talking about improving the quality of education, you talk about standards.

And we also have this fundamental fact that with all the problems that we needless to say don't need to, we shouldn't try to decide that today with all the others that we have, but all the problems we have with regard to anything to do with school systems.

We have to recognize that the monumental progress that has been made in that respect, the fact that it has been very difficult for the South, and there are still some problem areas, but we can just stop and think of the fact that looking at the South today, that 38%, and I think it's between 38% and 40% of all

black children in the south go to majority white schools, whereas only 28% of the black children go to majority white schools.

Something has happened there now that much of the opposition, much of the opposition, just straight-up opposition to the federal role

whereas it was not admitted what really had to do with that promise.

As that problem now, even though many don't agree with what the courts have done and so forth, as that problem now moves towards some acceptance, then it means that if people see

the role of the federal government being in other areas that have to do with, frankly, rather than this, I think that the opposition comes down.

Would you not agree that that's part of the thing?

I do agree, sir.

And the track record in the last two years has been significant in this respect.

Let me turn to, can we finish now?

Yes, I, thank you.

Joe Manch, Mr. President, Dr. Manch is...

President of the Great Cities Research Council, which means that he has the 22 largest cities in terms of their boards of education and their school administration.

Joe.

Mr. President.

It's a great privilege to be here, to participate in this discussion, and I want to, as my brief vision for the great cities, not only for you, but the city of Portland, for this meeting having been set up.

This is a great opportunity, and I don't want to muck it.

As a matter of fact, I find that many of the things I had planned to say have been said, so I'll try to save time by commenting very quickly on those.

matters as they go along, but I want to tell you, Mr. President, one time, what I'm sure you know, that the 22 largest cities of this country are in very serious trouble in terms of many things, finances, the schools, the vision of equal educational opportunities, social unrest, racial and cultural polarization, whatever you want to call it.

As far as financing is concerned, I recall that at our meeting,

Just this last spring in San Francisco, all that we have in general, in many times, most of the education will make sure we want to turn it that way.

But most of the people want to talk about what they're going to do about financing the schools for the next year or two.

And it doesn't matter whether the school system is fiscally independent or it's fiscally independent, whether it's fiscally independent or whether it's fiscally independent or whether it's fiscally independent or whether it's fiscally independent or whether it's fiscally independent or whether it's fiscally independent or

As a matter of fact, it's interesting to look at the model of democracy in New York City, which is not taxable, you see.

I've had a discussion on television the other night with Mayor White of Boston, the mayor of New York City, and others.

We're having problems for that.

We don't have a basis for raising the money that we need, and we need a great deal.

I have, I tell you, Mr. President, Mr. President, I say that with some pride, but I say that for a reason.

I've been there over a period of years and I've seen some changes in the way people feel, their attitudes and so on.

We used to have, for example, very important people who would come to budget hearings before the mayor and the common council.

We've had an out-migration of large and white men last year from the cities.

They're out in the suburbs now.

We've had a new migration of poor, largely black people who haven't had

the background generally to come forward.

It is developing, but we don't have that kind of support, vocal support.

We do get the PTA groups and others, but we've lost a lot of our people who have gone out of the city and we're dealing with the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped to a very, very large extent.

Just a few years ago, the percentage of minority group children in our schools was about 25%, that's 41%.

Now, if you remember, there was a statement that you were telling me to quote, an article that you wrote, which I said, that if the present trend continues, and that was several years ago, it will not be possible for us in the large cities to deal with these problems fairly, in terms of people and educational opportunity.

What's fair about two children, one living, one house inside the city line of Butler having $950 spent on his education, and the child living just one house on the other side of the city line of Butler, the wealthy suburb, having $1,200 or $1,200 or in some cases $2,000 spent on his education in some communities, assuming that the dollar will buy in one community what it will buy in the community next door.

It's not fair.

I would never say that money is the total answer.

You can't guarantee this will send you money.

You can't do it without it either.

We're in competition with teachers.

We negotiate with teacher groups what to do and what we didn't make sure is done, and we have a problem.

However, I think the answer has to be in my opinion, in terms of my experience,

a statewide approach that is in the funding of education.

I've made the statement several times over 38 years now that it's becoming a prominence now.

I don't think we can guarantee equal educational opportunity

unless we do it at least on a state basis in terms of fair performance.

I was asked the other day, after a statement was issued by another superintendent, what I thought about the nationalization of education.

And while I was speaking to Mr. President of this group, as well as the Super-Decimal R.C., I said I would prefer not to have nationalization.

I would prefer to have help from agencies of the federal government, which went to funders of the state's equal distribution, regarding the needs of different parts of the country and so on.

I think that the lack of interest in education is a great detail.

I would say, in conclusion, again, that we appreciate this opportunity.

Mr. President, what we need more than anything else is your encouragement.

We look with great favor, certainly I do, and our organization does, on the proposals you have made up to this time.

We hope you can help carry those two events through Congress.

We need someone to set your voice to support us in what we're trying to do with children, for children.

Thank you, Joe.

Ken Brimaster, president of the state, not the state, the Total National School Board Association, representing about 19,000 boards of education in the country.

campus rather than the state school.

That's right.

That's the difference, I'm sure.

The junior board is the whole state board.

Have you said that anybody who

who runs for a school board in Wisconsin in labor of love.

Thank you.

I admire you.

Go ahead.

Mr. President, those are the things that no people do to us.

I'm going to see some real exciting elections when you go through.

Of course, you and Randy have been pretty much of a fool not to come to a group like that.

Somebody has to do it.

It is a labor of love, I'm sure, Mr. President.

First I want to acknowledge the University of Green Bay for the grant consolidation and simplification.

Obviously, this is real great from the national level.

It provides a saving, but even beyond that, it provides a tremendous saving for us at the local educational level.

Speaking of educational, a special resident sharing can.

I will.

I mean, is that what you're thinking?

Yes, sir.

Right, sir.

The large majority of our school board members, of course, are elected just as you are.

And we're charged with the responsibility for public education.

And we're ready to take just as much credit as we want to take in for public education.

And we believe this is a very successful program.

But we also are the people that take all the criticism.

As you said, Mr. President, at the very outset, we are in the arena.

We get the brickbats, and we take them, and we expect that that's what we're paid for.

We're paid in general nothing, but we take these brickbats and try to fend them off.

I would have to also tell you, too, that although

I represent National School Works Association, which would be elementary and secondary education.

We do have a division of community colleges, and we're working hard with them.

I just speak for them, and I will speak before them in Denver this evening.

As you might know exactly who we are, we're 84,000 members.

that we represent 95% of all public school children in the United States.

The fiscal duties of our board members, of course, include the payment of salaries to 2 million teachers and to some 3 million others, administrators, transportation people, maintenance people, and so forth.

So that being the case, we do employ directly some 7% of the workforce of this country.

The annual expenditure, which I'm sure you're familiar with,

I repeat, it is in excess of 42 billions of dollars per year.

Schools are a big business in most communities.

the most important use of funds that I believe you can find.

The decisions of our constituency, of course, definitely affect education, but I would call to your mind that they certainly do affect the economy of the country, and they do affect improvement of our country.

We are concerned about, as school board people, about one particular problem.

We feel that there's not a practice of excluding school board into decision making processes at a national level.

I think that we'll quickly jump over that by asking that as you come up with a commission that will involve school affairs, education in any way, shape, or manner, we'd appreciate giving you people from our side of the fence.

I believe we would have good input.

We would have a way of

giving you the pulse of the public at the local level.

Our school board members, our housewives, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, full cross-section.

We have people in the highest position in business in this country that have a background in school boards.

So we can give you a real cross-section, and I feel that

the federal government should consult with these citizen leaders in education as we go ahead.

I want to applaud you too, Mr. President, for trying to change the method of intergovernmental finance through a general revenue sharing concept.

We're very concerned.

We're dismayed, of course, that the administration's revenue sharing bill at the moment seems to exclude the fiscally independent school districts in the allocation of funds.

When the pressure is so heavy on the realty tax, we do feel that we should have some help in taking that pressure off.

I won't talk more about realty tax because I think we've had enough discussion of it right here.

This is the spot where the local school board member

has to take the abuse because he has to level with the people and draw money out of their pocket.

And as the cost is going up for education, and it has gone up for many reasons, and one of them, of course, is the considerable increase in enrollment

per year, 3%, sometimes 4% per year, but even more important than that, we have a higher holding power, and with this higher holding power, somebody else will grow ahead.

You're holding some of the people that can be educated, but they can't be educated quite as easily and economically as some of those that you're educating.

So we strongly support the philosophy of the California Supreme Court and their recent decision.

We believe the local property tax is no longer an absolute means of supporting the education of the court decision.

In spite of the fact, of course, that the property tax has been our main bulwark with financial support.

We're not ready to throw that away until we have something quite valid.

We see educational professional revenue sharing and general revenue sharing pretty much as a single package.

One to ease the local administrative function and the other to provide the national and needed financial reform.

On the other hand, it's going to be difficult for us to come out strongly in support of revenue sharing unless we can see where it's going to give us help at the local level.

I think possibly I'll close with only just one other thing.

I feel that you're sincerely interested in helping us in an area that we need very great help.

And I feel that a climate for education

improvement is great.

We in education have brought about a considerable amount of reform.

We should spend more money on research.

We should do a better job than we are doing.

But I'm here to challenge the statement that comes up quite often that money is spent poorly at the local level.

No place but at a local level is money questioned yearly at an annual budget time.

And if you relate back to the time that you were more closely connected to the local budget, things aren't very much different except that they're a little bit broader.

Thank you very, very much for

listening to us, we need your help.

And we're here, ready and anxious and willing to give you all the help you can.

Thank you, Captain.

Father Coog is the head of the Catholic Education Association and he brings the voice of the non-public sector quite apart from the social schools alone to this table with the press.

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

I was going to stress that because it's rather important.

I'm trying not to reflect only the Catholic school point of view.

Before I make my brief remarks, I want to thank you sincerely, Mr. President, for the morale factor moved into the private schools already.

I think you're an honorary member of the Knights of Columbus now.

But I would like to say that private schools want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

that I hear around the table this morning leads me to believe that maybe the most optimistic thing I see on the horizon is an IE.

There have to be answers to financing education.

For those that may not know it, the private school contribution to education is about $5 billion a year.

We're dying, as Mr. President knows,

I don't think the effort of NIE ought to be to preserve the private school system.

It ought to be to find new and different ways to educate people.

So I see down the horizon something that looks to me like a half school or a shared time school, and I'm sure that the private sector would buy that entirely.

I'm not de-emphasizing the need for money, but I think there are other ways of finding educational programs that we haven't yet hit upon.

I'm particularly happy, Mr. President, with the work that Mr. McElroy is doing, because I think it's extremely important that we look at the overall finances.

I would close with just this little remark that I, too, am most grateful for what Commissioner Marvin has done for Secretary Richardson.

And I can't help but think that Sid Marvin echoes very much your theme.

He has brought us together because I, too, treasure the fact that I can call Mr. Marvin and tell him what our problems are.

Even though the press maybe doesn't always echo it, in 95% of the things, the private sector works for the public sector.

You're great to me.

You're gonna work a long day, that's why you take all those calls.

I tried to say one thing, and Travis made the time, I said that he's the only one who is the president around here.

He was the president of the organizations, including the Congress of Activities.

Mr. President, I invited Ruth Holloway here because I wanted you to know her and see her, but you can see Ruth and me most any time.

These other gentlemen don't come to Washington every day, so I want to ask Ruth to comment.

I know that she'll be available to you and to Mr. Ehrlichman.

at any hour of any day to keep you posted.

I'm ready to read, so we're down to our anchorman, I think, Floyd.

Floyd Christian speaks for the three state school offices, and the reason I suggest that Floyd be last is that the actual superintendents, the state school commissioners, Mr. President, that is the state, the three state school offices, the governor's side, and the principal education in California, for example, will be a superintendent of education.

Most of you are elected.

About to add to that, Mr. President,

And, in a sense, the reason I suggest to Floyd to wrap this up is that under the law and under the Constitution, ultimately, resides the responsibility at the state level from the leaders like Floyd.

That's right.

Mr. President, let me say for all of our colleagues that this is a very important day to us.

I hope it has been profitable to you.

We think it's very important.

I wanted to hit on some special programs that we think are important.

You mentioned revenue sharing.

I think you should know that the chiefs, I speak of the states that have done this, as a result of the secretary's meeting with us in Miami last year, were 100% endorsed the revenue sharing, special revenue sharing program.

We feel that categorical aid has outlived its usefulness.

The guidelines, the red tape, it's really a lot of red tape to get the money.

And we hope that we can assist you

And more important, the California decision opens some doors for tax reform.

Our state has been sued, Florida's been sued.

We've got a suit coming up and there'll be others.

But I think we'll make this capital on tax thing, people have to look at it again.

And this means that it'll open the door for revenue sharing in a way that all these people have mentioned here too.

So it's probably a good thing.

I think the California decision is a shocker in a way because

We all get used to a certain method of finance, but sometimes when you've got some, it's like our, I had to talk to the International Monetary Fund yesterday, and our having to impose a 10% surcharge and letting the dollar float is a concrete event.

But we have a lousy system at the present time.

One that was good 25 years ago when the United States produced 50% of the world's goods.

and one that is inadequate for today, so we had to get stock treatment in order to get a reform.

Now the California institution, while it's something that's going to make life a little bit more uncertain than the rest, it may shock us into looking for different sources of revenue.

That's exactly what we're saying, that it will bring about a state reform and we think the states will have to do something and the federal government will have to do something

There is no question.

There is no equal educational opportunity where you have a tax base of so small in one area and a real high in a suburban area.

And you can see this without talking about it.

So we support this program 100%.

If you get to do anything, 100% is where you ought to do it.

Another thing that we might have talked to people today.

There are a couple of other special programs that I mentioned to the president.

In March of 1970, you made a speech, you asked us for education we can remember, new directions, changes, and improvement.

Now we've accepted this challenge of yours, Secretary, Commissioner,

And reforms are being made in education as a result of the fine leadership that we receive.

They're being made in Florida.

They're being made all over this nation.

I wanted to mention a couple to you, and I hope you'll have your support.

High up on the list of achievers is career education.

Opportunities to work in the field of the world of work for young people that are not college-bound.

Vocational education.

We need some help and guidance and counseling so that these people go into the right programs.

Now, this is right in your backyard, as you said before, and this is one of the high charges in Dr. Holloway's program.

Getting a reform reading program in our states is very important.

I hope your reader books this day.

It's a very wonderful thing.

Then I want to mention one more that's on the hill.

This is your kiddo.

that we support very, very much, and that's the $1.5 billion on the Emergency Assistance Act.

We think this bill is greatly needed in the states.

It seems to be bogged down after it got out of the Senate for many reasons.

I don't know whether it's going to get out.

But let me say this to you, Mr. President.

We've been able to manage the question of busing in our states

with state plans under the Emergency Assistance Act now without having to send in a plan to ask for buses.

I think this bill is so important and it could not be lost.

The chiefs want this bill.

They need this money.

It is a social reform that's needed in American schools.

We hope that we will have your support to get it off of the hill.

I don't think the amendment, I'd like to have it without the amendment, but regardless.

We need the money.

We'd like to have it without it.

I may not get it without it, but even with it, we've got enough flexibility in state and local funds that we can use the money, Mr. President.

And it's important that we have the money.

If you've got the money, you can find other ways.

That's exactly what happened.

That's a very practical problem.

Actually, I know that all of you were

I'm very aware of the differences on the busing and their honest differences and so forth.

But we have to realize that it not only is just a southern problem, but after the Detroit decision, after the Boston, and there, Elliot, I was just hearing about the coast at the end of the day, you now have a situation where I have very serious doubts that you would get the one and a half billion.

without an amendment such as we have.

We may have a very practical matter, and we can talk about the fact that we ought to do this or that idealistically, but do you need the money?

We'll take it, Mr. President.

One way or the other, we need the money, and that's it.

I wanted to make clear to you that it is needed by the school systems in America to do the job.

I won't talk too long, but one of the things that's been mentioned here has been disturbing to me, and I think there is some question about the polls, but in the South, in my state, there has been a loss of confidence in public education.

I believe it's due to many factors, maybe the busing, the drugs, the dress, the taxes, the war, many other things, many of which we do not have control, and you do not have control.

But I would like to see the President speak out, and as you have on many issues, Mark, for the Public Schools of America, that have been the backbone of democracy, that have kept us free.

I know what an enthusiastic fan the President is about football.

I've watched him on TV and the other Arkansas teams.

But, you know, a football team without a good quarterback suffers on Sunday afternoon.

We need you for our quarterback right now.

We need you to speak out for public education.

And I think with your speaking out, many of the bills and many of the other things will come through.

We are very grateful for this opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Well, I would like to say that, yes, I've been speaking for a long, long time.

the fact that he was the deputy inspector director.

And I can also assure you that your conference and Dr. Martin's also, they're very confident that they have my confidence and also they have my ears.

So whenever they ask, they can say what matters more than something else.

And also I can do something else.

Whenever I can, I doubt it.

So they're very able to act.

I don't have to dot every I across every T. So we have this kind of duty.

I want you to know that we have great confidence in these two people.

Of course, that plan is on the go.

Also, the chairman of the investment council, I have to mention this, he has your, you have his ear, he has mine.

If there's any questions, we all agree on a whole objective.

The real problem I hear, as you well stated, is to find a method for enhancing education that will enable us to sell the people

on the idea of greater support.

And it does get down to that.

You can't ask a retired person in the community to raise his property tax double, triple, and so forth when he's on a fixed income in order to build a better school.

You can, you do.

And he pays it usually, but it's pretty tough.

That's what's happening in many of these places.

All this in mind, the main idea is that Mr. McElroy's offer will be helpful in that field.

Of course, never mind your other suggestions, too.

I'd like to leave you a little memento.

I know you're, you got a bite of dinner.

So, buddy, you're going back to Florida, correct?

We always get these people that are out in Vegas, all of you are, and come to Washington in your home.

These are the presidential couplers.

They don't look very expensive, but you don't have to report them.

It's the presidential seal for the men, and that's because we've never discriminated against women in the Supreme Court.

This is the same thing with a little boat.

And I guess for all of you, I know this is a group that is not partisan, but I always remind you that any of you can wear these because they don't have my name on them.

Thank you very much for your time.

I will be very grateful.

so we can get some legislation.

Well, that means, okay, you're recording the kids because you're gonna get the reading.

Well, it's coming up.

He was optimistic as some people are.

Yes, that was interesting.

I'd like to add a word on my own behalf for the opportunity to hear this group.

I think this is

As you just said, we will be following this up.

The rest of the priority in this situation, and your awareness of that priority, as it applies to the schools and ed.

Correct.

He advises his commission to find a better way.

No question about our being a priority in education.

It's a question of .

It's good for us to hear that, Mr. Presley.

H.G.

Wells probably overstated his outline, as you know, but the enormous influence on, I mean, emphasis on education, indicating that education will solve all the problems in the world.

The United Nations will solve the problems, as I said, many, many years ago, and unfortunately, the problems in the world will never be solved, because that isn't something which is ideal, but it's something

But he did say something that in general we could all agree with, that race and education and disaster, catastrophe, and this becomes particularly true as we look around the world today.

So what is, of course, the kind of education?

How effective is the quality of education?

Just educating parents more and more, less and less than what we're looking at.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

But I wouldn't want to leave the impression that there's something on fire right now that is likely to break.

But I do want you to say that the negotiating track is still open.

how long remains over, of course.

Now it becomes sharply reduced every month that goes by, because you see as we reduce the number of forces we got there, there isn't a hell of a lot to negotiate about.

Then you finally come down to these people and what you do about it.

Now there's something else that you can do something else and crawl to.

They would well know that.

Now, you know that the other day, for example, when they were building up in the DMZ, and somebody slew about it, and I ordered an airstrike on the southern part of the town.

That's all Chinese.

They've got to know there's just a sin in the table.

If they don't, then they will make us wrong.

That's why I've got to play with them a lot.

And all of us can just continue to support them.

Well, they ought to remember that the question is not between an imperfect election and a perfect one, but between an imperfect one and none.

And that's what's involved.

And also that they do have a House of Representatives apartment we just selected where over a third are opponents of the government.

And 28 out of 31 of the half of the Senate have met with the government.

I mean, that they have a free press.

They raise hell down there all the time, you know.

And then the other point that I'd like to make is this, and I really feel pretty strongly about this.

You know, there are a lot of calls that are, I hope I'm not, I've watched all of you have said this, but a lot of people have been urging to cut off 80 degrees because they don't like their government.

You know what I mean?

I mean, it's because we prefer that they have a democratic government.

And then they, and then somebody's put in something, we should cut off aid to South Vietnam because they do not have a president who was elected in the contested election.

So as I parted on the president for the day and say again, we start down that road of cutting off aid to governments that do not have leaders elected in the contested election.

You know what that means?

We would have to cut off aid to 61 of the 91 countries we get aid to today.

There are only 30 countries, by any stretch of the imagination, that at the present time have leaders elected in a contested election.

Let me tell you my part, folks.

You realize what I mean?

You have to cut off aid, and this will get you home, in every country in Africa.

Not only that, you know, if there's not one leader in black Africa that is there as a result of a contested election, not one, and there won't be, my opinion, for 50 years.

It takes time to develop this.

It's going to take time to be enough.

Now, we wish it were different.

But look how long it took for us.

Washington.

You didn't have opposition the first few times around, did you ever?

Matter of fact, Monroe didn't want that.

You know, in these early times, it's a...

So I don't buy this business about the double standard.

If you want to carry a little bit further, you're going to have to cut off a four-decker Caloosie Allen.

But I've had opposition for once in six years.

Don't spend these dollars.

These are...

Thank you very much.

Uh, sometimes I'll explain it to you.

All right.

We're missing a few members of the House.

I understand there was a vote down there.

There's a big devil in town.

Are they going to be on television?

I'd love to see them.

What I would like to do today...

What I would like to do today, if I could have your cooperation, is that I would love to speak briefly with regard to the general outline of what we're going to apply.

Then, because I have to go get a few final touches done on the talk I have to make tonight, I would like to leave here and have John and the others fill you in on the details.

I'll have to let you begin by saying that as far as the details concern, after this meeting is concluded, of all the crackings, resign, leverage, or defaults,

We'll be briefing the press prior to my remarks at 7.30 on the technical aspects.

And John Connolly will have an on-the-record press conference tomorrow, as he did previously at the creation department at 12 building.

That is done.

It will be televised.

Now, let me tell you where we are and also indicate the extent to which your participation

in the previous meeting, has had its effect on our own profession.

First,

We have decided to continue the program for strength.

Second, that program, naturally, must have some budget at the end, hence it's a freeze on investment.

To your honor, many of you raised problems of teachers, deferred wages, and a lot of other things were problems.

And we have to deal with some of those problems in the long term.

The other things that we have in mind is that several of you, when you were here, raised the problem of interest rates.

We looked at that.

We're going to be speaking to that question later in this program.

Several others raised the problem of dividends, where we have a volunteer program.

And we're looking directly into that, and we have formalized something there.

And several of you raised the problem of profits.

which I will not go into these points in time.

You might want to cover reading the Our Father thing.

There's no proclamation or maybe the point that we did not want to excess profits tax, but we ought to not have windfall profits, which is basically the point that we have been wrestling with, believe me, very, very hard to know how to get at this problem so that if somebody who makes a concern that has its wages and costs, their strength,

and then has an unexpected growth in productivity or an expansion in volume so that you get a huge profit, even though its prices are also constrained.

What do you do about that?

Is it counter-effective?

A man as sincere as John McClellan was at a meeting the other day, and he said that you can't allow that sort of thing to happen, even though he is, this is most, I guess all of us are, we want to show that profits are effective in order to have new jobs, new investment, new business, to run the government.

Okay.

So what we have decided is that we have decided to set up first a price board.

It will be completely published in his foundation.

We have a group of very outstanding people who have kind of agreed to skirt it.

We probably have those names by now.

John will have those names by tomorrow.

We have most of them now, but I will not announce them tonight.

It will be, so now there's not a member of management, not a member of labor.

It means basically pretty much from the academic community.

So that's what you have to have in order to be sure that there's no, either the academic community or from political life, or providing political life in the sense that they are not in office, but they have been.

I can show you the type of school we've been looking for.

Second, first, the Price Commission will have its responsibility to train on prices.

It will also have its responsibility in the continuing program on rents.

And it will have its responsibility in the problem of windfall profits and what to do about them.

Then there will be a pay board.

The pay board,

I think you should know that we went through a lot of agonizing bumps.

On the one hand, there was the recommendation of the leaders that they wanted a board and they decided what was going to be done and they didn't have any government action here to override.

On the other hand, you had the representatives of business who, for the most part, came down hard on the side of, you can't have a board in which those that are going to be in control are making the decisions.

And so you ought to have an outside, you ought to be a government board, and they said some things of what they said.

What we have come up with is a tripartite board, business, labor, and government.

Now, we have come up with this for a reason that is quite understandable.

Some of you are perhaps, I don't see how you would not be aware of the fact that George Muniz has said critical things to say about

about our program, and I said, look, you will probably wonder, some of my political friends will wonder, why don't I answer you, and all that sort of thing.

Well, I'll answer good reasons not to.

The main thing is that what we want here is not rhetoric, we want action.

Now, if we're gonna have a program that works in terms of wage controls,

other than pass the freeze, and a freeze is the only thing that we want.

If we have government works, we've got to have a volunteer cooperation of labor.

If we can get it, if we can't get it, then we come up to the hard side, so we have to find some other means, and we do it all, and do that if we have to.

So we want volunteer cooperation.

We've been working very quietly, and George Schultz, my name, has reported that we've had considerable progress.

We think we're gonna get it.

Labor's participation on the wage, business,

public member board, a pay board covering both pay and salaries.

Then third, I've already mentioned our moving on the profit front, which we have not moved on previously.

Third, in the field of interest and dividends, Arthur Burns has agreed to have a committee on interest and dividends.

A committee on interest and dividends, a cash that will be primarily, shall we say,

moral suasion here, but with Merns heading it up, particularly the Hedges sisters, they're gonna have a great deal of clout, and of course, in the background, you can all see, because you know, under the law, I guess, the right view of some of you experts, you know, under the law, the Federal Reserve can move some way on the interest rates, and sometimes I don't understand it, John Compton, he has plenty of money, but anyway, Merns has said it, headed down.

We need that now.

For all of this to work, let me say first, it will require continuing public support.

We believe we have that.

It will require the cooperation of labor management and also of farmers and the cooperation of members of Congress and so forth.

We hope we can get that.

It also must have some sanctions.

You asked Alan last time about what kind of sanctions.

Well, we have them in mind.

But as far as the sanctions are concerned,

If this has to depend upon sanctions alone, it will break down.

I have a few bureaucracies which would pass itself when they come and do more harm than good.

But without sanctions, voluntary restraints simply aren't going to work because the good guys

will be good only as long as the 25% of the bad guys aren't making a problem.

That is why we are asking, and I would like to bring this back formally with you today, for a one-year extension of the wage stabilization, and that gives us a thing.

We are also, on the legislative side, going to ask for stand-by authority on interest and is that a correct job?

And John will explain the kind of legislation.

We will prepare the legislation in a second, send it down.

But I would like to be able to say that I am saying, even now that I am asking the leaders of the Congress to for this legislation and for you to consider it, we will send it down to you.

Let me come to a couple of things on the positive side that should be mentioned.

I'm sure that most of you saw the figures on wholesale prices that came out today.

This is really the best news we've had on the economic front and the inflation front for a long time.

Now, one month doesn't prove anything.

We always say that.

We get bad figures, so I'm going to say it because we get good figures.

But it is significant to note that wholesale prices went down

more than at any time in five years.

Industrial prices have the biggest drop in seven years.

Now, what does this mean?

What will the move mean in the next CBI?

Nobody knows.

What it means in terms of the CBI in two to three months from now is certain.

It's going to have some, of course, alleviating effect.

So the freeze is working.

or has worked, because this does reflect the briefs.

The CPI that came out a few weeks ago does not reflect it, except in certain items, and consequently was not a real test.

The next one will reflect it to a great extent.

The other side that I think I should report on, although I'm not covering this in this speech tonight, but you will see if you want to ask for it,

We have had, and Jack, I know you particularly raised this question of the international situation, and several of you from the agricultural areas raised it, about a month and a half ago about our surcharge as an international monetary thing.

And let me say, a lot of people were taking on John Tompkins, and he was too tough, he was Europe, and now we're not going to get anything.

Let me tell you.

Because I am like this very closely.

I don't go as sophisticated.

But I can say the last week in which the International Monetary Fund was here was, in my opinion, one of the most encouraging weeks on that front as far as the United States is concerned, and basically for monetary stability and fair and free trade in the world to leave at in 25 years.

I don't mean everything has been settled.

I don't mean that there are not any problems left.

The Germans particularly, the Japanese particularly, they're begun to show now the willingness to negotiate.

And that's what we want.

We want to negotiate.

We don't want to come to negotiations where our products get a fair shake.

First, we're opening markets abroad for our products and also

And that means not only with regard to non-tariff barriers, but particularly with regard to the devaluation and so forth of the monetary situation.

We've made great progress there.

It is well not to talk too much about that or talk anything about it.

But I can say that we are moving on that front very effectively and we are very hopeful about progress in that field.

this very strong action, this dramatic experience, which took everybody else up.

It made people feel, oh gee, is the United States going to be isolationist to the rest of them?

But as a result of that shakeup, they began to understand our problem.

And understanding is the first step toward agreement.

And I say this because John may be, shall we say, may not want to share with you his message, it's also ridiculous, but it has moved extremely well, in my opinion, and my reports come from not the central branches, but the political leaders of these countries.

We are going to be able to work something out, not next week, but in a reasonable time.

The final thing I want to say with regard to the program is that this would not have worked without the domestic support of the public and it would not have worked without the support of the Congress.

I know these votes that we've had in the Senate and the House this evening on the federal pay and the borough, they're darn difficult.

I know that I represent California in the Senate and many times there's a lot of government

There are more government workers in California than there are in Washington, D.C., federal government workers.

And so it is a problem.

But I do think that once you hear our program, it is a strong program.

It does have flexibility to agree to it so that we can handle cases of inequity.

But it does tend to hold.

One other thing I can say.

I know some of you were concerned with the fact that I, when I spoke to the Congress, that the 90-day freeze will end in 90 days, even after we realize it had to end then or sooner after.

This one, we are putting no term of aid on it.

I'm telling you here today, we have entered this fight with an instant, but we're going to stay until we do it.

However, I should also say to you that

While we put no terminal base on this, that it is our law that once we achieve our goal, by a goal, I do not refer to zero inflation.

That is not going to be achieved.

We are referring, of course, to something that is more in the ballpark.

But once we achieve the goal, once the inflationary pressure sets in, according to the judgment of the cost of living counselors,

and dealt with, then the controls come off.

Because my dedication to, and the dedication of most of us to, the market as the basic force that will move this country along,

It's an effective way of bringing an electronic call, if you will, that's well known.

And I feel very strong that while controls are necessary at this point to deal with the situation, it's very unlikely.

We've got to take the situation and poison out of it.

that we have to set the system up not with the idea that, well, we'll have this from now on out.

We'll have it as long as it's necessary, but no longer than it's necessary.

One final point that I will not discuss in my labeling, and this is something that Russell and I, and Russell and John and I are going to be talking in the morning about this matter.

We're going to be talking more about it on the Senate side.

The tax matters are now over in the Senate.

I doubt actually the Senate will take it.

I mean, it will have to work as well.

But we feel it's extremely important on the job line that at least there be expeditious action on this.

Maybe amendments and so forth.

I just wanted to be sure that that is my heart.

To me, I did emphasize two things.

One, appreciation for the swift action of the House, very prompt action, very, and first, a vote on Senate Bill.

The last time was that it's best to move on now.

rather than throw it in next year, but we've got the State of the Union, the budget, and a lot of other things, and then all of a sudden April is here, and the uncertainty is very, very great.

So those are the highlights of the program.

As a matter of fact, I won't talk quite that much tonight, but I do appreciate the lighthearted way we've approached this problem.

We do have some different views.

Your views have been helpful to us, and they will continue to be helpful for us.

John and I have talked about this.

I think that in terms of a program like this where they're bound to be U.N. constituents and you're going to say, gee, that's an inequitable thing or this and that, we want to continue to have a set up, we've got to set up a very effective message on consultation with members of Congress and service to members of Congress so when that mail comes in, you've got ideas, for example, as to, well, is this,

Is this way to increase, are we being too hard on them here versus if price increases, for example, that could be allowed or something like that, that's easier than, sure, we know you're going to get the heat, and we want the consultation to be very, very complete in this field.

That's one area where we are going to have to guess.

So if I could, if I could move out now, Mr. John, if you would take over.

I don't want to frustrate the community,

I will repeat as little as possible, and I'll ask you some or a reflection on that, about what is going to happen.

First, I actually start with the cost of living now.

The justice is present to constitute the overall supervision for this program.

But as the president said, we created a pay board

They'll have 15 members, five related, five management, five in the public.

The process will be for all the members, including the designated chairman, will be a full-time management.

They will have a trust with small staff with full-time executive directors.

The pay board will have jurisdiction.

over all wages, salaries, strength benefits, and so forth.

Change salaries and other ones.

They will be empowered to create subgroups as they wish.

They will be charged with responsibility of establishing standards and criteria.

to achieve the objectives which we have, the goal which we have, is to continue to fight these inflations, to bring it under control, to do it in an expeditious manner, to do it with economic efficiency within this free enterprise system, and to do it as quickly as possible.

The process is pointed out, the duration is indefinite because the program

It's a follow-on, it's an indefinite way-station on the road to stability of inflation in this country.

And that's why we hope that all aspects of this program can be done well.

There will be created a price submission as far as it's alluded to with fellow members.

He knows until he gets to the end.

Right at this moment.

I'd like to give you a little background on what came about, and then I'll take any questions that you have with regard to it, etc.

And this would be, in this smaller group, one that we can have a quick discussion on, if you want to take it.

The announcement was made the following.

The leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union are there to change during the next year.

I've agreed that a meeting between them would be desirable once sufficient progress has been made in negotiations at the lower levels.

In light of the recent advances in bilateral and multilateral negotiations involving the two countries, it has been agreed that such a meeting will take place in Moscow on the latter part of May 72.

President Nixon and the Soviet leader could review all major issues and review New York's further improvement of bilateral relations.

and hence the prospects for world peace.

Now, to first give you the background as to how this has evolved, as a matter of fact, on this project.

Some of you, of course, have asked about this project.

You may recall that the first restaurant I saw in January of 1969, this was a long time ago, I pointed out that I did not think we should have a summit conference unless something positive would come out of it, that otherwise you'd have to be let down with the, certainly the cosmetics, you know, the real imagination.

Now, that also has been the Soviet view

In April of last year, the Soviet explored with us, not at my level, but at other levels, the possibility of a summit conference.

We did not feel at that time, and they agreed at that time, that there was sufficient items for discussion in which, even at the highest level, history was for purpose.

There have been discussions at various levels since then.

And then, in the past few months,

or particularly I can tell you in the past there have been weeks more than that, the Soviet Union has indicated that they felt that the time had come when they probably both should consider a peace-time meeting.

And Romyko came here this time.

He got a formal invitation.

Now, what really, I think, led them to the conclusion that we should move now on this time was, and we don't know what's in their minds, we know what's in ours, was the fact that we had made significant progress.

Actually, it's hard to see the biological weapons.

There's the sea beds.

There's the accidental war hotline agreement that's come out of Seoul.

But most important was Berlin.

Berlin, while it didn't receive a great deal of publicity here, was an enormously significant agreement between these two countries.

I've been away, I don't know how many times, seven, six, seven times.

The Ottomans, those were the, those were mainly,

but it did mean that the Soviet Union and the United States, working, of course, with the other two powers, but without the two of us, there would have been no agreement.

We're able to reach an agreement where our interests clash in a very sensitive area.

The conclusion reached to the Soviet leaders on the basis of that was that

We now could well proceed to our discussions in other areas.

Now, we come to the point as to, well, first, why May, and why not next month?

So, the reason for studying it at that point is, again, this state has suggested for that.

is that we now have underway with us a very intensive negotiation on the U.S. arms limitation.

We are hoping to transfer a grant by the end of this year.

I think most would agree that the likelihood of that being able to be achieved is not great, although we're both setting out as a goal.

But arms limitation.

is high on the agenda for both countries.

Then, there are other areas in which the Soviet Union and we have, at the present time, great matters of future concern, which ought to be discussed.

Let's look at arms for just a moment.

And I think it's, we haven't got arms services.

Well, we've got John Bletze here.

John Bletze here.

And John is in Le Bon.

You all know the stories over the weekend about the huge Soviet build-ups.

We have these stories all the time.

Some say, well, how good is intelligence and all that?

In any event, this we do know.

Their arms build-up continues on the offensive side.

At the present time, we are negotiating a assault that makes considerable progress on the limitation of the defensive side.

However,

that an agreement with regard to the defense's side will not be reached until we also have a simultaneous agreement on the offensive side.

And the reason for that is that on the offensive side, they now are ahead of us.

Significantly ahead.

If we agreed, for example, to carry on the defensive line these qualities, whether it's Moscow or Washington or something like that, and freeze that, and then we agree to freeze their advantage on the offensive side, we would be in a very difficult position.

So, I only mention this as a reason why we have

It is very important from our standpoint that it not be one that would freeze us into a position of inferiority.

Once we go to that time, let's suppose we get a call.

Then, you come to the next stage.

What do you do next?

Here's your system to receive the call.

I said this before coming in here, briefly, just to point out this thing.

We could have no euphoria about this.

The United States and the Soviet Union are great, but is their attitude towards therapy different from ours?

Is their attitude towards Southeast Asia different from ours?

Is their attitude towards Europe different from ours?

And our interests are always perhaps going to be a lot in common.

That's inevitable.

It would be inevitable for whatever kind of government.

It's inevitable for other geographical or historical reasons.

On the other hand, there is one great, significant, overwhelming fact which now is becoming increasingly clear, and that is this.

If there is a conflict between the superpowers, there will be no end.

There will be only losers.

They know that.

We know that.

And at the present time, this is the other side of the equation, neither of the two superpowers will ever let the other get an advantage, which is significant for purposes of a creative stride or for purposes of life.

Now, when you look at that situation, it becomes vital that the two superpowers

for their own interests, even though they may be seeking different goals in this area, to recognize that it's continually non-filled up.

This is where we need to recognize that, and explore those areas where we can not only limit, but maybe eventually reduce.

This is something for the future.

I can mention other things.

There's the problem of European security.

That's very much the study of European security.

There's the problem of the U.K. balance portion of it.

There's the problem of also the trade, which is typically what they have a very vital interest in.

And I'm suggesting that all of these studies

It will be, I'm not sure what the agenda will be.

The announcement simply says that all subjects should be of full interest.

But in any event, when you consider the question of arms control, the question of Europe, the question of trade, you have already a very old play.

Now, often peripheral areas,

And I say they are peripheral, only because they don't have somebody fairly well-directed at each other.

You've got the middies.

We trust that great progress will be made in the communities where we get there.

But Medellin is there.

It's in the back of our minds.

And of course, we have the situation in Southeast Asia.

We trust that, and as the governor, I want to make one thing very clear.

We're going right forward with our program in Southeast Asia.

We're not waiting until May for purposes of

trying to come up with a solution there.

I'm not suggesting that it's going to happen, but I do say that our program, on both the Vietnamization and the negotiations, are just going ahead, full steam, in the region, pushing as quickly as we can.

But we have a problem in some of these stations, and it's future.

And of course, we have the problems in the Caribbean.

All of these matters

that could be brought up by either side.

But I think I can sum it up by saying that when we look at the problem of the future of the world, Soviet-American negotiation rather than confrontation is indispensable.

You can talk about, for example, we want good relations with everyone, but whether we have good relations with Bolivia or not doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference as far as the peace of the world is concerned.

Whether we have good relations with the Soviets isn't dispensable.

Now, a couple other ones.

The trains, this and MOT, and I want this particularly done because they're all teachers.

These trips are independent, separate entities.

We are undertaking the trip we became for the purpose of starting a long process of negotiations in which we have violence.

And it, of course, speaks long for the future.

15 years from now, 15, 20 years from now, maybe for the Soviets, in terms of leading the Superbomb, 20 months, we don't know.

Whatever the case might be, the time now is to change the relationship between the United States and the United States of America.

Our discussions with the State of the Union are independent of that.

There will be enormous speculation now.

We're doing the Soviet thing in order to get to Chinese, just as there was discussions we were doing in Chinese in order to get to Soviet.

Let us understand that the United States is an agent.

Nobody ever thought we'd be in this position.

Nobody ever thought that these great communist powers that are here in heaven should recognize what appears to be a reconcilable split.

We're in the position where we need and must pursue as good relations as we can withhold.

So the pursuing of relations became what we must emphasize.

We're not doing neither at the expense of the other.

And I could also say, in terms of informing,

He's pretty new to this announcement today.

And of course our European allies will inform, and the Japanese will inform.

That's about what I'm trying to say.

We try to inform them as we can, but because the dystopian of one thing is to call them the communists, even though they are as they are, as the Chinese are, enemies.

And that is a passion for secrecy.

We have broken this.

and they'd have been up the wall.

So we felt, that's why we felt it was so important to keep it.

We kept it close to us.

As a matter of fact, only Bill Kessinger and I were there when people gave us the offer, and we had just started the department process this morning.

Well, even the house, the European, all the Europeans had been informed.

Oh yes, yes.

That was our vision, and the Japanese.

We didn't want to consult too far in advance because we would have, the parallel of the national and communist China would have been made into Japanese sort of agreement.

So we gave, I think we gave everyone the outcome.

But let me just make one or two other points.

One, I think the climate between the Soviet Union and the United States has never been better, at least on the surface.

I spent six hours with Mr. Kavita this time, the third time, and there wasn't anything that came up where there was any harshness in tone.

Normally, about 10% of the discussion is pretty tough, harsh.

This time, it was really quite unusual.

I know that every note of this energy is what we have in our office at the meeting, and so that way we're not taken in by a cup of coffee or a little smile and so on.

That is what we're talking about.

But in terms of suchness, the meeting that we had with him this year in our office and a year ago, pretty much this invitation, which was extended the last week, was just like every night and day.

And it also reflected itself in the conversations he had with other nations of the United Nations.

His comments about the United States were much different than he had a year ago or three years ago.

The second point I want to mention is that although you're talking about progress in the Middle East,

I think we have to keep in mind that as long as the ceasefire continues, in effect, that's progress in itself.

In 15 months, we haven't had any fighting there, and that has to be considered to be progress.

Secondly, I think this announcement that the President's going to visit Moscow in May will tend to dampen down any escalation.

in that part of the world.

We've been talking about that, well, Sadat was going to have a deadline 1st of January, now people are going to say, well, certainly nothing can happen until after the church of Moscow.

That'll give us a little more time, I think, to ceasefire.

I think we'll stay as quick

for a long period of time, all of which is very, very important.

The third thing I want to mention is that in the United Nations, I cannot speak to 75 foreign ministers, private, long private meetings with them.

Everything else aside, the most important thing to them is the relations between the United States and Soviet Union.

I mean, that's what they look at.

They all raise it.

That's what's important.

I made some comments in my statement up there, and they all, most of the foreigners just came over and said, we really appreciate the fact that the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States is very good.

And I think this will tend to reassure them that the prospects for peace are quite good, and they'll be less jittery about the future because of this.

And I think this will be received throughout the world with the...

Henry, what is your feeling on that?

Nobody knows.

But they weren't wrong.

Mr. President, you had said in tone about attitude.

will tend to dampen down any escalation in that part of the world.

I mean, we've been talking about that, well, Sadat is going to have a deadline 1st of January.

Now people are going to say, well, certainly nothing can happen until after the Church of Moscow.

That'll give us a little more time, I think, to cease fire.

I think we'll stay in place for a longer period of time, all of which is very, very important.

The third thing I want to mention is that in the United Nations, I have not seen 75 foreign ministers, private, long, grand meetings with them.

Everything else aside, the most important thing to them is the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.

I mean, that's what they look at.

They all raise it.

That's what's important.

I made some comments in my statement up there, and most of the reporters just came over and said, we really appreciate the fact that the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States is very good.

And I think this will tend to reassure them that the prospects for peace are quite good, and they'll be less jittery about the future because of this.

And I think this will be received throughout the world with the...

It was very enthusiastic.

Henry, what is your feeling on that now?

Nobody knows about three years.

But they work well.

Mr. President, you have set the tone for our attitude by saying we're protecting our policies for each of these

in terms of improving our relationship with each other, contributing to good peace.

We are not colluding with one against the other.

We are not interested in the two major quarrels they have with each other.

One is ideology and the other one is really border question.

Neither of those we are going to get involved in.

We have been just in this room with Texas about keeping each side in general informed about what we were doing with China.

The Chinese have had advance warning that this announcement could be made, but the notification would probably be forthcoming.

That's why the Soviet were involved before.

they were informed that he was going there because he didn't want to have any excuse for blowing anything.

So we had a difficult, delicate road to

to hold them, but as long as they have dissent, as long as each of these countries has dissent, that we are not playing with the other against it, and are pursuing primarily our own fine line of government in each of these countries.

And we can bring it off, and so far we have managed it without strain on either side.

Above all, by being completely honest with each side as to what our general plans were.

We can point out that there's always a possibility that forests in the near north might take you.

Yeah, we're on.

There'll be talk.

I would not be surprised to see you here.

Paul's philosophy is correct to stick good relations for both rather than playing one against the other.

See, that was the command decision that I had to make.

I came to the office and there we were again, and we were going to the first embassy meeting.

I said, now, this idea of the condominium with the Soviet, that we were strongly pushed to do that.

Let's make a condominium with the Soviet in order to do it in Chinese.

Well, that didn't make sense for a lot of reasons.

not the least of which is if you have two national policies, you don't join them.

It's stronger to join them.

The main point was, I looked at it more in terms of my view when I was talking about this, in terms of a long-range, kind of ending with the slogan of the great third-range politics, because after this long-range policy, this long-range attack is going to be an enormous force in the world.

I mean, it's an enormous fall, of course, in terms of numbers now.

Twenty-five years from now, it will be the most potent .

So I would be less than candid if I were not to say this is a very, it's a technical problem.

They're trying to be meticulous with both sides, warming each side.

And it's down against the principle of which our lives.

I think it's by the Soviet Union.

It is very respectful of the way you handle a Chinese question because it has been very mild indeed.

In the last month or two, they really supported it.

Said they understood it and they think you handled it very well.

Mr. President, I certainly approve of your move to anticipate a question.

I had my mind, because of the proximity of the dates involved, when you said that speaking was advised.

My only question is, what has been speaking's reaction in many

And if not, it is just an advisory here who knows enough.

Senator...

When I was there, we discussed in general terms what their attitude would be to such an entity in question of a specific invitation.

Well, if your conversation can interrupt,

And they were, frankly, very candid with you, and you were candid with them.

You said that with regard to this problem, we have to proceed.

And secondly, for their own reasons, they may not be

It's too unhappy because it takes away the charge that the Soviets were beginning to make earlier this year.

The state is colluding with the odds chancellor at the expense of fellow communists.

One other point I should make, Mike, I forgot to make, is that the Chinese visitors agree, well, the date is not been selected, that will be worded on this current visit.

will occur, of course, well before the social distancing.

They know that.

That is an important point that you made.

We have every reason to believe that violence, that they understand, and that it does not.

to build our relationship, and in fact, it may even help a bit.

So I'd like, frankly speaking, personally, I'd like nothing to interfere with the attempt to be gay, because if anything did, I'd think that that would be the message and the action would be against us.

What you've said is satisfactory.

Mr. President, will you, has it been said about the thing, or will it be said about the thing, that the King came visit here?

I said that, yeah.

I haven't come forward.

Because it's, you see, it's said that the King came visit here, so it could be by the first command.

And so now that we've tried it, we, in the Soviet, there's a phase

they actually wanted to teach law, because that's sort of the position, that's why you may remember that I went there as vice president.

But we wanted to move it into the training period, and that actually so that we'd get it before the conventions and the small things and all the rest.

And the PTN visit,

We don't know that it will be, let's just say, well before at least the dates that are presently here under consideration, that we've got the announcement of the United States.

It will be in May, it will be in the second half of May.

In Moscow?

In Moscow.

Let me say in the middle, if anybody should raise a question.

With regard to why Moscow, I mean, let us remember it's our turn.

You see, Khrushchev came here for a statement, and I said I was supposed to meet him at the Johnson classroom.

That really doesn't count, because that was just a one-day meeting.

Khrushchev came here for a statement, and the Russians actually feel that it's our turn to go there.

And I, of course, expected on that basis.

We could have, you know,

Well, actually, we didn't even raise the question.

They want them there, and I felt it was only the right thing that we could go there.

If it was in other countries, it was better to be there, because they've been here a lot.

They've been here twice, too.

They've had two conversations where there's been no president that's been there at all.

See, my visit, I don't even know.

Mr. President, I'm proud of the fact that you are all going to Moscow.

And I don't like to say these things, but ever since you've been in office, I've been asking you to get to Moscow.

The last time I had any time,

In fact, the last time, the last time I asked you to go to Henry, I saw Henry and I thought you'd be there too.

Now, I do hope that you give me the chance to at least talk to you a pretty good one time.

I think I have a lot of information.

There will be five of them.

And I want to say this now.

I'm not saying it's bullshit.

But I was instrumental, if you believe this or not, in having President Kennedy to lead the push-up.

That was one of the first stand-ups I did.

Yes, at the end.

And when Michaud came here, I of course met him and had such a good story demonstrating what happened.

Fulbright, he's not here today, Fulbright,

invited Khrushchev to, uh, to Dimitra, to, uh, luncheon.

To work, yeah.

No, no.

Yeah.

But he came out of the water.

After ten hours.

And, uh, Pope Rice invited me to, uh, talk, I mean, to go to this luncheon.

and Khrushchev on stage.

And I can see all of us in the committee standing in the big, big room in the circle.

And with Khrushchev,

walked into the door, stopped, and looked at everyone there.

And he saw me, so help me God, he came up to me and helped me on both sides.

I felt as though I was dead on the surface.

There, there, that's right.

And I talked to that man of the minute, and I talked to Nick O'Neill, and many other men of that degree.

And I made these five dishes.

I took some wonderful pictures there that might be helpful, but I've been telling you that.

Of course, if you don't want to see them, it's all right with me.

And I'm not trying to, of course I don't.

But I really believe that it would do good for you to get something from someone who's been to every part of Russia and who has no axe in Russia.

Let me tell you something else.

I hope you keep the military out of this.

Well, let me say, I can't really advise against it, but it's not the end of the world.

It's not the end of the world.

And I want to say this to the leaders.

There will be an extensive consultation with the leaders, actually, for Soyuz.

depending on what's coming up.

Now, you say, what will we consult about?

Now, here's a very, very, very important point.

People say, what will we consult on?

Our instruction depends on what the situation is then.

We're going right ahead on the instruction now.

We'd like to get a deal before then.

Will it be about, it depends upon the situation then.

Will it be about trade?

That's the first thing you need to be sure of because trade is a major area that they're interested in and it's a major opportunity for us if it's on the right basis.

Would it be about the economy?

Depends upon what the situation is then.

But my point is that we will have consultation.

We also will have very, we will have extensive consultation with our allies as we say.

And I'm sure you all realize this, I can't emphasize it from the fact that when you do deem

with communist leaders, anti-communist leaders, they have a phobia, they're paranoid about privacy, which is that we want to keep anything from you.

They're paranoid about it, and we have to respect that, but we certainly want to have any input, we want to have consultation here.

Bill will, I will, myself, in proper time, because we're not there for the purpose of, well, let me say this,

As there is with the case of China, there were no understandings, whatever, prior to China's visit.

There will be none made at the time Henry's audience is going there to discuss the arrangements, the agenda, and so forth.

And there are absolutely no understandings regarding Sovietism.

In other words, it's carte blanche, impending, and we will discuss those subjects that are current at that time.

That's what he says.

Right.

Got it.

A comment comes about at this time.

View of what you said.

I had a long visit with Sitchlock.

Up to now, I've never heard him.

He's the tall one.

He's the fellow who picks up the stuff, the dietician.

He started right off on trade.

He said, our trade relations with you are worse than they are with any other major capitalist country, Britain, France, Japan.

He said, it's disrespectful that we have only as much trade with you as you have with Austria, little Austria.

I said, this is a matter of immense sensitivity.

I'm glad that you're going to discuss it because

That's almost the first thing that people like this don't want to hear about.

Mr. President, you know, I'm a candidate to join the Committee on Foreign Economic Policy.

We've had some very extensive hearings on the idea of West Virginia, and I would take a look at it, because I'm the leading economist on both sides in two directions.

Today's a very significant state and so forth.

I know we haven't been able to move a peg on legislation.

This could help.

Can I say one thing, Carl?

What are you doing?

East-West trade.

Go ahead.

Well, one thing, again, we talked about, another thing I'm very worried about is

that we publicly ever indicate that one thing depends on another, what they call language, on the other hand, failing everything.

We have to remember that with regard to trade, one of the major guarantees is the Southeast Asian.

And that is, that area just reduces the possibilities for trade mass increase.

All of you know that at the present time, that if you were to go in there and say we're gonna trade with countries that are putting stuff in the North Vietnam, you know, they have a problem.

So if you get that thing down, the possibilities for trade goes the same thing up.

I think this is something that we're quite aware of, too.

And Mr. President, maybe that's peripheral, but I was there three years ago.

And since then, the Russians have developed the finest precision workmanship in .23 jewels, with watches, and cameras with direct imitation of the Japanese canon.

In three years, they're ready to move into the market on us.

I'm wearing a Russian watch, a $150 watch that I paid $14.42 for.

I don't know what caused them to fall through, but there was all kinds of conversation about it.

Well, I mean, I say, don't overlook the fact, though, that we're moving on Conner River.

We're deliberately moving at our own pace.

But how much is in that already?

$411 million.

$411 million in Conner River already.

It's potentially an $800 million.

You're aware of it, Jerry, because you're a human mind, right?

And trade is a lively subject, let me say, at all levels, and it is very disgusting.

Let me, I mean, I have one thing I think is terribly important.

I, I, I, oh, Carl, sorry, you started to say something.

No, I just...

I can't hear you.

Wait.

I just said I think President should make those trips tonight.

I'm certain he's not making good Moscow, I guess.

Oh, we've done that.

We've done it.

Jack didn't think Mike was concerned about it at all.

No, we've, uh, they're quite aware of that.

And, uh, and incidentally, it was very interesting to note that he spoke into Donald Jackson on that.

I mean, you see we, the May date, one of the most impressive when you put this date in May, late May, when you said you didn't want to, because it's a little closer to the political thing, well, you can all see, I had to put, I wanted to put it in May, but I deliberately did that from our standpoint, the Russians, on the little way, from our standpoint, it had to be a little after the Chinese thing so that you could move the Chinese state back some.

You got it?

Yeah, yes, John.

Well, just one question, Mr. President, but first, I'm very much impressed with what you've outlined here.

I'm very much pleased you're going to do this.

On the talk now, as I understand it,

This is clearly not a cessation of the stall call to stomach technique.

No, sir.

You're expecting this to drive, as a matter of fact, I think this announcement will get him to the stall.

Yes, sir.

due to the fact that I think that we, both governments, will want to have some progress on something.

And we're making progress.

Now, the one thing I should say, we've got to emphasize, I think, what you said about Stalin, and I say this knowing that there are some of them, some of them, many of them are your colleagues, and some of them really have different views about the events.

With the way the Soviet is moving on their building of offensive weapons, particularly with Seoul in its present state and with the summit coming up, I will have to fight for maintaining the American defense sector and maintaining the credible position, or otherwise we will not have a bargaining machine with them.

Do you know what I mean?

Now, I know that there are views to the contrary.

It was quite significant to note that there was absolutely no question on their part that they are moving forward on their offensive weapons very, very strongly.

And our purpose is not to get in an arms race with them, but in order to stop the arms race,

or to get some limitations in the arm trees.

We have to be in a position to stop them.

They are the ones that are moving here.

And they're moving all ahead of us.

And you all know John and Les better than I do on the offensive side.

Mr. Brennan, you have a good answer to the premise

He pointed out that he hoped that this would help the process and that we would have a chance to have an agreement worked out before that time and he said if that doesn't happen then we'll have a chance to discuss it when I'm there.

That's correct.

Which is very good.

And also the point is that let's assume that it gets off.

And we look at any other things to examine the arms control field.

So this is the end of everything.

We understand the present thing in salt.

And Henry, you've done this, you've studied the verification.

The present thing in salt is basically just a breeze and not, it doesn't get, it doesn't get, for example, Mike and MDFR and all the other things which we're trying to get at.

So there's a big, there's a big ball to discuss at this time.

Mr. President, I'd like to join the others in demanding a question.

The space here is so enormous, it's in part a conflict.

I was sitting just around when a couple of the men around this table, the president of the county fire, said the Russians would take the missiles out of Cuba.

And he said that maybe the Russian threat is no longer the great threat, probably the threat now is from China.

And I remember coming back here, and President Johnson told us that he said that I had a bomb.

And the potential of a delivery system.

So what she's doing is enormously important, and I know that she had a bomb.

Mr. President, I don't think you'll have much support from around this table, but I think the American people would be very enthusiastic.

Well, let me say this.

I want to say this to our good Democratic friends here.

We sort of respect them.

But, Jerry, you have come along.

But I really appreciated the fine support we've had from the House that I had knocked through.

And of course, your committees, and Carl, your trip was so good over there and came at the right time.

And it's important that Mike wants to give us these things.

As I say, we have our differences about how to get to the war, but our goal is essentially, we have our differences about ADM and things like that, but our goal is arms limitations.

And I think that all of us should agree

that the United States at this critical time must not miss the chance to exert its influence with the two, with the one superpower and the other only protective superpower for the rest of China.

play a great role, and that's really what we're doing.

Now it is, I want to emphasize, I can't say for sure it isn't going to fall, because we're playing, not because of us, but because of that.

But there is a good chance now that we can negotiate with both.

But it's very important by the Democratic Army, all of you are going to be asked, we're not playing one against the other.

That's totally the answer, Senator.

If we just had the Chinese game going, then if it was that we're playing them against Russia, and if we just played the Russian game, we'd be playing them against China.

But we are very meticulously talking to the Chinese and talking to the Russians, either at the expense of the other.

This is a very important point to bear in mind.

Mr. President, I

I think if you look at these talks that are coming up, it would be well for the Congress to swallow the defense budget, whether it be authorized, without a lot of faith.

There's a lot of stupid things in the Defense Department, you and I.

They didn't report it on the C5.

They didn't tell us about it for nine days.

A lot of stupid things.

But I think

that if we would give them as much as we can for defense at this time,

Even though we may have reservations, it will put you in better shape in both PK and especially in Moscow.

And I would hope that any drastic changes in the fence could be postponed until next year rather than now.

I'd like to have your comment on that.

It's the wrong signal.

Let me say that.

I say this in reluctance because God knows we'd like to have the money.

We'd like to come back on it.

The rest, that is our goal.

But at this point,

They are not cutting back.

They're going up.

Now, they're watching us.

If we do cut back, you can put yourself in just an undercutting part of our location.

That's our problem.

And it's a preventative notion to answer a different question.

I think it's because of the

Well, I tell you what, I hesitate to speculate, John, because there's nothing that would irritate them more than the thing that we're speculating about what they're doing.

I think I have reasons.

I think I think there are very good reasons for it.

That's the way you should read it.

But what I think is the reason is their self-interest.

It isn't their self-interest now.

Frankly, let's look at where they are.

Well, let's start it on the track.

First, at a time when the Soviet Union was way behind the United States in arms, what do they got to do?

They got to catch up.

They were inferior.

Now there's a rough balance.

Now that rough balance creates a situation where they now have to make a command decision.

Are they gonna continue to go up and try to get ahead?

Now they know very well that for a while they could get away with that, but in the end the United States would have to react and we'd have to build up.

And who's gonna win that way?

All we do is gonna cost each of us a great deal of money and run the risk of a confrontation later.

The other thing is,

I think that their relevance with their natives motivates them to an extent.

Their concern about the possibility of the Mid-East concerns them.

in terms of all these things I could say about ourselves.

And I think too, the point that Hugh made a moment ago, look at the Soviet Union.

Their economy has been flat for about six or seven years.

Despite all the talk about computers and the other things too, if you look down around Moscow there, I was there in 67, I mean, the average

Russia isn't doing a lot better than it was five years ago when I was there in 1966.

Not quite as good.

Trade.

Trade is an enormous thing.

Here it is all set.

They no longer have the delusion of superiority.

They are Mr. Big in their part of the world.

As vis-a-vis us.

And so they look at the future.

They still want to expand.

They still prefer a communist world.

They still are going to try to keep the Eastern European countries well on a leash.

But on the other hand, in terms of their future, their future will not be served by getting in a runaway race with the United States on the arms front, now that they have caused it.

Their future will not be served by having any areas where they might have a confrontation with the United States.

Because they know, as well as we do, once you get these things under control, you realize, as I said a moment ago, there's not going to be any winners in the next couple of years.

I believe that if you'd take one minute for a picture, Mr. President, Senator Elker raised a question about Senator Fulbright.

He has a good reputation.

He's in bed to Arkansas for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the university of which he was president.

Yeah, so I was hoping to get him to Texas.

He's there for another purpose.

We've also almost looked at the window.

I'll call Senator Fulbright.

How's Arkansas going to do?

Who is Arkansas's picture this year?

What was what?

What was Arkansas's picture?

I'm asking you about an Arkansas picture.

Does anybody want to speak to that soldier about that picture?

It's supposed to be Arkansas?

Yeah, it's supposed to be Arkansas.

It was one game.

Did Tulsa do?

Tulsa did.

Of course, Tulsa did.

They were wrong years ago.

I saw a couple of weeks ago, they put a score of 150 points on this.

What is it?

Passing or running?

I don't know.

I haven't seen one in a year.