Conversation 080-002

Transcript (AI-Generated)

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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

Thank you.

I thought it would be over here.

I thought it was interesting to hear from Bill, who really can have an ability to see three to four policy developments from a perspective that's very new to him.

And he's been a person at the U.S. and has a great service.

to having the last 30 minutes, 40 minutes, 45, but anyway, and that also was involving a very good development.

But when you stop to think of it, it's all we're aware of.

Um, there are some events that have been before in policy, one of which is the normal times, the number of years.

Um, for example, the, uh, the, uh, the status of over-court debriefing at the community council.

I forgot.

But in the last year, of course, we had a problem with the .

I just wanted to watch the bill .

The announcement of a meeting, the Soviet announcement of a meeting with the Chinese, it's about to claim an election.

You're getting some time off.

I notice it's done by Mr. Kennedy.

When exactly?

First, I think it's on the chief supply desk.

What about that bombing call they called three days before the election?

But that's either here or there.

When we come down to it, though, I think that all of us have to realize, I think, most of us have to realize that it is a foreign policy that the Chinese have to follow with the Soviet Union.

It's coupled at a lower order of magnitude.

It's very hard for anybody to think it's a lower order of magnitude now.

But it actually is, because it's peripheral and it's certain.

It's like in Vietnam.

All the, and our success is winding that down.

These are events that we're all living by, day by day, and headlines, and so forth and so on.

So I thought that if Bill could talk for a few minutes, he did this, and he had to end it last week.

Just that or anything else, but it's been 10 years.

All of us, all of us are aware of the fact that the fact that these are going to be known as not the era of peace and understanding and pride that the first, I should say, governments have had a very, very aggressive policy to change or have changed that men will have philosophies of

Communist philosophies have suddenly changed their views.

But all this means, of course, is that we and those governments, the Chinese people government and the Soviet government, still have very, very great differences in political policy.

Even if they were not communist, the government would be seeing other objectives in the world than we would be seeing in terms of territory and other things.

There is probably only one thing that brings us together that doesn't really sustain for everybody, and that is the discernment that any government would have

of some sort of nuclear confrontation that they know is going to lead to them going to lead to the world.

However, with all that is done, recognize the very impractical problems that are involved and recognize the fact that

As much as the world changes, it remains very much the same, that we still must not overlook the fact that we are living in a time of really historic opportunity.

And it is no accident that we arrive here at this time with many hopes ahead.

We still have dangers and so forth and so on.

And we have no illusions, no euphoria, whatever.

Opportunities that change the face of the world, not just for the next three or four years, but for the next 25 years or longer.

Why don't you comment more specifically?

Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. President, and gentlemen.

As President said, I think we have to keep in mind, in the field of foreign affairs, it's very easy to focus all your attention on today's problems or tomorrow's problems.

Especially in this day and age when it's so easy to make news out of almost anything.

I'm constantly reminded of that because every time I walk into my office in the morning I'm briefed on the problems all over the world and there are many and we're blamed for a lot of them according to the press, television, no matter what they are, whether we have anything to do with it or not.

Eddie Kennedy can talk about

through the high relationship with Cuba, and that's a big headline, to meet with the foreign minister of Chile and make some news out of that.

Problems in India.

He visited India and complained about, why have we done more?

And actually, of course, back to that problem is something that we're not responsible for.

The vision is irrational.

The vision of a nation

religious hatreds are so deep and have existed for so long it's very difficult to even talk to the parties about a level of help to solve the problem.

I mention that really to point out that in the field of foreign affairs there are always going to be problems and we're always going to be blamed for them and we can't help that.

And I guess it's a price that we're prepared to pay to be the world leaders.

But in order to make an assessment of how we're doing as an administration,

It seems to me you have to consider it in relative terms.

I was thinking on the way down this morning, I've been in Washington 23 years.

You know, our government's pretty close to it, and I don't think there's ever been a time when the foreign affairs of our nation are in better shape.

And I prefer to go anywhere, in any forum, and answer questions on that subject.

And I think it's a very convincing case

I'd like to just make four points, and then if we haven't, we can take discussion if you have any questions.

And I think the points that we should emphasize, because the only way you can judge how we're doing as a nation, and how the administration is doing in the field of foreign affairs, is to relate it to some other period of time, two years ago, two and a half years ago.

And I would like to relate it to the time when Nixon and Congress

See where we stand now compared to where we stood at the time we developed this.

And I don't think it's necessary to do more than just make these four points.

First, there's never been a time in our history, I don't believe that's an exaggeration, in our history, when a church in the United States has taken more comprehensive action, more intense, made more intensive efforts

to achieve a peace, peace in the world, in the present.

He talks about a generation of peace, and a lot of the liberal columnists who were critical of that said it was unrealistic.

It's not quite possible that we could have a generation of peace.

We're not talking about every little problem that we're learning, every small

a minor conflict, but a generation of peace in the larger sense, in the real sense.

I think it's quite possible.

It's quite possible because of the action that the president's taking.

Now, why do I say it's the most comprehensive program, policy?

Well, let's think of some of the things that have happened.

The Senate was never very good at negotiating with the president.

Let's take a moment.

First, we negotiated the return of Okinawa, which is a historic event, never in the history of our nation, certainly, and I suppose never in the history of any nation, has a nation returned that much territory to a defeated nation.

And it's very important in our relations with Japan.

It puts aside all the current discussion about our relations with Japan.

The fact is that this is the most significant event.

And it has occurred in their very appreciative of us.

Secondly, we've negotiated a reduction of 20,000 troops in South Korea.

4,000, we've reduced them by 20,000.

We're getting on very well with South Korea.

As you know, the President has agreed to visit Beijing.

Extremely significant move, consistent with what he said.

We have, at the President's Resolute Initiative, we've negotiated an agreement about Berlin.

Berlin was a flash part of Europe, a place where it was most likely that another war would start.

We had all kinds of problems with the Autobahn.

The President has waited several times during the night with crisis there.

As a result of the action that's been taken, it looks as if that is going to be solved reasonably well.

Tensions around Berlin can be reduced.

Not necessarily to everyone's satisfaction, but at least the tensions can be reduced.

Possibility of a European security conference following that.

We're going to move into that very slowly and we're not sure of this.

in our interests, certainly not at this time, but it does hold prospects for improved relations in Eastern European countries, like Romania, very anxious to have us proceed, and so are all the Western European countries with one or two exceptions to that.

President is?

not only succeeded in getting assault talks started, but because of initiatives.

He's taken directly with Moscow.

It looks as if we're going to have some favorable developments there.

We've already had two agreements that were signed, and we think that within the next six or eight or 10 months, there'll be more comprehensive agreements and assault talks.

The President, as you know, is now going to Moscow.

And that's been done.

The President's trip to Peking was presented in such a way, in such care, that the Soviet Union reacted with restraint, and now we think that the trip to Moscow is a perfect offset to the trip to Peking.

in the chosen president's position and he was not, he was not meeting with a Chinese gardenist in order to develop the Soviet Union and vice versa.

So I submit that any one of these things in any other administration would have been a major development.

And because of these

Because of that, through thinking, I think it's a fair statement to make that never in the history of the country have we had more intensive efforts for peace.

And it's been done pursuant to the president's policy, pursuant to the policy announced when he was a candidate, and which he announced as soon as he became president.

Second point, and this is one we tend to forget, and it seems to me that it's the kind of

I don't think we should say more and more to the American people.

The world is a more peaceful place than it was two and a half years ago.

It's just that simple.

The efforts the president is making for peace are not just vain efforts.

The fact is the world is more peaceful.

We had a war in Latin America between Nicaragua and El Salvador.

We had a war in Nigeria that just

killing more people than any other war in the world.

We had a near war in the Middle East, fighting going on all the time.

We had a major war in Vietnam.

And the only thing we have left is our involvement in Vietnam, which is, you know, accelerated to the point where we have practically no casualties.

I think last week was the best we could say that the lowest that there had been.

In addition to that, the United States is a more peaceful place than it was two and a half years ago.

We don't have blows in the cities.

We don't have all the problems in the colleges.

So it's just a more peaceful place.

Now, people don't notice it.

They don't notice it's a more peaceful place and they don't know that it's the result of efforts by the president.

But that's a fact.

And I think as Republicans we should point that out.

We still need to judge by our competitors and we should be equally judged by our successes.

And this is the major success of any administration is to bring about a more peaceful condition and more opportunities for peace in the world.

The third point I'd like to make is this didn't just happen.

It isn't just fortuitous or accidental.

It happened as a result of the policy that the President announced when he inaugurated.

The positions that he has stated in all of his policy speeches and has stated the world message

And everything that we had done was done in accordance with the plan.

who was announced very early that we were going to try to improve our relationship with Congress County, but not at the expense of our friends in LA.

So it's an orderly administration.

It's one that has announced the policy to begin with, we've followed it, and it's working.

Now we obviously will have problems in the future.

We'll have trouble in the point of affairs we've gone to.

But overall, it's a policy that was stated,

followed and has been successful.

And just to conclude, the fourth point, and I hope the President will excuse me because I want to speak.

And I say this with respect because I've spent a good deal of time, the President asked me the other day to figure out how much time I spend with the speech of state heads of government, foreign ministers,

in separate meetings of 552.

Now I say that because in the early days, in those meetings, the principal subject of discussion was whether the United States was going to be able to maintain its position of leadership in the world.

And we were under tremendous criticism for what we were doing, particularly in Vietnam.

But in many ways throughout the world,

Now that has changed.

I can't tell you how dramatically that's changed.

And with the death of the Gaul and the proliferation of followers of the Soviet Union and the success that is recognized throughout the world to a much greater extent than it is in this country, the success of our policy, the President is

He's recognized as the world leader for peace.

So there just isn't anybody else in the horizon.

And he's young and vigorous and alive, so it isn't quite as much notice in this country as it was going to be.

But it's noticed certainly by all the people that I talk to.

And the one question is, what is the President going to do?

How is his program working?

What is the United States going to do in every area of the world?

There isn't a single area in the world that we don't at the moment have the leadership in involving foreign policy.

Everyone in India, even in India and Pakistan, they all want to know what the President's going to do.

And there's no complaining.

Others are slighted, complaining.

There's a few complaints, obviously, you might expect about the economic policy.

But with that exception, which is inevitable, the United States is taking the leadership in the quest for peace.

And as I say, the President is considered

I think without exception is the leader of the world in the question of peace.

And I think all of us in this administration are very proud of that.

The reports last night, Mr. Secretary, were rather ominous on the India-Pakistan situation today.

Do you feel free to touch on that at all?

Sure, sure.

Well, as I said earlier, the problems there are, I suppose, beyond anyone's ability to cope, and all you can do is handle them on a not-hot basis.

The division of the country has never made any sense to begin with.

The religious hatreds of the Soviets in East Pakistan, it's very difficult to understand how they managed to get along together from now on.

The emotion that exists between India and Pakistan is unbelievable.

Now, you'd think that the hatreds between Israelis and Arabs are great, but they don't really compare to the hatred that exists between the Indians and the Paks.

But his subordinates have the same emotional reaction now.

We have done everything we could to caution both sides to use restraint.

And we have worked with the Russians, and I think they have been cautioning restraint because they don't want it to blow up.

We have sought in every possible way to be a part of reconciliation.

among the political forces in East Pakistan.

The problem we have is Majid seems to be the only leader that is acceptable to Bangladesh.

And he is the one that the audience says he can't deal with.

He said that he can't deal with him any more than we could deal with a traitor in our country.

And he has him on trial now, and we cautioned him not to execute him.

I don't think he will.

He's promised to see more.

He has attempted to work with Kamek Lepesh at a lower level where he got a political solution.

The Indians really don't want a political solution.

They want Mujib back.

So they're fomenting guerrillas in India to move back into Pakistan and cause trouble.

We have gone to the United Nations.

We've had the United Nations agree to go to both countries.

India won't accept the United Nations, Chris.

a pact that has accepted none of our assistance.

We think we're pretty well geared up to prevent a famine in the fall, but we frankly don't know how to proceed any further.

I had a meeting yesterday with the High Commissioner of Refugees, who just returned from there, and no one seems to know what the solution is, and certainly we don't.

The only way it can be handled is by the people in the area.

Now, Yahya is a very intelligent man, and is a forceful man, but I think the thing has gotten out of hand.

I think we had hopes that he could keep it balanced.

I don't believe that Max is going to start a war, because I don't think he's going to see any of this.

I don't think India wants the war.

The danger is an accidental war.

The facts say that the Indian does want a war, of course, as you'd expect, but you're sure that provoking it with these guerrillas and that if they react, they're going to be the ones charged with aggression.

They do strongly make the point that they, I'm not certain, would probably lose.

You don't seem to think the Indians did plan aggression.

I don't think so.

Well, yes, he says the Indians are the worst.

No, the Pax, for example, have agreed to withdraw their troops from the border.

India's refused to.

Pax have agreed to let a UN presence along the border.

I'm talking about the western border now.

On the eastern border, the Pax have said the UN can come in and have observers and visit their camps and so forth, the metro.

India says it doesn't want to be equated to Pax, and so it won't permit UN presence in India.

I think that this is a very fearful war.

I don't believe she won.

In fact, she's coming here soon.

I think what she wants to do probably is to see Pakistan weakened.

She hopes that Mujeeb will come back and take over and that it'll be a loose confederation controlled by Mujeeb.

And I think she hopes that by extending the long run we'll be weak, and so does present a threat to her.

I don't think she wants the war.

Bill, I didn't want to say that war may not happen, but all our intelligence indicates it's the contrary.

Bill, I think your observations about the success of the administration and foreign policy are accurate.

The American people are getting a growing feeling that this has been extremely successful.

And our Democratic friends also are learning to appreciate it.

And this, I think, is why they keep trying to pile a Mansfield Amendment on top of a Mansfield Amendment on top of a Mansfield Amendment.

They want to get in the ballgame as a participant in the success in Vietnam and every place else.

We've got a real tough battle today, don't we?

No, I'm sure.

I think we can win.

But even if we win today, what are they going to do next week?

We're going to the foreign aid program.

I guess over on the side of the side, they're trying to attach even more restrictive language on the authorization.

So we're showing it up, Jerry, all we can.

We're either winning or losing by one vote on the various amendments designed to either cut or restore aid.

We've got that 10 minutes to grab back for that in America.

But they kept them down 20% cuts instead of 40 to enable us to get a better deal of conference.

And last night I finally got a proxy from London.

I changed the talk to Bob.

I didn't have to say his address.

We've had troubles getting proxied in that direction.

But that extra proxy made me able to force it all the time today and tomorrow.

I hope to report the bill out tomorrow.

Mr. President, I think it is unusual, though, if you look at it objectively, that you've been able to get as much support from the Congress as you should have gotten.

I think it speaks pretty well for our system, because we've had some very difficult problems, tremendously divisive in the country, and yet the Congress has, from the time it finally came to the vote, generally speaking, supported you, and I think that

that they realize, as Jerry said, you're really not vulnerable.

I might say that I had a conversation with, I asked Senator Kennedy to come down to see me after he returned from his visit to India.

And he was just before he started making a speech over at the press club.

And at the conclusion, I said to him, Senator, what do you think we should be doing that we're not doing?

How do you think we should solve this politically?

Because he didn't have any answer at all.

Did he make any suggestions at all about something we should be doing and we're not doing?

I told him all that and he didn't have anything.

I said, well, I hope you'll keep that in mind when you make the speech.

I think that was one of the reasons he would regain the world record.

because it was not really down to proliferation of power in the USSR, and that is an interesting point.

Do you care to expand on that?

Well, you see, they've had, instead of having someone like Khrushchev, they've had three of them, and they had this argument about who sent it out.

And it's only recently that they've focused on questioning it.

And I think that they realize that they've fallen behind, and that accounts, in my opinion, for their rather frenetic activity, traveling all over.

They've got some of their very active travel plans, as you know.

And the result is, I don't think any of them stand out.

I mean, Khrushchev, whatever you thought of him,

He was recognized as such.

They don't have anybody like that.

Isn't that sort of a dangerous situation?

Having a model isn't against you, but having these people vying for power.

I think it makes them more cautious.

See, they're not only vying for power with each other, but they're vying for power in the capitalist world.

The result is that they spend a lot of time with the imperial arguments.

As a matter of fact, I think that's one of the reasons we've got to slow down the assault talks.

It's been a division in their government about what they should proceed on.

And I think those who wanted an agreement as a result of...

But they're having the same kind of a problem with communist Chinese.

And when you talk to them,

Joe and a lot of others, that reactivation is really sweet with the Russians.

Mr. President, one of the things I've always loved to hear about is how the Russians in the past have shown a capacity for intruding in our political affairs at election time.

And are we in any way vulnerable on the basis of the President's visit to Moscow in May, just not very long before the elections, can they in any way build a rug out as they did from under Eisenhower with the U-2 incident?

Or is there too much to be gained from their world image balancing Communist China in the presidential visit?

I'm sure you've balanced these risks, and yet everything does seem so good right now that you keep wondering what can go wrong.

And the Russian trip is one that we have history in us.

Laura, I think that's a very good point, and it is something that we have to keep in mind, and the President always gives a lot of thought to it.

I am quite convinced that that will not happen for two reasons.

One, the problem they're having with the Chinese is uppermost in their mind.

There are more troops massed along the Chinese border and facing each other than anywhere else in the world, so it's greater than the concentration between Warsaw back and NATO.

But more than that, and I'm convinced that there's some conversations they've had a little later, the President's going to be re-elected.

I mean, I think if it had been the other way, if the calculation was that he was going to be defeated, then they would have helped to defeat him.

I think they would have concluded that he was going to be reelected.

I don't have any doubt about it.

Whereas they were sort of negative on the trip a while back, they're very affirmative about it now.

You see, one thing you have to keep in mind, it's different at playbacks from everything everybody says in the international field that they have discussions with.

Some other nation, we get reports like what they said.

They are being very careful to be sure nothing goes wrong to affect the person's trip.

And they're doing everything they can, I think,

Now, it's possible to change, but I'm not against that.

For the same reason, you think there's every expectation that assault cars will proceed the way they've been going.

No doubt about it.

This is a great pattern.

They turn and then freeze again.

This is one that you really don't know whether they get to the top or not.

We have a lot of ways of checking out to intelligence.

That's the case.

They're going to continue.

I don't mean that that necessarily means we're going to have an agreement quickly.

They're going to continue to retask and so forth, but I think they've made up their minds to have an agreement, not to have one.

You know, one of the reasons I think we have a difficult opponent is not getting across to the people exactly how successful all this is coming about, this is who President Trump is, John Dargan.

Here's the way it works.

They pick out congressional districts or incumbent candidates.

who are vulnerable, or they decide they're vulnerable.

And they just move in with a massive letter-writing campaign.

They move people in, they generate letters.

Who did I talk to yesterday, Les, that said they've got 2,500 letters in the last 10 days or two weeks?

This is a vicious operation.

and it's primarily supported, if you could ever see the text, by the UAW CIO.

Jack Conway is the executive director of the organization under

Gardner, it's a bad operation and it's having an impact on some of our people who are uncertain and apprehensive.

They're using Gardner to beat him, willingly I guess, but they're upper middle class people that we're hearing from.

The guilty rich.

are the ones that are calling after us, the articulate, left-wing, affluent Americans that have been traditionally more inclined toward the Republicans than otherwise, but they're being very well organized by Congress.

I think a lot of our good friends got trapped in or suckered into supporting this operation, and I sure hope they take their money away.

because they have a well-organized, well-financed operation at present times.

Jerry, did you see what he said the other day in his speech?

He said that the United States government, both at the federal and state level, is growing from top to bottom.

He's putting himself on the pinnacle and decided that he's a little tin god running around the country with all these chemicals and strains that he's pulling.

I think he's a threat to the country, in my honest opinion.

You might be interested, Bill, last week they had, I guess it was a series of anti-war protests all over the country, one in Detroit, and I wish I brought the Detroit news down.

Last year they had four or five thousand at Wayne State University.

This year they had under a hundred.

And Jerry Kavanaugh, our former mayor, who may run against Bob next year, was the speaker.

And they had a picture in the Detroit news of

This auditorium, a pretty sizable auditorium, had a hundred or less, and half of those in the picture were asleep and the rest of them were reading newspapers.

They had no interest whatsoever in what Kavanaugh was saying.

It was just unbelievable.

And I think this is, well, we had a reasonable meeting of Grand Rhapsody, but it was dramatically unsuccessful.

Yeah, Mr. President, can I make one more comment about the point of clarity?

I think we're at, I think it's very difficult to, to be too outspoken when we say about point of clarity in terms of the President.

But I think at every time we have an opportunity quietly

we should face some of the things I said in my speech, not as a political speech, but just as a fact.

And on television programs and so on, if you can just weave in the thought that

that we've never had more intensive efforts for peace.

The President has a very comprehensive program.

The world is a more peaceful place, and the President is the world leader in his quest for peace.

Just that sort of quiet presentation of American people.

That's the type of thing that makes people think, and it builds on itself.

You don't have to say too much.

It's a fact.

It's there.

I mean, we don't have to manufacture it.

We don't have to sell anybody.

It's just a matter of calling it to their attention

And when you do it, it's very difficult to argue with it.

I go to places where I talk to young people and I say things like that and take questions and they tend to sober them a little bit.

Yes.

We started, as you know, fairly far behind in the vote.

Let me say first for those who are not familiar with it, the most important vote, the key vote is going to be on the important question.

The important question says that you cannot expel the Republic of China except by two-thirds vote.

Now if we, and that vote will be determined by majority vote, so if we get majority members to support us on that question, then I think we'll be successful.

That's the whole majority, right?

Yes, that's right.

Now, because a lot of nations are now beginning to have diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and because the People's Republic of China says that you can't have relations with both them and with the Nationalist Chinese, there are a lot of these nations that are fearful about voting with us.

They don't want to do anything to alienate Communist Chinese, and I think it's great to train the tension.

And our problem is that a lot of our NATO allies, like most of them, have gone the other way.

Canada and Britain and Italy and Belgium and so forth.

That's why a lot of the smaller nations, and Africa in particular, who followed the lead of France and Great Britain, are hesitant to vote with us.

When I went up there ten to two weeks ago, we were behind about eight votes.

They had about 56 and we had about 48, something like that.

It's much closer now.

It's still too early to say how we're going to make out.

It's possible we'll get late.

I think we have direction as to that.

I don't think anybody has any doubt about our aggressive efforts we're using.

The Foreign Minister of the Republic of China came in the other day and thanked me.

Because we never made it as major an effort to win a vote.

George Bush is doing an excellent job and working very hard.

And this couldn't be...

I mean, he's going to be really upset if he loses.

And there's a lot of fear that one way or the other...

I'll tell you this, it's a very...

It's really, to use the word, repulsive to deal with some of these countries at a time when...

There are four nations that have been admitted this year.

Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and Bhutan.

They're all little bits of things.

They all have a total population of probably about four million.

At a time when those four have become new members, we're talking about expelling a nation, or at least a government that represents 14 million people.

And it doesn't make any sense.

Now, we're going to have very serious difficulty to get the necessary public support for the UN if Taiwan is expelled.

George Meany called me yesterday, and he says that he's going to leave the ILO if Republic of China is not in.

He said they can't kick him out of the ILO and have him stay here.

So it's gonna be, it's a very tough thing.

I think that if you, I would appreciate very much if in your public comments, you can divorce yourself from the administration, because as far as I'm concerned, it's counterproductive if we make, it's clearly making threats.

On the other hand, there's no reason why as members of Congress you can't say anything you want about it.

And I think from that standpoint, it'd be helpful.

Yeah, by that, I didn't .

What members of Congress suggested they would do was work with the UN.

That's right.

So, I mean, everybody's entitled to help.

There are 300 members, 350 members.

Congress came down to the Reverend by six and really indicated that the event in Taiwan was a spell.

appropriations to the UN.

Well now, whether that is going to happen or not, I don't know.

That's something that we, the government, and this administration will do this and that and the other thing, because the idea of government

Backlash.

On the other hand, they're quite aware of the fact that the Congress from time to time does things on its own.

It's not very easy.

Yes, and I told them all about it.

I said, you know, the United Nations did not do it.

very fast because we want to have enough public support to give the same national backing as we did before.

And I said, the members of Congress are very upset.

I said, this isn't upset, this is the President's position that we support the United Nations.

What's the fact of life?

You might as well realize.

And with what gets close, we have big nations like Mexico and Italy and Iran,

Maybe once that we would normally expect to be with us, we're not gonna be, probably not gonna be with us.

We're doing everything that we can think of.

President's gotten very heavily involved himself in it.

We present that grant program to Latin America just as much by one vote on the argument that it might help the development of Latin American countries.

I think it has.

We need to tell them that it may go down on the floor.

We're doing pretty well in Latin America.

We've got some fellas in Ecuador, Mexico, Chile.

I'm sure you want this group to start saying things like that, because if we do, we'll get locked in on it, and you're not going to be in a position to be able to do much with the U.N. there.

I'm not encouraging you to say one thing or the other.

I just say if you, I have some, like Senator Austin,

I just think it should not be an administration view, because our view has to be we're going to continue to support the U.S. Well, I think what this group can well do is, after all the work you've done, you can say, in your evaluation of the Congress, and the move of the Congress, and this or that or the other, things will happen.

That's the way I would handle it.

That's the delicate way that you have to get them away from the fact that we're in the cares of the people.

are threatening us with that or the other thing is that we've got a few votes to currently fill out and we have, I would say, and we've cut some, and actually you always get this and we're pressuring people, but you get some pressure that we're ready to cut off those in Utah, who is, of course, a very solid one, but it's somewhat...

He and his bunch of people started running around, and it really caught us off-hand.

But on the other hand, it's been such a match of life that as far as that Congress was concerned, there is going to be a very strong reaction.

All the well-being of countries like Greece, Turkey, Venezuela, I'm just mentioning them.

And now, in a variety of ways, the United States has had an enormous effect on those countries.

They know this experience is not automatic, or we think it's very important to us, or it isn't very important to them.

This is not an anticipation.

Before the China trip was announced, in fact,

George came in and said that we're going to lose the vote.

I mean, it was this, you know, the British and the rest.

What are the British doing now, Bill?

Are they up on their lobbies or are they down on their lobbies?

That's all.

They were lobbying very heavily on this.

The Chinese, I'm speaking now, the communist Chinese are not too active, apparently.

No, they're not.

It's a very strange thing.

Can I also say a word for Republican China?

They have conducted themselves admirably.

I must say that I...

wondered when we signed off, how they'd be able to manage it, knowing Chex Guy Chex had to spend four or five hours with us.

And they have really been great.

They've understood our position, and they've worked with us.

They said this is very uncomfortable, but we understand what you're doing.

We appreciate everything you've done for us, and it couldn't be nicer without it.

This was long before the China business announced, too.

So we just, Bill went over and had a talk with him, and I saw it on the matter of fact, Bill, you remember, two weeks down the line, just on a private visit to talk with him, to see what strategy he wanted to have us follow.

Now, the strategy we are following,

It's one of which I understand they don't like, but they approve.

I was reading the paper this morning that Bush and they disagree, they only agree on the fact that Taiwan should be expelled.

Bill would try to align it on the same one here.

We cannot hold on to the source question on the other side.

As a matter of fact, in my discussions with him, I had a lot of discussions with him, my final question is, would you tell us what policy you want us to follow?

Because I actually got it from you earlier.

Now, I've been trying to support you, whatever you recommend, if you really want us to follow policy A.

But do you want it?

They came back and said, no, I think the policy you're following is the only one that you can't follow, and I think it's best for us.

We can't say so, obviously, but we think that analysis is the best policy.

And I had a check with the Japanese and the Australians and everybody else, and so they are in accord with what we're doing.

They don't like it, of course.

They're in accord because this is a practical program.

How long until this whole countdown?

This pretty well will be a week.

Probably 26, 27, 28 in there, so it's only about 10 days, two weeks.

You know, we're pretty worried about the special relationship in view of this attitude.

We had the House of Commons told me in June, if you're going to lose, as long as you're with us, we're with you.

If you're going to lose, we're not going to do that with you.

And also the British, you want to recall,

not a schizophrenic attitude towards the United States, which is in their hearts what their attitudes were on the market.

They're playing, I think we would have to say, when we say it in the truth, they're playing what I would call sort of a Gauss line.

They're going to go their way a little bit, and they're going to start playing always with a brand new show.

They don't want to be tied too closely to the United States at this point.

And this doesn't mean that our personal relationships aren't extremely good.

And we have to get a consultation.

And we can always force a treaty.

we know they won't give up the secret.

You can't say that in most of the countries we've won.

But nevertheless, the point of the British is that right now, the Greeks, they have been pretty good about muting their Bordeaux.

They're fine people, but their own interests require, this is what it really gets back to, their own interests require, they believe,

They take a line somewhat independent of the United States, somewhat separate because of their desire to play the Europe, and also their own interests as far as the Chinese questions are concerned have always been on the other side.

See, they've been that way.

Did you know if you and they were the first, they've had a good relationship with Congress in China from the beginning?

Mr. President, do they have an understanding of what could possibly happen to the United Nations to fuel their vote?

They don't really care.

They wouldn't care.

They realize that in the United States, the guy's name doesn't amount to them, so that's all.

I mean, as far as that's concerned, I mean, all of that, the United States only gives them trouble.

Well, I think we don't have to say this about the other nations.

First, I think it's an organization we need, but secondly, we've been stuck here so many years.

Okay, thank you.

The other day they were talking about, just a few times about a month ago, and others all about people and you and about Andy Paxton.

And I told him what the president had decided to do by way of supplying humanitarian assistance.

It was $70 million, and we had a cash offer.

I think I had a check for a million and a half, and so forth.

And we talked about it.

And everybody in the room said, well, that's fine.

What else are you going to get?

And I said, well, look, we're giving more than everybody else in the world by far.

Well, they said, we expect that in the United States.

You know, now what are you going to do?

And I said, you don't expect it any longer.

We're just going to do our share.

We're not going to do more.

The trouble in the past has been everyone has taken the United States for granted.

If you say something that the ruffles, for example, a business about Congress may not give financial support, everybody says, well, that's upset the United Nations.

But as well, they know that money counts and they don't like it, but they don't like it because we've been suckers all the time.

Anytime there's a problem, we pay for it.

And we pay 40%, 35%, and we just can't do that.

The American people are not gonna support it.

So the sooner they realize that, the better.

Incidentally, I must say that on that subject, you gotta get on with Charlie Walker.

I know some of you want to discuss it, but I had a very interesting conversation with Andy Gordon this year on this subject in Kansas.

I guess I don't know if you were there, but I recorded you.

And the public came in a couple months ago, before he was here, and none of his friends had missed going.

very good statement of concern about the European prophecies from the British and very good statements from the French very good statement from the Germans very good statement from the Italians

I said, well, now, when they put up as much money as you are, you start coming to the lecture meetings.

I put it right to them.

We have got to be, I don't get the impression that privately we don't talk very firmly to people.

We're not belligerent, so we're firm.

Because we cannot continue to be in a position where the United States is going to cough up the money, cough up this report, and then we'll be lectured with regard to the fact, why aren't we out?

See, what's the thing they wanted us to do?

Wouldn't we get out and ban the tax?

That's what they're ready to get us on.

Well now, let me expect a word and get back a sentence.

If you haven't raised this stuff, you can let me know what I'm up to.

The critics are saying, trying to say, let's join the Indians and let's support the Indians because these packs are brutal people and they get in there and they cause all this trouble.

No.

First, that is not true, that the East Pakistan, West Pakistan problem is deep and difficult and there are terrible refugee problems and so forth and so on.

But the Indians instead of trying to help them are just sabotaging every other way.

They're blowing up the grain ships when they come in.

Grain ships that are going in for the purpose, they've blown up 60 of them already.

They will not withdraw from order when Pax are going to do so.

They don't want a war, but on the other hand, they want to make it so difficult.

This is their present attitude, and this is despite them.

because of their obsession about Pakistan and their obsession about cash here and all that sort of thing.

And they're blind to what the consequences would be in the event of just exploding into war.

Now the curious thing is that here is one of those rare areas where for different reasons

different from where, not where for the same reason, but where we happen to be on different sides.

Both the Soviet Union and the United States are trying to restrain the Soviet Union from playing the Indian side.

Because the Soviet Union doesn't like the fact that Pakistan is playing closely with China.

The United States is not playing either side.

We're trying to play the middle.

And yet we both, both sides of the United States, don't want a war there because it will become a ball.

Let's suppose they can't win.

Then what happens to India's billion dollars a year that we give them?

The guy down the drain, I think the Congress should say that, particularly if the provocation is on their side.

Much as people with all our souls, as we all know, obsess over the idea that everything is always right and Pakistan is always wrong.

Now the other side of the coin is that some of our critics say, why don't we just cut off aid to Pakistan?

All right, we can do that tomorrow.

And numbers, well, we aren't providing any military aid except for the three and a half million dollars we've provided.

But all of it had been agreed to before this thing had blew up.

And we've only had to continue the deliveries that had already been contracted for and so forth.

The only thing we've provided in Pakistan is except for the refugee aid, is for the economic assistance, of course.

And there's no more of that coming.

Let us suppose that the United States just withdrew in support of Pakistan and said, all right, why don't you do something?

What's going to happen?

We have completely moved our influence with Pakistan, and at the present time, our influence has been very, very important.

And Pakistan has, they've worked through recognition, they've had a pre-issue, they've agreed to withdraw from the border, they have done that pre-issue, and we withdraw our influence.

What influence is left?

Chinese.

Now, what is the type of name of the Chinese flag deployed here?

This is, of course, a very strange thing to do.

It might be of the interest of the Chinese.

I'd rather irritate the Indians a bit, but the Chinese have engaged in a suicidal thing.

I'm not saying that it is Chinese sitting up there at the border.

They can go down to India in an afternoon, or maybe two or three.

So here's all of that significant here.

So what we're really saying is that we've got to get Bill and his people walking crazy here.

We're just walking on eggs here.

We're trying to stay out of it.

It's just as like in the case of the Biafran.

Remember when Teddy Kennedy was down there saying, go into the Biafran and go get involved in this damn Civil War and the rest of us stayed out of it.

It was sad.

I hated to see the Biafrans gobbled up by the Nigerians or vice versa.

Whatever the case may be, it was terrible, but it was right for the United States to say, now we have relations with Nigeria and the Nigerians had to win that war.

In the case of India and Pakistan, our interests will be served and their interests will be served by no war.

Because they, about everything else down there, what they talk about a generation piece.

I remember when I saw an arrow in 1953, and I was talking to him at a long conversation.

That's why I thought this is the greatest generation piece.

I said, Mr. Prime Minister, because he was sitting talking about it.

He wasted three-fourths of the three or four hours that we talked at the time talking about India-Pakistan.

He was saying, everybody, everything I talked to him, that's all he talked about.

But that made no sense.

He said, once he knew it, he was like, we need more agreements.

or you have to pay for grain, you need more R.A. for this or that, you need more projects.

I said, well, you have to pay one thing to keep more than anything else for your country.

What is it?

It's the generation peace.

That's what India needs.

It's what Pakistan needs.

And that's what we're trying to do.

So we've got to keep our influence on Pakistan.

Just don't be throwing up our hands and getting out to the people of India.

It's really wrong.

Now let's, let me come to a couple of other points before we go to the other.

With regard to how we got where we are, that can't be written.

It could not have happened had we not had the support of the members of the Congress, so that's beating the vote of Republicans, Democrats, and people in this room and their strong leadership.

And some of our Democratic friends will join you on the Democratic side.

Let me tell you, we wouldn't have any chance, first of all, no chance,

If we had gone for some of those jackass proposals to cut our contract budget or to say in advance, well, look, whether it's Merv or this or that or the other thing, we'll put it all on ice until we see whether it's a gesture that we'll see what the Russians will do.

At the present time, have in mind the fact, and this is the fact that they're moving down the hole on offensive weapons.

where the United States at this time is trying to pause.

But the United States does this to indicate a lack of confidence in the Presidents and this administration's purpose of maintaining our defenses and our momentum unless and until we have a limitation on both offensive and defensive weapons.

And that's what our program is, that's what it's all about.

For us to do anything unilateral,

First, would mean that the Russians would keep doing what they're doing.

They can't win yet.

But second, it would mean that the chances for an agreement would be totally down the drain.

The reason we have a chance now is that they can see, as long as they are convinced, that at the present time there is really basic parity between the two powers in terms of that we're in one place, they're in another place, we have what we need, they have what they need, but nobody knows.

Nobody in the present time can either, with a preemptive strike, defeat the other and therefore neither can blame Jim Wheeler.

That's the situation today.

Also the situation today is that neither country will allow the other country to get an advantage.

That's what we're telling them.

Now, as long as they think that then it's in the interest of both countries to make a deal so that they don't have to continue to build and build and build and we don't have to continue to build and build because neither is going to get an advantage.

But the moment they think

that they could go ahead and get an advantage because we lack the will, or we are so naive and love peace so much, quote, end quote, that we unilaterally, we're going to, well, we'll pause because we're talking about salt.

Let's wait until it's over with.

Let's wait until we get to the sum of this and that and the other thing before we go forward with all these appropriations.

Believe me, if you want a torpedo, the chance for a success in the summit, if you want a torpedo's tall,

just passed any kind of amendments at this time which indicates that the United States unilaterally, without reciprocal action on the other side, is going to weaken itself.

Now that covers everything.

That means Europe and BFR, you're not going to get a deal on these economic support reductions.

They think they're going to get it without a deal.

And you're not going to get it.

That's all they did.

And that's where this Mansfield Amendment today, curiously enough, is also part of the program.

I mean, what they wanted was to simply get up there and say, well, we voted for it.

As a result of our vote for it, we convinced the president we could have peace.

Look, who got us into this war?

Who has been stigmatizing our efforts to get it out?

And when the record is finally, totally put out, they're going to look awful bad.

Now at this time, what we have to do, and it relates to the whole thing, what we need from the Congress at a time that we are on a very delicate and trying to play a role in some of their leadership roles, is to try and direct this government.

Probably there wouldn't be a trip to either if it weren't for the other.

We didn't plan it that way.

That's the way they did it.

Now, at this particular time, though, can you imagine the effect it's going to have?

They've watched very carefully what Bill has said, the domestic situation here.

They look over here, and they see the Congress of the United States say, well, we don't have confidence in the President and his leadership.

And this amendment or that amendment or the other amendment, I'm not referring to school lunches, but I'm referring to national security.

If you move in the other direction, then all you do is weaken our hand.

And they don't have that problem because they don't have any Congress.

So I just want to say that the support that's been given to these tough folks, you know, that it's been very, has made it possible, these initiatives that we've been talking about, without that support, we wouldn't be here today.

With it, we have a chance to have both of these trips be something.

I guess that was one final point.

There's been some suggestions about it, and I understand that the country's a bad business.

Nobody could agree more with that.

After all, I work the job, but it goes.

They will admit it's not a good business.

unless they were prepared.

That is why we should have had a Russian summit the very year it was.

We didn't.

We weren't ready, but they were ready.

But where you are dealing with a totalitarian power, you have to recognize that the deal has to be paid sometimes at a very high level where the vital interests are involved.

Now, at this particular time, it happens.

that these meters first will be extremely well prepared.

There is something to talk about a very great significance to both sides.

Something will come out of both.

Can't say what.

We're not going to indicate what they meant, but something will.

We're not just going to end up doing tricks.

And the other point is that, as far as we're concerned, we're going to let our eyes absolutely wide open.

That's why this is different from Glassboro.

We'd go in and say, well, gee, if we could just sit down and talk about our grandchildren, we'll all have peace in the world.

They don't give a damn about our grandchildren.

They care about theirs, too.

That's the way it works.

They absolutely care about us, too.

And theirs, too, because that's where we differ.

Now, I'm not suggesting here that when you get out into some particular college or university, of course you've got to talk about the fact, and that's why I do, that we won't.

And you've got to be very careful, because other than governments, you've got to talk about people.

It's vitally important that the generation of Americans grow up in a world where they have contact with 750 million Chinese people, and the Russian people are great people.

Don't ban their governments.

We need to do that at this particular point.

Have in mind the fact that as far as we are concerned, we are moving into this era of negotiation.

As Bill has said, deliberately, we plan in every step of the way.

We know exactly what we're doing.

We know exactly what we want.

We know exactly what they want.

We want different things.

There are some areas where it happens that our interests, what we want, what they want, come together.

Those areas will agree.

There are some areas where we will disagree.

There's no question about it.

And there will be, we trust, a disagreement that could be settled without peace.

But that's the way it's going to be.

But the main point is that when it's all completed, that there will have been established a process, a process of discussion or continued discussion of those

gray areas of difference which are going to divide the United States from mainland China and from Russia as long as we live and as long as our grandchildren live.

So that's the way it's going to be.

And if we live in that kind of world, we're not going to lose any time.

Both sides can get it.

If we look at it in a naive way, well, they haven't changed, and we were wrong.

These people work with the economists all the time, and they are all that different.

That's the truth.

They haven't changed, and we haven't changed.

I haven't changed.

What has changed?

The world has changed.

What has changed is Chinese rights to the security.

What has changed is the nuclear thing, and so on.

What has changed is that there are going to be no winners in the next war, only losers.

And with that in mind, it becomes necessary to have this type of conversation, because if we rub together in Berlin, everybody's going to lose.

We could happen if we were up together in the Mideast, you know, the troops in the Mideast, you know, if I could have done better.

I thought, first of all, fortunately, much nobody, not many, had been killed.

Very few, none.

I guess they had one little bombing or something.

Well, I don't care.

I guess you can stop me.

But the point is, the Mideast is far more than Vietnam.

Vietnam, there was never any chance that Vietnam would have involved either the Russians or the Chinese, super-evil for both.

The Mideast could.

Because it's getting closer.

Berlin definitely would.

So, as we cool Berlin, as we keep the mini-style ice, the delicate one, and as we finally deal here at the top level with eruptions and so forth, what we're really talking about is a generation which, curiously enough,

The Generation Peace is also served by having the Russians and the Chinese, we meeting them on separate tracks, because we are the erotic position.

Here is the great capitalist, the great philosophical, ideological, and all of that goes.

We're in that.

whether end-able or un-end-able, depending on the point of view, where the Russians consider us to be more friendly to them than the Chinese, and the Chinese consider us to be more friendly than the Russians.

So it's in this area of the relationship that I feel the ability to speak of what we're doing.

This summit is different.

This summit is planned.

These summits are necessary, and these summits are going to succeed, or they're not going to be held.

That's about the way it stands.

One other important change in the world is the predominance of the United States in the economic and trade field.

The Soviet Union has fallen behind since 1960.

In 1960, the predictions were that they were going to catch us.

We're twice as strong as they are economically.

And they're having serious trouble.

And they need more trade.

They want more trade.

They want more contact.

One of our biggest, one of our biggest factors that we have associated with them.

They want or must trade.

One of the reasons we want them among others, of course, is the reduction of tensions, obviously.

Also, in China, every country on the periphery

Communist China has been successful economically.

Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, even Indonesia now.

The only country that stood still the last 10 years is Communist China.

Now, both the great communist nations know that.

They know that we've out-businessed them economically and through the technology and so forth.

And they want to get back in the world a little bit.

That's part of their motivation.

And it's clear from the discussions they have with us, and it's clear from the discussions they have with others.

Now, as long as we realize it and deal with it the hard-headed way, we should take advantage of it.

We're not going to be suckers in the trade when we get up here.

Well, we're done.

Well, it was a great opportunity, actually.

We managed to do a weakness.

But we'd better get to seeing Charlie Walker.

His face just sank down just a little.

Mr. President, as far as could I be accused of this, I know you want to discuss this question, but what happened to the man who did that?

Thank you very much.

Jerry's got it all.

I think we have a good strategy on this.

To carry it out, I believe we have a possibility of winning this.

I've heard what you said.

I don't think there would be a question about the support you would give.

Let me say, in regard to the Massachusetts amendment, this is one of your comments, right, sir?

I always hang on to that.

But with regard to this, what you saw with the decision to leave New York, I mean,

And here we are, our program, wiping down the war.

Bill says cash is the last thing we should have to carry to make it a .

Negotiating crack tools.

With all these things in mind, what possible uses is there to take them?

Look.

we don't, the Congress doesn't back the president.

And so do what your dad believes.

I mean, they say, well, if the man, if the amendment ends, it takes one second for the person to choose, and I can't.

But any possibility, any possibility, or any possibility to continue with the way, a way to succeed, let me put it this way.

I would not want to say this to any of our Republican friends, who I know some of them have voted for the Vanderbilt members.

That'd be great distinction.

That'd be safe.

We have a plan now that has worked and that I can assure you will work.

It will work in any American involvement.

It won't end in a way that the South Vietnamese 17 million will have a chance to survive without a communist bloodbath.

And it will end in a way which will get our prisoners back.

And it will get our prisoners back without crawling.

I'm just too grown up to crawl.

So under those circumstances,

and we've got to question those who opened the mansfield event.

What they're doing is taking upon themselves the responsibility that I have for them.

And if they want to do it their way, and then if we fail, if South Vietnam goes down, and a billion people get this and that and the other thing, then they're responsible.

Now, so that's a very dangerous game they're playing.

Now, if our program was not succeeding, that would be something very different.

Then the Congress would move in and lose its other hand.

But here we have, I think, that's what we've done.

Here we got it.

We got a group of leaders that got us into the war.

They left us with a war with 300 cashiers a week.

They didn't have any negotiations going on.

There was no peace plan on the table.

They had no program for anything.

Here we're ending the war.

We've reduced the cashiers.

We have a program which gives them seed.

And what do we find?

We get none, but sabotage all the way along the line.

And he's told every day by somebody in the Senate or the House, on the Democratic side, that we don't have confidence in the presidency.

I can just say, when the record finally comes out as to what has been going on on the negotiating side, and how the Senate and House

as far as a partisan is concerned, has tough intentions, it is going to be a pretty recognized assurance.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I assume that what we said was off the record.

I just love the things I've said about this point.

Mr. President, I appreciate that.

Thanks for your voice.

I think that's how I'm going to do it.

I like what you said about the U.N. Don't say that.

I can be very brief on this because it's based on time before this bill that goes up today to extend the Economic Stabilization Act gets to the floor.

First problem we face is whether, going out of discussion with you people and others earlier, we ask for a simple extension of the existing legislation.

There are four major amendments in the legislation.

The first is a supplemental extension.

from the expiration of April 30, 1972 to April 30, 1973.

Why that date?

Why that one year?

Well, that's the tidy way, that's the usual way.

Anything short of that would seem to be saying that phase two is going to

on, say, whatever the interim date might have been selected.

We've said consistently that Phase 2 will last as long as necessary for it to do the job, and it might well be able to do the job within this period.

We thought we'd have to ask for another extension.

Secondly, the President has decided to ask for standby power over interest rates and dividends in this legislation.

Earlier we had believed the Credit Control Act of 1969 gave power from the President to direct the Federal Reserve System

to control interest rates and credit.

But on closer examination, it seemed clear that that legislation is deficient for current purposes because the president would have to find that inflation was being fueled by excessive credit extensions.

And that's simply not the case now.

Inflation is being fueled by a cost-push inflation, cost-push pressures, and that's what we're trying to deal with.

in this program.

But even though we're asking for these powers, incidentally we had a problem of selecting a base period for the interest rate of power because the basic base period is May 25, 1970.

And May 25, 1970 is not a happy period for stabilization of interest rates.

It was just about at the highest levels in 100 years.

So instead, we've got pretty broad language with respect to interest and dividends, and some of the lawyers say this may not be constitutional, but the Congress will act on it.

The President has directed to stabilize interest rates and dividends at levels consonant with marginally economic growth.

If we can keep something similar to that, it will give them the flexibility needed.

Because we really think and hope that this power will not have to be huge.

Interest rates are coming down, and they've come down a distance of a long way since their peaks.

In December and January of 1969, Treasury was paying 8% on its intermediate borrowings.

And as recently as this year, we were paying 7%.

Only last week, we sold two million dollars worth of three year notes at a rate of five and five-eighths percent.

So they used to sell at five and five-eighths.

And the I Take Care of You bill has come down over 100 basis points from a deal of $5.53 this year to $4.49.

Now, the bankers and the S&L people, in the rates that they administer, those are set in the market.

That's a fine demand portion.

But the rates that the banks and S&Ls administer are the prime rate, the consumer rate, and the market rate.

And those are very soft and also seem to be on the verge of coming down, but they're very reluctant, overtly, to lower them in a period when they might be stuck with a base of a regulatory purpose.

Uh, Mr. Lester was very encouraged in recording the 22-yard time when the 1st National City Bank was thinking about timing its prime rate to the money market rate, the commercial paper rate.

This moved off very quickly at about a three-eighths drop in the prime rate for the rest of time.

But the basic thought is that it may still be successful if interest rates will come down because we will puncture further the inflationary expectations which have caused rates to be at their overhanging.

The third major provision or amendment would repeal the Proxmire amendment, which Prox got on there in the extension of this last year.

in an effort to limit the President's power to go in selectively, industry by industry, or product by product.

The Coxmere Amendment requires that wages or prices in that given industry to be singled out must be grossly disproportionate to the rest of the economy.

We want to kill that amendment and give the President the power to move in selectively because, obviously,

As we move along in phase two, we may be able, which is up to the pay board and the price commission, we may be able selectively to decontrol as you move down the road as a way of moving back to our ultimate goal, which is a free competitive market of operations.

The fact that a lot of firms aren't covered directly by the executive order announcement for Phase 2 doesn't mean they're not controlled.

They are controlled, like the mom-and-pop theater shop.

They don't have to follow the standards and criteria of the pay board and the price board, but they will be regulated or they will be handled on a selective basis, on a complaint basis, on spot checks, on the IRS, and what have you.

The fourth major set of amendments has to do with penalties and judicial review.

It provides for special criminal fines and civil penalties.

All enforcement is put in the Justice Department.

We didn't want to put enforcement in the State Board.

It's going to have a lot of other problems aside from being an enforcement.

The jurisdiction from a legal standpoint will be solely in the Federal District Court.

However, we are proposing to set up in the legislation a temporary emergency court of appeals along the lines of a similar group that was established in World War II and Korea.

Any appeals from the federal district court will go directly to this body of at least three men that have a chief justice burden.

And it might be they might have shifting groups and travel groups.

So there's questions about especially the constitutionality of this legislation.

It has been challenged on constitutional grounds to move right to this temporary emergency court if you don't have these things all around the country.

As I say, this is patterned substantially after the beginning of World War II in Korea.

The activities of the agencies involved, agencies involved, which includes the COLC, the IRS, the people in the press corps, will be exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act, but not from the informational requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

And this is simply to make for a fast-moving operation plan to follow procedures as it be prepared.

The Administrative Procedures Act.

The agencies involved will not have to follow the letter of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Senator Scott, I am not a lawyer, and I can't get very far into this.

This started this discussion.

However, we will have, I'm sure, elaborate procedures for individuals to appeal to the pay board and the Price Commission through the Interim Revenue Service.

Okay.

First of all, there is an intentional finding in the legislation because you're in constitutional charges.

This may help in that respect.

Secondly, it provides for funding and the length of the legislation which

Uh, even though this is an authorization bill, we authorize the president to use money he is saving through the cut as we slow down federal pay to fund this operation.

Uh, the hiring of the personnel, subpoena power is granted to various agencies.

The part-time members of the commissions and the board will be away for a complex of interest provisions.

And finally, the ratified everything we've done in Phase 1.

The legislation does not provide for confirmation of the members of the boards by the Senate.

We're very much against that.

This is presidential policy, which he is delegating.

He's confirmed every four years.

The majority of the cost of living council, which is what he is delegating, are confirmed by the Senate.

And here's a paper that tracks the mission.

It's not setting policy.

The president's setting policy.

And here's what it means.

on the Cost of Living Council, to whom the President is delegating his authority in the majority of those members, in the sense of caretakers, connoisseurs, and so forth.

And actually, the Price Commission and the State Board are really working out the arithmetic and then gathering together the voluntary cooperation that's necessary to make this thing work.

They're working on policies separate from the President and the Cost of Living Council.

What was the situation on that point in World War II?

Is there any firm understanding?

I don't believe so, sir.

The fact of the matter is that part of that table where it was distributed was more independent, unquote, than this was.

And they walked out.

They walked out.

The time table, Mr. Patton and Secretary Connolly had a little difficult time getting together, and all of a sudden, when the testimony was started, it was supposed to start Thursday, but you're going to be out of town.

I don't know if that's an accident.

You can expect this on the floor of the House.

Won't they delay that just as long as they can?

Because that's the big chance for politics.

The President said, I'll take full responsibility for the economy.

and the politics is to give them full responsibility, but then the second-guessing on the extension of the economic staples, I don't think they will, they might, I don't think they will, Barbara.

I think it's gonna move rather with the expeditious release in the House Banking and Currency Committee.

Some of the members of the committee are talking about not giving the one-year extension.

That may have to expire next April and redo it again.

I don't think they're that dumb.

I don't know.

I think the leadership feels strongly that the president's got to have everything he's asked for.

He'll be held responsible for what happened.

I think this will move as just about his expedition.

He has the tax bill.

He has the tax bill movement.

The president has to be still working on the tax bill.

where, just where it is now.

The executive session begins tomorrow morning in the Senate.

I was surprisingly gratifyingly shocked to hear that they don't have it out in the day.

There's no longer two days.

It's very important we get it out.

And I have been informally told by people that could know up there that we're going to get substantially what we've got in the House, in the Senate, financially.

Then we have the problem of the floor of the Senate.

It doesn't matter.

What's your evaluation of this one?

Well, I'm going to give people a little Friday Christmas cheer and three days.

We'll have to do our best to cut that down as much as possible.

And we so often have to kind of look at it on a higher scale.

So do our level best.

Mr. President, as an admirer of procedure and tactics, I have to suggest that I facilitate this act.

I think it would be an act of grace

for the president when he sends the bill out today to suggest that other committees in the house which have in certain jurisdictions might be asked for an advisory opinion otherwise you're going to get great advantage to people who would ordinarily support you in the committee on the judiciary it's just one example that's the bill cut across the jurisdiction of other communities

I suppose it would be wise to do that in the House.

It would be wise to do that in the Senate, too.

Those contacts were supposed to be made, but they didn't contact you or somebody.

So, I think it was the Justice who was supposed to contact you.

I don't think they should contact me.

I think they should contact the Supreme Court Judiciary.

Well, maybe they did, but I would assume they would have contacted both the Chairman and the Right of Law.

I would also contact both of them and still serve in the OPC.

First of all, it would apply to Senator Drew if you would suggest an advisory consultation with an education that is as important as ever, not delaying the report of Wendy Adams on the journey of Colts.

Mr. President, I have an SOS from the Treasury Hill people for the Senate leadership.

The International Financial Institutions Authorization Act, the Asian Development Bank, something we were supposed to do in 68, in case you're interested, the American Development Bank came over in 69, and the International Development Association, which were three months in arrears, and they're borrowing money to keep their lending.

It's on the floor today.

It looks very good, but Mr. Proxmire has, as usual, a perfect amendment, which he's going to offer, which would not permit us to take up this commitment on the basis of the authorization bill, but wait for the complete appropriation process.

He is now chairman of the appropriation system.

This would kill the burden-sharing formula that we have with the other countries, and that means the whole multilateral procession.

And I know Secretary Rogers would agree with me that that, that, that is, that amendment kills them, kills us.

That's an amendment that's perfect, if you're for it, it's perfect.

If you don't have something, you ought to tell us about it.

That'll be a problem.

Yeah, go ahead, President.

Before Charlie goes, can I just tell him that I saw him on TV the other night debating Trump's goal, and he not only scored a touchdown, he scored down a goal.

Great.

What about a point?

Well, what Charlie said, he said, yeah, that guy's smart to bonus.

The President needed to speak.

He said, this is a darn smart, very ingenious arrangement.

He said, this is the best way to go about it.

Yeah.

Let me say a word regarding the program generally.

You all of you are aware of the fact that, well, you've become very confidential pages.

I mean, you do hear some of my apologies.

I have to.

But anyway, they, as I said, they, the people who use it are flying around as well.

It's uncertain.

The answer is of course it is, and it's intended to be.

The only way you can have certainty in terms of controls is to have total control.

We think of certainty then as a kind of a program that requires voluntary cooperation.

You have to have certainty and also you have to see laxity.

Now as Charlie has indicated, this program does affect everybody.

It affects the mom and pop then.

But if you want to control the mom and pop tailor shop and the rest, then you have 70,000 cops.

You know, OVA people and the rest of these little churches go around and just raise hell.

I mean, that's the way it was.

You all argue with me.

We came to Congress and you were there.

How people were met up with it after even with the war thing.

The great issue of 46 was simply the, it wasn't just me, but it was simply the control mechanisms.

And you get down and control people.

You like it for a while.

People don't mind it for a while.

And during the early part of the war, all the patriotic, they took it.

But after a while, the control has become, of course, terribly burdensome.

Now the problem is that if we went all the way with a total control program as a government, it would remove the uncertainty.

But it would, of course, stifle the dynamics of the economy.

That's why we don't do it.

We don't believe.

We are moving here with a program which we believe is as certain as it can be, as fair as it can be, and there is an unbearance in any program that doesn't apply to everybody equally, and so forth and so on and so on.

but one which will deal with the problem effectively, we hope, and one which, as the problem is dealt with, can be removed.

because we don't want a legal legacy here of a program of dealing with wage and price controls.

I mean, if the wage and price increases and so forth, a legacy which essentially hangs like a barnacle on the economy and slows it down for all the time to come in the future.

Now the other side of the coin is, if all of you would remember this,

There's a tendency as we go along, it's been two months since we announced the new program,

I think all this program has to do with is simply stopping the rise in the cost of living.

That's part of it.

But remember, it's a three-legged stool.

There's always more than that.

We're not only interested in stopping the rise in the cost of living, which this is all about, but we, of course, are enormously interested in jobs.

That's what the tax program is about.

We're also interested in...

And this relates to jobs.

We're also very interested in the U.S.'s competitive position in the world, and it has to do with international monetary situation, and so on and so on, which we're working on.

Here again, I know that many of you get complaints about why don't we remove the state jobs, etc.

It's irritating our friends in Latin America, the underdeveloped countries at the moment, the legal ones, both of those countries.

I don't think she knew what an underdeveloped country was, but that's all right.

She mentioned it.

She brought it up.

And I said, that's fine.

We'll look into that.

But my point is that it's not necessarily anybody from the men of the group.

Voters who don't need it.

That's the only cause.

It's the quietest.

With regard to the search engine, with regard to our international program channel, we are moving along at a major pace, and we will move to remove it.

Today and when.

And it's when, really, but also there's in him.

And there's got to be, again, if you're going to get any successful negotiation, we had a, you could all get treatment the other time.

That's what the thing is all about.

And if you give it up in advance, if you give it up in the soon, you're simply going to have to go back to a system that failed in the first place.

The least understood part of it is the monetary situation.

That is the fact that people are out of the dollar and so forth and so on.

Some say, oh gee, we've got to go back and fix the situation here.

Why don't we raise the price of gold and all that sort of thing.

But the big thing here, again, is that our critics, most of them, some of them good intentions, some of them bad intentions,

Our critics want us really perceptively to go back to a patched-up program that won't fail again.

We're not going to do that.

We are looking for a permanent solution.

And when I say how temporary is the surcharge, how temporary is our action with regard to the primary situation, the actual action, the answer is it isn't that.

it will be just as temporary, it will be temporary as long as it's necessary to get a permanent solution.

We're not going to make the temporary variation shorter for the purpose of getting another temporary solution.

That's where you put it in the simplest form of terms.

But if I could capsule it a bit here, remember that the purpose of our program is, of course, to stop the rising cost of it, and that's going to be, or at least,

It is also to stimulate the economy with more jobs.

It has to do with taxes.

It is also to get a better situation in the world of monetary security.

The other thing I should mention related to the first, in fact, related to all of this, and this is not a popular thing to raise among our congressional friends, I mean, some of our congressional friends,

All this business of a price board and a pay board and so forth only deals with an effect that may not be over the cause.

The down cause gets back to fiscal policies.

Of course, monetary policies and so forth.

That is why it is vitally important that we not go overboard in terms of spending.

That's why we're going to continue to have just as tight budget restrictions as we can in terms of the goals that we're trying to reach, because if we let the budget run wild, what will happen in this inevitable?

is the pressures, the upward pressures, all the wages, animal prices will be so great that you could have 100,000 OPA people that would hold it down.

I trust you.

So we've got to get to the basic difference.

So have in mind the fact that

The success of our program on August 15th was that it was a comprehensive program related to the HUD.

And if you remove one part of it, the whole stool would fall, the whole table.

And so we need support.

We need support on the budget front.

We need support on the monetary front.

We need support on the factory-to-waste price front.

And we need support on the tax front.

Mr. President, may I get a word in?

On behalf of the whole bunch of us, the Senate and the Supreme Court, we want to thank you for the firmness and guts that you stood out on the

on the textile range of prints and the sentiments you've just expressed, I have felt for a long time that we approach this matter of quotas and struggling with foreign imports, we don't want to approach it from an affinity side.

I think that we should be prepared in this country to meet in open competition regardless of the different mental fluctuations.

Our technology and our skill to meet in open competition, any country in this world, on any product in this world, if we can't hold our own, let us lose.

But the whole point is that they talk about us starting a trade war.

It makes me laugh, because we've been in a trade war all this time, and it's been a one-sided war.

I introduced a amendment to the tax bill two years ago.

which I claimed was a free trade amendment, and we simply said, authorize the president that he may, he said he must, but he may put barriers up against any country that has barriers in the form of export licenses or other barriers against our exports to them.

And he failed.

When they removed that barrier, it removed ours.

And it passed the Senate by a bigger than two-to-one vote.

Uh, the, uh, President Clinton's committee and the House threw it out and said they didn't want it.

They didn't want to come keep the tax bill with it.

But I have felt right along that this matter of jobs depends on that you have made a section of textiles

which helps our southern friends more than it does some of us, because they still are fixed out and totally abandoned.

But we've got Jews and we've got many other things, and I think all we want is just an even break, and that we trade, reciprocal trade, to be a two-way street, and that by making that trade, by stop talking about how much cheaper they can produce the drug,

and say we'll meet it, no matter how cheaply they produce it, if they only let us have freedom of sending in the things that we can't produce better than they can to them.

But I, again, I found half of many of these things.

I want to thank you for what you did on this, because it took, it's the first time that an administration has really got done this, gotten on this point.

Let me just close that because I'm very once again over in our office and the Democrats are repeating their report to say on that point that the text that they wouldn't have come off unless we had had the action of August 13th and we had a search on it and that of course has made

And we were able to give up the surcharge.

And in exchange for that, we got the deal.

And it also wouldn't have taken place unless I had made a statement on the spot.

And I didn't do it politically.

So whether you're trying to hold the time right now, I'm supposed to be in time.

So that goes well.

Very well.

They asked me what's going to happen, and I said, well, that we do not want to act in the latter.

But unless there is an agreement, I will have to act in the latter for the 50 people across now.

That can't work and everything.

I said we wanted to say, too, that if we could talk about credit here, and it is so often we wonder what the White House has to say.

Pete Peterson deserves an enormous amount of credit for his work on this.

and David Kennedy, the importance of negotiation, and David Kennedy also did a very great deal, like Dr. Margaret Hewitt, in terms of both of the students and working out the voluntary name of the Spanish and the Texas troops.

You're looking at the whole international situation.

I think you, it's a comfort in the fact that

I am not, and I should say we are not, I am not very concerned about the fact that you came up to the New York Times or a sophisticated analysis by some one of your initials.

and they raise their hands and say, the United States is terribly unpopular abroad because of our surcharge, but we won't revalue it, we won't raise the price of gold and so forth.

Of course we are.

We know what we're doing.

But on the other hand, what we have to realize is that the United States for 25 years could afford the luxury

frankly, an unfair, for us, competitive position.

We can no longer afford it.

And because we can no longer afford it from now, we're doing to them just what they do to us.

And it's time to continue that way, that we get fair treatment.

That's all there is to it.

And so, when you hear this thing, I mean, some members, in fact, some of our Republicans, and Chairman Costner, the main producer, to give an interview on the radio to you,

You were really concerned about the fact that we get rid of this terror charge with some of our friends in Japan?

Of course they are.

They're concerned.

But we can't give it up until we get a deal.

Now, on the Texel thing, we just uncured this and that from various people, friends in Japan.

And I'm no better friend in Japan than I am, and I've been there so long.

Because, uh, they said it was embarrassing to Japanese and Texels.

It did.

It was very cumbersome, but I told them something.

Okinawa was very tough for me, too.

So, keep that in mind.

I knew you would.

Very, very sure.

Foreign aid, perhaps we'll finish it Wednesday and send it right to the floor.

You've heard the fact, Joe, come on.

Sandberg's amendment on state convention, not the calling, the amendment of the Constitution.

Mike has agreed to ask the Democratic Policy Committee this week to fix the schedule from now until the 15th of November.

And he said he needs to know what bills you're sending out, and Charlie has asked him that.

He and I will then send a letter to all senators asking them to cooperate on November 15th.

With the hopes that it won't be too long after this gold stack before we can get out.

Hopefully.

No problems.

Reverend James.

I hadn't heard of it, but I had an answer.

I'll hear it out, Mr. President.

We're going to keep that shirt up over on our side, too, as much as we can.

But remember, don't cut it out.

In a matter of 15 days, we're not getting to do all of it.

We've got 30 minutes on the list.

I think we're never going to be able to do it.

Thank you.

I'm going to go over to your yard and pray for you.