Conversation 087-001

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

...

But in final analysis, it's judgment as to what we can do in terms of the political issues, and also in terms of how that affects our other two cities.

It's very, very important.

It's critical.

So I want to be sure that Agnes Keating calls for a IOC on Wednesday night in California.

And Agnes will have a chance to bring it up, but I'd like her to have a chance to think about these problems

before I see him.

So just think about it.

It won't make any finance.

Now, to be frank,

The first item of business, it seems to me, is what we do about the gold.

Let me see if I understand.

Paul, you believe you ought to introduce it quickly as the Congress begins, right?

I don't think it has to be instantaneous.

First, I would say that with regard to it, it must be clean and alone.

It must be hung when we are dead.

Because they get all sorts of crap.

And that can both go to waste, and then send it to NASA, and then hang onto it.

In order to buy the time for you, Paul, when you're talking to John, first of all, Congress comes back in the east, the State of the Union will be on the 20th, that week, that comes, that future to the 24th, and the week to the 24th, if we say, say it's in the middle of that week,

What we have to do, even though in terms of our international negotiations...

We have to clearly link gold and change the price of gold with cricket.

In terms of the conqueror, we cannot.

Because the more we link it with the conquerors, then it's true that we're going to get photos and everything else tied to the price of gold.

We've got to have a change in the price of gold, because looking at it...

Now this is something that we haven't been able to afford.

And most of the Congress and Senators would understand it.

For all of you, I understand.

I just learned to understand.

All of you understand that

So, the way I look at the thing...

We thereby buy a buy-time banking currency, but they have quite a lot of time, quite a few hearings with them.

By the course of those hearings, the question would obviously be asked, well, what's happening on the trading partner?

We can first simulate some of that question, because we understand it was needed by Bill for his time for negotiations.

Now, I'll stop there to see whether that scenario sounds all right, or, as I understand it, your meeting this morning, you talked a little about the last two weeks.

Well, I don't think any of us have any strong feelings.

It's just a matter of...

I think we all have a separation.

President, I think one of the key issues here is the fact that Tom Martin says if we agreed on 14, which probably is not likely, they would have to have 10 days to confirm.

So that takes us to 22 at the very earliest time.

You put a lot of pressure on us to be sure we define the issues that we think we can get.

There are some big pluses in here that we can get.

Even though they're not what we want, they're part of the way.

We don't understand it, such as a protection on our grain pricing so that they will not reduce our market in Europe.

We don't know how they'll do it, but that's the commitment they said they will work out in two days' time.

I don't know how they can do it, but this is what they've said to me.

If we go put the bill in before we're pretty sure of the trade...

I think we then link trade and gold together in commerce.

I agree with you that that would be a mistake.

I'd like to be as free as possible to keep that trade separate from being tied to the influence here.

I'm saying I'd like flexibility at the 24th through the 1st.

What we all do is to say we're working on the matter.

Is it a complicated matter, Paul?

If it is, you can make it complicated to do.

The bill itself is not complicated.

The only complication of the bill will be that we may start beginning to lost its financial orientation and price of gold.

And that's the only thing that I can see relieving this from hearings and probing.

I don't know what I had.

I'm thinking of an excuse for not putting the bill in.

But then in a short time after Congress comes back...

I'm a straightforward excuse.

I think it's a good one.

There's one complication here, Mr. President, that was mentioned when the leadership was in here.

They expressed some sympathy for the idea of doing this initially, keep actors in the fight, and take them off the political field a little bit.

It strikes me that we didn't practically do that at any time, but it may be a little awkward to do that when Congress is in session.

What we were thinking of then is that you do that, say, next week, when Congress is still out of session,

And you would have that background for actually presenting the bill to the Congress.

But it looks to me, in this kind of scenario, we can't do it that way.

But doesn't that take a multitude of ways?

You're waiting for the trade stuff this time.

Yes, I know.

But we're a little dilemma here because the congressional people express no sympathy to do it that way.

But I don't think we can do it that way and just take them all off the hook right now.

That's the story I'm hearing.

Technically, we can still do it the fastest.

I don't know if they'd like that when they're in session.

That's the only complication we see.

I don't know.

It doesn't sound good.

It doesn't sound great.

I didn't react to that.

I mean, it's not straightforward.

I know it was the one that was most eager.

The majority of pigeons was that way, but...

I think we should wait until at least the first week of February.

Give Bill a chance to negotiate.

And then set it up in February.

So that we don't have to... February.

Yeah.

They're also expecting

Well, I think...

I see.

It will be unfortunate for us before the impasse is it will have to give away the grain and wheat crop.

This is going to be tough.

I made that point this morning.

That's the only thing right now.

If I was prepared to say the U.S. will give this up, I would make a deal with one of these.

You don't have much hope you can do.

I do not have much hope we can do, but I do have this hope on this particular section of protecting our market to the same degree we have it today, and keeping the prices down.

That I think we can get.

But it's not in the mandate today, and that's why we need this time.

Would there be a possibility of getting...

the citrus, the tobacco, and just what you just described, and holding out for the future, looking at it like we're in a crevice, holding out for the future, that we're going to continue to work on the green tea problem until it ends.

That's why, but with a very, not a mandate, but a very strong, such as those negotiations need to continue, my guess is that, just from what I've read, what you've now said, my guess is that you're not going to get the grant until you think about the 15th of February.

I doubt it with this one exception.

Well, it's not a different problem, but that's something.

Oh yeah.

You hear something crazy.

We're going to get three things in a great year.

We're going to get stockpiling, I'm pretty sure.

We're going to get something which is better than the...

It's less of the full benefits of the revaluation, but not as good as we like.

And further, we've got this nebulous kind of thing on the protecting from harm.

If we can hold out a couple more weeks, that's the best.

That could be very important to us in the Midwest.

Right.

Clark, what is your opinion as far as the Midwest is concerned?

We make that kind of a deal, and that's a favor that's not great.

We generally believe that we're actively negotiating the future.

There's going to be good and bad.

There's going to be initial disappointment.

We're going to have to engage in other initiatives to administrate our concerns for the Great Front.

We're giving $4 billion in subsidies.

Mr. President, do you...

The two issues that can be added to this are that we are putting in this package a strong negotiation for 72 and 73, and I think we can build on it as far as the future.

That will be in both the Japanese and Canadian and the European package, and we're trying a similar language, which should be helpful.

The other side of this is, though, that...

The total package of citrus, both Japan-wise and sea-wise, will also be a slight disappointment.

In other words, we aren't going to get photos of Japan, and we're not going to get full year-round.

We'll stay the same.

We will feel better than we have today.

So there will be a little problem there.

Doctor, we usually always see these special study groups of the adult world, saying we're looking at the future as a presence.

I think that is not as good as the actual written commitment from the EC, Kenya, and Japan.

They're committed to joining with us in a major mission.

That, let me say, let me see, say, giving them hope, giving them hope, but I mean real hope that we finally are solidly doing, and making speeches about it, is a hell of a lot more important, frankly, than giving it to them.

At the present time, what happens is, you know, you give this, you give those shits, and stuff, the Russians, and so forth, now that's not going into the next.

Now, you know, I agree, I agree, but I think you should go out

I'm not sure, and also I think in advance, if we're not going to get it, it has to be this kind of advance.

This kind of advance, so we've got some real problems here.

You're gonna get something.

I'm not sure.

I hope so.

I haven't seen him since...

I suppose that's the challenge.

Actually, there are two problems.

One, we've got a list this long of mines which can be merchandised by everybody beautiful.

My trade point of view is not too many dollars, but the trend is great.

The second thing is that they have now said, as of yesterday afternoon,

But it's really going to depend on what happens on Thursday and Friday.

Paul and I have been talking, Secretary, about how this plan can be handled.

You've been talking about how?

Paul has.

Paul and I have been talking for years about how this plan can be worked out.

Well, Dr. Knox has.

He's been.

He's been, right?

Of course, you can hold up on any opinion about this.

Well, I'm just thinking about all the numbers in the meeting.

We have, who's, who's, who's, who's finance?

Who's, who's, who's, who's finance?

We could have our trade people there.

Let me just say it this way.

That package can be merchandise.

Not as much as you would like, but it's such a long list.

And two things that are missing from it.

One is the computers.

And then they want, the doctor wants to talk to the secretary of college first.

I can't say any more than that.

The second part is, the doctor wants to talk to the college.

And the second part is in the procedure.

They're being very tough on them.

That's where the real hand is in that whole argument.

They're licensing procedures for AIQ, all kinds of procedures.

They don't want to change, and we want to convince them that they'll change over some period of years.

So that's one we can easily back away from.

Yeah, that's what we ought to talk about.

That's their whole way of life.

That's right.

But they've indicated that there's some give there, and they're coming with instructions to send them there.

But let me tell you, that's very interesting.

And particularly interesting to our magicians.

But politically it doesn't mean a damn thing.

And so do the best you can, you understand?

And we could try, because I am a salesman, and I have a little...

I think that's probably true.

They're holding up like a present course on grapefruits.

They're going to give us five times on juices.

That's where they are right now.

So, I mean, I know we're going to get that.

And they're up about double on oranges.

And so, we're already there, and I've sent back more instructions as of yesterday afternoon.

They don't want people to know about it, because it's a political problem.

Of all the farmers in our country, we need to invest in citrus seed.

That's all right.

We need to invest in citrus seed.

To the other matter, the trade legislation.

We have, to a certain extent, two problems.

One is the general legislation tonight.

Bill, go ahead.

As I understand, that's off to the spring, right?

Do you remember the president's background and public safety as part of the study generalizing preferences?

The issue, of course, now is when we should send it, and it should be part of the question of our country as a package.

I think the feeling here that we expressed this morning was that we ought to get congressional reactions to our ability to isolate this from Christmas tree track legislation and insulting counties.

I think, Bill, it was your feeling that if Congress were to assure us that we could isolate it so that it didn't get involved in other matters, then we could go ahead with it later in the spring.

If there seems to be a high risk of it not being insulated, then I think we would probably feel that we ought to wait until we submit a total trade package.

Congratulations.

Express that apparently over here.

I think we ought to go ahead and submit something.

I don't care whether we use the community example or our own.

I think we should submit something, and then try to isolate it, and just hold it back.

As far as that, yes, we can.

I don't see how we can not submit something.

We can do it for a month or so.

I think we have to submit something.

We don't have to do it for a year.

I think you're explaining to me, correct?

Yes, I made a point this morning as president to recommend sharing at summer one with the legislature, with health.

I would think so, unless you make a decision ahead of time.

But in any case, those three items, in my opinion, represent three months of work.

If you look at the first three months of your second session, you have no length of day recess, you have an easy recess, which would be ten days.

That comes on the 27th of March until April 12th, 2011.

So they've got a full wait right now.

We certainly shouldn't submit this until after we submit yours.

And then we can just submit it and say we don't know about it anymore.

We can't isolate it.

But if they're looking for a Christmas tree, they'll find one anyway.

And I think we've gotten it up to the commitment we've made.

And we can slow it down.

Well, that's how I understand it.

It might be made to all real lives.

From a political standpoint, he's a dead loser.

He must reap a hand in a second.

There will be a Christmas tree.

I think it's been very helpful to avoid it.

But on the other hand, I think that what helps us here is the fact that the way it's being submitted gets so busy.

And of course, that's going to be in there, right?

You can't go there and say, look at the finance first.

No, sir.

No, I'm crazy.

Well, under the circumstances, I think that we should, if I can suggest something, well, I think this is why we should split it up a little bit.

Fortunately, quite a little bit.

I don't want to make a big fanfare about it and all that sort of thing.

And then we let the Congress deliberate.

I'd like to go tomorrow morning with Paul and Bill.

It's 10.30.

Please join us.

It gives me an opportunity to talk to the individual members on a Sunday night on a flat basis.

I think that's their reaction to prison.

Because they react and they confirm the fact that they will give, as we expect them to, priority to these three hangover items.

Yeah.

We are all...

You understand that on the generalized reference, this is what I...

I've always had a strong, strong bias for.

For adults.

So therefore, we want to get the credit for trying there.

In fact, at this particular point, we do have a very serious problem with the Congress, with all the protections, and all the other things.

And I want to be, and I want to sound as pessimistic as I have, but it's notable that we could get a second one.

Who knows, you know, certainly.

The only thing is, I believe, the one who might get the voice needs to be reasonable.

And if we go to a proposed rule for the House, I don't think you'd ever get the Senate to be reasonable.

And the United States Senate means, you know...

and presidential candidates, and glass blowers, that's what I, that's the real fear, nobody else knows it, and I think we have to tell some of our friends that, our committee, our commitment is there, but this is a difficult time to learn to do, it's not about the little things, you know what I mean?

...unhappy moments in the fall, as it expands.

Further, I think, why does it expand as it gets worse and worse?

But what we do in terms of trying to get through something, is something else again.

And they're going to be, they're going to have power to send in, I guess, some companies.

But we'll be pressing, pressing the positions on these things as they come up.

Of course, in the fall, it's going to be kind of tough for us here.

So what position do we take?

I don't know.

I know that we...

I think the...

I think by the fall...

Mr. President, it would be possible to keep some leeway here, because I think we have to figure out some timetables, and maybe I think you, Clark, can have freedom to check on how the Congress feels in May, April, May, or June.

Two, the reaction you can get by putting in and then not pushing at all, but it also is bad overseas.

We're criticized as much as the White House here,

for not having tried, not having pushed as much as we are for having made commitments.

I think there ought to be some flexibility here as soon as the state can give us a chance to have a hard look at this without backing away from the commitment to this particular point.

We may find this very bad timing at this particular point for any particular reason.

Well, I thought we were being criticized for not sending up the legislation.

The community and the Japanese have done what we asked them to do, and we've never even sent the legislation up.

So what we're trying to do, or what they're still trying to do, is just to see who is, you know, the reason for all this tax, and then, during the first month, send the bill up, send it up very low key, and then send it to the community and the Japanese.

So when we've sent it up, we've had a problem.

We probably can't get it to the country since this year.

But at least we've lived up to our commitment.

Now the announcement we made said that we would set it up on time as we could be.

Now we don't have to set up this first two weeks, but we should delay it a little bit.

I would think that if you were not to set it up, you'd have to do it, but you shouldn't do it before the end of the day.

That's a social reason for the start of a cutoff in the international system.

I think you should check out some very good snowshoes.

I think you'll understand about America.

Well, could you have a little, could you have a talk with Wilbur about this, and say, look, what are really the prospects, what's going to happen here, et cetera.

Let us know.

And the other thing is that if we, I mean, Bill, the leftist point is that we're criticized for setting things up and not pushing them.

And the rightist point is that we're criticized for not even introducing them.

Well, we certainly can't, we certainly can't do the first one.

We had a second argument.

We can't introduce something.

As far as not pushing is concerned, we don't want it.

Now that's where we are.

So therefore, we've got to say that they have better than that.

Not pushing, because we know damn well we can't get what we want.

Also, on this one, I want to be sure that this is before my profits would come, and when she falls, too, and then me going in.

Matter of fact, maybe two of you can talk into the room while you're here, and get a good, good feeling, and get his political attention.

Does that cover most of the items that you need to...

I think there are only two or three specifics.

One is, there seems to be wide consensus this morning that we ought to keep that work within the council to be sure we get a comprehensive trade deal ready for the possibility that you might want to do something in the spring.

The scenario that worries us as presidents and all, that this labor party bill does start getting hearings,

And labor, as you know, is pushing our farms to get support.

And then we're left without a positive alternative in the Congress responding to that bill.

So I think we would like your approval to push ahead to get legislation ready if late spring comes.

It looks like we ought to submit something.

We're going to do that, and we're going to obviously have to work hard for the next 69 days.

What kind of a bill would be on the line?

Well, it would have the following.

It would have a strong export-promotion possibility, which we think we can translate into jobs.

It would be related to your technology, you know, initiatives to make America more competitive.

It would have a much more comprehensive adjustment system set up, with perhaps some protection of industries on a temporary basis.

We could finesse, I think, the liberalized negotiating authority until later on the grounds that we've already discussed, as this is taking place.

And we'll know later what's still there.

Whatever you put in in terms of the first four points has no concern.

And the problem I have is that the problem we would actually have would be if they decide to fight the hard-to-labor bill with a new sort of Kennedy round.

It's not an indication.

It's murder.

See?

I agree.

So if you would work in that context, let's understand.

We've evaluated these 50 persons.

They have feelings there.

Basically, in the long term, I am for a less restrictionist policy.

Dimensionally, on the other side, Europeans who...

But in the short term, looking at the American economic and political scene at this moment, with some considerable pockets that disagree with this, some in the intellectual community, some in the business community,

The final issue...

has to do with what the rhetoric should take at any time.

Whether, for example, in your State of the Union message, or in other administrations' spokesmen's messages.

You might want to make some kind of positive statements about making America more competitive, more employed, that how you're now negotiating broad and useful to get fair arrangements.

In other words, lay out the broad outlines of tomorrow without getting too committed on land where or exactly how you're going to do this.

So that the other side of the coin gets covered, namely that we don't get labeled protections.

Right.

I would think you're saving a message, perhaps an economic message, might be in place for some of the rhetoric, and some of the rest of us could take that.

Mr. President, I think you all agree on that here, I agree.

You see, one thing I think we should be careful of, though, is that in the...

In making the plans for a little comprehensive program, let's be sure we don't talk about backing legislation, because if we're backing a comprehensive trade program, we've got a bill that's coming.

That'll leak out, and we're going to have some additional trouble.

So let's just come up with a study.

A study on the long range implications.

And you see, that gets you off the hook, and I, the Vice President, determines what recommendations are made in the Congress.

It seems to me the exercise is well worth it, going through it, because you're a long way from the fall, and if you hadn't caught on something, you'd have it all there, prepackaged, and modularized to where you'd have your imperfect set of organs, but I mean, let me say this, that the United States now has a very, very efficient, I really want to know,

This is an area where I really wanted to come up with.

I don't know where we stand.

I bet you in your business community, I bet you that if you go to 100 chief executive officers to talk about recuperation, they have all the time sitting down looking at the way that

that the municipality and the municipality and the rest are looking ahead for their future.

Would you agree or not?

Absolutely.

And they do, and I'm not sure we want five-year plans or 10-year plans or the rest.

But maybe we want a 25-year one.

I'm not sure.

But I do know this, that America's done very well destroying my house.

Very well.

And that's the way we play the game in the future.

But we live in a world

Where our major competitors in the free world don't grow that much.

They know exactly what they want.

What John Connolly said this season about Paul, you know, time and again, about where we're going to get our resources, you know, where we're going to get our raw material, where we're going to get it from Latin America, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, Japan, Asia, Europe, and so forth, and so on.

I didn't like what you said.

And I digress, but the point is, this kind of a study, usually they say, well, a study is made, and it's received, and written, and tried around, and get a presidential intent, and out you go, and it's filed away, and death collects.

But I really believe it needs to be done, and we need to know, not for the purpose of so much of doing something specific, but for the purpose of having a framework in which to respond to

and various initiatives that are taken by others, and a framework with which to take some initiatives when we need to.

And I think that's where we are.

I think the beauty of what has been called the new economic policy, it was developed over a period of time.

It wasn't, as a matter of fact, all that early development

But at least we tried to think in broad terms rather than in ad hoc basis.

In other words, we constantly tried to point out it wasn't just a case of trying to keep down the cost and stop the rate of rise and inflation.

It had to do with jobs, the international monetary situation related to the American economy position.

It had to do, of course, with

in terms of the inflation, and not just the way the price frees and pays to, but heavy to the cause, in fact.

I mean, this will be where George is doing such a great job of holding the budget down.

And so, that's...

These days, these are things that are...

It's fine.

And we can get trade agreements with the community in Canada and Japan.

And we've completed the merger.

We've got a billion dollars for a dark market here.

Can't we say that the short-term objectives that have been achieved

And then we're pursuing the long-term objectives in OECD.

We're studying it.

It was kind of planned, so we said it's a success, and now we're wiping it.

And the regular reason I say, well, it's because of money we have to trade, so we can save it for us all.

And I think, actually, this would be just a great time, a great thing for Connolly, at the proper time, to go off like a gang.

All right, now this, this, this, this, and we get to keep the first phase done.

It's got to be right.

But now on this other thing, though, I think this is, let me say, don't do this.

for the purpose of studying.

And I think it is very important to make recommendations to the President and especially to the General Assembly.

For you, Mr. President, I wasn't suggesting you not draft the legislation at this time.

That's not what I'm talking about.

Because otherwise, how is it worth drafting legislation at this time?

And I don't care.

And that we're looking to 73.

Or to come back here and make a lot of trade in the last one for seven.

But if this package that we could have, if we need it, should be tied into domestic expansion programs.

More jobs, better paying jobs, and I think it's good to get us in a position.

where we prepare ourselves for 73 and keep cleaning our house, do our house job, so we can have a clean cut-and-fill if we want 73 for a major trade expansion program.

And that keeps us, keeps everybody off our back.

We ought to be able to hold the hard-to-birth bill off when I say, let's hold everything on trade, because we'll look at it in 73.

It's good.

It's very good.

I think the point the president made earlier is one we should keep in mind ourselves, and that is the greatest impetus to trade is via realignment.

Everything else is minor compared to that.

The law.

Don't anybody be embarrassed about how this list is going to look.

You've seen this tragedy's list.

It is a very long list, and we'll have all three or four things to be handed to you.

It's going to be a very impressive list.

We already have a list of things they've done this year, and it's pretty impressive.

The thing is, we don't want to reveal that list all at the same time.

And also don't add the numbers.

That's right.

You can use the Japanese number, which shows $10 million dollars.

We heard it was a flying tank, and that's not going to be a problem.

We'll leave it there.

Okay, you and Pete will fill in John Connolly on the points that we talked about, so that he can also figure where political judgment is required, and as long as the first sentence, you go down with the sentence, and you raise the political points and so on, but I'd like to get it used on Wednesday, and we're out there, and we'll...

I think his skills would be very...

I mean, they're not aware of all these... Yeah, these problems would probably come up in the same way, but I think he sees... Well, I told him that I was flying, and he wasn't there.

He didn't say anything.

But he didn't know what everybody else here was doing.

President, do you want to make an announcement?

Jerry, do you want to make an announcement?

This is me.

Jerry, do you want to make an announcement?

Or...

That's it.

Thank you very much.