Conversation 103-011

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Wel, yn unig, rydyn ni'n rhaid i'r gweithiwr adrodd hynny, ac rydw i'n gofyn i chi i fynd yn ôl i hynny.

Mae'n dda, mae'n dda, mae'n dda, mae'n dda, mae'n dda, mae'n dda, mae'n dda, mae'n dda, mae'n dda, mae'n dda, mae'n dda, mae'n dda.

Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr.

Iawn.

Mae'n ddiddorol.

Rwy'n eich cymryd yn dda.

Roedd hynny'n dda.

Ydych chi eisiau penderfyniad y wythnos hwn?

Ie.

Wel, dwi'n meddwl y byddai'n dda i chi ddefnyddio'r gwaith.

Dwi'n meddwl y byddai'n gwych.

Dwi

Diolch yn fawr.

I just called your Mayor, he was actually the second Mayor to know.

I was calling your press when I called Willie Welch.

I called him and he said he congratulated me on being elected President of the Association of Mayors.

He thought I was calling him because the Astros are in first place.

Diolch yn fawr

Beth ydych chi'n ei ddweud?

Roeddwn i'n dod yn ôl i gyhoeddi.

Roeddwn i'n dweud.

Roeddwn i'n dod yn ôl i gyhoeddi.

Diolch yn fawr am wylio'r fideo.

Wel, yn gyntaf, gadewch i mi ddweud

Diolch yn fawr.

ac yna dwi'n deall hefyd eich bod chi'n cael cyfle i siarad am rai o'ch penderfyniadau.

Wel, byddwn i'n gwneud hynny ychydig yn ddiweddar.

Wel, rydych chi ddim wedi cael trwy hynny?

Ydych chi'n gofyn i ni ddweud iddyn nhw beth rydyn ni eisiau?

Roeddwn i'n meddwl y byddwn ni eisiau gwneud hynny, ond nid wyf wedi gwneud hynny hyd yn oed.

Gadewch i mi, gadewch i mi wneud ychydig o amser i'w ddweud.

Mae'n un o'r rhesymau pam fy mod i'n mynd i'r cyfarfodydd hwnnw.

Fel rydych chi'n gwybod,

Rydyn ni, o amser i amser, yn cael cwestiynau, ac rydyn ni wrth gwrs yn cyflawni'r cwestiynau, i siarad â'r rhanbarthwyr o'r rhwydwaith, fel rydyn ni wedi gweld pobl, rydyn ni wedi gweld pobl.

Ie, rydyn ni wedi cael rhai o'r rhanbarthwyr.

A'r hyn rydyn ni'n siarad â nhw, wrth gwrs, yw'r siarad, nid am y rhain, y rhain a'r rhain arall, rydych chi'n credu.

Rwy'n rhaid i'r Prif Weinidog ddweud hynny.

Ond fe wnaethon nhw ddod i mewn a siarad am rhai o'r ddurion yma.

Ond yn siarad â hwnnw, ac mae Monica a'r rhai eraill yma, mae'r pwynt wedi'i wneud, ac rwy'n credu ei fod yn bwynt hyfforddiant,

Mae'r bwysigrwydd, weithiau, o'r rhwydwaith ddim yn yr un bwysig i'r bobl sy'n allan o'r ffyrdd.

Weithiau mae'r rhwydwaith yn yr un peth ac weithiau nad ydyn nhw.

Felly roedd gen i'r syniad y byddwn ni am wneud yw cael rhai o'r bobl sy'n allan, efallai ar y sefydliad, neu'r rhwydwaith, ac ati i ddysgu am rhai o'r faterion hyn.

Rwy'n ymwneud â'r hyn sydd wedi'i ymwneud â hyn.

Nid wyf yn gallu ddweud beth yw'r pethau rydych chi'n eu teimlo'n ymwneud â'r pethau rydych chi'n eu teimlo'n ymwneud â'r pethau rydych chi'n eu teimlo'n ymwneud â'r pethau rydych chi'n eu teimlo'n ymwneud â'r pethau rydych chi'n ymwneud â'r pethau rydych chi'n ymwneud â'r pethau rydych chi'n ymwneud â'r pethau rydych chi'n ymwneud â'r pethau

Rwy'n credu y bydd gweithgareddau parhau yn beth da, nid yn beth pech.

Rwy'n credu, o ran y gweithgareddau cyfathrebu, mae'r diwydiant yn canolbwyntio ar hyn o bryd.

P'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a yw'n bwysig, p'un a

Dwi ddim yn mynd ymlaen gyda'r person hwnnw.

Mae hynny'n ddigon dda, ond dwi'n hollbwysig.

Mae'n rhaid i ni ddatblygu pethau sy'n ymwneud â hyn.

nid yn unig yn ystafell unrhyw berson arall, a chyffrediniaeth, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati

Bydd llawer o bobl yn dweud, be fyddai'n wych os oedden ni'n gallu cael y math o rhaglenni fel y maen nhw'n eu cael mewn wladau'n agored.

Ni fyddai'n cael cyfrifiadau sy'n dweud, gwelwch i'r holl gyhoeddwyr yn y rhaglenni hwn.

Mae'r ateb yw, mae hynny'n gwaith.

Ond byddwch yn mynd yn agored ac yn byw yno neu'n gweld nhw.

Rwyf wedi mynd i'r wladau, y gwladau sy'n cael cyfrifiadau.

Rwyf wedi bod i'r rhai sydd ganddo system cymysgedd hefyd.

Ac yn siŵr, efallai y bydd yna gyfle i weithredu o'r math hwnnw o system.

Efallai y bydd gennych rywbeth yn cael ei wneud a ddim yn cael ei wneud yma.

Ond rwy'n credu, yn gyffredinol, ein bod ni wedi cymryd ein holl system.

Nid yw'n berthynas, ond yn gyffredinol,

Mae'r amrywiaeth a'r arweinyddiaeth, y cydweithredaeth, ac ati, yn arbennig o'n system.

Mae'n gwneud am unrhyw gwybodaeth o ran hysbyseb, o ran gwybodaeth nad ydych chi'n ei gael yn y sefydliad.

Rwyf eisiau cadw hynny.

Mae'n un o'r rhesymau pam y byddwn i'n ymwneud â chi.

Nid ydw i'n gweithiwr gwych neu'n ymchwil cyhoeddus.

Mae'r rhan fwyaf o'r staff yn anghywir â mi am hynny.

Maen nhw'n bwysig iawn.

Rwyf eisiau ei fwydo'n fawr.

Efallai ei fod yn dda iawn i ddatblygu rhywbeth arall.

Felly byddwn ni'n gwneud ychydig o brofiadau.

Efallai y byddwn ni'n gweithio ar hynny ac ati.

ac os byddwch chi'n dod i'r pwynt cyhoeddus o'r cwestiwn cyhoeddus, ynglŷn â'r ffordd y mae'n cael ei gefnogi a'i gyllid, a fyddai'n ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddai'n cael ei gyllid yn ystod y ffordd y byddai'n ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddai'n ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddai'n ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddai'n ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddai'n ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddai'n ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddai'n ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddai'n y

Mae'n cynyddu'r iechyd o'r sefydliad a'i gyfle i fyw yn yr unwaith yn ôl.

Dyna'r pwynt rwy'n ei ddweud.

Yn hyn o bryd, a yw un o'r cyflwynwyr yn y ffordd rydych chi'n hoffi ei gyflawni?

Ydyn nhw'n hoffi'u cyflawni?

Rwy'n credu eich bod chi wedi sôn bod yna rhai broblemau nad yw'n gyffredinol o ran y rhwydwaith amrywiol rhwng y rhwydwaith a'r sefydliadau.

Rwy'n mynd i ddweud bod y rhwydwaith a'r sefydliadau wedi cael eu cyflawni a'u cyflawni mewn gwirionedd.

Nid yn unig yn rhan o'r rhwydwaith, ond fel eich

Mae'r Prif Weinidog wedi sôn yn fwy na chwe mlynedd, ond mae gennym broblem eithaf cyffredinol o ran clogio'r brosesau gweithredu, rhai o'r rhai sy'n ymwneud â chyflawniadau a chyflawniadau.

Nid yw hynny'n ei angen.

Nid yw hynny'n ei

weithiau gwahaniaeth, weithiau gwahaniaeth trefnol.

Mae hynny'n bwysig, ond dydw i ddim yn meddwl bod angen i ni ysgrifennu amdanyn nhw.

Mae'n cael ei drafod llawer o amser, ac mae llawer o'ch cyngorwyr yn gwybod amdanyn nhw.

Byddai'n anodd iawn i ddychmygu unrhyw beth.

Byddai'n fwy anodd i'r iechyd economaidd o'r diwydiant cyfan hwn na'r diwydiant presennol.

ymddiriedolaethau a theoriadau ymddiriedol o'r Cymdeithas Cymdeithasol yn ymwneud â'r adroddiadau ariannol.

Os ydyn nhw'n gweithio, dwi ddim yn meddwl bod hynny'n ymddiriedolaeth, ond efallai y byddai'n llwyddiant iechyd economaidd.

Beth yw'r hyn sy'n ymwneud â hynny?

Rydych chi'n dweud rhywbeth sy'n rhaid i mi ddeall yn fawr i'r FTC a'r OCC yn ymwneud â chynlluniau cyflwyniadol.

Dwi'n meddwl pam.

Dwi'n mynd i ddweud, roedden ni'n meddwl, wel, rydych chi'n edrych ar y FTC, ac mae'n dod yn ôl i'r holl... Dwi'n mynd i ddweud, cymryd enw gwirionedd.

Rydych chi'n gwybod, os oes problem claf, dwi'n meddwl y byddai'n rhaid i chi gael enwau gwylio.

Gwylwch i fosco.

Gwylwch i'r Gwartheg Gwylio.

Ac edrychwch sut mae hynny'n wych.

I fyw yn y cymdeithasau lle nad oes gennyn nhw enwau gwylio.

Dwi'n golygu, nawr rydych chi'n dweud, o wel, gwylwch i fi, beth mae enwau gwylio'n mynd i'w wneud gyda hyn?

Mae'n rhaid i chi ddelio gyda hynny.

Oherwydd, rydych chi'n mynd i'r enwau gwylio, rydych chi'n mynd i'r adroddiadau, i

sy'n rhyfeddol yn yr ardal hwn, byddai'r bosib yw bod yr adroddiad cyffredinol yn cael ei hollbwysau'n fwyaf, rwy'n siwr.

Byddai hynny'n cael ei gyflawni yn ystod y chaos, mewn gwirionedd.

Nid ydych chi'n bwysig am y rheoliadau sy'n cael eu datblygu ar gyfer y FNC ar hyn o bryd.

Felly mae'r derbyniad o'r cyhoeddiadau yn unigol yn llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo'n llwyddo.

a oes yn rhaid i mi ddewis beth yw'r pethau sy'n rhaid i mi ddewis, ond yn unig, mae'r FTC yn cynnwys cymaint

ac efallai y byddwch chi'n adroddi'r rhain yn ymlaen â'r adroddiad o'r doctor ffermwyr.

Felly, cyn i General Motors ddweud rhywbeth dda am un o'i cynnyrchiadau, mae'r air yn rhaid iddo fod yn agored i'r cymdeithas.

Bydd yn dweud bod hynny'n llawer o gofnod.

Mae'r hyn maen nhw'n ei wneud yn llwyddo'r cymdeithas.

Rydych chi'n wirioneddol yn iawn.

Mae hynny'n hollbwysig iawn i chi.

Mae pob un o'r preswylion yn cael eu cymryd i lawr.

Mae hynny ddim yn rhywbeth nad ydyn nhw'n ei wneud.

Mae'r busnesau'n rhaid cael eu cymryd i lawr.

Mae'n rhaid cael eu cymryd i lawr.

Rwy'n gofyn am ddŵr a thŵr oherwydd rwy'n ymdrech, ond rhai o'r ffordd y tu allan yw'n defnyddio'r amgylchedd, neu at leiaf'r amgylchedd cyhoeddus.

Ac mae hynny'n rhywbeth maen nhw'n cwrdd â'r llinell, o ran beth mae hyn yn bwysig.

Beth maen nhw'n gofyn amdanyn nhw nid yw gweithredu.

Beth maen nhw'n gofyn amdanyn nhw yw systemau gweithredu cymharol.

Dyna pam dwi'n dweud hynny.

Dwi'n mynd i ddweud bod hynny'n dda.

Dwi'n dweud, os ydych chi'n gweithredu cymharol neu ddim.

Os ydych chi'n gweithredu cymharol neu ddim.

Ac wrth gwrs, mae'n rhaid i chi fynd gyda'r amgylchedd

a'r holl bethau eraill.

Ond os ydych chi'n dechrau gyda'r sylwadau eraill, chi'n gwybod, yr adnoddau cymdeithasol, a'r syniad yw bod cynllunwyr ar y tôp yn gwneud pethau'n gorau i bobl, yn hytrach na phobl, mae llawer ohonyn nhw'n gwneud y penderfyniadau hynny yn y farchnad a'r rest.

y pwynt y byddwch yn mynd i'r arwain arall, yna byddwch yn dechrau cael y math hwnnw o reoliadau.

Mae'r broblem, os gallaf i'w ychwanegu, nid yn unig, a'n debyg, nid yn unig yn benodol, ond rhwng aelodau.

Mae'r rhan fwyaf o'r FTC.

Mae'r broblem, yn fwy aml, yw'r lwyddiant bach yn y gwaith o'r ysgol, sydd, yn y bôn, yn deall beth mae'n ei wneud.

Mae llawer o sgwrswyr, rhai sy'n bwysig, ac maen nhw eisiau rhannu'r lle.

Ac mae gennym ni hynny.

Ac felly, beth mae'n rhaid i ni ei wneud yw, yn y bôn, yn y ffordd ffilosofol.

Ni allwch chi gynrychioli hynny yn y ffordd cyffredinol.

Ni allwn ni ei ddweud yn unigol.

Ydych chi'n meddwl, os ydych chi'n meddwl, ydych chi'n meddwl, os ydych chi'n meddwl, os ydych

Ond byddwn i'n dweud bod y grŵp tair sydd, mewn gwirionedd, mor bwysig o ran y diwydiant cyhoeddus neu'r gweithwyr a'r gwasanaethwyr eu hunain.

Oherwydd dyma'r un ffordd siŵr i ffwrddio cynnyrch newydd o'r farchnad.

Mae'n ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddai'n bosibl i gynhyrchu cynhyrchiad newydd ar gyfer gynhyrchu'r pwyntiau da a chyflawni amser ar-lein ar gyfer cyflawni.

Mae'n rhaid i chi ddod i mewn a ddweud bod hynny'n llawer o bwysig.

Mae'n rhaid i chi ddod i mewn a chael ychydig o amser hefyd ar gyfer cyflawni.

Mae'r rhwydwaith rhwydwaith yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn rhaid iddyn nhw fod yn

yn aml iawn, grŵp o ddiddordeb cyhoeddus sy'n dod i mewn a'i ddweud... Mae'n ddiddordeb ei hun.

Beth?

Mae'n ddiddordeb ei hun.

Mae'n rhaid i mi, oherwydd bydd yn digwydd, os ydych chi'n dechrau ddweud, wel nawr, os yw'r leoliad hwnnw yn gwneud rhywbeth am ymddiriedaeth cyhoeddus, yna, pwy fydd yn mynd i ddewis beth yw ymddiriedaeth cyhoeddus?

Mae hynny'n bwysig iawn.

Mae'r rhai sy'n gwneud hynny ar hyn o bryd yn ddewis.

Mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud, ac rwy'n gwybod eich bod chi'n cael eich ymddygiad yn eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich eich

Mae gen i rhai ffigurau a allai fod yn ddiddorol i chi.

Roeddwn i wedi'u edrych arnynt y diwrnod ddiwethaf oherwydd rwy'n gwybod ei fod yn dod i lawr yma.

I ddangos i chi sut mae'r peth hwn yn ysgolio, a'r anodd gwirioneddol o'r petisiynau llicensial hyn i ddewis llicensiaeth newydd, ers mis Ebrill 1967, roedd 167

ychydigion i ddewis llesiant rheolaethol ar gyfer sefydliadau teledu.

Mae gennym, beth, tua 600 sefydliadau teledu, sefydliadau teledu cymdeithasol yng Nghymru.

Mae 112 o'r rhain yn parhau.

Dim ond 17 o'r rhain wedi cael eu penderfynu gan y Cymru.

Mae'r gwahaniaeth o 55 rhwng 167 a 112

yn cael eu penderfynu gan ystafelloedd yn cael eu gorfodi i wneud cydweithrediadau cyfrifol gyda grwpiau cyhoeddus cyhoeddus.

Yr unrhyw ffordd y gallan nhw ddod â nhw allan yw i wneud contract gyda nhw.

I ddod â'r contract ychydig y tu allan o unrhyw gofynion.

Sut mae hyn yn cael ei ddefnyddio?

Mae'n rhaid i chi ddweud, os ydych chi'n ymwneud â hyn, os ydych chi'n ymwneud â hyn, os ydych chi'n ymwneud â hyn, os ydych chi'n ymwneud â hyn, os ydych chi'n ymwneud â hyn, os ydych chi'n ymwneud â hyn,

a'r arosnau eraill sy'n ymwneud â leoliadau, rydyn ni'n mynd i gael ateb i'r arweinyddiaeth.

Rwy'n ymddygiadol y byddaf wedi cyflawni gyda chi ar hynny.

Byddai hynny'n ymateb unig.

Iawn, gadewch i mi roi enghraifft o Denver, Colorado.

Roedden ni'n cymryd sefydliad, channel 2, yn rhan o'r red.

Heddiw, rydw i'n hapus i ddweud ein bod ni'n nifer 2 yn y marchn, ac rydyn ni'n gwneud cynnyrch da.

Rydyn ni'n gwneud system trefno,

Rydyn ni wedi plwyd yn lluniau cyn ein bod ni wedi gwneud y dollar gyntaf.

Nid oes gennym ni'n llicensiaeth wedi'i adnewyddu hyd yn oed.

Neu nid oes unrhyw un arall yn y farchnad, oherwydd mae'r Chicanos yn mynd.

Mae Bob Wells yn nodi ei llyfr.

Dyma un o'ch cyflwyniadau gwych, Brif Weinidog.

Bob Wells i'r FCC.

Ac rwy'n gobeithio y byddwn ni'n cael... rwy'n gobeithio y byddwn ni'n cael s-7 Bob Wells yn ystod hwnnw.

Mae'r diwydiant hwn yn rhedeg iawn.

Rydyn ni'n cael prifysgol arbennig yng Nghymru

rydyn ni'n ei ofyn, ac rydw i'n mynd i ddweud hyn yn y prifysgol yma, rydyn ni'n ei ofyn 10 miliwn o dollars amdani, 3 mlynedd yn ôl.

Rwy'n meddwl y gallwn gael hanner hwnnw amdani heddiw.

Oherwydd nid ydych chi'n gwybod, nid ydych chi'n gwybod, Mr. Prifysgol, sut amser y gallwch chi gadw eich llisens.

Dyna'r peth cyfan.

Y ffaith yw bod y sefydliad yn gwneud, yn gwneud mwy o arian na phrofiad o'r blaen, mae'r cyfansoddau yn uchel, mae'r prifysgolion yn uchel, ond nid oes unrhy

Felly dyma pam mae'n rhaid i ni gael arweinyddiaeth gyda'r Gwasanaeth Gwedd yn cynnig arweinyddiaeth i ddod â phroses o adeiladu'n arwain.

Dyma'r un peth.

A ydych chi wedi'i argymell rhywbeth?

Ie, wrth gwrs.

Ie, byddai Herb yn cymryd hynny.

Mae Tom White yn cymryd hynny.

Brif Weinidog, byddwn i'n rhoi enghraifft i chi o ran pa mor anodd yw hyn yw hyn, ac mae ein sgriptwriaeth ar gyfer y sefydliad.

Rydyn ni wedi cael ddau ffaith arwain yn gofyn am ddewis ein llisens.

Un, gyda'r coeliwt bwysig yn dweud ein bod ni'n rhoi cymaint o amser i'r coeliwt.

Ac mae'r coeliwt yn dweud ein bod ni'n rhoi cymaint o amser i'r coeliwt.

Mae'r adroddiadau'r coeliwt yn gwybod, wrth i chi wneud, wrth i chi wneud.

Roedd hynny'n cymryd flwyddyn, dros blwyddyn, cyn ddod i'r Cymru.

Ac wrth gwrs, maen nhw'n rhannu'r leoliad ni, ond roedd hynny'n cymryd flwyddyn.

Mae'n costio tua $50,000 o fuddsoddiant, yna unrhyw nifer o salariadau cymdeithasol o'n staff i ddod

Mae'n debyg y bydd yna fwy o'r rhain yn ystod hyn.

Mae llawer o'r grwpiau hyn yn ystod hyn.

Rydyn ni'n deall hynny hefyd.

A'r peth pwysicaf am y grwpiau hyn, Brif Weinidog, yw bod cyhoedd wedi'u cyhoeddi nawr.

Mae'r cyhoedd wedi'u cyhoeddi fod y sefydliadau yn gallu ariannu'r grwpiau hyn, eu cyllid neu'u cyllid cyffredinol, ac y byddant yn llwyddo'u llwyddiant.

Mae'n rhaid i chi ddatganfod... Mae'n rhaid i chi ddatganfod... Mae'n rhaid i chi ddatganfod...

ond mewn gwirionedd, ar gyfer y sefyllfa hwnnw, roedd ddwy ddarlenni bwysig wedi gweithio mewn y sefydliadau hynny.

Mae tri llisensiau teledu, a ddwy llisensiau raddau ar gael ar gyfer adnewyddu, ac maen nhw wedi bod ar gael ar gyfer 24 mis.

Ac mae'r ddau ddarlenni wedi gadael i'r cymuned, sydd i lawr i'r cymuned, yn y mas hwnnw.

Rheoliadau sydd ar gael.

Dwi'n gofyn i chi hynny, pan fydd pobl yn ffeilio am y pethau hyn, beth maen nhw'n eu dangos o ran cyfnodion ariannol yma?

Mae'n rhaid iddyn nhw ddweud hynny.

Mae'n rhaid

Diolch yn fawr.

Rwy'n mynd i wneud fy marn.

Rwy'n meddwl y byddwn yn gwneud hynny am 13 diwrnod i chi, i chi a'r rhai sy'n gwneud cynlluniau.

Rwy'n mynd i wneud fy marn i chi.

Rwy'n hoffi gwneud hyn i'r grŵp.

Rwy'n mynd i'w gwerthu.

Rwy'n meddwl y byddaf yn cael mwy o hysbysiad i'r bobl hyn.

Mae'n ychydig yn ironigol i mi fod yn dod yma a dweud wrthych chi'n llawer o'n broblemau ac yn gofyn am eich iechyd.

Pan yw'r rhai eraill sy'n sefydlu ar y tabl hwnnw yn edrych ar ein sefydliadau ein hunain bob nos a'n gwylio'r adnoddau ar ein rhwydwaith bob nos, ac rydyn ni'n gwybod yn dda iawn bod y rhwydwaith yn bosibl un amgylchedd.

Yn ystod i'r diwrnod, yn ystod i'r diwrnod, unrhyw un,

yn treulio'r rhan fwyaf o'u adnoddau yn ysbrydoli a'i gweithredu ar hyn o bryd.

Yn ogystal â hyn, rydyn ni'n dod yma i ysgrifennu i'r Prif Weinidog a gofyn i'w helpu.

Rwy'n credu ein bod ni'n gweithredu i fynd i'r rhwydwaith ac i ddweud, byddech chi'n meddwl eich adnoddau'n cyflawni, ond rydyn ni ddim yn gofyn i chi wneud yn dda i'r adnoddau yma a'r un arall.

ond rydych chi'n treulio eich adnoddau i roi'r holl stori, neu rydym ni'n bwriadu gwneud rhywbeth amdano.

Rwy'n meddwl, pan fyddwn ni'n gwneud hynny, i gael adnoddau bwysig, mae rhywbeth, ond nid cymaint.

A, Bresennol, yna dwi'n meddwl, yna dwi'n meddwl, y byddem ni'n cael ein llyfru ac yn dod eto ac yn gofyn, ar hyn o bryd, dwi ddim yn meddwl ein bod ni'n gwneud hynny.

Mae'n dda.

Rwy'n credu hynny.

Rwy'n dweud ei bod yn bwysig i chi ysgrifennu, o ran...

A dwi'n dweud yr un peth.

Mae'r copi ddim yn gallu gwneud hynny.

Mae hynny'n wirioneddol anhygoel.

Mae hynny'n ymwneud â pherson sy'n gweithio mewn gwirfoddoliaeth.

Mae hynny'n ymwneud â phobl sy'n gweithio mewn gwirfoddoliaeth.

Mae hynny'n ymwneud â'r hyn y maen nhw'n credu.

ac roedd eu bwysau'n ymwneud â'r ffordd eraill ac mae'n dod allan.

Nawr, rwy'n dweud, roedd amser yn ddiweddar pan oedd ganddyn nhw, roedd ganddyn nhw, roedd ganddyn nhw, roedd ganddyn nhw, roedd ganddyn nhw, roedd ganddyn nhw,

Rydyn ni wedi gwneud hynny.

A beth ydyn nhw'n ei wneud, y tri rhwydwaith?

Pwy ydyn nhw'n cyflwyno amdanyn nhw?

Fulbright, Teddy Kennedy sy'n gallu dod drwy'r ffwrdd?

Mae'n gwneud yr un peth gyda'r holl rhaglenni.

Os ydych chi eisiau cyflawni'r rhaglenni, rydw i'n credu y bydd rhai o'r rhai mwyaf ddim yn gyfrifol, yn ôl i'r hanes Cymru, wedi gwneud y penderfyniad.

Mae'r holl tri rhaglenni, yn y cyfnod hwn, yn yr amser y gwnaethom ni fynd allan i'r Cymru,

rydyn ni'n cynllunio popeth o 3 Dynol y byddai'r Chineidd yn mynd i ddod i mewn.

Roedd yn mynd i ffadl, wrth gwrs, ac mae'r ysgol yn mynd i gansio.

Nid oedd unrhyw beth yn digwydd.

Ac nid oes gan unrhyw un ohonyn nhw'r gwirionedd.

Pan wnaethon ni ddweud hynny, roedd yn iawn i ni ddweud, ond roeddem yn anghywir.

Felly doeddwn i ddim yn dweud bod gennych bwriadau.

Felly dwi ddim yn gwneud unrhyw un ohonyn nhw.

Ond os ydych chi wedi llwyddo i'r CPS, byddaf yn gwneud ymddygiad iawn i ddod â'r CYF ymlaen.

A allwch chi ddod â'r CYF i'r CYF?

Iawn, rydw i'n ôl.

Rydw i am wneud y cwestiwn, Brif Weinidog.

Mae un rheswm, rwy'n meddwl, y rheswm sylweddol drwy'r gofynion ar gyfer arweinyddiaeth,

mae cymdeithas cymdeithasol yn dod yn ymwneud â'r broblem hon oherwydd, nid oherwydd y broblem y mae'r FFCC heddiw, ond oherwydd mae'r FFCC wedi cael ei gyflawni heddiw, gallwn ni fyw gyda'i gilydd, mae gennym ein broblemau, gallwn ni fyw gyda'i gilydd, ond oherwydd bod y llyfrau wedi cymryd posisiynau sydd wedi rhannu'r sylw ar y meddwl o'r rhan fwyaf o'r Cymisiwn,

Ac rydyn ni'n cael problemau heddiw gyda'r llyfrau yn Washington a'r New York a'r unrhyw faterion y byddai'n dod ymlaen.

Ac pan fyddwn ni'n siarad yn ddiwethaf am y problem rydyn ni efallai wedi'i gael gyda'r Comisiwn Gweithredol, mae'n hollbwysig iawn bod y Llywodraeth Cymru a Washington yn cefnogi'r Llywodraeth Cymru, ac yna mae hynny'n llwyr.

A yw unrhyw un o'r materion Llywodraeth Cymru, neu yw'r rhain yn faterion llyfrau?

Mae'r rhain yn faterion llyfrau.

Mae'r rhain

There's one case, Mr. President, in the Supreme Court, the access case.

This is the question we're facing now, which has been against Vietnam, which we opposed.

We lost in the Court of Appeals around the Supreme Court in the fall term.

Tom Lighthead has given us good support, but we're now fighting sort of a lone battle.

The landmark case, of course, this fall, and this is paid.

ac rydyn ni'n cofio pob un o'r cwestiynau yma yn yr adroddiad ffermwyr, ond maen nhw eisiau cael eu cymryd i'w ddefnyddio.

Ac unrhyw beth rydych chi'n ei ofyn yw, wrth gwrs, rydych chi'n gallu cael popeth i'w ddefnyddio, o'r Panthers i'r Llywodraeth, i beth bynnag, felly mae hynny'n hyfryd iawn.

Gadewch i mi ddangos hynny, cael eu cymryd i'w ddefnyddio eto.

Mae'r grŵp penodol hwn yn enw Fusnesmen Against Vietnam.

Maen nhw eisiau cael eu cymryd i'w ddefnyddio.

Rydyn ni wed

A dywedodd y Comisiynydd i ni bod y Llywodraeth wedi colli o'r cyfnod o ddwy i un yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru,

ychydig o agweddau sydd ddim wedi'u llwyddo.

Rwyf wedi siarad â phobl staff am hyn, ac nid yw llawer o'r, yn enwedig, y ffyrdd nad yw'r Cymisiwn wedi'i delio â, ac maen nhw'n ysgrifennu'r fforwm sy'n cael ei alw'n ymddygiadol.

Rydyn ni'n bwysig

yn ymddangos yn enwedig sydd nawr ar gael i'r cyhoedd cyhoeddus ar ddynol telefisio gallai gan ddynion economaidd a chyhoeddus ar leiaf TV a dyma'r petisiynau sy'n cynnwys y Cymisiynau

ond rydyn ni ddim yn credu bod unrhyw un o'r bywyd cyhoeddus eisiau cefnogi'r cyhoedd yn rhywbeth maen nhw'n ei gael am ddim.

Yn unig, byddwn yn gwneud chwaraeon ffutbol fel'r bwcs.

Ie, mae'n iawn, mae'n iawn.

Mae'r Comisiynydd wedi cael rheolau sy'n dweud nad ydych chi'n gallu cael unrhyw beth sydd wedi bod ar gael am ddim ar-lein ar-lein.

Rydym yn cynnig y bydd hwnnw'n cael ei gyflwyno i TV Cegl, sy'n fwy tebygol o ddiddordeb tebygol.

Ac mae'r bobl ysbrydolaeth hefyd yn bwysig iawn yn rhai o'r rwydwaith gwahodd sydd ganddyn nhw, neu'r ffwrdd o waith.

Mae'r Llywodraeth yn gweithio gyda nhw diweddaraf i geisio gwneud 12 gêm ar ddiwrnod, heb gael 12 gêm yn dod i Washington neu New York, er mwyn gwneud hynny.

Ac mae'r broadcasteriaid hefyd yn bwysig.

yn gallu cyflawni'r hyn rydyn ni'n ei gynnal nawr, a'r hyn rydyn ni'n ei ddarparu'n ffri, ac nid cael hynny'n mynd i lawr i ffwrdd â'r TV.

Yr unig peth rydw i'n ei hoffi yw'r sgwrs.

Yna, rydw i'n gofyn cwestiwn arall.

Rydw i eisiau mynd yn ôl.

Pan oeddwn i yn Baker Street, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng

Roeddwn i'n ymwybodol o'r ffordd y byddwn i'n ysgrifennu 15 sefydliadau raddau.

15 neu unrhyw beth, efallai eu bod nhw'n cefnogi ddwy, dwi'n siŵr eu bod nhw'n cefnogi 15.

Dwi'n meddwl efallai bod y problem hwnnw'n llawer hir.

Beth yw'r busnes o amgylcheddion o leoliadau ac ati?

Gadewch i mi ddweud, rydw i wedi gwneud cymdeithas cyffredinol, rydw i'n credu, yn Denver, rydych chi'n cael trefnau trefnau yn Denver.

Neu?

Os ydych chi'n rhedeg, os ydych chi'n cael sefyllfa lle rydych chi'n cael llawer o albumau ac nid yw unrhyw un yn gwneud rhywfaint o fyw arnyn nhw, os ydych chi'n cael lousi, os ydych chi'n cael perfformiad gwaethaf arnyn nhw, y byddwch chi'n gallu gwneud hynny.

I beth amser mae hyn yn broblem?

Roeddwn i'n siarad gyda'r Prif Weinidog o'r FFCC, James Burgess, ac roeddwn i'n gofyn i chi ddweud yn arbennig, a dywedodd y Prif Weinidog, y mae'r Cymisiwn yn mynd i'r Togwyddoedd nawr fel arfer i allu llywio'r sefyllfa?

P'r Prif Weinidog a nawr?

P'r un sy'n dweud hynny, ie.

Os na allwn ni ddiogelu'n llicensiau, ac os na fydd ein busnesau'n cael ei ddiwethafio drwy amgylcheddau, mae popeth arall yn dod yn ymddygiadol.

Ac rwy'n credu bod y broblem o'r nifer o'r sefydliadau sydd ar y farchnad yn hynod o bwysig i ni nawr yn ymwneud â'r penderfyniadau eraill.

Felly mae'r rhain yn dechrau'n llwyr.

Mae'r rhain yn dechrau'n llwyr.

ond mae'r gwirfoddoli ar gyfer ni i gyflawni yno o gwmpas Chicago a Llywodraeth Cymru yn ddim allweddol, ac mae 23 o'n cwmni wedi cyflawni ar gyfer ffrancais CATV yno, ac mae'r cyhoedd

nid yw'n gallu cymryd a chyflawni'r gwasanaethau gwasanaethol gyda'i gilydd.

Nawr, roedden ni wedi mynd i mewn i hynny, i ddeall economaethau yng Nghymru, ond doeddwn ni ddim yn meddwl ein bod ni'n gorfod cymryd yng Nghymru a'r Llywodraeth yng Nghymru.

Beth yw'r cyfnod cyffredinol gorau i bawb?

3.5 miliwn o dollar.

Rydyn ni'n siarad am hynny.

Iawn.

Rwy'n hoff i gyflwyno fy hun a'r cyflwyniad fy hun i ddarllen Piers Myers Point ac rydw i ar record ar hyn.

Mae'n ysgrifennu'r llyfr cyhoeddus yn ôl wyth mlynedd yn ôl.

Roedd Starkus Targin yn ymwneud â'r teledu WGM a fyddai'n cael ei gynnal i Indianapolis.

Mae ganddyn nhw'n sefydlu Bloomington-Indianapolis.

Mae'n ymwneud â Bloomington.

Mae'r trawsnewidau rhwng Bloomington a'r Indianapolis yn canol 4.

Mae'r dyn hwn wedi

Mae'n rhaid i ni, yn hytrach na 20 miliwn o dollars, dros y blynyddoedd, gyda'r sefydliad hyfforddiol hwnnw.

Rydym, yn hytrach na chyflawni'r gweithgaredd a'r C-A-T-V, a chyflawni'r gweithgaredd yw'r W-G-M, wedi ffermio'n ein signau ein hunain i gadw ei safon yng Nghymru.

Mae Reid yn gwybod hynny, mae Jack Harris yn gwybod hynny.

Mae Herb Klein yn gwybod, mae pawb yn ystafell hwnnw yn gwybod.

Rydyn ni'n llwyddiannus iawn, os byddwn i'n ysgrifennu, ar gyfer sefydliad telegraffiaeth ddibynol.

Rydyn ni wedi chwarae ein bod yn cael ein cymryd i mewn i gymunedau eraill drwy gweld TV, oherwydd byddwn ni'n gwerthu telegraffiaeth lleol.

Rydw i'n meddwl, os byddwn ni wedi mynd i mewn yna ar hyn o bryd, byddwn ni'n gwerthu'r cychwyn.

Rydyn ni wedi gwerthu Reid gyda'i gweithgaredd yng Nghymru.

Ac mae hyn yn rhywbeth rhaid i rhai o ni, yn ffocs telefeisio, rhai o'r broadcasteriaid, fod ar gyfer eu signau importio.

Rydw i wedi bod yn defnyddio'r signau telefeisio WGN yn cael ei ddefnyddio lle byddaf wedi cwrdd â'r sefydliad lleol, oherwydd byddwn i'n hoffi cael yr ysgrifennu lleol o'r sefydliad yma yn y cymuned penodol, p'un a yw'r ffordd yw Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Rockford, Springfield, ble byddaf wedi bod.

Felly mae llawer i gael ei ddweud ar gyfer y sefydliad honno.

Mae'n dda i gael sefydliad iechyd.

Cynhyrchu, ac yn wir, gofyn i chi roi sylw i'r rhai sy'n gwneud hynny, y rhai sy'n gwneud hynny, sy'n gwneud hynny, sy'n gwneud hynny, sy'n gwneud hynny, sy'n gwneud hynny, sy'n gwneud hynny

Wel, mae'r Prifysgol wedi'i ymddangos i'r Cyfrifiad Cynulliadau Cynulliadau Cynulliadau Cynulliadau Cynulliadau Cynulliadau Cynulliadau Cynulliadau Cynulliadau Cynulliadau Cynulliadau

Mae llefydd fel Columbus, Indiana, er enghraifft, sydd ganddyn nhw'n cael eu cyhoeddi ar fywyd yn unig maen nhw'n cael nhw'n cael eu cyhoeddi.

Felly mae yna rhwydwaith cyffredinol hefyd.

Nid yw'n llwyddiannus i ni gael hyn, ac nid yw'n rhaid iddyn nhw gael hyn.

Mae'n rhywbeth sy'n rhaid i'w gweithio, ac rwy'n gobeithio y bydd y Prif Weinidog yn gwneud hynny.

Brif Weinidog.

Wel, mae hyn, rwy'n rhaid i mi ddweud, y rhwydwaith o bobl, yn enwedig ABC, wrth gwrs,

Mae'n debyg.

Mae'n debyg os nad ydych chi'n cael eiliadu.

Mae hynny yw'r peth allweddol rydyn ni'n ymwneud â hynny yn ein gwaith dyddol.

Mae'n rhaid i chi...

unrhyw beth fyddai'n golygu eich llisens.

Felly rydych chi'n rhedeg i'r llifoglau.

Dwi'n meddwl bod hynny'n hynod o bwysig, neu hyd yn oed... Gadewch i mi ddweud un peth am hynny.

Gadewch i mi ddweud ychydig am y pethau sydd wedi cael eu cyflawni.

Rwy'n gyflawni'r sylwadau sydd wedi eu cyhoeddi o ran y syniadau sy'n cael eu cyhoeddi o ran y syniadau sy'n cael eu cyhoeddi o ran y syniadau sy'n cael eu cyhoeddi o ran y syniadau sy'n cael eu cyhoeddi o ran y syniadau sy'n cael eu

Mae'n hollbwysig iawn am y dyletswyddau a'r dyletswyddau sy'n ceisio gwneud y pethau sy'n cael eu cynnal neu'n gweithredu gwell.

Yn y ffaith, beth sy'n cadw gweithredu gyda unrhyw fath o methodaeth neu'r rest yw cyd-destun.

Nid yw'r ffordd yn ei wneud yn anghywir.

Mae'r ffordd sy'n cael ei wneud yn anghywir yn llwyr.

Dwi ddim yn gobeithio ei fod yn berffaith, ond mae'n dal i fod yno.

Ond rwy'n credu mai'r dyletswydd mwyaf sylweddol yw

ddim yn gallu llwyddo'r holl system o gyffrediniaeth, cymdeithasol, cymdeithasol ac ati, ac mae'n cynlluniaethau federaol ar gyfer popeth.

Ac mae'r llun o'r llun o'r holl gynhyrchiadau yno yng nghymru, sydd ddim gyda chynlluniau, fel rwyf wedi'i ddweud.

Mae'r rhan arall o hynny yn ymwneud â'r adnoddau.

Ac rwyf wedi siarad, rwyf wedi siarad am hyn a'r rhai, ond nawr, wrth gwrs, dydw i ddim yn gallu cyflawni hynny.

Rwy'n cytuno â'ch ymwneud yma.

Efallai, fel rydych chi'n ei ddweud, bod y llywodraeth yn yr ateb.

Mae'r rheswm, rwy'n meddwl, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'r rheswm, mae'

Nid yw eu nodiadau'n y math o nodiadau rydw i'n ei wneud.

Os yw'r rhai sy'n eu cymryd, dyna pam rwy'n gofyn y cwestiwn.

Os ydyn nhw'n grŵp cyfrifol, yn gyfrifol, yn cefnogi'r chanel, yna maen nhw'n gorfod cael llwyddiant allweddol.

Maen nhw'n gorfod cael llwyddiant allweddol.

Mae hynny'n un peth.

Ond os maen nhw'n dod i mewn o ran ideolegol, neu'n rhyfeddol, neu'n gwahanol, ac yn dweud, wel, ar hyn o bryd, dylech chi wneud hynny neu hynny, neu'r peth arall, rwy'n credu yna, yn amlwg, y byddwch chi'n ychwanegu un llwyddiant

yn mynd i'r pwynt cymdeithasol a'r cyfrif, gan fod rhywun yn rhaid i unrhyw un o'r adnoddau hynny.

Felly, mae'n ymddangos i mi fod y gwahaniaeth gorau sydd gennym yn y wlad hon.

o gael rhagor o rhagor o arian yn y rhagor cyhoeddus ac mae llawer ohonyn nhw'n gwneud hynny ac ati, yw darparu mwy o ddiogelu ar gyfer y diwydiant.

Ni allwch chi wneud arian.

ar gyfer cyfnod o amser.

Os ydych chi'n disgwyl bod yr hyn sy'n mynd i ddigwydd yn y flwyddyn nesaf, byddwch chi'n rhaid i chi fynd i'r fank a chael arian.

Mae'n rhaid i chi wneud penderfyniadau, cynllun newydd, perthynas, personol a phopeth arall, ac mae'n rhaid i chi gael cyfnod o amser

o ran a ydych chi'n gallu cyflawni, nid oes unrhyw beth.

Ac rwy'n ymwybodol o hynny.

Felly rwy'n meddwl bod y cyfan hwnnw o chaos a'r sefyllfa chaos, o ran cyflawni llywodraeth, mae'n rhaid i'w gyflawni.

Ydych chi, rwyf wedi cael edrych arnyn nhw yn ymwneud â chyflawni cyhoeddus.

Ac rwyf wedi cwrdd â'r ddau argymhellion hynny, nid o ran eich cyflawni ariannol, ond wrth fy mod i'n gweld hynny, mae cyflawni sylweddol ac arferol

Diolch.

y diwydiant a'r diwydiant cerddoriaethol yw yn yr ymddiriedaeth, yn yr ymddiriedaeth cyhoeddus.

A'r ochr arall, wrth edrych ar y rhai sy'n ymgymryd â chi ar amgylcheddau a'r rhai sy'n ymgymryd â chi ar amgylcheddau arferol, yn ystod 90% o'r cas, mae gen i reoliad yn bwysig iawn am eu credu.

Dyna'r hyn rwy'n gallu ei ddweud.

Felly, gadewch i mi gael un o'r casau a'r rhai sy'n ymgymryd â nhw.

Mae'r rhan fwyaf ohonoch yma wedi treulio ein bywydau gwaith.

Rydyn ni'n ystyried ein hunain yn broffesiynol, ac rydyn ni'n siŵr y byddwn ni'n hoffi gwneud hynny, ond rydyn ni hefyd yn hoffi mynd yn ôl ac yn ôl gyda'n haenau.

Ac mae ein teimlad bôn, ac mae'n canolbwyntio ar y ddeddfwriaeth rydyn ni wedi'i gyflwyno drwy'r rhain o'r canolbwyntiau, yn ysgrifennu'r risg ffasiynol.

Os ydym ni'n defnyddio ein prerogaethau a dydyn ni ddim yn byw i'r ymddiriedaethau rydyn ni'n eu gwneud i'r Comisiwn, pan fyddwn ni'n gofyn am ein llisens yn y cyfnod cyntaf ac yn amlwg yn gofyn am ein llwyddoedd a dydyn ni ddim yn gweithio'n ymwneud â'r gweithgareddau, dylai'r llisensau fod yn cael eu cymryd oddi wrthym.

Iawn.

Iawn, ond rydyn ni'n mynd i mewn ac yn ymddiriedu ein hunain dros gyfnod o flynyddoedd o gael adnoddau addysg da.

Rydyn ni'n gweithio

yn ymwneud â'r ffordd rydyn ni wedi cymryd ein hunain i'w ddefnyddio

rhaid i ni gael'r llicensiau hynny wedi'u cyflawni mewn cyffrediniaeth sylweddol a ddim yn cael eu cymryd i'r cyflawniadau ariannol sy'n aml, ac rwy'n credu bod hynny wedi'u effeithio.

Ac nawr mae'r cyfrifiad wedi mynd i'r pwynt lle mae rhai o'r profeswyr llaw yn defnyddio'r llicensiau hynny fel ymarferau llaw ar gyfer eu myfyrwyr yn yr ysgol ac ati ac ati ac ati ac ati ac ati.

Roedd un o'r chwe

Yn amgylchedd 167.

Dwi ddim yn gallu, dwi ddim yn gallu, dwi ddim yn gallu, dwi ddim yn gallu, dwi ddim yn gallu.

Dwi'n meddwl bod yr analogi o'r diwethaf yn cael ei gymryd yn dda o ran y ffaith y byddwch chi'n ymlaen yn y tair blynedd.

Fodd bynnag, mae'r diwydiant teledu yn cael sefyllfa gwahanol mewn ymddiriedaeth.

Nid yn unig yw'r ffaith nad yw'n cael ei wneud, ond hefyd mae'n rhaid i ni wneud y margain ar y Gwasanaeth Gweddol ar gyfer y rest o'r amser pan fyddwn ni'n gadael o'r swydd.

Ond roedden ni'n gwneud hynny fel uned nad ydyn ni'n gallu cael ei gynnyddio.

Both have bills, similar bills.

And they are, they have talked in terms of renewing unless there was a pet fee element and five years.

And five years looks like

Rwy'n meddwl bod hynny'n eithaf genedlaethol ar ddwy safbwynt cymdeithasol a ddemograffol.

Sut mae hynny'n gweithio heddiw?

Ydych chi'n mynd i mewn yn unigol i ddweud eich bod chi'n gyfiawnder neu'n gyfiawnder?

Ydych chi'n mynd i mewn yn unigol i ddweud eich bod chi'n gyfiawnder?

Mae'r gweithiwr ystafell yn rhaid i'r gweithiwr ystafell ei wneud, neu yw'n rhaid i'r gweithiwr ei wneud, neu yw'n rhaid i'r gweithiwr ei wneud?

Mae'n anhygoel.

Ond nawr rydych chi'n gweld, mae'n ymddangos i mi fod e'n rhywbeth rydych chi'n gallu cael yr analogi o...

Yn rhai leoliadau, er enghraifft, yn Califoria, mae'r arweinyddiaeth o'r arweinyddion yn ymwneud â'r cyfnod yma.

Yn ogystal â hynny, mae'r arweinyddiaeth o'r arweinyddiaeth yn y cyfnod yma.

Yn ogystal â hynny, mae'r arweinyddiaeth o'r arweinyddiaeth yma.

yn cael ei ddewis.

Ac roedd yn ddiweddar, roedd rhyw ddewis yn dod i mewn gyda'r enw'n hawdd a'r enw ac ati, ac roedd yn cael ei roi i'r ddewis.

Ond nawr mae'n cael ei wneud mewn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn ffordd sy'n ei wneud yn

Mae hynny ddim yn ymddiriedaeth perffaith.

Mae'n ymddiriedaeth i mi, os yw'r bwysigrwydd, unrhyw leoliadau, mae'r bwysigrwydd yn bwysig iawn.

Os ydych chi'n rhaid i chi fynd i mewn a gwneud yr achos hwnnw ac ati, mae'n ymddiriedaeth i mi fod yr achos, os ydych chi mewn y busnes, mewn gwirionedd, rydych chi wedi gwneud y busnes, ac rydych chi wedi gwneud record leol ac ati.

Mae'n ddefnyddiol i chi fynd trwy'r peth ac mae'n debygol o'r gweithgaredd i weld beth rydych chi wedi'i wneud a beth rydych chi wedi'i wneud.

Ac mae hynny'n dda.

Ond ar y gwaith arall, mae'n rhaid i'r ffrwd fod ar y llawr o'r person sy'n ceisio rhoi'r llawr i chi.

Mae hyn yn rhan o'r broblem.

Ond mae'r FCC, ac rwyf wedi cymryd hynny'n eithaf allan o'r sefyllfa,

Dwi ddim yn meddwl bod hynny'n cyd-destunol i'r MCC.

Maen nhw'n cael eu troi i lawr ddwy neu tri gwaith gan y Llywodraeth, i'r pwynt lle maen nhw ddim yn teimlo bod o dan y Llywodraeth a'r Ddeddf Cymunedol fel mae'n arwain, nad ydyn nhw'n mynd i gymryd rhai o'r rhai hyn sydd wedi bod yn rhyfeddol.

yn cael eu clywed yn llawn i'r llaw, ac maen nhw'n gwneud hynny.

Maen nhw'n gwneud hynny.

Mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud, mewn llawer o'r casau hyn, nid yw'r dyletswydd yw gwirioneddol co-testio'r arweinyddiaeth o fewn unrhyw le, ond i'w clogio'r broses ymarferol yn llwyr ac â phwysig iawn i'r cyfnod cyhoeddus lle nad yw'r FCC a'r cyrff hynny'n gallu gweithredu.

Ac maen nhw'n dod yn agos.

Maen nhw'n mynd ymlaen.

Os yw'r MCC yn cael ei ddefnyddio i fynd i'r cofnod ar ôl cofnod ar ôl cofnod ar ôl cofnod ar ôl cofnod ar ôl cofnod, maen nhw wedi cael hynny.

Maen nhw wedi cael hynny ar ôl cofnod ar ôl cofnod ar ôl cofnod.

Maen nhw wedi cael hynny ar ôl cofnod ar ôl cofnod ar ôl cofnod ar ôl cofn

Mae nhw'n gwneud llawer o bethau pech.

Mae'r pwynt ynghylch hyn yw, mae'r sefydliad yn mynd i gael rhywbeth fel hyn.

Mae hynny'n rhaid i chi gael hynny.

Yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn fawr, yn

Diolch yn fawr.

Felly nid ydych chi'n ymarferol ar hynny.

Nid ydych chi'n ymarferol ar hynny.

N

Ni fydd yn gwneud hynny heb y cefnogaeth cyhoeddus.

Mae'r stori hwnnw fel clwb.

Felly mae'r cyhoeddus yn mynd i'w wneud, ond nid yw'r peth yn mynd i'w wneud.

Mae'r stori hwnnw'n llawn.

Mae'r stori hwnnw'n llawn

Mae'r ffigurau hynny yn dweud wrthym fod 55 o'r sefydliadau bwysig sy'n bwysig o fewn y sefydliadau mawr yn y wlad hwn, ac mae'n bodoli 10% mewn mis neu ddwy, yn gweithredu o fewn ymgysylltiadau sy'n gyffredinol o'r bwysigrwydd cyhoeddus.

Mae'r rhagweithio'n ei wneud.

Maen nhw'n gweithio, maen nhw'n gweithio ar busnesau, mae hyd yn oed rhywbeth sy'n cael ei wneud i roi amser cymdeithasol gwahanol.

Mae hyn yn cael ei ddatblygu?

Mae hyn yn cael ei ddatblygu.

Mae hyn yn cael ei ddatblygu?

Mae hyn yn cael ei ddat

Mae'r contract sy'n cael ei wneud gyda nhw, mae'n rhaid i chi roi'r contract hwnnw i'ch leoliad, gyda'r Cymisiynau.

Mae'r Cymisiynau ddim yn ei angen, ond maen nhw'n gwneud i chi roi'r contract arno, ac nawr mae'r Cymisiynau yn dod i mewn yn gyffredinol.

Rwy'n gofyn i chi, peidiwch â rhoi targedau iawn i'r wild hares, felly gwneud eich gwaith yn dda, Mr. Roeth.

Maen nhw ddim angen targedau, rwy'n gwybod.

Y pwynt ail, y pwynt ail, y pwynt hwnnw, y pwynt hwnnw, y pwynt hwnnw,

Dwi ddim yn gallu deall hynny.

Dwi'n gwybod eich bod chi'n gweithio'n dda iawn a'ch bod chi'n gweithio'n dda iawn a'ch bod chi'n gweithio'n dda iawn.

Mae'r Prif Weinidog, Herb, wedi dweud wrth i mi fod gen i un cyfrif hwn, ond rwy'n hoffi ddweud hynny cyn i mi wneud y cyfrif hwn.

Brif Weinidog, rydyn ni'n eich hysbrydoli'n fawr iawn, ac nid oes gan unrhyw bresennol yn y hanes 50 mlynedd o gyhoeddiad, sydd wedi cael mwy o amser i ddangos mwy o ddiddordeb a pwysigrwydd am gyhoeddiad, na'r Presennol Nixon, a oedd yn ddiweddar arfer.

Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Ward.

Rwy'n gwerthfawrogi'r cyfnod hwnnw.

Rwy'n meddwl y dylai i chi ddweud rhywbeth.

Rydych chi i gyd wedi cwrdd â'r cyfnod hwnnw.

Rwy'n gwerthfawrogi'r cyfnod hwnnw.

I have some strong feelings about it.

I do realise that there are a lot of people who are in all areas of even networks that demand a use of stations.

Honestly, even though they would want a change in canon, are very much inhibited because of the fact that we have to work now.

I understand that.

I just suggest do the best you can.

Mae hynny'n iawn, ond wrth ddweud hynny, rwy'n credu y byddai'r peth gorau a allai digwydd yw cael yr holl busnes hwnnw'n ddiddordeb, ac ati, yn yr ardal lle byddai unrhyw fath o sefydliad yn mynd ymlaen.

Mae llawer o bwysau yma, ac mae hynny'n yr un peth y byddwn i'n siŵr y byddwn i'n ystyried.

Dwi'n cofio sut y byddai'r rhan fwyaf o'r sefydliad yn ystod y sefydliad, ac rwy'n ymwneud â'r rhan gwleidyddol.

Mae'r gwahaniaeth gwirioneddol, fel rwy'n dweud wrthym, yn ymgymryd â'r adroddiadau a'r pethau rheol.

Mae'r rhan fwyaf o'r rhai yma.

Yr hyn sy'n cael ei wneud yn wir yw cyd-destun, nid gan y Llywodraeth, ond gan y Llywodraeth mewn gwirionedd.

Oherwydd, beth sy'n digwydd yw, os bydd unrhyw grŵp allan i fyny, ac mae'r Llywodraeth, y Llywodraeth Cymru, yn gwneud penderfyniad am a ydych chi'n dal ar y Llywodraeth.

Mae'r Llywodraeth yn gwneud penderfyniad, ond os ydych chi'n mynd, mae hynny'n dim ond stwm bach.

Mae'r Llywodraeth wedi symud yma mewn ffyrdd cyffredinol iawn i ddefnyddio ei effaith, ei ddychmygu, ei ddychmygu, a dweud, wel, doeddwn i ddim yn hoffi'r ffordd maen nhw'n trafod hwn yn unig.

Ac, pwy sy'n gwybod, pwy fydd yn eistedd yn yr ystafell hwn, 4 mlynedd neu 1 mlynedd, dwi'n meddwl efallai y bydd yr achos yn eich sefyllfa.

Os yw'r Lywodraeth yn dweud y byddech chi'n mynd ymlaen, efallai y byddech chi'n gweithio oherwydd eich bod yn gyfrifol.

Yn fy marn i, efallai y byddai'n gyfrifol, ond mae'n iawn.

Mae'n dweud y byddai'n dweud y byddai'n dweud y byddai'n dweud y byddai'n dweud y byddai'n dweud y byddai'n dweud y byddai'n dweud y byddai'n dweud y byddai'n dweud.

Yn ystod hynny, rydyn ni'n mynd i ddweud

Yn ogystal â hynny, mae cydweithrediadau sylweddol iawn yn ein cyllideb, ac mae'n rhaid i ni fynd i lawr yno.

Felly, er enghraifft, roedd y Cyllideb Cymreig yn ymwybodol o'r prifysgol, a dyna'r prifysgol gwych.

Rwy'n credu bod y prifysgol yn ein cyllideb.

Felly, yn y blaen, dyna pam doedd e ddim yn mynd i mewn i'r rhwydwaith hwnnw.

Felly, mae'r Cyllideb Cymreig yn cynnig am ddim o reoleiddio'r Prifysgol.

Rydyn ni'n rhoi'r rhain i bobl sy'n dod yma a ddim yn ariannu eu hunain.

Maen nhw bob amser yn cael triniaethau.

Mae rhai ohonyn nhw wedi bod yma o'r blaen, ac maen nhw wedi cael eu cymryd, ond maen nhw wedi gwneud rhywfaint o newyddion, cyfnodau presedential newydd.

Maen nhw'n hollbwysig iawn oherwydd maen nhw'n gweithio ar hyn o bryd.

Mae'r cyfnod presedential yn cael ei ddysgu.

Roeddwn i'n meddwl bod hynny'n rhywbeth sy'n rhywbeth sy'n rhywbeth sy'n rhywbeth sy'n rhywbeth sy'n

Felly pan fyddwch chi'n mynd i ffwrdd yn ôl, bydd eich prifysgol wedi bod yn ddweud, mae hynny'n bob amser yn broblem.

Nid ydych chi'n meddwl beth bynnag.

Wel, rydw i wedi bod yn defnyddiol am lawer o bethau.

Mae'r piniau hyn wedi cael eu gwneud, ac maen nhw'n edrych yn fawr iawn.

Maen nhw'n edrych yn fawr iawn.

Yn ymwneud â'r rhwydwaith rhwydwaith, yr hyn a wnaethom ei gyflawni yw rheoli.

er mwyn gwneud yn siŵr bod y rhwydwaith wedi'u cyflawni.

Felly, pan fydd gennym ni'r cofnodiad o Harwood High Pond, byddant yn cyflwyno rhywun yn hytrach na dim ond y Llywodraethau a'r Lywodraethau.

Fe wnaethon nhw roi Jerry Ford arno, yn ddewis.

Roedd yn yr unig person sydd wedi gwneud hynny.

Yn ystod y sefyllfa hwn, roeddwn i wedi clywed cwestiynau o ddiddordeb.

Roeddwn i'n meddwl y diwrnod diwethaf, roeddwn i wedi cyflawni rhywbeth.

Roeddwn i wedi gwneud hynny yn ystod y diwrnod cyntaf.

Yn unig, ar y sgwrs hwnnw, ac yn gwirioneddol, rwy'n credu y byddai'n busnes dda i'w wneud.

ac rydw i'n cymryd NBC, maen nhw'n cael rhaglenni, neu rydw i'n cymryd CBS, ac ati.

Ie, mae'r ddau.

Mae'r ddau wedi'i wneud yn y colwm diwethaf.

I'r effaith... pam nad yw'r ddau hynny'n gweithio?

Dwi'n meddwl, pam nad ydyn nhw'n ystyried, wrth gwrs, yr hyn sy'n mynd ymlaen â'i gomentariad, ac ati i'r restr?

Mae'n cael pob rhaid, os ydyn nhw'n gwneud yn glir, ddim yn ddiweddar, ond... pam nad ydyn nhw'n rhoi Bill Buckley ar un o'r sgwyliau hynny?

Dwi ddim yn deall y safbwynt arall.

Ac roeddwn i'n meddwl mai'r colwm mwyaf ddiddorol rwyf wedi'i ddarllen ystod y blynyddoedd oedd un o'r ddewiswyr.

Mae hynny'n argymell, oherwydd mae ein cydweithwyr cymdeithasol yn rhoi'r ddau ffordd hynny.

Rwy'n deall.

Rydw i ddim yn gwirioneddol... Rydw i'n gwerthfawrogi'r unigolyn am gael sylw.

ond nid yw unrhyw un yn rhoi'r hynny i chi, y malarchaeth y mae'r dynion hyn yn ei ddweud wrthyn nhw, sydd ganddyn nhw atebion, dydyn nhw ddim yn ei ysgrifennu'n effeithiol iawn ac yn eithriadol iawn.

Rwy'n gobeithio eu bod nhw'n iawn ac yn cyflwyno eu llaw, ond ychydig mwy o'u llaw.

Unrhyw beth, byddwn i'n siŵr y byddwn i'n gallu gweld hynny'n mynd yn fawr ymlaen, heb ariannu.

Rwy'n gobeithio y byddwn i'n cael hynny'n fawr yn Nebraska.

Rwy'n rhaid i mi fod ar unrhyw dîm arall.

Rwy'n meddwl fy mod i wedi cael hynny'n ddiddorol i Jess hefyd.

Mae'r cocktail wedi cael ei gyflwyno i'r Blair House.

Felly, beth rwy'n hoffi i Jess yw i fynd mewn grwp i

sydd wedi cael ei ddweud gan unrhyw un o'r gwasanaethau penodol a byddaf yn mynd ymlaen yno, byddwn yn cael champ yn ymdrin â'r trafodaeth.

Mae llawer o bobl yn edrych ar hyn yma.

Rwyf yn edrych o gwmpas yr ystafell, mae rhywun yn dod i mewn i fyny.

Byddwn i'n cyflwyno John Erickson,

Rwy'n Rheolwr Cyswllt Cyswllt.

Rydych chi'n gwybod Tom Whitehead ac Al Spryder.

Rwy'n mynd i fy mhrofiad fy hun.

Rwy'n gwybod John Higg.

Rwy'n gwybod Peter Plannigan.

yn ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddwn yn ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddwn yn ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddwn yn ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddwn yn ymwneud â'r ffordd y byddwn yn

Rwy'n gwybod yn gyffredinol y byddwn i eisiau cyhoeddi ein cymorth a'r cymorth fy hun ar gyfer cefnogi'r sefydliadau trwm, a'r polisi llywodraethol.

Mae'n bwysig iawn ar hyn o bryd, ac mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud hynny.

Hefyd, ar gyfer

y polisi o ddiweddu'r hyn a fydd yn caniatáu i ddiogelu yn y byd.

Dyma ddwy golau a dwi'n credu yw eu bod nhw'n ymwneud â'r rhwydwaith.

Mae'r rhwydwaith hynny'n ymwneud â'r hyn yr ydym yn ei ddeall.

rwy'n meddwl bod rhai o'r rhan fwyaf o'r Aelodau, yn enwedig rhwng bobl mewn grwpiau ddynol sy'n meddwl am sicrhau mewn ffordd go iawn.

Gadewch i mi ysgrifennu rhai o'r pethau y dywedodd General Haig eisoes.

Mae'r dyniaeth yn sefydlu'r diwrnod o ran ei hyfforddiant ar gyfer y rhai sy'n mynd i'r diogelwch Iwerddon.

Fel canlyniad o'r trwyddoedd i Beacon yng Nghymru, mae gennym sefyllfa heddiw y byddwn i'n ei ddisgrifio pan fyddwn i'n ymwneud â Mosgwyl yn un o'r amser rydyn ni wedi cael rhesym i gobeithio.

Mae hynny'n debyg, ond rwy'n gobeithio am rhesymau sydd wedi bod yn fawr iawn

sydd wedi cael ei ysbrydoli yn y prynhawn cyhoeddus, ond mae angen llawer o gynhyrchu yma.

Bydd pobl yn gweld y Deyrnas Unedig fel un o'r anifeiliaid mwyaf pociol o'r byd, un sydd ar hyn o bryd yn gweithredu, ond sydd, gyda miliwn o bobl, yn 20 mlynedd, yn ffyrdd mawr.

Rydyn ni'n gweld y Prif Weinidog Cymru yn cyfarfod yng Nghymru gyda'r arweinwyr Sofietaidd wedi gwneud nifer o awgrymiadau, llawer mewn y sefydliad nid-weinidog, ddwy mewn y sefydliad weinidog, un, rhywbeth sy'n rhywbeth sy'n rhywbeth sy'n rhywbeth.

arweinyddiaeth, gwahanol fathau o arweinyddiaeth arweinyddiaeth.

Mae yna ymateb cyffredin ar rhan o bobl sy'n rhywbeth sylweddol, rhywbeth o'r llinellau hyn.

Maen nhw'n dechrau gyda'r cynnig, wel, efallai yw'n ymwneud â'r drosglwyddo, rydyn ni'n gwneud rhywfaint o anghenion am hynny.

ac nid oedd ganddyn nhw hyd yn oed yn ddrwg iawn, ac roedden ni'n cael cyfle i gydnabod ein gilydd, ac roedd angen argyfwngau tuag at angen argyfwng sopïa, neu i'r ffordd hynny, i fynd i'r byd.

Mae rhyw ffordd yn mynd i ffwrdd, ac yn wir, y gwirionedd y byddwn ni wedi cael ei wneud ers gyda'r

sefydliad o'r sefydliad o'r sefydliad o'r sefydliad o'r sefydliad o'r sefydliad o'r sefydliad o'r sefydliad o'r sefydliad o'r sefydliad

a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Sofie ac wrth gwrs, ynglyn â'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweinydd Cymreig a'r arweiny

i fynd ymlaen gyda grwp o Amuriannau, yn enwedig Amuriannau ifanc, a dweud, edrych, rydw i'n gallu sicrhau i chi, nad oes rheswm ar gyfer y... rheswm ar gyfer y... rheswm ar gyfer y... rheswm ar gyfer y... rheswm ar gyfer y... rheswm ar gyfer y... rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y rheswm ar gyfer y r

Felly, nid ydym yn gallu ddweud hynny.

Mewn gwirionedd, mae'n rhaid i ni wneud yn siŵr nad oes unrhyw ufforiad.

Nid yw hynny'n golygu y byddwch chi'n bersonol am hynny.

Oherwydd beth rydyn ni'n dod i lawr yma yw'r sefyllfa hwn.

Mae'r system Cymdeithasol a'r system Sofietaidd a'r system Cymdeithasol o bobl Cymdeithasol a Chyngor Cymru yn cynnig ar gyfweliad o Lywodraeth ac ar gyfer polisi ffordd byw sy'n wahanol i ni, ac yn gyffredinol iawn i ni.

Yn y bôn, mae angen iddyn nhw'n credu mewn y system hwnnw.

Mae'r hyn sydd wedi newid yn y system hwnnw yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn ystod ei ffordd sydd wedi'i newid yn yst

O safbwynt cydweithredol, mae gennym gyfle unigol yn y byd heddiw, os ydym ni'n bragmatig iawn am gyfle.

Mae'r Deyrnas Unedig, ar bryd hyn, a'r Rheoleiddiaeth Cymru a'r Rheoleiddiaeth Pobl, yn cael gwahaniaethau pwysig iawn rhwng eu hunain, er eu bod nhw'n rhannu'r eiliadau gwleidyddol, cymdeithasol ac economaidd gyda'r Deyrnas Unedig, drwy datblygu

Cysylltiad gwell ag unrhyw un, neu at leiaf cyfathrebu ag unrhyw un, yn gallu cyfrannu â'r byd mwy ffyrddol.

Dyna'r hyn sy'n digwydd yma.

Efallai, mewn ffordd arall, mae'r sefyllfa o ran y bobl sy'n cael eu cyhoeddi yn y sefyllfa o'u arweinwyr.

Maen nhw'n edrych o gwmpas, maen nhw'n gweld Uniwn Soiwt ar y tu allan.

gyda mwy o ddivisiynnau sy'n ymgysylltiedig â Chyngor na'r rhai sy'n ymgysylltiedig â'r Ewropeaidd.

Maen nhw'n gweld y Cymdeithasol i'r Gwedd, gyda 500 miliwn o bobl sy'n ymgysylltiedig â nhw.

Maen nhw'n gweld yn y Cymdeithas Cymdeithasol Cymdeithasol, y rhan fwyaf o ddynion economaidd yn y byd, heddiw, er mwyn dod yn yr ail.

heb unrhyw gallu arweinyddol neu arweinyddol neu beth bynnag, ond mae'r Chyngor wedi cael gofod amdanyn nhw.

Mae'r Chyngor wedi'u llwyddo ac wedi'u llwyddo ac maen nhw wedi bod yn dynion arweinyddol.

Mae hynny'n ymwneud â'r Chyngor, nid y ffordd y byddai'r Chyngor yn teimlo.

Ac felly, maen nhw'n meddwl am eu dyfodol yno.

Ac yna maen nhw'n ymwneud â'r Deyrnas Unedig.

Ac felly, yma mae'r Deyrnas Unedig, sydd, yn ymwneud â'u ideoleg, yn dweud y bydd ganddyn nhw'n f

Mae'n ymddangos i fod yn dyniaeth sy'n gweithio â gwleidyddiaeth nad ydym ni.

Yn y pen draw, ac yn bosibl, mae cydweithio â rai o'r ardaloedd yn anodd i'w bywyd.

Mae'r UD yn bwysig iawn i gael y math hwnnw o bolisi.

Mae'n bwysig eu bod yn cynnig eu gwaith i ddatblygu eu systemau o fewn eu wlad eu hunain ac nid i'r cynyddu.

fel y gall eu rhwydweithwyr eu bod wedi gwneud.

Yr hyn y maen nhw'n ei wneud, yn sicr nawr, mae'n rhaid i ni ddeall nad yw'r wladau'n cael ymddiriedaeth i wneud hynny ar unrhyw wlad arbennig, ac yn ogystal, wrth gwrs, gyda'r Chineiddiaid heddiw.

Rydyn ni wedi bod yn sefyllfa lle mae'r sefyllfa y maen nhw'n ei ymateb ar gyfer prifysgol Cymru wedi bod wedi newid yn gyffredinol o'r prifysgol.

Mae'r Amerigain wedi llwyddo mewn llwythoedd llwyddiol.

Roedd hynny'n at leiaf 10 i 1.

nad oedd modd iddyn nhw ymateb.

Nid oedden nhw'n gallu gwneud hynny.

Felly, fe wnaethon nhw ymateb yn ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod ystod

Mae Genedlaeth Higg yn ymddangos yn gyffredinol am yr hyn sy'n cael ei wneud yn yr UD.

Yn ymwneud â'n gallu myfyrwch, mae gennym ychydig o hyfforddiant.

Yn ogystal, rydyn ni'n eithaf yn ymwybodol o'r un ffaith rydw i'n ei ymwybodol o hwnnw.

Yn ystod hyn o bryd, mae'r ddau gwerthfawr yn gyffredinol.

o'u gallu i ddiffynu neu ddiffynu mewn ystod o'u gwrtaith.

maen nhw'n gwybod yn dda iawn y byddai'n rhywbeth sy'n anodd.

Felly, er enghraifft, byddai'r arweinydd Sofietaidd yn gwybod, i ddewis unrhyw nifer o'r rhan, ac os byddai'r arweinydd wedi penderfynu ar gyffrediniaeth ar gyfer y Deyrnas Unedig ac ar y polisi cyhoeddus, efallai y byddan nhw'n llwyddo 70 miliwn o Amuriannus.

ond fe wnaeth hefyd llwyddo 70 milwyr Cymraeg.

Rydyn ni'n gwybod, Jack, yr un peth.

Felly beth fath o bolisi yw hynny?

Dyna pam mae'r syniad o'r polisi nawr yn debyg ei fod wedi'i roi'n ei hunain ar gyfer gwybodaeth niwtriaeth ar y llaw, ac a ydym ni'n cael hynny'n ddigon i'w ddefnyddio, ac mae hynny'n unig yr ydych chi'n ei angen.

Dyna pam nad yw hynny'n polisi cyhoeddus o gwbl, oherwydd mae'n golygu nad yw'r opsiwn, yr opsiwn yw'r ddwy ffyrdd yng Nghymru sy'n caniatáu i ffyrwyr sy'n mynd i mewn i'r ardal hwnnw, ac mae hynny'n wirioneddol bwysig ar gyfer y cydweithredwyr sy'n dod i'r swyddfa hwnnw a'r prifysgolion sy'n gwneud hynny.

ac yn ddiweddar, mae'r rhai eraill sydd wedi'u gwneud yn y cyntaf yn dangos y rhaid i'w gynnal yn gyflym, efallai.

Mae'n dangos y rhaid i'w gynnal.

Nid ysgogion o'r magnifiad yr oedd yn rhaid i ni gael eu cael yn y cyffrediniaid Cymru, ond ysgogion sy'n cael eu cael eu cael yn y cyffrediniaid Cymru drwy'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd a'r byd

i ddod i'r alternatwriaeth nuklear.

Gadewch i mi ddweud hynny mewn ffordd arall.

Os oedd y Deyrnas Unedig, os oedd y Deyrnas Unedig, gyda'r holl ymgysylltiadau sydd gennym o gwmpas y byd, wedi cael y alternatwriaeth nuklear, na fyddai'n gallu cynnig ymgysylltiad hwnnw i'w arweinwyr o gwmpas y byd, ond yn hollol,

beth yw'r Prif Weinidog yn mynd i risg New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, ac ati, er mwyn diogelu rhywle arall?

Mae'n gwestiwn pwysig iawn.

Mae'n gwestiwn rydyn ni'n credu nad ydym yn gorfod ei ateb, ond mae'n un o'r rhesymau pam, yn y cyfnod hwn, er mwyn cael polisi gwirioneddol, mae'r Deyrnas Unedig angen cysylltiad.

ac rydyn ni angen iddyn nhw ddod yn ôl oherwydd rhaid i ni ddim fod yn y sefyllfa lle mae'r Deyrnas Unedig yn unig gwlad yn y byd llaw gyda'i gallu i ddysgu'r pwerau arall lle mae'r Deyrnas Unedig erioed yn ôl

Rwy'n dweud hynny nid yn unigol o safbwynt gwisgoedd, ond rwy'n dweud hynny oherwydd os yw'r Deyrnas Unedig yn yr adeilad mwyaf pwysig yn y byd, byddai'n cael ei effeithio.

sy'n rhoi pwysigrwydd a pwysigrwydd i'r cartrefi a llawer o'n arweinwyr o amgylch y byd.

Dyna pam mae'r UD yn rhaid i'w gynnal yn ystod y cyfnod honno.

Mae'n rhaid i'w gynnal yn ystod y cyfnod honno, oherwydd dyna'r ffordd i gadw'r ffyrdd yn y byd.

Dydw i ddim yn disgwyl i'r arweinwyr Sofietaidd a'r arweinwyr Cynulliadau hyn fod yn barod i ddefnyddio rhai polisi sy'n cyflawni'r cyfnod honno.

Dydyn nhw ddim.

oherwydd maen nhw'n pragmatig â'r pethau eraill ac nid ydyn nhw'n mynd i ddechrau unrhyw beth os yw'r cost yn fawr iawn, os yw'r risg yn fawr iawn.

Ond mae'n ein swydd i wneud y risg yn fawr iawn.

Oherwydd un peth y gallwn ni ei ddweud ein hunain, gallwn ni gael llawer o weithgareddau neu polisi, rwy'n disgwyl, ond nid yw unrhyw dynion yn y byd, rwyf wedi siarad â Tito a Chichescu a'r holl arweinwyr dynion bach, a'r arweinwyr ac ati, ac ati.

Mae'n bwysig iawn i'r byd, mae'n bwysig iawn i'r gwleidyddion Cymru sy'n meddwl y mae'r Deyrnas Unedig eisiau cynnwys ei system ar unrhyw un arall.

Mae'n bwysig iawn i ni gynnal ein cymdeithas ar gyfer cadw'r cymdeithas yn hytrach na'i greu a'i ddefnyddio'n ffyrdd.

Yn ymwneud â'r holl hyn,

Mae'n rhaid i ni wneud hynny, os ydym ni eisiau llawr yn y byd, ac hefyd os ydym ni eisiau llawr ar gyfer America.

Ac wedyn, wrth gwrs, mae'n rhaid i ni wneud hynny.

Mae'n ystod cyntaf mewn rheolaeth dynol.

Mae'n ystod pwysig iawn.

Mae'n ystod cyntaf.

Yn gyntaf, dim ond rhywbeth sy'n cael ei leihau.

Yn ail, o ran gweithgareddau, mae'n cynnwys dim ond rhai gategoriadau o weithgareddau a dim ond am 5 mlynedd.

Yn ffodus, o ran ein bod ni'n bwysig, nid yw hynny'n arwain i ni mewn unrhyw ffordd yr ydym yn ei adeiladu.

Nid yw hynny'n arwain i ni mewn unrhyw ffordd yr ydym yn ei adeiladu.

Nid yw hynny'n arwain i ni mewn unrhyw ffordd yr ydym yn ei adeilad

O'r amgylcheddau hynny, os ydym yn barod i fynd i adeg arall, fel rydyn ni'n gobeithio i'w wneud, ac yn negosiadu gyda'r Uned Soviet a'r amgylchedd cyfan ar gyfer cyfansoddiadau, nid yw modd i'r Uned Soviet negosiadu'r amgylchedd hynny heb ein bod ni'n cael rhywbeth i'w roi, ac maen nhw'n cael rhywbeth i'w gael.

Fe wnaethon ni ddim ddechrau'r APM ar hyn o bryd, ond roedden ni'n gwneud rhywbeth yno yr oedden nhw eisiau ei wneud.

Felly roedden nhw'n ymwneud â negosiadu mewn ardal arall.

Os, ar y llaw, mae'r Deyrnas Unedig yn penderfynu, oherwydd bod gennym y cam cyntaf

rydyn ni'n mynd i'r blaen, rydyn ni'n mynd i'r blaen, rydyn ni'n mynd i'r blaen, rydyn ni'n mynd i'r blaen, rydyn ni'n mynd i'r blaen, rydyn ni'n mynd i'r blaen, rydyn ni'n mynd i'r blaen, rydyn ni'n mynd i'r blaen,

y byddwn ni'n ymgymryd â'r Deyrnas Unedig yn y lle arall o'r Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol gyda'r ffwrdd sy'n cael ei roi.

Oherwydd doedd dim cwestiwn am yr hyn y dywedodd Mr. Greshness ac roeddwn i'n siarad â nhw awr ar ôl awr ar ôl.

Roedden ni'n gwneud yr awgrymiadau.

Roedden nhw'n ddifrifol.

Roedden nhw'n gwneud penderfyniadau.

Roeddwn i'n cydnabod yr hyn yr oedd eisiau ei wneud.

Roeddwn i'n argymryd yr hyn yr oedd eisiau.

Ond nid oes unrhyw gwestiynau amdanynt, ond yn yr ardaloedd nad ydym ni wedi'u cymryd, byddant yn parhau i adeiladu.

Nid oes unrhyw gwestiynau amdanynt, ond byddwn ni wedi'u cymryd, gan ystyried y ffaith bod hynny wedi'i gyflawni ar gyfer y ddau ohonoch, os yw'n bosibl a'n bosibl ei wneud hynny, er mwyn cael arwain yn y dyfodol.

Byddwn i'n ei ddweud yn y ffordd hon.

Mae'n rhaid i'r Deyrnas Unedig gael polisi gwirioneddol ar gyfer ein bod yn gallu cymryd rôl

Mae'n bwysig i ni, oherwydd y gweithrediad sydd wedi'i gynnal ar gyfer cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd cymryd

ar y tref hwnnw yng Nghymru.

Os ydyn ni eisiau cyd-destun ymlaen, mae'n bwysig i'r Deyrnas Unedig ddim mynd yno gyda neu heb argyfwng, oherwydd, fel unrhyw beth arall, os ydych chi wedi bod yn negosiadau gwaith neu'n negosiadau busnes neu unrhyw beth arall, nid ydych chi'n cael unrhyw beth o'r pethau eraill, hyd yn oed pan fyddwch chi'n gweithio fel ffrindiau, heb fod gennych rywbeth yr ydych chi eisiau ohonoch.

a phan rydych chi'n ei ddweud am y pwysigrwydd pwysig oherwydd dyna'r ffordd mae'n gweithio.

Mae'n ddigwyddiad co-Turcia.

Gadewch i mi ddweud un gair am Vietnam a'r cynllun.

Mae'n anodd iawn.

Mae wedi bod yn wythnos anodd iawn gyda'r holl Aricanion.

Roeddwn i'n rhoi'r llwyth o'i llwyth o'i llwyth o'i llwyth.

Roeddwn i'n meddwl am y ffaith roeddwn i wedi'i roi.

Roeddwn i wedi meddwl am y ffaith roeddwn i wedi'i roi.

Yn ystod hyn, fel rydyn ni'n gwybod, rydyn ni mewn sefyllfa.

Ac mae hyn yn y digwyddiad lle nad yw'r enw'n gyffredinol yn llwyr.

o'u holl safbwyntiau.

Nid oes unrhyw gwestiwn, ond y byddai'r canlyniad llwyddiannus o'r gallu o'r Sgolion ddatblygu'r cyfnod hwnnw, ac y bydd ein helpwyr yn y sefyllfa ar hyn o bryd, ac y byddant yn cysylltu â'r awgrymiad o rai sy'n dweud, gadaelwch i ffwrdd a gwneud y cyfnod.

Mae'r canlyniadau

ar gyfer Cymru, ac rydyn ni i gyd yn gwybod, ac rydym yn astudio, ond dim ond i symud ymlaen o'r llun.

Mae llawer o bobl sydd ddim wedi dod o hyd i'r llun.

Mae'n rhywbeth rydym yn gallu gwneud gyda phobl ar gyfer Cymru, ac mae'n rhaid i ni siarad â'n arweinwyr, a'n ffrindiau, a'r holl byd.

A'r hyn rydyn ni'n ei wneud yma, yn unigol iawn, yw sefyllfa.

Mae'n rhaid i'r Deyrnas Unedig,

neu ddim yn gallu cyflawni llwyddiant llwyddiannus.

Mae'n anodd, mae'n anodd i gyflawni llywodraeth Cymdeithasol.

Bydd hynny'n gobeithio bod y gweithgaredd hwnnw'n gweithio ychydig.

Oherwydd roedden ni'n darparu'r dynion yno.

Ac os bydd hynny'n gweithio yno, byddan nhw'n ceisio'i wneud nesaf ac yn gynyddu'r ffasis mewn lle iawn ar y cyfnodau lle byddai'n bosibl nad ydyn ni'n gallu

ar gyfer unrhyw amgylcheddau i symud allan.

Yn ymlaen â'r amgylcheddau hyn, rydyn ni'n credu ein bod ni'n dod i'r diwedd ar gyfer y Llywodraeth.

Bydd ein polisïau ar hyn o bryd yn dod yn llwyddiannus, gan gynnwys ein bod ni'n cael cefnogaeth gan bobl Cymreig.

Rydyn ni'n cael ymddygiad, ond wrth i ni ddod i'r creadur penodol,

Rydyn ni wedi gwneud y penderfyniad yma.

Rydyn ni eisiau gweld, efallai, ffordd haws i ddod i'r cyfnod.

Rydyn ni eisiau bod yn y swyddfa, heb fod wedi bod yma pan dechreuodd y ffrindiau, heb fod wedi gwneud y penderfyniadau sydd wedi'i gyflwyno i ni, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati, ac ati

Wel, nid yw'n berthynas i mi fod yn gyffredinwyr ar y digwyddiad o ddechrau'r wlad.

Yn ogystal â hynny, rydw i'n ymwybodol y byddwn i'n cael y cwrdd â chyflenwyr i fynd i fynd i fynd i fynd.

Yn ystod pob un o'r siaradwyr ystafelloedd, roedd 90% o'r cysylltiadau yn dweud, mae'n ddrwg, mae'n ddrwg, mae'n ddrwg, mae'n ddrwg, mae'n ddrwg, mae'n ddrwg, mae'n ddrwg, mae'n ddrwg, mae'n ddrwg

ac rydyn ni wedi gwneud hynny oherwydd ymddiriedaeth y Prifysgol am ymddiriedaeth i'w gweld i'w ddweud y mae'r gwaith yn cael ei gyflawni'n llwyddiannus.

Nid oedd yn iawn.

Gadewch i ni, yn hytrach na gwneud yr hyn rydyn ni'n ei wneud, ac roedd yn penderfyniad anodd, penderfyniad anodd i gynllunio mewn ffyrdd arbennig, mewn rhwystrau, ac ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati ati

Yn y 3 wythnosau rhwng maes a chyntaf, roeddwn i wedi mynd allan i Mosglwm ac wedi cyrraedd y cwmni.

Roedd y sefydliad Cymraeg, sy'n symud ymlaen yn gyflym ar gyfer maes a chyntaf, wedi parhau i symud ymlaen.

Mae'r sefydliad Cymraeg a'i rhwydweithiau wedi bod yn llwyddo trwy Gwreig ac yn symud tuag at Saigon ar hyn o bryd.

Nid yw hynny'n bwysig.

ar amser lle maen nhw'n cael cysylltiad â ni oherwydd eu pwysigrwydd o rhai o'u rhwydwaith eraill.

Felly, maen nhw'n meddwl eu bod yn siarad â ni os oedden nhw'n meddwl ein bod ni'n rhyfeddol.

Felly, hyd yn oed eu bod nhw'n ystyried, fel maen nhw'n ei wneud yn gyhoeddus, ein cysylltiad â Japan, ein cefnogaeth gyda Cymru a'n cefnogaeth gyda Cymru a'n Cymru,

Os byddai'r Deyrnas Unedig yn rhedeg allan o'i hynod o weithgareddau ym mhob rhan o'r byd, byddwch chi ddim yn siŵr bod y dymuniaeth o'r arweinwyr Cymru a'r rhai sydd wedi dod ac wedi siarad â ni yn amlwg i lawr i'r Rwydwaith, o ran ymwneud â'r Soiwyr, ac maen nhw eisiau siarad â ni am eu rheswm eu hunain.

efallai eu bod nhw'n bwysig am y dyfodol o un miliwn Cymdeithasol neu miliwn Cymdeithasol sy'n mynd i'r ffwrdd.

Rydyn ni'n bwysig am yr anodd nad yw unrhyw un yn cael ei gyflawni, lle byddwn ni'n adeiladu, adeiladu, adeiladu, ond nid yw unrhyw un yn mynd i fynd i'r amgylch.

Mae'n bwysig y byddai'r amgylch wedi gallu llwyddo drwy ryw ffyrdd gweithredol, un cyfweliad neu un arall, ac mae'n mynd i fynd i'w dyfodol.

Ond eto, os yw'r arweiniadau'r Sofietiaid yn cael

yw'r Prif Weinidog yng Nghymru.

Mae'n cynrychioli dyniaeth sy'n fwyaf na'r rhain, neu mae'n cynrychioli dyniaeth, er ei fod yn mor fawr na'r rhain, sydd ddim yn cael y gofod i ddefnyddio ei gwerth i gadw ei ymgysylltiadau o amgylch y byd, y cyfle i wneud cyd-destun.

Dwi'n credu bod hynny'n bwysig iawn yn fy mhrofiad.

Felly, yr hyn rydw i am ddweud yn ddiweddar yma yw,

fel arweinwyr sefydliadau arweinwyr mae'n rhaid i ni weithio'n llawer i'r wlad.

Ond rwy'n siŵr bod cymaint o amser yn y wlad hwn

Mae'r canlyniad ar gyfer rhywbeth yn anodd yn anodd yn ymwneud â llywodraeth llawer mwy.

Rydym yn gwneud yr hyn rydyn ni'n ei wneud.

Rydyn ni, dwi'n credu hefyd, yn y sefyllfa lle rydym ni'n canolbwyntio ar hyn o bryd.

Rydyn ni'n ei gynnal ac yn ei gynnal dim ond ar safbwynt cadw'r heddlu, ac gyda'n hollbwysigrwydd i siarad â'n amgylcheddwyr lle bynnag y byddan nhw ynghylch y byd, ar safbwynt cydweithredol, er mwyn lleihau, er mwyn lleihau'r gwerth, ac mewn gwirionedd i'w lleihau, gan roi'r hyn sy'n ei gynnal.

Ond y llaw ar y llaw arall yw ein bod ni'n rhaid i ni gofio, oherwydd aelodau Cymru, oherwydd y ffaith oherwydd aelodau Cymru, roedd y Gymraeg wedi'i gael, roedd y Ffrancais wedi'i gael, roedd y Gymreig wedi'i gael, roedd y Japones wedi'i gael fel pwysau gwych.

Dydw i ddim yn golygu nad oeddent yn gallu dod yn pwysau gwych, ond nid yw'r Japones yn gallu cael eu cymryd ar ôl eu triniaethau, nid yw'r Gymraeg yn gallu eu cymryd ar ôl eu triniaethau.

Mae'r Ffrancais a'r Gymraeg, dau generatiynau,

Felly mae'r holl weithrediadau yma, ac felly mae gennym un o'r sefyllfaoedd hynny lle, os nad yw'r Deyrnas Unedig yn gweithredu mewn gwirionedd, y bydd y cyfle i gyflawni'r byd yn benodol.

Mae'r gyflawniadau hynny wedi cael ei gyflawni.

Ac felly, un o fy nghyfrifoldebau yn y sefydliad yma yw sicrhau bod yn y blynyddoedd ymlaen,

nad yw unrhyw bresidwyr yn gwneud unrhyw beth ar gyfer cymdeithas nad yw'n mor gryf fel unrhyw dynion eraill yn y byd ac nad yw'n cael ei hysbysebu gan unrhyw dynion eraill yn y byd.

Dyna pam nad yw unrhyw bresidwyr yn gwneud unrhyw beth ar gyfer cymdeithas yn y byd.

Dyna pam nad yw'n gwneud unrhyw beth ar gyfer cymdeithas yn y byd.

Rydyn ni bob amser yn rhoi rhywbeth bach i'r cofnodion sy'n dod y tu allan.

Dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma, dyma

Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi.

Diolch.

Mae'r ffres yn cael ei wneud yn ddynamol yn erbyn hwnnw.

Rydyn ni'n mynd i gael broblemau, rwy'n gobeithio.

Ond rwy'n gobeithio y bydd yn gweithio.

Yr hyn sy'n fy ngwneud yw nad ydyn ni'n mynd i gael broblemau oherwydd rydyn ni'n mynd i fynd i fynd i fynd i fynd i fynd i fynd i fynd.

Diolch.

We're going to have a problem, I'm afraid.

What worries me is that we're going to have no problem at all for the wrong reasons.

They work to write it.

They discover some contradictions and some problems we hadn't anticipated.

But we will meet again when we come back after the convention recess and review these things.

And we'll have an opportunity again to review the cost estimates and take another look at that.

But for myself, speaking solely for myself,

We're getting close to the end of things.

They're going to open Pandora's box this week.

Well, as far as the chairman is concerned, I don't think he's going to start very actively on revenue sharing until some pattern emerges with this one, because we've been on this one since the 1st of February.

I mean, I might want to bring it up at a later time, because we don't have a chance to talk to you.

I can say that that's very important for us to know.

Yes, sir.

Do you believe, in other words, as far as gravity sharing is concerned, that until this is...

It's important from our tactical standpoint to know what's going to happen to Reverend Sheridan.

Well, we've got the rest of this week, and we're going to be involved in the debt limit at the end of the week.

And we've got a hearing on Wednesday to handle that, and then we've got an opening hearing on revenue sharing on Thursday, which will be entirely a chance to come up and say something about it.

Then we go over it.

When we come back, we'll have to have the executive session on HR1.

And assuming that we have an executive session and report it out, then it goes to the floor.

And if the leadership decides to bring it out, then the committee will be involved on the floor all day long.

The rate they've been working on the floor, they're in at 9 o'clock.

And if they devote all attention to H.R.

1, then the committee will be on the floor with no opportunity to hold hearings and do committee work on revenue share.

If it should be decided, in other words, when H.R.

1 is on the floor, you will not have hearings on revenue share.

It will be difficult.

It would be very difficult.

Now we might be able to split it off.

So this is our problem.

Of course, we will say to you that our solution of the AFDC people who remain on welfare is a form of revolution.

It belongs here.

That's a form of revolution.

We say, well, what about the person

Well, this state has had a chance.

We won't pay any attention to it.

Of course, he draws on the fact that H.R.

Long says that the states will be held harmless.

It's one of the programs.

That's what he's drawing.

He just reaches in the grab bag and says, well, here's a billion dollars for the states regarding the selection of each of them.

I want to say one other thing about the combination of revenue sharing and H.R.

1, the legislative situation.

Chairman Long is convinced that he's got enough votes on his side, that if we can provide 20 to 25 votes on our side for an assigned version, workfare version, then it will pass.

He's determined to make the fight

As of now, he's burned to death.

But is it your judgment, while he has the judgment of the other members of the U.S. Army on our side, that your version could pass the test that he's made, as you well know, but that he cannot?

And, of course, the test that he's made on the other side, is that it's very helpful that moving toward Rivertop could pass.

Although, of course...

Blanc has given me a list of democratic senators which he says he can deliver.

24 affirmed, 6 possible.

He's got that.

We only have to deliver half of ours.

But you're a picker.

Mr. President, I think that while I summarized it very well, I think that Chair Klaus would never have served Klaus Bill back.

He got a hundred minutes that he offered.

This is a very important point for me now.

In other words, when they, when the figure, Elliot is now a really honest guy, but his point is that he reports that Rivikov, that their toll shows that they get 51 votes, that they have 51 votes.

Your point, Klaus' position is that he'll screw it up.

Right, that's right.

I don't think they've got 51 votes.

I will not vote for the Rybakov position.

I will not vote for that position because I believe it's like getting a little pregnant.

And that even though they have a compromise which they have prepared, which just holds a little way, which Rybakov says he would accept, I am sure that if it goes that far, it will go further.

And that they will get an astronomical cost.

After all, when we have McEverett out for one scheme for $1,000, and the other scheme for $650, the $650 business of the 65-year-old is for the welfare rights outfit, and the rest, well, you know what's going to happen if you start moving in that direction.

At least that's what I think will happen.

That's my concern about the Rivikov thing, apart from some other things.

As I said, I have some concerns, not about all provisions, but about some of the provisions here.

The directions that you take, the speeches that I do, are directions that generally appeal to me far more than the direction of the moratorium.

The problem, of course, gets down to financing.

It is my present intention to stand where I am on H.R.

1, which is already a compromise, and which already, as far as costs are concerned, costs.

At the power of evidence, I think we could afford.

Now having said that, let me come to the other side.

Our political opponents will say that what the administration is doing is that we are blocking welfare reform by not moving toward River Cup.

Argument being that River Cup's got 51 votes to block, and if we move toward River Cup, we could get welfare reform.

That's why what you all tell me here is a question.

I ask that question as I may be the next time I go to press conference.

Could I say in effect that there is great question that it would have the votes?

Would you agree?

Do you all agree with that?

I do.

Well, some of the things that he has listed, for instance the ones on the Percy letter, will not stay with him.

Well, the point is, I'm not, it isn't 51 votes, it matters anyway.

There are lots of things that have got 51 votes.

The question is, how are they going to stop Long's amendment?

Long, is he unalterably opposed to Rivikov?

Absolutely.

Yes, he is.

Right?

Yes, he is.

Well, if the senator, let me ask you this, if you were Russell Long, unalterably opposed to Rivikov's movement, and you had this Senate meeting in this stop-start period, spiraling along between now and the election, do you think

That could pass the Senate.

That is a practical question.

In fairness, I think you might have to agree that the liberals probably would filibuster this.

Why do the liberals object to your bill?

It works.

That's part of it.

Another part of it is they like the 3,000 instead of the 24,000.

I like it if I could just interject an idea here, Mr. President.

One possible way of breaking that impasse with those liberals might be this.

I've talked about this extensively with AGW, and the committee knows all about it, but that is to take this 2400 and allow it to be very upward.

or down depending upon cost of living differentials in regions of the country.

Now, they're not refined enough to do a precise job on this, but they're refined enough so that they can make some differentials.

Obviously, $2,400 in New York City is not going to go as far as $2,400 down in a little town in Alabama where you can pay the tips.

And there is concern on the part of some of these senators from the larger states

The large population, and I suppose Bob would too, in Detroit, California.

And if we allow that kind of a flexibility in that $2,400, I think it brings about an awful lot of people.

It's obvious that $2,400 is not adequate in New York compared to $2,400 in Littletown, Alabama.

I think you would find that this might have the effect not adding quite as many to the overall welfare program, because...

There are thousands and thousands of people.

I think we would be receiving less than .400.

I don't know whether there would be as much money to offset that in the increase over .400.

But you know, Jack, one of the arguments that has been made against that is the fact that that emphasizes the magnet of the city.

In other words, why do people move out of the south end as part of the market to the city?

Because they're going to get more money, and I actually get less.

I mean, it's not perfect, but perfect.

Well, if they were persuaded that, I don't know that the cost of living difference would be that great.

I think it would be worth checking that out if, for example, in New York it ended up to be $2,700, and in Bowtown and Alabama it was $2,100.

I'm not so sure they upgraded themselves to go up there, especially when they realized the cost of the differential, which is a scientific thing, right?

It doesn't matter.

That might be one way of getting some of the Rivikov people to move towards us.

Granted, a lot of them don't like to work fair, but I want to be fair.

I think there's some Rivikov supporters who are not adamant against the work fair.

They like the $3,000.

Now, this is one way to impose it on them in the areas where they probably would need more.

I think the chairman, he said to me, look, I was the witness.

So he said, I know how to count noses.

And I should have put that list in my palm book, but he's given me a list of the people.

I'll give you a copy of it.

I've got my own center.

But it seems to me it doesn't count better than today.

We will...

We will go into a prolonged and protracted debate once it gets on the floor.

It will come on the floor with the majority of the workfare program.

We're not going to have a committee and a report.

It's on the floor in that form.

Once it gets on the floor, it will be a long and protracted debate.

Maybe we should be giving serious consideration to it.

I'd like to make a few observations about it, because it's very much a problem.

First let me say, why accept this?

All your speech is unwell for tomorrow.

It's popular in the country.

There are certain developments where the ball bounces.

The end result is far from that.

Now, I think it's safe to assume that if a social security increase is passed, then that's better than life.

You won't be facing the decision of a legal leader approving any welfare reform.

That's right about it.

Now, I'm changing your course now, or being accused of scouting your own bill.

I don't think that should be done.

We'll have a much, much better welfare reform that's done after the election next year.

That's your prediction?

Yes.

Now, here's some of the political problems with the concept of H.R. 1

It is totally federal administration welfare.

No one completely proves that.

The billers all come in and say, oh gosh, you have to listen.

They don't buy it.

He can't keep it from slipping in to guarantee minimum income, which is totally rejected by the government.

Now, here's where the problem arises.

Here's a family on welfare, and maybe they're getting more than they should, and here's another family over here serving on welfare, lives on less.

The defect of the family assistance plan is instead of dealing with this abuse over here, they say, well, let's

Now, that leads to the political use.

It's a welfare rights organization, or a river call, or a government of hundreds.

A river call from Memphis.

It's full home with 70 million people.

Getting some sort of welfare.

Some government with 97 million.

8,000 people.

HR1 HR1 HR1 HR1 HR1 HR1

I followed your speeches, but they do not present your speeches.

But the country does not accept welfare expansion, welfare reform.

It's all just political.

Now, in concept, the finance will have much support.

Under whether it's river cost of $3,000 or the HR mode of $2,400 for five years.

If you're earnings are zero, you get $2,400.

If you get off work and wait $400, you get cut down to $3,000 and so on.

The rewards under the finance plan are the rewards.

If you work, you get more.

Now, I'm a minority of one, I guess.

I'm unhappy about the finance because of the cost of it.

And I don't think I've gotten my ideas over.

There's one place that the financial needs plan is at a cost of, according to Bob Myers, of $1.7 billion.

And that is over extending the income supplement and the work bonus.

To people who've never been on welfare.

It's probably that concept here, you've got somebody on welfare, and here's working more, getting less, therefore you've got to do something more.

If we were to eliminate that, that's 1.7 billion.

In the adult categories, the aged, blind, and disabled, we've got that pretty high.

We also have a principle in there of disregard of email, which costs several hundred million dollars.

Well, I don't mean to cry over the details, but the concept of the family assistance plan wasn't intended for guaranteed delivery.

It's slightly in that direction, and I can't stop the people thinking so.

Well, there's a lot of people.

There is, and I want to know what you think.

There are.

If you can't do it, then people...

The people will end up that way.

The people, as Lynn George will tell you, anybody, Democrat or Republican, can go out and get themselves elected by attacking each other.

In any district of the United States.

They can do that.

What I'm saying is putting more people on welfare.

Putting more people on welfare.

Let me put it this way.

Part of it, I think, if I dispute it here,

It is shocking to find that in the city of New York, for example, 1,300,000 people are on welfare.

It's gone up 300% in the last five years.

Other plans that are presently, that are being offered by our opponents,

They would increase the number of people receiving welfare in the center.

To 90 people.

Do you want to put 75 more people on welfare sitting on their ass to another?

Then send them up the wall.

I don't want to say that about HR1.

Well, except that we don't...

If I were to suggest that I don't mind the tax, I mean, I can see your taking of it.

My view is, rather than theirs, I can zero in on theirs, what theirs would do,

and there's no there's

Oh, some of ours a lot better than the others.

And the totalitarian, as well as our own observation is, that it's the federal administration that creates the abuses.

Every governor and every welfare director will tell you, if we can run our show, we build these abuses.

And

There are terrible things that would happen to the country if we had total federal administration.

Why was it that you were one of the great supporters of some proposition earlier when Senator Schultz was talking about yesterday?

Explain that thing that Curtis supported, will you?

The private pension.

Talk about that now.

Do you guys know about social services?

No, we don't.

Do you know that in the next step that we only have four days and we can't do anything about it, that due to something the Congress passed, that all the states are lining up hat in hand, including primarily our Republican governors from California?

and from New York, with their hands up, to hire social workers, and we pay the bills and spend $3 billion.

They're exactly 50-50 matching over the 75-25 American social levels.

It goes further than that.

The thing that is shocking to me is that what we're doing, Carl, is selling the stakes.

We'll go out and hire a lot of social workers, and if you do, we'll get you 75%.

Is that what it does?

No.

It's not for the purpose of medical care, to help the poor lady get her leg fixed, or have psychosomatic therapy, or whatever it is.

What this is, is really a subsidy for social workers.

The lowest form of life.

I don't think there's anything...

Now, under the committee plan, 60% of the recipients are assumed to be able to work on that.

We give a lot of grants to the states, and let them write their own papers.

This is a committee plan?

Yes.

Well, now, I'm not trying to get you to agree, but you're right, you should.

Well, I can't do that.

You all understand that.

If we were going to do that, we had to do a concert.

I believe that the part that we have to make here is this.

I think it's real, as we all know, that the worst time to pass any responsible legislation is in the election.

Let's go to security.

It's time to be irresponsible.

It's too high and not absolutely bananas, properly, unless some mastermind works this thing out.

And so I'm not going to lie.

Here we have the same true tax reform.

It should pass the tax reform bill in an election year.

It'll be a mishap.

It should be terrible.

This case of welfare reform, on the other hand, having submitted it in August of 1969, having pressed for it all this time,

I will continue to take the position that I wanted to wait to see what the committee finally recommends before commenting upon its provisions and so forth and so on.

Second, as far as the

As the position of the administration is concerned, the administration, I mean, GW and the rest, let me say that we will do our best to see that it's an even-handed approach.

That's what we need, because we can't be in a position where...

I think most people would say...

The middle will not win either.

You certainly think your people will not win.

Your people will not win.

You don't believe that rigor cost could.

And even if it could, you believe the law and the filibuster so that it could not get true.

Well, it is this in mind.

The prospects appear rather dim.

However, I think it would be very unfortunate if you, as members of the Senate, after talking to me, would go out and say, well, the prospects look very dim, and maybe we ought to put it off.

I mean, if you sit here and you're bold, that's one thing.

If, on the other hand, you must not indicate that, your position has to be on the standpoint of the administration.

I believe that my present position is correct, that I've already indicated publicly that I'm not going to move to a different level.

I listen attentively to the members of the committee, and I expect your views on several provisions of your bill.

There are several of those provisions that I think have merit.

I will say that I am not yet ready to comment upon, particularly those that involve excessive cost.

Until we have a better opportunity to do the committee's job.

That's about the position I'm in.

I think you could even hedge to see what the Senate does.

The thing that I don't want to do is basically to kick the members of the Finance Committee, which is a responsible committee, and the team.

So we'll avoid that.

After all, you came out with 10% Social Security.

That was highly responsible.

Of course it won't prevail.

We're going to offer it as a substitute for the 20% on the deficit.

It won't prevail.

It won't prevail, yeah.

Give us a chance to vote.

Yeah, the difficulty there is that the 20% is trying to just revert to that for one moment.

It has to be finance.

And where you're going to get the finance out of that, I don't know, but that means you can't just leave six months and two or three billion dollars hanging out there, not in finance.

So that's the position of the 50 others.

We all know as realists in this room that I cannot veto a social security bill.

For your information, we're going to veto it.

Having said that, for your own information, you should know

that i have decided that any bill which is substantially above the budget request that i have made no matter how meritorious is a veto candidate regardless of the political consequences looking down the road now there's always an exception to such general rules that one is social security

So it's no sense doing it.

So therefore, I just ask you folks to do everything you possibly can, and Johnny Burns will be your great ally in the House, everything you possibly can to get the damn things financed.

You've simply got to have it.

It's a shocking amount that's going to be paid for Social Security.

It's getting clear out of control.

Yes.

Well, let me say, let me say, I have one.

We have a narrow margin where we can... That's why I think he says that we come up with some awfully tough laws.

Mr. President, can I say something on H.R.

1?

Sure.

I've run into this all my life, and there's a lot of people who don't like H.R.

1.

And they don't like it when they find out, for example, that in the case of Puerto Rico, under H.R.

1, you've got two and a half million people down there, and 250,000 of them are on welfare.

And under H.R.

1, 800,000 would be eligible for welfare.

They know that.

Well, I know that.

They don't like that.

And another thing is...

I talked to Dr. Perry about it.

Oh, he said, I don't want to rule the character of my people.

And I want to underscore what Carl Curtis said about the people who think this is a guarantee to handle income.

And they do.

The National Chamber of Commerce has done a pretty good job on it.

But I must tell you that our staff on that committee tore H.R.

1 to pieces, and they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt by innumerable examples that it would be better to sit down and work under H.R.

1, and this is contrary to your policy.

And I just want to tell you that so that I know that you know that.

John Williams told me that before he left, but I don't.

Go ahead, sir.

I have a couple of questions.

There's one subtly in the financing of a social security increase that concerns me.

People seem to have moved in their thinking to a current cost financing way of thinking about social security.

And according to the AGW Advisory Committee, the trust fund level should be the equivalent of the following year's outlets

In other words, 100%.

Now, it's very easy to say that you're financing an increase properly under this system by just lowering that percent and say, well, we'll settle for 75%.

which I understand is very much in the air.

Well, of course.

Then you can say, well, we have met this criteria, and we have provided for this big increase in outlays, and we don't have to raise taxes because of this move.

And that is $100 on the desk this year, and that will be church amendment.

That will be the church amendment.

We'll have a 75% in the executive finances.

Unfortunately, the advisory committee said that it would be all right if it should.

They didn't consider it as a permanent level, but they considered that it could go up or down 25% of the way.

And that was grabbed very quickly under the quote of the advisory committee.

Good.

I just want to make two points.

Number one,

i have a feeling that the environmentalists have been far overrated on the basis of votes in this country when you come right down to it i think a lot of people are listening more to peter grucker and other more reasonable voices recognizing that jobs are important this environmental appeal doesn't reach as many underprivileged groups as some people think it does secondly

I remember the little guy, his birthday was the same day as mine.

Wonderful Irish guy.

And every time I come back from trips across the country, gee, how was it out there?

You know, I didn't know how to do it.

So I went to the port.

When I saw a beautiful area out there when I was out at Mike Mansfield and so forth, I made a presumptuous suggestion that in order for some people to be here, we ought to at least set up some kind of decent area for trailers and so on, so that ordinary people won't hold that terrible, that spoiled environment.

So only the rich can go.

And not us.

That's exactly right.

Secondly, just one word about HR1.

I agree with Carl Curtis that your speeches have been popular with everybody.

They're popular with working people because there still is in this country, I think, a strong work ethic.

I think most people feel that everyone who is able often works for a living.

And as a consequence, though there is great magic to this word reform, I don't think we have to buy just any kind of piece of legislation because somebody said it's reform.

I think we can support you without your having to say anything further.

I'm certainly not going to be quoting you, but I think that what you've said in your speeches...

ring the bell with most people.

And I agree that if they take social security out, as they intend to do, and tie it on with death and exceeding, I think the rest of this thing can die a natural death.

And if it does, if it does get to the point where you have to be to it, I believe we can build up enough bipartisan support for your position that it isn't going to hurt a bit.

Let me say something so that you'll have no doubts in that story.

No doubts whatsoever.

If the welfare bill exceeds my budget recommendations by a substantial amount, and by a substantial amount, I would say anything over a billion dollars.

I mean, that's a nice round figure.

It'll be legal.

I don't give a damn what it will be legal.

So if you've got that, go back to what's going to happen, or what we want to have happen.

I think we on the committee should just go forward.

If we're asked what happened here today, we have an opportunity to discuss this with you.

And you reiterated the fact, already publicly stated with respect to Rivikov, with regards to the support of this proposal.

We will come back at the end of this next recess.

We will do our work, report the bill out, and get it said.

I'm going to pass, gentlemen, on your proposal until the committee is aware of what it is.

I'm trying to say that at this point.

But I express concern about the call speech.

We'll have to have a very...

I don't think any of us want to say now that you threatened to veto it.

You just expressed your concern that it be kept within cost limits.

We can know that.

Then it comes out where it's the first...

It's the last week in August, and it seems to me that then the problem turns to the leadership.

Do you want to face a filibuster?

Or maybe at that point, somewhere along the line, you have to express the desire to have revenue sharing ahead of this, or something of that kind.

Which then moves it into the arena that we can't control, but which is the arena in which its fate will be decided.

It depends in part on whether we're coming back after Labor Day, and how long we'll be in before election, whether we're coming back after election.

But knowing that Russell, I'm sure he's perfectly willing to make it plain and mass for you, at some point the leadership has got to decide whether they want to spend the next four or five weeks discussing this, or whether they want to lay it aside.

And so I don't think we should abandon it.

But I think we might be in a position where we reluctantly agree that the leadership is...

hundretal hundretal

Thank you for watching!

There's another thing we haven't talked about yet, and that is the minimum wage.

Because our bill ties in with minimum wage.

We've solved that.

of hours for which we pay these people forty to thirty-two.

So we're still twenty-four hundred dollars.

We have a chip on all that.

I don't have anything to add except two or two.

It's ten, seven, eight or seven, five, six, seven,

I think we really reached an impasse on welfare in this session.

I really reached that conclusion independently, because I believe, as Minister S. Rivercroft will throw about to the committee,

I know that the chairman was so much a river cop, and now it's like HR1.

That goes both sides.

I think we've reached a genuine end to that, and I think it's all right that we have, because I think we're talking about it.

Without any scars on anyone, but hopefully another year, and I won't be here, but hopefully another year, people will swear away from this thing and take a good look and see what direction the country wants to go.

Because every time I talk to another, out in my state or elsewhere, I say, how many of you want to go down the road to what it guaranteed to be?

You can't hear anyone.

They just hunt you down in their chair.

Hold up your hand.

They just talk scratching his nose.

And how many of you would go for work there?

The work of the country, and the country is with the kind of thing that you've been saying, and the kind of thing the committee's been working on.

But the time is too short, and the election here is not the time and place to implement.

I still think it would hold the comment office, instead of asking this bill to go after the Senate.

Why didn't they say, here's the thing, if they do get it laid out there, or they can't,

but i have i have i have i have i have i have i have i have i have

I just wonder if there's any possibility along that line.

Here's an answer to appoint a new committee of some kind of top experts around the country to come up with a new welfare reform program.

They've gone through this whole operation under 15 years ago, and it's a bad story.

It's worth reading.

You know, the interesting thing about Uruguay, to take a minute on that, I was there in 1958.

They had a screwball deal, or instead of having one president.

But the sadness of Uruguay, it's a rich country and all, and very intelligent people.

It's primarily Spanish.

I mean, I mean, they're European, right, rather than, rather than India.

I mean, there's no reflection in India, except that their literacy is 95%, split at the University of Montevideo.

The states who came back, and all the Uruguayan students that went to the United States, came back socialist.

And so, they took Uruguayan students, you know, they, there was more in South Carolina than in Uruguay, plus a hell of an export, than in any country in the world.

As a result of how they had screwed it up, they took over.

They so ruined the agriculture, which is their danger, the agriculture of growing and packing, that now your way of stopping any poor meat, and it's down to treatment.

Now they've got 50% welfare.

50% say, you know, Social Security, whatever it is.

Are you right?

1600% inflation in 15 years.

Well, anyway, I appreciate your time, but can we say that, can I also ask this?

You'll have a death limit on the Social Security.

May I ask this, President, will that move be made to walk in committee?

Will that 20% move by church and law be made in committee?

I don't know.

I don't think so.

We would like very much...

It's going to be amended in committee that you give some support to our request that it be, it seems to be 465 running until March of next year rather than October 31.

I'm sure we'll consider that.

Russell smiles about it.

He says,

rollover, and I'd better be honest when we go to conference if there's any chance to change it, I'd better be that.

So I think we can keep it clean in the committee.

I would like to say that I raise the problem of revenue sharing.

I've got your judgment on it, and I urge the committee to find some way to get revenue sharing as clearly as possible.

Now, we all know the problem here.

I know the practical problem, believe me.

We've got the county officials in town this week, we've got the mayors in New Orleans...

over the time, and if they felt that we did not have a meeting like this, etc., I raised it.

And so, Wilbur has been quoted as saying that he would have pulled this 20% increase added on to this bill.

But Frank Church tells me that as a result of the meeting he had with Wilbur, Wilbur has changed his position.

Now, I had an appointment with Wilbur at 2 o'clock one day.

It was originally set for 11.30 to change, and Wilbur's request at 2 o'clock.

And what I'm trying to do is, I've talked to him twice in the last week.

Did you let us know?

Yes.

And Wilbur's view is not totally expanding here.

It's still

to take whatever Wilbur says, with some reservations, because it could change tomorrow.

We can find how the winds are blowing in Miami Beach.

I suggested that to Russell, and I think he will, simply because...

Stop it at the door, leave it at the desk, and then we'll hold it here, without specifically having the building for us.

If he doesn't do that, some of it will lay over three days in the Senate, and that just compounds it further.

So that's not anything that would be done to kill it.

It would be a time-saving device.

He and I got together last night, and they changed already the effective date of Social Security to September 1st.

That's right.

I'm sorry.

They are responsible, despite the fact that they're, they're, they're, they're wrapped up running around and not getting anything, voting for anything, hell with the college, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

They are responsible, and they like yourselves, and try to come up with answers, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and,

I like to ask George how much he could go on without that student.

There are different kinds of things that we cannot incur any additional debt.

That's being done daily through the payroll savings government bond program.

So we have to do something immediate about that.

There's no time there.

And our problem is... Not even before the next paycheck comes out?

Well, paychecks, of course, how they come in an employer's payroll varies a lot.

That's on the withholding.

...of a tremendous number of people all over the country.

Then there's just the question of paying bills.

We have about six billion dollars, which will last us probably less than a week.

And then we just have to do a very serious thing to come to the point where...

If it is going to be amended, if the House Bill is going to be amended,

We very much prefer to go back to the administration's original proposal of a debt ceiling of $465 million extended through next March, so we don't have to go through this all over again after the Republican convention and have the McGovern program stuck on it or something.

We are planning right now to take the position before your committee tomorrow that

We prefer the 465 and we like to see a spending ceiling.

On the other hand, we recognize it beyond June 30th.

Therefore, our proposal is to just take the House bill, the clean bill, and pass it, so that it doesn't have to go to Congress and doesn't have this three-day layover.

Now, that's the position we're planning to take, but if there's going to be the layover anyway, then we certainly would like to see the time pushed

This wasn't in a colloquy with Senator Alder.

Senator Robert Byrd said we will stand now.

In other words, in the next week, he said up to seven if necessary to get this out of the way.

Byrd is interested in going to the convention, that's for sure.

Who's going to pay?

That's a murderous thing.

I think the fact, I mean, then you get away, you get away from the fact that, well, is 2,400 enough for a person to live on?

The answer is probably 6,500 isn't enough if you're going to live on the upper fifth avenue together.

Maybe 10,000 is enough.

But my point is that if you put it this way, that this proposal would have satisfied people in the welfare world, that means half of all the people in the United States of America would be in the public pit getting welfare.

Now who's going to work for it?

Those who want jobs should be provided with jobs.

Just those who want jobs should be provided with jobs.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Thank you very much.

Goodbye.

Which we will do.

If I ask, well, what are you going to do with this?

Let's just say we use it.

To the extent that we can get away with it.

But that, quite frankly, we're pessimistic about it.

It's not the kind of clear-cut, precise tool that we want to have.

One of the things that you ought to build on, and as close friends I've got, and we're in this area...

Bill has got an age of being considerably softer and more liberal than I am.

Is there some way I can help you on this?

No.

You're going out there to help the president, primarily.

If you're aware of that, fine.

I would like to know that.

There are some issues in some areas where I think Bill...

...can strengthen you.

This one, it might not.

Well, interestingly enough, he's moving to us.

He's probably better aware than I am.

And he called half the rock decision.

And he was really desperate to get over the rock.

And so this meeting is in his instance.

I take it as a symbol that he wanted to align himself more with you as a person than he has been.

And I told the president about this, and he said, well, I've got a way of trying to get over it.

Sure.

And so, that's just how it was.

At our state, the public convention last week, we just did everything we could at the source of our people.

We didn't go that far in the recognition of the public.

I'll see that you get one.

Or at least a grip.

Tekst av Nicolai Winther

Teksting av Nicolai Winther

Følelsen Følelsen

All of you held your paper up?

Hold your paper up to the light.

See what you see.

Ha ha.

There's an eagle.

See the eagle in the paper?

That's taken from the seal of the President of the United States.

That's the American eagle.

Hold up, hold up.

Hold up.

This is the American flag.

the president of the United States.

There's a gentleman here I'd like to have all of you meet.

This is Mr. Steve Bull, right here.

One thing we'd like to ask that you not do on the shelves, there are some birds that are porcelain birds.

They're made out of glass, and they're very fragile.

And we'd like to ask that you not test those, and we wouldn't want to have one of them broken.

When we get in there, we'll point out some interesting things about the president's office.

Remember, when you have questions, put your hand up and ask.

We want to make sure you learn everything you know.

The back of the chair they have in cash remembers the title.

And they may move off if they need to take a chair with them.

Oh, really?

Now, this is the president's chair.

The vice president sits down across from him and goes from left to right with the president's chair.

Two, because it's the Secretary of Shores.

The Secretary of Shores has the right to have a president.

Three, because he's the president.

Four, because he's the president.

Oh, this is very impressive.

Very impressive.

I don't know if you have a friend.

kallum stål for the next fall while it's growing it's not covered while it's growing when it goes live but the moment that it's long slaughtered this is considered reprocessing that's right at that point it seems complicated when i see your partner right you just have to meet his car period

All transactions meet are covered except the first transaction when the farmer sells it.

Is that correct?

No, but I think the proper way to say it is from slaughter on it's covered.

And it's in his form.

The farmer may sell it on feedlot, which is acceptable.

Oh yeah, it's still going.

That's not like it.

I would consider feedlot a partner.

Everything adds to the squeal.

Herb's side of the comment is that we can't control

So, for all purposes, you have acted on the supply side with respect to the quote, not me, with respect to all food.

Everything has been done within the control framework that can be done in terms of controlling each process after the first sale, each linkage in that food marketing chain.

There are some minor things that could be done, such as changing the dollar and cents, changing the pass-through rule to a dollar and cents, which would sweep from the margin, which is not the trustable alternative.

There's the possibility of a freeze at the raw agricultural level, which would cause all the problems of controlling, of putting price ceilings on raw agricultural products.

One thing that has also affected food prices, that I don't think people have talked about enough, is the fact that the impact of wage price controls on the economy generally has affected the prices that people at each step of that food marketing lane pay.

For example, if you're controlling international harvesters' profit margin, presumably tractor prices are less than they might otherwise be.

Secondly, the pay board in the last month has reduced the meat cutters, the automated meat

From an 11% agreed bottom wage settlement down to 7%.

Yesterday the pay board reduced 13,000 food chain employees down from 19% agreed settlement between management and labor down to 6.7%.

It was just yesterday, but I had heard of this trying to get the revocation done.

But that's a big cut.

From 19% agree upon by the region.

They haven't come, I think.

It's really a stunning thing that management still agrees with.

And it was probably letting the people do their work for them.

That's why I'm back here.

I'm sorry.

Most of the steps that are available with respect to food prices.

There are some other areas that you can discuss the possibility of affecting the...

which have obvious problems and minimal effect in some instances.

But it remains essentially a supply and demand problem, food does, and our control system is designed not to deal with supply and demand, with demand.

And that's what it's essentially impacting on.

Now, the other kinds of things that are possible ahead, I suppose you would like to... Mr. President, in terms of your instructions, we've been holding this very closely and working on a normal basis with you.

I would assume that everyone here would continue to treat it this way, but this was generally an attempt to reduce the amount of governmental pressure on prices by changing governmental purchasing.

for the extent we've been using up our storage stocks so that we wouldn't be out on the market putting prices up ourselves.

The normal practice with the fences present is about a 30-day supply of these, and they have agreed that that will be drastically reduced as they use up their storage.

Probably not run more than about a five to seven day supply, which is practically from the market directly to the mess tables.

They have previously instituted in menus...

I'm sorry.

Sure.

Well, as I said, normally they keep about 30 days supply of beef in storage, and we'd like to reduce that drastically, use that up so that they'll come to their purchases very soon.

About 30 days, they'll reduce it down to about a 6-7 day storage period.

Their reason for this is, as I understand it, a real crunch in prices in the next few months.

They are changing menus for this reason.

This is particularly a closely held part.

We had a problem, as I recall, last year in the Congress.

It wasn't Christmas in Korea.

Everybody's awake.

We let our poor guys out there.

I'm telling you.

det var det var det var det var det var det var

That's another thing they're going after, is trying to control this flight, and changing menus, and following when using up of the storage, they'll start moving into substitute purchases, and this is all expected to run for about two months, and it's all, as I said, done orally.

The same program was present because they've been doing it earlier with the Veterans Administration purchases and with the other departmental purchases, agriculture and others.

We're getting very good cooperation from all of them.

They're still providing excellence.

No, the diets are completely balanced.

They just will include a substantial lessening of eating other high-priced foods, primarily being for about a two-month period.

And as a matter of fact, the fence was doing some of it anyway, because it was necessary, partly because of the price, to start shifting some of the merchants more out of the dollar.

We'll have a complete report for you on the first page tomorrow morning, and a subsequent report.

We wanted to follow up on these moves with some work with and on the various organizations that play a part in this.

We have a semi-schedule on that.

They're a business organization.

The government that does not have wage price control, and I think the press still thinks it's that way, and many of us do.

It's a very different thing.

It's a very different thing to be mean with people involved in this process when you have wage price controls in existence, I think, than it is to be a job owner.

and some meetings with individuals at each level, from each stage of the entire food process in the coming two weeks would be useful.

And you asked who's going to be doing the meetings.

The groups that would be met with would include each group from the producer right through the retail level of the food marketing chain.

And that would include food chains.

That's what I'm talking about.

Correct.

The people who would be doing it, we kind of had the feeling that it might be best if the individual department head who had jurisdiction over that particular group would not be the one to do it alone.

And it just seems like that kind of puts him in a spot where he's got five or six other relationships and linkages that need not be upset necessarily.

And if he were to be involved, it probably should be with George or with me or with her or with...

which we've discussed, and that's the possibility of actually in meeting with, for example, our agricultural attaches and the major meat supplying countries and encouraging them to encourage imports from those countries because of the question as to what the effect of simply removing the voluntary quotas will have without some stimulus.

behind, and those are essentially the layout of meetings that we were considering having, and we'd be happy to discuss them.

Tell me about the digital check-in on that.

If you can't import margin here because of our policies, that's a great issue.

Oh, well, Brett says he doesn't love to come here.

See, we don't import from England.

We do import from Ireland, but the Irish have forced it.

The draft diversity is zero in this country now.

If you can't import it, it's a better market.

But it has to be better.

I'm not foolish.

ok ok ok ok ok

Yeah, you know what I mean.

The purpose of that, of course, is to say, well, it's the food fly and all that.

No, I see the problem.

Well, let's get to the point.

Really, really, I see the point.

Take Argentine beef.

We do import canned Argentine corned beef.

Mostly it's cooked.

But you see the bulk of our beef imports are bone-frozen beef, in which you can import them via a central process.

They're very strict on that.

Because I want to keep it strict on that.

Australia is a free country, and New Zealand is a free country.

I understand that's about it, I believe.

If you have, the Australians have indicated that they will, that Conrad has worked on that, you know.

Yeah, King Ranch is bigger, by the American capital.

The second point is in regard to Zealand.

The Zealand prime minister mentioned land.

Yeah.

Now, is it, if they got it, would anybody here eat the darn thing?

Well, that's part of the problem.

You see, our land consumption has come to the fact that we only get about five pounds of land for the first time.

But if they got it in and it was a reasonable price, would they eat it?

This is not an effective therapy.

I think three or four cents a pound of land.

I think a lot of it.

I don't know.

I quite agree with you on that.

And perhaps we should examine this tariff input.

There is a common one.

It's right now.

Those are the only areas that are known as a follower of the supply side.

Yesterday I spoke to Cliff Hansen's group in Wyoming.

The Wyoming stockholders, right in the heart of the capital.

They got a fighting couch for this man, the woman lives in Wyoming.

I didn't say it all.

I just introduced him.

He took the occasion to say that I'm the guy who got the bill through for the import quotas on the feed.

And I was the secretary explaining why the president took action to aggregate that kind of stuff.

He was on there just to introduce me.

He was obviously trying to embarrass me.

It took 15 minutes.

I had about 1,500 people with him.

I said, send him to me.

He just asked, well, how do you want to be introduced?

I told him, you introduce me, I'll make the speech.

I said, but he didn't get the part.

But I discussed it that way.

I said, no problem.

I said, I think they've done good for the military.

I said, why's that?

are making about 100%.

They're doing real well.

They think of the fact that enormous pressures might develop to impose prices.

That's what they're relieved about, and that's their proof.

I see no problem.

Well, why don't we take it off?

The imposed prices are better off.

He might have a fighting secretary.

We'll be contentioning the British.

The President will have some slight favorable thought from that end of the face.

The British market a little less attractive for some of these meat shipments that have been going there.

And by the way, we may have some conversion of shipments to the U.S. market as a result of that.

Because in other words, for the British, the pound not being worth as much.

Well, there was just this last point you asked, Mr. President, about how this ought to be discussed.

It seems to me that the...

The most honest and factual and direct way is the way that George Shultz Handlinger, he made an announcement on Monday, and he agreed to the White House press corps, and he paraphrased it.

He said that the goal is to see that there's an adequate supply of good food at reasonable prices.

And that supply, weaving the supply part of it in, I think, points out the difficulty of imposing price ceilings, which could lower the price, but affect supply.

And I think that packaging those together is valuable.

The problem with it is that it points up that there still are some things remaining that the federal government's doing, in some cases the Congress, in some cases the executive branch, that tend to historically reduce supply by either through tariff or, in short, prevent a full flow into the country.

And that's

The way George said it, and the way I say it, and the way I think is the best way to say it, tends to lead to that kind of question coming up next.

What about these things that are tending protectionists?

And we've got to know that's where we're going if we talk about it the way we're talking about it.

One of the things that we need to work with is encouraging imports from other countries.

This is a question that they raise right away.

If we increase our exports to the United States this year, say from Australia,

Will that good performance be reflected in whatever quotas may be set next year?

And so they're looking for some sort of assurance that if they perform well and help us, then we will reflect that back again.

Because I think the demand for...

Japanese.

They were 20-20 years old.

They were pretty good.

Just eat rice and more.

Yes, because of that, it puts the kids in a care that you might use sometime in a connection.

Right now, we're eating 116 pounds of beef for the first twice what we did 20 years ago.

Twice what we did 20 years ago?

Yes.

But, looking ahead, our people forget that by 1980, just 8 years hence.

Well, that's the problem.

The easy increase is gone.

You can't put many more cows in the mountain.

Can I ask one other thing?

Is there any way, I suppose you could explore this, is there any way we could be of assistance to the Argentine?

No, no, no.

In terms of a mouth disease?

If you want to spend a lot of money as a test and slaughter program, they've got to do that, get rid of it, and they won't do that.

In some parts of the world it's chosen to live with them.

Syrien is chosen to live with them, for example.

Sweden doesn't have it.

Have you ever, would you mind just exploring?

Well, we've come to Mexico.

Mexico is a free area.

We're looking to the long haul.

I don't mean it's an office right now.

I want you to explore the situation.

I agree with what's going on there.

He's going to bring in a lot of people.

He just caught him.

I would have to just talk to him when he comes back.

I heard you couldn't bring him in.

Yeah, well, I'm not sure.

Yeah.

We've got extensive potential here in our southern states.

We are growing rapidly.

Who ever thought Florida was going to be one of the capital states, which it is today.

I was in Mississippi Monday night.

He said there's a million more mama cows.

He said there's a million more, but 74 mama cows.

I said you better pop the cows around too.

Mr. President, I think that brings you up to date on the different things that have been done, and the plans that we have to try to follow through on this with various organizations.

That's the entire question, and also on the...

With regard to what we do in the future, I think that the, as you all know, the public relations is what is really important.

When I say really important, what is really important is the price, and what people think about it is going to have an enormous effect as well.

I don't know that the change in the court system is going to happen.

And also the reaction taken yesterday is not going to have a very large impact on the actions being taken through the Department of Defense and the other government departments.

It's not very great.

All these actions together may have some effect.

That's what we hope.

On the other hand, we have to realize that the numbers that are going to come out in the next month or so, maybe as far as the administration is concerned.

Second, that it's activism.

And third, that there are better times ahead.

Now, one very, very sensitive point is this.

You'll all be asking, I'm sure, about, well, what about controls?

What about a freeze?

I think it's very important for everybody to ask that question.

I think the way to answer that now...

We have taken certain actions up to this point.

We are very honored.

The moment that you speculate about a possible freeze, it will drive up the price.

There must be no speculation that we won't do it, or that we will.

I think we should simply say, I think we should say that the president has talked to the members of the council, said that he considered that the item of highest priority

Øyvind Øyvind Øyvind Øyvind Øyvind

on the problem have been enlisted, whether it's a fall effect or a lock-in.

We can have it both ways.

It isn't the farmer kicking up these prices.

It's the fact that there's a big demand.

As soon as the farmer uses up these demanding propositions, it will be very well known.

As a result of that, people are going to grow more cows, hogs, and so forth.

It might be a lot later than the price will be down by the prediction.

I prefer not to use that term.

As a matter of fact, our people this year are making more money per person than ever before.

It's because we don't say it.

It's a tremendous explosion in demand.

I say that with the fact that we're really achieving a record new high, record levels getting to the point of every month for some months.

And the fact that we're putting out food stamps to 11 million people and feeding a few more people.

The fact that I'm trying to do this in a green market space, I say this is a line of the president's directive that we don't want any American to go to bed hungry.

And that we have a quite brutal number of people getting food stamps.

We double the number of people getting food stamps.

We've increased by eight times the amount of money going into food distribution.

And this goes to the lower level of the income spectrum, where the income of last year's food is high.

A large share of it goes to food.

And I say, and the minister says, delighting these people have purchasing power.

And let's recognize that this is an amazing amount of money.

In other words, there isn't so much to show you.

There's no show you the fact that

to make sure that the supply rises as best we can to make this explosion any time soon.

Now, on that connection, George, I think it's important that when you and Don meet, we can change people to do a good part of the decision.

Now, I think the change, I mean, most people are very, very good.

But on the other hand, it is not responsible for changing leaders, and so forth, to...

We are doing everything we can on the governmental side to hold costs down all around town, and legally to change the responsibility to hold the line.

Having in mind the fact that the actions that we're taking, while they will not affect any legal message by the future, actually, their prices and policies are not made on a month-to-month basis.

Their prices and policies are only six months, so they're not made on a month-to-month basis.

For them to go rushing out, and frankly to create in the public mind an enormous crisis and an enormous attention to this thing, is not particularly helpful.

And I think we should hit them very hard at this point.

Because what they're asking for by doing that, and what they're going to get, is something they don't want.

That's direct control.

for the private.

So I think there's a change, and the reason we thought about the change is that they, I believe, are just a whole business.

They can't tell them to sell at a loss.

We can't tell them if their prices, if their costs go up, but they cannot reflect that in prices.

We can't say that the whole country is watching food prices.

The government's doing everything on his side to expect you to cooperate with what he has to do.

They're so restrained so that some action that none of us want to have today has not become apparent.

Is that a good line you can say?

I think you all read that, but I also think it's very important to say, and you and Don will say, that I think it's a suggestion that I should see.

I think that's a great understanding, and also, after all, it's very hard to say exactly what the country approaches, and the comment that the country will make, and Don will make.

The thing is, I think you can say to her, this has been discussed greatly, all of you can say this when you talk to your very own son, we went through this, the president is totally behind what you're doing, you know, you're doing a lot of license and everything.

So that it doesn't just appear, well, here's the Secretary of the Treasury calling me in because he's objecting to us.

I think the identification of the President with his support, although I don't want to get out and start talking about this one, because you've got to say the big part for a little later.

Do you think so, John?

Yes, sir.

Is that what we've all agreed on?

I think there's another thing about what you said to these Chinese people.

It's a very important thing.

I think the paper came out with this decision.

The last time you called them in to drop off, then they dropped off.

That's back about 80 years ago.

The automated meat cutters, you know, in president, you know, really crack us all the time.

And, well, basically, you should point this out.

In Georgian media, you'll be cracking us all the time.

If I were you, I'd do exactly the same thing.

You can't cut down from 19% to 5%, man.

George, you know, I raised this point, and I hope that I, what we understand, the attitude of a human leader, I mean, he said, look, if you cut us in 19 to 5, then you're going to let the business guys get away, and of course you're going to let some cattle get away.

You get this signal point.

But I think statistically we can point out that they're roughly way more than 20 years old.

In the meantime, what they think matters has tripled.

Yeah.

Well, we appreciate all of your work here.

We'll follow through on the various barriers that you have.

But I've seen you do it.

Thank you.

She goes out and she can smile.

Her goes out and frowns.

My chickens are cows, they're at the home room.

No, but you're prepared to wait for it.

Oh, yeah.

Right.

I think this idea of treating them as your residents is very important.

You've got to be very careful not to be polyamorous, and not to say what you've waited for.

You still care for us.

But it is important just to...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Very good answer.

The basic issue here is that we reclassified the health services industry in the first part of May.

In terms of putting a care structure in the health industry for the first time.

The health industry has been operating on separate rules.

By reclassifying them, we've changed those rules.

Bull, right?

Well, I think you and I are going to have to ask Lee for a few minutes.

So I would think we should turn it over to Kurt.

The basic issue here is that we reclassified the health services industry in the first part of May.

In terms of putting a care structure in the health industry for the first time.

The health industry has been operating on separate rules by reclassifying them, retaining those rules.

or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or

United States having gotten out of the airbrake business by failing to build the SSG and other things that we're not going to get out of this and we just got to have a strong healthy merchant marine that's the way I feel about it I stated this when I was in San Diego

So what I'd like to do is to hear from those who, Pete, you want to be the moderator here, call anybody you like, any of you speak up, and tell me what I need to know about this brand of a

Mr. President, you know how concerned you are about productivity.

Let me just give you a couple of facts that I think will put you in harm's way.

And these gentlemen can tell you how they're doing it.

On the old so-called T2 tankers, I'm told that for 16,000 deadweight tanks, it used to take 45 men's crew.

This shift here, as you've just heard, is $265,000, and 26 men through nearly a 30-time improvement in output.

And that's one very important fact.

I think it might interest you, gentlemen, to tell you a little bit about it.

How does that come about?

How is that possible?

This is down to it with the cooperations.

probably one of the most dramatic changes i think in the way we're moving this country in the last 10 years this is another banner day that isn't getting much notice just because there are no strikes this is the second time this administration the contracts have been renewed in this industry with no work stoppage

You know, at that point, I guess we had a report yesterday from the Coastal Living Council to realize how cheap my job is.

The lowest this month, the strike level is not as good as the lowest in 50 years.

Where are you building?

Yeah.

The only thing that we're ashamed of is that our ship is only 225.

But an interest to you and to the country, I think, is the fact that we presently employ 2,000 people and we're building up to 5,000.

Of these 2,000 people, I venture to say that 75% would have been on welfare.

So the impact of that... Really?

Really.

You're going... We're employing minorities, about 85% of minorities.

Are they efficient?

Are they willing?

As the president, I think that they're efficient.

The presidential committee, which you appointed on shipyards, has visited our yard numerous occasions.

And I was pleasantly surprised to have read their report.

They said that they were...

Mr. President, on the job search, which I think is a great point in addition to productivity, I would estimate that these shifts, both at the yards and their suppliers,

will amount to about 36,000 jobs and an additional 800, I believe, on these ships themselves.

So this is a real job.

I'd like to have additional emphasis put on not just the boat, which is you build them and then of course you repair them and then

And that's that.

But on the continuing, that's the same.

So that's my statement.

I don't think you're correct.

I think there are about 800,000 ships themselves, which we would presume will continue.

Yeah, but if you get more... What I'm speaking of is not only this field...

Every area speaks up.

The more efficiency, the more jobs.

That's one of our goals.

We're trying to link this to the study.

We may have a few problems.

Well, no, we didn't have any problems with them, but we didn't... Well, of course, we got our contract within that, uh, guidelines.

But, uh...

Increased productivity of seamen on the ship ran about 3.5% per year between 1961 to 1965.

Since then, since 1971,

Productivity is up about 14% per year.

The airlines are always considered to top in increasing productivity.

In the years 1972, we surpassed the airlines

you may recall the president of the program he sat at the congress in 1969 and was entitled to one of the challenges he challenged this industry very hard I think this has come true in their wildest expectations I remember he was in San Diego

is uh and it's one of the very little credit it's it's an industry that has had more than waiting for it and so when as you saw what happens in the press it's a dramatic change around for improvement that's what i said and uh i think one significant thing about it this morning it certainly dramatizes the confidence and great deal the investment public has in this industry

president as a ship builder and i built it for maine yeah and my customers from san francisco his fleet in the pacific the merchant reenactment act of 1907 has given our industry the chance to live in our shipyard in maine the ship's built on our site for over 200 years and we were almost gone and this this program the opportunity to sit down with a customer

and negotiate a contract and negotiate a design which is very innovative and it's going to put a new classroom type of ship in the Pacific which hasn't been seen before.

It's just very innovative and safe.

You're not looking to the future because our cyber system runs on a kind of wiki.

We in California are always accused of having the Pacific first policy, because we can't hear any more about what goes on in the Pacific.

We can't see it in New York City, so we worry about Europe.

Well, I happen to be one of those.

It's not a half world, but a whole world.

I can't remember if that was both.

I mean, if you have a threat to the security of the United States in any part of the world, any part of the world,

As you let it go, it's like the leaf in the dike is making a difference.

It comes and again it's going to knock it down.

So thanks so much for that.

But looking at the Pacific and looking at the future, not five years from now, but 20 years from now, we have to realize that we all know what's happening in Japan in terms of trade with the United States.

And Japan will soon be the second.

the economy of the world.

It will be second only to the United States.

Well, it'll pass the silver check because of their enormous, enormous, I don't know what that means.

Debt.

Debt leading up to the moment is the mainland Chinese.

Looking on down the road into the Southeast Asia, everything from

to Taiwan, Asia, to the Southeast Asia, Thailand, Asia, to the Middle East.

it is inevitable that there's going to be more and so there's not there's something out

Because of the number of people that are there, because of the potential, it's starting to play an enormous role economically in the world.

We have to realize, too, that in terms of people forgetting systems, I mean, everybody here has certain ideas about the communist system as such.

Certain of these countries, if you come back, still, whatever false we have, what we prefer.

But nevertheless, if you look at the Chinese system,

people who have seen the Chinese in the world, you've seen them in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, let alone in San Francisco.

They're enormously capable people.

The Japanese play a great role.

What I'm suggesting here is that if you take a long view,

There's an enormous amount of great stuff in San Francisco, which is the gateway to the Orient.

I go back to Joe Moore and other old boys.

His dad, anyway.

So that is now looking the other side of the world.

I know this is a highly controversial issue.

because our systems change because our philosophies are not different because we don't recognize the problems that free society or

and we'll always have what they call a communist society.

But the countries in eastern Europe, Poland for example, Slovakia and so forth, there's going to be a lot more treatment.

And it is inevitable.

And Secretary Peterson, as you know, is going to go to Russia the latter part of July, sometime in July.

So there's not going to be any problems.

But also there will be some very, very great opportunities.

What I'm suggesting here is that, as I see it, this industry should be ready for it.

Ready for it.

Because we're talking about air freight and all the rest.

Sure, that's necessary for strong areas and a lot of other things.

But when you come down to it, as I understand it, I have San Diego.

This is still the cheapest and most efficient way to sit in it.

Correct.

Mr. President, you were speaking of the communist law countries, and I'd like to say that the Merchant Marine plays a particularly important role in a number of viewpoints.

During our major foreign aid programs,

The Communist Menchies didn't advertise the fact that we were supplying them with wheat.

I can tell you that my company, at the time of Manhattan,

Delivered wheat to Poland and to the Soviet Union to Odessa.

Well, it's a hard thing to hide a ship like the Manhattan.

And when the old glory was waiting, and we would deliver the wheat, both the Soviet Union and the Polish citizens knew that the United States were trading and aiding these particular nations.

So aside from just the pure trade aspect...

Very true, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, this is something we know where there are problems involved, and they're very difficult ones, and I don't think we should get into today, but I want all of you to understand that my trips to Beijing and to Moscow have nothing to do with trying to modify our philosophy or work on it.

That is going to happen.

Not on our part, not in the near future, so maybe we talk about a century, maybe, I don't know.

But on the other hand, if you look at the world, you're going to find increasingly that the compacts, the trade area, and so forth, they're going to change.

It's inevitable.

It's inevitable because people, the enormous capability, are just going to find these.

And I don't want business to end with silver.

They're going to immediately have enormous opportunities to feed off that.

It's all right to pay $800 million to the Chinese.

It's not going to happen because they've got to sell something to us.

But things are going to happen.

It's going to happen.

The Soviets, you know, they're going to have things.

So do us.

There are problems of credit.

There are problems of American bonds.

There are problems, you know, a lot of things we know about.

But I think that all of you, sort of as we try to work in these things, I remember that we're all working towards it.

As the pie gets bigger, we're all going to get a little bit more of it.

That's really the philosophy right there.

Yes, sir.

Mr. President, aside from the immediate impact on jobs and consenting, you might be pleased to know this is the largest peacetime shipbuilding order in the history of the United States.

If I could just take a minute, I'd like to tell them... How large?

$660 million.

The largest in peacetime history.

I'd like to take a minute to tell them that you realize that the whole...

before the first atomic explosion.

I was reading this at the end of the day.

It doesn't count as a meeting with Potsdam at the first, and Stalin at the back of the explosion.

And Churchill said with great admiration that his contribution, this wasn't a party act, it was a question of dollars.

He said it was a better thing, you know, to throw it off like that.

uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... uh...

with our people to come up with recommendations first on research and development for what kinds of new propulsion systems, new kind of ships will be adequate for the future, and what role the government should play in that, and we're very busy working with that.

Second, Mr. President, you will remember our discussion about deep water docks and the problem we have in this country if we're going to be competitive so that all the jobs don't end up in Canada and the Bahamas and so forth.

What kind of a program we can put forward on that?

Because until we solve that problem, we really haven't solved the graduate problems.

And I think they would be just as nice.

For your instructions, we're very busy working on both those issues.

That would say there's one thing that could keep this all in context.

You know, there's been a lot of sort of almost euphoric attitude after these trips abroad as well.

We're going to get along and all this and that and the other thing.

And to a certain extent, it's going to be a safer world.

Not never totally safe.

Even friends fight and adversaries inevitably may.

The point that I make is, however, that it'll be safer, although maybe not because of the

the human philosophies, but only because pragmatic people get together and their interests require that they get along.

In other words, I said they should either live with their differences or die for their differences, and that's what the whole philosophy is about.

But as the world becomes somewhat safer, as communication between peoples and nations and different philosophies progresses, the world is going to become much more competitive.

That's the point.

Who would have ever thought that they'd have the World War II?

I was in Japan in 1963 right after the Vice President.

I saw that.

Who would have ever thought that Japan, after its almost total destruction, its virtually misdestructed, it was misdestructed, the power that it did to me, it was really, apart from the atomic bombs, it really sank.

Who would have thought it would be where it is today?

Anybody that stood as I did on it,

And there, what was the only thing left, the Great Corrupt Sea Orchard, I showed that in a tower in 1947, when I was there, and I looked across, that total destruction of what the bombers did, so that they are the most corrupting people in New York.

Who would have thought that could have happened?

Looking at the Soviet corruption, I mean, with that, in my view, terrible system, repressive system,

It does bring out the energy to people, but who would have thought the communist system would be liberal?

Were it not the Russian people who were strong, vigorous, comfortable, who would have thought that they could, at the present time, of all of the inefficiencies and the liabilities of their system, be second only to the United States, as they are in terms of production.

Now, they are, but that doesn't mean that they're in consumer goods.

They're anywhere in the air, so it doesn't mean that as far as life is concerned, it is

that it wasn't any of us, like I said.

And so, as I see the world, we're going to live in the time the United States is the case.

We need to react as we're working.

We could live.

We were in a race.

And there was just nobody in it with us.

Nobody.

We were so far ahead.

We produced half of the world's earth.

Now we're down to a third.

It's still pretty good.

Too many people have the same thing.

But you must remember that what has happened is the world begins to...

as the new Europe gets together you know all the potentials of that it's good in one way it means a more peaceful Europe but in terms of competition with the United States it's a block of enormous enormous threat to us I don't say that

in a fearful way, I just say it in a realistic way, and looking at the Russians and the Chinese, remember, they're a very, very capable people, I mean, with the communist system, and the Eastern Europeans, even Marshall, because basically they have their traditions, I mean, and the Czechs were the ones who had the highest per capita income in Europe.

So Czechs, even under communism, are gonna be a significant factor.

Looking further down the road.

Latin America.

And of course the balance of Asia.

All these are potential competitors for the United States.

What I'm simply suggesting is that

And there isn't any question that our system is the best.

There isn't any question of our ability to win any race we get into.

But you only win races when you move ahead.

You never win when you're standing still and the other guys catching up.

And that's what our focus is on, is to remember we're in a real race.

We can talk about what Pete has just said about these big docks and these big ships and the rest of them.

Let me say here, I want to see the American fishermen.

That's still to be second.

I mean, now maybe get 260,000 is the right size, maybe 500 is too big.

That may be the argument.

But in terms of having, I'd like to see ours be the best boats, just like the Yankee Clipper was the best ship 100 years ago.

I want ours to be the best.

And, and, and, and,

in various areas.

That's why I was such a strong opponent of the SST that one day we're going to build it.

I mean, I do not want five years from now, seven years from now, eight years from now,

for Americans and for the people that traffic to the world would be carried around the world in Russian and British and French super soft sonic transport people say well who wants to go who wants to go three times as fast as we do today isn't a bullet fast enough and the answer is no I mean if you're going to take that long flight across the Pacific from Los Angeles to Tokyo or the long flight across the Pacific from Los Angeles to

or San Francisco to Pekin, or Washington to Pekin.

Let me tell you, it's going to take you 16 hours for free.

What are you going to ride in?

The American, just to prove you're going to like the American.

Or that rocket.

You're going to try any transport.

You're going to ride the rocket.

So let's build it.

That's the way we have to look at these things.

And I think that that's the attitude that Pete and all of us have been trying to get.

But we need your cooperation.

We need the cooperation of industry.

We need the cooperation of labor.

I mean, not simply to say, now look, we've got to have this, the government's got to help us here.

We've got to have these subsidies so we can continue to have the jobs.

That's not an attitude that will survive because in the end, what the government gives, the government can take away.

What we have to say is that I recognize the government role.

I recognize that other countries have their ways of subsidizing and do.

And we can't have an unsubsidized American industry competing with a subsidized industry in other parts of the world.

But what I am saying is that with this American assistance from them, that we are getting what we need.

And what I think about this last year is that

We need industry that is vital, strong, and competitive.

We need labor unions that recognizes that this is just a question of taking this present pie and cutting it up, expanding it, and welcoming the new developments, even though it may temporarily mean less jobs.

In the long run, there's going to be more.

Or some.

That's the real point.

Because in the long run, if you remain that competitive, there won't be any.

And I think this is an attitude that I think we owe a great deal to our leaders.

for their cooperation to the end.

What I'm suggesting is take the long view, look down the road, look at this country, and let's just be sure that the U.S. recognizes whether the race is on the scene or in the air or any place else that we don't like to lose.

I mean, I know that that's not rational these days.

They teach it in college.

I mean, it doesn't make any difference.

I mean, that's jingoistic to talk about an R&B number one.

We just might as well be number two.

yeah they cheer they aren't cheering for losers we're not a people that like to lose and that's good that's good and the main reason it's good is that not because we want to put somebody else down and have them be second because once a people ever accepts the proposition that we are going to strive to be number one we cease to do our best and we cease to be as good as we can be and that's not a good thing

it's not good for people.

I mean, you've got to hand it to our Soviet friends.

You've got to hand it to our Chinese friends.

And in their own way, I'm talking about the leadership.

They're not going to make it in my opinion, as far as we're in competition with us, because their system is not as good.

But I do know this, that the most important thing is attitude.

and you've got to have the business people, you've got to have the labor people, and we've got to inculcate it in our young people, that by God, let's have some of that spirit that said, well, the United States is going to sit back and let somebody else go ahead and we can help them.

We can do it through the merchant marine.

Maybe I'll help you with some of that.

Well, we have to adjourn this part of the week.

We always give you a little cricket here when you come to the White House.

These are the usual, the company who passed the bill with security last year.

These are living caught in the presidential seal as it appears in the presidential flag.

which is an election year.

If you get that for your wife, and if you get that for your husband, if you get that for your wife, you have a new little pen that's with the presidential seal on his hand.

They'll all ask where he's worried and say, well, I was going to talk to the president of Washington and say, now come to me.

Mr. President, before we break up, I think that speaking for the industry, the shipbuilding industry, I think we can say that there are people in the administration, I think we've had all of that, I mean, Andy Gibson, Bob Blackwell has done one fantastic, fabulous job for us in the property business at Unlimited.

They're very capable, and I've heard a lot of people, a lot of people, with their elections, really, that's what they've done.

They've done a tremendous job implementing your programs.

We appreciate it very much and we thank you personally.

You all agree with that?

I say that our American crew is second to none.

I say that having experience of 20 years with foreign crews.

Let me say that.

I say that regardless.

I'm going to fly ahead.

When we first started talking about the Russian government, we ran it down.

We had a meeting with Andy Gibson, and we met with some of our more efficient operators.

And it was pointed out to us that on the American ship, if we took all the crew off, that we could then, with a full subsidy,

on our, on our business.

I see.

The reason we shifted from being builders is three basic laws.

It's not just a machine, back in 1970.

Accelerated the appreciation and the attack on investment credit.

Without the combination of those three, and the cooperation of everybody, the shift would not have been built.

It's that made it possible for us to get in the world market and compete.

Well, let's say I deliberately have not gone into this very delicately with the Russian regime and so forth and so on.

That's something, as I understand, that we've been planning and you're still working on.

Just let me say, the best thing is let's not lose the deal.

We want the deal for reasons that are taking a long haul.

And I don't see a reason to let somebody else have the deal.

It's got to be done.

Let's take it as far as we can.

I remember that's the biggest thing when I was a kid.

You know, we used to save up.

We had firecrackers.

Had a lot of fun.

The only... Are they going to rule out everything?

The only thing that's going to rule out this year is going to be seeing a devil.

That's already started.

I imagine daily is going to have fun.

That's already started.

That's what I would say.

Thanks a lot.