Conversation 251-017

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

The room, it turned out to be quite a good infection.

I wonder how, well, I do know they always had lunch there in the county of Johnson.

Or they'd have lunch upstairs, and they'd go to bed, or purr, or something like that.

Yeah, it's a different thing.

And it's, uh, and the practice is very, very different.

You're in the house, and I'm driving, and, uh, Mitchell was, uh, he was talking to me about Volpe.

I wouldn't say he felt strong about that, uh, you know, I, unless he's not, I mean, I'm sure Volpe, you know, was, like, a hunter, and, you know, he was saying, you know, so he, I mean, I've heard of him.

The cost, Bob, it really is utterly ludicrous.

Well, people don't want it.

I do not go out on the seat belt.

Everybody says, that's a lie.

They're going to be forced to put in buzzers and lights on the seat belt.

What the hell?

People will just disconnect them, that's all.

You know, I sure will.

I will not tolerate it.

I mean, so if I'm going to get killed, I'll get killed.

But when you get down to the number of accidents and so forth and so on,

People wouldn't get in the goddamn car if they were afraid of an accident.

That's pretty much the point.

I guess you see, those do save some, but they also, you know, cut you, you know, out of there, trapped them in a car, they couldn't get out.

I didn't say the council solicited them, but I will not worry.

That kid was something else.

He was pricing our cars out of 100.

You know, the two of us were four cars.

The labor cost one took was great.

One hell of a time.

I wanted to report to people.

It was an environment thing.

We were going through this horrible, horrible line of work.

We were stuck with that.

I was in an enforcement field.

I'm sorry, I agreed to that, and I got a pressure from everybody, and Whitaker, and I thought we were, I mean, the Congress, the idea of a 19th century by a lot of old machines, and even on that, quite a whole lot, and all the way down, and said, in the process of that, you're going to put American Motors and Chrysler going to be out of business, and what have you done with them?

And I thought, you know, you're going to take care of them, and I said, what the hell?

John just thinks he's the best speaker we've done first.

What else?

That was his main argument.

He said, you won't.

He is an asset, and he needs to program.

You have to program.

Again, this very close.

Yeah, well, that's fine.

Then who's going to program?

Well, a few fellows are going to look that up.

That makes a big question of whether he really is that good.

And John wasn't.

But he felt strong.

He didn't have any questions.

He raised a heart.

Maybe I haven't raised a heart.

Did you throw that to Bryce yet?

No.

But nevertheless, also part of the reason is that they don't have any kind of feeling on trade or consultation and so forth with the White House.

He's done a good enough job there.

The reason for that is that the Department of Agriculture has been playing the consensus politics, you know, that's important.

Of course, we here at the White House, and I think there's a lot of parties that get that clear.

Secretary of the Agriculture, too.

The Secretary of the Agriculture shouldn't be dealing with this.

He doesn't.

They expect him to come in tomorrow.

They know it's political.

I just don't think I should raise the political side of it.

I have a political office, and I'd like to pitch it to the NFC.

I just didn't feel good.

It's the best thing in the area.

I know it.

I got to do it.

This black, smart, haggard neighborhood.

What I meant is that it was a story.

I don't want to say anything.

But having said that, I think I'm going to have to stop.

I'm going to stop.

I don't care whether the guy thought they should go up or not.

You know what I mean?

You shouldn't disagree with the Secretary of the Treasury.

It's like people disagree with me, God damn it.

They quit, you cut it out.

I think we have, we're going up, may have been a statement by the department, but just some of the papers were almost accepted.

They're still an out-of-order thing, so they might not go to staff now.

But then later, we'll find out.

But, well, I have to work out the plan.

have thought you cannot have a voice to speak.

That's Connolly.

That's enough.

But John says, Connolly is the voice.

I wonder if that's what he's dying here for.

He is.

You can't say one thing and Schultz saying that I'm going to Connolly another.

Now, we've got Connolly and Schultz.

And probably if he did say it, he wouldn't have said it.

I think that's what happened.

The reporter hit him on, what do you think about the interest rate?

Another written in Conlon County said he was terrible.

McCartan said he had no objection to it.

The story ran together.

The press hit Ziggler and said, which one speaks for the White House?

He said, Conlon.

He said, you are.

He speaks in his role as the Council of Economic Advisers.

That's not a good answer, Mendel.

He didn't even know that... You can't say to the country that the country has two voices on whether any trade should go up or down.

That's a good dodge, but that's not a good answer.

He went back and clarified it.

He talked about it right after his visit.

If you recall, that county statement ran in the paper, and even that morning,

I'm pleased you were about the

post-interview that he had the day before and about his interest statement.

And I called up and said, you know, Greg, at least you got to watch the post-interview.

And he said, good.

And I got some points over.

And he said, Greg, at least about the interest statement.

And he laughed and said, well, I'm not so sure what he was thinking about that.

And I said, oh.

And he said, well, you've got to track him on the other side of the fence.

Then he talked to Ziggler.

I called Ron.

Ron called him.

And I said, actually, well, I'm going to talk to him.

And they're always speaking.

There will be some, but we can get more just to shake them up a little bit.

The economy there is going to be a little more popular.

Across the bridge now, with regard to the well avoidance coming back, we're doing that school of finance thing that we were going to do out there, we're going to do it on Tuesday here, so we're announcing that.

I think that's probably the right thing to do.

This is Florida.

The possibility of going to Florida in the following week, the industry moves up, but I think it's still better to leave it the week after and miss the Johnsonville.

I've been carrying on the business from now until the week after.

The young priest in the back of the week is not good.

He's going back to California.

No matter how away we stay, if they stay away from California for the weekend, they're going to Florida for the weekend.

I just don't think you want to go to California.

And the next one, maybe a good shot with Saturday out.

Yeah, that way you'll break it up.

That's correct.

Next question comes out of the red boat.

Mark.

Mark, I don't know what's happening there.

I don't know what's going on in the department.

Yeah.

The thing that, let me ask you, if you're feeling a lot of, you know, if you're feeling this is pretty to be the hell out of town, well, the judge can be wrong.

If you're calling the shots, or if you're here, obviously the focus comes on you.

I'm sure that's all bad.

If we play this right, which is the strategy they're talking about, is that we don't do anything.

They do something.

We act firmly that we don't use the district police.

They've got a big plan out there.

They won't be able to work on them.

They're going to include some people.

It's a big snowstorm.

They pile up for a lot of the rest of the year, but seeing the senior government people on Sunday night having to stay in their offices and do that, it's true.

Well, that's what they were saying.

Why the hell do we have to tell anybody?

You don't.

It's an individual decision.

We just, uh, each guy decides, and rather than take the chance to get involved, they do want you to come in and not stay in their office.

Stay in their office.

Goddamn it.

Take a lap of water.

Stay in a hotel.

Walk down to work.

No, that is true.

I don't want to start taking any state polls until this summer.

I'm going to poll this summer, you know what I mean?

That must be him.

That's always the clue.

We always do polls with or without Wallace.

I just don't believe it's true.

In California, I'm sure it's true.

Yeah.

It's the Midwest, the South Carolina.

But our DC's got a few little pockets of it.

It's amazing.

It's too bad.

California's 7%.

Cannot do it because of that airplane thing.

And the defense thing.

Airplane and the defense.

That's where we're getting the people that we're going to want.

We're offering too many people.

One burger and I'm just defending that.

It's a bit of a bitchery.

I didn't keep you this year, but when they say it.

He's in charge of their whole jobs business in California, right?

He has a special task force on aerospace.

He was interested in the ramifications and all that.

There's, he's acutely aware of it.

The key really is that any new stuff that we do, investigate areas, we just gotta be damn sure of those.

Right, absolutely.

And a space shuttle, which is still budgeted,

If they're going with the space shuttle, what we should do is move that.

That's a fast job, apparently, on R&D, which is where the sophisticated California is.

And CAP's very much on top of that, making sure that you see it there.

I mean, that anything where there's an opportunity to tell us that it would be put into California.

It takes a fair economic sense as well as political because that's where the talent is.

The talent is available talent, uninformed talent.

I don't know whether it's worth bothering with this, but Jackass Jim Fulton was bugging me today after 20 or 20 people were hearing him after two years.

He got in a fight and he talked to me about the future of the state.

I don't know, but you know what I mean.

I've got to pass it off to the board.

He's probably run through everybody since I suppose so.

Crazy, because he never quits.

I just don't have, you know what I mean?

Yeah.

Tell you what, Jennifer, I've got an idea.

Sometime, there's something on the space program, I don't know if you've seen the space program, I don't know if you've read it, but if I had to ask him to sit in, see, that's what I would rather than have him sit in with another group.

He has something on the space program, he doesn't bite the jackass down.

It seems to me that the carrot of the B.C.

flag is something that a little guy up there, Hartford, went up there and burned the goddamn thing in Florida.

Could we not, could Colson not do the hard hats or go on our side of the BC, the BC flag like this one?

I'm going to take that down and have a fight.

I have a fight about that.

I think this will work.

We're not calling attention to that BC flag.

We hardly do it.

You have a fight about that.

That, I think, is on the plus side.

Dramatize the point that they're carrying.

And those are comments.

People who are watching on TV don't know that's a big, fun, fun track.

I'd be glad if there was a big star on the track.

That's right.

This is one way to dramatize our story, to get somebody in there the next time you have FDC flying off.

After all, somebody else also ought to step up when they start carrying down the American flag.

Up here in Washington.

They didn't run this way.

Yeah, they have.

There have been some fights on that.

There have been some fights on Turn 10.

Well, my God, I'd like to see a group of people get the VFW Legion around here.

They've got to do whatever.

They've got to constitute themselves as people that guard the honor flag, you know.

The V.C.

flag, I think having a fight over that would be a good project for either of them.

The VFW might be the one.

There are people around who say, now, by God, we're not going to allow that.

If they see that V.C.

flag, they move right in.

They move in, and no cops are to stop them.

Well, ma'am, I have a disturbance in the peace down that B.C.

flag.

It's got to be done, Bob.

That has got to be done.

I want that initiative given to Colson, Tom, and that's to be done.

I'll take responsibility.

That is a goddamn disgrace.

I want to get a hold of it right away and make sure it wasn't wrong.

As Pat mentioned last night, a suggestion that...

Somebody with a network or television has mentioned the possibility of Christians doing stairs in the White House, not the upstairs, talking about...

My question is whether or not this is one that might be something that they would like to have, all of them.

You know what I mean?

Don't you agree it would be a show, in other words, you go back and say, tell a story about how Alice Longworth was married here, she didn't wear a gown or something, this kind of a gown, how Mrs. Gilbert Williams was the first one married in the White House, and she was married to Google, and it's a hell of a story.

Don't you agree?

That's the way to do that, rather than just screw around with the magazines and see what she wants to know.

But Ron got a hold of that situation very fast.

So he wouldn't want to put in charge of that.

I was thinking, who talks to the networks?

The car show, that is a hell of a show.

I don't think it's going to happen.

Or whoever wants to do it.

Because actually, they're both equally bad.

It's got to be one of the two big ones.

You've got to go to the network and make it CBS or NBC, right?

You have to control it.

You still have an audience for that.

Good idea.

It occurred to me that

The mock elections actually do not take place until this next school year, the following school year, correct?

Well, I think they have them before the school is out, even though we don't have a convention.

Do you think they had some before the convention?

Do they have them?

I think they do.

I think some of them.

The autonomous nominee party, the nominee convention.

Now, put somebody who's really got his head screwed on tight in charge of my collection.

Sure, I agree, frankly, with John.

I, uh... John... John Erdman feels strongly that all of us tend to just toss it in until it's down to first reaction.

I mean, he has a different problem for me with these things.

You know, there are a hell of a lot of people right now sitting around with such a thing for me that I need to...

here in that new conference.

I think, considering everything, people did all too well to keep it from being about that disaster, and I'm doing so for the charity.

I thought it was an excellent part.

The key thing was putting it out there.

I thought it was a great decision to go through the treatments, go through the treatments, think about that as naturally as you would, but I'm trying to fit some of this together.

I'm trying to speak to other recommendations.

If they had been here, we'd have had the White House press on them every day.

But we'd have had them.

We'd have had them.

The point is, people aren't for it either.

It isn't to get it out of the United States.

We want to share it with other people.

Everybody gets the advantage.

But I was thinking about the thing, the youth thing.

The key point that Elliot made was that the advisors, the adults, had approximately the same views as the youth on these resolutions.

I said, well, who were the adults?

Well, they were teachers.

I think that when we do polling in the country, whenever we poll college, I believe something in Paris sometimes, we poll students and faculty.

And then that could be a very devastating thing to get out and show that the faculty are more ready than the students.

You remember in the 60s,

Well, we won't leave.

through the elections, which can't be in schools.

Well, we might do very well if it's Hewitt or Muskie, if they're not with Teddy.

It might fight it in the elections and in the wars.

But we lost the goddamn faculty's 5-0-1.

Remember?

Yep.

We can do that.

I think we can do that.

That's one.

I think we can get Harrison Gallagher to vote.

Don't you think it's worth doing?

Sure.

I can't even read that through the newspapers.

It's a weird reaction to him bouncing around on his front lawn.

They throw rocks at him.

for this two weeks

For a reason.

I can't sit here.

They don't hear from me.

I get the idea that you're not going to hear from me.

I'm talking on that issue.

I don't want to raise it, but if the press raises it, then we've got a right to have a chance to talk about it.

God damn it, we're going to do it.

We will have more support.

There's support in the country that these press people realize.

And we really agree with this one.

I think they did it because they thought it would hurt you.

I think they did it because they thought they were waving the flag.

So as far as they didn't get them waving the flags, they got them saying, we love you, President.

Well, they did it deliberately.

Well, also, they want to do it for balance.

I don't think so.

I think they did it because they wanted, they thought that would, would, because the accuracy of the idea of saying, Jesus Christ, isn't that saying, isn't that saying that they love the President?

Go ahead, we'll put that on.

And it probably did.

In Washington, everybody probably said, ugh.

That's right.

Well, boy, you can get out of this dump and across the country.

It's what kids do.

It's what kids do, and everybody says, isn't that wonderful?

It's nice looking kids and their families are enjoying it.

Yeah, yeah, well, my wife did.

Who were those nice little kids in the rose garden?

That's it.

And by God, it just looked great.

Little girls with their eyes shut on me.

That's right.

And happy to be there, and happy to be going.

I think that's why I'm rubbing that Rio Grande High School in there.

It's great.

I think they ran the chamber thing for that faculty.

I think you're wrong.

I think they ran into each other first.

NBC did it too.

And I think the welfare part, just as they did in the governor's thing, got a very big play on that.

I'm getting on their ass and working the welfare thing at the governor's and the welfare thing at the chamber's.

I think they did it because they think it hurts you.

Because they are against you.

Because they think you're wrong.

They think you're making a mistake.

They think the people are for welfare.

Yes, they do.

Washington Post gave you an anti-editorialist one.

They did a lot of bad things.

Yeah, terrible things.

Bad grace because of unemployment.

You're not unemployed.

You said people who refuse to take it refuse to work.

This is something different than welfare.

I said welfare.

and a lot of the workers in the industry, the workers don't want to do it all the time.

The problem was that you probably, the welfare of the workers, the welfare of the workers, the welfare of the workers, the welfare of the workers, the welfare of the workers,

You can't get it with the votes of the liberals.

That's all.

We have to get the conservative votes.

I'm all over that.

The hell, what the hell is going to happen?

We can't do anything.

It's not a God damn forget.

It was the right thing to do to him next week.

And don't let Ray Price worry about it.

Don't let Wes Darman worry about it.

Don't let Larry, I mean, there are liberals.

Say to hell with them.

I know exactly what we're doing tonight.

I've talked to senators.

They say we've got to have the votes.

And we don't have them.

And I'm on the conservative side.

That's where we're going to get from the company.

They're both going to find a way to be against it anyway.

We're going to contact Republicans, plus a couple of conservative Democrats.

That's all the way we're going to go to.

They're with you.

And that's where it's played out.

They went to Ohio, and they did it for that very recently.

But they were sure of this.

I'm convinced of that.

It was quite a bunch of kids who were saying, is that what they think?

It's a question.

I brought the team today.

Right.

Let me ask you about the...

safety thing and what we can do.

Let me say that I think it's an unbelievably atrocious method of procedure.

statute is passed, and then some little pipsqueak jackass that has been administered in an office issues a regulation, that that has the force of a court order, that is not going to be, I think, a draw on the procedural stay of law.

You're repugnant to me, absolutely repugnant, particularly with respect to a second on the merits.

And they'd be quite quick.

I am against both that silly seat belt.

And the crutches and all that bull.

Second, obviously the airbag is a goddamn boondocker.

I can't get it in the merits, but I do want to put it there.

We've got to get it stopped now.

becomes a problem for both of them.

He's around charging around promising everybody's going to get it.

And I think he's got to be told, and I'm not going to tell him because I don't want to get in a business where I have met before and told him he's got to knock it off or he's got to be leaving.

Well, I already talked to him over there.

Hope he's out of town.

So is his other secretary, Baker, the number three man, has been anticipating that there would be some problem because Flanagan has been so negative on this.

He said that he was already at work on a full breakout of exactly what had gone before.

He said there's two sides to this.

Oh, there's not two sides.

And I said, well, let me tell you what I've done.

I've told him to...

suspend the order.

And he said that he would have his written word over here tomorrow.

And I said, well, you were going out of town.

I was going out of town.

I'll be back in about three months.

I said that, obviously, nothing could be determined before you left, and probably not before I got back.

And therefore, they should simply figure that the order was to be suspended.

And so that's the posture in which it is.

Now, both of you will get back in time, and I have about 6.30, and he'll call me.

And so I'll just repeat that.

Just say that I think that...

The matter should be... Well, how can we say it?

Does he have the authority to do this?

Under the statute, he has safety regulation authority.

That's a rationalization for this.

And presumably the Sovereign Safety Act of 68, whatever it is, gets the secretary rulemaking power in this country.

And I said, that kind of statute, don't ever let me sign any such bill like that.

That kind of administrative order is the worst kind of thing.

I don't want a government pipsqueak making any goddamn decisions.

However, yes.

I don't want AGW administrators, anybody, going out and making decisions that affect the economic lives of this country.

Your choice is a tough one.

If you tell Bopee not to exercise his powers into this act, then Nader is going to go out and try and get a rip.

He'll try and compel Bopee to make the rules.

And, you know, we'll get all into that.

Now, we can let it go in that direction if you'd like.

What else can you do?

Let Bopee get, let Bopee himself take the responsibility for delaying it for a while.

It's unbelievable.

I mean, is this something that NATO's been pushing, the airbag?

No.

I noticed in the Wall Street Journal just now, a firm has announced that they are going to construct a factory to manufacture airbags for the automobile industry.

And they were asked whether they're going to be able to make airbags that will conform to both these standards or not.

So they think they have a reasonable possibility of being able to do so.

They're going to get it because they're finding a way to put it on the ground.

We've got to be ready to have them tested.

What about the cedar milk crack down the tube?

That's already in being.

That's an existing regulation.

We're having the buzzer go off.

We don't need the light going off.

But they have rescinded those things, only against the law, in principle.

I don't give a damn about the industry.

There's a lot of care about it, care about it in Kansas.

You're in a federal position.

There's a lot of other things that lead to this silly reaction to the consumers.

I know I can...

I've been making all the arguments I've made with the head of the farmer's bureau.

Well, we had to go along with the farmer's union, the votes, making the arguments.

We had to go along with a lot of environment things that I don't believe in at all.

Because the muskie hunter is the question.

Now we're saying we've got to go along with an airman because Nader's after us.

That isn't good government, John.

I've got that.

Well, I'll just, to hell with it, I'll take the heat.

I'll just take the heat.

And on this one, if Bowlby doesn't want to take it, he's the hell out of the cabinet.

in Italy or someplace.

This is ridiculous.

I will not hear his case, though.

I'll read his case, but I'm not going to have him come in and behold about this goddamn airbag.

That's a joke.

That is an utter silly joke.

They can't find a driver at Ford to attest that they bought it.

Hunter is not one of us on a visual testament.

as he's been having meetings with the departments on these latest school cases.

And I thought you'd want to hear how that's coming along.

Well, Mr. President, I think the Senate and Justice are trying to get together and even agree on what the case says procedurally.

They're going to write memos out for Richardson and Mitchell so that the two of them can get together and see if they can't agree on what the cases are going to say.

I am inclined to think we're going to have to watch this as opposed to last summer.

Simply because of this problem with 75 and 100 cases in each department, that they're afraid to have SWAN motions filed quickly.

And we'll be right back over in a moment to look at all the SWAN, SWAN motions.

This is when they have a case that should be solved.

And the YCP is going to go in and start filing a motion to reopen every one of these cases and try to make it a racial balance case.

And if we can still keep those departments in check, so if you're drilling out of the South, that's still exactly the same thing you're getting for delay, off the scape, anything you can.

And that the court does not require racial balance.

That will remind us much about the NAM case.

Well, we did get one break today, which is one of the Supreme Court rules in our housing units.

I think this actually, I must not sit on it for the rest of the time.

This case actually, I read the varmints and prices memorandum, and they were very good, particularly the prices actually, not a lot.

The court probably did as well as it could with a terrible situation.

What do you think?

I think they could have dropped a few things our way that they didn't.

Like what?

I think that the excursion out into neighborhood schools was really in response to your state.

Yeah.

And I thought we could have had a better break, and the language all improved, as a matter of fact.

But I think they were...

The last court specifically in front of them was not as rough as it could have been.

Oh, that's right.

That's true.

But don't you think the broker, though, would have brokered something here?

No doubt.

I don't think.

Because I talked to him twice in practice, and I gave hard-ass answers.

So he was under great pressure.

He undoubtedly found a middle way.

But at the same time, I felt like the martial law enforcement was sitting there in front of those clerks who broke that damn gun, didn't you?

Yeah.

And so they took a fire gun.

The school, the...

California has a statute that says that citizens may, by referendum, set aside zoning or permits to allow low- or moderate-income housing, public housing.

It's a referral process.

And this was attacked by some people who said there was a denial of equal protection that denied poor housing in the suburbs.

The court held that a lot of things get referred in California.

It is not a denial of equal protection that citizens of a community may, for any reason that they choose, vote against low and moderate public policy and exclude it from their community.

You're bad at recording all of that.

I don't know, there's two already.

Is that right?

Yeah.

But, uh... What's the decision?

How many?

Okay.

Split?

Yeah.

Five to three.

I've been talking to the Saw Squire by himself because Warren Crystal was in the case.

Who?

Travis.

Well, and who did we get then?

We got Gregor Blackman.

No, we didn't get Blackman.

He went the other way.

Black were the detainees.

Black?

Oh, God.

I'm telling you, our chief priest's brother-in-law, Marshall, hands up.

Marshall.

Well, Michael Black didn't want to take measure there.

There's a situation.

The case that a people can, in a city or a town, can require our grant.

It's our right to it in those states that provide for it.

It's not determined by referendum that they will not have low-income housing in our community.

Right.

Or at a specific location in our community.

Well, they have every right to do that.

Well, they did.

I would think.

No, but you see the Lackawanna case.

Oh, it was the other day.

Yeah.

See?

That will have a little frame.

Yeah, that was a Supreme Court certiorariy denied.

There was a certain polling that in effect says that the people's elected representatives can't do this.

So this in effect says that people in a complete referendum can, but elected representatives cannot?

In fact, that's right.

The court did seem to apply, as I read the decision, that they took into account the fact that that statute had been on the books for a long time, that they might take a different view of a lot of states running out and passing those kinds of laws.

They don't come right out and say that, but, you know, there is that thread in there.

The court must be running through the agonies of how long this has been going on.

The lack of law case, of course, turns into finding the facts.

the city council's actions and racial discrimination motives.

And it's very hard to describe racial consideration motives to a program of a referendum.

That's right.

That's the difference.

How the hell can you say that people voted for certain motives?

That's the difference.

No way.

And it turned pretty much on that.

I just read the syllabus.

I think it did, yeah.

It doesn't yet.

In the non-referential cases, in those housing cases where a city council is acting to exclude or to change the zoning or something of that kind, it's a question of fact in the deep end of the lack of a lot of cases in Sanford.

It doesn't seem to necessarily help the supply chain, do you think?

I don't think it helps us in the blinds end in case of spending.

Well, let me tell you what my theory of that is.

What is that?

That's this Missouri case.

I know, but tell me what it is.

What is it?

What's it about?

A quasi-public housing corporation, a church housing corporation, picked out a piece of land and said they were going to go low-income housing under a federal program.

The city of Blackjack, Missouri, which is a suburb, annexed the land.

And zoned it for park purposes.

They appropriated the city first.

That's right.

It was a special purpose incorporation.

They got the power to zone, and they zoned this land for single family or park or some of that.

So they couldn't build a park.

The housing incorporation has sued the city of Black Jam.

asked the federal government to intervene on the theory that there was a federal question presented and that because the federal government was either insuring or supplementing the ranks that we had a direct involvement.

HUD certified the case over to justice and asked justice to intervene and we put a hold on it.

I would argue that it's still there.

And we get asked about it every three days.

Since the Lackawanna case, I think it could be argued

Because of the multiplicity of these cases, or the conceivable multiplicity of these cases around the country, and we insure literally hundreds of these trial courts, prudence requires that they be tried out at the district court level, trial court level, without federal interference.

That if the trial court makes a finding of fact,

If there is racial discrimination, as it is in the Barack Obama case, then it's competent for the federal government to come in on a civil rights theory as a party to the action.

Until then, it's really a dispute between a landowner and his municipality over the use of his land, which, under any conceivable constitutional construction, is a state and local question.

Now, under those circumstances, then, how do you put to the end?

What do we say about AQD?

Premature.

Premature, because it has to be provided.

should be a training problem aren't they saying that they should each that they asking justice to go into the district court to have a finding made on civil rights theory right well well there is litigation there is already litigation that you say have a finding made let the litigation proceed and let the court make a finding

And the court will either find that the city council and the corporation and all of these things were improper.

Well, there's already a suit.

Yes, sir.

And it's an intervention.

It is.

And the question is intervention, but will the suit require a finding?

of this fact, the illicit fact.

Yes, because that's the theory of the case.

And if there is a finding, the federal government is not intervening.

That would be my point.

What they're trying to do is get the federal government to intervene.

To cause the litigation.

To cause the litigation and also to force the finding.

Well, the finding of, see, there are three indications.

One of their three indications is all with civil rights.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And so you're going to get a finding one way or the other.

I've got a grant housing statement for which I'm trying to move Romney and Mitchell.

That's around this line.

And I'll relay the answers on that.

We're going to be meeting again.

There's just been a court case handed down in review of that.

Lack of law and the California case.

What's the name of the California case?

I don't remember.

All right, here.

I'll figure it out.

A case in California, two recent cases, the Supreme Court had findings here.

We now feel that we have the guidelines from the court as to what our actions should be in the Department of HUD.

Well, it's beginning to shape up.

I don't think you can say we have the guidelines.

We can say that.

Can we say, though, that HUD and Justice will have a joint statement soon?

No, don't promise.

I think what you can say is that in the light of those cases, you have asked HUD and Justice

To reconsider some tentative recommendations that had been made to you.

Yeah, yeah.

And you get that, why you're not going to be in a position to say anything.

Right.

Good, good.

That's a good way to handle it.

James versus Val Tierra.

Val Tierra.

Is that a town?

They were the welfare for people.

Yeah.

Through it.

Well, I'll tell you, I think that's the only way to handle the school cases.

Have you got enough time to do that?

Yes, sir.

I think it's a very important thing.

I don't think it's going to get out.

But I realize the individual cases should be difficult.

I think that the whole problem is as difficult as there is not so much of it.

Is that correct or not?

Well, I'm not sure that's going to be correct, Mr. President, but there are a lot of them.

The NAACP action, the Fifth Circuit, when the Fifth Circuit starts to go on their screw leg, you know, somebody's ruined.

They both carried that on a lot of the cabinet board state advisory people.

Well, there's not as much reaction down there.

There's a lot of despair.

We tried this year.

Maybe we could take the kids out of school.

It would be a shame if that seemed to be coming too closely, because that's what this has never been.

This has been following this cancer.

I don't know if folks want to talk to us about it.

I will see Elmer.

I'm sure he wants to talk about something else.

The main thing is you talked about the cancer, and then just tell me what you want me to say to him about it.

We've got a talking paper there for you that's very detailed.

I'm not going to go look at it.

The long and short of it is

that there is no single matter that has received more attention recently than the best organization forum for this cancer study.

They're a hundred million dollars.

You want to get into this thing and really the choice is do we add a new agency, which he would like to do, or do we work within the department?

We want to work within the department.

That's our consistent philosophy.

But he insists that the department's our old buddy.

Well, no, he's brought a Teddy Kennedy theory that we ought to have some kind of new super agency.

He's been associated with this all for a very long period of time and has become disenchanted with the way research is conducted.

He doesn't believe that it can be done properly under any existing format.

So, therefore, he would like to see a change, an elevation of the priority of the cancer research to be directed both to NIH and an increased access to the secretary and an increased emphasis together with more money

uh, really more than solve the problem.

And it's, uh, using another bureaucracy to try and handle something that isn't really handy.

It's probably going to waste more money and create another problem than it's already got.

It's, uh, meaning beforehand that, uh, we're going to make sure that we find a solution.

Yes, sir.

It's very close.

It's the last one.

It sure does, but I don't think we'll do the job as well, and I feel very, very strongly about that.

It's a matter of how best to do this.

It's an agency approach, and it's a strong feeling against that.

If the job's done any better, we'll only create additional demands if we do the same kind of thing for other organizations.

I'm sure your decision is right in this session.

I know these people that are on every one of the subjects, they always talk about a Los Alamos picture, cancer, for a heart disease.

Everything is so ungrammatically that you have to realize that no, you have to take the truth out of that.

It gets down to that.

I apologize.

I'll say, well, the only efficient way to do it is to do it ungrammatically.

I know a very poor client can do it that way.

It's the only efficient way to do it, but he can't do it.

A little less efficiently, but maybe get considerably more credit to an agency.

We have to think more cosmetically and virtually, as we all know, of course.

Maybe there's a way that you find a name for the damn thing.

A director putting a senior man, getting somebody that a lot of old buddy doesn't.

The things we are doing, we feel it's an addition of a hundred million dollars, which means a great deal to these people.

It is the choice of the director.

I'm talking to a fellow who happened to be on this panel with .

Right.

Several people.

But a man of that caliber, if he could have that kind of a job, he would create the enthusiasm.

Well, we could talk to him perhaps a little about that.

I was reading over your memorandum here with regard to Morton.

That goddamn scoff in Virginia.

I didn't make any problem.

I don't know what the hell he's talking about.

He, of course, is a miserable bastard.

He's dumb.

My cousin.

I know, but God, right?

Say a little church dance.

He may have called us together to look into it or something, but I don't know anything about the dance.

We have spent more time on that day than that.

Give him the goddamn dance.

Let the environmentalists yell.

I don't know if that says something that...

I imagine that he would wrangle his way around and just be somebody else.

He claims he's got the word for me.

On a plane, yeah.

I don't remember it ever being on a plane.

I can't remember it ever being on a plane.

He has a real cross to bear with you.

Yeah.

We're also working on selling this damn highway out there.

It's an interstate highway, but it's just a gas line.

Is there any way that you can keep the department running?

We're just having them run for the Senate.

Oh, that's great.

Against Fong.

Fong.

Scott?

Yeah.

Well, they have a primary there for that.

Yeah.

So you've got to see the fighters go run, or Royale, one of the two.

Yeah.

Good.

That's encouraging to run.

And then beat the hell out of them.

He's really beaten me up on that.

It was him.

He's never called me.

We don't do that.

And Ed, what's your gardener thing here at the school that night?

When you see him, why don't you never come down?

As I told you, as much as we can.

Well,

Of course, what a government does and what individuals do, they separate those two from each other.

But beyond that,

Carrying out the directives of the court, it is best to carry them out as many as previously implied, low-key way, and with cooperation with the people down there.

I guess you're right, it is going to raise all the elements along the way.

It has to help both Richardson and Mitchell learn about it in their departments.

Who made any statement on this would be fired.

I found that you can't really get rid of the guy who made the statement about the infantry traits because he didn't know that it was McCracken who called it.

Well, what happened was that when the men with the traits went up, the border got McCracken and the Bucks simultaneously.

They got Connelly.

McCracken said, well, you know, he was surprised or something like that.

So, of course, the majority would know it.

Did you ever get a hold of Cumberland?

Yes.

I also got Mitchell on the antitrust business.

Well.

He says, of course, the new undersecretary is good.

Well, anyway, you do your best you can.

The main way you can't handle Elmer is to remember that he's a great old man and do a lot of talking.

And say that the President has said in his views that he knows more about this than anybody in the world.

And tell him that he knows how to manage it and this is the best way to do it.

And that the real question is not the organization, but the man.

I said to get the best possible man in the country to give it his head.

The man we're going to select, give it his head.

Right.

Yes, sir.

He'd be a special manager of a special unit.

Well, that's the way it seems.

It's been in our mind, the second grade of mine and so on, for the last two months, and finding that guy has been a very difficult job.

Well, I think you can't take this too far.

Precisely.

Does he like this man, do you think?

He should.

He's worked on the panel with them.

We don't know if we'll find that out this afternoon.

I think that one of the things we can do is say that as we identify, you've got a few others, but you can certainly stay in communication with your folks so that you feel comfortable with perhaps the guy that we're talking to.

I think that should help.

Thank you.

You better have an outside group to sort of talk about cancer.

There he is, everybody.

It's set up by Senator Yarbrough.

We're talking about two kinds of panels that would be advisable to the Secretary, because they have not acquainted with what he's here for today.

I'll see you all in five minutes.

This idea that there must be one voice in the industry in economic matters is really correct, and we have got to stop this.

I was horrified when I heard that.

I think this first comment wasn't his fault because he was told to say that.

He said, it's okay.

He said, no, it should go up.

It should go down.

We cannot have that.

We cannot have two people.

Now, you can say that with Arthur Burns, but you cannot have two people.

If Rogers says something different on Vietnam, and Kissinger says, by God, they both won't leave the administration.

There are no two voices on any of that.

That's the important thing is that we didn't get there for seven right now.

Well, the poor guy wasn't thrown out there.

Yeah, they both blew up.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Yeah, she didn't carry him.

The status has been met on this emergency school aid thing that says there should be no distinction between the jury and the fact of not having been.

And I have to leave the court running.

Court running.

And we must have a law that says there should be no distinction between the purposes of the administration and the...

I don't see no...

Is that Alaska?

No, sir.

That's New York.

That's your park?

No.

There's some bodies.

There's a lot of bodies.

I, uh, if you want to cover this, what do you think you want to cover?

I think I, you've got a good time, Senator.

I'd like to just take another two or three minutes on migration and the Peace Corps and the problem out there.

And I'm glad you were able to do it.

I've been fighting the Peace Corps out there since I was on the committee four years, I mean, you know, four or five years out there.

Now, here's the situation.

I was 275.

They scored people, 123 of them, on full-time teaching skills.

They were accrued, and this is the most different, you know.

Teachers, a lot of teachers were any better than the 123 that we got.

The only thing, I mean, it's $5 a month that we put on full-time teaching skills.

Thank God.

If we cut the thing down by

He made that 183 like we did in the video of trouble when we killed my man in our school.

So what I'd like to do is I'd like to run the school year-round and try out the worst and the radicals and see what we can do.

I'm really able to do that in a whole piece of cold gold now.

I was in front of that one.

I don't know if you can get it now.

I don't know how you can afford it now.

I think we need to take some teacher core people out here.

The history of full-time teachers that we have brought out here over the years, except for a few crusaders, mostly a kind of a man and wife combination that just want the experience.

I went to schools out there where, I mean, it was just, well, the peace guards are a disaster all over the world.

I have been to every country in the world.

There's many.

I have never yet, never, and I have talked to the world leaders in other several countries.

I have never yet heard from the world leaders saying they had anything good about the peace from Calvary.

Well, I never had good, so I've been always against the peace guards, and we haven't had it.

Let me, uh, let me see, like, you know, like, uh, with the, you know, the phasing of that, you know, we all, you know, we all, you know, we all, we all, we all, we all, we all, we all, we all, we all, we all, we all, we all, we all,

And that's why we put it together with the local members of the city.

So they can move it back and forth.

And that's what we've got to do.

We've got to send these kids around the world with a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song and a great song

Rogers, and they're at Peace Corp. That is awful.

They're out.

It is awful.

We've got a huge collection.

Most of us are doctors.

We've got a couple of carpenters.

They have an 18, 30, or 40-pounder.

But you know, the original order was to send 600 out there, and we obviously were asking that he stop that and come down to 500.

And it's now down to, you know, 275, and I'm glad to be involved with that police force.

I think this is a good idea if we can make sure that we don't

confused, an already confused situation.

We don't have a best in the world for an acumation factor.

We look good on paper.

My name's Johnson.

My wife.

Oh, he made it one.

And he's up on the mountain.

He's the former state chairman?

Yes, sir.

Oh, good.

Well, he started running it in a sort of social way.

That's a hell of a job.

I know, I know.

He was the state chairman for Washington.

You see, the status question in my term as president is really going to be determined by how good the administration is.

They're going to go with us.

We built a government employee economy.

We put $60 million a year in money, up from 33 years.

And just like London, the corporate trade out there is about a million and a half, and that's the fall issue, and so far it became an issue.

The job that is done with that $60 million, in my opinion, is going to have more influence on the determination of status out there than any other one would think.

The way of politics out there, in my opinion, is through the $60 million channel, through the administrative field.

You want all out to the micronesians in these district offices or district administrators.

That's been the policy.

We're all one, not one micronesian.

of the six districts, five being like me.

And I said, three of them are, hey, pretty much with us.

The other two, I'm worried about.

And the other fellow is getting toward retirement.

He's going to retire out.

So I'll get a chance to .

I'm not too sure .

It's a fragmented situation because the Mariana group would like to marry up with Guam.

They had a long time with some enemies with the Palau group.

The truck people, a lot of them working on a lot of the Mariana, they have Mariana relatives and that's a pretty good deal.

But when you're dealing with the Marshalls and the Palau and the Gap history, you're dealing with entirely separate volumes.

And I think the thing we ought to do is really educate him.

And I think he's got to get his marching orders to work very closely with our administration, to work with us, rather than go independently to the Congress or independently to the State Congress.

And that's where we, well, we just want to make sure that the first portal we can get is at least about the way that we're going to go and how we're going to handle that.

And that will kind of get the thing back on track.

This thing is pretty important, in my opinion, I'm sure, as a strategic plan.

If you want to have more, you've got to have that thing just the way you want it.

Well, I just want to tell you, you're on top of it.

You're going to stay on top of it.

Pipeline.

Schedule on the pipeline.

We ought to be ready by no later than the middle of September to issue the permit.

The thing I think we have to do

This is one of the things that I'm not able to corroborate on other departments.

We've got to sell the country on the need for this oil and energy.

I think we've got to make a better case for it.

We've got to consolidate our position.

We've got every department in this city of Washington dealing with energy.

I've got to start making a case for it subtly and more directly so that the politics of this thing is not going to go too much after.

I think we can sell the young people and the public on the need for this Alaskan oil.

If we have an organized program, we started on the 1st of September.

We're beginning to do this.

I started doing this at the University of Southern California last week.

It went on.

And I think that got built before we were working on developing kind of an oil white paper, energy white paper that

the general public can understand.

I think that just start circulating this and building this world.

That's such a big thing.

And so far, the public has done it all.

The crack is like the people in Alaska.

They're making all the music.

They make all the music.

They want to do a very big thing, but they've got to do it.

I think what we've got to do, John, I really believe, is we can make a good case for it.

We can make a pretty good case for it with the conservationists and all those people who do it.

We've still got a commitment now to get it this way in June.

I'm going to give a few, there'll be a first four of them in 1901.

And you're going to have a...

We have the actual oil company in here this morning.

Oh, and they were, they're helping 13 other oil companies, you know, go through 10 of them down in McKenzie Valley.

Of course, I told them that this got out of my favor.

Their application, I didn't see any application.

The thing that I do want to see

I want to make sure that we've got as good a case as we can.

Because undoubtedly, this thing will finally be resolved in the courts.

And we don't have a good case for that.

And we have one thing on the front paper.

Let's be sure that it jives with what eventually we're going to come out with as an administration.

Oh, so I think we're going to have to do that.

We may have to take just a little risk.

and be a more of a supply side of it.

I think we're passing around something, something that's public and understanding, something that can be a... Just be sure, just be sure.

We understand what you're saying.

Your PR program is not something that will fit in with our energy statement.

I don't think that's problematic.

All the energy statement says in effect is, look, boy, we're going to need oil.

Period.

And we're going to need atomic energy.

Period.

And we're going to have to have a generation of oil before we can have the free-for-all.

Sure, sure, sure, sure.

All right, I think the case is made.

The main thing is to ensure that we think about it.

The point of the answer is that you put your energy state around it.

At this moment, we don't have a statement just on the subject of Alaska.

The question really is, should the president be saying,

about a month or so before the case is really made, fine for the last quarter.

Well, I think it's got to happen.

I don't think he has to go that far.

I think he has to say we've got to have more domestic law.

Let us take the hearing of where it's coming from.

Right.

That's the way it is right now.

Let us find it.

Yeah, let us find the domestic law.

I think he's going to say it right now.

Yes, sir.

We're all part of this.

We've got a program, but I think it will work.

And it follows the suspension of 35 leases.

It doesn't answer all the questions, but it protects that area.

And this is going to go there.

The joker in this thing is that this is going to be funded through a facet through marketing from the Elk Hills Naval Reserve.

With that money, we will fund this based on the price tag put off by the courts.

And the second thing we will do, we will allow them, we will have the Navy use some of that money for the further development of that operation.

And before and last of them, it will be a good thing for them in developing the actual dimensions of that material.

It might get us through the House of Senate.

Last year, we got shot down by the Armed Services.

I think this is real politics.

I think if we don't do this, we're up against a ton of issues, permits.

I think this will go hard against the administration in a pretty big chunk of California.

I think we'll be in trouble with the Los Angeles Times, and I think we ought to come out strong for this, and I hope we can get the pressure from the White House on the armed services in the Navy later.

uh, to go with this, and I believe that, I mean, on this map, we've got a bill on the hill.

On the hill, you've seen the, they've greased all the skids on the interior side, and now we've got to work with the Department of Service to approve it, and of course, they've got to hold it on this view.

And that's important.

So, you know, our other plan has been happening since the day before the trade.

We've been asked about the idea to help the government under this new government there.

We've all been fighting with the country.

Well, I'm going to talk to you.

Another point the Secretary might make is, you know, they're always fond of it in California, so we would say, here's a case where the state, the federal and the state, come together and make one major entity.

What is it?

Environment.

Here's a four-state item.

So we don't interfere at all with the production of a billion barrels of oil right here.

We'll go ahead and develop this part of the channel.

We'll go ahead and continue to pump oil out of the material area.

And nobody knows how it all was in here.

And one of the reasons is that it came back from a dry hole.

So when we go sweep this up from the environmental point of view about the techniques, I don't put your, they don't know what you need to do.

You know what they need to do.

All right, Dr. Well, it's, I'll end up down here at the short tail of the

You've got one thing in the statement that's got boys down in Southern California uptight and a little bit of ads on how to proceed.

In the statement that I was saying about the provision of the beach

But then, you have said in the statement, another 300, 3,400 acres of undeveloped land lying back on Highway 101 in San Jose, that the base will also be made available either for public bodies or for public sale.

Now, the concern that they have down here is that, as you know, there's so little land available for open space that this will be made available for public sale if it doesn't develop a chain.

I don't think that would be the case.

I'll tell you how that came up.

I was asking the press conference what would happen if this were accessed and the state and the county and the city

decline to pick it up and i said well then under the statute it goes on the block for the order of sale but if they pick it up they get it but uh i understand they get the first choice out from all the information that i've had that the state of california intends to pick it up

Well, I think what we ought to do for the president's sake and the colonies and labor, I believe what we ought to do is develop that program and get it out so that, uh, be in him.

You know, this, uh, the recreation guy in California, Mon, Mon, yeah, he's been making statements that, uh, they've taken.

Well, I think I just want to make sure that because it's close to you, I want to make sure we're going to move on to try to get them to maybe not only do this, but to get it sort of locked up so that the administration is on record.

of intent to provide it for recreational issues not relevant.

Anything you can do to say we'll pick it up or anything like that.

You can do that appeal and that would seal the whole bargain.

We ought to be able to take an alternative and develop a plan.

in case they can, or development as a national recreation area or something like that, or an area that we then could later turn over to the state.

We get into a new mechanism there that I won't talk about here.

One of my little inheritances was Gateway East and Gateway West.

And a lot of, an awful lot of publicity had been developed on this gateway.

We have modified this plane.

I'm just getting highlights.

And I cut about $60 million out of the original proposal.

We have tried to get through over here, and they take a pretty dim view of it.

And the present plan, as it's shown on the chart there, would have a land acquisition of $27 million, development of 71, and an operation of $3.4 million a year without that subsidizing disparity.

That ferry that goes across there and connects the two and also subsidizing the subways to get the inner city people out.

Now this concept has been so filled with it in the frame of reference of your parts of the people.

I have in mind now to try to make it fly.

to see if we can't set it up and develop a trigger mechanism here where we develop it, we get it set up, and then in some way turn it over to the state or to the Port Authority or to the Joint Park Authority, if that's the way to go.

I personally feel that these two projects, called the New York

I don't think New Jersey is one that's important.

And I think we're so far into this thing that we might get tickled off, though, and prove badly if we don't move.

Let's understand .

Well, somebody said, you want to make that statement.

Well, I tell you, this guy said, we built the Corps within New York.

It's a very tough proposition.

What else are we going to do?

Well, I'm more important than Mr. President.

Well, I think you're right.

I don't think so.

What I want you to do is let me talk to John Irwin about this.

about this thing, so we can take another shot at it over there.

I think that they should shoot this thing down.

You're having all that big trouble?

We're having terrible, big trouble.

I mean, we've reduced the thing now to a bare minimum.

Well, are we doing anything in the park, Terry?

I made a big announcement about the park.

What have you done?

Well, I don't think we're going to work on it.

We'll have a statement tomorrow.

We're not doing as much as you think we're going to.

We're going to have a little park and something about the auto center.

Yeah, it is, yeah.

Was that really in the middle of the 1978?

No.

Oh, God.

Yeah.

But this thing is a difficult space, it may sound like, for you.

Well, this one isn't.

I know.

This is Fort Hancock.

This is the Floyd Bennett Field here.

And over here, that's an old sanctuary.

Well, that and the other thing is there's a real fish and wildlife.

There's a real thing there in the bay.

or in Jamaica Bay.

This thing's got a lot of readout all the way across the country politically, and I just think we ought to really do it.

I think we can make New York pick up the subsidy of the subway, get these people there.

I think the Port Authority can be ukered into operating this ferry, but I believe this is one hell of a thing for Mr. Nixon.

Well, I don't think it's a great thing for anyone.

Where do they go?

They've gotten the prices in the proper order.

Well, I've gotten the prices in an OMB order once.

Yes, sir.

Is it an OMB problem then, John?

Well, it's an OMB problem, but it's a good problem.

What's the precedent is set for other ones.

But that's the other part, is when did the feds get out here?

Well, we may not be talking about one in the West Folsom.

Yes, sir, here it is.

It's got Reagan.

Just happened to have it.

And this, you're familiar with the Gates area well enough, so I don't have to go on out here, but this is a Jim Danney.

And this provides for no takeover of the Presidio, no move out of the military.

Only as they move out and the land becomes no longer available.

Some of it is now.

And this gives you a real, real shock.

This whole area of land up here, Mr. President, that is enclosed and driven, is now being purchased by the Nature Conservancy.

And we don't want to say anything about it because we don't want to upset their price.

If we can do this, then this will be available then, and we don't really have one here.

You know, I'm really very strong on that.

In one place where I think you went, your predecessor went over to Florida.

This is where the Supreme Leader is, Florida.

Down there and at every place.

He's taken over so goddamn much of that property that it's all useless.

Well, I think you could probably let some of it be developed.

That's done now.

Well, that's their property.

But what I mean is, that was so far away, you don't know why they're bringing it down there.

Down here, this part of that is right where the folks are.

And 10% of the people are United States, Mr. President.

And live within a few hours drive of this.

And you can say that almost 10% live within two hours.

You see, people from L.A. wouldn't even come up to that party.

Boy, this thing is so hot politically with the confirmation that he's going to.

Well, I said at the rate of speed.

It's not a question of time.

But the point is, Mr. President, this one is hot-charged and this one's hot-charged.

And I think we ought to go with them.

And when we're not talking about that much money, why can't you?

It's a beer.

Well, now, let's find out.

We haven't done a goddamn thing on these parks yet, so let's do something.

The only thing we've done is, as I said, only two things we've done.

One is build buildings down to get that beach in San Sean and San Clemente.

Now, let's seriously look at these parks.

It's a problem.

I read the memorandum, and it said to me that it was an international problem.

We've changed it.

We've got a simple $98 million money problem.

Real problem.

That's the problem.

Now, you don't have to come up with that money all of a sudden, do you?

No, I didn't.

I'll tell you what I'm going to do.

All I want to do is give them a green light.

I'm going to go up there and have a big secretary.

I'm going to have a meeting of the head of state.

I'm going to order the New York Times.

I'm going to have a plan.

Everybody can just sell bombs.

Well, over a period of time, we can swing a little.

You don't have to move on the west one as fast as you do here.

We're going to announce them both.

You know, you might have a little, if you want to do something, you might want to set a deal where we stop at a deal, a 40-minute deal.

Great.

Chop off a little bit.

The land acquisition area is $27,800,000 a year.

And it's a question of getting in here and getting Fort Hancock involved in it.

A lot of it is federal property now.

But $71 million of development costs certainly can be spread over 10 years.

And I just think that we can, I think that we just ought to do this.

This is going to be a good thing for the people here.

It's going to be a great, it's going to let you start a thing of guys like Cora.

Let me just add, if you've got $27,800 in your fund, I got it.

Yeah, sure.

I got that, but I don't know how much of it we got.

There's that in there.

It's full funded at $300 million.

I've got to check and see.

But this is the question.

and getting it through there.

Well, if we get an agreement in principle, then we can sit down with Weinberger and the boys and start talking this through.

But John must know what their feeling is.

Where are we hung up on that?

We're hung up on the question of once we get out of the Fed's game, do we ever get out?

Or does that become the federal park?

The other question is, there were about 14 of these in the

But I don't really worry about that.

Let me ask a question.

Why not make it a federal park?

That's what I want.

That's right.

You better worry me a bit.

Is that bad, gentlemen?

I think it's bad for the homeowner.

Oh, we've got a federal park right next to it.

We've got a mansion and seashore up here.

Then it'll never be done.

The point is, if we screw around here about the whole thing, it's a bad principle, so we'll probably never do it again.

I think a lot of us got our neck out on this.

I think we can get money.

I think we can sell it.

And sell some of our own children.

Ha, ha, ha.

Yes, sir.

It's a good plan.

I'm going up there again.

I've been up there once.

I've been to most of the area here, and we had an argument here about Kennedy expanding in this way.

That's been settled.

And now I'm going up to look at this part of it.

I've had meetings with the New York Park people.

And I think it's a natural.

I really do.

I think it's a good park.

And I think it's an exciting thing, and I think it'd be good to have a federal government next to a bunch of these crews in the Park Service.

You know, we've got a federal close-in park out here at Great Falls, you know, that you run.

That's like a county park.

Oh, we've got a lot of that.

Take our national seashore, take Cassiopeia, take Point Reyes, take any of those high density.

We have three and a half million visitors to it.

This thing might be, we get into the user field, it's too complicated going all over.

But what I'm saying is this thing ought not be scrapped.

I just want to make sure.

All right.

All right, Paul, Shay, what's the money in California?

We just put a bunch of money in there.

I made a contract yesterday with Orange County on the desalination plan.

They put up $3.5 million.

This is a tough one for us, but I think there are some areas where we can put money in every time.

Well, we got some of that kind of money, and I want to get Bill now, Mr. President, to talk a little bit about oil shale, because I think this summer, when we go to Denver, I believe we're going to be able to come up with an oil shale program that's going to do us hella good.

So, John, let me say this, that any discussion I have had on the Greeter reactor is out the window, unless it goes to Southern California.

There ain't gonna be no vector of fish.

That's my name.

I don't care what it is.

I don't know where it is going to be in Southern California.

The whole goddamn thing.

Everything.

Nothing in Texas, nothing in New York, nothing in New Jersey, nothing on Southern California.

That's where it's downstream because that's where it all begins.

It's a nice place, and the people apparently are not afraid of the planet blowing up as much as they are in New York.

We'll have to do a earthquake study, but I'll make sure that we continue.

Well, we already have one right there.

We've got a reactor in San Guadalcanal, within a mile from where I live.

Well, and they're ruining one that's starting to form.

That doesn't have any pulse now.

I think we're good to go for the end.

We've got some pretty exciting developments in the oil field.

The oil field?

I've heard about oil shale.

And the damn thing just doesn't work.

I once represented a client in New York who was in oil shale.

He was broke.

He ran up about several thousand dollars worth of time in the firm, and he never could pay the bill because he said so.

No, I know it's great.

Now, we've got a problem with his oil portfolio.

Give us a couple of minutes.

Most of this is out, incidentally, in Colorado and Wyoming.

That's not bad.

It is something for those people.

If you were to develop an industry by itself, I don't think you can make it work in 10 years.

But there are some people in the central part of the basin

This is a byproduct of what you would get out of the oil field at home.

I think it's one of the processes that will help reduce cancer.

There are other products, such as balsamite, which is an aluminum source of minerals, which represents, in a full development, something like 20% of our national needs.

These are here.

They're a natural reserve.

Therefore, the sodium, salt, carbonate, and lead, along with oil and shale, are very useful in one package.

It's like sending a kid to the market and using all the wheels and everything.

We've got to do our best to make it work.

We can't do it because we don't have the energy that you're talking about.

We've done some things we feel incentive.

We want to get it all in one major program where we'll have a leasing program and offer a right preference, right lease to give to patients.

reshaping of the boundary lines of the meets and bounds of old established areas with the federal so we'll have a chance to settle the economy and make this a future development program at the start.

But I don't think the secretary can do this unless he has some key to open the door, and that is to develop this energy lead for the country on the shoreline.

Now, let me ask this.

You work in the Senate Department of State.

I've worked with it, yes, and I've been .

Remember I asked about it on the show when we were in the meeting and everybody said it was far away.

You know, I think we're all in agreement.

I don't know if the program reflects an environmental fact for doing it, but I think we're all in agreement.

We can offset that out there.

That's what this stuff's going to do to these facts.

That's part of what I said.

Well, it's going to reduce the security.

They're all going to claim that they can reduce the salt by 100%.

But I love that there's nothing much I can do about it.

By putting him to the...

knock-a-lite into the stack of power companies of coal burners where they find the knock-a-lite out there.

The knock-a-lite is part of the oil shale.

It's liquid.

It's in layers.

So why would it come for the thing when you break it down to that big chunk?

And so knock-a-lite then is the method for producing a green market with products out of the shale.

You've got the knock-a-lite, you've got the aluminum oxide, you've got the oil.

You know, you're becoming a damn expert now.

I understand, I understand.

But then what's the delay here then, John?

What's that?

It's an enormous delay, isn't it?

Oh, but on oil shale, I had a recollection, gentlemen, oil shale is when we ask about the energy poles, when George Trump was in.

I'll tell you a guy that was sent years ago, coming to heart to some of the, you know, often thought about the good supporters and friends of ours.

He has a problem with all the ones he has stood on.

He once told me about this.

You know what he said?

He said, this is fantastic.

He's 10 years in general.

He has to be worthy of this.

Thank you.

Billions of reserves.

Fantastic, right?

But hard to get out.

The real key is this, that in the richest part of the basin, there's going to be a heavy edging of the basin and a couple of strips on that stream.

We're going to lease out the Riches Park Basin and knock them out of the ballpark.

And they'd like to have some master program which would protect their investment if we do a VC program.

If they do all of this above their working investment.

I hear what security they're going to have if we hold the Riches Park and then we let it go.

So this is basically why the holdup.

And I think the Secretary's plan is to wrap this all in one big package and set it up as one unit effort.

When I'm on the environment, I don't really want to be on there.

I don't want to be on there.

Well, there are ways to have them, by the way.

You know, these are an animal.

I don't want to be.

I don't want to be a big environmental problem, really.

I think we've got a predatory problem.

We're not going to work this out.

We're going to kill them all with cottages and stuff like that.

It's got to be honest.

People remember, I would say, what the hell is a coyote?

He's got an orange in his ear.

I would tell you what's going on.

Every time he kills a coyote, I get held some dinner for him.

Yeah, I'll tell you what you do.

You know what, John?

Yeah, what's that crow?

I used to live in California.

I know you're busy, but I've got one more thing to ask you.

I've been asked by the Chamber of Commerce and National

That's a good conversation.

I spoke there.

Oh, you know you did.

And I'm going to be up there from the time you're around.

I have a lot of good company speaking around here.

What time?

It's going to be in May this year.

I just wanted to let you know that I was going to do it.

Because I think it's a time when we really are

Let me say a couple of things.

I'm sure to have your voice checked.

National is my recollection.

It's the home of the great, great line, Landry, quarterback.

Landry was there the day I was there.

I think that's correct.

At least they all know that.

He's a graduate of the University of New Hampshire.

He's the future of the United States of America.

But also, the nature was very prosperous.

The third thing about what you're going to say is that I think that you can

Maybe.

We're kind of kicking her off.

Maybe.

Yeah, that's right.

We're kicking her off.

That's the point.

I'll tell you what I'd like to do.

All right, John, have the liquor.

Have, uh, ask if you can, if you can, with Dean and I, like, or Ray Cross.

I think what you need is, in order to make movies, you've got to get them a little bit better.

I think it's going to be a pretty good press.

The point is that they're going to get some approval as you come down to it.

Everybody up there is going to get a lot of fun out of it.

The main thing is, I don't think you can go unless, I don't think your speech should avoid

And we should have a strong plan.

By God, we've done a hell of a job here.

And I'm going to say when the president was campaigning, there were 540,000 Americans, 300 at least, that were being killed.

And now we are seeking our collection.

And where were those others?

Where were those other men?

I had cracked them hard.

Where were these people that are now going to visit you?

Ask them where they were.

Where were they in 1968?

When I was calling them, you remember I used to, it was up in New Hampshire that I said, we should have, we should implement a plan to end the war, to end the peace.

We have done that.

They were angry.

What the hell did they do?

The West Illinois idea of that, that I could go on, however, is a positive thing.

But remember, part of that, in that state, is a more conservative state.

Hampshire is a much more conservative state to be on, and the Republicans are particularly conservative.

The point is whether I should do that, which I was planning to across the board, you know,

and all the rest, I don't know whether I should stay in the more narrow channels of my apartment.

I think I should take advantage of the banner always because it's really cool.

Listen, let me tell you this.

They'll be delighted to have you in any event.

They're lucky to have you.

They'd be lucky to have you.

You just talked about Gateway East and Gateway West on a round talk.

But I can tell you that they will be far more delighted.

When they see you, they're your politicians.

They want to hear you get up there.

They're there for a little resume.

Now, oh, wait a minute.

This chamber's gone.

Yes, sir.

I can take it all back.

I would then do it, not in partisan terms, not in Democratic or Republican terms, of course, but in those cases.

I would do it in very positive terms, and he would do very well, say, here's what we did, here's what we find, we're proud of it, and the people of this state told it to this man, and by God, they have been proven to be right.

And I would, in very positive terms, I wouldn't make any of that, I wouldn't take them on.

I think I'd take them on.

I think I would say, and I'll do it beyond humor, I would say that those critics,

But I say that those critics, those who criticize, wherever they may be, very beyond parties, if not parties, let them say, where the hell were they?

Why didn't they do something and they had a chance at it?

Those are the guys who want to criticize.

I think we can get some good blacks in there.

I'm not worried about gray.

I think two of us have been on a very positive note on all the other things.

The other thing, they're good.

Too much time talking because they're writing off things.

The idea that when I was in New Hampshire, I said that we treat this as one country.

When I was in Florida, I said we treat this as one country.

I mean, we aren't writing it off, but look, we didn't write that damn course that Navy on it.

as poor as maybe you are in the world, we definitely don't have any major problems with that.

But the main thing is that we consider this one country, we consider this a vital part of the country, this administration is deeply interested in the province of New Hampshire, and so forth.

The President always mentions this, that whether it's New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and so forth, that we're treating them as one country, which is very important.

That would be a very good thing.

New England, which is not to be recognized, no part of this country can be recognized.

No part of the population of this country can be recognized.

In other words, there must not be racial minorities, religious minorities, geographical minorities.

In this country, we represent all the people, and a little of that is good.

That would be great in the end.

They like to think they're part of the country, but they're not a part of it.

The one thing I obviously do know is that we haven't been there in the last few years.

I can't find anybody that's against the Department of Natural Resources.

They're all against it.

You boil it right down, and you boil it down the programs, and you boil it down.

I believe this thing is going to better change what I'm going through.

Your department is the one who got to it.

You know I work all the deal over that stuff.

You've got even a hundred fans in your damn department.

We need to create a reactor out of it.

Right.

For me, right.

We need that.

But anyway, that's the other thing.

No, seriously though, could I rate one and one at home here?

John, we have got to do something.

I don't know what we can do.

We've got to do something.

I don't know if we're going to have more money.

But Bob and Bennett both hit me hard against the end of the army.

My point is, isn't there a way that we can withhold from the bastards and let some of our friends have them?

Or is there any way we can get at this thing?

There are those who believe, or as may have cost us the SSP, you know, they can fight two or three votes.

Now, I think the problem is more seriously if you feel like, if you fail to feel like, the average congressman, senator, or borough, you know, certainly had lost it in the House.

It may not have worked in the Senate, but I believe if those then, when you find six out of the 11 so-called leaders on the Republican side of the House, and on this, on other issues, they're going to do pretty good, but six out of the 11 votes against that system, and you look down the line and found out why the environment doesn't work, well, there's probably going to be some compound project there.

I've got a little dam, and I've got some of the dams in the Senate.

I don't know.

I suppose you kicked us around a lot.

You kicked it very hard.

Yes, there is a money problem.

Well, that's of course it.

And we have tried to infuse OMB with a political sense.

that didn't have the time that they put this on.

When you had a series of meetings today, well, they did it with the best motives.

Well, there were mixed reasons.

Part of this was not freeze.

Part of it was a combination of the debt seemingly not being increased and the spending limitations.

Those, those I accept.

And Weinberger was confusing those mayors with that company.

Well, I know what I'm doing.

Appropriation.

And all of that accounted for maybe $812,000.

But, frankly, that was $3 or $4 million a week.

Well, simply because they exceeded the budget.

And see, we're in an absent posture in this fiscal year anyway.

They're trying to hold the brakes on, keep these departments, and spend them at those so that we won't be too far out of whack for fiscal 71.

And so they've got the clamps on them.

Now, until July 1st.

Now, they've done this.

They've said, if you fellas in the department will hold out until July 1st, July 2nd, we'll let you spend here, we'll let you spend there, and the other ones.

And what they're trying to do is end up on the end of June with a fairly decent number for it.

And that's what they're supposed to do.

Now, at the same time, we've got a decent number for the fiscal 71.5.

And any number we get is going to be bad.

Well, it'll be bad, but it's bad, bad, or worse, you know.

And so the question is, where do you want it to be?

So what we've done is to go through a little sensitivity training with the budget guys and say, look, Southern California, you're going to have to go now.

Some of these different places in the country, you've got to help our branch.

You've got to let up on Romney's housing thing.

You've got to do this and that to keep the economy going.

And so we have shaken some money loose, but

It's a legitimate argument that they make, that they cannot just take their rats off and are they going to stay in any way they want at this point, even though it's appropriated, because they can show you that they're going to run some very big fat debts that ought not to be run.

And that's really what the conversation's all about.

They've got a case.

They say, hell, we're not withholding as much as Johnson did, per se.

We're not, you know, it's a bum rap, but the funny is that some damn smart guy had this idea, I've got a hold of this.

And he did a beautiful job, a really first grade job.

And they had come with this thing called

Now, I think all of us here, we passed the word long ago, anybody who's out talking to the media, get this out, that we're not withholding, that it's a Congress's fault, that we're not holding the thing up, that we've gone up 25% a year on money for the cities, and we're cranking this line out every chance we get.

But, hell, they've beaten us 15 ways in price on the PR side.

There's no question about it.

But they've got themselves kind of all in a real tight position with three or four of these guys.

There are little things where they've crossed.

I think if we can just get through July, I think we're all right.

I think we really are.

I got a bunch of this more related by the reclamation guards.

And I think you have a problem with people like Russell Long.

I mean, the guy who said it was important policy.

And for God's sakes, can't we

and just quit putting money into some of these things.

And Romney doesn't, he doesn't, well, the guy he raised was Al Seedler, and he raised them in the back.

They held a lot of housing on them, and because they go there, they, but a lot of them, where they could choose, are going to left-wing Democrats who kick our balls on them.

You're wrong.

I'm wrong.

See, we've gone into this right over and over and over.

As a general proposition, we landed on it without talking about individual districts, but we said it's important to us to get housing standards up.

In the spring, now, we're on the building center, and we just kicked the hell out of all the people.

They finally shook loose with some money for housing standards before we lost the season.

And it probably went to everyone as far as that's concerned.

I don't know of anybody that has, that has been complaining about not getting any timing.

It may be that he's complaining about what we don't know.

Still, it's worth sending, sending a guy down to talk to him.

Is he a bird?

He's a decent man.

He wasn't a he.

It doesn't mean that he, you're never going to lose his boat without being pulled for it.

So, whatever happens.

But on the other hand, it may be that he's got something.

The other thing I think is that, sorry, I got it.

I know, I know it has to be done, but I, I just, just trusted it to be done.

What is it that Johnson would tell us?

But as Russell Long said, I know what Johnson did.

But Johnson did it in quite a way.

He said, you've got to do it with someone who's looking out the right door.

He's got to do it with someone who's looking out the right door.

We do not have enough bullet bulletin board in L.A. Bay.

And, alright, let's get it.

We're working on it.

And, uh, we've got 12.

And they've got a good man named Bill Gifford.

Oh, fine.

We've got to get Bill around to a position where he can call some of these shots.

Because Bill knows the way to win the war.

And it's a matter of working with George, getting him to understand the importance of what George and Katz did.

Katz is all right, but Katz, he got his thing set to say no.

And that's all he said.

Well, then I got to get him in and say, I didn't give a damn about the budget.

Well, I think they feel that they're doing what you expect them to.

I know, I know.

They are not.

Because I do not think the present problem, John, so you know what I mean.

I understand.

I always lean in the direction about when they came in with the idea of what you do with Social Security.

Well, OMB and the council said, no, no, take the bite out this year.

I said, hell no, take it out next year.

Well, it's like Chippewa, you know, you build a great public.

And it did everything, but it doesn't have a heart.

And we've kind of done that with OMB a little bit.

We've got a very efficient operation.

You raise a strong line of great concern.

And it's eventually pointing us against Trump.

We're trying to...

Yeah, we're moving on.

You can say whatever you want.

Now, let me say one other thing you didn't bring up that I want to tell you.

That nut Scott over here in Virginia, I never told him to have a damn, damn, damn, damn, damn, damn, damn, damn, damn, damn, damn.

I don't even remember any.

You know Scott.

We didn't run it next time.

Why not?

Whatever he does, whatever he does, fine.

Just to be sure that my part is the difference.

Now, I know it's an environmental problem, but doesn't it say, oh, yeah, it's a good project?

Here we go, Chuck.

You're going to be a liar if everybody just says that, sir.

I can't help it.

She's got a Bill Shirley bellyacre down there.

Harlem 10 to 9.

The wall said to him, the president said, you can have your damn dam without saying the first damn dam.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You said, and you didn't remember, but you said, don't give us any trouble, so let him have his day.

He said, no.

It was half a sentence, and the D.O.R.

and Secretary of Defense put out a new report.

That's my, I didn't know it was coming.

It said you shouldn't have the day.

It was God's fault.

He asked, what the hell's going on?

The President said, you have your day.

There's a secretary with his face hanging out, and he'll have to eat crow on his own report before we'll have to tell Scott that you're alive.

Now, I can't put it any more bluntly, but that's where he was.

Why did you ever get him in that damn office?

I don't believe old man Smith did it.

Well, look at me.

I am trying to... Well, sir, I'm going to... Why do you have no question?

Why do we change in Scott's mind?

He may not want that band as much as he...

He wants something else, rather.

He wants to try to be 66.

Well, maybe get down to 66.

Well, I'm sure he'll be a plan.

Well, I'm afraid not.

I'm afraid not.

Thank you.