Conversation 454-004

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Let's go back in the middle.

Let's come in and stare down here.

I'd like to have attention.

That's the cost.

It was, but we can move it around a bit.

Here we are.

I can sit here.

Art can sit here.

Let's see.

Well, I got into a little trouble on revenue sharing.

Federal Realtors Association for the Post-Racism Initiative.

Oh, yeah.

I didn't know they were talking about 500 young men.

He's insolvent.

This is our first.

I don't know.

What's the matter with you?

Is it that I'm more than capable of keeping an eye on you?

Keep it an eye on you, or I'll have to arrest you.

Thank you.

Huh?

Mister, why did you cut Sarah out of the first job?

There might have been a little Sarah in the middle of the meeting, but it's not that bad.

Huh?

Uh huh.

You were there.

You heard me.

We'll start you playing, and I'll let you know when you're done.

Oh, I know you all.

I just wanted to have a question for you guys.

You know, I actually really had another date on the phone.

I had an hour and a half worth of stuff.

That was in the beginning of the week, and I didn't know what to do anymore.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

What do you think of that 92-year-old?

Anybody see him?

Wasn't he great?

Did you see his grandchild?

No, great-grandchild.

He was a great-grandchild, and they were just starting to see him.

I thought, you know, when I thought of my aunt, I had all the tools.

So I went to Africa.

I thought that was as old as anybody who's ever done that kind of work.

She did Quaker and all that sort of thing.

Here comes a 92-year-old man.

who is a brick maker.

And he can make up to 3,000 bricks a day.

Makes 3,000 bricks a day.

He said when he was younger he could make 5,000 a day.

I don't think he's ever even knew anybody.

to teach the natives how to make bricks.

See, this is something that we don't need in our country.

They're not even commercial.

But he's like, I'm going to teach the natives how to make bricks and build from the day they go to church, say, or whatever it is.

And he's 92 years old.

He owns all the decorations, but he probably made them.

He's a toller.

He's a monarch.

He's a sailor.

Boy, has he ever said what he is?

This is why they thought he got the job.

That's it, somebody saw him.

It's probably one of those shows, What Was Your Line?

It was one of the Trevor Cole pieces on the real deal.

Oh, yeah.

Quick walk over to Miami.

Miami.

Coming back, I'll have you interviewed.

She's my mother's youngest sister.

She's a rather remarkable gang.

Thank you.

I think it would be well

At the outset, perhaps, Paul, if you would take a moment, you don't have to set the stage.

what the Quadrant does, and so forth.

I mean, of course, John knows, I'm sure, I think as well.

We have a track, we have a Quadrant, and how its meetings are called, and so forth, and so on.

Can you take a moment on that subject?

Sure.

And how long has it been set up?

I mean, I don't even know how long we've had a Quadrant.

How long has it already been set up?

Did we have a Quadrant?

Yes.

Well, it was a Quadrant at the time.

Well, uh, you know, the, uh, no, he didn't.

But, you know, I didn't.

The term of the Federal Reserve report was about to come.

Well, that came in the latter years of the Eisenhower administration.

It was very amorphous, and they just sort of, like, tossed it in this thing and came together.

I never heard of it.

In the whole eight years, I've already never heard of the organization.

We weren't intellectuals in the eyes of our administration.

We just looked at the world.

Even while you were chairman of the council, you were intellectual.

And I had an act like the rest of the council.

Well, then the quadriad then, the quadriad meets, as I understand it, it meets not on a regular basis, but at any time where any member of the support body, if I, for example, you suggested a meeting, the Secretary of the Treasury suggested a meeting, I can't, I can't, as far as Arthur in his sentence is concerned, he can't say, I think it's a good idea to do it, but that you have your ear offices and that sort of thing.

You let me know all the time.

I'd like to spend a minute and maybe after this is going to be an outset as to how we ought to do this to get you to the extent that we should.

I mean, if you would want to be more, if you would want to be greater, more often than this, I am available, you know.

of what you all think is the best thing to do.

It might be at this time that John is coming forward, that meeting a little bit, that meeting more often, so to get on track with everybody might be a good idea.

So let's have that as the first segment for discussion.

What do you think about that, Larry?

I'm excited.

I'm excited to hear you talk to me.

It's certain I didn't really make the class of you last week.

Why me?

I ain't gonna be passing through a difficult period, too.

It's a trap.

Why?

I'm careful.

You've got to maintain a flexible position.

And with all candor, some of your White House staff will reach you in and help you.

I tried to help you today with my testimony, but I didn't grab your share of it.

Where'd you testify?

You don't even know me, do you?

I beat the hell out of him.

He was there too mad, and all of that was next to be honest.

But he came out a fresh man, and I came watching over you in decline.

Well, let me say this.

We're going to call through your office for a meeting if that's necessary.

And for me, frankly, the best time is about 5 o'clock.

That's all right with the rest of you.

I think we can meet later today.

And that means we can do all of our committees and the rest of the tick-tocks.

That's not our idea, Senator.

What do you think George is speaking about right now?

Yeah, so I don't know that we need to take your time each week.

I think we should meet ourselves and then meet with you.

Let's put it this way.

The future of this economy depends upon my view of this room.

But that cannot be accomplished simply by...

It has to be a long version of that.

All these things have got to work together.

And I think that, therefore, we need to slow down.

And one thing that has to come out of our heads is, of course, this is one person that has nothing else left to report.

It's one of the reasons we don't have any arguments.

Because, and I want everybody, I'd like everybody that's dealing in this meeting to kick up an idea.

But it's not with Bob and I talking to the record.

We don't, it's a matter of that meeting here.

So that's a, it's a good, it's a healthy thing for me to see to have some, some place where I can sort of cast it to where you can too.

But I want you both to speak that way in these meetings.

Mr. President, there's a problem, you know, I think you ought to be aware of in these meetings.

We now have a new council on volume policy.

Now, I talked to Peterson on this.

I don't see how we can discuss sensitive questions of international, with regard to international monetary policy in that large council.

I don't know.

Monetary.

I would agree.

That must be handled by a national group.

Let me ask this.

There's no reason, isn't there?

Is there?

Where do you have a monetary problem to discuss not to have Peterson and me with us, even if I'm in a group now?

If you meet in a group like this,

Certainly no more.

You'd have to be in the most careful instructions not to talk to this time.

Oh, I have no injury.

I understand.

Well, I think that's it.

That's it.

for certain areas of international monetary products.

But, for example, the troubles of the capital of the U.S. government and the questions we do about that.

Yeah, there's a fortune for a great dollar.

You don't have to ask me there.

What you're referring to is something else.

But we'll work on a proper meeting time.

But if any of you do want to have a meeting, just let us know if you're following, et cetera.

With regard to what we discussed today,

Well, it seems to me that the two twin matters that we're going to have to continue with attention to are, first of all,

and how the economy is moving along relative to the objectives of this .

And secondly, the inflation problem is very interesting.

And before I left this morning, Senator Louie Banks said, without any question,

urgent concerns when it comes to, again, from corporations, their anxiety about inflation.

And the other person, how the economy is moving along, we have now essentially information on one month in a year.

That's about all.

I think the general situation now would be characterized as an economy showing improvement, but the improvement is still a little sluggish.

Retail sales are about 6% above a year ago.

And the auto sales from the improved grade yield by the market were slightly below a year ago.

The market auto sales were about 7%.

It doesn't really show a big gain, but not spectacular.

the unemployment rate was about to step up.

On the other hand, there are these things to say that the unemployment rate, based on unemployment compensation data, which is different from other data, has shown, did show, a decline in recession.

and what is where it's hard to figure.

Well, it has to do with Harrison's seasonal problems.

You know, a lot of people are afraid to do something.

Anyway, it's my hand to be arguing about a problem when it's in our favor, isn't it?

That's the problem with the VLS, is that it seems to be checking and fixing.

Go ahead, go ahead.

The length of the work week is limited.

It's limited, very big.

It's a little bigger.

It's risen in three of the last four months.

Well, you would say that's a very important point.

And, of course, that doesn't help unemployment.

Because after you see, you start putting people in a part-time job.

And then, I mean, some sales continue to pick up.

Yeah, yeah.

But I do think we have to expect rather sluggish improvement in unemployment.

The business is really, through their operations last year, is bad.

And they were going to get some sharp games, but it wasn't a good thing.

It wasn't a good thing.

The other side of the coin, of course, it didn't, it didn't actually want to play.

Everything was a long-run murder for the sharpies, you know.

So there's an unemployment problem that's going to take a little bit of a sensitive look.

And of course we have this abnormal environment, unemployment in the white collar, technical and engineering.

We were raised, we were raised out this morning with this, your attention to this.

My golly, George, we've got to get at that thing, that problem.

Mainly because those are the business side.

But as I say, they're the individual leader type people.

And those folks, they're just something.

You're worried about that.

No, sir, you don't want them.

You want them to let you.

Well, they've got to be in the country.

that when I call leader types, I mean intellectuals.

And I, you've heard about these journalists here.

They're all, you've got them in Pittsburgh, you've got them in Southern California, you've got them in Southwest.

And also, he's just, you know, trying to, you know, they have this guy unemployed, you know, with all the, doesn't have enough skills.

So he goes on, on the unemployment relief and the rest, and it's not a problem.

But it does something to a fellow who's been in a buyer or seller's micro.

It does something to him.

It's a pretty damn cruel, you know.

You know, like I was thinking of this one, Mr. Foster, when I was going to Dallas back, I ran into a former student, a Ph.D., on the lawn.

What this has done, I don't know, and I was thinking, how many of them are you going to want to see me talk to?

A good many of us are concerned, so is it possible to talk to a character we've never seen before.

And this is maybe an unconscious element of bias that we don't recognize.

Or is this thought a success?

You know, I do.

I get a feel of it, as I just told you, that I get a feel of it from all places, from the labor union, the CIA labor union.

These guys don't even know how to run a farm.

And I don't like their job, you know.

But I know how I feel, you know.

Two kids, two kids and a car, you know what it's supposed to look like.

Suburbs of Dallas, L.A., and the rest of it.

Hell, man, you're crazy.

Well, anyway, it doesn't go on.

We're working on that program.

We have some definite things underway that go to the individual.

I think this idea that Mr. Trump and I will actually take a company, an aerospace company that has employed us,

What I would like here, here part of the problem too is these are brown people and they'll get along and they'll survive and they borrow on certain things.

but they don't know we care at some very point.

I like to find, that's why I'd like to have a meeting set up of some sort where we get a group of people in here where we talk about this problem, this journey of ours.

So we took early on that, and then there's a whole layout of things that at minimum do meet the sort of point you were mentioning of value.

the job-finding process can happen, but then there are many substantive things.

And I've seen the desire, for example, to recruit some of these aerospace engineers to be safety engineers and get them employed by industry and by the government in this new safety program, and they're sort of natural.

And so there's that kind of thing that we put our minds to that's going to be helpful.

Well, given that we're taking the National Science Foundation,

Yeah.

and not go into giving jobs to non-law scientists and engineers.

Well, giving jobs, and I'm very concerned about this, but I was talking about this, and in various cases, we're probably going to need fewer international navigators and navigating engineers, but we're going to have to, say, offer a one-year, a 12-day at a university.

We've read that there's fellowships for these,

There's another line.

That's a very intriguing point.

We'll get David in and let's work on that.

That, because I think there's exactly, there's a heck of a lot of money.

It's a half billion dollars.

I think we could have given the asset, the biggest shot the Army's ever had.

But you know, it's a big amount of money.

And you know what happens when it goes in the bank?

Those damn university people have more money, so on.

Some are dead and some are not.

And Frank, but look at them, look at them.

They're weird that they shouldn't give it to an MIT professor who's out, you know, on a pension bomb.

Or give it to some poor aerospace guy, you know, who's out on a job.

Same thing.

Because you put a pension bomb.

That's right.

That's exactly right.

But you'll take away the other old stuff anyway.

So it's a job, a foolish job.

We might find that there are places around government that could use the money to think in terms of their tax program.

There's some terribly incompetent people in that program.

But, gee, some of these people could do all that well.

These are young, aren't they?

They're in their late 20s, late 20s, early 30s, mid 30s.

They're just, they're white people, potentially.

But they don't know anything, except what they were doing.

The problem also, I think, is we've really, we're kind of because while it has a big percentage

intact in certain places, and two of them are scoped.

Our estimates are that we're probably not talking about 100,000 people.

We're talking about 100,000 people.

And let's get at it.

Because again, one of the other vehicles, we can't allow 100,000 people.

You see, that's the thing that's exciting.

Remember I asked for pictures of you, Jerry?

That's all I need you to say.

I think it was less than 100,000.

Well, 65,000 is what we got here.

Oh, I think probably that's a little low.

Well, that's supposed to take 85,000.

But 85,000 people with little skills, by the way, we can do something for everybody.

I just wondered if part of the problem, I talked to Packard about this, of course, the defense is kind of huge law still, but he said, well, we're working on it, but they've got too much to do.

You need one person, somebody sitting here who's, maybe it's in your office, I don't know,

Uh, we have a group that we had to get from the various private partners of the government.

They're charged with this, and they've got a program now, and we hope to have you help kick it off.

I'll be there.

And hear some things, and that's why people should get time for work to get out.

We do care, and we're doing it, and if we need to...

even a symbolic .

What do you think of that?

I mean, it's good.

Educate somebody to lead the Commission on Productivity, which addresses itself at this very point.

He asked about how the task was.

In fact, it was in the fall, I think, originally.

I'm pushing on this, I'm working on this problem with you.

I'm just one man who was responsible for this.

All right, you take it away.

You bring it in.

I just feel very good about it.

Why don't you go on, I digress.

Well, I think the

The other problem, of course, that we have is trying to carry on through and start to create more confidence in that we're making headway on inflation.

I suppose that the, I've had a lot of time moving back and forth.

I'm sure the concern of the businessmen,

That's right.

On the wage.

On the wage, yeah.

Well, of course, you can talk about going on the wage.

That's a very hard thing that we have.

And you start to get back waves of oil.

Now, fortunately, we've already moved in our so-called job.

And we moved on steel.

We moved on oil.

Now we've got a problem later.

And we're going to come smack down against that on Monday.

We're meeting our grandfather named Jim Hodgson.

You know, I wasn't on Monday.

I've been on Monday.

And we will.

Mr. President, we have several options which will be presented to you.

You know how I feel about this.

I'm urging you now to consider it when I hold this to you.

Today, we're not testing on it.

Senator Humphrey,

And the other is sugar.

Sugar is personal.

I don't know.

I'm thinking of wanting to create a sense of inequity.

That's the line that you're going.

You must keep it down.

But let's look at, let's rather than picking on one entity, let's see what we can do.

That's why it frees.

I think probably there's some wrongness.

But let's look at Davis-Bacon.

Now Davis-Bacon is a, that'll raise hell.

On the other hand, it is, it is,

and exercise a federal, you know, it is a federal action, let's start the word federal, it is government action, which inhibits the free market.

And I think we just buy it now.

The thing about that, John, I understand, and this was not in the state of New York.

For this to be really effective, we've got to get the governors to do it.

Ask the governors to help too.

And the governors have a little bit of space.

All of them.

38 states.

So if we, as a federal leadership, what do you think of that?

Here's what we're talking about.

I think those states, the states, all the ones that count, California,

I want to be in your city.

Where do you want to be?

I don't know him.

He don't do it.

He's coming up.

He's got some new troubles.

Ohio, never do it.

Never do it.

He owes himself.

And Michigan, never do it.

That doesn't necessarily give you the answer.

I think there's enough to do.

to accomplish your purpose you're going to have to come back sure sure what you want to do is uh you want to indicate to the countries of the world that you're willing to take whatever actions you're empowered to take on your thing in favor of our business that's correct and in fact some government at some point decided to go on with it think of that as threatening as it is

as though you're singling them out.

They have singled themselves out by the behavior.

When you look at any car wages, and there's this line that spits out, they made themselves signature.

Another thing, I forgot to interrupt you.

One of the reasons why this action is very important now, and see if you agree with this, they think that it will have a very, that anything we do now, say, on this issue, can have a sanitary effect on, say, the steel industry when it comes down to it.

In other words, the people that are thinking in terms of, I don't know if it means that Abel and his group, he'll have a little more strength to keep his people from going wild.

What do you think, George?

Does that make sense?

Well, I think it will have some impact.

I think with steel, we need to figure out some different way to get a handle on that.

We're going to have to ask the following.

There's been the beginnings of a cancer without all of us having to go to the workers.

We didn't have one company program.

It's been an odd and somewhat unfortunate settlement.

Our process is trying to rearrange that so they know they can go to the bathroom and sing about it, so they don't fuzz it up and it won't look quite the same.

Well, here's the rest of it.

For two reasons.

First...

Yes, sir.

But oh, I know I didn't have that next week.

You know, I have no doubt about it.

And also, I did, I did that with the little restaurant there.

I just said, I tried to do a recommendation, and we were going to have to act.

And the only argument here is the federal government has $14 billion worth of construction contracts.

Now, by golly, we're just going to sleep with that kind of a state.

But suppose a business had $14 billion in construction coming up in fiscal 72.

They could manage well, but it would have to do everything they could to keep those wages costs from skyrocketing, right?

That's my action.

Don't you think so?

No, this is new money.

New money?

Well, this is new money.

George, am I right in thinking the number of the day was bigger than $900,000?

to cover not only federal construction projects, but also federally needed, federally organized.

Yes, sir.

Sir, our city government is fantastic.

Now, if you cover highways, for example.

I think you cover highways.

I think you cover FHA and VJ.

That's correct.

That was great.

Now, in some cases, the state law is going to apply.

You know, I don't think so.

That is, the federal law is there, it takes the federal law away, and you still have the state law, and it's there.

You know, we can talk, of course, about the EU reaction, but we can react finally.

As far as the workers are concerned, it didn't affect anyone, did it?

You know what I mean?

The hard-hats will go.

The hard-hats are their employees.

I think you need to prepare.

I hope that it already exists in a big group.

To give you a full explanation of your actions, there are two major problems.

First, construction jobs are being lost.

That's right.

And second, the average American family is in danger of not being able to buy a home in a place that can afford it.

In fact, I think we're there already.

Well, the business on unemployment is there.

The great, the great unemployment is around here.

All of a sudden, you start your house and you start looking to buy your second corn cart here.

Well, I don't think so, Your Honor.

Here's why.

We've had a pent-up demand.

After that is satisfied, and it may be satisfied before this year is over, no matter how low the mortgage rates,

Well, I don't question that at all, but this is a very wheezy approach to the problem.

That's not what you're going to get.

He assigns it to one of his reasons, the fact that a house would cost as much as the farm work.

Well, he built a house.

Well, he's going to come right back and say, what are you talking about?

You've got a palace house that starts in the history of the nation.

Ten of the wrongs.

Ten of the wrongs in the country.

I agree that if we go on this thing, we're going to have a lot of...

I do think the fact that it must be recognized that this is a very important thing for the Indian people in the construction industry.

They feel as though it's a jugular kind of thing.

They certainly will dedicate themselves

to going after as hard as they can and whether it's even remotely associated with this.

That's what I'm about to say.

There that is.

So, it's a bit of a red flag.

Are you sure of that?

Well, I'm pretty sure.

I know that there's nothing that they got more excited about when I was Secretary of Labor than the fact that when we started messing around with this law change,

I tell you, it was rain and salt and all that, but as soon as you were right to take the next step, the party was indicted for being a bunch of highways, indicted for being racist as well.

It's the most sacred thing to do to a bunch of New Hampshire Americans, so just to sign that is going to be interesting.

They close their training programs.

They won't let people in.

They've got a monopoly.

And they use that monopoly to gouge people.

They won't permit minority groups to participate.

Now, you'll lose if you're not on that basis.

You don't have to sell me on that.

I've been fighting on that.

Well, I mean, I'm serious here.

If you think you're going to lose a suspension of daily spending, consider it.

He's going one step further.

You don't have to lose.

Sir?

You don't have to lose.

I believe this, but we have a lot of work to do.

I don't mean to lose you, but maybe you would.

I think we have to fight for something.

But here's what we're looking for options.

So you've got to wait for the price to freeze.

And then, frankly, we thought about it.

I told you.

But when you really think of that thing, it's great if it's a grandstand, but even if it freezes on for 40 days, and then what do you do?

And then, you know, afterwards, I mean, I don't mind doing it.

I don't mind grandstands and plays.

But I'm not one of our...

First of all, everybody got this case.

I can see development from the other side.

We've got a hell of a lot of problems with construction.

Well, there's an awful lot of consumers that don't really care about construction.

You see, they don't realize that construction goes absurdly fine.

And not many of them are buying houses on the basis of, well, if you sell two million houses, that's not how many.

The reason that the Davis-Bacon industry is, to me, is that it's using a record.

and it again gets at that fundamental thing which really was the right reason to go after the oil and steel and early we're looking at government actions in those instances which compare to free market and that's the kind of philosophical development that appeals to me I can't, I don't, I don't, I must wait and see what happens I can't wait, I can't wait to do it A special legislation for the building industry

You're not looking in general at all, or being specific.

When was it passed?

Back in the 30s, I don't know.

Was it a congressional?

Yes.

It's clear that one of these non-existent governments, just like Harvard and Syria, is that the government, when it has a big construction contract, should be a party to undermining wage standards by setting up a situation where people

lower their wage rates in order to get that business, and thereby accelerate the ban on the movement of wages.

That's the priority it's built on.

Let me move from that, or hold on to something else.

And I think it's been extremely helpful that you put the ball on that.

I was talking about it in one of our questions.

We had to do this, you know.

And I hate to be approaching people's heart on this, and I don't care.

I don't care any impressions.

I mean, I completely reject the active approach, which is the best we can do, and a little less is good, why not a bigger one?

And what we have here,

philosophical approach.

Everybody knows that in a time of reciting, you have a deficit.

The difficulty is that when you have a time of full capacity, they say, well, have a deficit also, which of course was the Johnson approach in 1967 and 1968.

I also find out that we have a little stranger.

This deficit cannot exceed, and I will meet your bills, which will succeed and exceed what the taxes have introduced for capacity.

Now, we've messed up.

I think we've got to stay in honor here and fight to hold it right to that line.

That is, because as parts of the people have said about us, they've said, you understand the sophistication of this kind of money.

The good part is that a lot of people, with such a budget, keep throwing in the towel on inflation.

They said, we don't have that.

Of course, but there's a lot of people who do that.

I would strongly suggest that Gibson go to changing the concept in terms of public acceptance.

Let's call it a seating limit budget.

This is also a part of the concept of a college budget.

Let's call it a budget with a built-in spending limit.

or call out a phrase that connotes that you put a link on something, this would tend to offset the very thing, the very point they're making.

So that's what they're actually doing.

That's right.

There's another point.

Nobody knows how this economy is going to shape up.

I'm optimistic.

Not as optimistic as these forecasts that the administration indicated.

Of course, we have to put a target on your forecast.

I know that.

Nobody knows.

I hate to see you flee to some injured position.

You may need to lie to us.

If you had to, I would have gone there, yes.

And you know how I feel about deficits.

I just hate to see you lose your son again.

If you're on the danger of freezing yourself in on that, if you're on the danger of freezing yourself in on revenue sharing,

You know how I feel about that.

But you know, the builder and I are talking about this.

In essence, when your program is so solid... Hell, I worked on this with you, you know, finally, before the... You developed the concept.

Well, the essence is consolidation.

You've got 500 categorical grantee programs that even my team, you can ask, but you can't have a big government.

We want to consolidate.

Nobody's smart enough to know.

Well, you want to consolidate into six large block grants.

or go to the ultimate point for a power agency and have a single block net, which we call revenue sharing.

Now, there's a danger that we talked about.

We talked about this twice.

There's a danger that you may cause your government's aggression towards consolidation.

would not be your specific grade, and would be widely advertised as a big political defeat, that's what the government wants, you know, a big political defeat for you, when actually the Congress is moving in your direction.

So I wouldn't freeze my position on those specific numbers.

What you want is consolidation, 500 grants,

My God, even if I can't grasp it, there's something you can't evaluate if you're not having good government in certain circumstances, in smaller numbers.

You can tell them you're doing it, and they're doing it in a better way than you do.

But the optimal point here is a matter for political compromise.

Well, we've got to keep your absolutely right.

We've got to present this in a way that first we go on and see that we're going to retreat.

No.

We've got to do this in a way that we make a deal, and we're going to get what we can.

I understand.

Yeah, well, I want to see you come on and look into it.

Look into it.

We're already rather than that.

I think that's a great thing.

And what's your basis?

And what's your basis for doing it?

You're selling the idea.

You're selling the concept.

If we'd made it around here, it'd be $3 billion or $15 billion per month.

So it was like $3 billion.

$3 billion.

I mean, the Israelis just took Gladstone's hands off.

They're bad songwriters, and the guys wanted to extend the franchise.

But the Israelis, and the British, who didn't believe in extending the franchise at all, they got the British to take Gladstone's ideas.

And he got through what could be gotten through, so he didn't even try to hit it.

You can have a story, Mr. President, a story in the Post this morning, which I thought was unfair in the open paragraph of what you saw.

My interview with Dave Brooks.

The summary of the read was the first two or three paragraphs was not an act of paternity.

He read the whole story.

He had a sense.

But he, in effect, put me in a position of compromising before he could get started with it.

That wasn't the point.

But I do think that if you read the whole story, it's the reason.

My view of what I read, all along, he said,

I think it's a great idea.

We thought it through.

We believe we have the best resource program right for it, but nobody else has got a better way to keep our idea.

We'll work towards a way, and that's what we're reaching for.

And we're working for that sense.

It's been a great advantage to have the state of the art convention the way it was, but as a philosophic state,

I call him Warren because little Pittsburgh used to have a great kid in the halfback and they played the Rose Bowl and so they called me in 35 minutes and I was like, Warren, Warren.

And Brad's about this program, so this is great.

He says, I thought about it.

I was so unobtrusive about it.

I don't know.

We didn't say it.

We said it a little bit.

But ours is different for me.

It's just mine.

I said, great.

Thank you for that.

Love it.

Absolutely.

I love it.

And I thought, what if we do it that way?

Last night when I saw it, I didn't know how hard it was to come up with this.

And I said, we need to run it, too.

I didn't even think about it.

Very good.

With, uh... Give her a hug.

I did today.

Did you?

On the same mission.

Good.

I hope you're...

I've worked my heart out.

You see, we're trying to get one of those halls to break over.

Give her to be a hero if he doesn't.

But most of them are kind of dragging in a different way.

They're trying to find a way to start to say, well, this is no good.

We've got something else.

We don't mind.

What we have to do is to remember that reform never goes through the way that you present it.

That's right.

Energy.

Because we don't have, we aren't the fountain of our genius.

But we get it.

But on this thing, on the budget thing, you don't think we should freeze it.

And I've been very categorical about that.

Well, no.

I think it was all right.

Maybe I better get off that other thing.

Well, you think I should freeze it, don't you?

Well, when this person asks you, they ask you, well, now, look, let's suppose that the Congress succeeds at one point.

Let me tell you, Peter Parker, here's the problem.

Certainly, as of present time,

We, as a country, you see, they will hog wild if we say that 200,000, 200,000, 250,000, they'll come in here with the county health program, which costs $60 billion, like you see.

We've got to have a reason to repeat those bad measures.

That's what I think.

And also, I think it would have a bad effect on those who are concerned about the patient's psychology.

See, that's where that came from.

I see your point.

Well, but you see, if you got...

The governor was getting a language, a seal of knowledge.

If you tie it to the full upon the budget, you see, and then when you make circumstances, they force you to buy it.

I hope not, and I don't think they will, but it could happen that way.

And then I hate to see the...

have all of this, build up this concept, and throw it away in six months?

You may have to.

I've stopped building it up.

In the basic statement after last July, the way it's phrased is that the basic rule is that except in an emergency condition, you should never go over this, but in an emergency situation,

No, I didn't.

Go ahead.

The budget tier, and that's because somebody started on this, and that you project the budget authorization in the 72 budget into fiscal 73, which we're now working on.

And you're already about $5 billion over what the full amount of receipts are estimated to be.

So we're going to have a big battle around here as the year can start now with just the $73 billion to maintain some kind of control on the spending.

And I believe that the basic usefulness of this idea

is to discipline yourself to an orderly but if you process over a period of time so you don't get into a position that you can't sustain now that we have to

to look and think about some kind of combination of what the budget does and what the people of the Federal Reserve do as well as the other things that we've been talking about, construction and so on, as the way to get at this.

Seventy years ago, I remember having a talk with my capital office, and I said, I'm going to tell you, why do we have to, you know, we're talking about voting, and what are you going to do?

And you gave me a lecture about it.

You said, I'm not liking the explanation.

Why do you think that...

The whole purpose of tying an AA and a currency to a coin is for your strength.

If you had all wise people,

You wouldn't have to worry about any of that sort of thing.

It's a question of what restraints you can put upon them.

I agree with Art.

I think we have people that are running.

But we also have got to disabuse the business community.

The idea that we're all wild on that side.

The other thing, Art, that I'm concerned about is

What it does to you, the monetary side, is that you've got balls in your board, as I understand it.

I mean, you've told me yourself that they get a very good view of the spending.

They think it would also come to spending.

We're going to have to, we have to whack down the money.

Or you've got to have control over those.

That's a very good point.

How about that ball in New York?

It is a good idea.

Don't you think about it?

Money is the central line.

You forget about it.

I could have read that, but .

Do you think you got the thing under control?

He told me, right?

He told me.

All right.

He told me.

All right.

One, we could get some pressure on the government here from the internet or from those concerned about the government.

of using a more aggressive way of expansion of the budget policy in order not to push so hard on the monetary policy.

And therefore, I think it restrains us.

I understand that.

I'm looking at Cable.

I think if you repeat that with the documents for now, you would take that.

They are concerned it has to do with what is the future kind of business.

Well, the old international people, for example, Cable today,

We are monitoring policy for expansion.

That has kept its rate here so low that- Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Some of the environment doesn't like it.

We are only working against the pressure.

You ought to use fiscal policy.

Yeah, I saw that in the weekend press.

The only difficulty is that, let us remember that the five of us in this room are going to be held accountable for basically whether we're pleased to last.

Well, what it really gets down to are the things you and I talked about, which we know.

If this administration fails,

in other words, fails to, in its essence, to have a responsible economic policy, there isn't going to be another conservative administration in Washington.

There will not be.

Not in our lifetime.

Never.

Because then two things will happen.

The spenders, and I mean the spenders not the sense you and I are talking about, but the people that believe in it exactly does for its own sake.

I told his wife a bunch, I said, you know, this is a part of the wage price rewards for income policy.

I said, let's come up with a wage and price controls across the board.

take today will show the overwhelming majority of the American people for it, 60%, 65%, and 70%.

Of course they will be for it, because they think we're going to control prices and control wages and the other follow-up.

But the point is that it's our responsibility to look to see what that kind of

I think monstrosity, what kind of legacy it's going to leave if we have to go that far.

So our, what we've got to do is to, we've got to, one of the things, I don't think we're going to ever have our difficult time, you know when you've got a roaring inflation or something like that, people who are in a roaring unemployment, they're able to spend money, that's what we did.

But right now, we're at a time when the country's gotten used to, in the late 60s, to high employment.

even though they didn't make any real gain in wages, you know, there was no real increase in income as far as labor was concerned in 67, 68, and 67.

Nevertheless, people got used to it.

Now,

We're in a position where people expect that unemployment can be held at around 4%.

They expect that inflation should be gotten down to what it was in the lower 60s.

We should never be able to get down to that.

We're going to get out of hand here going into the 80s.

And if we fail to realize that those who come in are not, and will succeed, are not those

who will take the more conservative policy.

That will never, not this time.

It will be those who are going the other direction.

You just look at our grace.

That's what makes sense to me.

That's why I think we've got to be very candid on these things, whether it's the money supply or whether it's the interest rates or whether it's our fiscal policy and the rest.

We're all trying to do the right thing.

The foreigners can say what they want, come up with the bounce bands and all that sort of thing.

We've got to remember that the political situation basically here in this country is such and so delicate at the moment that we've got to just keep one step ahead of it.

Now, that's the way I feel about it.

Now, I don't know the answers, and that's why you called us.

The experts have got to give us the best advice, and, John, you've got to.

But you were right.

Yes, I did.

And all the balance papers are bad, but just remember that on your trade accounts, you had a service of $2.7 million.

That was my surprise to me.

You lost it all the way over there.

I know.

of money investments.

You lost it in maintenance of major enforcers.

You lost it in aid, one thing or another.

But it wasn't the commercial trade that cost you.

And I think the important thing, as far as the central bankers and others are concerned, they are concerned about the disparity of interest.

But the main thing they just want to deal with somebody who recognizes we have a problem with the payments now, the Italian said this morning, that they very...

The only reference was a throwaway.

In effect, you could use that expression, but there was no attention given whatever to the fact that we were worried about it.

So everybody knows they have no choice.

The economists say,

Don't worry about the balance page, what they're looking for.

What can you do about it?

That's what 25 of them said last Friday.

Oh, yeah, they don't work.

They said, what can you do?

That's when I called them.

Yes, they said, what can you do?

They said, they can't do anything.

You've got a dollar currency.

Don't worry about it.

And one thing, you can't do that.

In fact, that's what you are doing.

But it can't be that arrogant, buddy.

This country can't.

And we have to definitely, I think, give up Hillary.

In fact, we have a problem, because the time will come when we're gonna need their help.

We need it right now.

to help us.

They can help us, the war troops at NATO, and they can help us in some of these trade briefings that are buried on agricultural products in the European community.

Japan, where we have a billion-three loss made by trade.

They can execute a tactical agreement or a steel agreement or anything else that will help us.

And that's where I think we have to keep articulating and at least give lip service to it so that our people at home and abroad will say, you're concerned about it.

And obviously it's got to sit at the second table when it comes to financing inflation, reducing unemployment.

You can't sacrifice those to the question.

That's what we're going to be judged by.

Well, do you know, this thing is going on for so long, I mean,

I think we've been, some people in government have talked loosely on the subject.

Talked to some commanders now, they will say you people in the United States no longer care about the balance of things.

We've got to stay, we care.

I said that in my testimony.

What we do, well I indicated there's special measures.

And they are.

It won't bother you.

We've already taken them.

You do know some are solid?

We took some.

The Treasury did, you see.

We had an export-import issue.

Designed... Are you going to keep poker?

Yes, sir.

For the president?

Is he all right?

Poker's fine.

Oh, yes, I think he's fine.

I think he's probably still a professional, sir.

Because I'm wondering about it.

Everybody agrees on that.

Now, I think we've got to convey...

that we care about the balance of things.

But,

We will attend to a question.

There are some special financial things that we can never involve you that we can hang.

Whether they will solve the problem for us in that time, we'll tell you.

They can help.

Let me ask you.

Yes, sir.

I certainly, of course, agree with this.

I do think, however, we need to verify another aspect of this.

That is, we need to express our concern in such a way that we do not seem to say we recognize that we must manage our domestic economy in a way that solves the international financial crisis.

Because we have this problem that it's easier for a country to de-value its currency than to have received its currency.

Consequently, there is some tendency... My team members will never appreciate it.

Well, they greatly do.

Therefore, there is a tendency to devalue against the standard.

What's the standard?

It's the top.

Now, the interesting thing is that all through the period when we, the Europeans, expressed concern about whether we were managing our affairs,

On the average, exchange rate changes have slightly appreciated the U.S. dollar.

So I think we have to give expression to concern and we recognize this problem.

But at the same time, it's important for the Europeans to understand that

We cannot accept the responsibility to manage our domestic economic policy in a way that will reconcile this problem.

Because otherwise we would be running out.

I'm going to be over there in a couple of weeks.

I'm going to get an answer to this question.

We tell them as soon as we care, and we care a great deal.

Order, that's right.

And you can exaggerate.

Now then, so that if the hour ever comes, we let it go, and we must let the dollar loose,

We will, in the meantime, have shown the Europeans and others that we do care.

And my friends have turned around.

I think it's about burning rice in because they want it.

They can hurt us and hurt us back in the U.S. right now.

And I would encourage a student.

I think it wouldn't be a student, but they would.

They won't do it.

What a few points on that.

I'm pretty tired of hearing this stuff.

Let me ask you, just on the travel thing, what do you think of Secretary Joe?

I think he would like to see the Secretary, but he's been to us.

I think going over there,

It's a time, but it's just as well for my own intuition, unless there's something there, that he ought to wait about 60 days.

Well, I agree with that.

I don't think I'll go.

We go there in May, which I believe is International Banking Association.

Well, that's going to be there.

Yeah, that's going to be there.

And what I think I might do, every secretary of the treasury has always gone over Mexico City.

I don't know what it's essentially that I'm doing, but it would be an excuse to do it.

That's what I thought.

This is for commercial bankers, but I thought we might get the commercial bankers to invite the central heads of all the central banks as their guests and give us a chance to visit with them, where it's going to look like we'll be more than concerned about a

and therapy and the balance of things and everything else, and get to know him prior to being here in Washington.

This is all the I have.

Well, it is very important, and I hear his current expression here, a chance that we're concerned.

I agree.

I know it just as low profile as possible.

The second part is we have to realize that there's political dynamite here at home to indicate that we're going to allow what the Europeans and the Japanese do to have us do the wrong thing about it.

and things like that, that I just know.

And so if we could sort of play that line, it just, it'll help a lot.

Take for example, Arthur, on the whole question of interest rate.

I know, I don't know if my interest rate's accepted, too.

I pay a lot of interest on my property, but just like Dave, I think it's that, I think that people,

I think it, it, it illustrates, uh, uh, hey, and, uh,

going down to a lower level would be something which most people, of course, would appreciate.

They are not going to sort of buy the wine, or let any tradesmen actually hire, because we don't have the money to go out of the country, and Swiss bankers will start calling in their chips.

I know that's a responsibility.

Now, they've gone down, the prime rate, what was your discount rate?

Four, three quarters, and the prime rate is five, nine quarters.

That point usually is one point.

No, no.

Well, under the circumstances, my view is that all that,

And I've seen various people written and said about it, that as far as the interest rates are concerned, it's just a man of money at the present time, what have you.

But nevertheless, I think that across the country, and I've been checking, particularly in California, you know, we've got some problems there.

Not just the earthquake, it's the problem of the aerospace and all the rest.

Not just North Carolina, it's the man-hairs hybrid in the state of Washington.

And there, I talked to Senator Gary, the mayor of Los Angeles, and Warren Hart, the county supervisor, and they just compromised on the phone.

And there, they just went about the drop in interest rates, which is finally a beneficial effect on the building alone.

The savings alone is a big business to California.

It's a very big business to California, too.

So, you see what I mean?

On this one, I don't know what it ought to be, but I guess like you guys say, it's going to go down.

Yeah, well, just to put it this way, the SNL is in California.

The Bank of America, the most horrible bank, and the other big banks in the area are getting worried about it.

Because of their profits.

Well, it's forcing men to lower the interest rate, which they pay their depositors.

You see, these big California banks, and also the S&M, the first big California banks, unlike the big New York banks, have small deposits.

They're very large.

They're the silver banks.

That's right.

Not institutional.

All right.

Now then, the interest rates...

that they can cherish coming down, quite simply, they can pay the sales, Mr. Austin.

The same is true of the S&Ms.

That isn't going to stop us, Mr. Austin.

Yeah, I wouldn't let it stop me.

Oh?

But I do think, I do think this is, Mr. Austin, quite apart from the international situation, as far as my fed is concerned.

You've got to stop and catch your breath because the Empress Bracelet is now so sharp that it can easily have a reversal if you do nothing.

So let's have a listen now, you see.

You're talking about the interest rates?

Yeah.

What now?

On that plane, too, though, getting to the whole problem of money supply, I heard something specifically here.

I still would ban myself, and for risking it.

on the high side there rather than the low side.

I just feel, I feel strongly that I don't, I don't know another very serious story as to what, what effect money supply can have on all the rest.

But I, but I had this feeling throughout, in, in a very different sense.

The flight is terribly difficult, the decision to go in the box.

It's, it's, it's 75 to 80 percent possible

We could have come home free without supporting South Vietnamese amongst.

But we bought about 25% of the insurance by having to go ahead and rip up that supply thing in terms that our guys could get out in the South Vietnam and survive.

So I invited the tuners.

I say that if you look down that path, the path we've charted and our targets and the rest, it's to me terribly important.

You talk about catching breath about this, but it's terribly important to

not at this critical time, but it seems to me everybody's kind of watching here, watching about inflation.

And we're looking down the road as to what will be in there.

And so that affects commonness, the commonness of business investors, for example, not only a job in the future, but also at this critical time, and the retail sales, but the savings, how prepared, and how much people who are consumer-oriented, who are actually making up a little bit

It seems to me that if you had sort of a down,

I think the psychology is critical right now.

I agree with that.

I sort of do it in the back part of it.

The idea is not yet crystallized in the minds of the American people that this slowdown is over.

So they're still hoping.

They're not going to be in 10 week time.

And I just... Well, you talk about catching up.

Well, I can't.

Catching up.

And this race has gone down in recent months in a great way.

There's no precedent in this.

Now, terror has been driving...

I want it.

Yes.

Now.

Clear.

Come on.

Maybe a week.

Maybe two months.

I don't know.

Maybe we've got too much money.

But now our money's... Well, you're not talking about...

Hold on.

They're open.

We're right.

The money is still going to be available then?

The money is going to be available.

I want you to study my testimony.

My judgment

The monetary authority has done its job.

It's done it well.

It's laid the foundation for recovery.

The banks are flooded with money.

They are hunting for customers.

The S&Ls can't put out the money fast enough.

They are embarrassed by the inflow of the funds.

What is holding back the economy now is not an shortage of money, but a certain shortage of confidence.

If we flood it, that's even more than we have.

I think you could have awful problems in 1972 and beyond.

I think we've done it just about right.

We're going to continue to expand the money supply, or more accurately, to try to expand it.

You're going to have all kinds of statistics thrown at you, Mr. President.

And let me get this out.

In January, the rate of growth of the money supply, excuse me, as it's conventionally called, was only 1.1%.

Between October and January, the average comes out only about 3.4%.

Well, not me.

I don't play tricks.

You know that.

But you know what has happened in the last few months?

Quite apart from the general bonus rate, the sluggishness of the economy will demand slack.

The Treasury has been building up its cash.

If you included Treasury cash in the money supply, you don't in our statistics.

If you did that, many times you'd be new children.

Many thought that here in the past four months, the rate of increase in the money supply was 6.5%.

Now, I...

I think I will have to begin sending you a table.

I want you to look at it.

You see, I have a table right over here.

Look at the last column.

I've got a table on this for each of you.

I gave you my table today.

Let's look at the last column.

For the moment, that's the simplest way of looking at it.

You see, that covers the year, February 7th through January.

Reserves that we supply grew at 9% rate.

None of our other reserves, which is more important than 12% rate.

Now, that's currency plus private demanding bonds.

This is what people nowadays call the money supply.

That grew at 5.5%.

Commercial bank, time of savings deposits, a very important part of the money supply, but somehow we've forgotten about that.

That grew to 23.6%.

The Delta Line 5, the savings deposits of Eastern Seas, banked at S&Ls, 10.7.

Line 6 is really bank credit, as the technical term here that we use, 11%.

Now, these are very rapid rates of growth.

It seems like any historical year.

Don't let anyone mislead you into thinking that line three is the answer.

Now, let me tell you why.

And I'll tell you why in one sentence.

We create reserves.

People get demand deposits in the process, but they can convert these demand deposits into time deposits, and there's nothing that the Federal Reserve can do about that.

And we can pump reserves into the banking system at any rate you specify, and people can continue, if there's a certain sluggishness in the economy,

to convert demand deposits into interest-bearing deposits, which are time deposits.

What I'd like to do, let me tell you this, and I think we ought to have a meeting next week, and we'll just talk about the money supply.

I would love to.

You see, everybody, we all talk about it now, and as you know, I tried to do it, and I said that I...

We can rely on the commitment of the chairman of the Federal Reserve to provide an added .

I really want to know what the facts are.

And this has to be taken.

I see your line three.

I don't think all these other lines have an .

Aren't you, aren't you, aren't you a federalist, Mr. Carroll, who in the streets of Des Moines say over the space of a quarter, my rate of increase, that your board votes for like something, at least I read in the papers, that you think it ought to be increasing somewhere in the neighborhood of five to six percent, and that you are unable,

Well, we wanted to.

We wanted to badly.

Look what we've done.

In an effort to increase

Money supply has declined on line three of the stable.

We've driven the treasury bill rate, it was down to 3.50 today.

3.50?

Yeah, I think it closed at 3.60.

We've driven interest rates down so sharply that we haven't succeeded.

Now we can try driving them down harder.

and get the treasury bill right down to 1%.

And we may have more success, and we may have as little success as we've had in the past few months.

When you have a sluggish economy like you have, because the transaction demand will be slow.

And therefore, while we can have an effect, you see,

We may not have any effect.

And we've tried all the cards in the past four months.

You don't know how hard we've tried.

And the figures appear.

Look at me.

Look at the, uh, look at how the fourth quarter of January figures look.

Life's another than one tree.

And they exceed the measure of our effort, and lack of success, we don't have the power.

Let me suggest this, now that you give us the more confused than I am, anyway, on this complicated matter, I want to learn about it.

I don't, you're not presuming you know about it.

He knows about it.

All right.

What I would like to do, I'd like to have a meeting on the money supply.

I'm learning what it's about.

Let's hear what, you know, to see where the thing, is that all right with you?

Well, I don't know.

I'd like to, I'd like to.

We need to know where we are.

I want to hear your views.

You know, you've expressed views that are somewhat in variance with this, and you may have some to adjourn.

But let's just see where it's coming from.

But let me say it.

To help out a bit, if we could get a brief paper that I can read shortly before the next meeting.

So just a little bit of a brief paper so that we can come in and we'll have a meeting just like this in an hour and a half.

Fair enough?

One second.

I didn't want to join your forces long enough.

I got authority yesterday.

I haven't gotten it yet.

Let me look at the authority.

It's the last $10 billion.

They have a long-term basis.

I don't have any interest in it.

And I want you to keep this money.

Lots of it.

Keep it until I get to $10 billion.

That's important.

You sure did.

I appreciate you.

It's important.

All of it.

We've all had a very, very good understanding.

We, as I said, we can all just approach these problems just like you did today.

Well, we've got a lot of responsibility here.

And of course, the problem is, and let's be quite honest, even people who are new experts, you don't know.

You're not really sure, right?

Because that uncertain factor is still common.

So what we've got to do, though, is to use the best judgment we've got to be darn sure that responsible men are still in this office, wherever it is, maybe eight years from now, four years from now.

I think the economic questions and the timeline is a little bit of an incorrect thing.

People sit around, certainly most economists do, and they say, what should be the right monetary policy?

What should be the right fiscal policy?

What should be the proper mix of policy?

I think we ought to be asking the question, because I think that today we're doing pretty well on the fiscal front, and if we're doing pretty well on the monetary front, we ought to be asking ourselves the question,

What can we do to rebuild or to strengthen confidence?

And let's put our energy to work on that rather than on the other.

I think we have forgotten that there is a private enterprise system that you can't push around through simple manipulations of the Federal Reserve or simple manipulations by the Treasury.

Well, I couldn't read more, and I think this is part of the whole approach on the day, I think, is that you have to control the weightage, per se, with that tax amount.

I think you did.

The impact, psychologically, in fact, was really going to get at it.

Well, at least one, yeah, one thing that's happened.

I remember when I met with a group of Wall Street people, a funny last year in this group,

May 15th at the hour of 6.32 that day.

Now, that means that somebody is betting on a little more positives.

That's all.

If you remember, you said yourself, Art, that for the past, I think you agreed, that while Jerry's and Roddick said they were never right,

that had not all been right, or they'd all be ultra-legionaries.

Nevertheless, you made the point very properly that that is an indication of confidence.

It's not that they think things are going to go up.

I think that's not a part of this.

In spite of my comment, it's what they were going crazy at that time.

Now, they find a lot of this dark and empty.

That's what I said.

The fundamentals that bear on the stock market are two.

One is the rate of interest.

The other is the expected rate of profit.

The decline in the rate of interest is quite important on the expected rate of profit.

Because when interest rates go down, bond prices go up.

You get a strong bond market.

The strong bar market communicates itself to the preferred stock market, which communicates itself to the prices of utilities, which communicates itself to prices of investments, and so on.

Now, how about the other factor?

The other factor is

Expectations with regard to profit, and I think those expectations are proving that there's productivity as well.

As a matter of fact, we've had some pretty good, pretty good profit reports.

You see, one of the, one of the invisible, weren't they quite as in general?

They are, and I think, as the economy starts to expand, we're going to have some very dramatic impact on profits.

Well, we better go.

Your boys are all in a great trouble.

That's my welcome.

And let me, we'll set a time.

If this doesn't work out, I might suggest that we have a practice at 8 o'clock.

That's all right on a certain day, but we'll work it out with Paul.

All right.

With Paul.

I don't know how we're going to do this.

May I ask one question, Gerald?

Yes, I'm going to be interested in the answer.

I'm going to have a full cut.

I believe he needs to be able to extend your authority with respect to wages, price controls, what position you want us to take.

That's the question.

I think that's the question.

What do you say?

We ought to have a position.

I think you ought not to be in a position of reducing area of not wanting it.

I think we might all say that we don't tend to apply it on a mandatory basis across the board, but this is fine.

You are all the two?

Yes.

That's what I finally want to inform her.

Most regardless, you must not give any individual this power.

But, if you do give it to them, give it to them for a short period of time.

See, not for two years, but for a brief period.

I think that's a reasonable position.

At an idea, apparently.

It's indicated to me that I talk to the Senator not to support him, but to take the decision that this is a kind of serious matter.

It's a serious obligation of authority that we would presume to ask for.

And the Senator would not refuse to take with the understanding that

that they're going to help intend to use it on a mandatory basis across the board and probably even before it was used in any of the first of the standards that would come back to a joint resolution of ratification of the Congress.

I think it's perfectly okay to say we'll be tempted, we're not asking for it, but if we make noises,

that are even a little bit positive.

And I think we may have done a little bit more than that.

Why is this construction thing?

It gets people thinking that they're making operation price control.

And then they start saying, well, we've got to get a price at the best in order to get out of the wire.

So I think we need to be rather intensive about this.

And I'll let you hear what I need to hear if you have no intention of applying at this time or something like that.

This specific matter is such a serious matter that we would, of course, want further joint resolution.

Let's do this.

You're going up two speeds.

Let's get off a little piece of paper on this.

I think it's very important.

Let me see it.

Would you?

Of course.

There's no other regulation here.

That's why we don't have one.

There's no way to touch that code.

How did you acknowledge during your first state dinner the second person that answered you?

Your pocket's rotten, isn't it?

Yeah.

Oh, you really love it.

And it wasn't that little girl.

Oh, is it?

Yeah.

Oh, shit.

He was a great man.

I don't know the question.

She would not recurse.

And so they didn't know.

It was terrible.

You answered the question.

No, no, no.

I was just...

It's wherever you think is the best.

Everybody's... And then you've got...

He said you keep playing.

They won't let me talk to God.

Well, I think that's what it is.

He's calling on me.

My God, we're going to leave.

No, not this time.

No, no, no.

and more of us would be reduced

But he's coming along with us this time.

Because thank you for running this great bunch of people.

People are about ready to take off.

We must do it then.

We've got to make the future more well.

Well, as you said, we're going to have to go and show the children.

Show the children.

Yes.

I have a terrible impression, but I'm alive.

I'm alive.

We've got a good balance on the first line and then silver price in Texas.

Thank God.

It's nice to get rid of the money.

I used to force my price down all the way up here.

And it is very, very good.

So I have a good idea of that.

The brokerage is great.

Well, I want you to be sure that I'm not trying to compromise.

My mother-in-law said, I think, I know she's gracious as well, but I was there that way.

Well, I'm different.

Well, I'm reasonable.

You know that I'm not trying to compromise.

Well, I'm sure.

Why not?

You're right.

I'm a lawyer.

I got to call him and then we're gonna have to say, okay, you got to fill out this with that.

You got to clean up with this thing, whatever else there is, right?

Whatever it is.

And we got to play this thing along.

Except you depend on this thing.

I think the character's a little bit too big.

His team, I don't know what I'm saying.

You wouldn't believe too many.

I think the fact that

Well, that's good.

It's just good to do it.

It's good to be here at all.

They just love to be talking about the show.

I get reverberations now.

Yes?

So, from the Democrats, my God, fellas, I'm excited.

The day before the committee, the auditor gets up and out of public hearing and talks about the great presentation that was made with respect to the federal reorganization and revision.

I mean, he said, now, before we close, that I want you to know that you can extend your remarks.

He said, we don't want to talk to this audience.

He said, you're right.

We're going to keep going on the reorganization and revision.

I mean, please do that.

That's right.

Three in the White Plains.

All right, don't work too hard.

All right.

Mr. President, Terry has to see you tonight.

It's really important that he can see you tomorrow.

I'll call him.

Let him come.

I'll call him.