Conversation 461-004

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Good morning.

Hi.

How are you?

Nice to see you.

It's good to be here.

Sit down.

Hi.

How are you?

Let's see.

Hi.

Let's see here.

Maybe we can move over here.

Let's get a better picture.

All right.

I've got some tears in my eyes.

All right.

Are you ready?

Well, I wanted to say we, the main purpose of this is to acknowledge

And I've been very pleased, as I'm sure you know,

Well, yes, you know that you're a guest, but I'm generally surprised, generally, how much consensus there could be as far as the president's decision.

I wish I didn't say as much for Congress.

Well, the Congress starts with two problems.

One is against foreign aid.

If you can convene it would be an answer.

Second,

This is an area where, really, the fact that the procedure of yours, and in fact, it's not you, where you've got to fight the thing.

And I don't know if you need to, in your new capacity, give all the support you can in the court.

Of course, me.

Clark, as you know, when he was in the House, he was one of those brave souls who used to vote for Corbyn.

It took a lot of bravery to make him vote for Corbyn.

Nobody was for him.

Well, we were, of course.

Yeah, that's right.

Well, anyway, Clark, give us your opinion of the things, of what we can all do.

Henry, you're enthusiastic about the proposal.

John, can we work this thing out?

You've got the state happy hour on Twitter.

But we have a halfway, we have the one issue that has to go to you, uh, what is that?

The next two days you have the security assistance going to be in place.

Oh, whether it's in state or...

The Trans-Defense is strongly recommending that we defense in space.

The State needs us to be there.

It should be there in both every day.

In ambulance, but I think that it's out of the state's committed.

Yes.

Please, sir, manage the room.

The problem is, the point is, we're going to be vessel.

No doubt that the answer to this committee will be more critical.

and the French will be more understanding.

There's no doubt that foreign relations will be an uproar and the House foreign affairs committee is going to be unhappy about losing it.

As far as I understand, they have nothing else to do.

They never have that much to do.

Well, what do you think, Mark?

I'm not sure of this decision.

Why don't we get a bunch of the majority of our legislative guys to... What is Laird?

Laird, Rob, is their first speaker.

They largely are defending their own apartments, Mr. President.

Well, what if you're sophisticated here?

Or do you already have them?

Well, I don't know.

I've been talking to Congressman Meyer and Congressman Freedman and Congressman Freedman.

Well, they're both responsible.

They will not be happy that they were supporting a decision that you made.

They'll have more trouble than Senator Bain for a relationship with the Republican side.

I would like to have them.

Before responding to your question, I just wanted to talk to you more.

I had a great time with the majority, and I had a lot of fun with Senator Reagan, and I had a great time with Bob Wilson.

We'll talk about it in the program.

Senator O'Brien has been on the phone with O'Brien's chairman.

Well, he's in that seat.

That's right.

That's the point.

You don't want to—I'm just—that's—understand I don't care if it was sort of foreign relations.

Normally, they wouldn't tear it to pieces.

But we've got to have a good hearing.

That's the real problem.

Is it necessary for this to be programmed to which O'Brien objected?

More than foreign.

Well, we'll have to take a look.

You have that chance to look into this.

Not yet.

It really did raise, I think, an interesting question that ties in with this whole business of how the legislative interacts with the executive, particularly if we're going to coordinate it.

We really need to talk about that problem.

Who does the legislative look to within the government?

Is there a guy to check on the performance?

That's a good question.

I haven't even talked to a fellow like Bill Maia.

I've just passed him this morning.

I've talked to two or three so far.

The President might try to do what we want.

He said that.

And I'm a Democrat, and I take in this, but the President has enough problems, and I'm not going to have enough.

Their concern is, of course, they knew that they were voting this money.

Who do they talk to?

Who accounts to them?

We've taken it out of state that this is the long-term thing.

And, of course, our concept, right or wrong, I'm talking about the task force, was that this coordinator, this chairman of the council on foreign assistance, would have been the fellow they could have looked to to account for what the results were and what had happened on the economic side.

But under this setup, I faced with Peter, was they...

to have somebody that drops in for 15 minutes and is brief, and then reports to Congress.

I mean, the guy who runs the show ought to be the one, if possible, when it comes to Congress.

Yeah, well, what's going on?

And in your position,

He's in an ideal position, but by the same token, they're the reasons, I presume, why he may not need to have the time or want to be exposed.

You see, the White House, if you start having the White House go down in Congress, you set up problems immediately.

One, Kevin O'Connor, and two, also you said enormous problems for a president.

You know, there are just times when you just have to say no.

So you've got to be very consistent in saying no.

There's never been a case where a president should get in on this.

you know, on some of these matters that cross things.

And we do, on a private basis, like you would call a church or a union, for that matter, or a name, you know, a president, a president, just as you would.

But if you're getting down there before a committee, and it is where he's testified,

That's the problem.

I just heard about this this morning.

I think the better thing to do is insert a clue within the government speech for the accountability of the auditing committee.

So I don't have an opinion.

What is your view about where we put this...

What's your view on the split?

Whether or not we go to the, which committee you want?

I mean, what I mean is, should it be state or should it be defense and military?

It's just, do you recommend state?

When you recommend it, it's probably, we were like Congress.

Yeah.

Passed about it.

I think that's even well up along.

I know.

It is in state now, except for Southeast Asia, which is in defense.

The one...

If we hadn't had large issues with the amount of flexibility between these various buckets, we would have been dead in Cambodia.

It's a real problem, isn't it?

Where we are, when do we leave, when do I have to decide this?

In the next two weeks.

Two weeks?

Well, let's see.

We'll get the best deal.

Clark, you've got a deal with the bank.

You talked a little about it, too.

But going to the broader subject, the broader subject to me, what is very important here is the trust that we have, the two institutions that we set up.

What do you think?

I did say earlier to Mr. Peter and Mr. Preston that

We should coordinate, it seems to me, our strategy on less developed countries in the trade area with our strategy on the payment area so that, you know, there's some symmetry there in how we're thinking about these problems.

Good point.

You would agree with that?

Oh, yes, very much.

If you know, we're going to be quite, at least...

Oh my gosh, you're better be quite flexible with regard to our trade, with regard to Latin America.

And soon, remember, you know, what has happened on that?

Are they still fooling around?

You know, I said special preference, and we can't get a general preference.

We have to get something to the foreline, sir.

I think I can't cross with you on that.

I know, I know, but I think it won't work with all those common laws and other problems in there.

She said we should go to the special president.

You know what, I've got some questions on this.

Here's the problem, let me say this as an aside regarding Latin America, because I'm going to vote.

We're going to leave it off on that.

But the major part, they're not the special trade projects.

They're going to make a heck of a lot of difference for the black market in the next five years or so.

Maybe in the next five years.

The important thing is that the major, the major thing about Latin America is therapy.

You have to engage in care.

The Latin community needs to feel the care.

You know, one of the questions you hear today in the office, and I hate to leave out the Latin ambassadors, and all the rest of them are going to have an end for them in a couple months, and they make the most flowery, beautiful speeches, and I try to make the flowery, beautiful speeches back on and that sort of thing.

But the main thing would be just to give them a little smidge of something, you see.

That's why I'm trying, I'm searching out, that's why we wanted an undersecretary for Latin America, which is not any more important.

But this area is infinitely more important in terms of therapy than it is acronym.

or what you do is put them back in the way for another 100 years, or Southeast Asia.

We're not really right now.

I mean, those Asians, they've been around so long that, you know, they make their decisions based on who's going to do it.

A lot of Americans will do it sometimes out of the heart, and that's why we just got to it.

I want you to remember this, too, because you don't get to it.

And though I think that it's terribly important for us to find something that can do us a lot less in our own programs and our peer programs, that makes them special.

But if you agree that this is important, they've got to do their special.

And, uh, Henry, you turned to this, and we, we sat here, and he says, well, for, for our visitors, there's not much to talk about, except, uh, that they know we love them, but they're not, well, you said there's nothing to talk about, but they do in heaven, but, oh, well, that's not a great way.

Now, we, they're, they, uh, don't mean to joke about it, because they're terribly important to us and the rest, but we digress here.

But coming back to this process, this,

this whole new trust.

I can't go to tenants.

I can, especially strongly on the manor, who let me run.

And we can set up all these nice institutions.

And here is the thing.

We have got to have it.

Unless we get people of confidence and ability to run, you know, to a point.

So I have to check to see how that all works.

What is your feeling on that point?

Because these are international.

for international institutions of concern, and so forth.

Talk a little bit about that point then, as to how we get more capable people, frankly, into the administrative programs.

Well, I...

In the concept, the very fact that this concept is that both the corporation, the development corporation, and the institute are continuing organizations, I think makes the difference.

Because they can stay here.

it's even possible for a nucleus to make a career out of this and with that thought of continuity and at the same time as it's drawn up particularly in the institute we can uh we can get outstanding men for a couple of years and let them go back i mean as the concept of running the institute with the nucleus we then can supplement that with

some outstanding technicians from time to time that we could have to leave their university or whatever it might be for a couple of years to cover a given area.

Having established it on that basis, it gives you much more flexibility, in my opinion, on attracting talent for temporary periods to supplement this new place you have.

I really don't see a problem if these were to set up in Manhattan.

If I may return to the very practical question, I think it's practical right now, is that with Mr. Paston, with Dilmayar, wherever I've gone so far, there's a movement afoot to

say, why don't you get the money bill in, and just renewed AID is free here.

So to give Congress plenty of time to look this thing over.

And Mr. Paston gave me the key to the thing this morning.

He said, you know, what's wrong with

What is the continuing authority, continuing resolution?

Well, he said Congress has never done that for more than six months.

Which, of course, he was telling me his plan is that this Congress wouldn't enact it anyway.

Well, my reaction is, of course, if we don't have an urgency, a timetable on this, I would hate to see it go over into the mix.

Congress, I think, at the time of warning, this is not a question here tonight, but now it is.

No, we've got to suppress it now.

Well, let me say that I think we ought to go, as far as it goes, I think we ought to cross that bridge.

We've got to go now.

The idea, though, of being able to postpone this thing.

Do you agree?

Yes, sir, I do.

There is this fact that Dr. Marsh, the chairman of the House of Representatives, is being questioned in the current election.

He's going to be asked a question about what he wants to hold here as an attorney.

He's going to be asked a question about what he wants

What would you consider a six month suspension?

Well then, then Dr. Moore, is this an effective or continuing resolution?

The fact that he's talking about LDS, but it would be, he's talking about being involved in an informal agreement for a six month suspension.

And I have a new program to go back to January 172, but one of the factors of the budget is not.

For fiscal money, too, has to go into effect.

Second, uh, the city's advisor for the whole year is, uh, and, uh, so Bill O'Hara and Dave Ashton are in state and I have to talk to the police to get them all aware about this possibility.

Rather than for him to say, well, let's talk for a whole year.

Well, I don't want to get this thing killed.

You understand.

We've been laboring about this for two years.

And we've got a committee out here, you know, working our tails off and making these recommendations.

We've approved them.

We've gotten through the bureaucracy.

And if you don't consider that this is a... Well, Dr. Margaret isn't trying to kill it.

He's with us.

He's most anxious.

He's a good man.

Margaret's all right.

He's most anxious.

Margaret was in a way.

The thing that he's trying to do is to avoid the...

a long hearing, but a lot of hearings before, of course.

He does, of course, he feels very strongly that the bill should be submitted to him, not because of the characteristics, but he believes that they will receive more expeditions and consideration from the consideration of the possibility of foreign affairs than he would in any other forum.

I'm not sure if you know this, but they didn't direct me because of him.

It was for marketing or something.

I think it was Gattlestown.

It's kind of a fluid around there.

If I may be presumptuous, is there a place in the scheme of things here where...

where it might be appropriate for you to meet with some of the leaders of Congress, or is this a sort of, or would you, would that be an endless chain of people?

And why would we have, you know, there you have it, why would we have it?

And a goal would be, now, let me put it this way.

If you and, in the middle of my time, my mother just came in from Ohio, I'll tell you, Clark, you meet with the

with the others involved, and you feel, I mean, and our transporters, they feel that if you get to the point where you need to crunch, you're lucky.

Thank you.

No, no question.

I do it all the time.

The point is that we just, it wouldn't be if you just, I'll only have this to thank you.

I'd like you to have it individually.

I know if I could get past him, he'll do something, even though he's passive.

a few for other personal reasons.

Martin did the right thing.

Meyer did the right thing.

And the House over at the Senate decided it was a different game.

But what he got here, even though, is did Percy get on the board with it?

He did not.

No, no, no.

Well, I mean, I thought Grevin did.

Grevin said he's fine.

Right?

Percy would be good.

People like that.

You've got a lot of, all the other senators will be all for you.

for us on this thing.

Chavez, sir.

Chavez.

Oh, yeah, Chavez.

Well, he was Chavez.

Now, that's very good.

Chavez is leaving because he's basically representing the more liberal, I mean, the French and both parties.

But what do you think, Mark?

I mean, I'll be glad to meet you.

Do you think the times are vicious now, or are we ready?

It was a hollow answer.

Yes, sir.

And so I would say it would not be sufficient to go two weeks.

We had some things to work on first.

First, we all work out whether it does impact on the foreign affairs department.

Yes.

And secondly, we'd have to establish a prepared understanding before they came out.

We'd have to deal with the problem of whether Fulbright would confine itself to the city.

And I think you can answer that.

I really don't have any problems with that.

This, this, this is really a knotty problem.

I don't know about this.

I'm sort of lost over it because it's so difficult.

Whether the military assistance goes to Florida here.

I know where it ought to be.

It ought to be in defense in the same way in the country.

However, it may be jeopardized.

Because one argument that states is that the Senate parliamentarian, whatever he put it, he's not a senator, or can't put it any place he chooses, and that Mansfield can work it out with the parliamentarian so that we could put it, we can put it in defense, but they can make defense that appear before the foreign relations committee.

Let me say this, though.

It might be very well that two weeks we just get a good pop.

We can get our Republican leaders to pop without any questions.

Questions, whether or not you want to, if you want to try to put in more, why don't you, Paul, you do the thing now, right?

And if you will be doing it, you'll get what?

I mean, one of the main things you should know is that in your conversations with Hill and all these people, and I know it affects this community, it's a very innovative business.

on board and I'd rather go yesterday.

I don't like the idea of that delay.

I see why Doc might have to do this for, because of this temporary problem.

You know, the thing that he mentioned, this is three months, but with the gentleman's agreement that we get it the first of July, the first of January, I guess.

The main point is I don't want it to go over the next time.

And we've fooled around with this thing now for two years, and it's time to get going.

That's the way I feel about it.

I'm going to choose to rewind it.

Well, that's what I feel about getting through.

It's very hard, as you know, to deal with an unpacker that's just out of your own pocket.

And we've got to beg and weep over it.

Now then, we don't steal because we don't know how.

It's also good, Mr. President, to think of the Congress on something that has very little constituency, which is very important.

Well, it's the whole area that Pete is here for, and I trust that you will.

I think you should.

There's no space for advice on this and others.

But you see, it's absolutely true.

You cannot talk about aid without talking about trade and our trade policy.

And, frankly, without talking about such...

necessary matters of balance, payments, and interest rates in the United States, you know, and Arthur Burns would come in and say, oh, well, these interest rates go too low, and it'll happen in, you know, all that.

And I said, well, right.

So it's how all this thing is gathered that's important.

Oh, I can

foreign policy is really one of the constructive moves.

We're just getting it organized.

We haven't done it yet.

He doesn't say banking, fraternities, propaganda.

I think it all over the place.

We're all so enthused over the concept because I think you, Henry, would agree that economics is becoming, it's part of the base of our foreign, it has to be our foreign policy.

But also the thing you have to realize is that it cannot be handled out of, and much as they want to handle it, out of the State Department alone.

One, the State Department doesn't have the qualifications for it.

The kind of people that go into the Foreign Service are generally not oriented toward the private economic system.

They're oriented toward political problems, which is to their pride, and that's the way they are.

Second, you've got the Commerce Department involved, you've got the Trade Department involved, you've got the Department involved with seven and two-tenths of a billion dollars in the Agriculture Department being extradited from its national reserve.

We've got the Lake Department involved with the strengthening of our lake movements about the competitive rates of Japan and all the rest.

And, well, you know, it really goes down the line, and it's really amazing to me.

It's pretty hard to understand how we have gotten along through the years without having a... We had been doing it actually through the NSC, but before the NSC, how did they do it?

Johnson just did it in the seat of his pants, didn't he?

Well, for example, when we make a decision with regard to, for example, the...

That has an enormous effect on our problems.

When we make a decision regarding airline routes, that's tied into the politics, and that's where we bring, that's where this crosses with our national security.

But it's also tied into

or that's coming from a little further around.

Take SST, everybody thinks that has to do with the environment, but the environment is actually a peripheral issue.

SST has to do with balance of payments, it has to do with looking way to the future, and it has to do with America's competitive position in the world.

You see, so this is the kind of thinking that we're trying to do, we're training on top of this heap.

recognizing that this is America's big advantage, and we get a little lazy sometimes.

I think we can give it away.

Our very strengths, you know, whether they find that.

We want to talk to you about that.

Okay, well, thank you very much.

Well, thank you for coming in.

I appreciate it.

It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Bye.

Well, don't worry.

We're all back with you.

Good to see you.

Just keep in touch, if you will, Rudy, with McGregor on the house.

and we'll try to work the other one out too.