Nixon, Haldeman & Stans on Business-Government Relations

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript is incomplete. The transcription skipped stretches of speech — roughly 5 minutes of this recording (about 9% of it) is represented by only a few words. Listen to the audio rather than relying on the text below; a corrected transcript is queued.

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

Let's go on.

20 feet is gone.

That's gone.

All the preparations are gone.

They were built around the square down there.

The two are in the middle.

We left it there.

Then, 10 square, they're all off.

That's it.

They, you know, the name is what it is.

They want to let her rebuild it.

I guess they have to.

They have to rebuild it.

11,000 kids out here.

Yeah, these are some of the countries you asked me to go to

Romania and Spain and then Greece and Iran where I've been very formally invited and stopping at Austria on the way back and Ireland on the way over because ambassadors have been urging me to come.

We don't have any real problems with that.

We sit there the first night, say overnight, and then drive to Dublin.

That's a long drive to Dublin.

It's only two hours.

We're going over on a Saturday morning, and we'll have somebody to drive over.

Isn't that something?

Well, that's like a great big fishing camp.

You can walk out 100 feet, and there's a pool with it.

I'd like to spend most of the time talking about the attitudes of business of the administration.

But before I do, I'd like to take about two minutes to run through some of the things we talked about the last time, just to give you a report.

We created an ombudsman for business.

I would say that the business community has accepted the idea quite well.

It's going to take us quite a while, really, to know how effective it is and how valuable it is.

But we wanted to be sure that business had a place to go and knew that we could help them.

Secondly, we're now creating the National Business Council on Consumer Affairs, which is an attempt to bring the top businessmen together to do in consumerism what they're doing in the environment.

And the environmental effort has been very successful.

It's produced a lot of work and a lot of thought, and the agencies in the government are using them now so that we can do the same thing on consumerism and get them interested in

voluntary codes of ethics and self-regulation of advertising and things like that.

It would be my hope that we could take away a great part of the invitation to the majors and so forth to climb all over business.

So we're going to have that ready in 30 days.

Thirdly, we announced today, the White House announced today the Conference on American Business in 1990.

Looking ahead 20 years at

what the developing trends are building up for us.

Next, I want you to know that we have a proposal in OMB for a substantial increase in the minority enterprise program.

We've gone as far as we can on a million and a half dollars a year, and I think we've had great success for that.

But if we really want to have a major impact now, we're going to have to step up the program and meet some of the things that Sam Wiley's committee proposes and some that we think are necessary.

So that's NOMD.

And I met for an hour and a half with George Schultz the other day talking about it.

A little group of his people suggested that if you're going to answer the Black Caucus

Or if you're going to come up with any other programs for the minorities, that this could be wrapped into one major package and make a pretty good message.

Yeah.

All that, I'd like to see a list of ten items, let's say, in 1961, this were in 1969.

The reason it doesn't sell, the reason we don't get it across is we give them too much.

And you can't say percentage, you can't say that, but if you say, I told one group of Negroes, I was just guessing, I said, but when I came in here, I said, I got an issue with car dealers for 10 minutes for a little crowd, and the cars made 12 dealers.

we have we're making an effort with the various motor car companies and we have increased the number by 18 percent

Well, the whole franchise industry, we doubled in the first year we were in here.

400 to 800.

We also have a set of complete charts.

We also have a complete set of charts for a presentation of the minority enterprise program from the beginning with what had been done before we came, how we set out to deal with it, what we've accomplished up to now, compared 68 action with 70 action, compared 70 action with the 72 proposed programs,

And we lay out all of this information.

I'd like to present it to the domestic council or the cabinet someday because I think it'd be well worth paying.

We've done a great deal on that.

Oh, 20 minutes, 25 minutes.

Franchising.

This came up the other day in the Council on International Economic Policy.

And I didn't say then that we have a study in commerce that's pretty well completed that indicates a need for both legislation and some program effort to improve the position of the franchising industry.

And I think we ought to do it to get there before the Congress does, because the Congress is talking about requiring the franchise industry to operate with the SEC and qualify themselves with the SEC every time they sell franchises and so forth.

as though they were selling securities.

We think there's a better way to do it, a simpler way to do it, and this is the real future of small business in the United States, because we're wiping out the little stores.

So in 30 days we'll have a report with some recommendations and a good thorough study.

The next subject is technology.

We have been working for years trying to get a finger on the problem of the technology gap.

In a private enterprise economy, you assume that business does everything to advance its technology, but the more you study it, you find out that there are difficulties in technology development and in technology transfer.

We've come up with some proposals that would help in this respect, and I think they'll be ready in about a month to put together into a program that is very badly needed now if we're going to advance technology.

in the United States.

So we'll have that for you in about a month.

Next item I want to report a failure on.

I have not been able to reach an agreement with the State Department on upgrading the commercial services.

We have tried over and over again.

I think Bill Rogers would be amenable, but his bureaucracy won't let him give an inch.

And now I've put it to Peterson to come up before the CIEP

And I have commissioned the McKinsey public opinion survey to get the opinion to the business community on the foreign services.

Good.

Because I want to have the findings, I want to have the evidence to prove it.

All right.

When you get the opinion, when you get that done, have it done also by a private incident so that it be put out.

It will, it is done.

By you.

No, it's done privately.

Done privately.

It's done by a management firm.

I want to apologize to you.

Okay.

And that will not be wrong.

It is going to be done in business.

You've got to know the money that has to be paid for by someone.

Is that what you're saying?

Somebody to pay for it.

Hold on.

I don't mind her paying for it.

There's food.

Somebody puts out the damn thing.

We'll find a way to get it out some way or another.

There's been some leaks on the story anyway, the differences between me and Rogers on this.

But the evidence continually grows of the dissatisfaction of business ads with these commercial people.

We gave Bill, we said, we'll give you two alternatives, Bill.

One, give us the commercial people in commerce and let us develop them.

Or two, keep them in state, but let's upgrade them and let's run them in a way in which they can perform effectively.

And they won't even agree to that.

They won't agree to upgrade them, they won't agree to

rotate them back in the United States that won't agree to express the belief to their people that commercial services are now a top priority item in the Foreign Service, as they are.

The British have done that, the Canadians have done it, the Japanese have done it, and we sit to the point now where Ribicoff and a number of others in the Hill are gonna hold hearings on why we won't upgrade the commercial services.

All right.

Multinational...

Okay, we'll do that.

This is not, this is not our, I'd rather have Commerce Department, but encourage them to have a hearing as quickly as possible.

Because this assembly is something we've fought for years.

It's not this administration, it's just the bureaucracy.

Well, I'm trying to find a way out of this without a confrontation.

No, we don't want anybody to know that.

He knows that was true.

But the support service is not going to allow half of this.

That's right.

I've got Peterson working on this.

Next one.

Tell Peterson to put that up.

That's where we get our service.

Well, yeah, that's right.

That's where we get the service.

And where do you go on that?

The next item is the multinational corporation.

We've been developing a statistical study on this for six months.

It'll be finished in another three or four months, and we'll make it available to Peterson's counsel.

But this is a subject of real trouble.

The labor unions are now proposing double taxation of all foreign earnings.

They tax in the country where they're earned and tax when they're brought into the United States.

takes all the incentives out of the multinational corporation.

There'd be very little left.

And it destroys our earning power.

We now get $7 billion or more a year on foreign investments.

And it is a tremendous bulwark to the balance of payments situation.

So we really have to have a serious problem there, as he pointed out in his meeting the other day.

Incidentally, the Council on International Economic Policy is a very necessary thing, and I thank you for setting it up because every one of the issues he raised is one we've been trying to get our teeth into for two years.

And either problems with state or problems elsewhere, there's no focus to bringing them together.

all right let's talk about the attitude of businessmen for the administration have a lot of material i want to say

So go ahead, but at least be sure Blanigan gets what you, be sure he gets a copy of everything you tell me so that he knows, because you know it cuts across other agencies that do this.

And I trust all of us.

And I trust IRS consumerism.

And that is the, let me put it this way.

Let me tell you the items I told you to read out first.

I thought we could get that revised first.

First, antitrust.

That one I'd like to handle myself.

I'd like to talk directly to Mitchell and ask him to cool all the antitrust things, at least for the next 18 months.

Second, environment.

Here we've got Dr. Reckleshaus to tell him not to make decisions so that they can go along with the line that I used over there and talk to him.

We're not going to have good business fashion.

We want bad business covered but not good business featured.

And then there's the idea of IRS.

Don't worry about that.

and he was going to kick the butt off of everybody that tries to .

Well, he's trying to do his best to get rules on the IRS where we can and the pro-business.

And he can, of course, plan their labor relations.

On that, we can't do anything for the very reason that you can't do anything to get it in Congress.

And this Congress will never pass a labor legislation

considered, let alone pass it.

And on that one, there's not a whole lot we can do.

I told Blanigan that those were the ones that could be watched in the White House, so he's got that much already.

Some of those are probably...

They're definitely on that list.

What you've already mentioned about the miserable representation we get abroad.

I've had businessmen say, what the hell's the matter with the safety department?

And I've said, I know it's bad.

That's what we've been after, Marty, but I...

The State Department, it isn't the State Department, it isn't Bill Weiss, it wasn't.

Boss Joe's had the same problem.

I used to talk to the boss about that.

The boss's loyalty was trying to do something.

He didn't do a goddamn thing.

That foreign service is so dug in, they will not allow any changes to be made in the commercial effect cities.

And they are the lowest form of life.

They're idiots, right?

They're idiots, or they're smart people that hate American business.

They have no business knowledge to begin with.

Well, let me...

They're oriented against private enterprises.

That's right.

They're not for our pleasures.

Against the other country.

I know what you're talking about.

And this is true of many of the ambassadors.

Oh, the ambassadors, they don't do anything.

We've got two or three of them.

And they're all pretty good.

And I heard it's fine.

You know, Russia's good.

People like that.

It's very hard going to dinner after a rough negotiation, let's put it that way.

No, that's always been what I felt was the problem.

No one wants to get into a tough negotiating posture because that evening at dinner isn't quite as pleasant as it was otherwise.

Yeah.

That's right.

And when you meet with people every day, that's very difficult.

Your wife was their wife.

And therefore, let's not upset anything today.

Goodness gracious, let's meet them.

And of course, that's the whole diplomatic bit that he said.

He's socialized.

Jesus, keep it up.

What I've done is over the last three months we've taken account of all of the business attitudes in the whole department and those I've picked up around the country and I've got quite a report here which I'd like to summarize orally with about 30 recommendations or suggestions as to what might be done.

But the facts are, first, that a great many unfavorable things have happened to business in the last few years.

Some of those we did.

Some the Congress did far beyond anything we wanted.

And many of them were the result of circumstances that weren't attributable to the government at all.

But business tends to fix responsibility on the administration for the things we do or the things we fail to do.

And this is why they're looking exclusively to what?

To the answers.

Secondly, American businessmen feel that they had great expectations from a Republican administration that have not been fulfilled.

And part of that dissatisfaction comes from the fact that there's inadequate advanced consultation on a lot of programs affecting workers.

Now, we try in commerce whenever we have an opportunity to talk to business, but in the health insurance bill, we had exactly $48.

to try to give business attitudes and information on what small business effects would be and what business effects what the Chamber and others thought about it.

It isn't enough.

We need more time to get attitudes.

Thirdly, this is a major factor.

You're not pregnant.

They were in on it.

No, I'm talking about the cost of it to business.

And how many business concerns would be affected by it and how many wouldn't and so forth.

But one of the real basic problems related to our attitude is that business is on the defensive.

Public opinion...

Do they know what the alternative is?

We have been.

No, no, no.

Do they know what the alternative is?

If we had a prayer even to get ours through, they should get on their knees and thank God every night.

And maybe we've got a prayer.

You know what they're going to get?

They're going to get titties.

They're going to get your goddamn rights.

And that's going to cost them $80 billion.

It's going to ruin them.

Unless we're going to fight a delay in action for 18 months.

Unless they support us next time around.

You see, the business guys are always bitching about us.

And they never looked at the alternative.

They don't realize.

And all this whole thing.

So we've got Rumpelstiltskin.

Would they rather have him or Muskie fight with their heathens?

I must say, and I trust, I can't say anything for them.

Our people are just as bad as their brothers and sisters.

Paul McLaren just did not exactly the same thing.

IRS will be a whole lot better chosen than the Democrats.

Consumers, Christ, every day is planning and sits on this for an hour.

So I know they have the problems.

The problem is, Laurie, that we have a very difficult time here.

Oh, there's one other I should mention.

that I gave on the planning list, and that is this equality of opportunity thing.

Everybody's always saying, everybody's got too much to own in business.

Be sure that planning has that.

I don't know what I'm mentioning, Bob.

EEOC.

As a matter of fact, Maury, maybe since you're going, you have a meeting about planning, and be sure EEOC, the consumerist, is on that list.

He knows that some of that is going on.

EEOC.

Who was that who told me about that at the end of the day?

The basic point which colors all of this is that business is so much on the defensive.

Public opinion polls, and I've got a summary I'm giving you of an opinion research poll across the country,

are that the public's attitude toward business has grown increasingly negative.

82% of the residents of cities blame industry for water pollution.

82%.

61% say there's too much power in a few companies.

45% believe a large company should be broken up.

81% of big city people are for closing plants that violate pollution laws.

68% favor new federal laws to get full value for the consumer.

We've had so much of this environmental stuff, the nadirism, the consumerism, and so forth, that the public opinion has turned against business, and the overall attitudes toward business in the last five years have gone down like this.

So business is on the defensive.

And this is... You've got to remember this, too.

What they are asking us to do, and what we are doing.

But my next point is that Congress has fallen into this trend, and a number of the agencies have fallen into this trend,

And you've got people in IFA and train shop that in our meetings express anti-business feelings.

We're going to whip business.

We're going to make business get down to its knees to do these things.

This is where the problem is.

Now, in terms of what business considers the problem in the country, the first, of course, is

to the excessive power in the hands of labor.

And beyond mentioning that, I drop it because I know that we... Well, listen, we agree.

We agree.

Second is the environment, and third is the consumerism.

These are the... Those are the three.

Those are the three.

Antitrust is fourth.

Antitrust and federal...

Environment is second.

Environment is second, consumer third.

They think that the government as a whole, especially...

They're all...

Remember, you want to remember why we've taken it.

All these basically are democratic issues.

Labor, environment, and consumerism are the ones that are democratic.

We were here.

What we're doing, Mark, is fighting the delaying action, we believe.

You know, when I spoke to your little group over there that you had, and we went out and looked at the two airplanes, and I came in and said, I will not make business with you, boy.

We caught them and triggered hell.

Remember?

They raised hell.

And it was true.

What I said was right.

And nevertheless, our little environmentalists around here, they were very shocked, huh?

The businessman thinks that, or even... That doesn't help us as businessmen.

He isn't satisfied with our relationship.

I fight for him all the time.

The one thing I lose, and I'm expressing about it too, is the timing of it.

The crescendo didn't arrive in the environment and consumer until we got here.

So it all happens while we're here.

And it's too much sophistication for us to understand as to how much worse it would have been if the GS-14 were calling these shots from the prior administration.

But we still catch the hell for it.

Because it came from when we got here.

We're going to be here for a long time as far as those do matter.

Well, a Humphrey administration and a Humphrey Secretary of Commerce and a Humphrey Environment Agency would have responded to the same questions that we're...

But that takes us a bit of time to get out there.

We've got to get it to them.

And we have some suggestions as soon as I finish this out on that.

But they think we pay not enough attention to the economic factors of cost and financing, to the effect on profits and prices in these various actions.

The fourth point is that business is strongly critical of the Federal Trade Commission and the antitrust act.

you couldn't get more venom than you get on those two issues.

They just think that antitrust is blocking us in patent licensing, constantly narrowing the rights of the patent, blocking us on franchising, limiting the rights of the franchise holder and the franchise company, overseas investment, and trade, and a great many things, and this is one we just have to move on, and there is a group working on it.

This one may surprise you.

There's criticism about the economic policy that centers on the budget deficit and the full employment budget.

I say here, the concept is too new to be well understood, or we don't understand it.

The Chamber of Commerce took a poll and found 77% of the members question our fiscal policy.

Now, finally, they call the question if it works.

The clumsiness of government is the point of criticism that comes up frequently.

They think that people at the top have established reasonable policies and the people down at the lower level disregard them.

They think that senior government officials give too much weight to the things that come up from the bottom without really analyzing them and testing them.

And they feel that this is a carryover from administrations that weren't friendly to business.

And they're still suffering because those people are still in the spots where they can influence the decisions and influence the people at the top.

And that's a tough one to get at.

Now, I asked the question, what are the things that business thinks we've done right?

Well, there are some, but only those that are sophisticated enough

realize how hard we have worked to slow down the Congress.

There aren't enough of them that understand that.

They do appreciate the depreciation allowances, but they haven't had time to be useful so they don't feel them yet.

But generally speaking, we don't get much conversation about what we've done right.

One thing that's very interesting though, the day we had the meeting of the big givers who came over here for dinner,

I would say that almost unanimously they support the administration, they understand it, they have an investment in it, they think we're doing things right.

I only had two critics out of the whole bunch there, and one was old Dan Geeney, and he's getting senile right there.

And he is a bitch.

But the people that have invested the most in us have total confidence.

It's the guy that gave $1,000 to the campaign that feels he has the right to be the real critic, and that's for everything.

I understand the critics, too, because they'll all feel better if the market goes up.

That's all the good news for these guys.

Despite what we're talking about, Chris will only care about his money.

We have listed here some of the things that have happened to business.

There have been 11 different things that have happened to the transportation industry, six to the automobile industry, 15 different things have happened to the petroleum industry that have hurt them.

Not all hours, of course.

Yeah, okay.

We list here the things that have happened in the environmental area.

There are 17 actions on the part of government or otherwise that have put them in the position of a real concern or difficulty.

In the case of the consumer affairs, there are 15 different things that have happened to them, and I'm not counting the little orders or the little machines.

In international business, there are 22 major things that have happened against American business almost entirely in the last two years.

And the first item in international is that there have been 200 specific cases in 1970 of nationalization, expropriation, restrictions, limitations, or discriminations by foreign governments.

Two other specific cases that we can identify, and we have a full report on it.

Restrictions by the Andean group, retroactive taxation of oil companies in Venezuela, December 15th back to January 1st, tuna boats by Ecuador, forced reduction of ownership in banks and insurance companies and service companies, restrictions on the movement of capital, changes in the rule of the game, I call them, after the money goes down, then to tackle it.

Here's a list.

which really spells out all of the concerns of businesses as they exist today in their several hundred islands.

Now then, we have suggestions.

I'd like to read a few of these because I think that only you can handle most of them.

Direct that increased consultation be held on business as part of the process of formulating new policies and programs that directly or indirectly affect business.

I think agencies can do more of that, and this would be a proper thing to do.

Direct all agencies to give full consideration to the impact on business and prices of all new programs before they are adopted, with special reference to the impact on small business and minority business.

Third, moderate public criticism of business, general or specific, by government officials.

Just say lay off criticism to business.

Let the facts fall where they are.

Review all aspects of antitrust policies and modify them to reduce their frequent and persistent negative impact on business and so on.

That we've already discussed.

Develop and promote measures to engender more research and development within our civilian economy.

Here's one.

Inventory all restrictive work practices and conditions that impede productivity and determine the steps necessary to eliminate them.

Now, I know George's problem with the Productivity Council.

I've discussed this with George two or three times and he's afraid to walk into it.

I think the only way we're ever gonna get real productivity is to say to business, in your industry, what are your problems?

And get the list down here.

Do it in the printing industry, in the transportation industry,

the utility industry and all the rest, get the list of all of the work practices, restrictions, feather bedding rules and all that so that we have it in focus and know where to go and know how to use it.

But up to now, we're merely talking about the virtues of productivity.

We're not going to get anywhere talking about the need for capital over the next 30 years and so forth if we don't get right down to the guts of what the work restrictions are.

I think this kind of an inventory is necessary.

Next, resist the concept of citizens standing in the courts to enforce regulations that traditionally have been the province of the executive branch.

Giving the citizen to go in and force Ruckelshaus to do something.

Seek further opportunities to redress the bias against business in the Tax Reform Act of 1969, where you mentioned that one.

Now, under the environment,

direct all involved agencies to moderate criticism of business on pollution, to recognize industry's voluntary contributions, and to take economic factors, technological limitations, and time required for orderly adjustment into consideration in environmental decisions.

In other words, they've got to look at the economics.

They've got to look at the technological limitations and the time it's going to take.

In the paper industry, for example, where 50% of the plants have already modernized to take care of the environment, the other 50% are obsolete plants that are gonna take a lot of time and a lot of money in order to modernize, and they should have more time than one, and perhaps even financial help.

Next, develop consistent national pollution control standards based on careful determination of need and practicality of application.

and require that the affected industries be fully consulted and their views taken into account before new regulations are established and promoted.

A lot of these things are done with minimal contact with industry to find out what's possible or what's been done.

Facilitate industry-wide collaboration for the purpose of environmental improvement by easing antitrust restrictions.

McLaren made a speech a week ago saying he would not permit

companies to join together for research in improving the environment.

This is, in effect, gives them the opportunity for antitrust evasion.

He's really scared of the numbers of the National Council that we've worked so hard to put together, because now they just don't know that we've got a case.

Next.

develop more effective government incentives for pollution abatement experiments.

The tax incentives, the acceleration provided in the tax bill or in the pollution bills are so tight and the regulations are even tighter

And nothing has happened as of yet.

The regulations aren't effective, so that it's still not possible for a company to qualify for accelerated depreciation on capital improvements for the environment.

And this has been dragging on, well, for a couple of years now.

And then I think we've got to look at providing financial help, guarantees for companies that aren't able to finance the cost of anti-pollution measures.

We may have to provide some kind of guarantees or other...

Next, direct the agencies with environmental responsibility to make fuller use of the National Industrial Pollution Control Council.

Next, establish policy and provide resources for reimbursement of losses incurred by sudden restrictions on the sale and use of products for environmental reasons.

This relates to cyclamates, for example, where the government said one day they're useful and proper and we're on the list.

The next day they're outlawed.

Why should business bear the loss if the loss is for the benefit of all of society?

But we have not been able to get a policy yet as to what circumstances reimbursements ought to take place.

But you remember the Eisenhower days, the cranberries and the chickens that we paid for.

Next, I think this is very important, to develop a 10 or 20 year integrated plan for environmental improvement.

To avoid the overkill,

that's caused by unreasonable demands on industry to the exclusion of other polluting factors.

All the pressure is on industry.

And we're having overkill because there are no time phase goals to get industry to do it immediately.

When if you had a 10 year plan to reduce, or a 20 year plan to reduce environmental pollution to the right level, you could phase the industry side of it as well.

it's required that an economic impact statement be procured and evaluated in connection with all significant anti-pollution actions let's get an economic impact statement on uh we get an environmental impact statement on the elastin but nowhere in the law does it require an economic impact statement to show what the pluses would be in that particular one so you get all these impact statements that point out just the horror stories

But no statement required on a formal basis that says, here are the reasons that dictate favorably the DACA.

These are really exactly the things you're sort of a giant step ahead of, a feat of the things you want to be to start moving on and pull together on it from the White House basis.

There's really a dang good working paper here on what planning was going to start.

on from the complaint side.

Yeah, this is a very thorough report.

Because it's got the what can we do about it that he's going to have to get worked through as to what to do with it because some of it we won't be able to see.

The complaints are in that other document, the recommendations appeal.

And I can tell you, we spent hundreds of dollars pulling this together and working it out.

In foreign commerce, greater government credit support for exports.

We've got to get that XM back legislation.

tax incentives to to compete with other countries uh i won't mention this because i know you're waiting for a report on liberalized trade with the eastern countries a plan and timetable for the elimination of controls on american capital investments abroad we've got to continue our relaxation there everybody's for it except arthur by the burns

Allow exports to be controlled by the environmental and consumer standards of the receiving country.

We won't let goods go out of the United States that meet the standards of Germany or France if they don't meet our standards.

And it seems to me that they don't have any standards.

So their cars can compete with no pollution control device on them.

Whereas with ours, the way the law was written, these readers are saying we still have to put ours on unless they gave us a certificate that said forget it.

Three more items and then we'll be finished.

Protect industry by promoting American participation in international standards arrangements.

Other countries, other areas are getting together and setting standards

standards of quality, standards of performance, everything from the measurements of screws to the heat tolerance of the ovens and so forth, and we're not in on it.

And the result is that they can set these standards in a way that keeps our goods out of their market.

And we are not effectively demanding the right to participate in those standard-setting arrangements.

And they're going to be very disastrous in time.

We're hopeful OIMB will report out a bill of ours shortly that would give us the authority to do that, to participate directly.

And finally, exert greater effort to provide protection for American investment overseas against expropriation

without adequate compensation, from excessive regulations and harassment, and from retroactive changes in the rules of the game.

The 200 cases we've had will continue, there'll be another 200 this year, and we are not adequately defending American business in other countries.

We turn the other cheek whenever these things happen.

One last thing I think I need a little help on.

I understand the Kennedy mission, I understand all the reasons for it.

The press is asking questions and interpreting this

downgrading of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce that Kennedy is now taking over international relations.

I think that Peterson or somebody ought to rationalize this.

Yeah, I think he ought to rationalize it.

So instead of just saying that he's going to cover all trade matters, to say that this is not

Uh, intrude on the normal responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of State, and something like that would take the press off our backs.

Why don't you just, uh, have him say that it would be better still if Peterson had the...

involves the interests of several departments of government.

And it's a specific matter, and he's doing this on a specific basis in New York, and he's actually working with all the departments.

And he's working with us, yeah.

Right, right, right.

He's sent one way or the other, and they wait all the time.

Well, you know how the press is looking for trouble.

Oh, I know.

Actually, you know what he's doing.

He's just supposed to be ready to go to work on the bank.

Right, right.

I don't know if they're going to work.

They're going to have to pay an awful lot to do it.

But it's worth it.

We can get it done.

It's all right.

I'm proposing to limit the circulation as to you and Peter because they don't... Oh, absolutely.

They're the only ones in order.

Except the 200 dogs.

Have a good trip.

Oh, yes.

Thank you.

Bob, I've got a check with you with regard to Glennon.

Do you think I should give him a bottom up?

Should I report him?

I'd give him a bottom up.

Just give him a bottom up.

I understand.

I'm a little nervous about it.

Should I put Rodgers to court with him?

I don't want him to wait.

I'll try to finish at 5.

I don't think he needs anyone at all.

He needs a little, you know, just to share some stuff.

And he understood you had told there's no audio of this.

I don't want to have to ask you a question myself.

Yeah.

But did you even come in with it?

He's a great guy, but you can see why I didn't make him Secretary of the Treasury.

You know, you fellas could understand that in a better case than I could.

But so?

Huh?

What the hell is this?

They're reading people.

I know.

What is he reading?

That's what I did.

I mean, the problem is, why don't you just go more in?

Yeah, yeah.

And the other thing, though, I must say, somebody dropped the ball here.

Find some John Irving that's spoken more about these things.

And why is it the Atlantic?

They have a heat that has done this study.

It's told me about this study a long time ago.

Yeah, but I mean, I don't know if he wants to present it.

Well, have all these things been presented to John Irving in the investigation?

What I am concerned about is this, Bob, is whether or not Hardin, Morton, I mean, I get to get back out to Ronnie Volpe, you don't have to have that anymore.

He made that point at the beginning.

This is the first time in five months I've reported to the Secretary of Commerce.

Now, God damn it, is that what we have to do with the cabinet?

I don't want to do one or the other.

I either want to do that or not have the cabinet meetings.

Oh, maybe Maury's in a different position.

He's got to have it for his ego.

What's your impression?

I think each of those guys figures that from time to time they've got to leave the building down and all the stuff they're doing.

I have no problem.

I've seen Harden recently.

Harden I saw recently.

He may have to come in.

But these little synopsis of cabinet people

I'll tell you, they're going to get a goddamn far deal between next year.

You understand?

Yeah.

It's just going to be a little tricky next year.

Now, what in the hell did he tell you?

I tried to summarize it right at the beginning.

I covered every shaking point he answered.

He did.

Huh?

Sure he did.

And made the point to anybody.

Now, if that had been John Connolly, for instance, he would have said, well, President, you've got some points.

There's one thing you missed there that I do want to be sure you're aware of.

We do have a problem with the overseas commercial adage.

I hope you're doing something about that.

Can I call Will Rogers and jump on him?

And he'd say yes.

He'd say, fine, thank you.

I don't need more time.

He doesn't leave.

I don't suggest you, and I'm sure Maury does, but does anybody ever defend you from restriction?

I go out.

What?

And they do, but they go out.

He just does.

He just ain't good.

I know.

But it's good to throw this stuff in the back hole.

He said that where the hell it would be, I don't know.

I don't know.

Well, I think it's got to do with this consumer thing.

No.

I don't listen to people.

And for the other Saturday morning, I must see Peterson before he goes, and Kathy before they go on their trip today.

And also, I must see, I have Colin at the same time tomorrow.

So I'm putting him in my morgue so I can see the end.

That's a girl.

I said it's a girl.

She has to study.

Now, the whole problem that worries me is this.

By the name of God, it's a...

Here we are, and I'm a little disturbed.

John County deals the same way.

We take business to the east.

What the Christ did we learn?

The consumer types, the environmentalist types, and all the rest.

I know John early, but it's hard to come up with the other issue.

Well, at the other side of the door, why does it have a hell of an issue?

Of course, Maury's on whole shoes.

Folks ain't on the side of business, right?

Yeah.

That's the problem.

Your point is absolutely, that's the best way to put it that I've ever heard.

Which is to make the point that it's everything we do, and we're doing it every day, to try and help you, we're doing with the opposition of 80% of the American people.

Other people are against you, boys.

And we're your friends.

It's like the Jews in Israel.

So don't expect us to do everything 100% the way you want it.

If we do better than 20%, you're coming out of hand.

There's 20% on the basis of popular defense.

This is all you're entitled to.

Now, you might hold the coil.

I've got one here, sir.

OK. We have a lot of possibilities out there.

We've got a lot of possibilities.

Nixon, Haldeman & Stans on Business-Government Relations

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on April 12, 1971

Cite this conversation