Conversation 489-018

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Well, how are you?

Great.

Yes, for a time.

I've seen a lot of green bells.

This bell scale, I always say, the price we got you in, I thought you didn't mind trucks.

Not only that, we had a lot of smart guys, but there's a lot of oldies in town.

I'd love to take a picture if you don't mind, but it's definitely a put-back department after 15 minutes.

It was in Lawrence's defining rush to restart the town this way, so I don't want to let you sit down.

Thank you.

No, I'm always happy to identify you, Mr. Carlow.

What do you want to call me?

Mr. Carlow.

Oh, uh...

Yeah, I remember when this guy came down from the top of the head, and he was coming down that way.

He wasn't listening to me either.

I don't know him.

You know, one thing I would like to do seriously, that there would be an interest in running a computer in Washington, to follow up on.

We have various catalogs here today.

There's one that is, perhaps, more interested than others, but goes more about it in this field, and it's the content.

Cal, he's a Cal, too, and is enormously interested in this sort of area.

We had him speak to our convention in Houston last year.

Rod Martin, indeed.

And I'm not going to apologize for the speaker.

That was before you had phoned in.

Well, as a matter of fact, I was going to suggest for some time, and if he'd be glad to work it out, I think it would be very good if you would stop in and see Connelly.

Because Connelly's got some ideas about some of these various proposals that may affect agriculture.

is the strongest proponent you've got.

I said you've got.

He said he's strongest.

He and I have to agree on this matter of trade.

You see, the British and the others are trying to screw us, frankly, on some of these business, you know, our export markets.

But Connolly, wherever that subject comes up, being the treasurer, he has very little stroke.

And he's extremely interested in this point.

So I think he's worth your time.

And I want to make it with you.

He sticks well, and he gets right to the point.

He can work very well.

As a matter of fact, yeah.

As a matter of fact, he'd be a good man to have you.

Let me just start this off by coming directly to the point, by saying that I am very distressed, one of the reasons I asked, and I wanted you to come in, of course, I remember you said we had a chat, but I am distressed at the fact that the Farm Bureau, the White House, or maybe the administration, in broader terms, seem to be at odds on many issues.

Actually, and I want to talk about it directly, our philosophy, my philosophy, and your philosophy, and your philosophy is very close.

We have a terribly difficult problem in the Congress.

I'm not trying to blind you, except to say that when you don't control either house of Congress or either committee, the Agriculture Committee, and you know Agriculture Committees are broken down.

Cattle men, grain men, cotton men, soybean men, etc, etc.

Where the general's from, it's cotton.

That's right, that's right.

Now, under those circumstances, what has happened is that, and Frank's going to talk about this, what has happened is that we've got a lot of...

You didn't want the people to be fighting with you.

I didn't.

The problem is that the question, the problem is that in terms of trying to get something separate, due to the fact that we don't have the bulls, this is a real problem.

Bryce is here who got that bill.

And I think Bryce has a fair share.

He just, he got it and all that.

But the thing that I'd like to do without taking any,

I'd ask you to go to any of your positions.

I hope that we could have a good, frank talk and let's find those areas where we can now take the problems you've got and, Roger, you know that accomplished by the back of your hand.

You will know it, of course, if you've got one.

And then let's find the areas where we can work together.

Now, we've worked together in this export agreement.

We've worked together on new farm legislation.

I'd like to know if Congress goes to think we ought to be making it weak to me.

And I think, too, another thing where we've been deficient, and this is probably a bold and a wild fact, not to be over here, but over there.

We should have had this meeting before.

We should have had one.

Of course, I achieved it, but we should have had it.

I wanted to, as the new president, of course, Rocky was the man I've known 20 years, 23 years.

I was with a fellow this morning that you've known for a long time.

Oh, Gary Wilson, by the way.

Do you remember him?

Yes, of course.

Yeah, he's a great fellow.

I was going to say, what we would like to do is to explore the ways that this administration can work with the Farm Bureau.

You are the leaders.

You are the gentlemen.

And frankly, they're free enterprise, which is the way I am.

I respect all of our organizations, but I know we're going to find a regime that stands with some of these things.

I can't agree with their position.

And I'm aware that gets through all the new and

And I have both hands, and I can't agree with their position.

But I hope that you will be considerate of our problems.

I mean, I get pulled down here, or out there, or .

But it's not an easy thing.

Frank, if you want to say a word, then we'll let the president and Roger talk through this.

Well, I'll just make this clear.

Roger Townsend's relation on that farm, they all came through with this one .

Senator, Mr. President, is the same technique you used to tag in .

When we had no money in the Congress.

Well, it was 1960.

1960.

When I say we had no money, it was .

That's .

And it was to tell the Congress of alternatives to work with .

That's what we did here, in effect.

And so the Bureau has evolved there.

And I must tell them I have this much to require in any situation.

I don't know if it's better or worse, and I don't know how to deal with that.

But that's what we did with the committee.

Immediately, but constantly.

Never before done in my collection by any department secretary.

getting these warring seconds together behind something.

That's one point.

The second point is, I was sitting in my class at that time, and I'm certain that there are a lot of you listening on this outside.

I just got down into the attention, Mr. President.

We had serious meetings in here in my office, as it was called, in the page.

The page had been a long time.

And a great accomplishment to have our leaders, our leaders, too.

George, Jerry Ford, Jerry, of course.

So that's what, actually, he thought of, was that the Procuratorial Initiative and the Department of Education are going to be able to have their own business, not in the Farm Bureau.

And that's almost an understatement.

Because if you get what I just started on that, I appreciate the fact that he speaks out.

I don't have luxury as much as I used to.

It's pretty true.

You work for the Supreme Congress, believe me.

But I have this, to get the ball rolling, let's not just go through this.

I think that the Farm Bureau has had a few of not being still on.

Your support is not valued by your staff so much.

I think he's had a feeling that you're not welcome in the Department of Agriculture.

I think that you said it.

That's not true.

Well, that is not true, but it's not what I want.

That's what I want.

And I want to just get this into a toilet, this discussion, because I think that, with the season at least, our feeling at the Farm Bureau was not as well in this administration as they had every expectation would be.

And now looking forward,

I don't think that any of the differences have taken place.

I would say that it means working hard to make sure that that's considered.

It was very, very, really intense.

The Congress ended with a war in front of us, as we know.

And it was terribly, terribly difficult.

Not the best thing, as the President said.

Let me just say this.

What we would like to do in New York, I'd like to tell you, you're our staff people here.

Here's John Walker, the person who started it.

But what we would like to do is to set up a communication here.

Roger Fleming, of course, here in this office, where you know you have to leave.

Well, let me put it this way.

Your communication is certainly set up at the White House, and I will see to it that if there's any problem with the Department of Agriculture, it's set up there, too.

I don't, I cannot, I haven't, it's hard to watch all these things day in and day out.

I am pleased and I'm so delighted, Mr. President, to have enough time to sit down here and talk about some of these issues.

I think we do represent the big end of agriculture.

Four of five farmers that belong to farm organizations belong to Farm Bureau.

We think we have some impressions and we have some guidelines from our members as related to some of the areas.

We don't question and don't doubt one another difficulty of trying to get things done.

We know a little about it.

But there is an impression in the country, and I think you won't be able to speak to this one earlier, as I would speak to our own staff,

There is an impression in the country that there were promises made prior to the last election.

Farm Bureau was interested in the change.

And there is a feeling in the country among Farm Bureau people and a lot of farmers that they didn't get enough of the change.

Yes, there are some changes.

You recognize it.

We recognize the battle to go through to try to get what you get.

But you ended up with, in effect, a compromise of what we had in 1965.

And they thought they were for something different, sort of mischievous.

But we recognize the difficulty involved in this.

We greatly appreciate the chance here to sit down and talk about some of these things.

It is important to farmers.

I think it's reflected in farmer attitude.

I think it was reflected in the last election.

I agree.

The feeling among farmers is that they didn't get what was promised, and this was the emphasis on the market system.

Instead, we've got the promise here of the continuation of a program that, in effect,

as far as farmers are concerned, that I talk to, is a guarantee of a cheap food philosophy.

This is not good.

They're getting to the places they understand the level of politics involved.

There aren't very many farmers there.

There are lots of consumers.

And they've got the feeling now that the administration is looking, and they've seen some of the jurisdictions and some of the Secretary of Agriculture statements complimenting agriculture for the excellent job they've done.

cheap foods that we've got relative to our income, and this sort of thing.

But they don't like to be the sole supporters of dispensity, in effect, from agriculture to everybody else.

And when you go the political route, and this is part of the problem you get into when you try to negotiate, and we don't have it.

When you go the political route, you end up with a political decision and not the economic decision.

The second and second reason that we emphasize is that I have a wide evidence barrier.

The reason that I emphasize

I know that every group might talk to what American agriculture is proactively considering.

It's about trying to knock down this idea that we get in the country that farmers are a burden on our country, that farm surpluses are a terrible tragedy and the rest.

In my view, that's exactly 180 degrees from the truth.

We're trying to get our own money.

We are actually, we have to face that American agriculture is the most productive single area of the American economy.

And therefore, the farmer, and I must say that should be added to that, you've got to add to the fact that being the most productive is the greatest growth that we need.

We need a system under which the farmer can participate and that we don't have at the present time.

Well, there are several areas that I think as far as farmers are concerned, they have a realization of what really is the force as far as farm programs are concerned.

The commodities that have had the most treatment of the supply management philosophy are the ones in the worst trouble.

If you look at cotton, I think it's now running at 41% parity, whatever that means.

It shows it's down.

It's not up to where it should be.

And the commodities that have had the most treatment are the ones in the worst trouble.

And the hope, as far as many of our Farm Bureau people, and our Farm Bureau people, they believe in a marketplace.

They've heard what you had to say about the marketplace.

You believe that they've got a place.

Yes, sir.

It was a good speech.

The total impact of this on farmers now, I think, is they've kind of lost a little bit of land.

I think that is one of the concerns, too.

There are some other areas that I think, likewise, there's a little bit of concern as far as the public is concerned.

One is related to where it is in the country, or the territory of the property.

This is the work that I get fed back to me.

that there was a deal made, that the president made the deal with the Texel people, and he's an honorable man, and he's going to live up to his commitments.

And this doesn't do the administration, your administration, any good.

It doesn't do farms any good.

They feel this way, and this is a reading that I get.

And I, uh, I think that it is, uh, I'm trying to figure out where to get that from.

Pardon?

It's up to the Texas House, but it's not on agriculture.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

It's up to his commitment on Texas.

I don't know whether he wanted it or not.

It doesn't make any difference as far as I'm concerned.

But they, they think it was too many, and I've had many instances reported to me where they did well.

This was a legal meeting.

The President didn't want the man to live up to his commitments, and he tried to take care of this.

Now, as far as tying that, Mr. President, with your statements as related to trade, they had a little trouble.

Because I think you have great credit in this administration this year for the improvement in the foreign trades, the biggest, largest exports we've ever, I guess, on record.

That's over 7 billion dollars.

And this is good, but to tie that in with the curtailment of the activities here, which is the reason I get some comments, they say, well, there's some, and they're going to live out of here somewhere.

I mean, they aren't, but be sure you understand what I'm saying.

First of all, there is enormous pressure in the House and the Senate for some kind of a court bill, and not just textiles.

Textiles, steel will be next.

Because now, we used to produce 50% of the world's steel, and now we're down to 20%.

20 years ago, we used to produce 20%.

Now we're down to 20%.

So the steel guys are out before us.

And about 96% of the world's.

We, and I speak of we, have to try to say too that I think you, all of you,

We appreciate the fact that you fought as you did the, I'll put it quite candidly, without the agriculture lobby, we wouldn't have been a very bad port of bill last year.

I'll tell you why I was against the port of bill.

I was for the port of the textile home, that home of the Japanese.

Now the reason for that, the reason I couldn't be for anything broader is the moment you give them the shoes, the moment you give them the steel, the moment you give them these other things,

then you lose more jobs than you save.

You lose more in imports than you get in exports.

And so under the circumstances, we're still working.

What we're trying to work on now is we're still working the voluntary roadmap for it.

I don't think anything's going to happen on the other side, because it'd be too much of a mess.

But I can assure you, and this is one of the things I want you to .

I can assure you that anything that we do in the trade area, we're not going to trade off the farm.

For example, it hardened it extremely well.

I'm talking to the British on that bill.

The British, this is something for the future.

The British, you know, they .

The British.

The British, and I've talked to Heath, and all the British leaders, I said, look, you go to the market, and you get behind that big barrier, they have it all.

I said, that's going to be real tough for us.

We know how important it is to keep these markets open.

But I certainly don't want any impression to be around that we're going to keep, in order to keep a commitment with regard to textiles,

that we're going to break with regard to farm exports.

We will not do that.

We're going to keep those markets open for the farmer.

We're fighting for more.

And we're fighting all over the world.

And there's another reason for it.

It happens that agricultural commodities are one of the few where the United States is still number one.

We can't compete in steel anymore.

We can't compete.

You know that there is an array of other Chinese cases made in this country.

They're all made in Japan.

Now, that isn't bad, provided we have some of them.

Now, we have our, you have light years ahead of many other trades.

And in the farm field, we're going to keep your markets, I can assure you.

That's one of the things I can assure you.

We're going to fight all out for this.

And as a matter of fact, when we had, speaking of Australia, he was a captain, I appreciate this.

I think we've done reasonably well in terms of, you know, we've had the problem of Australia.

There's land, beef, whatever it is, and so forth.

And we constantly are balancing that in terms of, I think with the cattle, we've done a pretty good job.

What was the bill?

It's a great term.

Well, I don't know.

I don't know.

I think the best thing that happened to the beef industry in the United States is the importation of the kinds of beef that we don't produce.

You totally agree.

You don't like the kind of beef that I produce one bit.

It's caused a lot of people to like the flavor of the red meat.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm glad you're happy.

I'll tell you, if we could have a few more people in your community talking this way, it would be great.

Because as a matter of fact, the whole year-to-year general philosophy is one that is, well, we can sell it to the farm community.

You did.

Just a few years ago, you said, oh, the Farm Bureau did that for 80% of them.

That's right.

I mean, really, the Farm Bureau does represent, as you said, one way or another.

while people belong to different positions.

80% of all farmers belong to Farm Bureau, right?

Well, 80% of those who belong to them, they're not going to belong to them.

I know there are a lot of farmers who are going to be farmers.

It's pretty easy to say, well, you're talking about my commodity.

It's pretty easy to say, well, mine's different, you know.

You've got the same thing with Steve, you've got the same thing with me.

And in the long run, the real erection comes from the market.

It doesn't come from the legislature.

Legislative inquisitions slow up the real response.

And you understand that.

You understand this.

But a lot of our people are talking when they get, they can't take this to the banker, you see, and they get to the place where they are in trouble.

And then we get some bill of support.

Now, could I ask one other meeting to be set up?

I'd like for you to set up a meeting, John.

with Pete Peterson.

It was the new head of our international economic policy.

He's word of a prime.

He has just completed an enormous study of all American exports and imports and American quota storage.

He's a free trader.

He's farming in Bell and Howell.

So, but I'd like for you to present the case.

On this matter of semantics, Mr. President, are your courtrooms managed here?

We don't say free traders because that's the way for the opposition.

What we say is we're expanding use of the advantageous trade.

The United States cannot build a wall around itself because we are simply going to end up

Well, you know, I noticed, for example, one congressman here used to go over $2 million a week the other day.

I don't know what's going to happen to that, I think.

But I do know this, that if you simply build up costs in this country, you know,

and build a wall around ourselves, we're not going to be able to survive.

We've got to remain competitive.

I know exactly what you mean.

Take another area where you've got problems.

Take the farm labor area.

I mean, we do do some things that I think you should be aware of.

You notice I did not go along with all the other my friends on the Democratic side.

It's not hard because some Republicans are just as bad.

on this business of chomping on that grape deal out there in California.

I still eat grapes, and I'm going to continue to eat grapes.

In my view, this whole business of the foreign labor thing, I've often said that we fought this out as bright as it was right in this administration.

You cannot have a power of strength

or a boycott, or a perishing commodity that's a concern.

And that's really what's involved here.

So I know that's way out there in California and a few other places, but it depends.

We're right up against more legislation.

Who's put it in?

Well, nobody yet.

We're holding it up.

We're doing our paperwork on legislation.

We'll be back, you know, before we get on this.

You know how I feel about it.

There's one where we've got to keep the, you know, we've got to, it's hard to hold the horses.

Let me make one comment before I forget it.

And that is, don't take what we've said, that we're 100% trying to fight you.

We're trying to be with you.

I'm trying to be helpful to you.

And, well, we have convictions, and there aren't many people that are guilty.

But in general principle, I think we agree.

I'm trying to relate to you the concerns that I read.

Right.

In the country.

That's what we want.

And I think we have some concerns out there.

But do you have an idea at this point of talks, practically?

Is there anything that we can do possibly in terms of legislation this year?

Or are you just too far down the line?

I think there's three or four things we can do.

Do you mind if I take a second?

I don't want to be a contusion.

I'd be terribly confused if you find the farmers concerned about the commitment that agriculture not being kept.

But let's be sure we know what that looks like.

That was to reduce the dependency of the farmers on payments.

Every piece of presentation, the ads that were run in the farm areas and whatnot, just switches.

But he wasn't really in on this because he was out active business.

And this was in the, where you told me to work and where I did work in terms of

But what I meant is, that whole group of stuff that you prepared, can we put it all together?

We've got communications all over on it, and this was the key point.

Now, what has happened to the farmers' dependency on government since 1968?

I won't go into it, but it's increased, not reduced, and the commitment was to reduce it.

Now this is what Mr. Booth was talking about.

In the case of this other vehicle, there's a determination to keep it.

In this scene, it seems to be ignored.

And he's saying our members have noticed it.

They've got a real great way of saying it to us.

You were taken.

And that's why we said to you, Chuck, yesterday, agreeably, of 68 won't do because the folks say, well, I heard that's on the floor.

And we've got a practical political problem because of that particular point.

Now, in terms of the free commodity exchange in cotton, on the basis of the latest figures, the dependency of farmers on government payments for their incomes

has gone up from 31% in 1968 to 41% in 2007.

He's in the barn where the barn lights ended up.

He got all the wigs.

Don't ask, don't ask.

It's true, it's complicated.

It's complicated.

But let me say that the reason he's in the barn

The gut point was to reduce the debt the city president said in various ways.

It's 21% now, it's too high, and whatnot.

Now the opposition, your opposition, our opposition, are going to have these figures.

I had Dr. Ockham, our staff, prepare them for this morning, but...

You understand that other people got the people quicker, too.

And so we got us a problem.

Now, let me answer your question with regard to some things that we can do now, in our next future.

You've made some very strong statements here with regard to your known agricultural politics, which you do.

But the first time we met with your people in the Department of Agriculture in this administration, the first thing we heard was the one thing we know is the Barnard Union before us.

And that's a stark, you know, Mr. President, it's a little bit of a judgment if you're on our end of the equation about how that comes to be.

Number one, in the field of our life, we are not rigid or anything.

We want to move.

We want the people on the Hill who are going to have to win the battle on the floor to substitute for any bill that comes out of the Labor and Education Committee, which would be bad.

We want them in on the decision to get a formula for Vector.

So what we want is a bill which they're enthusiastic about taking and winning on.

That's number one.

Number two.

On that note, we have a procedure to work on, so it should be okay.

Yes, yes, yes.

I'm working on it.

We'll work with you on this.

But remember, be practical.

Right.

Because you've got to have those.

Remember, this is a labor-dominated Congress.

Except for complicity, we may be able to leave your call.

Do you notice I said something a little bit?

The best thing is to be very bad about it.

Well, I think I've raised some trouble.

Not the bill that you're talking about, but a more

In the middle of the road, there was also a cut-out and a man on the floor, or a star-top, get killed, and then a man on the floor.

And that's what happened.

So you don't have to talk about it.

Bryce, if you wouldn't mind sitting down on this strategy.

Bryce is part of the government.

He takes over.

Will you do that?

Yes, sir.

This is very important.

You know how to do the complaint.

Now, go ahead, Mr. Hart.

I know what to do.

There'll be no pesticides.

The administration sent up a bill on the House Agriculture Committee.

This is a very complex field.

We intend to be responsible.

I'd like to operate on the basis of reason rather than emotion.

I would say here now in prison is that when this commission, House Agriculture Commission, which in this instance is not as irresponsible in its view as it might be in some others, I said might be,

When they work their will, I hope that whoever's calling the shots for you will recognize that this is a very important question in terms of who they are.

Let me come to my own personal views, whatever they are.

Now, this is just for the two of you here.

I mean, and not, you know, this is private.

But everybody that's heard of me talking about it is that I'm out on a two-seventies general.

Farmers like everybody else and the farm people want the environment cleaned up and they're worried about any poisonous pesticides.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people who are ready for the pesticide kick and the car safety kick and the environment kick

not because they're really interested in those problems, but because they want to destroy the system, right?

Now, we are going to watch these things extremely carefully in that way, and I do not intend to let the, you know, to let anything come out that goes hardwired on this, you know.

You know I do this way about the American, too, John.

Yeah, before we send the bill down,

I had a meeting with Bob Coe and Paige and made what I hope is a deal.

And the deal really was, it was sent to your committee because if it goes to the parents' committee, it would double set it to Simon's wife.

But you thought I'd come up with something that's credible enough and I'd pass it on the floor without the environmentalist killing it.

I hope that's where we come out.

And I think what would give up

What I personally want to give up is the applicating by permit only part of the end.

And I really think it's a good bill in this sense.

The way it was set up, it was either be suspended or that's it.

It was a go or no go thing.

But now the emphasis is on using things that people say are dangerous and applying them properly.

And that way you can keep using the dangerous things as long as you're flying properly.

And I think that's critical in some ways.

We've had a little flashback on this.

When I was going to say this, John, you do the best you can.

But again, let's apply the old deal.

Get what you can do.

We'll win.

But you know I don't think that's a good idea.

There's a lot of ways to keep this thing.

Tell me what it is.

I know John's already flying with a battery gang.

It is not that he's...

I mean, these environmentalists are bottom-up nuts, absolutely crazy.

But most of them, most of them, frankly, I say, still trying to tear down the system.

We're going to be very lucky in Europe.

You know, the price can't say anything about this, but you know, this business is about solar.

They'd rather be dirty than to have a good solar.

Really.

Which most of us are today.

That's what we are.

Yeah, well.

Let me say, you work closely in the ranks.

What would really kill us is for us to divide and to conquer.

So don't let your people, you sit down and make the very best of what you can, and then have a united front on it, and loosely click it.

I'll tell you all this.

That's the only question.

Give a united front to the state.

Thirdly, certainly in my life, in terms of these decisions,

And this involves the Department of Agriculture.

I would recommend that you two not discuss it until I send it to you.

The Department of Agriculture, you put it on the Department of Agriculture.

From the time of 1972, what you ought to be identifying with a bill which is being involved, I'm talking about this, I'm talking about getting identified with strengthening the ability of the farmers to negotiate with processors for terms of sale.

No rag bill.

It makes sense and I always believe that there's a positive alternative.

to some of this negative stuff.

And you understand the processors have been a lot of friends and worked very closely.

And there's no antidepressant problem here at all.

You can check that out, of course.

I've heard this, I've always, and we in fact need, we try to get something in that we've never worked before.

I think we've got to do something.

Let's try to get something out of the department on this.

Let's see if we can get something.

I like the idea.

I think it's very important.

It's standard.

A ton of the things, the processes are together.

Listen, you don't think those guys don't know what they're doing.

One company doesn't move without checking with the others, right?

When you go down to that Chicago, what do you call it?

Stockyards, is that where it is?

All done.

But you should have the same right.

That's really what you're saying.

Rather than being kicked off on by one.

We don't want to get to the place that has to be challenged because of the authority.

Just the ones to be somewhere in the country.

I see no problem in that respect, particularly with the co-op people.

Now, we're working with these other people.

We try to get people together.

Now, when somebody says that we ought to get together with the Farm Union on the farm layer, well, of course, they're asking, impossible.

But on this instance, we're working with the co-ops, and we've taken a bill that we've been mutually granted to the Department.

Congressman Siss from California, who has leadership here, will take another meeting.

and others will be doing.

We'll get plenty of good Republicans then.

And I think we've got something here which you can identify with to your own values and image and what not.

I was trying to think if you had anything.

I'm afraid it won't be a precision, but I don't have any reason to think it is.

I don't think so.

Now, we had a fine relationship with fellow black guys and others on the Hill.

The truth of it is, Mr. President, without going into detail, and we're already overdue with our time on it, our consultative process, since you came into office, has approached zero.

The Department, and Eric, Chuck, and I talked about it, and AGWB told them to talk about some other things, but we can do so much better, and you have the right to expect us to.

We want Eric and these two folks to have a responsibility and let's work it out in time.

We need time, and the Department of Agriculture will work that out, too.

Just leave it to us.

You know what I mean?

Now, Murray, you've got a confidence in him.

Oh, we trained him down here in Chelsea with a lot of confidence.

I tell you, I think the President of the United States ought to prepare him.

That's what I think.

You know what I mean?

Well, I'm glad you can keep a lot of your pressure.

Look, if you tell us to turn us loose, we'd make it so uncomfortable for Page on the Hill.

He can call the President and say, can't you take him off our hands?

Huh?

Really?

Let's talk about that.

He's really tough.

It's so sensitive to age that he just raised hell.

I'm like, when I grow back, I'll get Hyde-Murray.

We'll get back in the final years.

We can come home for some place.

That'll all come happening.

And he's a very aggressive fellow.

And the guy, when he heard about it, he pawned the law.

So he resigned from Congress.

We do rely on him.

Well, let me say that we hope that we will establish this in the meantime, that the future, too, that we're going to find a lot of things to be free of.

And because we

I believe in this community.

I believe in that part of America.

And I want to have a very close relationship and association with them.

I want to find them.

And frankly, I know who our friends are.

I thought I got a lot of credit for our group.

We had a dark view of the community behind us.

And so I was interested.

I think it's extremely important that we have this meeting.

We'll continue.

We're having this.

We're trying to indicate a nice program on the term of .

We had a slew of delayers.

What's the matter here, Coach?

You never had any trouble with these kinds of gentlemen going over the streets?

No.

That's right.

We want to help.

I know that.

We want to help.

Do you have any chance?

We will.

We won't ask.

We want to work with you whenever it's right for you.

And we understand you can't always agree with us.

But most of the time we will.

The other thing I want to say, too, is that we think that these suggestions that we've had

I just want the Department of Economy straight out.

He's a very horrible man who cares now, and he talks under his issue.

Second point, Peterson on trade, he understands it, and he's on basically the side he represents.

He's been aggressive before you go.

You have not served a no, but he, you got it now.

He might like it.

I was about to say, he can call for it.

Well, he hasn't called for it yet.

There's the resurrection cup.

And for your wife, please hold the records.

Thank you.

And here's the dog.

So therefore, since I gave

I'll give you that, which is a presidential paperweight.

And whatever the paper is too much for that little thing to hold down, get rid of some of the paper.

So if you want to do it, you get a golf ball.

So you've got one more thing to do.

That shows who's the boss.

You gave me one.

You got one of my golf balls.

But just mount the golf ball.

And say you've got a hole-in-one with it.

I'm going to use it on the crucial part.

That's what I'm going to use that, gentlemen.

And then bring it up, gentlemen.

Oh, Bryce, uh... What?

They were going to be...