On May 11, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, George P. Shultz, John D. Ehrlichman, John B. Connally, John N. Mitchell, Peter M. Flanigan, Alexander P. Butterfield, unknown person(s), H. R. ("Bob") Haldeman, White House operator, Roman L. Hruska, James O. Eastland, and Richard G. Kleindienst met in the Oval Office of the White House from 3:08 pm to 5:09 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 497-009 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
He wants a little more time than a lot of politics.
Well, as we wrote down our understanding, I said, I think that's a fair representation of our discussion.
He said he'd like to have Larry Woodward, one of his staffers, a top staffer, look at it.
And then they sent word.
I didn't talk to him directly.
But he wanted to look at it a little bit longer before he came down here.
It was clear as I could to him that the idea of the meeting would not be to act as though this was something that I didn't understand and discussed, but to come to an agreement of some kind on it.
So he shouldn't come to breakfast unless he was going to pay for his breakfast.
Not to come to our group.
So he understands that.
He loves
the day we were trying to beat, let's say.
I'm not going to do all that.
Well, I'll just, I'll get back to him and ask him why he doesn't think he'll be ready for that.
Okay.
The song John, the question, one question he raised with me that he had certainly used about before goes back to Lindsay.
And apparently he's had discussions with Lindsay
has said, if you give us any money, put some kind of a hooker in it that makes it hard for us to pay it out in wage increases.
Because if it comes to New York, it'll just go out in wage increases.
And John says the answer to that is to get a mayor with some backbone and some force.
And the problem of government pay increases is a real problem.
Now that's something that mayors have to work out as independent of this issue.
But anyway, that may be some point of discussion.
Okay.
We may be making some headway with special manpower revenue sharing.
Today I'm on the vote and the rules committee.
The vote and the rules committee.
At the same time, Javis has invited Jim Hudson to come to a private dinner with he and Nelson.
uh, Javits saying that, uh, they would like to put through the first special revenue sharing and manpower for Javits.
Perhaps, uh, I'm over here and we'll talk it over.
Hudson told me Saturday that he thought there was something strange going on because he testified on special, uh, manpower revenue sharing.
Said it was sort of the gentlest, easiest questioning he's ever had from a Senate committee and they were all kind of throwing out good points.
Nice.
And so he thought, hmm, something is up here.
So it may be that there's a little motion somewhere there.
I had talked with Javits at some length about this.
And also in the discussion with Mills about H.R.
1, the welfare reform, I had a lengthy conversation with him about his stake in a decent manpower arrangement because the welfare reform bill
...wouldn't work well unless you had a good manpower training scheme.
And the one that they were cooking up wasn't very good.
So he called Carl Perkins on the phone while I was there.
And then he apparently wrote him a long three-page letter about this.
There may be something stirring there that we don't know about, but I think that's the... ...analyzes politics carefully, as I said at the end of the day.
He will cooperate with us for a very diabolical reason.
As far as his betterment is coming, the way for him to be men is to prove that he can govern, that he can lead.
Here all of them are out bitching, carting, criticizing.
And here Wilbur Mills rises above it all and gets something done, you see.
He's going to come up with something.
Now we'll have that too.
In the final analysis though,
The question is, as far as he's concerned, how...
So it may be that there's...
a little motion somewhere there.
I had talked with Javits at some length about this.
And also, in the discussion with Mills about H.R.
1, the welfare reform, I had a lengthy conversation with him about his stake in a decent manpower arrangement, because the welfare reform bill wouldn't work well unless you had a good manpower training scheme.
And the one that they were cooking up wasn't very good.
He ought to
So he called Carl Perkins on the phone while I was there.
And then he apparently wrote him a long three-page letter about this.
That man, there may be something stirring there that we don't know about, but I think that's the...
He will cooperate with us for a very diabolical reason, as far as his memory may be.
The way for him to be men is to prove that he can gutter, that he can lead.
Here, all of them are out bitching, carting, criticizing.
And here, Wilbur Mills rises above it all and gets something done, you see.
Now, we'll get there, too.
In the final analysis, though, the question is, as far as he's concerned,
How is he otherwise in the Kimmerer from the others?
If he just runs with another carpet and trailer section, they're going to beat the hell out of him.
But any chance he's got to the nomination and slowly get it done, any chance he's got will be enormously increased by the fact that Wilbur Mills is the statesman against these damn penny-handed politicians, you see.
I think he's got a chance to do a great job.
He looked terrible on television the other night.
He kind of crosses the sort of center of the platform.
He's there.
He's not going to never make it because of television, that's my point.
As far as the man is concerned, he can take all the rest of these bastards and throw them out in one sack.
He's smart as a whip.
And the guy has got, he could run the place.
There's no question about it.
Wilbur Mills could run the place.
People like Wilbur Mills and Conway here.
They're the kind of men that have that great southern ability to run something.
But, on the other hand, he is a disaster employee.
I know.
That's why I like to encourage him.
See, I'm not against it.
Everybody's at Agnes on the other side.
Help Wilbur Mills.
Help him.
That's right.
I just don't want him to hurt us.
So, I really think George, if you can convince me that with Wilbur, I don't want him.
Somebody really ought to talk to him a lot about his life.
And he really trusted him.
He said, I don't care, what do you want to do?
Also, there's the other thing.
He can be the father of welfare reform.
He can be the father of revenue sharing.
He can be the father of a health bill.
That's a pretty hellish and good program around, isn't it?
Or he could be the instructor, along with all the others.
Yeah, which all the others are.
They're all the same bad job.
Maybe he sees that.
Do you think he does?
Well, I'm not sure.
We've talked about such a thing for a long time, and he never grew out of it.
Bill Gifford sort of got at that a little bit indirectly with it.
Who knows him extremely well?
Why don't you find out who knows him extremely well?
Good mouth-topping one would say, look here.
I don't think he would trust Harlow.
On the other hand, Harlow may know who to talk to.
We want to check with Bryce and just tell Bryce, look, here's the problem.
Bryce, of course, doesn't trust him.
Wilbur, of course, doesn't trust him.
But nevertheless, we know Wilbur's got brains and he's got power.
And we just need something.
I didn't want to press too hard because I didn't want to seem too anxious about it.
We agreed that this little description was a good representation of the discussion, so we didn't argue about that.
We looked at what he studied, and there wasn't any comparative table there.
I didn't give him a comparative table or anything.
They've been showing how this formula is distributed by the states, and it's just got the numbers by the states, and I'm sure it wants to go back and check whether that's different by how much in which states and so on.
I imagine.
We'll take it for granted.
We'll see.
We're in policy meetings with the purpose of discussing their mission.
Right.
I understand.
All right.
Other things as well.
Correct.
I'd have to give him credit that he hasn't broken any use of the discussion, and we haven't either, so it's been a fair game on both sides.
Absolutely.
And that's the way we should be doing it.
We have a higher education controversy going on.
Really?
As defenders of Georgia's budget department have been resisting...
The water is on.
We're going to call it the new water program.
That's what we need is new water, not old water.
I don't like that.
The new water appeals to me.
Okay.
The secretary instructed when the phone rang to pick it up and say, sorry, we just sold the last one.
That's all right.
Elliott has been under heavy pressure to aid institutions of higher education.
Our philosophy, our budget philosophy from the beginning has been to aid students, and then we'll let the students pick out the institution of higher education in which they want to go, rather than channeling the old avenues.
Elliott has listened to our objections.
and has conceded.
But he says that he is under such heavy pressure.
And for instance, he got to see Congressman Dellenbach this afternoon at 5 o'clock.
Yeah.
He said to Ted Lieber that he thought it was very important that he be able to truthfully say that he has talked to you.
Sure, he's talking to me about it.
And so I have a talking paper here.
He was hoping you might phone him about it.
Oh, but I can... Why don't you tell him that I have...
Say that he's talking about it.
I have talked to him about it on other occasions, and I'm against it.
I'm not a goddamn cent for higher education at this point, if you've got to put it that way.
So they want to help.
What college do they want to help?
The typical kind of thing is they want to channel more money for fiscal relief to the large research university.
Oh, probably.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I know what these people are up to, and they haven't got until some of those guys face up to their responsibilities as college educators and administrators.
They'll get maximum contributions.
Chicago's doing all right, isn't it?
Fair.
Better than some.
It's better than Sanford.
Sanford's everything all the time.
I had a very good discussion with the business council about that president, new president, Columbia Bill McGill.
Is he all right?
He's darn good.
He gave a good talk, and he's very effective on this.
I think one suggestion in there, John, that is in line with the philosophy in the budget is the business of an institutional override on the fellowships to the disadvantaged student.
In other words, it would be a payment that doesn't go to the institution as such, but only goes when the individual student collects that.
And I know exactly what you're talking about, and you need to do it.
Now, the difficulty there, though, are we encouraging the black colleges when we do that, or can we let them have a crack at that, too?
That would help it a lot, because they get more than their share of disadvantaged students.
That's fine.
That's fine.
In other words, you subsidize the institution in order to take the disadvantaged students.
The idea is that this advanced student has a scholarship to the government, and he goes, he selects college X to go to.
So he takes that scholarship with him.
And the institution, in effect, is also giving him
uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... uh...
That one might be all right.
I don't know if that's going to appeal to anybody except myself.
But no more of them.
Not to these research institutions.
No mention.
Hell, they didn't want this.
Let them go to their contributors.
Let the professors get to cut and saw it.
That'd be helpful.
It just would cost 99.5 million.
You know, everything is...
I've talked to David, no not talked to David, I'm having Whitaker put together this group where I meet tomorrow and see what David comes up with.
David's working on it right now.
And I had a talk with Pecora and I told Pecora that we intended to take it out of Interior and I was depending on him to sell it to Morgan.
Yeah, and he said fine, and he understood why you wanted to do that.
You see, in the interior, it's competitive.
This is the reason that anything will be started.
It's competitive with hydroelectric and a lot of other things.
Those before the Interior Committee.
Yeah.
This is not the place for it.
I think you take it out.
Take it out and set up yourself a program here.
Yeah.
It's a cross-crossing.
Exactly.
At the very first week, we have hypo-weapons.
get a higher priority assigned to it, and get it out of that damn bureaucracy over there.
But we'll get back to you tomorrow afternoon with the results of this meeting.
And you're going to check to see about the California plan, right, which is minor, and how much more we can do now, and research doing in Southern California.
Right.
So that was
I think you ought to take NASA's thing.
Maybe take a clip out of that.
Now, it just may be that you ought to take those moon shots.
consider taking that.
I know all this business about the last shot and 25% of the scientific value in the last shot and all the rest.
But right now, as you look at everything, I'm inclined to think that we'll only be doing what the Congress is going to do anyway.
You see?
And the Congress is going to cut it.
It's going to cut that space forever because they're reading the polls.
And if they're going to cut it,
I would rather move in the area that you think is most likely to cut so that we can keep the area that we think is important and put it into this.
Supposing we were to say that a new head of NASA, that he and I would have been concerned about presiding over a finite operation.
And here's an open door now to a sort of permanent new
Can we make that something out of air and actually work on space?
We're working on that.
I'm saying that because if we could make NASA, everybody's telling us, why would we make NASA with all this enormous capability?
You know, and that's basically, it worked.
It concentrated all these brilliant people in one thing, and they went to the moon.
They went to the moon.
And they learned a lot of other things.
We learned about computers, we learned about the weather, we learned about satellite images.
A lot of good things have come out of that case.
An awful lot of good things.
But now in this instance we say maybe it's something else we've got.
If you keep the initials, we call it National Advanced Scientific Application.
If you've got them, keep the initials.
But I'd rather see us change the name and the concept and everything.
So change the name.
It has a dual mission.
Well, let's see.
I suppose you've got problems.
You've got a space committee up in the common share.
All that, I suppose.
And you're going to get the Senate Interior Committee all upset because you've taken one of their projects away from them and giving it to some other committee.
All right.
That might fuck with me that you deal with this as a consortium.
The Senate Interior Committee knows that their interior guys are in.
Oh, sure.
And hearings should be by all.
And you can just say the company's an informative massive professional manager of this project.
I have a consortium, I agree.
And it's definitely anybody that goes down, they'll have to appear before the Interior Committee.
You know, a lot of them have to appear before the Atomic Energy Committee, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, because of the...
fuel and so forth i have a club treatment i'm sure that's the way to do it i'm sure too that if you get a sense of excitement and drive and so forth we will not have a program sitting there for 28 years no for 20 years 21 years and for god's sakes still at 50 percent if you private business put up 50 percent we'll put up 50
It isn't going to work better.
This isn't a good enough deal.
And it's worth a bigger benefit.
On highways, for example.
Now, what is more important, a highway or a water drain?
A water, of course.
Or water rain, of course.
And so for highways, we do it for 10%.
We put up 90-10, right?
Of course, the reason for that is in the tremendous lobbies that you had.
I had work on the construction of that.
We've got a lobby for this right now.
So let's go do it.
How strong was he when he was there?
Oh, he's turned nine.
It was interesting to talk to McCartney.
He saw us and really wanted to be very enthusiastic about it.
He's part of it?
Sure.
We'll take the whole group and move them into this thing.
I thought he was a pretty good man.
My understanding is he's very good.
You know, I have a feeling that there's some enormously capable people in this area that we might get.
And I was at two universities only, UCLA and Florida.
But I had a couple of others on other projects.
I got Cornell and Syracuse, MIT.
But, well, they're all good schools.
But here is one place, I mean, there is a place where you can subsidize the two universities.
I'm all for that.
We've put some research projects in a few places, wonderful.
I mean, I've put a lot of them in California, for instance.
One of the side benefits, I think, about this is we're looking at NASA's horizon.
They've been trying to do that.
They're pretty well, they like the idea of a well-defined mission in space and aeronautics.
And they're gradually being brought to think a little bit more broadly.
They've got a pollution control project going on there now.
They're kind of nibbling at it.
But I think if they were to make themselves the managers
sort of federal innovative type research.
But we can put it in terms of you can take them on the mountain top and you can bring them in and say, look, you have to show them how it can be done.
In other words, we give you a project and we say, go out and do it.
Now we're going to give you this one.
You go out and do it.
That's what's the best way to get the teens in.
You know, they go rah, rah, rah, and they wear blue shirts or whatever the hell they do, letters and things.
Well, they also have contracts with the private sector.
They're pretty good at it.
Yeah, they're very good at it.
They've got good people.
All right, we'll be back to you now.
We had a meeting this morning on campaign spending.
And the only thing we can do about it is to make a major stand to eliminate the limitation, the $15,000 limitation.
What in the world?
I know it's radical from our standpoint, but how could you do so much?
Well, excuse me, I'll tell you one way to resolve it.
James McCarthy could not have been the candidate if it had not been for Howard Stein.
hartstein gave him a billion bucks and james mccarthy ought to have the right to be candid with hartstein actually i saw him has agreed to contact these key senators man by man these republicans this is this is where our big problem is that our own republicans are not hanging tough on this so we had a meeting with him this morning and he's going to get into this personally now which is the only way to make this thing happen uh and then
the swing senator on this, and so we'll work with the Hughes people and see if we can help that situation.
But it isn't any good just to go to hearings and have plaintiffs testify and all this kind of thing.
Mitchell's got to make those personal contacts himself.
So when you're talking to him, it would be very helpful if you would indicate that we've got all our chips riding on him and following through on this thing now.
All the rest of them to get involved.
But it really has to be.
It has to be given some background.
It sure is.
But it's our own .
We're having to .
He's coming at 3.30 to talk about antitrust policy.
Our congressional policy.
Thank you.
A veto can be sustained.
A great PR sacrifice that a black lead would take would just be, you know, blood-thirsty.
And probably isn't worth it, but let's face it, in terms of our case, in terms of the police and the presidential race, it's a worthy group to come back to.
That's right.
You have a lot of managers.
I try.
I mean, it's budgeted, but it's kind of like hell.
Some of these guys are under the House of Senate.
Sure.
Isn't that true, right?
And it'll hurt somebody.
On the other side, it's her show-off.
It can't be.
It never is.
It never is.
It's going to be done by big contributors.
That's what we tell those guys.
How are China going to be able to put in a million McCloskeyers over that?
That's what you do.
It's not a sign.
It's not a sign.
It's McCloskey.
Either way, that's what the paper says.
I don't know if that's so or not.
I think if you could duplicate history with McCartney's campaign, that would prove, sorry, McCartney is the master of all the shine above everything else.
They talk about all the things together, it's like hell has kept them, it still hasn't done it.
But Stein gave them at least an improved $4 million.
I mean, it was the biggest calculation of all.
That's just lovely that you're asking.
I'll give you another watch.
All right.
Remember, you asked for this session to never be approved.
You're on your own.
Thank you, buddy.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Plannigan will not be here until 4 o'clock.
His plane was delayed.
All right.
Sure.
I don't understand, Mr. Plannigan, too, with campaign financing.
The worst kind of restriction is the restriction on entry.
The people in the industry can restrict entry.
then they've got their monopoly power consolidated.
And this is really the same kind of thing.
That's why you see in some of them, there's a way, uh, it's preserved by, uh, we can get a little bit of the data.
That's what you need.
You need a liberal, John.
Take out the cultural spirit.
The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
Three.
Two.
One.
Two.
Three.
One.
Two.
Three.
One.
I don't know about that.
Oh, he passed the policy.
I just asked him where he was going to do that.
He said, I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I got to get mixed all my stuff for a change.
Don't do it.
That's what it is.
I'm trying to listen to you right now.
What are you saying?
What are you talking about?
British water in Texas?
The reason you can see what has happened in the program is when you talk.
But you play it so that they can't stop you from boxing.
They've been screwing around with this program.
And the reason they've been screwing around is that it's an Argentine cheerleader.
An Argentine cheerleader.
You're not even going to feel the interest, you know.
You have a lot of workers and all the rest of my members to work on this.
So it's a great place to have it.
The other thing is that in terms of the, in terms of the price of it, you have to keep it low.
of Russian military leaders, and one of them is a man who's capable of bringing people together, and so on.
This is what we should do.
We need to synthesize plants and provide scientific wisdom to California and the United States.
We should have our places to do it, and we should want to be the place to do it, and then to take it out of the Department of Interior,
set it up and as part of a mess, put agency into it, put material into it, put whatever agencies were involved in it, science foundation.
And thereby, it doesn't mean that you're going to look forward to an immediate breakthrough.
The scientific knowledge we already have, we're not going to fail.
We're failing to do it.
Doesn't sound like a good thing to do.
Oh, I had to tell you.
The argument is pushing money.
No problem.
We'll probably spend it for other purposes.
And there's a fine available in the district, one place or another.
This should be $27 million.
I don't have to spend it on anything.
It's important.
I'm sure you would if you had spent it.
We better do something on this to do it.
Your account is a gift to us.
It's a passion of us.
The state states...
Well, I think that 50% has been on the ground.
In fact, that is the contribution basis.
Yeah, that's the research, the construction.
Yeah, the prototype construction.
Construction in California is one of the plants that have had this public body in the water for a while.
Yeah, that might be the next thing we're talking about right here.
The construction of the prototype was the client's proud main organization.
In private property, they would put up 50% of the money.
Part of the time, they're better off.
The same thing as this cold, gaseous diffusion thing.
Well, I thought they had the technology.
What they want to do is put the plant in place.
Now, they're not sure they've got the technology.
They're not that kind of quantities that they were talking about in Texas.
The main thing is that we've got to get the leadership.
We must not fail for lack of a point on it.
And as Matthew LeBase has defined it, as the scientists feel, that we're trying.
We haven't done anything yet.
You know, we have been working on an energy statement for about a month now.
This could find its place in that.
We could recast it somewhat to talk about the whole problem of national growth.
and the ability of the nation, ten years off, to respond to its then needs, in terms of energy, but also in terms of water, and in terms of stopping things, taking in turn basically the politics of the matter.
It seems to me that this can work out, you know, I'm thinking of something, and I've got, I mean, we're looking at $50 million, $100 million in Texas, and $50 million in Colorado.
What's the worth of this?
And I think we should be done with that now.
But needed, you know, you think it was very impressive about your statement, was that five-sevenths of all the irrigated land in Texas...
His money and his water.
That's great.
I've got to tell you something about it.
It's a very serious problem in America.
Oh, heck it.
Oh, sure.
It's honesty.
It's honesty.
It's something that's...
Listen, in California, I know.
I know what large counties are going through and all the rest.
They're trying to rob the Pacific Northwest with their water.
They don't like our water.
Everything in Columbia or whatever water we have down there...
There it is.
What we wanted to talk about here today, John, is the planning that's not here.
Can you summarize the .
He was not suggested for this.
We're writing out this on two fronts.
One is purely domestic.
The other is international.
As Peterson is closer and closer to coming up with draft recommendations.
We run right into the question of what the administration's policy should be with regard to permitting our company's trading abroad to either cartel or one way or another that is based in power and screwed by a trust.
The pipeline is another one where we run into all kinds of domestic solutions.
policy in fact is in terms of application and whether it should be different.
We've heard conspicuously from ITT when these three cases were there, but we've also been hearing from a lot of our other friends around the country who say that McLaren is a pioneer.
Now, in that area,
We've asked Clark to do a project and he's turned right to it.
That's right.
Correct.
And Crowe and staff here are coordinating this, not only with Justice, but with other parties around the country.
Correct.
And we will have, in writing, in one place for the first time, a statement of what the operating policy now is.
And the other question is, do we have what we want, or do we want something different?
But at least there'll be some points and parts here, and that's really all my exercise is.
I had a good time.
Before we get down the road, let me point out that that's my first review.
It was a policy.
I had a good time.
There was economic advisors, firms, and so forth.
I think we had a great time.
It was a strategy.
It was a large acquisition.
It was a large number of acquisitions going on.
for a number of reasons.
One, of course, the inflationary picture, which this was kind of a hit.
The money market, where they were using up all the money on new ventures and all that stuff.
We could see that Jimmy Lentz and the rest of them, most of them, had very popular dollars.
Some of them had a seller proposition that he was going to have a tougher deal.
He got a deal out there.
Corporation would buy anything.
Oh, I just got a dollar.
I just got a dollar.
I just got a dollar.
Well, and I don't believe that it's worked that way.
I know we've got a lot of screams and hollers for some of them, but if you take ITT, which is making the most noise, I think they had 13 acquisitions last year that were non-disruptive of the competitive.
And a lot of these factors in which we address this have changed.
and just in our discussions over the weekend on the patent project.
To be fair, this is what might make the NI Trust factor push further into the anti-competitive aspects of the patent field, even though it's in the interest of the interdepartmental study and provides policies
But as I say again, we have to get down real to the economics of these things, which should be the determining factor in politics.
You know, the economics of it, I think, there's a potential value in it, but it's naturally, it's here that the bummer is growing.
And there are acquisitions that haven't panned out.
The marketplace has to make companies.
There are lots of acquisitions that can promote competition.
It's not the case at all that the acquisition of a small company is going to be able to deal with the addition of competition and promote competition by making that company really stronger.
The idea of exoneration, as such, doesn't seem bad looking at it from the standpoint of the economic side.
No, no, there's never been a thought, sir, that we don't have the power to recover business.
We've never tried to recover business.
We've only had, I think, five years.
And by the way, every time you hear from one Janine of the IT team, you hear the funniest, the best, objective of Janine's activities.
Here's an example.
One of the fire sprinklers ran out of the fire sprinkler.
And then, well, the insurance company, you got to hear the other insurance company scream.
about the tie-in that we've got to have with Ernest Franklin, and I'm not even sure he would have said it, because I've listened to that property.
So I'm just reciprocating with you in a very, very strange way, many segments of it.
And I think that's well understood.
I think there are a lot of those who would never ask, would say, that this administration has a policy that we can't fix.
That's what I'm talking about.
But down on the business side.
I got sent.
You were taken.
Did you know that they were, uh, uh, from the report that I got to the beach side?
That seemed to be the major event.
They were off on this particular point.
Or at least one of the major ones was.
I remember that particular time that I was there.
I don't know if you thought about it.
Well, it's pretty spurious when you think about the exam itself.
It had 13 mergers last year.
It's been 10 to 15.
We've read them all the time.
It is when your attorneys go out and try the cases, the period of the case that they advance frequently is bottomed on.
as sort of practical evidence of anti-competitive.
We've got some bad attorneys.
We've got some bad attorneys.
We've got some bad attorneys.
We've got some bad attorneys.
We've got some bad attorneys.
We've got some bad attorneys.
We've got some bad attorneys.
We've got some bad attorneys.
We've got some bad attorneys.
government, you've got to realize that you've got to still serve as far as you can do your job.
And I did this way.
That way you can get the hell out of your practice hands.
That's the ability.
And one of the serious challenges they face is that this new doctrine of reciprocity is something that just really originated in the last couple of years over the Department of Justice.
Can you really get by anything else?
And you have.
I'm sorry, that's the president.
That's the Supreme Court decision.
Good.
Let me get at it from the other side.
On the business side, my major concern is the international thing.
I think in that case, I could have the worst cartel in the world built up the goddamn Japanese and the Germans with a very certain fetus because we've got to lay it out.
Well, Mr. President, I don't know that there isn't a problem here.
I just think, well, there is.
There's actually a problem, and it's not only the one on the side that you hear.
The reason that the Antitrust Division got changed is in the General Electric case with the Japs, with the fact that the municipalities that wanted to install generating facilities came into the Antitrust Department and complained.
So here you have G on one hand, and your problem with international trade, and you've got municipalities in one of the power plants saying, one hand, we did it with the Japanese, and the other hand, we did it with the Cubans.
Well, that's what you did, sir.
The company that wants to come in and take the business, if you hear somebody in Jacksonville,
That problem is an American company or a group of companies want to operate overseas, and they want to aggregate their interest as an American matter overseas, like the Iraqis did.
Well, we've been on that crossfire three times.
I know.
He's going to get you killed, but we've got to stand with the oil companies.
Well, we did.
But that's the type of case.
As a person, it doesn't really care about your... Well, still, it doesn't really come to that.
Then there's a third aspect to the international trade problem.
Peterson.
Peterson.
And that is, when a company is dealing for competition, and you're trying to get them in the mood of adjusting to it, rather than trying to keep the competition down,
One way to adjust that isn't used very much is to acquire, get into a division through acquisition or a relationship.
And so a, the appearance of any acquisition tends to inhibit the adjustment process, as it is that they facilitate these adjustments that make it easier to accommodate to be more competitive.
You know, that brought up much this national steel case.
National steel?
Oh, that.
Great.
and grant studies that are required.
There's no real reason, not a word of the word, they should be allowed to be required as long as there is a very correct version of the horizontal competition, not as long as it's a vanity firm or anything else.
except that we won't hold the process until we start having a piece of wood.
I'm sure that these two corporations have a legitimate economic reason as to why they should run it.
I'm sure we could all just be happy with the department for not forcing the I.F.S.
on it.
Yeah, of course.
And I think this is something that we should just...
This is how we structure all this, as well as the political impact.
Let me tell you what I think about it.
I don't believe that the present time the average person understands that it isn't going to become a major issue.
And as far as getting people stirred up, I think as far as folks are concerned, I know you've got the impression, and I know Bill Rogers in general, you have the same impression.
I mean, as far as we're getting around these companies, we're going to have to trust them.
and many people who trust their bad victims and bad and so forth and so on and so on.
It's a little of that.
I know you don't feel that way.
Of course, we should be talking about a representative if you're a business party.
And frankly, Bill Endow, when he was attorney general, I mean, he bought a little too much of that stuff.
My own view, though, of the politics of the moment is that I would be, I think we should be perfectly willing to take all the flak in that field.
I don't think they're going to make much of an issue on a better hand.
What do they have to stand on?
Here it's not, we're not talking about folks, we're talking about basically friends, potential friends and so forth with the business.
Again, they are earning a bunch of pitches by people who pitch more to the farmers.
But we have to remember that farmers are our friends, and the business community, much as they may have our doubts about this, but I tell you, for the most part, every bridge they can probably take us.
All the business community, I would hope to clean on the collection.
We would give them as few problems as we could and as very little as we could.
Take the heat, John.
I think we ought to take the heat of
I don't want to do any of this.
But I do feel that I don't think that there's any, that there's any significant politics for us to be out and trust us.
I think on the other hand,
that moving into this very day could be extremely irritation on our business community friends at this time, the board competition and all the other problems.
Now, one exception that we talked about before that I feel very strongly about is Dan Edwards.
It's about time.
I mean, I think, you know, in 36 few days, give it to them.
That's a different matter.
Because they, that's where the movies are about.
A lot of them, they can never deserve it anyway.
I mean, it's one of the reasons, you know, we just want to do that.
I mean, what does it look like right after Eggman and the Crackers?
I think the politics of it is, I just have another feeling about it, it is not a good issue as one that hurts if we start to cool it.
I think, and I don't think it's a good issue, but I totally agree that we're making a vote for being against Muslim trust.
But I do think that we can avoid some whining by members of the business community in this area.
And also, I think it is what we really need.
Maybe there's time to, in Peterson's way, maybe to make a study of some of these things.
It may be that the international field, it really is broader than that.
I don't know enough about it.
And then in the domestic field, I would submit to take Brandon's field and the international field.
What it may get down to is that it may be as far as the US DOA issues, and they can't compete unless they're bigger.
And maybe even then they can't compete.
I don't know.
I just don't know.
But what we did was quite impressive.
And that's the issue.
I may be wrong, but there's a different one to that.
Consumerism.
Consumerism is an issue that really affects the voters.
I think it was about consumers with that bill.
And I think the structure is neater, as we've been speaking about, and so forth.
And this is part of the structure of this bill.
You've got a good point there.
If you put it in the consumer, they understand antitrust numbers.
My friend, can you suggest this?
Seriously, I think you're going to do a basic statement of policy.
I'm not going to say that I do, too, with that particular question.
I'm not going to say that I do, too.
I'm not going to say that I do, too.
I think that's what we're all going to think about, John, in connection with this statement of yours, you know, that we can clarify the policy.
Certainly, whether it's a crime or a place that doesn't speak with others, I think that over the years,
All of this has been the uncertainty about as much as the cost.
Yeah.
And as you go, you're going to end up with this lawyer.
And he'll tell you what you can or can't.
Yeah.
And for the market, for me, for the market, he'll tell you not to go ahead and do it anyway.
You know, all these networks.
A lot of these prices are over the advice of their lawyers.
We've looked at the old firm, John, and I've looked at the new firm.
They have two companies that have really grown like topsy.
One was Werner.
I think when that firm got it, when Albert first had a job, it was $26 million.
I said, it's an amazing dollar.
Who's going to have our company?
The other is PepsiCo.
Our first three car represent, it was just PepsiCo, and then they got the Volvo, and
chips, burritos, burritos, and now they've got Wilson, now they've got Fresno, and basically it's a hell of a well run company.
That's the most part of it, that's the majority of the money you get from that, but they got, they got, but they had to matter to those who aren't, why don't you get something else.
I remember London was very bad in London, I was in London drinking at Kendall, and they were, they were making it, it was a sugar plant, I was making it.
That was the worst damn cross we ever took.
But nevertheless, what I think is the worst sum
maybe statement of policy, but I think the statement of policy could sink in on a job thing.
Jobs, competitization of the United States, and the rest of it.
And I think, John, that will tend to overweigh the people that are concerned about, there is not, let me tell you, I was talking to Manny about this, and he brought it up, I don't know why, he didn't put it in terms of how to address it, but to my surprise,
You know, he didn't intend to get extra in the full business, but he said, you know, he realizes that there's no head of trust for Claybury when it's a concern.
But it's so good, he says, jobs.
He says, if we can save the jobs, I don't care who unites or who gets together.
He says, let's save the jobs.
We've got to save these companies.
We mustn't let them go down.
That's why our marquee, which most of the business council opposes,
Well, I'll tell you, me and these four are so strong, because he said, just slowly, very gently.
And it's really, I think there's a great interest there, because we, what can we do in terms of training?
We have a response at the end of this week now.
Our responses have come in, and this is a staff picture of what I'll have to do.
There was an additional response.
I asked for some additional work from the clearance group.
And as of Sunday when I checked, they were expecting to have that by this weekend.
So then we'll get into it as soon as we have the first of the week.
Arthur Burns has a bunch working on antitrust policy.
I'd like to turn that off.
The earlier it was, well, the whole gap, apparently he came up with quite a game or some part of the idea that the Fed had a franchise to get into this, and we crossed their trail.
And so I would propose turning him off simply because we don't know what he's going to come up with there and we don't know what he's going to come up with.
As far as I know, we ought to turn him off.
I agree on the fact that you're not going to have to ask for us, but they shouldn't have gotten all that labor that you've been doing.
We're partners in two things that we should get in.
If you wouldn't mind, that's all I'm asking.
I appreciate it, but anyway, that's what I'm talking about.
Come on, we've got an international situation.
No, it ain't been discussed in any meeting I've been in anywhere.
Thank you very much.
I didn't trust that with the other one.
It's not the study, but the...
I don't know how to get into this, but I think I mentioned that I could at some point.
They called and requested a bunch of material from Peterson, and he called me and said, you know, what's this?
And I said, what do you do?
He said, check it.
And I heard his staff group ranking away.
John said something that I think is very important for you to be on that list.
Mike, you've got to use this.
Our courage, you know, first of all, and second, was part of the counseling for the president.
He's had the whole run of things here.
Now he's over in the Fed.
It's difficult for him to be over there and not continue to run the whole thing.
You know, just advise him.
Now, it does not help his position.
Because I held this position for him.
He had evolved, and like he did, I evolved in him.
When I had meaning in him, it was just meaning.
Now, understand, I don't defend meaning or ability to read and so forth.
They've got it.
They've got it.
What's got meaning, Tito, is not what Arthur Burns said in a speech in California, apparently in college.
He tried it for him, and he said he only took him on.
So he did.
I hear Arthur Burns gave him a head of trust then.
He should have given him a head of trust then.
That has nothing to do, I don't think, with the power we serve, has it?
I'm going to keep looking into the bank.
Thank you.
No, no, he's not.
He's across the board.
I've been talking to the director.
I don't know what he's doing.
I don't know what he's doing.
I don't know what he's doing.
I don't know what he's doing.
I don't know what he's doing.
He's playing a game on my sort of why I make a difference.
But I mean, it just comes up in conversation.
Remember, you know, like you first had your conversation with her.
You said, you know, I got a lot of this and she's got a lot of this and she's got a lot of this and she's got a lot of this and she's got a lot of this and she's got a lot of this and she's got a lot of this and she's got a lot of this
He has.
He has.
He has it hard not to.
But that's it.
I've been away Sunday nights.
I've been away Sunday nights.
Gosh.
I threw a right up above him, and I saw all this stuff.
Well, he's worth talking to.
He gets blood, and I'll keep feeding him this.
I don't want to try to get in the background, but I just feel if he gets into this, we're going to get in the back.
I don't want you to come up with it, because you'll be able to get in the back.
He's coming.
He's coming.
I'm going to take care of him.
I think he's good.
If he said it to us privately, that would be something else.
Well, they will not come that way.
He was dead over our report.
That's it.
If that's your intention, I would root you over.
Well, but that's the way it is.
I know that.
I can get to him if that's the problem.
That's not the problem.
You're asking him to turn it over.
Well, if that is the idea, and I trust the commissioner to the right, but I think we're out of a parallel in the vacuum.
I think my intuition is right here.
You know how I am in the business.
They ought to get on their knees every night and thank God we're here.
Don't we fight the consumers and we're fighting this environmental nuts.
We're fighting, you know.
Henry Ford was with me here, John, the other day on the table.
That's so they didn't have a hair bag, you know.
I had a strong one poking the downer and he was like, I'm going to put the hair bag in.
But he didn't get up.
I said, this is better.
He appreciates nothing.
I understand.
I just assume not to give him any more trouble if you don't watch him.
You might not agree with my point, but I have been talking in separate readings on the business community.
Yeah, that is much more positive.
Well, maybe so.
Maybe the business council is just against us.
Well, no, the business council is jailed.
I don't know.
Last year was our guy that made a speech about how we should wait for price control to run away.
And immediately, David Rock started out and said he didn't agree with it at all.
Jeff already had it.
That's not all he didn't agree with at all.
He hopes that the headline that came out of this would be that the business council is ruined in press control because he thinks that there's only one other thing to lose.
I don't think that's really what Irwin is arguing about.
He's just hearing it before.
But I've had quite a few of them say that we've talked about economic policy.
We need to have a policy that's good for the long-term health of the earth.
And that's the way to talk to it.
But don't be so careful about it that you don't have a good economy to get the president to be elected.
Because that's more important than anything.
I've got a lot of time to put it that way.
So I think there's this notion that they're all mad.
That's right.
That's what we kept to with the farmers, you know.
We had all the farmers.
They're eating out.
The farmers have really been down to it.
You know the farmers.
Farmers never have to eat.
You can't eat them out.
Because the weather is bad.
It should have been better.
If the crop was big, you should have had more money.
If the crop is small, and he's getting the money, the crops are small.
We all understand that.
Basically, the reason that we would be reasonably moved out of the department is the department is basically a decent, patriotic, conservative man, right?
That's all.
But all this, I do feel, I don't, I just don't want to, I just don't want to have to take it from, I think of a business like, well, first of all, the merits.
I'm just not, I'm just not sure we ought to cruelly address the merits.
But that's something that you, as a person,
But on the other side, I don't think there's much in the modern consumerist business.
At least that we cannot power balance with a strong state on jobs.
I think if you can emphasize the jobs, our concern about jobs, and America's competitive position in the world,
I know that's what we're supposed to do.
Just stay in the camp like this, very solitary thing.
Where we get a little hollowness, there's a parking lot on the left, there's a parking lot on the right.
What are they doing?
I don't know.
I also got an inspiration to do this.
I think that Lee's gonna try to get a line around that problem.
That very problem.
Who is this?
Do you see this?
Yeah.
Well, I would hope, gentlemen, that when we get the sedan over this bay, we would get this barn brought back in here.
Is somebody working on it?
Here's the piece.
Here's the piece.
I'm going to go over all sorts of those.
We have some economic requests.
There's all too frequently the lawyers got involved in parties and make recesses with the judges who are in charge over there.
And who will do the economics?
That's the counsel.
That's right.
That's the counsel.
Well, we have not begun to do any of this kind of work until after we have everything the client is going to give us.
foundation.
Not only that, but what law is, you know, and you have to think about the other end of the track, you know, the other end.
Otherwise, you get into conversations where there's just only a good line.
There are all kinds of parts.
You've got to find out what the law is, what we think it is, and how it is being administered, and then find out from there what it ought to be.
You know, I started off in the state of Texas, six or eight basic institutions.
I just know that we're getting further than that.
Particularly where you can meet international competition.
And more people understand the international competition than you think.
And a whole lot more understand that than understanding the antitrust action.
The steel industry, the steel industry, the fuel industry, the beef industry, every farmer, every rancher in small Australia, beef industry, it's just terrible.
When you talk about how many, I want to bring it back to the present time, this figure that was brought out the other day, that more...
Where cars are sold on the West Coast, including California, in the last month, American cars, is one hell of a subject.
It's so very fact.
This is the point I'm making.
Precisely.
If you could be exact, it's like this.
And if you know the charts, it's three of those.
Three of those.
95%.
Definitely.
I'm sorry, I don't know what the name is on it.
The cars cannot be loaded in our antitrust world.
I don't know.
But we just ensured that we got to ensure that we got to remain competitive in a lot of these areas.
Well, here's the best part.
You started to ask the population.
Tell them to put airbags in their cars.
That'll keep them.
Oh, my gosh.
You started to ask them to take care of us.
Yes, sir.
That's the way it should be.
Well, that's the way it should be.
You should hear about that.
Well, Peter, where is it at the 9-10?
It's at the point where the DOT and Justice have now exchanged their memorandums.
That's correct.
And we can get back and have another meeting.
Now up to you to call a meeting with the Clarence and you to review the guidelines that are coming about.
These 12-term guidelines, Mr. President, what are we going to say to them?
is appropriate in general terms with regard to murders.
We're not going to let the big ones merge, and we're not going to let them do that.
And we're not going to let the mediums merge with the bigs.
And we're not going to let them know that.
I don't believe we'll say that.
I think we'll say they can't.
But they spend so much time talking issues, stirring around as to what they can do.
We ought to tell them what they can do.
And let them know.
Oh, I don't know anything about it, John.
But they're pretty good at making a lot of decisions.
Well, I agree with that.
I just think on the airline, I've never heard of it.
If you don't screw one, huh?
Well, if one, if you don't screw one, well, if you don't screw one, well, if you don't screw one, well, if you don't screw one, well, if you don't screw one,
Or even home.
Well, entertainment was more important, but even at home, this damn competition is what's putting them all in trouble.
But to point out again, and it's not just the U.S. Attorney, the White House of Justice, we have a statute, I mean, a case law, and this is why I'm out here, that when we run into problems, and let me point out that even if everybody in government were to approve the merger of A and B, C, D, and F would come in and litigate for three years.
So what I believe is that in the scale, I think we're going to get to the point where we're going to have to reckon with legislation.
And I think that this may very well be true in some of our Canada aspects, particularly with respect to the farming process.
Well, that may be necessary.
It seems to me that what we told the airlines is, what will our posture be?
They kind of assume that they ask for a merger.
We don't care.
We've been coming down the road three or four times.
And you know businessmen.
They get to be very shallow and approach these things.
They're not going to say, well, hell, the government told me we could do it.
They'll forget about the SCDA and their competitors and the courts and all the rest of it.
So that's the other side of the trap that we've been working on.
Thank you for your understanding.
Let me ask you a basic problem.
It's the way we've been talking about this.
It gets down to the question of people on the airlines.
I don't know if that's all that's true about a human ship.
I don't know how much interest he has in the president.
But one of the strewest guys on this field is American.
The OCR is American.
I don't know what he thinks about all this.
Do you talk to him, for example?
I have not.
He's retired.
I have.
I generally talk about anything he says to me.
He said most of the time, much of the time, he says it's a bad thing.
He says it's impossible to witness the destruction of the airlines today.
It's the fact that there were too many moves from anything.
He said it's too damn much competition.
Everybody wanted to know the fact that we were going to find tenders out.
And then, of course, he analyzed it and said they got hit with the loss of increased traffic.
They're running 15% snapback, plus the exorbitant weight shift.
Yeah, and he thinks that's just what the rest of us think.
We've got a capacity problem.
We've got to commence the market.
Mr. President, what has happened is that the CAB, for instance, this CAB has turned off the route space.
No more people have it.
This CAB was good yesterday.
This CAB came out with a great increase that is going to help them this year right away.
So to add up now, Carlson can have you tonight.
I think you've seen me make money this year.
The CAB is in Samaritan.
Great group.
U of A and Amherst, they have problems.
Partly because of the math.
with the kind of comment that I think we can get out of it, we can work out what the count is of injustice, I believe it would have made a big step forward.
In addition to that, if there is capacity production underway, if that's 20% on the major routes, those that have crossed that grass, 20% less departures.
Now, because they put 747s on, instead of 707s, there are only 10% left seats available in February.
But nevertheless, even that 10%
and they're selling their old 707s and DC-8s.
Who do they sell those to?
Some of them they shan't use, some of them they sell to foreign people, to foreign operators.
So that's a great point.
The trouble with some of them, Mr. President, is they have to meet our pollution standards in this country, and it costs too much to bring them up today.
They're going to go and lose the chance.
They're going to go and lose money.
Oh, God.
This looks like a great supply for us, but, well, it helps us, I think, educate them a little bit as to what they might do.
Because it turns out, on the economic side, that if the whole industry reduces its capacity by, say, 20%, by just taking 20% of its airplanes and putting them on the shelf, it'll make more money.
because there would be, of course, a reduction in the number of passenger miles flown, so they would fly at a much better capacity.
The trouble was that you couldn't figure out an industry-wide way to make that decision in a way that we had thought of, but that could avoid advantage.
We're clear that 20% of them has polluted air or something, and they can be put on the shelf, but they weren't cut out.
Anyway, they stopped.
The thing that would be better off is they could be placed in the hangar, I guess.
They're going to want it, so it's the idea.
They don't buy it.
You want them to have tissues.
When you're talking about specific industries, the value of this box is a lot.
It has to be a lot.
United and Pan Am both went out and sold down the stock issues.
So they're not nearly as discouraged as they were some months ago.
We have made structural improvements, and I think we're doing a little bit more on capacity and other issues.
I saw him again here yesterday.
Yes, he does.
He's asked me several times.
Yes, he does.
He will come in.
He is.
He will come in and ask for things that we will not support as well as supporting things that we very well might support.
the subcommittee of the county and the economic policy of the food actor shares on taking some of the regulation off of service, transportation, railroads, trucks, and pipelines is going to be off the top of their step because the truckers have such a big lobby.
But, you know, we're going to buy that now.
Economically, we do.
We're going to buy it.
We're going to buy it.
We're going to buy it.
We're going to buy it.
Not for removing the regulation.
We backed off from much of the preentry of the trucks for a period of time, for about two years.
What they're really out here for is giving the railroads some flexibility in their ways, but the truck industry won't let that.
And the railroad's flexibility in abandoning unnecessary lines, and that's really important.
They're 40% of the Penn Central lines are not profitable and they can't get rid of them.
It's been years and years and years of trying to get us to level off those parts of the Senate where they're not very good.
I think when I've been through that over there with the New Jersey lines and some of the rest of them, it's going to come down on the marquee matters.
We're going to be testifying on a break before the meeting.
If the governor will pick up $10 million a week,
which has caused the Penn Central to subsidize accreditation of the Penn Central Railroad.
George Maddox has read my office, and he's been talking about Penn Central, the Illinois Central.
He said about, I think he said there's another railroad going bankrupt in six weeks.
I think he said Illinois Central.
Jersey Central?
No, he said Illinois.
I don't know what he said.
Illinois?
But, uh...
He says the penitentiary's got to have another $145 million.
Very shortly, that he's told for us about talking about asking for those $10 million.
We can see Congressmen all about it.
That's because of the failure of Congress to adopt those work rules.
Yeah.
And they just say, we don't need these people who cost $10 million.
We don't need them.
Now, if the government wants to subsidize them and put them on this kind of welfare, that's fine.
But we don't need them.
That's right, John.
I agree with the people.
A mayor of every city is going to lose his service.
He's going to complain.
He's going to lose taxes.
He's going to pay for it.
Why should those people pay for it?
To stop building railroads, which are going broke.
I agree with the figure, but I don't think you're going to study it until December of 1972.
I don't know.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I know.
But the alternative is to turn about the passenger.
How are we going to end these railroads if they go broke?
There are places in Iowa where nowhere in Iowa is more than nine miles on a railroad track.
That's because when they had their horses, they usually couldn't take grain on the nine miles of the railroad track.
But now it doesn't work that way.
Now all those endless railroad tracks have to be kept in service because the FCC won't let them go in.
And all the thermos are gone broke, except some of the .
Now, that sample's basically .
Yeah, we got through the reaction .
But how will it be in the air?
How will it be in the air?
That's not the point.
I know, right?
That's what we've been talking about.
We've been able to statistically analyze which cities actually put on any railroad passengers.
And rather than a city like Clinton where nobody ever got on the train, they eliminated it from the passenger route.
And there's this enormous human pride for people who never ride the train.
Out of city credit.
It's so logical you should have been able to convince Mike Mansfield.
Yeah.
All that we do in these hard parts, and I've got to go back to my answer, is addressing the issue.
Or whether it's civic pride or loss of service or whatever it is.
Oh, that's definitely one of these momentary issues with the emotional service.
They know it should be done and they don't quite like to be put in it.
They don't bring it up again.
It's just done.
All right, I can't do that.
If you do something like this, I agree with you basically.
There is a way to overcome it.
You do it in the name of the economy.
You do it in the name of cutting down expenses.
All they did was a foil of ours.
You can't just do it and not have so much use of it.
You guys talk so much about it that you get everything you did for economic reasons.
You can't contend with the things that are consistent with trade.
Maybe there's a few votes to play with, but if you make another fight, fight it by issue, pick them up in Dubuque and Fort Worth and Denver and somewhere else.
So they said, well, I've got to come up with something right, you know.
Yeah, I think the structure is in the economy.
In fact, you're going to offset to another point when you've got something going on in wider places.
And that's why I'm telling you, with that particular... With that particular... With that particular situation.
That's right.
You just have to do it on that basis.
Otherwise, any solution proposition would have a solution.
And those are actually in place with the bigger lines.
That's correct.
Well, in a lot of these lines here, I guess the ones that are still in question are commuter lines.
Most commuter lines have a rail package along.
Now, there is another passenger issue with the lines.
The commuter lines are taken over by the rail packages, certainly.
That's right.
But that's an issue for the private rail lines.
We're a very good commuter line currently run by private railroads.
And this is true of all of the railroads across the country.
I know we've addressed them in East and in Chicago, but I'm understanding that they are substantially more expensive.
These Session 16 Proceedings that render their call to ICC are almost all untraceable freight lines.
and that they're seeking for ransom for a hundred years.
Well, they've ran for time.
It takes four years to fence up over 40% of those track agents.
It's worthless.
And for each 10 or 15 mile section, they go into the stack of figures that I had.
It takes four years for the track agents to be rescued.
And the tragedy is that with their trying miles on the border, it fenced up to about 15 years.
At that point, 10 years to try to get the SEC to relieve them of some of their track in these unprofitable operations.
You could not get the government to believe that.
And that's just a dead-handed federal now.
That all knocks me from it.
Whatever your decision, whatever your views, whatever your actions are going to be, that's general.
Turn to free market.
Sure.
And you have to let it go broke.
And a lot of people have said, well, it's been 15 years.
I've seen senior restricted practices.
They just say it's a bunch of thieves up there.
There was a startling thing to me in the middle of the other day.
I was very poised to announce the proposal to our company.
But they were dropping the manufacturer of course now.
And I thought to myself, and I saw that, and I thought, God, that's, that's just, uh, that is the great thing about private enterprise.
If this out there isn't regulated, and even though it looks superficially like a good product, but it doesn't make any money, they stop.
And any kind of government gets into it, whether it's a regulator or an enterprise itself, there are no terminal facilities on anything.
And that's how bad it is.
And these river lines are the example of the worst thing in the world.
And how bad it is, you can't stop.
What is the point of that?
Sure, it's part of the stock program.
They were very good.
Why was it less?
The product itself was less.
Apparently, a good product, alright, but they just couldn't sell enough of it.
And the prices they needed to cover their costs to make it profitable.
That's your first question.
Weren't you satisfied?
Because you were rude.
What were your feet?
I don't know.
I remember, I think I had a pair of Corvette Vols.
I had a pair of Corvette Vols.
You're keeping them free.
Some people keep them free.
Anything to do with the monetary compensation?
All the while, all the while.
Mark's down.
Hiller's down.
Last report I had was down 1.5% of both.
We're
We all wanted to talk to people involved.
The name of the Federal Reserve, Charlie Coons, was a New York bank, and Bruce McClure is the one that we're bringing home tonight.
He's been talking to the Swiss, which makes it better by talking about taking the world over.
We're playing around with the idea,
some of these dollars, some of the Euro dollars, just so we don't get in a crisis.
And it looks like we might be able to take in, oh, maybe a billion dollars at around 5 trillion, which would be bad for goods, I would say.
And we probably should take 5 billion dollars off the ends of the Germans.
They criticize the United States because they don't, well, just because of our efficient management of our problems.
They're trying to trade out the balance of payments, which we've made over the last 15 years.
And we're just going downhill without questioning that.
But specifically, all the countries over there made a difference in Germany.
Europe is different, more than us, oil, although that's nice.
The French, the French governor made a comment in his speech on the meeting the other day about the Germans.
They're all upset with the Germans.
They think they set back the European Union's single monetary policy across Europe.
They needed to make good.
These, uh, I guess they don't propose anything about re-evaluating the English school system.
Sometimes we didn't make it, but we took it.
Well, so I was able to get on with it.
Oh, yeah.
I'd like to see them conduct it.
Yeah.
But my point is that these Japs are going to do anything that's not their interest, and they're not going to do anything because they think that's a hell of a hard thing to do.
So they're not about to do it.
Uh, and they made it clear that they don't want to make us keep the information.
Uh, and, uh, I'm curious, uh, what about the actions like, uh, taking this case?
I'm back to the discussion about the business community to get rid of our time for control programs.
I talked about that, uh, and we, I still get other meetings.
Yes, yes, we, uh,
I thought we could do it today, but I think we might do it maybe tomorrow and discuss it again.
I actually find great enthusiasm for it.
As a matter of fact, some of the discussions going on revolve around even making the controls more intentional.
There is, as they say, a great deal of problems in Europe today.
And part of this crisis is caused by American corporations with huge
and they're trying to find out, we've practiced a lot of mechanisms to find out who's really, but everybody agrees that probably a good portion of it comes from American business, and they're sending money over there.
Absolutely.
And I do, too.
Right?
So a large part of it, George, is that they will move the LOA, and I don't think we'll get much support for it, but we will enter it in time.
Would either go into it or not?
All right.
But, uh... Oh, yeah, but I think this has been embedded into our history by Starcoin and stuff that we've been playing here with us.
Basically, this is a good time to do it because it's a form of devaluation of a specialized store.
that the market can take care of when the prices are floating with respect to each other.
So since they're floating, this is the time to let them, in effect, take into account this new arrangement.
It's indeed in control of the economy.
I'm sure you want to do it first.
Well, that's what nobody knows.
We really don't have the nation's facts, but we're just talking to you.
They're going to be wildly close to that.
They're going to be wildly close to that.
Well, that's part of it.
The other part of it is that they're reacting to the European philosophy, and I'm just telling you their reaction.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with it.
We took it off control, and I completely agree that the Europeans would view this as even, they would view it as a rat slap.
and I couldn't sleep.
And I have to give you the nine deflectors that we don't give a damn about.
We all have a bunch of stuff.
We're going to run our fairs, and we've done what we please.
And I don't get action from the New York Fed people that we deal with, and I don't think you'll get from my children from the Fed, or here, or Harvard, or all these people.
And right or wrong, I think you'll get from the Europeans.
I think at least I've signed a personal token.
That's what I'm going to say.
John, I think there's a question regarding the Fed, or the U.S., and what the U.S. will position itself before the French, because they're going to have the Germans move.
The Germans wouldn't impose control, but the French would like control.
I would think that the Germans would have opted for a free market solution to this problem.
of, you know, unsanitary therapy.
I think he was going to take enough of your time for these non-political matters.
Now, if Mr. Metzger will bring in Jim Eastman, he's going to decide who we're going to make first.
That's the judge of the court, Jim.
I hope we don't bring up what's going on.
He worked with an older, dear friend of mine, the Chief Justice of the Court of Customs and Patent People,
Uh, you know I'm the sheriff's president, Mr. Conner, good man.
What?
Gene isn't, wants to be permanent, is permanent.
He will get off the court, provided, uh, provided you appoint somebody other than a patent lawyer.
He said, now you've appointed one patent lawyer on here.
And, uh, what's wrong?
He said, you ought not to have a patent lawyer in your office.
You've got one.
If he understands all this, all he knows is to say, you know, leave him.
He told me the story after a year and a half and he hasn't gotten a heart attack.
He thinks you've got a four-color name, Brown.
He thinks he knows you've got a four-color name.
He gets off and he's a padlocker.
I don't believe that's true.
I don't know.
I don't believe that's true.
But he just said, I don't believe that's true.
I don't believe that's true.
I don't believe that's true.
I don't believe that's true.
What do you see good in that?
Do you see the lawyer?
The rest of the room got rambled out.
He's a God-earned God now.
He's got to be able to be on the court.
He's a lawyer.
He's a lawyer.
He's a lawyer.
Anyway, thank you, sir.
Thank you very much.
Good to be here.
Good to be here.
Yeah.
Oh, I just... Good job.
Good job.
Good job.
Good job.
I've talked to today about the economic aspects of it and so forth, but I don't know whether they have it or not.
Have you heard any talk about that?
That's correct.
Who?
That's the utility business.
Gas utilities?
Yeah, they're supposed to be talking to you.
Their testimony that has gone to the Bureau of the Budget is opposing the legislation
When I cast, they're reserving the right to look at the anti-competitive principles that they ever introduced.
Good, my pleasure.
No, I won't.
Yes, sir.
I'm just going to do it again.
Frank, what about the boat?
You got the boat?
I'll check that out, by the way.
Yes, you're in here.
Yeah, you stay right here.
You stay right here.
for the purpose of sort of just talking to these guys.
I don't know anything about these subjects, John, on the slightest.
Like I said, they had a lot of things about class action bills and all things like that.
I thought you were going to buy them a drink and thank them for their help.
Somebody sent this in?
No, it's all right.
I guess they're just trying to please me.
All of that is what it looks like.
It's about $3 getting back together.
I'm looking to get real close to the table now.
The SST will not be loaded until tomorrow afternoon.
They're sort of plowing their way through the building.
They haven't come to the point where they can get to that yet.
Let me ask you something.
I've got a little distraction about that.
I was just in and said that Clark McGregor is having apoplexy because he's having dinner for those GOP senators that are going to come up for elections and he's not supposed to come.
Now, God damn it, I'm not going to go to that dinner.
I cannot drop by dinner's members of the staff.
I'll have them sometime.
But, you know, like he had a charter of marching.
I don't have a charter of marching, but I can't go while the gang is down and down.
I don't know how to speak.
That's absolutely what I have.
What are you doing?
What's the policy?
We wanted Weinberger to get together.
It's a stupid way to do it.
You wanted Weinberger to get together with the senators that were up for re-election.
Senator's up for re-election as far as I know.
But you've got to do it one by one.
You can't do it at a dinner where everybody's having a cocktail.
Because each guy's interest is conflicted with other guys' interests.
The point is, we've got Bob.
I just want it understood that I am not dropping Bob.
dinners or cocktail parties that members of the staff have, members of the center, I'll have, where I'm not going to drop Bob and be, can you explain it to Clark?
Yeah, I just can't do it, but everybody's got people in, others have got people in.
No, I told him, Alex brought up a good few people, and he doesn't, apparently he didn't get the word.
And I'll be glad, I'll be glad that if he wants to set up so that I have a, if I, if he wants to bring it up so that I have a dinner for them,
or a reception, or have them in the office.
I have a whole bunch, but I do not want to drop by a cocktail party with those people.
You know what I mean?
He's got some staff people dropping by, and I think that's different.
He's dropped by, he's out of the league, dropped by.
It's just you, you're the only one.
You're important.
I'm not such a good idea to talk about anything early, because we can't have the captain work their grand butts off to everyone in the area.
The captain officers see these bastards in their offices and go, well, I mean, John sees them all the time.
They're down there, you know, asking for something they shouldn't have.
And I'm just not for it.
No, I'm just not for it.
I'm not going to do it.
You shouldn't do it.
He shouldn't be with the group.
That's a group anyway.
No, no.
Then they get in and decide that everyone else is going to, you know, when he's committed to come to his state, he wants to push something and it's a political meeting and they're up for re-election and that is not the thing to do.
I'm not doing anything political.
That's the other reason.
It's a good...
The original idea of getting Weinberger working with each of these guys was a good idea, just to make sure Weinberger got into it.
Oh yeah.
The track goes, but I don't think taking them in mass is going to accomplish that.
That's five o'clock.
I don't know.
That's Eastland.
Oh, yeah.
It was merely for the purpose that Eastland had never been there.
They've done such an outstanding job.
It's just been a few minutes.
Talking socially, it might be bad, but during your time as a court, that sort of operation could, and not to get into the issues, but...
There's...
I can talk to the director.
I can talk to the director.
My director was raising a point of privilege that he should be interested.
No.
He was calling me off the phone.
No, no, no.
No, no, no.
We're there, and I think he's going to appreciate it if he can talk to me a little.
He's coming back from Mississippi to do it.
This is a cotton plant at the time, isn't it?
Yeah.
Maybe we're running out of cotton anyway.
I'm going to have a little trouble with the length of this.
Nothing else I can do.
We'll arrange for it.
Are you sure?
If you want surgery, I'm out here.
I'll take more of those next.
But we'll have it here in a few days.
I'm going to walk over there.
You got that all down?
If you know
and then we hit her and they walk.
One-way.
A bit.
And one-way walk.
No orders.
Quick piece of information for you.
Remember when we were discussing the first quarter GMP?
Yeah.
It was a record breaker, but we were sorry it wasn't a 30-year-old veteran.
Yeah.
They've gotten their additional information in there.
They have their revised figure, which they're going to publish on Friday, and it's 30.8.
It's up, but it gets up above, out of the 20s, into the 30s.
Now, this is a revised figure.
Dependence has risen in the first quarter.
What?
It's just a dependence rise in the first quarter.
30.8.
Well, now, how in the hills did they beat $2 billion off, George?
Well, you remember, I thought they were... You remember, um, Kenny, George, we... John, we were sitting down.
We were waiting for a response.
comment on this when you get through.
Let me go ahead.
Sit down, sir.
Let me say, Charlie and I were sitting over a minute ago.
I mean, I didn't.
It's me.
I care about you.
I care about you.
Everybody knows nothing about me.
And we were sitting over at the little red room over here.
And, uh, you know, he kind of could tell that something had hit him like, you know, like,
He said, well, it was only $28,000.
I said, geez, that sounds good to me.
His eyes opened for $30,000.
Now, how could they do $2,000,000 off?
Is this the real figure then?
That would still be another division.
The reasonable another division.
But I think it's almost sure because how does it work?
Tell us how it works.
uh... uh... uh...
The preliminary figure always comes out before they really know very much about the last month of the quarter.
So they put this figure out.
There was something about Marsh, but they really didn't have the figure.
George Schultz has got a little piece of...
And the first quarter, instead of being up 28.5, it was up 30.8.
So we did get up above the $30 billion mark.
And that's really, it's a 7.1% real increase instead of 6.5%.
That's not the highest quarter-to-quarter increase ever, but in percentage terms, it's
There were a few quarters back in the 60s.
So that really shows that our thinking hasn't been too far off.
Correct.
In terms of our annual estimate, anything that goes in the first quarter, of course, will count four times, so to speak, in the average.
So it's much better to get the rise in the first quarter than the last.
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
That's a Friday note.
So Friday is an announcement day.
Well, of course.
No, this is a 1065 that everybody's had so much fun with.
It's an average for the year 1971.
So...
You expect to have the end of the year be way above 1065, and the beginning of the year, first quarter, is below.
And the further up you get in the first quarter, it accumulates, of course.
You start from one and you keep moving up.
So the further up you get in the first quarter toward the 1065, the less average and difficulty you have, and that stays with you all the way.
George, while you're here, I spent a little time with Ron Reagan yesterday.
He says that some of the people around him, I didn't get into the details, some of the people around him, including the business community and so forth, are saying that our Democrat House people in the Labor Department, and he didn't mention Commerce, are screwing around with these figures that we have.
Is there any way to check that?
He says they're unapplied figures.
They're unapplied figures.
Well, I don't have very great confidence in them, but we should be distracted by all of them, and particularly the next spokesman, who is a professor in that stream version of the same one, so that we know we've cut out this, this, this.
Oh, very good thinking, and the best thing you ever did, the best thing you ever did, they squealed about it for a while, but it's done now.
And that's the way it should be.
Look, figures are figures.
Now, in opinions, a figure is something else.
There's only one opinion, and that's the opinion of the administration.
And then other people have their opinions, but not with any administration, they're not going to have three or four opinions on those same figures.
But he claims it's very hard for them to fool around with the employment figures, particularly the household survey.
Because the main words on these GNP figures are, these are rather mysterious, in my opinion.
Are they?
And why do you think that we move
Why would they be that far off?
Because you see, what I was starting to say is that the...
Here we are, you see, we're in early May.
It was early April when they put this out.
They didn't have very much in the way of information about March.
They knew about January, they knew about February, they knew a little bit about March as a big month, and they tended to extrapolate the first two months into a third one.
Why March came in very strong was why did they put them out then?
with all this extrapolation?
Well, I guess it's part of the process of trying to provide the best information as early as possible on the question of guessing as to when you would put out figures of some kind.
But nevertheless, George, this is a darn good figure, and it's really a good one right now.
Now, in this case, though, can we talk about it?
I don't think we should send Paul over that on this one.
Paul McCracken.
He said he isn't going to play the positive people.
This is an end of positive numbers.
Oh, yeah.
Well, this ticks the wind out of the people who are saying they're going to work on it after that last week on the climate figures.
Let's not march.
I don't know, I don't think Connelly understands it as well, more than I do.
I think you do, I think.
I don't think so.
You see, at one point, we already had John, and then having Eleanor, and trying to do this thing with shells, and people over here, and burns, and then there's basically the burns,
And there's, of course, in between the crack and the sort of rise of both sides.
George, this is your ballpark where you're a budget and all the rest of it.
That's right.
I agree with you, though.
If it is kind of a number, it's got to be done positively.
Now, in terms of being done positively, I noticed I reflected Herb's, or Kwan Herb's, side angle feels that we shouldn't be talking about.
Too often, I should be, because we'll get bad amounts of silver.
Oh, we will.
I guess on unemployment, you can't figure that anything's going to happen there.
How long do you think it's going to take?
Six months before it starts to move a little?
I think it'll move sooner or later.
All right, there's unemployment.
Like I said earlier, CPI, that'll bounce up and down.
But this is a very important number.
Isn't this the one where they said that the Nixon administration is much too optimistic with regard to its economy, but don't you think it removes a lot of that?
Well, it certainly sets them back.
They are most severe critics.
About two weeks before this first quarter, the preliminary was announced.
We're predicting a $22 billion increase.
Now it's a $30 billion increase.
They were almost a third off in the change, not too low.
And, you know, we were saying, you fellas all estimate too low because you don't understand the vitality of the private enterprise business.
Even your friend Arthur Burns hitched considerably on this one, doesn't he?
Yes, he did.
I don't want to imply that we're in or anything, but this is a good thing.
Isn't this right on your estimate?
It's still a little below our... How much below?
On the council's, it's about $2 billion or so.
Well, they were looking between $33 and $35 billion for the council.
Our blackers, little bottles, show an increase of...
About $32 billion given the money supply business.
So it's too bad about $30.8 billion.
This is $30.8 billion.
It's rising.
The reason I think when they uniquely admire human resource, they look at the gross national product from two sides.
It's sort of like dental entry booking.
There's a production side and there's an income side.
And they match more or less.
Now, the income side, in a sense, looks stronger even than the production side.
I think you can pull this up in the review.
Also, I believe there is in the works, and this is technical and it really isn't sort of a legitimate point in a way, but nevertheless, I think it will help us.
This is talking about the rate of interest, but they have underestimated
some of the payments in the system, so that the whole level is due.
Each July they revise the level chart, and after revising the level, that won't boost this 30-point case, but it will attach it to an action chart, and this number is the whole price it will get paid off.
Oh, that's bad.
Is this true, Disney?
I wonder if...
As far as I know it is, but maybe they're still cussing with it.
I don't think they would tell me if that was bad.
Well, if they are, I think they ought to get it out before Friday.
You know what I mean?
It will never hold.
It will never hold.
Don't you agree, John?
I would think it would leak everything out.
It does.
If the number is solid, they ought to get it out before Friday.
You can hold them over there.
We do pressure them all the time to get it figured out fast.
Well, we promise we would.
Well, I think it confirms the notion that we shouldn't blow our top.
But we do have to watch out that Federal Reserve doesn't start.
Because what we've had now, we have two months of much too big monetary growth.
Now they're compensating in the other direction.
The thing is going up.
I'll tell you what I thought you would do, uh, uh, I'm going to pull your head a little bit.
You got that?
If you want a piece of your churro, we can demonstrate it for you.
Now, come on, let's sit down.
Now, the observation was made when we were put in that stinking place there, over here.
From half of here, it was pretty cold.
Let's get over here.
What, uh, what, uh, what, uh, what, uh, what, uh, what, uh, what, uh, what, uh, what, uh,
Do you have also a grant to make a YouTube video?
I don't have a grant to make a YouTube video.
I don't have a grant to make a YouTube video.
I don't have a grant to make a YouTube video.
I don't have a grant to make a YouTube video.
I don't have a grant to make a YouTube video.
I don't have a grant to make a YouTube video.
Who will be the chairman of the committee?
I think it will be O'Neill.
No?
No, he's in the leadership.
We'll run with it.
We'll run with it.
You know, out there in the House, it's just 5%.
We didn't have some of the Southern Democrats that put the country first.
We'll go right down to two.
We're going to run with it.
We're going to run with it.
He was a fellow conspirator on both of them.
And we both loved him.
You're not a conspirator.
You're an activist.
An activist.
You say the president certainly made one of your constituents awful happy to appear last week.
But leave us alone, Richard.
She sat at my table.
Yeah.
The rest of them used chairs as an example.
A little cotton.
She had a cotton dress.
Yeah, I'm here to search her.
She had a wonderful weekend, though.
She wore it when I sent it to her.
Well, I told a little story about the fact that John Adams, you know, he had all these cattle out there that were on the lawn and everything.
I said, John Adams was the first person to live in our house.
And you know that he was a great professor.
He went to Peter Hall from horticulture.
He tried to build silkworms.
I said, it failed.
Or otherwise, everybody would be wearing silk.
I said, well, Mrs. Saunders says she's wearing cotton.
I said, well, you can deal with that, too.
And that's why we ended up there.
respondents, dinner, and where he was at post, and so forth.
We go over to the, we've got an actual room called the math room over here, which I'll take you to see in general.
Well, it's the room that Roosevelt used as the situation room in World War II.
You know, where he put all the maps up and put little darts in, and now Chris is over here in the basement.
And then for many, many years, it was out of use.
It was sliced up.
The doctor used part of it, and the other half.
We discovered it, and my wife loved it.
And so we tore up the partition, restored it to the famous room, and also to the barn, which wasn't mine.