Conversation 503-001

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Teksting av Nicolai Winther

Hei!

... ... ... ... ...

It makes a damn good story.

And because they talk about the surprise, they said, oh,

Somebody said, my God, no, it's not next to me.

... ... ... ... ...

He catches the stuff that needs follow-up now.

That automatically goes over, they go...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Where, what time?

Well, you can do it any time you want, and they say it will take half an hour.

I don't know.

He said he was going to say something.

Well, that's easy.

It's only five minutes.

I mean, to read.

It's a signing ceremony.

Well, if you stay for the signing, it will be worth it.

There's actually Alex Johnson.

He's lyrical about hard creating the gold, and he really worked hard.

I don't mind destroying it.

We originally raised that.

You had said that you would do it if Rogers felt it was really important for you to do it.

Rogers came back and said he did not feel it.

Well, since then it's changed.

He didn't understand then what it was.

And, well, it changed.

Let me argue one other point.

With what you've got to do, you've got a problem doing it in terms of time.

The other problem is...

If you do it, Mr. President, the way to do it would be not to stay for the whole signing, just to come in, make a brief statement and leave, and let them then have the signing ceremony, because otherwise...

You'll have to sit through 85 countries, which that will be...

It's one of those things that...

I should be very brief with it.

I should be working on this for 27 months, that some of the other, I don't mean diplomatic...

We overlook the enormous importance of work in this kind of field.

It could be a tremendously new departure in the history, which could be an internationalized communication.

Yeah, and communications...

I think it would show your interest in the positive side of internationalism.

That's true.

On the other hand, it is true.

It's one of these many things, Mr. President, where whatever you may say, I mean, whatever they may say about you, you broke the deadlock again and made the tough decision on Tuesday night.

I'm going to have somebody come in here.

I'm going to get him on staff.

He's supposed to probably be the better boss.

I'm going to get him on staff.

He's supposed to probably be the better boss.

The curious thing last night, Bob, is who should be the presiding officer, and this may have been worthwhile, but Howard K. Smith.

Oh, was he?

Howard K. Smith was there.

Is he still in there?

He must be.

But he was the presiding officer of the whole thing.

Last night after the party here, Mel had a dinner at Washington Kilt about 2000.

Delayed graduates honoring

The three graduates of Delaney, who were in the highest positions of government, including, of course, the reason I was the head of the chair, chairman of the armed services, Boggs, majority leader of the House, and Al Helman, the president for Kennedy Center.

So, I just popped right over to Peter about 9 o'clock and dropped in.

I sure did.

I didn't know they were available to you.

I would have appreciated that.

Yes.

Let me see.

Well, we can cut that part of it out.

Charles, you better find out.

There's no schedule.

Well, I've talked to Alex last night.

They'll schedule it any time.

You can do it before 12.30.

Yeah.

After that, it's... Let me just take one.

Yes.

We have a sign that says 11.

We could do it basically, which is bad.

We could do it, say, 12 o'clock.

Right?

Hold an hour, and get it back.

Yeah.

How do you do it?

See if there's anything.

I don't know how I'm going to take it, but it's all about what you should do next.

Oh, I understand.

It's all about what?

You can't go between that and the science thing, no.

There's no time.

It's just right after the science thing.

No, right after the science thing.

The science thing, you should be able to find that.

Well, let's figure it for 20 minutes.

You know what they could do?

I'd rather have those around their necks than they would let me do it.

Would you have to do that?

Yeah, I'd have to do it.

They can always make them.

I want that in the future, at least.

I mean, it's enormous to the origin.

It's a better picture.

And every person, particularly from academia, is used to having, you know, honorary degrees and all that crap.

You know, hanged all the way around, right?

And the neck, you just hand it to that box.

That's no picture.

But you put that medal around his neck, and he loves to wear it at the reception.

They're all out there looking at the medal, right?

Yeah.

I think it's so easy to do, and it's a beautiful picture.

Yeah.

Would I call them then about twelve?

Well, that's just saying how much we could do.

1130 is what we could do, I don't know.

Because it's supposed to be on the center for 1130 meters.

What could we say?

Could we say it's basically 1145?

This would be on the nose.

And then you'd like to be out by 12?

Do just that.

I don't know.

It's just coming by for a handshake.

That's all there is for a door thing.

Oh yeah, and then there's a collar.

Which is alright too.

There's no problems on those.

All we should know is they have a car.

Easy.

And some sort of tape or tower.

Yeah.

And that we should show.

There's no problem.

Basically, I think the best thing to do is to... Is to say, you know... Is that bad?

Or 12?

It's like 12 o'clock.

Yeah.

It's a science meeting at 11.

11 o'clock.

It might be a little safer, but I don't think it makes any difference.

But it's entirely up to you.

I think you can just stay alone here.

It will be true.

I'll start shortly at 11 o'clock over here.

They'll all be in place.

And the time we spend in there is better.

Yeah, they're going to have a reception.

May I call Alex Johnson down at the table, please?

Well, we had to do it right at the go-by, so I don't...

I don't... You know what?

When I go to such things, I don't want to make it look like a hop ship and a jump.

I'll show you how the other countries be there.

Well, this thing I'll spend...

If they can do the ceremony by 12 o'clock, that's all right.

I'll come back.

11.30 to 12.

I've got a half hour.

... ... ... ... ... ...

The local story here is on the front page of the women's section, and it's a front page item, something about Hale to the Chief, and then it is a headline, and then it gives quite a detailed story.

So it makes a good local story, which the wires all see.

I'm sure the wires have to, they really think like that.

They do, yes.

And it will get big coverage in Louisiana.

Louisiana is a century.

And it is a very important story otherwise anyway.

That's right, you're doing it really for the honor of a true man.

To do a little bit of Louisiana in the south.

You haven't used it, so there's another benefit of not going to university for a while, which is a damn good school.

And the other advantage is when you do something like that, the expenditure on you is almost minimal.

Exactly.

Because you don't have any preliminary preparation.

You don't have, you're not expected to make remarks.

Right.

So you don't have to have things.

You don't have to be real calm.

You don't have to put a text out ahead of time.

Right.

And your extemporaneous stuff is always going to be damn good.

You'll never lose on any of it.

That's a really big much difference.

Even on a flight one, the main thing is the effect of you being there.

That man flying over with the jeep and you coming in is a hell of a deal.

In terms of their worth to a company, it goes down if they get out in the end.

It is much higher if they get out while they're still riding, you know.

Sure.

And, therefore, let them go.

Now, on the other hand, those that do want to do that, you know, and so forth and so on, the people that would like to get the hell out of here anyway, you know, would look at it that way.

And that gives us an opportunity to move into those positions first.

On a frankly, if you come to try that basis, give them a chance to be an assistant secretary and so forth.

You make no promise for any length of time.

You say, well, you can only promise you for a year, and that's the end of the year.

If you naturally, if you look, if you lose this guy, but if you win, you can say, well, we have different plans.

See what I mean?

I think it's not pretty dramatic to try all sorts of things.

That's right.

That's true.

It always happens in some way.

... ... ... ...

Stop!

They're all over me!

I'm a genius, I'm a genius.

I'm a genius.

Slugger is here!

30-1-9-0-8-6-0-9-0-10

I have sent you this morning

... ... ... ... ...

Indicating which, how this thing is going to come out.

That we're getting something that's concrete, and getting something that has as understanding as ever.

And the deal finally is made, and we've all got it buffed up, that we'll just all sit down and decide how it's going to be sold, and we can sell it.

But on the other hand, it goes along this way, and it's bought out, and it's pressed, and it comes, and so forth and so on.

Basically,

I think the important thing is, I mean, if we could keep in mind, the important thing is to have nothing, is to make it evil.

That is in our interest.

Of course, that work will have to be done.

Secondly,

In order to make that deal, nothing at all will be served, and a great deal of harm could be done by having any means of what we were thinking about get out.

So we're keeping the lid on here, Bill's keeping the lid on in state, and of course we're not going to say a hell of a lot within the bureaucracy here, I just think we're just going to keep very, very, you know, we could do that.

Take for example a

I think we can get that.

I think however it is, however it eventually sorts out, we must take that position now, if there are any human, any human in that.

We are moving away from safeguarding.

We would have a hell of a time, not just with some of our oppressors.

Scoot Jackson, for example, would be down on our throats like gangbusters, and a lot of guys would often let him die for ADM. Let's say that now, what are we going to do?

We're going to give up safeguarding, we're going to protect Washington, D.C., and all that sort of thing.

So I think it's very important for you to take an absolutely hard...

Why at first is the problem?

I can't tell.

Sorry for this way of my saying, but we are still in front of the person there, and we don't have that much gratitude from this side.

Our side, the press conference is for the police.

You are very, very hard.

I think you do really well.

No, I don't want to.

... ... ... ... ... ...

He's trying to get to people who are totally committed to a population where he's not a great contributor, but also to national security as a country.

And so you have to negotiate with these people for a long, long time.

That's what you're interested in, is the success of the negotiations.

Or, just as much as we possibly can.

Like consultation, information, and so forth.

... ... ... ... ...

The reform in which it takes is not all that important.

I would suggest that the United States government has a slight feeling of defensiveness about this.

I would suggest that it has a negotiated technique which is not as much as possible to stay away from the question for the opposition of the U.S. Secretary of State.

... ... ... ... ...

I think it just happens that they would not have moved this way unless they wanted freedom.

They want to leave.

And I think we're going to have to do this.

And I apologize, of course, on ourselves.

That's one thing we're going to avoid.

It's too bad.

It gives us a lot of time.

Do you think at the end of this particular session that you could have agreed to stop?

A lot of times.

At the end?

Yeah.

If you want to, yes.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

Oh, yes.

Wait a little later.

I don't think you realize it.

It was a fake, and then it was a fake.

That's all we can accomplish.

I agree with you.

They say there are a few of us.

All right, all right.

No matter.

Don't forget us.

That's right, that's right.

Well, we're all scientists.

I'm sorry.

That's right, that's right.

Have a good time.

Ragnarok 2.0

They said a lot of nonsense about China and all the rest of it.

And then, bam, here they come to this.

Now, what does that show you?

It shows you only that these people are going to insult their interests and they don't give a damn about that.

That's right.

They're going to insult their interests.

You know, they're concerned about the Middle East.

Oh, we get all kinds of reports back and discussions.

I, uh, did you read, uh, did you read what Landon Boland said there where they were saying that Roberts is hitting too much credit?

Yeah, yeah.

That's great.

That's just great.

And on the Middle East, I think I want you to hang around.

Just get out there and talk about it.

The way to use me on it is this.

First of all, I have no concern whatever about being tough on the Jews from a political standpoint.

The only thing that is, if I maybe needed at some time to squeeze, to do the squeezing, you could take a more advanced position than I could.

But as far as I'm concerned, I am totally, as a matter of fact, if I were in your position, I'd be no one more.

I command you to throw me off the wall.

You should have seen where that leads.

Ships.

Well, they're in for a tough deal now, because, and I think they let the cat out of the bag, probably they thought that Boland and all these passivists, these quakers, you know, would be delighted to hear that they're waiting for the next election to get the Democrats in.

Thank you very much.

Freeze!

Is the man ready to go over here?

Yes, sir.

He's all set.

We've got a secretary.

I don't know where he is.

All right.

See you tomorrow.

Sunday, 25.

Should I wait for the bus?

Yeah.

I'll wait for the bus.

No, it's all right.

I'll wait for the bus.

Mr. President, Mr. President, I'm sorry, I don't get to see you, to see you.

It's great to see you guys.

Well, I wanted to say that we

Most appreciative of the work you have done.

I think it's extremely important for your case.

Despite all the air talk these days, you know, but they still are in arms to impress my success in any area.

by sacrifice, by dedication, and so forth.

And he loved me, unfortunately.

He also had to have it, too.

I guess your life really was to be a...

I mean, to be a...

an environment where you, you know, got pushed right in the right place, the right training, and then you came off and also the judge had to also have a reading on this competitive spirit.

Well, I think that the God-given talent was there as a matter of having the coach bring it out.

You know, it is, you know, some young people of today, they profess not to have any interest in sports, they did, or things are much more serious, mostly, but you take a school such as, well, the University of Pennsylvania, which is not terribly known for sports other than basketball,

And we could not beat the Yale swing team for 75 years, and yet they did this year for the first time.

And now that school is swing school, really.

That's good for that school.

Tremendous.

You see, the point that so many fail to realize is that even though everybody doesn't participate, we all get a vicarious benefit from the, and lift from the,

Our people, our team, our school, our country doing well, right?

Absolutely.

And I'll... Oh, what's that?

Oh, my man.

That's right.

And that's extended.

So Penn is finally... That's right.

I remember so many, many years ago, Penn, you know, the great rivalry in football was Penn and Cornell on Thanksgiving Day.

I don't know.

I guess they still play.

But...

turned away from those pursuits, but it's good.

So they finally beat Yale, and there's not even 77 years in advance.

Yale, of course, is so outstanding in this field.

You have been.

What is the reason for the Yale coaching?

Well, it was the coach, Bob Kidd, who was there, went 14 hours, and just passed on.

But for so many years, he's

had the new techniques and had the drive and discipline and allowed the boys to do well.

And I think his record before he retired was six and ten long.

I think it was.

How does he compare in your mind to Haynes?

Quite different.

Bob Haynes was the old-time coach.

George Haynes, my Olympic coach, was a new, young...

It was the Santa Clara Sun Club, which produces all these phenomenal people.

Yeah.

Is that right?

Yeah.

Santa Clara Sun Club.

Right, and George Haynes has been a famous coach up there.

Way back, way back when there was a coach in Southern California, they used to have some great senior coaches there.

There may have been 40, well, no reason to, but, boy, the coaches make a difference.

Well, look what that, you know, you talk about Australian tennis, and the natural areas, which encouraged it, just as Southern California has, but Australian tennis became greater

Behind him, that tough, ruthless coach of theirs, you know, for so many years.

Remember, he was, the press hated him and the rest before.

They, yeah, I remember saying, Lombardi, you know, sure, he's a driver.

So is George Allen.

I guess George Allen was a different kind.

Well, he's much like Lombardi.

George Allen is, of course, he's a rough edge that Lombardi has.

He's a polished ball, and...

Boy, there is a no-nonsense discipline.

I just don't know whether Jurgensen's going to get along with that.

Jurgie loves having a good time.

He's probably, I've often thought of Jurgensen.

I might remember that, but I've seen him play.

If Jurgensen could ever bring himself to a little discipline, you know, lose about 10 pounds and so forth.

or anybody could ever touch him, you know.

It's a great pass.

Have you ever seen him like that?

No, I haven't.

I just, unbelievable.

You wonder how he does it.

And that must have an effect on the rest of the team.

He's got brains.

He's a great footballer.

He can throw the ball like any man.

He's had that.

And if he just had the other thing, but gosh, you know, when you're a quarterback, you've got to set an example to the others.

Now, Unitas, on the other hand, is, uh, followed instead of, you know, he's a, there's a real problem.

I think he was having this conversation.

I, I can't hear this.

But here, Johnny Unitas, he comes back again, but, but he's a leader of men.

Any question about that?

A leader of men.

Strong, intelligent, uh, uh, a fine personality, fine character.

Yeah, I've met so many in the whole field.

It's, it's, there's, there's other common

language as far as the character of people in athletics.

I don't mean they're all good.

Some of them are bums.

But, you know, you take the golfers, like our partners, who are really great guys.

They're coming to nominate us.

The perspective is all good.

Sir, I think the fellows are trying to keep your schedule on time.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I want to give you something.

Oh, what is it?

I wrote a good one of these on this cufflinks, too.

Oh, that's great.

Now this, as you know, is the presidential studio up there.

So this is reproduced here.

These cufflinks are on the presidential cufflinks.

Your wife does the same thing with the Vogue.

She works with them.

As will the boldness under your tie of duty.

Are you a golfer?

No.

You'd be great as a golfer, though, if you ever did.

I think you would.

You would be, particularly learning the game.

But you're perceived in everything.

And rhythm.

Golf is solely rhythm.

I guess that's virtually everything.

I guess that's right.

Thank you so much.

Good to see you.

Thanks a lot.

Appreciate your help.

Well, isn't it great to see you down here?

This is why we have the record, Mr. President.

Right there, he's the man.

I gave you a little credit, don't you?

Yes, I did.

She's a great writer.

She wrote a song.

Oh, why?

Oh, I see.

I mean, it's terrific.

I'm just saying, Mike, maybe we should end on that expression.

I think about it.

I think about it, too, sometimes.

Depends on the day.

So, now, we get one of them back.

You know, like, right at this point.

You look right out there, you know, very easily.

That's right.

Oh!

Sure.

Yes, yes, yes.

Oh, you're practicing, huh?

Okay.

Well, I appreciate that.

I thought that one of your great victories was when you came to the U.S. Senate Tuesday.

You're kidding about all my system of tracer appointments for events.

Right, I mean, we have to have a case of accidents.

Yeah, the team first had a little quibble on that one, too.

Are you going over to your tracers now?

Yes, we are going over to get lunch at Mary Grove.

Well, I saw her yesterday run over and be sure to have her show you.

There's a very famous room there that belongs to John Petty, who was the Secretary of National Affairs, and it was used as the office for Andrew Johnson.

He sued it, and Mary Thomas wouldn't move out of the White House after Thomas' death for some months.

It came out over there, and in the treasure, there's a tunnel through the treasure, and there she sits.

There's this magnificent office.

It's probably one of the greatest heralds of God, and there's a very advanced desk.

So be sure she sees it and shows you that.

I will.

I'm going to go see that my daughter.

Also, I want you to meet...

Yeah.

She's got my adult office.

Where you were before?

Yeah.

Oh, that's all right.

But you can, see, and then also, oh, did you know this girl, Luther Johnson?

You've seen her before.

She'll do that.

I'd like to see it.

Yeah.

I had never seen it.

I was over there yesterday seeing Connie.

But Patty hasn't now.

We went to, we were having fun.

See, there's a lot right in the middle, as you know.

Yes.

Right there.

We had a coach that stayed there trying to do it today.

Oh, yeah.

We met with Walter.

Oh, yeah.

Right.

He said, Mr. Brandon, can I have one little talk with you before I go?

Sure.

I wondered about it, so I bought your resume sharing plan in the collection.

It occurred to me, and sure, it would make a great deal for the collection agency,

and they're electrified people.

Could you, would it be possible to eliminate a whole new layer of bureaucracy to decide how much each county gets back, or whatever the racial change?

Could these million collection agents, they're all bonded county treasurers,

in every county and in every state, could they be collected?

Where we live, we pay it into our county, you would say.

I bet you that's whatever the ratio or the slide rule for the proportion would be worked out, that you'd have to have that mail it in.

Is that a thought, if you would say?

Well, let's turn around to the other way, let's turn around and see.

I would make sure that he helps us all the county treasurers.

And there's no question about that.

All of the people that come out there, they can't let down.

People would love to see it come back to them.

And there's so many people that I've talked to that tell me that they're so terrible, they're just trying to get away from their new office, and they should decide how much they can spend.

Well, it's time to leave.

I'm leaving now.

Let me get you noticed out here, Fred.

But that doesn't seem to go out there.

They're still in.

They're supposed to be an automatic passenger, which is the way it's supposed to be done.

But I see your point that they might have a lot more confidence in keeping their own people.

That's right.

And I would make such a good talking point.

So again, that's fair.

And of course, I know that this ties in with all the kind of changes in our state and the nation.

I'm sure of it.

That's fair, I know.

And we, if that was less than we get back, where I don't know how many days in the population, whatever those criteria would be, that's how we calculate it.

That would be deducted in their county share statement.

Because we have to pay it in some way or the other.

I'll have Bob through the place here.

What do we have here?

Thank you.

You can see this, the mark of this room.

You've been here before, of course, but have you ever been here before?

That's the same old building, and it's in the room.

It's almost in the park.

This is in the park.

So that's the mark of this room.

It's very recommended.

It has the famous Oval Office across there.

And let me see if I can see this.

It's so nice.

Well, what I'm saying is that these comics have the seal that's present in the United States.

In Britain, you get one.

You get one.

Thank you.

You get a little hint of the same thing.

You get one, too.

You get another one.

Oh, thank you, author.

Yes, thank you.

What are you planning on doing?

He has a signature and a seal of physical gadgets.

You don't have to report it.

So if you don't, my advice always is if you don't play it off, it's good or it's not good.

What do you say?

Hold the block.

All right.

All right, President 23.

If you're a family man, you can't take your time.

Yes, I do.

I do, too.

Well, thank you for watching.

Great interest around the world.

You know who we have brought in the same piece.

Oh, really?

That's where the wedding's going to be, right out here at this Rose Garden.

And, Mr. President, I'm supposed to tell you from my daughter Nancy that she and her husband are simply delighted that Julie picked that wedding day for her.

I mean, that's great.

That's awesome, Julie.

So, she said that if you tell Mr. President that you get a chance that we will be making a toast

to their head.

Talk to June.

So they have two little people now at age two and age four.

And the first descendant is now carrying the assistant to the Director of General Services, General Roy.

He was sitting down at the White House and told me about it.

Oh, they are terrific, you know.

Thank you.

Well, it's great to see you.

And you're going to confess to her.

She's seen us, but take them on the road.

Well, this is that very trip to Washington, D.C. You see, we have several tours.

Here we go to number eight.

Oh, this is great.

Thank you.

Don't talk about it.

B-E-I-D. Oh, good.

That's a good laugh.

Thank you.

So great to see you.

Very close to California, even.

Okay.

Don't be too soft.

When is it?

That's right.

I'm sorry.

I was wondering if you could, uh, make a couple things, uh, agree on this, uh, here.

I guess, uh, I think it would be well if you'd let's that, and I'll probably step over it for the dinner.

For the redacted, uh, follow-up on these things, let me give you the fourth part of the scenario.

Sir, here's what we can't say, January 8th.

Just say January 8th.

That's a hell of a lot better, but not so bad.

We avoided, they avoided saying it yesterday, kind of posted it, but Scali makes the point.

I think he's right.

Saying January 8th is a hell of a lot better than saying, oh, January, I bought it on January 8th.

No, I think they just kind of fell into the, you know, we weren't giving any details, but that...

That is what we've been given in detail.

That's saying how to start.

The meaning of this is that it's on both sides.

Hold it so these forks are constituted.

Well, I've got an apple, so I'm just going to hold it.

They do that.

Third, that'd be those olden days.

will be aborted.

And will not be bothered.

I explored the business of Peterson going to Munich that you suggested looking into.

And John Connolly was a little worried about it on the grounds that we have a very big delegation apparently going there already.

It's a banker's invitational meeting and apparently there are some three members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve settled from the Treasury and

I think it's good that he's there, but also the banking group is so incestuous.

It's good to have somebody whose background is different and deal with them a little bit more.

I testified this morning on Rubikoff's international trade hearings.

Well, only Fannin and Rubikoff were there.

They had all kinds of questions from other people.

And I was thankful that we have the posture

of, by gosh, we consider international economic matters to be of first-class importance, and we consider the U.S. interest in something we're going to go out and fight for and trade for and bargain for, and as far as we're concerned, the gloves are off.

We intend to represent our people.

And if you didn't have that posture around the Senate these days, you'd just be out of the place.

At the same time, it's

it's very easy to make it completely compatible with a reasonable world trade, expanding world trade posture.

So I found it a very comfortable position to sort of talk around, and I thought it went well from that standpoint.

Yeah, well, they're all, they all have the competency.

The type of people who have been with us for years,

They just have no confidence in the State Department.

The State Department is just blamed on every other sentence.

Mm-hmm.

Well, they're right.

They're right.

The State Department, the South Islanders, the South Islanders, they're trying to have a negotiation.

We've got to get that to the end of the country.

That's the thing.

And where they feel about it, their criticism, Ribicoff's criticism, which he suggested reflected others, too, of the Council.

which he thought was a good idea.

His criticism is, well, there's too much State Department in it.

And you have this special operations group that's chaired by the State Department and so on.

And they're just going to overwhelm Peterson.

That's, well, first of all, the president.

Secondly, you don't know Peterson if you think he's going to get pushed around.

He isn't.

But it's interesting how they have on them.

I think he's a hero.

He's unmodified.

He has shown it to some Republican congressional people, I think.

I don't know.

I wouldn't do it.

the ones who want to come.

And I know he's ripped to you about your messenger that he's very anxious to have work with him.

I've talked with him in detail about it.

He's very attracted to me.

He's most interested in, in all the world, is intelligence.

He knows a great deal about it.

He wants to see it reformed, and he's very encouraged and hoping that's going to come about.

So a very interested in defense and science.

And as a result of that is the possibility of being in great fields.

And ADC is kind of a sleeking agency.

Sure is.

But it has a great capacity for mountain research.

and probably more receptivity to actually get the appropriations than the Defense Department does.

Oh, I think we can definitely do that.

Maybe that's kind of a guy we need in that rat's nest on there.

Well, what he'd like to do is determine the ABC, I think.

That's possible, too.

And that's a competitor in his mind to something...

But we can't beat him.

I think that if you felt that you wanted to see Schlesinger in this slot with Pete, I think Pete is so capable and in his version, I'm sure, that he could take a man of lesser

and that had the capability that Schlesinger and do very well.

I mean, I think Pete could find a man, it seems to me, that could fit his needs.

He just needs to guide the team, you know, after all these projects and so forth, and follow through and hold them down and so forth.

The thing is that in AEC, I would just, as they just put another humdrum

You know, go along, well, what's our budget this year?

Are we going to keep this or keep that?

That really is a sleeping dog, man.

It really is.

And it's a total, it seems to me, a total captive of Congress.

I'd love to argue with you a little bit on Pete's needs.

All right.

He has set up for himself in talking with you what looks to me like a very important, very exciting,

and also very difficult with ADC.

ADC would, and Jim, of course, is conscious of that, the defense aspects of ADC, which he's very much interested in, and he's conscious of the fact that ADC is on the usage, so that he would still maintain at least some involvement in intelligence, but it wouldn't be the reorganization that he's interested in.

But anyway, Pete has...

this task now beginning to sort of form, and I think it really isn't quite the way we anticipated it in the Council.

It's better.

He's developed it.

And that seems so common, a hundred percent.

I've received comments yesterday.

Conley was talking it all over to me.

You know, all these various ideas.

He's confused.

Well, great, but...

He didn't say, you know, he didn't say he'd speak at all, but I refused his ideas every day.

Well, he's been getting around to talking tricks, but he's independently now.

Conley's very...

It's ridiculous to have a jackass department like HUD and transportation that has six assistant secretaries and an economy over there.

I mean, it's set for three guys.

You can't pay more than $30,000 or something like that.

And what is the type of

Well, I think that's right.

So give him what he needs.

He's just got to have them.

Because I want to build, I really would like to see him build the staff so that he can really be the command and command of the administration.

He can't do it now because he knows.

Well, just to take the task and compare, the field of national security, that has built up over the years.

a big intellectual base to work from.

And there are, you take up a topic and you don't find the answers in this amount of work, but you find a great deal of analysis, you find patterns of thought you can draw on that you can sort of peel away, and you've got something to go forward with.

If you take

If you take a field like international economics and international monetary problems, if you thought about this council in those terms, well, those are established disciplines, and while there's lots of room for difference of opinion, people know how to think about those subjects at least.

And when you start to put this mosaic together that Pete has been struggling with of the balancing of security, of foreign policy,

economic, of the domestic development, and so on.

It's a very hard thing to think about.

And Pete is now in a position, I think, where he's identified these problems, and he's very excited about them.

And all right, now, let's go, but where exactly are we going?

You see, we've gotten hard at electing the problem, and it's going to take, I think, I remember you talked once about having a few people and just sitting around for a day or two, trying to think and talk and come back to it.

It's going to take a lot of that, and what I'm getting to is, I think Pete needs really superb people to talk to us.

You're in the...

Well, we can operate the others afterwards.

They might go into this paper and say, look, here's our current need at the present time, and any of those others fail.

If we get the reorganization, the ADC will change.

And this is one concern I would have about putting too strong a man ahead of the ADC.

Because he might want to keep it.

Right.

I think the Schlesinger could be talking to him, and I've been trying to help Pete in this regard, putting it in terms of a broad assignment.

He really is not that interested in just international trade problems unless he finds it sort of, you know, worrying about the sugar and the this and the that.

He's willing to do that, but doesn't consider that exciting.

His other is...

And the intelligence is.

What he's really, I think, sort of gunning for is to get some kind of designation from you as having a special presidential endorsement in the intelligence area for a short while to try to help bring about this reorganization if we wind up going ahead with it.

And I suppose in early June we'll have a pretty good idea exactly how you want to do that.

It's sitting there now, almost ready to be plucked, but it's going to be a lot of hard work to do it and get the thing changed around and so on.

And I know Henry has his views.

But that combination, and I think some direct,

arm-twisting with you, from you would probably put it over as far as Schlesinger's concerned.

Well, I think that that's a problem, and that's something Pete would have to accommodate to for a period of time.

And my guess is that on the intelligence, there would have to be a burst of effort

get something accomplished, and then after a while, I think I would probably have to put a great proportion of my time into it, as he would put some, and we have some other people.

All right, why don't you work on a scheme whereby he, I mean, whereby he gets old.

I think that's fine.

That's fine.

You're a valuable man, but I think you're right, Peter.

You probably miss me.

Well, he's a strong mind, and he has a lot of... We'll see those old foundations and things like that.

And another thing about it is, Pete wants...

I've decided that I desperately want to get this guy, and I think it would probably just help Pete a lot if we could help him do that.

Why don't we get him to do the other job, too?

The intelligence job.

he used to set up in that new office.

Would that work?

I think it could work.

It's not a perfect thing.

He's doing too many important things, but yet he knows the intelligence field very well.

It isn't as though he has a lot of learning to do there.

It's a matter of following through on what is universally regarded as far as I can see as a very good

piece of analysis.

I don't know whether you've read the longer document on intelligence.

No, I haven't.

It's a very good piece of work.

I understand.

It's as good as any I've seen around.

And he would like to follow through on it.

I would.

For the budget, as much as well as other things.

Yeah.

We're losing our friend Jerry Rossell.

Over at Labor.

He's going to go back to Standard Oil.

He's written you a very vicious letter of resignation.

I should go back.

Yeah.

Mr. Bennett.

There he is.

He's been very good.

Oh, yes.

July 25th.

He's a very good man.

And we'll be coming to you shortly.

Just so that there's no question about my views on it.

We're probably going to have to have a

up and down the bike with Hesburgh sometime.

I just don't have him on this issue.

So don't let that bother you at all.

My views are so strong on that, and it's so wrong to move in that direction.

Well, it's very interesting to see how the HUD had everybody do an exercise and draft a statement.

And the HUD statement is quite hard-line.

Very interesting.

The federal government will not force housing on communities that don't want it.

They picked up the line.

We had a meeting with Ron and Mitchell this morning, and we'll meet again next Thursday.

And I would guess that over that following weekend, we'll finish the draft.

I think it will be satisfactory.

We've decided to split off the Blackjack, Missouri case as a separate issue to be treated separately on John Mitchell's recommendation to you, whatever that is, and not in this statement of ours, but as a separate issue.

Well, it's got to be treated separately.

John's got some problems and I think he's at mixed lines up right now as to what he should do.

The line that you suggested is that there are another two cases and I'll leave it back to the lower court for a timeline.

Well, interestingly enough, the Republican county executive down there in that county has given us some inputs on it apparently.

And John wants to take a look at the political side, the local political side.

He's against the incorporation of the town, the blackjack.

He would like to see the federal government get in.

He thinks there's a lot of... Who is this?

The Republican county executive.

The guy ran for governor?

No.

No, this is a four-term, four-term Republican county executive.

Is there a Republican county executive?

They are all nuts now.

John wants to take a look at it.

He'll be talking to you now.

That's no holes in it for excellent.

He's talking about that part.

Just get the hell beat out of them, not the middle of the other part.

But apart from the holes, it isn't the right thing, in my opinion.

Well, some distance away from solving the hour.

But the other one has come along well.

It's actually got a pretty good draft.

I'm going to have Price take a look at it now just to get the language.

Well, that's come along.

I have asked Whitaker to try and pull together all the polls that he can find and any other evidence that he can find one way or the other on the question of whether these pollution and environment things are really politically significant or not.

He made a first cut at it, and I would think that by the time we're ready to do this overall review, we're going to be able to give you some fairly objective evidence on a question of whether this is something we ought to be spending our time on.

There's one that's not used, that Whittaker should not get on.

He's got three polls that are working, and the ones you did yourself, you know, you've got to be sure.

Harris has polled this, and at one time had an enormous number there, but he loaded the questions.

You know what I mean, Bill?

So if you understand the way they're naturally, who tend to look that way, believe that way in themselves, well, I want these bulls analyzed from the standpoint of what they really show, not when you go in and push people and push them around.

I've asked that in each case we be provided with the question that was asked, rather than just the numbers.

And so that's the kind of thing we're beginning.

I think there's an awful lot of folklore in this area.

about just how much clout this thing has and what groups.

And so we've got to break out on it.

They're just doing some work on it.

Yeah, but you just need a break.

So we just keep an open mind on that for a while.

And that's it.

We have to remember that our major concern at the present time is to not destroy a lot of American interests.

to create jobs.

Oh, I should have thought about doing that.

Well, I should tell you another thing we had going on that.

I've had Ruckelshaus and Mrs. Maurer, Elliot Richardson, everybody that is in the regulatory business with Morris Stans and Jim Hotzer and Peter Feinig and Peterson and others.

And I put this to them.

Good.

And we are going to be meeting periodically now toward the development

very clear guidelines for these folks as to the kinds of things we do and don't want to have happen in regulation and the kinds of clearance processes that we're going to require.

And so we're moving on that.

John, let me give you an example.

When I was talking to Borlaug when he was here, there was a guy in front of the Nobel Peace Prize.

If he had not discovered and developed those strains of small wheat

All experts agree, and I've used the word advised me, that millions of people in India, Pakistan, and part of Mexico and other parts of Latin America would not be living today and would starve.

I talked to him about, and he brought up the subject when I was sitting down at dinner.

He brought up the subject.

He said, you know what?

I'm terribly, desperately impressed by the attitude of your administration.

and chemicals and so forth.

He says, you must not let this happen.

He said, those who believe in that, and they fear the results of applying chemicals and so forth to plants, and I think it's the only kind of a plant that people have proved that its consumption is that that has never known any pesticide chemical or so forth and so on.

He said,

that I know that anybody in my field who really knows the whole side knows that always a pesticide or a chemical does set up some detrimental factors.

But you've got to weigh the damage it costs against the benefit that it creates to balance.

And that is something that we're not doing.

We're going to do it on the pesticide thing.

All the rest, and everybody who's gone absolutely stark, we're going to be mad about this.

You can forgive a guy like Ruckelshaus who only hears from one side.

And what we have to do is to develop a scheme so that we get a balance automatically in the system so that somebody like Ruckelshaus can't make that decision in response to his pressure.

without subjecting it to the review of people who have ever said it was insured.

It's like the people of John Lennon and Krusty Bish.

And over the years, all of those are ideologues who want to bust up companies because they're big.

Companies are evil, they're corrupt, they're evil, and so on.

We have completed that aside, and I just feel so strongly on this, but let me say it on the end.

This whole business about pesticides

DDT, etc.

And environment goes with it, and safety goes with it, and consumerism goes with it.

It has become a racket.

What could this become a racket?

And the thing is that it is, but it's a, there are some people that are out there ganging against the universities and the college professors and, you know, and associates, press professors and so forth, not the really able ones with the jackasses, are all jumping around on this because rather than

and discipline themselves in teaching while they just want to be out leading some goddamn cause.

We've essentially got to stop.

We're going to stop.

There's been some very superficial thinking done about public policy in this area.

I don't think you can afford to go to either extreme on this because it's a balancing of interests all the way through.

Let me say though, we're going to go to the other extreme in order to vote.

Well, I think this is where my political inquiry comes in.

Because I would hope he would not go to the other side to pull it to the middle at great political cost.

And I think we ought to do with our eyes open.

We ought to know what we're getting into.

And I said, I've got to ask John to do the exact same way at political cost.

Two or three million jobs lost to the circle.

The circle lost to putting the goddamn airbag in the car.

That's right.

Well, that's the thing we're setting about anyway, and we're trying to align that with this whole subject.

John, you've seen the memorandum that I've sent to Replicant since two or three days ago.

Basically, what we're trying to do on that is to say to it that in these various actions that you're taking or supposing,

You haven't built another vacation.

You haven't shown us what the cost, you really haven't lined out what the costs are, what the gains are, and so on.

And before you go ahead, do that more.

Well, you know, that'll slow it up a bit, but you know, it isn't just right.

in consumerism, that's worse.

Maury has come up with a very interesting idea.

He says, you know, now, by law, everybody has to file an environmental impact statement every time the government wants to do something.

He says, I propose that every time we do something in this area of safety or consumerism or the environment, that we be required to file an economic impact statement.

How many jobs is this going to cost?

How many businesses is this going to cost?

How much money is this going to cost the consumer?

So that we can weigh the thing and see what one outweighs the other.

And that's what's coming out of this thing.

And that'll fly across all regulatory operations.

Right.

Thank you.

They put out the catch this week.

It was the first time

December or something, that accidental deaths that exceeded the military casualty.

What was the casualty?

Twenty-four guys, I think, I don't know.

Twenty-seven.

Twenty-seven guys, I don't know.

One of these things where one loves each other, you know, it's, uh, it's a thunder, man.

You're about to get some of those.

Yeah.

Well, they cracked it for ten months.

They couldn't do it.

Well,

I just figured that next week it'll be fifty.

Forty-five.

That's all right.

It's still, it's still, anything's manageable below a hundred.

So I used to think we should have.

I don't know whether Bob has had a chance to tell you the tube droplet.

Well, the tube droplet, the tube droplet on the 70.

I've got that.

But the tube droplet, it appears,

He's emotional.

He doesn't want to do it on the 8th.

Yeah.

He's insisting that it be the 7th.

Well, some chance will give me.

Well, the problem that makes me uneasy is, Mr. President, is National Assembly is going to pass an electoral law on the 1st, which means that I suspect, and I'm checking with Plunkett, that he may want to come back from a meeting with you to promulgate the electoral law.

I just wonder whether, uh,

The impact on the Liberals here will be, he comes back from the play, the trauma period is off.

I wonder, I wonder.

I don't think it makes that much difference because I think we're stuck with him anyway.

We're going to claim him and do everything.

And the other fight is that the hell with the impact on the Liberals here.

The main thing is the impact on the country there.

Will it help him?

It will certainly help him.

I'm for that.

And also, as far as the situation is, since it is two years, two years after the other one, I think it gives a great justification that we decided to have a meeting just two years later to check the progress.

I'm not worried about the impact on the liberals here.

Well, then I will tell Michael to do it on the session.

That's agreed.

Some of it works, statistically works okay.

Yeah.

If we could, you know, the other thing is it's very important to get that word to, uh, quickly, we can't do, uh, I don't know, somebody knows.

I don't know.

And then Funk explained that he's sending a back channel in order to keep it out of the bureaucracy, and not just throw it in the back channel.

Who would have asked Funk to put it into a regular channel?

I could go ahead and put it into a back channel without showing it because it's a regular channel.

Right, right, fine.

Okay, have them send it back to me, so forth.

And that we, that debunkers say it's very important, we should do it at this time, and provide an opportunity to make this announcement, so forth.

You take it to Rogers.

We should then take L.A. to a- uh, Rogers won't be able to come himself because he isn't, uh, in the country, but we should take a state bus to the old L.A. establishment, you're not supposed to.

Johnson.

Good evening.

What about Laker?

I think you know his name.

Yeah.

Well, on him- On him, I would disclose only to Rogers.

You can't disclose to him what the announcement is going to be.

Bring him in.

You understand?

Oh, yeah.

I'll let Bunker put it all in the back channel.

Yeah.

And throw it around.

Yeah.

Dr. Hurwitz has just asked for two minutes private.

Who?

Dr. Hurwitz has asked for two minutes private.

There's some minor conclusions.

Conclusions?

Yes, sir.

Everybody here?

All four.

Sit over here again.

Well, I hope that the day will be there.

And it's perfect.

So we cover most of the time.

You know, it's so important that they could hear something.

Yeah, that's what they're hearing.

Yeah, that's right.

And here's something from me.

I'm not going to provide you.

I'm not going to find one.

I won't talk about others.

Yes, I would imagine.

I expect everybody to talk about that.

We are at a point which is, I suppose, unusual, difficult to assess.

We can see that the economy is, but the recovery has not, in my opinion, declared itself as...

We are...

We're probably almost certainly going to fall short of the target that we set up earlier in the year, at least with respect to unemployment, to support something like the negative 4.5%, 3.5% higher than those figures.

There's a possibility of doing better than that, coming closer to the target, but I think that's just rather the risk.

Chances are more on the other side.

There's also the inflation, but I don't think you're probably going to catch it.

very good numbers in the consumer price index for uh... for four months, including years, with a very strong sign of weight loss on the weight side.

And so, we're beginning to see little signs of uh... of uh... recovery, but uh... which uh... is the structure of the uh... you know, the strong path of recovery that we have set out to target despite just

This is the first quarter of the year.

I think we see it in April.

And first half of May figures of retail sales.

We are not getting the rise there.

We'll be on the path to kind of getting some big range advances, but seems to be kind of the central tendency of the event.

We'll start with our target, although we're finally going for much of the forecast, which is five minutes.

But who knows?

I think it's becoming somewhat clearer than it was.

That we're not quite on the path.

in November and has been coming up since for five months and has not made progress in five months.

I've been back.

I've been good too.

And also both sides.

You're just a little different.

A very rapid recovery this year.

I keep here for a little time.

It's an accident.

I agree with everything.

Decising more than eight years is very unsatisfactory.

The rules that don't come to you regularly, they're not published.

For all price index, you're 5-1-2.

What price index?

Well, Earth commented on that.

That shows real rudiment.

I don't have a calculation with me about mortgage interest rates.

Just a little bit of that.

First of all, the first place, which is a technical matter, is very much smaller.

If you take another consumer price index, which is unpublished, the bottom of that is based on our TMP calculations, our National Income Counts calculations.

4.7, 4.4.

But I know the progress is very uncertain, and that's still the case.

Well, now with the economy picking up, getting momentum by year end, if we look to next year,

I don't know why they think it's going to be in, Mr. President, but it's going to be down.

One of them will be low.

It's going to be lower in the U.S.

I think it will.

I think it's something we're aware of.

I don't know.

Careful that the price increase will be high.

The theory about that, Mr. President, is that American people are fed up with price increases.

That's my theory.

I may have this impression because of the kind of people I meet.

But, uh, it doesn't have to be what the inflation that we're having.

It's actually what you're meeting this week.

We don't know where we're nearly ready to do that.

You know, the President doesn't like it.

He doesn't like it.

He won't support him or support you.

He said yes and no.

Most would, but some would walk.

Oh, well.

Is it for business or not wanting to build that boot?

No.

That's a good question.

That's a darn good reason.

I think it would be to start with the review board to a very important steel case.

The desire and the recommendation on Stater would not be accepted.

All right, you've got an easy method, a monetary method.

Correct.

A freeze for six months, it's a drastic decision.

I'd like to see it lifted, you see.

There is an area of my own mind in different ways.

Now, you run a risk there.

You run a risk that after you lift it, you could have an explosion.

Now, one way of dealing with that would be to lift it.

Let's say that you, let's say you lift it early in the year.

Do you work now?

Once per September, it doesn't work.

You swing the steel kicks, and that would be a test kick.

You put it in the fridge for six months.

You put it by March or April.

Then you announce,

but if there is an explosion, you reimpose it.

We're concerned about what we have in the crisis and the effects that we have on, uh, on interest rates and on housing next year and the effects that we have on the election.

What do you think is a probable scenario for a crisis somehow measured?

Currently, uh,

The first four months of this year, except for rice and food prices, which we do not expect for the rest of the year either.

If you look at the non-food commodities, which I think is kind of the pivot of the whole thing, you've got very good performance for four months now.

The rate of non-food commodities in the first four months was one and a half percent.

We're not going to do that.

I think there is a

My philosophy is that we've got to think today about possible actions to take tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.

The best for that, I don't know, I can't tell you what to say except for this.

To decide, when you look at commodities, you see, it's foreshadowing.

I see what you're saying.

It's foreshadowing, fostering, that's what it's gonna be.

I don't know what that was.

A member of my staff today, an agriculture problem.

I don't know what the consequences of that will be.

I just thought a picture is good.

I feel very, very confident.

I should come.

I don't think, you know.

I don't think we're going to continue the CPI as low as it has been in the first four months of this year.

I think that the general trend of things, my concern, is about how much the CPI is going to increase.

We're expecting a decline in the rate of inflation.

We have, after all, quite a sweet, as I said, we seem to have made a tiny wage increase.

This is a fairly stable total, and we do really expect that we're going to be in for a period of more active rather than activity under time.

I think that...

We're still in a policy which was initiated, like I say, at the time of the speech, about doing what we can to select the cases.

And I think one thing we ought to be thinking about is whether we're getting what we should be getting out of the construction business.

Having harassed that metal has made quite an incursion into the field of white-price control in the 17th century, and I'm sure now.

And we're getting 12 percent.

That's amazing.

What about what you thought of the flood?

If we were lucky, we might be able to find out.

Actually, we're doing a little test.

And we also have a direct department.

Could I ask this question?

If it will be done, I'm sure.

What, uh, what about the field?

What's, uh, is the prospect there just bad?

And, uh, from what I hear, is it good?

steel workers lost, right?

And April says that he's got to have a hell of a lot more.

The steel industry, of course, doesn't give a damn.

They never have.

We get the voluntary police working around to protect us, but we have no steel industry.

That's the way that it's working.

Does anybody have any encouragement for growing steel?

Is there anything you can do?

I think we can do something, say something.

Can we get these to come active?

I don't know.

Well, we think that would be a good idea.

We think that would be a good idea.

that might have an effect here, that it's going to affect the general, it's going to affect Matthew.

We have to get, we have to get the vote in, I think, and say, say that, but, uh, we will, we will continue to, to, to, um, if, um, if, um, if we can get some understanding from you, or a package with a limited price increase, that's what we're waiting for, otherwise, uh,

We go to the Tariff Commission and ask for relief against injury and gefährment.

I'm left out then.

I promise.

Are you scared?

I'm not scared.

Well, they're too late.

They're six steps on four years.

Well, that's a good threat.

I know.

That's why it is.

It'll scare the hell out of them.

It'll teach them to touch a leg.

It's the same thing.

I'll be abolished.

Wouldn't they steal us from you, I think?

People who have to get affected somehow or other by the rank and file workers.

If you talk to I.W.

Abel, he's fully aware of the problem.

He certainly needs to be aware of the problem.

Now, the problem is to somehow get across the rank and file and make sure...

Well, we'll have to go back and think about it.

We'll have to go back and think about it.

We'll be glad that the whole problem of being tough is not easy.

The question of being tough may not work.

And every time they want to do it, we'll bring them in here and say, look, we don't know about that.

We'll have to deal with it for a second.

Well, can we go back and think about it?

Can we go back and think about it?

The increase from the first quarter of 1970 was 13 percent.

Next quarter, 13 percent.

Next quarter, 16.

Next quarter, 14.

Whatever effect this board will have, it hasn't really been established yet.

We have about time for a score.

Well, this is what we know, Doug.

We have a little bit of air on the board.

All right.

On account of the desire to defend the board, that's it.

I think, though, it is going to be a tough exercise.

You mean the board has not yet been reflected in the first four figures?

That's fair.

Yeah.

They just really had their first case that tested anything last week.

That was a 12% case.

I agree with the statements of people like Steve Bechtel, Will Knight, and his people.

The question of the deterioration of productivity in the industry, that things are quite a lot better.

And you can see in the construction industry how unemployment works more directly in that industry than most because the jobs turn over so fast and employers have the right to reject people who are set by the union.

They'll go back to the union and go, oh, we've got another worker, but if the union sends them somebody they don't want, they just tell them to go away.

So that's done all the time.

So the fact that there are people on the benches they put

does have an impact in that industry that happens a little faster than us.

Could I ask this?

Could I ask this to be done?

What is, I think the, I think in this case, how should it be brought into the, I'd like to get a scenario with regard to what are options, what, if anything, we should be, we always say all our things are about steel, I said it,

Press conference at the University of, I'm sure, too.

It's hard.

I don't think we get to do it today.

If there are some, I'd just like to see what we can do.

I would rather not wait until they, well, the strike is here.

And you say, what the hell are we going to do?

I don't know.

There's some time to move now.

Maybe we'll look.

What is the setup in July?

The first of August, the first of August, I don't know.

Well, it seems to me, it would seem to me, based on the level of wine on this field in New York City, and then you'd have to start to build something around the 1st of the 15th of June, which the 45 days before they get, or the 1st of July, maybe, the 1st of July, August, 30 days before.

Of course, the other thing to do is to wait until they get to August, and then you start to ask, really, what the clutch is.

They don't really mark it seriously until they get pretty done.

I don't know.

Their pattern is that, uh,

They've been for a couple of days here in Washington.

They're gonna bargain in Washington.

That's nice.

Uh, they could, uh, they could go to New York, and the company would go to Pittsburgh, so they went on to Washington.

They were here last night, and, uh, making posture-type statements to each other, and as I understand it, they'll bargain, uh, company by company, and the whole, you know, national bargain.

They, they, they, they, uh, they just, uh,

Give us a study on this.

Let's have something I can look at.

What?

I don't know.

Well, you can make it so I can do nothing, but I think that ought to be a deliberate decision.

I've been on a seal before.

When I was in Minesbury, my father appeared to rent it to my children.

And now, now that I think of it, that damn strike went on for 90 days.

That's where we were in.

We were on a dry, 890-carat track.

I should say we didn't settle until Christmas Eve of 19.

We were there 14 days.

Well, I think it ought to be a deliberate decision.

I didn't want this field thing to happen to us.

I remember, too, that it was quite a process, too.

sat and met with the men over for hours and hours and hours.

I could have credited Mitchell's eye.

He could have done it if I hadn't been there because we met out at my house, you know, after nine straight days.

I stopped there.

But Mitchell, you know, he knew how to read all the numbers and so forth.

But I was just there to put the heat on it, and I kept it on.

But Mitchell was the issue.

He settled it.

I remember going to the major part of Idaho, and I had to go up and sell the industry.

I went up to the Walmart in Spurgeon, and they had all the steel, all the steel presidents.

Of course, they had big steel, and all the other ones were there.

I had spoken to the Iron Steel Institute as a senator many years before.

I forget what a sad group they were.

I mean, you had all these guys, and I told them, you know,

Remember, because we had to sell them, see?

After we got the union, so we had to sell them to smaller companies.

Because the main thing, the main factor that was disturbing to them, there wasn't a damn bit of give on work rules.

That is real.

They say there was a little, but you should know, George, they set up that little committee or something, and Dave and I talked about that meeting.

We could, if somebody could get us, is it impossible to get an all-night table to talk about work rules?

You know, I believe myself.

We could just have, in the area of creativity, the area to try to get reconciliation of some kind.

I just don't think you're going to get any of it to settle for anything other than

in terms of productivity and work rules in that area.

I think you could darn near start working on that very soon.

It is something where everyone is strong, and it's the tax industries in morally bad shape, and they aren't going to get it simply by driving the prices they've got to do.

Management, more of a chance to run through this.

I was curious to see if I had any feelings for you.

Productivity, probably.

Not productivity, probably.

More of a respect to work.

They say they're very, very, you know, by company and locality, they're very heavily on piecework now.

And they're sort of ambivalent about it.

They like it on the one hand.

On the other hand,

after piece of work has been an effect for, say, three years on a given job, it usually is a detriment to productivity, rather than a, uh, it just has that characteristic to it.

So, I really think there are things that could be done that people could be interested in doing.

The problem with that, uh, steel bargain that you, uh, got into was that somehow that issue came out in an inflammatory way.

He broke up the negotiations, yeah.

Now, the promise to get this country concerted, in a way, that seems to be a constructive move to the party.

Now, I mean, I'm not denying, was it Blau, or what kind of Cooper, particularly, who was sort of a blindster?

Was.

He's gone.

No, he's gone.

Yes.

Well, he's there.

He was a member of two of them.

Cooper was tough and strong and a football player.

He just got there.

He gave it, and he gave that argument so that both Goldberg and our friend McDonald were able to say, well, Cooper's brought up the issue of work rules as a smokescreen in order to not talk about the price, about the numbers.

And that now, it couldn't have been just that.

I think there is an issue.

I mean, I gather.

Because what little conversation I had with that.

But I think it's broader than that.

I think that's the real problem with the field is generally is the workforce.

It's a sure hell of a job.

It's a question in some of the construction trades.

And it's a question in railroads.

Railroad was what's all about.

It was part of my two fields as a field.

I had two distinct problems.

One was regardless of the intervention

you might make a bunch and do it good with respect to the cash flow.

And I agree with George.

I think they work and all of them exist or something.

There's others that we can sell.

So I doubt short of willingness on your part to ultimately really take the next step that you can get into the IT field.

If you can get any of the acting and negotiations on this deal, I hope to have a significant impact on the ultimate outcome of it.

That's one point.

But the other side of the problem is related strictly to the impression that you leave in the country.

As to whether or not you let

the negotiation of this magnitude, go without doing something.

And it seems to me that from a strictly political standpoint, that you probably gain by trying to do something, as opposed to just sitting and doing nothing, even though, in front, you don't accomplish a great deal.

At least you get credit for having tried.

This is not an easy thing to take.

But it may lay the precedent for what you may want to do later.

I don't know what you want to do later.

I agree basically with both Herb and Arthur that I think we have some reason to be concerned about prices.

I think you're going to see a price move.

I don't think there's anything wrong, obviously, with thinking about what you might want to do in terms of other than imposition controls.

I surely would not recommend

I don't think it's justified now.

I don't think it will be understood now.

I think your indexes today reflect that you've got some more time to look at it.

I'm not a bit sanguine about the fact that these indexes are going to stay down or the prices are not going to increase.

As I've told you, I feel very strongly that the funding is going to hit us first and be the most pervasive, but our interest rates are going up.

I think, you know, look, this is a quick jump, and Arthur has been, uh, and frankly, I'll leave that up there for your sake, but the full committee this week, I'm not sure they're very good on it.

That was, say, Thursday, you know, Wednesday, I think, but your statement had a very excellent restraining effect on it.

Yeah, it was, uh...

That's not all.

They're going to move it up.

They're going to move these brakes up.

You know, that's the law.

We have a law where they impose controls.

We talk about the freezing, this and that.

The other thing, man.

You go too far and you just freeze and you're dead.

Oh, yeah.

Get it wrong, man.

Money will go by the day of the graduation.

Of course, but that's the general statement about controls.

That's what I really think, you know.

One thing about controls is that you're right, George.

It's true.

One thing about controls, though, that George really must be for, I just checked, because I thought I had a deal.

And apart from the local boards, I mean, it'll certainly help some of the planning.

because we set up patient price controls.

53,000 jobs.

That's how many were working in the dot-net OPA when we got rid of 53,000 leeches.

Now, that's not very great.

So that's the reason I feel so uncontrolled.

I know what we have to do and so forth, but it's not a pleasant sight.

It's the part where you're against it.

You hear all those lights that you made up.

I'm not sure that that's what I have to do.

I don't know.

I'm not saying that we ought to have control.

I just said I'm up for it.

I think now there will be certain people who will have control.

I said there's not any wrong with thinking about it.

It's not wrong to think about it as long as nobody does it.

In terms of preparing papers, auction papers, and so forth around this government, it's out in the newspapers, and it's out there, and it's gone.

So I don't know what to say.

Let me say, I think it's just as well a little, I think I see no reason for it to be sealed.

I think that's just a mess, and I don't know if I can go to hell.

Let me suggest that we talk to Jim Hodgson, and perhaps get some of his people on a very low-key basis.

very low-key, with no publicity at all.

And since we can, and this may be crazy, I mean, go into these various locations and meet with all the information we have, all the charts, and the graphs on what's happening to steel.

production around the world.

What's happened to steel production in the United States?

I'm not trying to persuade them.

It's a hard step.

It's a certain case.

These parties just say, okay, we're not here to interfere with your negotiations.

We're not trying to scare you.

We just want you to know you work with them to know what the facts are with respect to steel production around the world and the price.

We're just going to make them a bitch and walk out.

Uh, I don't know if this is any good, but it won't do any harm.

It won't do any harm.

In the story that we have, John, I guess it's just, well, put on quotas.

It's like some labor in Japan, you know.

All right.

The truth of the matter is that our blacks are right to even put on quotas, but still won't make it there.

Or they're going to have to figure out what their reaction is on the vote of John, but I'm safe.

I'm in a security.

Well.

There's got to be a lot of objections to it, but there has to be a lot of objections.

I think that's a very good point.

And we should get out that kind of a statement in any case.

That's correct.

As a matter of fact, I might take steel industry and use it.

I couldn't use it on anything.

You don't want to.

It might be a way to use the educational network.

Well, I don't talk to you about the American deal.

Not at all.

And here's where we were, here's where, you know, some of the, and I talked to a very, in an informal way, which could be quite persuasive now.

Point is, how many steel workers and others will listen to you remains to be seen.

But you could be surprised what you would.

And I think you would have those lines.

The other thing, so they want you to know the reason that you cannot take prime time for that is that, well, there's just a number of reasons you can't take prime time unless it's something that affects you.

that everybody understands, and they're all going to be listening, so that your audio will just go right now.

But the educational network is always available.

I mean, they're here, they're here, they're here for any little people.

Well, Mr. President, we will soon have a quite thorough report on the two ministries that they've prepared down for the Cabinet Committee.

I have a document or a dental picture.

Let me suggest this, that you give to Sapphire, who have time to work with Peterson,

Mark Peterson, of course, has got some stuff, and he's a great chart man.

And your people, and see if they can work up a very understandable, very good pitch on, here's an American industry.

Here's the problem.

I'd like you to know what the problem is.

Just think about this problem.

And it isn't, we're not singling out this industry.

But it is so important to the future of this country and so forth.

We've got to know it.

And then all of us in America are going to see what are we going to do.

I mean, how are we going to compete with the rest of the world?

I think our point is very well stated.

The people most likely looking at it, they're going to be the business end.

And they should be reassured that they should be thinking about it.

You know, they don't, they said that the good stuff, they dropped it.

We don't give a damn about these things.

We care very much.

Mr. President.

By the press.

They don't have to determine whether they have to do anything.

It's just the press organization will do that.

It's not just the person.

I'm on that education television.

My God, the press, magazines, everybody's 50-story running to people on education television.

Herb, I suggest this is a detail.

But on the first thing, you should draw a chart.

Like one of these fountains.

of the steel industry getting found.

And then out of each fowl comes automobile people, refrigerator people, so forth and so on.

What steel means to America, so that you don't just narrow it to the context of steel.

And steel workers and steel managers.

In fact, steel has, in the United States, in that connection, there are some who believe, the no growth school in this country

It's another reason that it's... Another reason, Arthur, too, that it's quite monumental.

Uh...

While we hope that it will never be in our time, but in the next hundred years that we may have a new world, nations will certainly not have war.

That will come soon.

But where nations might agree to live and so forth, never soon.

The time is never going to come.

The whole course of human existence, they're not going to be highly competitive in one way or try to do it in the other.

People, you do it.

Communities do it for communities.

Communities within industries do it to companies within the industry.

Unions do it to unions.

That's human conduct.

And I believe they have a second coming of Christ.

The law in every single planet is going to change the people.

Maybe a little.

They might not shoot each other.

They're still going to compete.

So, well, listen, I say crack it.

That might be interesting.

But I keep making visual this time, rather than just...

The other way to do it is to go on and talk about it.

I can go on and talk about it.

See, I have a...

I have a series of radio talks coming up on Sunday afternoon.

I could replicate the name very nicely there.

The trouble is that the, you know, steel thing, I think the visual could be quite effective.

The visual could be quite effective.

I have a question.

For now, you'll be, uh...

So, this would have, uh...

Right.

Police knows we know.

Well, let's go on to...

I thought we could probably get to the news department.

But it's worse than this, so don't take long, please.

We're going to plan, evidently, a two-day budget session in about the last week of June.

like we always have, and we'll have a, we're going to have a following, we've got a two-day session on where do we go from here that you and I were talking about yesterday, what are our goals and so forth and so on, and some papers we're on that tell us a lot about what you do.

I don't know if that's what you were talking about.

You know, how bad it is.

Just as an additional comment, I was talking to Eric, and Eric was saying, you know,

You can't help but feel the difference between us.

And the other thing that I've had, and I know others have been, or with current industries, even with the kind of build-ups that's going on, that there's an awful lot of discounting in these markets.

I mean, many of these meetings with Peter Blanket had a battle of price chiseling and so on, which for some reason made me feel good.

They're stating it as a complaint, but it's a sign that markets are soft.

Now, if the way Archer thinks the economy is likely to move, which it would be to say, I guess, substantial below the 10.65 kind of movement, I'm talking about cold, then these markets are going to stay more or less the way they are now.

They're going to be a lot worse than us.

They're going to be a lot better.

They're going to maintain that, and I think there will be a discipline by that.

My opinion is, however, that they need to move pretty simply.

And the criticism that's made, and I'll think about it, is that we aren't anywhere near expensive enough for cag metal.

But they don't recognize how stimulating the budget is, how it's shaping up.

And I think they're probably underestimating to some extent the strength of any kind of budget that we may very well get.

Then I think our problem, I'll agree very much with Arthur, that our problem next year will not be on a toilet and all the discussion about that and all the inflation.

This is a very big deficit.

This is going to be very hard to turn our way.

It brings me to the budget picture.

In 71, we have a fairly good fix on that.

Our outlays will be pretty close, certainly within a billion, and perhaps a little less than that.

We're now moving outlays into fiscal 71 as much as we can.

from fiscal 72 to the extension of the shift that we feel that we want to build on fiscal 71.

The revenue estimates as John's people have now had their April 15 tax returns, they've revised downward.

They're down to about 191.5 at this setting, from about 194

Now, that drop is partly due to the Social Security wage-based deferral, but not much.

Mostly it's re-estimates.

That gives us a deficit for fiscal 71 on the order of $21 billion.

Ways will be within a full-fledged revenue.

As a reminder, that's where I'm sure that we can.

The 72 picture is fairly uncertain.

We don't have any appropriation yet.

We only know the things that have already been done to that budget by the Social Security, moves by H.R.

1, various things that we have set up.

It's the welfare reform bill, but it isn't just the welfare reform bill.

It's the Social Security.

Big changes in Social Security in the animal categories and various things of that kind.

The that we now have is the

Operating off a 1065 GNP, so it's comparable.

1065, basically estimated.

217.6, when the document was published.

Social Security Regulation referral.

1065.

Treasury's rethinking about the yield likely of the tax return of the extension of the depreciation of utilities.

We bring the revenue estimate down to 212.3.

We have a projected outlay of 229.2.

You remember the time of the budget was 3.

Mostly congressional increases through the HR1 through

of Medicare through not doing what we were trying to get them to do on cost savings in the medical system and a whole variety of things in about $4.5 billion or so added to the budget prospectively.

As a congressional, some is uncontrollable, some is out of the business.

We've done a response to congressional initiatives to, in other words, basically to hold attention

Right.

Now, uh, the president's budget has submitted that group and had, uh, all the things that have been done in the city, and that'll all get passed exactly the way it was submitted.

And I'm saying we don't need to make that assumption.

To get out of there, there's another city of $235 billion.

$235 billion.

So you're up, you're up pretty, well, quite a little bit.

The appropriations, you see, I haven't even started because I've got any single appropriation bill.

The only one that's active on it at all is the education bill.

We used to have that.

Oh.

Where our big picture here was avoiding a billion dollar interest in the budget and getting it down to a little under 300 billion.

Now...

has been the posture of the 21 billion deaths back to back to the 22 billion deaths.

We wind up in 72 with a lot of inflation.

That's going to be a tough thing to deal with.

Obviously, there are places where it's likely that there'll be less than in the present,

through that course for HCC.

We were driving for all these programs, kind of the sharing and so on.

And we want those programs now for, you might say, a $235 million budget if we're fighting problems.

Myself, or more fiscal stimulus.

But I appreciate what this budget picture really is.

And I have, John and I were talking about this the other day at one of the meetings.

I've wondered whether or not we shouldn't adopt a little different public posture than we did last year.

Last year we had the, we just didn't talk about the budget until the appropriation were finished.

So we didn't really keep people posted on what we had very well being that we should.

periodically, not necessarily every month or regularly, but periodically, make a candid statement of what we think is now happening.

And I'm just concerned about this.

I hate to talk like this.

I'm beginning to be more and more of a budgeteer, I guess.

Uh, I haven't said anything about the fiscal 73 budget.

No, not yet.

We have learned, because we're dealing on this base, and we have full budget revenues with the taxes going down.

We're just not there.

I think your problem, though, is to convince the country to list deficit for loans from the activities

the plans of the opposition party.

What you're gonna be, you're gonna be like what?

A cumulative budget.

I made the calculation, but I think the cumulative budget deficit for your administration is gonna be larger.

Mr. Rick?

I think this is one way, and another way in which it is.

They, uh, I think we might all have to do some unorthodox thinking on new economic plans for what you can build for the country, and say, I'm putting an end to that.

I...

I don't know.

Maybe new taxes, maybe fresh and wage-free, and new economic policy, because this isn't where the old economic policy is landing us.

I think you've got the chair spotting you, right?

any further than I'd like to go on this.

I'm thinking out of love, George.

I'm thinking out of love, and I'm thinking of a constituency that I know and know well, and that's the business of the national community in this country, and I don't think we have degrees like this.

The posture that we have tried to take here is that the basic budget plan has put into effect

to help through some stadiums, and I certainly would agree that we should continue to talk that line.

The danger, of course, is, suppose the expansion doesn't come through, then we need to look at it very strongly, and that we're going to look much better here than how I think we've been.

The question is what effect that has actually on the economy.

What a limitation, shall we say, of the full amount of revenues.

Yes, sir.

Oh, yes, you are.

Anyway, in the background of the film, but you know you are for 71.

For 71, we're still all right.

Yeah.

And we'll have all four years in a row there in 72.

The full amount of revenues, the order of $228 billion.

So, right.

So, 75.

Well, I think on 72, the person who would have started the reports until then, and who will have a hell of a long time, about three to four months for a time, so they're going to start passing these appropriations bills, and the ones that have the big, big bump in them.

I think you ought to follow George's suggestion, put out these periodic reports on it for several reasons.

First,

to the extent that you're getting beaten over the head by the opposition, Congress, the Hellers, the Nildons, and so forth.

It is largely that you're not doing it in an expansionary way.

Now, if you're going to bear the brunt of that criticism, you're also going to bear the brunt

criticism of deficit spending, you might at least tie the two together by periodic reports and say, they're wrong, we are doing this, we are engaging in deficit spending, we are trying to stimulate the economy by fiscal means in order to provide a job, just to face up to the tangential benefit you get from it.

It seems to me it is a reporting to the American people so they know what's happening on a periodic basis and so you can share some of the criticism.

of deficit spending among those who want to criticize what the Congress should do.

Because they're contributing substantially to it.

And you're going to ultimately, you're going to have a breakdown and you're going to look for another blessing.

And if you don't keep people informed and you go along, you'll never be able to explain how it happened.

Beyond that, there is a, there is a downside to this.

Both the fact that it's happening and the fact that you're reporting it.

And that is the business community.

Basically, after you've heard, I don't mean to say calamity, except that the business community is going to view that as a very funny thing.

But it's happening anyway.

The business community knows it.

So you might as well get everybody else to know it.

So you're not telling them something they're not aware of.

And so I think there are a lot of reasons why you ought to go on and on.

We've got a plan on how we can do that.

That's a good idea.

Well, we don't have to do that.

We don't have to do that.

The standards say we're not spending enough.

I guess a terrible thing that I would put into the idea is that fiscal policy matters.

This is taking 12 or so months from now.

And if this economy is really expanding even as fast as our economy is, and

fiscal policy can't stipulate that you're out of Denver.

You haven't been out for a while.

I've been there.

I'd like to see something expensive reported.

There's another reason, Mr. President.

I'm very firm in my own view that next year your principal problem is going to be how do you handle inflation?

I have no question about it.

All year we've made these reports.

We're saying that Congress is overspending.

We're saying...

They're responsible for the Social Security.

They're responsible for this issue.

Report this to the people.

At least in play, they're probably going to get in with it next year.

And I just believe that as well as I believe my money.

I just don't see the downside to the sort of thing George is talking about.

As soon as I get out of a type of reverse, good.

The next time we could meet, we could look at it.

I think there's a need to rush it on down.

I think it's a very good idea.

I think the suggestion, you've got to report, you know, you've got to get counsel.

If you need any more, you know, we'll tell them.

They said that all of your opposition, these economists, these reporters, they all know what's happening.

They've tried to write about it.

And then if you don't disclose it, then they blast you for trying to cover up, trying to hide something.

At least this wasn't going to happen.

I mean, it's perfectly candid what they've heard from people and say, here it is, here's what's happening to you.

And that's not a good report.

I think it helps the...

with threats, generally speaking.

I don't think they already did yours.

All he knows is that people who benefited by the raise of Social Security, they go around and say, boy, I'm in good shape.

But the people who are going to have to pay for it don't realize what it costs them.

All the people who benefited by Social Security agreed to see me the other day, and they said it was just right in their savings.

I've seen the whole process of what we've done up to this time.

We've been very generous to the wives, to the poor, to my dad.

We've raised their prices.

Look at the coldest board of things.

Look at that goddamn airbag.

We've raised the price of the opticals.

Oh, he's just king of an inch.

Did you really?

Yeah, they had it all fixed out and I had the order run and put it out.

I put it out in front of every car and I'd have to have an airbag next year.

It's unbelievable what those safety nuts were for you.

I said, for them, do they want to go to Red Bicycles?

How many icicle accidents do they have in their car?

They're more people killed on the icicles than there are automobiles.

Well, I think that's enough on that subject.

We've got to spend a little time, could we, on the monetary thing here.

Okay.

Mr. President, we've got the international side.

You fellows are all leaving.

Let me say that, Art, if you go to this snake meeting or a different one, Art, how does all this work out?

No, I'm going, sir.

You all go to the snake meeting?

Yes.

Weird.

Yeah.

All right.

There are six of us, I guess, on the program.

Too many.

I hope you all can say something.

Arthur's on the program.

Governor Mitchell of his shop's on the program.

Governor Billy Dane's on the program.

Paul Volcker's on the program.

I'm on the program.

Paul Volcker's on the program.

I'm on the program.

The Congress student who's a consultant to the Treasurer's on the program.

Who else in your shop?

through the, uh, bad parts of the beginning.

Well, I don't want to go around into conflicts.

I'll have one, two, one, or four, and they'll all have the same audience.

Excellent.

You'll have a chance there to be pulling things together.

The, uh, the part that I, which is what John did, he studied all through New York on that, uh,

The, uh, this has to do with the number 72, which is related to a policy hearing, and certainly not exclusively, but the problem in Europe, and there's certainly a problem in the United States, and that's because we've been very, very, uh, let alone members of Congress, of course, many members of Congress, the situation is different, we distinguish that, but I think it's, uh,

I went over to see John yesterday.

He's an economic spokesman for the administration in the field of economic and monetary policy.

He's the Secretary of State's chief foreign policy spokesman.

I mean, there may be others who will get the White House to me.

Basically, the Council of Economic Ambassadors, of course, had a special role in connecting to the county, his area, and the Secretary of Labor, his area.

It's important to have that coordination and that connection so that when the Secretary of the Treasury goes out to testify, that somebody else says something else the next day and so forth.

I've had criticism of anybody, everybody, or this is certainly something that we're working on, this setup in his office.

He didn't ask for this.

He's been pushing it to us.

He has got it set up in his office, a procedure that should be a simple procedure, and a procedure through which there can be versions.

I know you already are doing.

We can all get together and discuss what your mind is going to be.

And second, there's going to be a significant testimony or a significant speech that we have the Secretary of Treasury.

In that way, the other possibility is

of how it can be done and be never done through the Council of Economic Advisers.

The difficulty with that is that I think that we realize that in terms of a public explosion, the big gun is your secretary or treasurer.

He's the guy that's got to get out there and carry the thing.

And others are in the White House, of course.

I mean, I've told John, the Council can be used and should be used, of course, for purposes and

You know, for me at this time.

If you could say it, if you could do it, Jonathan, do that.

I mean, I like to see you work on it.

You've been discussing it with Herb and Archie, Paul, of course, and George.

And I think Jim has done it in a different way than Jim and Maury.

And the more that we can have that single voice, it's far better to have a single voice in any area than in all of us.

that you know is wrong, that you're working with hospitals to do is to get, and that's the confidence factor, too, that's involved here.

Now, the, it's heavy, I understand, I don't know, a couple of cataclysmics, the Europeans, I don't get to say this, they said they didn't have a problem with it.

Many feel that, in the field, the foreign policy, they don't worry about where we are.

One of the other things that did come recur from time to time was, you know, that feeling that you're out there.

It's just cooperating with everybody.

And it doesn't mean, I'm going to say, it does not mean that I do not, I want, and it's very important, the number of forums we have and so forth and so on, that the members of the Council of Albany do extremely well, and George and places where his

I do think that we need something to work out.

Rather than my getting to it, I think all of you sit around and give us a scheme.

It would be very helpful.

Arthur, you and I talked about this many months ago, you know, about this, at the time, I think, before...

It's a very good idea.

Now, the other point is that, in terms of Arthur's relationship, because we've got a naturalness, he does have a special relationship.

What we have to count on there is that the Secretary, that John Connolly and Arthur Burns, and I know they're doing that, to not know what each other's doing and talking, of course, Arthur.

The relationship there is good.

But I think that if we could do that, we need, in that connection, we need more meetings of the Quad Rehab.

We'll have more meetings of the Quad Rehab.

Excuse me.

Let me say that I don't want to expand this to

The kind of meeting, to me, is supposed to be one of the thrillers, except for cosmetic purposes, to say, bring in economic policy.

If you invite, for example, and we tried it for a while, if you invite the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor and agriculture thinks they should be there, housing thinks they should be there, because housing is a big part of it, before it actually set the whole damn cabinet.

And it is not a discussion.

It's just a, you know, and you had a briefing

I will see those individuals and I want all of you to, you know, you can keep in contact with them.

I think it might be very useful to have a hobson come in and participate in the discussion and just listen, you know, talk about it.

Because it can allow an interest that we don't have.

And the same where there may be something that stands out.

It's not only a question of meetings, of everybody having a meeting of their minds, but it's a question, too, of setting up a system.

Major statements, major statements are, and I don't take clearances in terms of

or any of that sort of thing.

There are major statements that are going to receive big money that you at least call somebody.

Like for example, if Fort Rogers goes on the press or, you know, just calls me on the phone, we know, we can know that there are about three or four questions where he must be damn sure he's going to get off the reservation before a visitor has a background.

He says, well, I plan to get in front of this.

See, the foreign policy area, I control this.

The domestic policy, I think I've got to put it to Conley for him to do it.

I think a lot of our problems come not from major statements, but from anonymous comments that officials said, and I'll take it from there, which is a private deal of what the administration's policy ought to be, but isn't.

How do we get it done?

There's only one way, Mr. President, self-discipline.

Yeah.

and a strong word from you to what I'm concerned.

Well, I'm taking the word here, and I would expect John to give the word down the line and crack the question.

We all, and as I say, it's hard to, you know, all the people who work in this area are smart people, and they have pride, and, you know, they don't want to hear dumb stuff that I can press and ask them a question, and so...

They give their views.

I understand that.

And, you know, everybody's sort of busy with it.

I've made a contribution that way.

But the long run, it's not going to help the cause.

In a, um, conversation today with, uh, probably the best central banker in Europe, the first-team central banker, John DeFranco, who was here yesterday, who was amazing, was a nice minister.

I was going to stand there.

And, uh, you know, we had three shillings on that point.

The best, uh,

Because the thing that I would hope when you all go to Europe, because John and I talked yesterday, and I know that he had talked to you, so I think this may be the case.

It's very important that in Europe, it's very important that we take a confident line, and all of us are going to take it.

I think it's important with regard to our economy, that our economy is strong.

Second, it can be a very aggressive line.

with regard to the fact that in fiscal policy we are going to have restraints.

Restraints that were not agreed to on the education bill.

You did the governor to take a million dollars to take those teachers off their jobs.

He'll have a few more.

All right.

And we're going to... And we are keenly aware of this problem.

That the... That as our... As the...

In our...

In our studies on productivity through our own self, I think also, however, we should be on the side.

And it's, as I say, it's hard to, you know, all the people who work in this area are smart people, and they have pride, and, you know, they don't want to appear dumb.

Sometimes I first ask them a question, and so they give their views.

I understand that, and, you know, everybody's very busy, but I've made a contribution that way.

But in the long run, it's not going to help the cause.

In a conversation today with the West Central Bank Committee,

The thing that I would hope when you all go to Europe is John and I talked yesterday and I know that he had talked to you so many this week but it's very important that in Europe it's very important that we

I think it's important with regard to our economy, that our economy is strong.

Second, it could be a very aggressive line with regard to the fact that in fiscal policy we are going to have restraints.

Restraints that were not agreed to in the education bill, not due to the governor.

take a million dollars to take those teachers off the job.

It'll have a few more.

All right.

And we're going to, we are keenly aware of this problem.

That the, that as our, as the, in our, in our studies on productivity, our own shop, I think also, however it should be on the science, that I think they've got to know this because every one of them thinks that these are

They all worry a hell of a lot about balance of payments.

And the question is, or balance of payments or international monetary movements, but the question is the choice between an international monetary weapon or the future of our own economy.

That's the problem with the Germans.

I mean, Grant is a socialist.

Grant will not give up on any of those programs.

He's not going to let them go.

They're going to inflate more.

It's going to get worse.

We'll have the 1% unemployment.

I know the Germans

and what they're up to.

Well, I understand.

That's a political decision.

But I think that we should, we have got to be, they must realize that we do have, we are, of course, very honestly concerned about the international, the stable international monetary situation.

We are concerned about our balance of payments.

We are concerned about inflation.

We also have

We are very, very concerned.

And our primary responsibility, therefore, is for our own domestic economy.

And the strong, growing, expanding American domestic economy is very much in their interest.

You know, the downturn last year didn't help Europe at all.

It hurt them, too, you know, every time.

I remember my first trip to Europe as president in 1969.

I was around there talking about how we were going to cut the budget and all the rest.

And I, in 1969, in February of 69, I actually came into office, and I said, we've got all this inflation, we're going to cut the budget.

I was amazed at the fact that the Wilson Academy had, to my amazement,

The police, they may have complained, but they said, let us just say one thing.

What really matters to us is to be sure that the American economy stays strong.

Because if it goes down, that's going to hurt us.

It's going to hurt everybody.

And the same thing I got to drink in Africa, which happened at a later time.

So we all know, we all know this, that the tendency is, I think when we go to Europe, and I speak now in a political sense,

I think that we must be very positive, confident, aggressive,

indicated that we believe we're doing the right thing, the right thing, that we're not going to be irresponsible, but we are going to watch the American economy and see that that economy continues to grow.

If I take a matter like industry, for example, now I'm not.

I'm in this field, I know, I know the problem of it, I know, I know, I just, I looked at some of the figures here as to what had happened.

The interest rates go up, they may bounce up strongly, I mean, again, instead of having 1,900,000, it starts moving down to 1,200,000 again.

They've become awful fast.

We just can't have that happen.

Now, the interest rates, in fact, the first thing we did when we came to the Fed, I don't know if you remember,

You lower the interest rates.

I'm sorry, but we haven't had the damn steel strap.

We've looked pretty good, but I don't know where we're going to go.

The point is that I'm talking around this pretty much because I only know it, but I know these meetings.

You look at them, all of you, and must look at them, and try to raise financial and economic gains.

But they have enormous political over.

the Germans, the rest all together.

And I just want you people to be, and so you can hope here and make up things if you think they're the right thing.

It's very important for us people over there, strong, confident.

Now look here, we're not benign to the black community, that sort of thing, but we're not going to change our policies because of the concerns that this or that or the other country has.

One other point I made briefly

And I think all of you would share this because it's a, I've always been intrigued with Archer's point of operation, the price of going to death.

That's what I know about, that seems to me, it's because of something that I can grab and see.

But whether that is the right move or something else is the right move remains to be seen.

This I do know, though.

I think that the utter madness, with utter madness, at the time of the crisis two or three weeks ago,

the Americans have gone rushing over to the Hague or some other place and sat down with some of the bankers and worked out some new scheme in order to save the market.

It was the end of the crisis.

Exactly.

That's the point.

But here's the point that I wish to make.

I have raised, if you remember, I raised it over a year ago.

I said, why don't we have an international monetary meeting and people said to the crisis and everybody said, well, this isn't the time.

See, the

The way I feel on that point, when I hit the boat, is the same way I feel about foreign policy in general.

We have this very significant breakthrough on arms talks because we have a major deliberate plan.

We have to keep the lid on everybody and it will work.

It will work.

There should be no international monetary policy in politics.

a conference in which it's even suggested that we're going to develop some sort of a new system, unless and until we have our doubts in the road, we know what we want to come out from that thing.

Now, it may be, incidentally, that all of you, the experts in my life, I would hope that all of you think about this.

You may decide, by golly, maybe it is time to do it.

Maybe we should move in that direction.

If so, let's decide it.

Let's plan it.

Let's initiate the conference.

Let's organize it and direct it and have it come out the way we want.

Now that's my attitude and that's their thing.

I just don't feel, but I don't feel we should react.

But they have problems here, there, and other places.

Even though we are partially responsible, let's assume that at home.

But our reaction should be to rush over and say, oh, what can we do to beat our press and then do something about our press.

I think we were very wise to keep our heads

And not just for rushing over there.

A telephone call or two, we made a call, and that was fine.

That's the little cute thing.

But we didn't pay off too much.

I was glad, for example, we didn't have to approach from directly or anything like that.

Because we had a fish, probably with the Germans.

Very important fish at the moment.

And I would not want to pay off something in this area, where in the political field we may be able to do something.

That is very important.

We just want to hold them.

I started to have a feeling I had gotten off.

You've got a different feeling, John.

I didn't share this with you.

I did share this, but I don't have a different feeling at all.

I mean, we still have a little disturbance, as you know.

The switch to re-evaluate is 7%.

We lost you 5-1-0-5.

The debt should blow you.

No, it won't.

The difference from what the fixed parity was, and that's the same as you and the Germans, the feeling is that when it all settles down to the maximum flow, that there might be 5% difference in the fixed parity of 366 that was in existence before this disturbance.

And it's very difficult for anybody to be wise enough to know that 5% of what kind of currency values are in this world.

If they give us the next frame, I think our economy may have improved.

It improved from one day to the next.

Hurts into the point where the situation played the entire commercial.

Archer probably had told him about the gold.

Well, I haven't had a chance to talk to Archer about that.

I'm sorry I didn't get that.

I'll raise some of his prices because this is something that I don't think we ought to be talking about.

We obviously can't talk to you about it.

I had talked to him in a strictest of comments that I didn't invite him to my shop in fact.

And I was really, uh, broken for information for America.

I don't know anything about gold.

Nothing about gold on that.

Uh, we're still in very good shape.

We've got, uh, ten billion dollars, uh, plus the gold.

What, what are you talking about?

Well, I was talking about something else.

Well, how much?

Well, I don't know what you're talking about.

I think what I was talking about was the, uh, the, uh,

It's the, uh, not the, not the... That's what I was talking about.

Yeah.

You know, that's the money you owe.

Well, you owe me some money.

That's what you owe me.

That's what I owe you.

That's what you owe me.

I basically agree with it.

I disagree with it.

I don't think it's time to do anything.

I think your thoughts were well taken.

I just think the worst thing could happen to us.

I know the worst thing could happen to us.

We cannot get Maryland, and this is what I'm carrying in my heart, and I'm going to carry it up.

We cannot get it to the bottom.

We cannot talk about the price of gold or revaluing the gold, or we die of crisis on our hands because we have officials.

uh, obligations and official debts in excess of $26 billion in the hands of foreign governments.

Now, it is significant that Malaysia came in here, a little country that has $5 million in gold the other day.

And, uh, if this gets started, we, indeed, we will have to close the door.

Now, maybe this is what we want.

We ought, that ought to be a deliberate decision that we make as a government.

It ought not to come as an accident.

Uh, so, uh,

Well, let me just say this, but I suggest that this is something that I am not sophisticated on, and I'd like for you and John to talk about this argument.

Oh, sure, we can talk about it.

That's fine.

We can talk about it.

No, maybe we can talk about it.

You know, we can talk about it.

Yeah.

Maybe we can talk about it.

You understand?

I just want to be sure that I brought this up because the letter came to me.

Well, I think this will have to be your decision.

Yeah, all right.

Start thinking about that.

Well, how have I been?

All kinds.

Yeah.

Right.

Is there anything more?

Is that the right line on this comment?

I think so, to be honest with you.

And, uh, you've told us, I think that, I think basically you and Arthur are the key to it.

You sit there, you always fall together.

He's an old poker player, and I am too, and I think we can hold that one game up.

Do you ever play any poker?

Do you ever play poker?

I don't know.

You know, like I said, I stay up because I do other things.

I'm sorry to say that.

In the meantime, I'll see you tomorrow at 7.25, all right?

Yes, sir, I guess so.

Get off by whatever time.

Yes, sir.

I'll have breakfast on the plane.

All right.

Thank you.

Breakfast on the plane, sir.

All right.

We'll see you.

All right.

Thanks, sir.

The French, the British, the Italians...

Maybe the Japanese know that there's nine or six of them.

I don't think so.

If we go up on this planet and know where we might have to go, then as a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, then, for example, if we decide we want to go up there, I should go up there.

That's what I mean by planning the conference.

rather than going riding around over there and being in the canyon.

You will go there in those three days, don't you?

I'm an explorer, but... No, I will.

I will see.

Don't worry, I understand enough about it.

But you get my thinking.

You see, this thing we announced yesterday is probably the beginning of the most terrible ship in World War II.

And it's, there is always an arson on the work.

Do you have some substance to the fire?

I thought you wouldn't, and maybe not.

I'll let you know later.

Did I come through, or what?

All right.

Goodbye, Archer, and thank you for your, you got your conference here.

I don't have a cell phone.

Where is, uh, incident?

I'm supposed to give something to her, but I'll just die, and he doesn't have anything either.

Why don't you take your time?

the people who only spend more than an hour.

Have a good day.

Did you read my statement?

Yes.

Not commerce.

Yes, very good.

Oh, I'm sorry to keep you waiting.

I have to get the ball.

I have to apologize to your president.

It's so late.

Oh, I see the VFW got a hold of you here.

I submitted that VFW to Tommy.

Hey, guys, well, Allison's going to leave.

Oh, I forgot.

I had to have a drink.

Oh, you should work.

You should work.

That's a great thing.

It does out there.

It's on Carol West's side.

Those companies, they have an art exhibition up there.

All right.

Oh, that's here.

Holy shit.

Hey, hop on.

You've got to jump on.

I've never even had a baby before.

No.

I think I've lost a brother.

I'm sorry.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, no.

That's the... That's the... That's the...

That's very good.

Very good.

Joe, hey, now that you've been here, we have that little time for people to do things without me.

That's it.

And the golf ball, don't hit it out of bounds.

I will.

Never.

Joe, think I did.

Do you have the remarks for tomorrow?

I think I do.

Yeah.

I'm going to pass this in.

Yeah.

What's that?

He can give you a call when he returns.

Oh, come on.

This was here last night.

Oh, oh.

This is everything.

That was the first draft.

No, I had the... You had the second draft.

There's everything.

But he was the first to bat in this, and I wanted to make sure he had it.

Oh.

Quiet on that, sir.

There's a pool.

Right.

We should be there.

I don't see what we did.

Ask him.

Ask him what happened.

Take somebody else off if necessary.

We're down for two days.

Is that on him, sir?

Yes, sir.

That library is unbelievable.

What kind of library?

Oh, my.

A scale replica of the old office.

But it's free.

You don't need to sell anything.

This is it.

It's reduced slightly.

It's reduced very slightly.

Let me say this.

I have no opinion.

Absolutely no.

the whole library plant.

You don't want a mobile office here in Santa?

No, I don't.

I don't really understand ever to use.

I don't even go near the goddamn library.

I'm going to work.

I'm going to use my home.

You know what I mean?

My office is going to be in San Clemente, you see.

So don't even plan that.

I would dream of having an office for me in the den.

That would be ridiculous.

I wouldn't think you would.

I don't know why.

If I met any of the readers you wanted or any of the guys you'd have sent over.

I'd go with whatever is adequate.

It's not, no, I mean, so it's the event.

I've been to seats, but I've been to some booths, and as John said, all you need to do is be nice.

Not too abusive.

What you wanted to do was have an informal dinner to honor the graduates in the Washington area of his West Point class on their 25th anniversary.

They can't get full class representation because some of the alumni are going up to West Point for their activities up there at that time.

So they're suggesting that we fly down six or seven of the most distinguished class graduates from West Point who would be up there, and then invite a number of other distinguished guests who have some relationship to Nicaragua to make a dinner of about 25 or 30 people.

I'm going to respect that, I think, for you.

Thank you.

The rest of the town.

Oh, yeah, that'd be great.

Very well, then I'm going to close it here off.

I'm all set.

That's just great.

Oh, we're all set.

That'd be great.

That's just great.

They ran a live national TV time program there.

They're starting from the beginning of the ceremony, Billy Graham and the National Anthem.

And that's, uh...

If they all go on time, you'll go on in about a minute.

Well, they'll never get a change.

What the hell?

The top of the toilet just got decided.

I don't think they just go right on.

Yeah, something like that.

I won't decide yet.

They're going to get the man and I'm not going to let them get to you.

You know that.

Well, how long have they got counseling for?

I don't know.

but they've got an indication of welcome by the Board of Trustees.

Trust in any of them.

We're all set.

Your wife went down ahead of time.

Yes, sir.

Are you ready?

Go.

Come over here and see if he's...

Yes, he is.

Is he here?

He's...

He just went back to the hospital a while ago.

Yeah, we got him older, but this is great news for them.

The others don't come.

July 11th.

See you in a minute.

1358.

Watch this.

1358.

That's 1358.

We'll be right back.

You know what I'm saying?

This is next, please.

Well, that's quite enough.

We've got a question here today.

See, the Badger shouldn't have had any of his AVM, because that would be all corruption.

No.

That won't happen.

I just appreciate it very much.