On August 4, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon met in the Oval Office of the White House from 11:38 am to 12:27 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 554-001 of the White House Tapes.
Transcript (AI-Generated)This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.
We have 360,000 tons of grain ready for shipment.
We've also a lot of $3 million for the purpose of chartering ships for the purpose of getting the grain into the overcrowded ports.
And as a further step, the Secretary of State worked out with my very strong approval of clients who go to the United Nations next week to talk to
to see what additional studies can be taken on both fronts to help the refugees in East Pakistan and also to help those who might be, to help the refugees in India from East Pakistan and also to help those who are in Pakistan and are in presently in front of a famine situation.
With regard to a problem that was addressed by the House yesterday, we do not think the idea that the United States should cut off the economic assistance to Pakistan.
To do so would simply aggravate the refugee problem because it would mean that the ability of the government of Pakistan
to work with the UN, as it presently has indicated it is willing to do so, to contribute to food supplies.
The ability to create some stability would be seriously jeopardized.
We believe that the most constructive role we can play is to continue our economic assistance to West Pakistan and thereby to be able to influence the course of action in a way that will deal with the problem of hunger in East Pakistan
reduce the refugee flow into India, and which will, we trust, in the future, look toward a viable political center.
We are not going to engage in public oppression on the interests of West Pakistan.
That would be totally counter-specting.
These are matters that we will discuss only in private channels.
Can you tell us any more about your report coming this time?
I think it's likely to occur.
And can you give us your assessment of what effect you think this will have on the war in Vietnam?
As far as the timing is concerned, I cannot add to what I said in the original announcement.
It will be before May 1st.
The time will be worked out.
Sometime
within the next two to three months, I would assume.
And a considerable amount of preparatory activity must take place, setting up the agenda, setting up the numbers and the official party.
These are matters, of course, that must be discussed and worked out before the time for the visitors is finally announced.
And I know a number of you are interested in .
That is a matter soon to be decided.
It was raised by Dr. Kissinger and by and their conversations and will be worked out by .
As far as our company is concerned, it will be a small part.
The only ones that presently are definitely going are, of course, the Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger, and myself.
But beyond that,
whatever others will be headed with the parties concerned.
Now, as to the effect the visit will have, as well as the conversations we'll have on Vietnam, I will not speculate on that subject.
I will only say that as the joint announcement
This will be a wide-ranging discussion of issues concerning both governments.
It is not a discussion that is going to lead to instant decontamination.
What it really is, is moving, as we have moved, I believe, in the situation with regard to the Soviet Union from the era of
confrontation without communication to an era of litigation with discussion.
It does not mean that we go into these meetings on either side with any illusions about the wide differences that we have.
Our interests are very different.
And both sides recognize this.
And these talks, the talk that just we had, the very expensive talks you've had with me this morning, we do not expect that these talks will sell all
What is important is that we will fully communicate to see where our differences are irreconcilable, to see if they can be settled easily.
And to find those areas where the United States, which today is the most powerful nation in the world,
find areas of agreement with the most populous nation in the world, which ultimately in the future could become the most powerful nation in the world.
As we look at peace in the world for the balance of this century, and for that matter into the next century, we must recognize that there cannot be a world peace on which all the peoples of the world can rely on, on which they have such a great faith,
unless there is communication between, and some negotiation between, these two great superpowers, the People's Republic and the United States.
I have put this in general terms because that is the understanding of the People's Republic, and it's our understanding.
Our agenda will be worked out at a later time.
Before the trip, it will be very carefully worked out so that the discussions will deal with the hard problems as well as the decent.
We expect to make some progress, but to speculate about what progress will be made on any particular issue, to speculate, for example, as to what effect this might have on
Vietnam would not serve the interest of the Shafiq Paks.
The Press President, I have a related question on Vietnam.
There have been some suggestions, including some indirect hints from China, that a negotiating forum involving a conference, an Asian conference to be held in Asia, primarily with Asian participants, but with the United States as well, might be a better forum for negotiating a settlement in Vietnam.
Can you speak to that?
Mr. Bailey, the question of whether there should be an all-Asian conference with the government, the people, the public participating, as you know, has been risen several times over the past few months and was raised before our announcement was made.
As far as we are concerned, we will consider any proposal
that might contribute to a more peaceful situation in Pacific and the world.
However, at this point, there is no understanding between the United States and the People's Republic as to whether or not out of this meeting should come that kind of a program.
Let me say on that front, there are no conditions
asked for on either side and not accepted.
There were no deals made on either side, not accepted, not offered and not accepted.
This is a discussion which will take place with both sides knowing in advance that there are good opportunities.
But with both sides well prepared, and this is the signal of any successful summit,
As you know, parents like what I have always taken somewhat of a thin view of some of the pre-funded companies.
It's a new state and an unprepared one, but both sides need to be well-prepared and well-advanced on all hundreds of major deficits.
It's a big, big difference that could affect the peace of the world.
Mr. President, is there any diplomatic reason why you might not visit the Soviet Union before the United States?
We, in the view of our, the announcement that we made on the visit to the King, will be the first visit that I have made.
Obviously, it takes a great deal of time to pair up as a
and to attend now to the Soviet Union.
I'm sure it feels exactly the same way to attempt to rush around to have a solitary extension in Moscow before we go to Beijing.
It would not be in the interest of either country.
I would add this point, too.
When Foreign Minister Gromyko was here, we discussed the possibility of
a possible summit meeting.
We had a very tense discussion.
And he agreed and said that his government leaders agreed with him on his decision.
Which was that a meeting at the highest level should take place and would be useful only when there was something such that they could discuss that could not be handled in one of the channels.
But regarding this, I should also point out that we are making
very significant progress on Burlap.
We are making good progress on Salt Lake.
Discussions are still continuing on the Mideast.
Although there, I will not speculate about what the prospects of success are in the area and explore the government's concern on the possibilities of
to get her to settle, or to find herself an AP.
But having mentioned these three areas which we are negotiating with the social system, I'd add that if the time comes, as it may come, and both sides realize it, when the final breakthrough in any of these areas can take place,
only at the highest level, then there will be a meeting.
But as far as the timing of the meeting before the disciplinary meeting, that would not be an appropriate decision.
I was thinking of such a thing as a settlement on the salt problem.
What do you like to see?
Well, the crisis, as I said, there's good progress to making salt.
It is still, it's a very practical one.
and sticky problem for both sides because it involves our vital anchors.
Let me emphasize that both sides are
are asked to make an agreement which limits that.
It is not being allowed.
We, on our part, will be having very severe limitations with regard to our defensive capability with AVM.
They, on their part, will have limitations on their offensive capability.
They're building offensive missiles.
Neither side can make those decisions lightly without very, very basic discussions.
But the fact that we have, at the highest level, committed ourselves to working toward agreement simultaneously this year on both those issues, and the fact that since the talks with Helsinki began, that we have made progress, gives hold that we are going to make an arrangement.
to speculate that maybe we're going to get that done before we go to, uh, became, I don't know, 50 other people.
I've noted, uh, some, uh, uh, criticism of the press about the, uh, that, uh, Pastor Bruce had to leave office first instead of, I guess,
Most greatly, he stayed an extra month because his doctor got over me and said he should have left July 1st.
Anyway, after he's having left August 1st and Mr. Porter not being able to arrive at the latter part of August, there has been some speculation.
In fact, first, and I understand there's criticism in the press and out.
that the administration is not interested in negotiating the Senate, that we are not considering the various proposals that have been made by the D.C. and the North Carolina.
Now, just so the members of the press will not get out on a limb with regard to
predicting what we are or are not doing.
Let me make one statement, and I will go no further.
We are very actively pursuing negotiations on Vietnam and established channels.
The record, when it finally comes out, won't answer all the critics.
As far as the activity of this government in pursuing negotiations on established channels, it would not be useful to
the newspapers if we want to have those negotiations succeed.
I am not predicting that the negotiations will succeed.
I am saying, however, that as far as the United States is concerned, we have gone and are going the extra mile on negotiations in established channels.
You can interpret that as the way you want, but do not interpret it in a way that indicates that the United States
Is this opportunity, that opportunity, or another one?
One of the points being mentioned in the comments on the negotiations is the election in South Vietnam in the fall.
Is that a factor that does have some bearing on the pace of the negotiations?
It has, certainly, in terms of the Northeast states.
As you know, some of them are really is political .
And as they look at the election this fall, they feel that unless that election comes out in a way that a candidate they can support, or at least that they are not as much against as they are .
unless it comes out that way, it will be very difficult for them to have a negotiated settlement.
With regard to the elections, let me emphasize our position.
Our position is one of complete neutrality in these elections.
We have under Ambassador Bunker's skillful direction
made it clear to all parties concerned that we are not supporting any candidate that we would accept the burden of the people of South Vietnam.
I noted, for example, that President Chu has invited observers to come from other nations to witness the election.
I hope observers do go.
I think they will find, I hope they will find, if it is in May, that if there are previous elections in Vietnam, that by most standards, they were fair.
As far as observance of this, as you were saying, we have, of course, several members of the Senate and others of the Senate who do not even know.
And we, of course, have no objection to that.
We have a fair election.
And we, of course, have some observers on the scene, the person, the ambassador, and his staff,
With regard to the stock market, I suppose my advice is
should not be given much weight because I'm not in the market and it's so easy to make predictions where your own assets are not involved.
I will say this, I would not sell the United States economy short at this point and long term I would not be selling
my investments in the American economy, whether it's stocks, real estate, or what have you, and selling them in a panicky way.
The stock market has come up even at its present level of a 50-230 point, so I made that prediction.
I can only say that my long-range prediction for this economy
is still what I said at the first of this year.
At the first of this year, when the very same people, I've read the news magazines, the business magazines, and I'm not a person who's a columnist, but I could all rest at sea, and there will be predictions about the economy.
It's going fast, nothing good about it.
I read them also for November of last year, exactly the same tunes, the same words and so forth.
I said then, and all of you were present then, I thought 1971 would be a good year for the economy, 1972 would be a very good year.
I stand by that.
When we look at, for example, the first half of this year,
It isn't what people say about these funds.
It's what they do about it.
The GMP is up $352 billion.
Retail sales now in June and the first indicators as far as July are concerned and will stay at this level are at record highs.
Consumer spending is at a record high.
Construction, particularly in housing, are at near record highs.
We've been poor.
And this is another indication of what will happen in the future for those who may be thinking of investing their money in businesses.
Inventories are abnormally low due to the high levels of retail sales.
Now, what this tells me is that there's a lot of steam in the boiler in this economy.
And you cannot continue to have high retail sales and low inventories without eventually
starting to rebuild.
Therefore, my projection for the balance of this year is that the economy will continue to move up as it has moved up in the first half.
That doesn't mean that there will not be operations in monthly figures.
It does mean, however, that the economy has a great deal of strength in it.
This is a period when it is starting
Almost a million people who have been let out of defense plans in the armed forces.
having started that with a lower rate of unemployment.
That was the case in 1961, 1962, 1963, but it was the last three peacetime years before Vietnam.
Finally, unemployment rate, as you recall, averaged six percent.
Mr. President, does that mean that you are still relatively opposed to any policy or decision you've made tonight?
I think, Peter, it is well to identify income policies and wage-price goals for what they are and what they are not, because as a matter of fact, and this gives me an opportunity to set the record straight with regard to some greatly blown-up differences that I'm supposed to have in mind, very good regards to Bernie.
in terms of monetary policy and in terms of fiscal policy has followed a course that I think is the most
responsible and statesmanlike of any chairman of the Federal Reserve in my memory.
In other words, we have seen an expansionary monetary policy, and that's one of the reasons we've had an expansionary economy in the first six months of this year.
He's also stood firmly with this administration in its response to fiscal policy, resisting, for example, spending above what the economy would produce in full capacity.
and he has strongly supported me in those efforts.
That brings me to an area where he has taken a very unfair shot.
Within this administration, the Office of Budget and Management on a reorganization plan two months ago recommended that we camera the Federal Reserve, because he basically is our central banker, should be raised to the same status as the central bankers abroad.
I enthusiastically approve the idea.
However, when the matter was raised with Dr. Burns by my associates,
he indicated that neither he or any other high position, other individual in the highest position in government should take a salary increase at a time that the president was going to have to pay some strong measures, as I am going to take, to limit salary increases in other areas of government, including, for example, blue collar workers.
So consequently, while
question, but the Federal Reserve position will eventually be raised to the level two position that was recommended.
Arthur Burns and Senator George Shultz, who was also on this list as a realtor, as a recommendation to the A&M Council, Arthur Burns and George Shultz, being the responsible men that they were, asked that there not be an example set by them of a pay increase, which would make it very difficult for us
to be able to effectively and responsibly look at increases in other sectors of the government.
Now, so we find that Burns agrees that I agree with Burns.
I agree with Burns very strongly on his monetary policy, fiscal policy, the question that he had raised with regard to income policy.
But when we talk about his responsibility, let's see what he is not for.
He is not utterly opposed, as I am, to the tolerance, which is supported by many of the articles I understand, of permanent wage and pricing goals, of permanent wage and pricing goals in America.
would stifle the American economy's dynamism, its productivity, and would be, I think, a mortal blow to the United States' first-class economic power.
On the other hand, it is essential that government use its power where it can be effective to stop the escalation, or at least temper the escalation, in the wage-price spiral.
That's why we ruled on construction,
even somewhat successful, from 16% down to 90%.
That's why they moved to roll back in oil price recently.
As far as the two recent settlements, the one in railroads and the one in steel, on the plus side, the fact that they were settled was positive.
The fact, too, that in the case of railroads, they spoke to the problem of productivity by modifications of work rules,
the problem of productivity by speaking, by setting up productivity councils, that was constructive.
On the other hand, I would be less than candid if I were not to say, and I know that the leaders of the rail industry and the leaders of the steel industry know this, that this kind of a setting, where a wage increase leads to a price increase, and particularly in steel, where the industry is already non-competitive with foreign imports,
It's not in the interest of America.
It's not in the interest of labor.
It's not in the interest of energy.
Now, Dr. Burns, without being completely specific, he's only suggested the idea should be considered.
And that's why Secretary Collins said, we welcome the move by several Republican senators to hold hearings with regard to .
That's why Dr. Burns has said that we should move to attempt to temper these increases.
The problem here is how can we move without putting the American economy in a straitjacket?
In other words, as Secretary Connolly raised in his statement this morning, are we to have criminal penalties?
Are they, for example, the wage price guidelines to affect all industries down to the corner filling station or the grocery store or the meat market in a case like this?
or are they in effect only the major industries?
As far as this administration is concerned, I consider this.
I've asked the Secretary of State to bring to my attention every major wage price negotiation which may be coming up in the future.
And I will use the power of this office and the extent it can be effective to see that those negotiations are as responsive as possible.
On September the 21st, we will have a meeting of our productivity commission, and subject A in that meeting will be the same problem, because as we look at America's trade balances, which have deteriorated over the past 10 years, but if you look at America's competitive position, it is essential.
that American industry and American labor sit down together and determine whether at a time where now in a race we no longer can be number one simply because we were that big and that strong in the World War I, whether we determine we're going to get out of the race or whether we're going to tighten our belts and
be responsible in wage price decisions so that we can continue to be competitive in the world.
That speaks to the way, that speaks to the problem of an income policy that's leading to people having it.
The only question of difference between our governments, and some senators have raised this question, is what is the degree to which in impacting these individual wage settlements we have compulsion
We have criminal penalties.
I don't think they want compulsion or criminal penalties.
And the question is, how far will persuasion go?
And our record shows that in most countries of the world that have tried, except for very small countries that are tightly controlled, persuasion alone will work for only three to four months.
So as far as we're concerned,
I am glad to consider recommendations for tackling the problem.
I will tackle it and I am serving notice now that we are going to take up the problem of productivity.
We're going to look at each individual settlement in major industries, whether it's going to be wage price negotiations and use the influence that we can to keep them in mind.
And in addition to that, we will consider a recommendation on wage price for
I will reject it if I find, and I have yet to find any recommendation that did not have this agreed to, if I find that it would impose a new bureaucracy with enormous criminal powers that fasten itself on the American economy.
That, I think, would do far more harm than good.
Mr. President, along those same lines, to follow up that question, if the settlement in the steel industry, and particularly the raising prices, which was recently announced, is not good for the country, if it's not good for labor and management, why do you not call in the steel industry?
the leaders of the steel industry and use your influence to get them to change the increase in prices and, if necessary, other parts of the economy which are so inimitable to the country.
Calling on the steel industry to change would not be effective.
That, as you may recall,
in one instance earlier this year, we were able to get a steel rollback.
And that had a temporary beneficial effect.
But at a time when the steel industry has negotiated a settlement of this magnitude, at a time when its profits
at 2.5% are the lowest of any major industry.
To tell the steel industry that after they have negotiated a settlement, they must roll back their price and run on the loss is simply unrealistic.
They are not going to do it.
The longer term answer here is for the steel industry, and this is what we have addressed ourselves to, and labor, to recognize that
Now that they have had their settlement, now that labor has gotten a good increase, an increase that's been assumed to lower than it can in others, now that steel found it necessary to raise prices, that this may be good temporarily for both.
But in the long run, it will simply mean less steel sold and less jobs.
And that is why we are zeroing in on the productivity side.
Because increases in productivity can be the only answer where a wage increase of this magnitude takes place.
You mentioned something about doing something about wages for government employees.
Yes, one of the problems, a difficult problem that I confronted last year, and I have a little time against this year, is the recommendation to increase the wages for food-collar workers and veterans.
I have examined that situation and I have determined that an increase in the food-collar wage scale would not be in the interest of our
fighting the inflation battle and speaking to the same point.
We have a situation with regard to the Congress and some of its appropriations bills.
We are trying to keep our budgets within the full employment limits for 1972.
Congress already has exceeded our budget by five and four-tenths of a billion dollars.
That includes mandatory spending, which they have totally promised,
in addition to the appropriations bills.
Now, before they get through with the appropriations process, I hope that comes down, but that will be highly inflationary unless the Congress speaks to that problem more quickly.
What I was indicating, in other words, Herb, was that I'm indicating in advance the decision that I do not intend to approve the wage increase, the recommendation to remove power workers from the government.
Under those circumstances,
could not, of course, accrue an increase in salaries for people as underpaid, basically, as Dr. Burns is, thinking what he could get on the outside, or as Dr. Schultz is, considering what he could get on the outside.
How many people have fallen out of the blue collar?
100,000.
And that's exactly what they, they have, it's impeccable, I think, to do, because they have had one.
substantial increases in tax questions.
Mr. President.
Sir, you also mentioned guidelines in a manner that suggested that you might accept the concept of numerical guidelines.
Did you mean to suggest that?
No.
What I meant to say was that my study of the situation indicates that guidelines in this country have always failed.
They have never worked.
Guidelines in other industrial countries
including Canada, for example, and Britain, have worked only for a short time and then have fallen.
Because guidelines basically can only voluntary compliance, voluntary compliance, only for a brief time.
Now, as far as what I'm saying is that our approach at this time is a selective one.
to take those particular industries that are coming up for bargaining and to use our influence as effectively as we can to see that those settlements are responsible.
And second, that as far as the wage price board is concerned, that
I consider today that it will be only if the hearings that are going to be undertaken in this field, only if the hearings can convince me that enforcing an incomes policy could be accomplished without stifling the economy.
It's the problem, in other words, of the portion.
Because I come back to this fundamental conversation.
I have yet to find, except for, shall be the extremists on the left, and I don't say this in a condemning way, it's only an observation, the extremists on the left of the economic spectrum.
have always favored a totally government-controlled economy.
They believe that.
I don't believe it.
They believe that we should have permanent wage and price controls, and that government should determine what wages should be and what prices should be.
I do not believe that.
Dr. Burns does not believe that.
If you've read his piece of the year, he's a strong opponent of that.
The question is,
How can we address ourselves to the problem of wages and prices without having those mandatory criminal features, criminal penalty features, which would lead us to something we're all trying to avoid?
And this is why this is a matter for discussion.
It is not one yet for decision.
but I will continue to work on individual settlements, as I've said.
I am saying that I shall continue the policy
of moving aggressively on individual settlement on a case-by-case basis.
Second, I will address this particular problem in a meeting of the major leaders of American industry and American labor at the Productivity Commission meeting on September 21st.
Third, with regard to wage price scores,
I have still not been convinced that we can move in that direction and be effective.
However, Senator Crowley and his statement this morning raised all the questions that should be raised on that.
And as far as we are concerned, we have an open mind in terms of examining the various proposals to see if there is a new approach, which we have not thought of.
I have serious doubts that they will find such a new approach, but I do want to indicate that we will examine it because we all agree that the way Christ filed is a
a significant danger for this expanding economy.
And the question is, what can we do about it without going all the way to move a total control economy?
Dr. Burns, I read his paper quite carefully, and what he was saying is what I would say about this, and I would say this regarding inflation, I'd say regarding unemployment.
I'm never satisfied, and never will be satisfied, and anybody in a free economy is never satisfied and should never be satisfied with anything except perfection.
That doesn't mean we're going to reach perfection.
Now, with regard to inflation, I always point to the moon.
Inflation
which of course was boiling along when we came into office in January of 1969, reached its peak in 1970, 6%.
Then the CPI dropped to 4% in the first six months of 1969.
Now, 4% is still too high, but that is progress.
The GNP deflator, which of course
It goes far beyond consumer prices and price index, as you know.
Indeed, the GNP, which later covers the whole spectrum of deep mining, in the first six months of 1971, was the lowest in three years.
That is progress.
Not enough, but it is progress.
From last month,
The CBI was higher than the average that it spent for the first five months.
But we all know these month-to-month variations are not going to count.
My view is that we are making progress against inflation, but it's going to require continued strong policies on the part of the administration with the cooperation of Congress in limiting our budget expenditures to
the full capacity or full employment revenues.
That is, if you've got a little bit of a wage.
And it will also lead to cooperation from labor and management in limiting the wage price.
Now, on the unemployment front, we have a somewhat similar pattern.
The last three peacetime years, before
the Korean War expenditures began to typo the economy were 1961, 62, 63.
Unemployment in those years averaged 6%.
We, at this point, have
brought unemployment below 6%.
Not as much as we would like.
It reached its peak in January with 6.2.
What the figures will be for this month, you will know on Friday.
I don't know what they are myself.
I'll read them to you.
Actually, it should be looked into.
But any of that, the unemployment curve is down.
If 6.2 was the high, we are now below 6%.
I believe that it will continue with monthly aberrations, with monthly aberrations on a downward course through the balance of the year.
And I believe that as we go into 1972, I still sit with my prediction that we will see unemployment
continue to move down here, and that 1972 for that year will be a very good year.
I would point out one final point.
Call me on the point, as I have often pointed out.
This morning, as of this morning,
I looked at the numbers.
Over 2 million Americans have been let out of the arms services and out of defense plans since we started to wind down the war in Vietnam.
If they were in the services or in the defense plans at the present time, unemployment would be 4.3.
But the other side of that coin is casualties we need in the 300th week, this week.
I just think the price is too high to pay.
We believe that our goal of a new project of low unemployment and with peace and not at the cost of war is one the Americans are willing to work toward.
We are going to achieve that goal and by getting back to our stock market question, I will simply say this.
Everybody else has been prophetic about the future.
I think the prophets who presently say that the American economy is on the skids, that we have made no progress on inflation.
that the economy is not moving on, who ignore the $52 trillion increase in GMT, who ignore the increase in retail sales, who ignore the strong positive elements in the economy.
I think by the end of this year, that they're going to look bad.
Now, I don't want to go into that effect, but by the end of this year, I might look bad.
But I just hope that they do rather than myself, because all of us are involved.
the figures of 12 per week and so forth in that category, are they an aberration, or is your policy envisioning them to continue to decline in this year?
No, they're not an aberration.
They're the result, frankly, of, first, an American withdrawal.
American forces have given on today, as you can tell from the reading.
the reports are in defensive positions.
We are, frankly, just defending the areas in which we have responsibility, and there are less of them.
Consequently, our casualties are down for that reason.
Second, however, they're down for another reason.
The enemy doesn't have the time to do that, because the other point to look at is that South Vietnamese casualties are also substantially down from what they were last year.
What has happened is that
The two operations, Cambodian and Laos, so very severely disrupted the enemy's ability to wage offensive actions that for both Americans and South Vietnamese, the level of fighting is down.
There again will be aberrations up and down.
I would assume nobody can predict that.
But the war is being wound down, and as far as Americans are concerned, we trust it will continue to go down.
Well, I would like to do it.
I was out there.
I was out there with some ambassadors, you know.
It cost about 50 minutes, and I couldn't get a part of it.
I just released that one right outside of Detroit, and it's only going to drive miles through that country, and the city is flying.
I didn't see anything like that.
I just thought, you've got one of those things that's been parlayed at the end of the road.
So it's sort of a monopoly each way.
I've never seen something like this.
My wife wants to go because she decided to take our daughters down there before they got married.
You've got to have somebody else to go with it.
I can't right now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah, that's great
Well, he's a wonderful guy, and maybe for the Dodgers, how he played so well, he was a real pro.
The picture showed you as our special in World Series.
You know that, yeah, yeah, yeah, World Series, out of the yard.
You haven't seen it?
No, no, I didn't.
I was at Yankee Stadium.
I saw it at Yankee Stadium.
Howard had it.
Howard had it in that same game.
It's not your favorite home run.
And he was such a smooth, classy guy.
Come on, that's what I said.