Conversation 574-005

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

That's right.

You remember I gave you one of those for one of your young partners.

Oh, no, wait a minute.

It's bookmarked.

Yes, I know.

We didn't have that.

Bookmark.

All right, we're all right.

All right.

This one is for you.

He can't organize them.

Huh?

He can't organize them.

Well, you ought to admit, this guy didn't agree.

There was a very broad disagreement on some things that they all presented.

Chris, he's got that congressman-senator draw.

He made the speeches.

Now, what I brought along, referring to that same subject, and we don't need to spend any time on it because the other one is the one that takes the time, a book of letters that we got from businessmen in response to our letter asking for their support for your program.

As we're just taking through for ten minutes at a time, the top letter is from the New York Times saying, by now I'm sure you've seen our editorials wherein we urge all Americans to give the President their support.

I can assure you that the New York Times as a company will practice what it preaches.

But you'll find some very wonderful letters from people here that I think will please you very much.

Secondly, I wanted to report to you that in answer to my telegram on dividends, I now have 1,028 replies.

And the vote is 1,028 to zero.

They will all support the dividend policy.

Now, there were another 200 that I sent the telegram to that we haven't heard from yet.

We're going to call them all up so that we can announce one of these days that we have a complete 100% support.

Do you have any report on that?

If you have a chance to receive one, we can get it.

There is a meeting next week in which my contact is coming back.

I didn't do anything pending John's return.

I think the banks are in a terribly vulnerable position.

They are.

It's everyone who needs to be happy, including the business people, but they're not there.

They're not there.

We have a lot of interest rates.

Now, you can say all day long that it shouldn't be controlled.

They can't be controlled.

But it's effective in control.

In the end, if we don't do something, Congress is in the wrong.

It's better for us to do something not quite in the wrong.

And if we're going to shake those managers up, I really feel it's terrible for us to do this.

Because I see this time.

And Harper doesn't see this.

She lives with those bosses.

But I see it politically as a very, very tough political issue for us.

If we go into phase two, and he's in, and he's equipped to loosen everything up because of their anticipation of inflation, which is the only reason they're going.

I think it's not because we're short of anybody now, it's just how much money the banks made in the 1970s, and everyone else was suffering.

I'll tell you what you do.

And I'm for this, incidentally.

And I want you to get this to the bank and drive away, and after that, the way this is put into bureaucracy, it'll leave, so don't worry about it.

To say that, uh, while I am against profits on manufacturing, I am considering, within the cost of living council, a tax on excessive profits by banks.

Okay.

And I'll have to stop arguing about it today.

Here's an interesting statistic on this freeze.

I asked in my dividend wire for the companies to give me a separate letter telling me the estimated effect on their profits on the third and fourth quarter.

We got 500 answers so far.

38.5% expect profits to go down.

40.5% no change.

6% an improvement as a result of the freeze.

15% a decline to speculate.

It's interesting that 40% roughly expect the profits to go down, 40% expect no change.

That's 86% expect an improvement.

I'd like to leave this because you might just get some satisfaction in paging through it at your leisure.

It's a fascinating book.

But on the other hand, I think that control of profits on banks is not a good idea.

Now what the hell does a bank produce?

New jobs.

The bank falls.

The bank makes more money with less people.

And we're gonna have some money to go around.

You see we're on the, on the public standpoint, we're on the wrong side of independent business.

And it's a terribly hard case to make public.

The banks, if they don't want to play, play ball fine, at least let the Congress give them a deep section on their promise.

I don't think it's gonna get any better.

that's very good.

You can leave it around some more.

But I am against the thing on the profits on business.

Because I read all the arguments, it just wouldn't work.

I mean, what I mean is, it would work, but it would have the exact opposite effect.

First cut down the expansion, which we all want.

It would reduce the number of jobs.

Second, we have the infection.

of making us, in effect, less competitive rather than more competitive, because by and large, this law, Act III, it reduces the amount of funds that are being planned, the possibility of an expansion of funds within the public sector to be all or equal.

And it destroys the capital market for companies that need to grow.

Mr. President, this is a budget appeal.

It's the first time I've been on this side.

Well, I'd like to make two points along two different approaches, one on the political significance of the program and the other on the value of the program itself, its own merits.

Politically, we may or may not be in the kind of box I think we are.

But the facts are, first of all, that this is much more than a black program.

This involves the Spanish-Americans.

The Spanish-Americans are over 9 million people, and they are concentrated in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, which are all pretty important states to us.

We have done a little bit in some of those states,

in Colorado with the Colorado Economic Development Organization and with NIDA, a national which is organized to deal with the Spanish-Americans and we've had very fine impact.

They are responsive and I think the multiplying factor is very great with what we do with the Spanish-Americans.

Now with the blacks, I'm aware as you are that this is a pretty tough problem.

But I think, first of all, this is a program where we can be in a good light with the blacks without having a negative effect on the majority community, which is true of most civil rights issues.

And I think we could create an atmosphere here in which the black campaign supporters that we do have will have more credibility and will be able to talk about it.

The administration is doing things, and they can say so.

Next, one of the great problems we've had to surmount as we've carried out the program is the constant contention on the part of the blacks and the Mexican-Americans that the administration isn't really committed to this program.

The speeches in 1968 were great, but because we didn't directly put more money into it visibly, we didn't say this is 100 million or 500 million dollars, they don't see the commitment.

An expanded program is an opportunity for a commitment, it's an opportunity for a politically valuable message that would tie together all the things that have been done, and it's a very creditable result.

When we compare this with some of the other new programs that were started since we came in, this is a creditable result.

No comparison to others, I don't think.

And we did it on...

I think it was environmental, for example, for butter disasters.

We had a situation where I read a speech by Tom Shepard, and I put it over to our environmental people, their government people, who have been answering.

And I found that what our government people found on the environment was about 8 out of 10 times wrong.

So I thought, I'm going to have that.

And it was a good example of that.

Do you know the example of Salama?

Yes.

You know the situation with regard to the Nobel Prize when he was here at this great event?

Before we blotted out with DDT, we had blotted out with DDT, old malaria and so on.

Nobody died of it in 1969.

12,000 died and so on last year of malaria.

Now I ask you, what is more important, human beings or condors?

Goddamn it, these people.

I hope you'll pass that to Richardson.

It took a lot of guts to do that because what happened here was, on that thing, I know nothing about it.

I don't know who was in it.

I just read in the paper.

But it seemed to me that he finally said, well, we had the balance.

the injury to the human hand, to the human skin or whatever it is and so forth, of a detergent with the, no, done by caustic soaps and so forth, to the injury to the environment that is done by detergents.

So if I bounce it halfway, one hurts one, one hurts the other.

So what do you want to do, save your skin or save the long one?

Yeah, I'll take the skin every time.

This question of making people pay in terms of the balance of the cost is the key here.

And people are only now beginning to talk about the cost, and that's the side we have to play.

The cost of safety and the cost of environment are the two things that we've got.

Every time I want to see cost versus together, we all say, well, gee, we're going to make the world better and cleaner and safer and so forth.

And not better.

I drew a lot of fire for a speech, a wait-and-see speech on the environment.

I mean, let's take a look at what we're doing.

But I'm beginning good editorials now, very much in favor of it.

You'll credit Tom Shepard's speech.

That's great.

It's great.

It's extremely good.

Now go ahead on this.

Well, here's a chance for a message.

on what's been done in this program to evidence commitment to get the Spanish-Americans some real benefits here, to give our black program supporters some things to talk about, and to find a program to put the onus on the Congress and take it off your back.

Now, we've got 22 million blacks and 9 million Spanish-Americans in this country.

And as I said, 22 to 9.

And as I said, the Spanish-Americans are concentrated in some pretty darn important states.

And the Spanish-Americans, proportionately, have done a better job of starting businesses on their own up to now, because they have, according to our census, they have 100,000 of them, and the blacks have only 160,000 at this time, which is much more favorable in proportion.

And from the standpoint of overall equity for this program, Mr. President, 17% of the people own 4% of the businesses, which are so small that they have only three-quarters of 1% of the sales in the country.

Now, John Tower has made strong representation...

Don Tower made strong statements about the need for the Spanish speaking.

Your Spanish speaking cabinet committee talked about what we should do for them.

The blacks are beginning to come around, they're beginning to recognize value in this program, but we don't have the money to get it around the country.

We can dispose of the credibility issue,

Bob Dole, without talking money amounts, which is none of his business, Bob Dole believes that a program for the blacks in this area would be very valuable.

Others have looked at it.

I think we could generate considerable support for going ahead.

Now, the issue of money is between these amounts.

George is offering me $60 million as an annual base with stuff from that the first year.

I've asked for $130 million.

You appointed an advisory committee with a lot of blacks, a lot of top white businessmen, and they came up with $143 million a year for the kind of program we're talking about.

And regardless of what we do, this is going to be a benchmark which is going to be compared, a great deal.

Now, I've already pointed out to George that $10 million of the amount that we're talking about is really not new money.

We're transferring it from EDA and SCA, Special Technical Assistance Funds.

We may be able to do something like with OEL, but that's not my area of responsibility.

George might be able to find something.

But I'd like to talk a little bit about what we've accomplished in this program with peanuts.

We had a million and a half dollars the first year to organize the government and to organize the private sector.

In two years' time, the amount of government grants, loans, and guarantees, and it's mostly guarantees, but it's money for people who want to go into business, has grown from $200 million to $425 million.

It's more than doubled it in two years.

The purchasing by government agencies from minority people under the set-aside program has grown from $9 million to $66 million.

And direct procurement on a competitive basis has grown from 4 million to 75 million.

Now we've gotten the private sector to come up with 35 medbigs in being, small business investment companies, another 21 in application, already a potential there of a couple hundred million dollars for equity money.

SBA has increased its loans from 5,000 to 8,000.

And here's an interesting thing we've been able to do in the private sector.

We've increased the number of franchises owned by minority people from 400 to 1,200 in two years' time.

Now, this is a small business.

Wave of the future, many people think, the franchise operations.

No, automobiles are only gone from 14 to 18 million.

The McDonald's hamburger in the auto store, the tire store, and so forth.

400 to 1,200.

Service stations from 10,000 to roughly 14,000.

We've had procurement seminars around the country.

We made the first census ever made of minority business.

We've increased the Indian program.

We've had SBAs enlarge its management and technical assistance activities.

Over the last six months, we've scrounged around the country and got $100 million deposited.

The program's not quite finished, we have another month to go, but we will have $100 million deposited in minority-owned banks to give them money in turn to lend to people, black banks and Spanish-American banks.

We've got a very extensive program, and I want to take another minute to give you the concept of it because

Well, I have a lot of charts here.

I don't really want to take your time to go through them.

The programs in this field, prior to the time we came here, were nothing.

In 1958, no, 64, they started during the election period a 6x6 program.

$6,000 for six years to anybody who wanted to go into a business.

It was 100% write-off.

It was just giveaway money.

They had a few loans they were making as part of the regular SBA activities.

And the whole concept was that you solve all this problem with money.

Now, our analysis, based on a lot of experience that some of us have had, was that this takes four things to make a successful business.

You've got to get a guy who has some qualifications.

His opportunity, his idea has to make sense.

It has to be realistic.

You can't finance soul food restaurants and things like that.

He has to have money, and most of the failings of the money in the past has only carried him to the point where he opened his door, and then he was struggling to try to keep alive.

It's got to carry him to the point where he can be viable.

And fourth, he's got to have, more importantly than anything else, he's got to have the technical assistance

the management coaching, the accounting, the legal advice, the advertising, the stock keeping, the purchasing.

All of the elements of running a business have to be made available to them.

Now, our program is geared to that.

And this is the reason we work with business organizations to get national commitments as to what they would do.

We get commitments from the CPAs, for example.

They'll give us a CPA anywhere in the United States to help.

a minority individual, the lawyers the same, management engineers the same.

Our problem is that we're working out of Washington primarily.

We have to get national commitments and then have the difficulty delivering them to the local community because we don't have the mechanism in the local community.

Now there are mechanisms that exist.

but they're disorganized, disconnected.

They are mostly voluntary efforts, either in the community or among the minority people themselves, to try to organize themselves to help people to go into business.

But they're relatively ineffective because they have no guidelines, they have no practices to go by, they have no sources of information, and they don't have the capacity of drawing on the resources that do exist in the majority community.

One of our major concepts, the local concept that we have,

is to select a limited number of minority organizations.

It's now in existence in the communities.

Give them the practices under which to work.

Give them the responsibilities to find people, do the part of the screening, and help to do the packaging of the transaction that they want to go into.

Then in addition, we organize the white community to provide a resource center.

where the opportunities exist, the money sources are known, the technical help is available, the packaging help and all of that is available.

So that we organize the white community to do the job really of providing the resources that the minority community is going to need.

The minority community picks the guy and gets him ready to take those resources and do something with them.

There are plenty of the minority community organizations around the country, most of them practically failing.

They have no resources.

We are giving funds to a number of them.

SBA has been giving funds to a number of them, but there's no integration of what they're doing at all.

We could integrate that into a standard type of operation and put above it in each community the resource center.

think we could accomplish a very large part of the program we could get a tremendous amount of local exposure so what's being done in this process pick a few impact projects right at the beginning a shopping center a small hotel or something like that which really has effectiveness and i think in 12 months time from now until november 1972 this program could have a tremendous impact in at least 75 cities where

where very limited things are going on.

Now there are other things we have in mind at the national level, trade associations of various types, a franchising institute to give better training to people who want to operate franchises, and so forth.

But the real guts of an effective program is to deliver it to the local level in a way that we can't deliver out of Washington,

with a small amount of money, sending people around from time to time.

If we can organize this on a national basis, we can have an effective program.

George will say, I'm sure, that he might agree with all of this, but the question is, why do we need that much money?

I think we need the money, first of all, for the credibility.

We need it because we can do a lot of good with it politically in a relatively short period of time.

That's basically my whole pitch.

I could spend an hour going over charts with you and all that, but I think you understand it.

I make it a matter of merit for the program itself, the credibility it's beginning to get,

The credibility that I personally have in the black community is quite great.

I can go to Chicago, Los Angeles, and be respected.

And secondly, for the political significance of it, which I think should be recognized.

And on this basis, Mr. President, I rest my case.

I have $130 million, but I'm willing to compromise.

Well, the problem, of course, is not in our Senate.

I'm sure Chad gets it in the other end of the spectrum.

But the problem is the budget restraining at the present time and being an expert yourself on it is extremely difficult.

The budget is way off the shoulder now.

Even with our new scheme of saying that the budget is unbalanced, it really is balanced.

There are a lot of areas that we can't handle.

This program, we've got to put it in that context.

The question is how much can we spend, the biocritical thing, how much can we spend, frankly, for what we think is a political gain.

but which you may not be sure.

On the other side of the coin, for example, there are wheels in here, models, it is a wheel.

And a lot of other hand-patched things that I would take a much different view of.

And this one I must admit, because this feels more holistic.

On those, I would buy a small.

There we have no certainty whatever of any progress.

Here we have maybe a fourth certainty of progress, just putting it in its lowest common denominator.

And I think that's our problem in all the programs, is that how much do you get out of them?

And we, of course, have taken on

The only place where we did any good was where George Unravel developed the job corps, and all hell broke loose, but it was the right thing to do, and it wasn't any good.

But there's so many others.

I mean, we've got this, the Peace Corps, and the rest of them.

And so that way I can just put it around.

I did not mean that they could get a 6% cut.

They're gonna get a 50% cut.

Remember I've mentioned that several times, George, and I want those band links cut because I'm not gonna have a bunch of people who are sabotaging us, subsidized by this government.

Now of course you can negotiate some of these, but I did not intend, when I saw the list of cuts

It was the right thing to do, but it wasn't any good.

But there's so many others.

I mean, we've got this, the Peace Corps, and the rest of the movement.

Incidentally, I can just put it out there.

I did not mean that they could get a 6% cut.

They're gonna get a 50% cut.

Remember I had mentioned that several hundred yards, and I want those bad things cut, because I'm not gonna have a bunch of people that are sabotaging us, subsidized by this government,

Now, of course, you can negotiate some of these, but I did not intend, when I saw that list of cuts, and I was like, the personnel cuts, and it's all been negotiated, so that in that sense, 6%, this one has 4%, this one has 5%, and so forth.

I would much prefer to cut the things that really are, really deserve to have a lot more than across the board.

across the board is one of the few.

That's one.

In that case, I know, I know.

And you as a businessman, Mark, you know that, however the returns are,

are often not what you'd like, and yet there is a credibility problem, and you analyze the political exchange.

I think it's like to give these people hope.

I particularly like the idea of the Mexican-Americans.

My first suggestion is that, just speaking quite candidly, all you can hope to do on the Negro side is to keep them from being against us 80%, I mean 90%.

rather than 85%.

I mean, you're not gonna change much there.

The Mexican thing may be a little different, a little more upfront because they're not quite as folded in.

And the way I would do this, I think the program is still too heavily balanced for blacks.

I think the program should be, I double the amount for Latin Americans and cut the amount for blacks for half.

That's the way I would do it.

It's a problem with that, Mr. President.

And you've got a black race now.

A black race now, and it's a black-run program.

I've got a blank ahead of it.

I have to, because otherwise I'd have a revolution.

So it's got to be proportionate.

But I have a suggestion to make.

But we have a number two suggestion.

Budget directors are supposed to be very ingenious fellows that figure out how to do something.

I think to have this under $100 million would be a serious political mistake.

I think it would be possible to get this to $100 million.

by taking some money from Model Cities or OEO or somewhere that's not being spent and put it into here and announce it as a new program and take the functions over to it.

Model Cities has economic development efforts, let it be done here into this program.

OEO has business development efforts, let it be done here.

And you could announce it as a program of $100 million

come up with a message that spells out, we've got legislation changed, we've got new legislation pending.

Things that don't show in statistics are a tremendous benefit to these people.

The ability to buy crime insurance, which HUD got.

The ability for SBA to guarantee the performance bonds of a building contractor, a painting contractor or a carpenter and so forth.

is making it possible for these people now to get business that they never could get before.

And all of these things are cumulative and are of great value, but we need to see that we have the means of disseminating to these people how to operate under the program.

So, George, I swear that it ought to be possible to come up with a $100 million level for 1973.

I'll take the $40 million for 1972 supplement.

You can't kid anybody by saying that publicly.

I think you've got, I think you've...

And you understand, Laurie, or I know all the wonderful ones.

The way I would do it is to say that we're getting very great pressure from the President, despite any regard to action on the profit thing, that it looks now that the Congress is going to be moved, going to be made the Congress to control profits on

That's going to be a rifle shot deal.

Unless they do something about their industry.

And if you're terribly concerned about it, you're against it, you know.

Understand?

The pets that are around can get you a job and be gutted over time today.

Mike's here.

Mike's there.

You know the guy from the meeting?

Yes.

Oh, wait a minute.

Say hello.

Let's take some trinkets home to your staff.

All right, I didn't want to read.

You've got to do everything.

That's all we've got.

I'll listen to this.

All right, I'll listen to this.

I know it's wrong.

As you know, it would be the worst thing in the world.

One suggestion that came up, he said, he's totally against it, but if you have to heal, then you drown, whatever.

Plus, it's a renegotiation for you.

Ooh, you mean, is that still around?

It's still around, it's still there.

Yeah, I'll pay you.

Oh, okay.

Cost of the re-negotiations?

Oh, are there contracts on it?

No, no, no, there's no contracts.

Is it required that I just... Yeah, that's where we'll be at the conclusion.

Yeah, so we'll give you a double-busting answer.

Oh, sure.

You can just come on in.

That's what I'm asking.

I mean, he's on the last, the last of the two parts.

That's what I'm asking.

That's where you can break the press.

I'll just...

I didn't want to say the commitment and the credibility of the program.

I don't care whether we spend it at all.

I just want to send it up to Congress.

It won't give to us anyway.

You need to stop the tree for a record.

I've been talking about it a hundred minutes.

Yeah.

Come on, come over here.

You know the Secretary of Commerce?

He's all for a major.

Yeah.

That's right.

He's going to need to perform miracles for us.

Thanks to old people and others.

Well, I don't know.

Most women may have been older.

Well, let's see.

If you sit here, I want to take a picture.

So why don't you move just a little closer.

Good.

We, uh, I think, you know, I think, you know, I think, you know, I think, you know, I think, you know, I think, you know, I think, you know,

You've been home a month and a half.

Yes, but it's been a little bit earlier.

My intention was to come after later.

You'll understand why.

I thank you very much for receiving me and giving me this honor and privilege to convey to you a message from the Holy Church.

First of all...

As I told Dr. Kissinger, he raised the question, and the President has something that he considers personal that he wants to pass on, but I'm not sure we've got that channel.

Yes, thank you very much.

First of all, he sent me the friendly greetings to you and to your wife.

and the best wishes and again his appreciation for the support you gave for the development of the Romanian-American relations primarily in the economic field for the most paper nations and for the CART edition of Romania and so on.

And Father would like to, he would like to communicate with you a few of his considerations about the present international situation and

Of course, I'm only not related to conservative.

Basically... May I take something with you?

Do you mind if we take a picture?

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no

Of course, the basic assessment is that the international situation is good, positive, realistic trends are prevailing in the world.

In this context, President and the government noted the satisfaction in welcoming your efforts to improve the international situation, to normalize the relations between the United States and China, welcoming the Berlin Agreement.

The possibility of a salty green wastage.

Better.

And very rather moves towards a better world.

We are watching all these developments with great attention.

And we hope, we certainly hope that they will contribute really, genuinely, the talent in understanding.

And they will not be concluded at the expense of certain countries.

We are relating this particular aspect, Mr. President.

Let me first interrupt, but be sure that I'm covered.

You can be sure that none of our understandings

We raise this question because in part of the positive trend I was speaking about, we witness in the recent months sort of a reactivation of certain practices, which in effect

are opposed to a basic prerequisite, unanimous, almost unanimous, accepted prerequisite for the world is that peace is indivisible.

To Europe, yes, in Europe.

I am referring now to Romania.

We know that peace is indivisible, that Europe is not accepted, and that that should benefit all countries, big or small.

And I am referring in particular to what happened in Romania and some other countries in Eastern Europe, in particular Romania.

After our state and party delegation visited the pleasure of

Soviet Union, which created not only displeasure expressed in, well, I'm not saying in a normal way, but in certain actions, as you know, probably attacks in the press, in windows, and so on.

I don't think it's necessary to elaborate on that, because you know the fact that I spoke at length, and I don't think it's necessary to take your time to detect.

We have a very good reading on that.

Yes, that's right.

So I'm not covering it.

I'll just only point out one thing.

But you're concerned about, you were, your country's government was concerned by the rhetoric, in other words.

The rhetoric, in a sense, more than rhetoric, if you lay this...

This is always a difficult question to answer because nobody really knows.

We wish we knew.

And we wouldn't like to create any false alarms.

We are very calm and considerate.

And really, this is what I try to point out now, that if we raise this question, it's not because we believe something is going to happen to serious nature tomorrow or next month.

But because we feel that this is a basic principle, of course it affects Romania in the first place, and we are directly interested.

But on the other hand, it might underline the general efforts for the Talas, and this is where we hope we find understanding from all the other countries.

And at the same time, if we do not take a stand, we are not criticizing anybody for what we think they might do.

We are just saying what they did.

If they raise, for instance, this principle that the differences of views with certain countries should serve as a reason for curtailing the normal relationship between them,

Or, our improvement of relations with China should be served as a reason to deteriorate the relations in the Soviet Union.

Our good relations in the United States could be served as a pretext to deteriorate the relations in the Soviet Union.

I believe that this is a matter of preoccupation.

I won't say that we should, you know, cry, make an outcry, but we have to point out that it is a principle in force.

Here, any state is free to choose

and all friends without by that endangering any point.

I don't think it necessary to demonstrate to you that in no way we can't be a threat to the interests of the security.

security interests of the Soviet Union, so I don't need to tell you.

On the contrary, I'm really interested in having good, very good relations with the Soviet Union.

But with the Soviet Union, we need good relations with the United States, but there are other issues.

Yes, not only legal.

It's very important that we get exactly how the tea was.

We didn't want to hurt you.

No, no, no.

As a matter of fact, I told Dr. Kissinger when we made our visit through him, I said, I'll be sure, Mr. Kissinger, there's not people that will hurt you.

As a matter of fact, I don't think it did.

No, it didn't.

It may have guaranteed him a bit.

But right now, we want to play it very fair.

We don't want to hurt so many people either, but we want to be sure we don't hurt you.

That's right.

Right?

Absolutely.

No, I think it's quite clear for us and I think this was a basic understanding between us from the very beginning.

What do you feel are the circumstances we should do?

What do you really...

I'm glad that you asked this.

What do you think we should have in mind?

In the first place, I believe that you really know what you can do because you know better your...

possibilities.

You have always called those challenges possibilities.

So for me to give a full advice, it would be a little bit protective.

But I will point out in this context only two aspects which are particularly interesting for us.

One, I believe, is the question of bilateral relations between the United States and Romania.

And I feel that the development of this relation, as you pointed out before, as you pointed out before, as you pointed out before, I believe, and we believe that this is true.

And we have to continue with these students, especially now to strengthen the economic movement.

So, if we could move a little faster, I'm afraid... We have several things, I think, and I'll be talking to...

I think Mills has said that if we give him a signal from here, we will move it.

And I just wanted to wait for this meeting.

All right.

Thank you very much.

If we really make an investment operation working, this will be, I believe, of great importance.

This is one.

important question.

And the other thing, of course, is a solution of, a continuation of the solution of the international problems.

I don't need to elaborate again because I think you are better versed in international affairs than anybody else, that our atmosphere of the climate is favorable for us, while the atmosphere of tension

it creates always difficulties because whenever we need attention, we always need to strengthen the discipline to, you know, within the various alliances and this makes things a little more difficult.

So we are very much difficult, a great help for any move towards a better understanding.

I am pointing, of course, I am referring to China.

I am referring this to the improvement of education in China.

countries, the United Nations.

But, of course, I am particularly referring to our own hope, to the European continent.

And if we could move now, and we have already an agreement and other steps, more or less, is taking place among a few countries in Europe, maybe we can move a little faster on European security conditions.

Because we feel that this will enable us to not only target all the other states in Europe, but to take a more active part and really strengthen the idea of international consultancy in Europe.

And if we really can obtain the talent in Europe, this will

These are the two fields I can point out before you.

Of course, this doesn't mean it's a hosting statement.

You know better, you are more competent to know what you should do in the proper time, in the proper way.

Well, let me say first that I appreciate it.

Of course you can, absolutely.

If you would extend my, of course, warmest personal greetings to the President and his, Mr. Tezcu, and also to my other friends.

And a second, if you could say, if you could tell the President that we're moving on the most favored nation, and it's a congressional problem, but he has, in effect, our commitment to move on this, right?

Yes.

Third, on the economic areas, we have asked Dr. History to continue to what we call ride herd on those.

We, it doesn't move as fast in times there isn't because of our, I have told my, you just asked Secretary Sands, he knows in terms of east-west trade, trade remains very high on our,

our list of countries where we think that we should explore these you know investment for example with regard to the uh regard to general uh general concerns uh i think romania needs a uh relationship which is uh

not antagonistic to the Soviet Union.

I understand that.

We do not want any circumstances to embarrass you.

Also, on the other side, we believe that our negotiations with the Soviet Union in the long run are likely to be more reassuring to Romania

than if we did not negotiate.

In other words, the very fact that we are, I think, is a restraint on them and on us, for that matter.

And so I think this is good.

Under no circumstances, you can be sure, are we going to, in any negotiations from any country, do it at the expense of third countries.

This is a thing I feel personally very deeply about.

I think that the...

I think that the question of the European Security Conference, to be quite honest with you, is further down the road.

And now, you know, the NATO people are having a meeting in October of 2007, and beyond, on each of our sports productions now.

I have noted that the President is interested in this and we talked on two previous occasions.

I know this has been a Romanian interest for some time.

Our concern there, Mr. Minister, is that we don't want to jump into that conference until we know how we're going to get out of it, frankly.

Because I don't think that, while I think you all should continue to press it for your domestic reasons, I think you should respect our decision to move quite deliberately because if such a conference is held,

We can be very sure that the Soviets would know very much what they wanted to have.

And we know what to go into.

We know what we want to have.

By that, and I think I can assure you, we are no threat to Romania.

Now, whether they will be, I'm not saying they are, but they're closer and they have a different record.

So under these circumstances, it seems that I believe that our action is the correct one.

to uh in principle we're about to have we want the top principle we want to move toward the congress but at this point we don't believe that moving along the conference is the right time until we have more ducks in a row as we say uh uh it would be a little western europeans uh center now if you'd like to add anything to that

And as you know, in Sacramento, there are a number of principles of your foreign policy.

One, that we have a major interest in the independence and autonomy and autonomous policy of Romania.

That we will do nothing which you just said again, directly or indirectly.

which would amount to a collusion between us and other countries against the interests of North America.

And that we will make it clear through the many channels that we have that Soviet military pressures, or indeed any other pressures, that threaten the independence

And O'Connor's policy of Romania is not consistent with a relaxation of tensions.

I just wanted to repeat that if you agree with me on the last thing that he said, I didn't go as far as to say that that's just what I arrived upon too.

So if the military or any other countries or any other countries or any other countries will we consider to be antagonistic to our interests in having O'Connor, we will so stay.

You're welcome.

I would say it's very important, Mr.

Ambassador, not to have this get out in a belligerent way.

Oh, of course.

You know, because then the Soviet will go up.

What are we doing?

We're not going to collude with the Soviet.

We might collude with the Romanian.

That's not fair.

What we're talking about is for your information, for the interest of your president.

and other interested parties, you see what I mean?

And that's the way the game can be played without our personal insurance.

And frankly, when I see Mr. Gromego, as I probably will when he comes to the U.N., I'll tell him exactly the same thing as when he comes up.

As Mr. Kissinger will tell you, I don't tell you one thing to tell someone else.

I know them.

There's something I have to do, but I don't talk to them.

It's after, no, it's the best of times.

They're on the economic side.

I think that the war again is not coming to an end.

and other things, great events in the world, and the opportunity to say, this is going to come overnight, and everyone needs to eat all of a sudden.

A lot of the investment in Christmas is not going to happen.

But I think the prospects are good, and I think this is a very important time for Romania to continue to talk, to get some American business and other BSN there.

You may not pick the fruit now if you plant the seeds.

plant the seeds now because there's a lot of fruit to be picked later and remain that I created the right climate and pick a lot of that fruit.

I think it's fair to say that the presidency of Romania suddenly decided to increase its

economic participation in Vietnam, that that would not help the economic interest of Vietnam.

That's right.

You see, that would make us, that would make us very wrong.

If Romania starts, uh, if at a time we're winding down Vietnam, if Romania started, uh, uh, fighting aggressively with North Vietnam, when our Congress will go back home,

Well, you know our position in the government.

I don't need to elaborate on this.

I think you made a special point when you were in the land to stray the political aspect.

We have, of course, a difference of views.

That's right.

Let's do our best to cool it.

And any restraint you can keep on that line should be done in your interest because getting them to be reasonable will serve your interest very much.

Well, that's right.

We hope that we'll be able to find a political solution.

Right.

But it takes both sides to do it, and I must say that there is nothing that I can think of that will be more useful in our relations for an economic era than to get the

Vietnam themselves.

We've gone an extra mile and now it's time for them to come away.

We've gone an extra mile and they haven't even come here.

And negotiations.

Yes.

When the President was there, if you may just take one minute to tell you, I think maybe Senator Scott was in Bucharest.

Yeah, he's in Bucharest.

We had a discussion on that matter and I think you got the discussion the President had with the JETCON people when they were in Bucharest.

He stressed particularly this point, two points.

One, that only a political solution is possible and the best way to prove that even if you are right is to take a face value while the other side is safe.

We made this point.

We got the impression that they are willing to do for a political solution.

At one point I tell you frankly that Madame Binz said in Bukhari that the Anayatins are not even looking at us in Paris, they are not even greeting us.

Well, it is true or not, but it's a pretext or not, but this is what they said.

So... Let me say, Archbishop Astor, so that I do not want to leave your president under any illusions, this is only for you and him.

But my patience is running out with the North Vietnamese.

I just need to ride there and never underestimate what I will do as my patience runs out.

Now, I'd like you to just lay it there as what it is.

Because if they did it along here, and they refused to talk, and they have exploited the presentation with all the rest, and they think I don't do anything, but never underestimate what I will do if I am pressed.

They must not press me.

The man ordered the Cambodian and the Laotian and the Chinese and Indians is not going to just sit here and hate it.

There comes a time when we have to have a joke.

All right, let's take a picture.

Well, if you have this, it's time to go over.

No, I think he said we're going to do that.

I have to say.

I bet next to the lady is in a man with a little bit of Dracula.

Oh, but he's famous.

He's famous.

It wasn't that good, it wasn't that fun.

They're good people.

They're such good people.

Very good people.

They are good people.

They deserve it.

We want to be as helpful as we can.

I think you are helpful.

Thank you very much.