Conversation 919-034

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

How are you?

Okay, thank you.

How are you today?

Well, you go off here.

I got all the Google things.

Nice day here.

Well, there are a bunch of them.

Got any of these ones?

Well, I have a few.

There's a bunch of things to kind of get some guidance from you on.

So you're thinking, and some represent the

First of all, in the general subject of science, which has more or less fallen in line with what things are organized, I think we have an opportunity to

I guess this is your voluntary allocation, and you feel it should be voluntary rather than... Well, we have, yes, sir, we have a voluntary plan that we have put into place.

I'm not very anxious to have us do this allocation, but the pressure is really intense.

We hope that with a voluntary plan, if we go ahead and hold hearings and we show that we can put a compulsory plan in, that we can avoid what I think is a rather bad program that Jackson is proposing.

At least we have a good chance to fight it.

So that's the course that we'd like to be on, to be against the Jackson mandatory plan and in favor of doing the job that we were doing.

Can you talk for ten minutes about it?

This memorandum came in, and I understand it has gone through all of the clearances.

Ten minutes.

Good sign that I'd like to address myself to.

I think we have an

I think quite properly squeezed the budget pretty hard.

And they have felt it.

And they resisted it.

Well, they resisted it.

And then they came to see that they had to make a few decisions themselves and make some choices, and I think have faced up to their problems more realistically.

I think that the era of irrationality on the campuses

is passing.

It has been a very bad era, and I think that the faculty, particularly the younger faculty, particularly the sociologists and so on, but some of the hard scientists have behaved in a terrible way.

But, nevertheless, I think there is a change there, and I think that the scientific community has a lot to offer us.

They have to offer us

the notion of excellence in society.

And on the whole, I just stood for that.

That's something that you believe in, and which is important to us.

They have basic research to offer us, and we have a good scientific base there, and that is an important thing.

Government has been, on the whole, the chief sponsor of basic science.

Then I think in a field like energy, but also in other fields,

but energy is one that's quite current in everybody's mind.

I believe we need to try to organize a scientific and managerial combination.

Nothing ever duplicates the past.

If something was the emphasis of the Manhattan Project or the space program or whatnot,

to really get into this energy area and try to crack these problems.

And I think we could generate a lot of excitement, not just from the standpoint of scientists and engineers, but combined, as those other programs were, with the managerial talent of the country, and really try to put a package together that would have drive in it, would have creativity in it,

as part of an overall set of programs that would involve spending more money in this area but not throwing it away and which would have the prospect of changing the atmosphere in our relationships with with the scientists and with the first-ranked university groups i don't say that for sure but i believe that that is the case i think

some motion on our part would be welcomed and on the whole would be greeted with a lot of forthcomingness on their part.

And I thought I'd bring that up with you and see whether or not you think that's worth working on.

Go for it.

It's good.

Well, I'll work on it.

I'll work on Guy Seaver, who's our man, and people like Bill Baker and others.

And we'll try to come in and present you with a strategy.

And also, we need them.

uh well i had a group come in guy steve had brought in a group this morning to see me i've been

fussing with this problem since I got this assignment from him.

And it was interesting to me, none of them brought up the Watergate at all.

They brought up their problems, and I talked about our problems, some of the things we brought up.

The Watergate is a very embarrassing thing.

It's very innocent as well as potentially believing and guilty for what they thought their purpose was.

And it was all for the chicken.

Chicken feed is not, you know, they didn't get anything.

It was just a damn messy thing.

It's too damn bad.

But the main thing is you and your friends, you know, colleagues, and it's very hard here and stuff.

You just got to keep your own chin up.

And we'll ride through it.

We'll ride through it.

People will abandon it.

There'll be some indictments and so forth and so on.

There'll be some more health pay.

You know, everything we've done, we're screwed.

We, of course, did that.

And by God, we sure had to do this for the law.

We did this every day for the purpose of the national security.

We had a lot of things that we were not doing.

But may I say, nothing compared to what was done during the Kennedy administration.

Nothing.

I'm sure that's the saddest of all.

But anyway, let me say, no, you just have to take the heat, and keep, and don't let it be much of a rule the other day.

We have one fellow, well, I'll go ahead on this.

Sure.

I will present you with a strategy.

We will have some suggestions for your own involvement in it.

I think I...

an address on this general subject would be something very good but there'll be other ways to get out sooner or later as we look at the 75 budget and so on we'll have to reflect it in there but i don't think it's going to be a big costly item all right just while we were talking about the watergate business we have a fellow in the treasury named claude field that you probably never

Well, he, according to the wire stories, has testified before the grand jury that he made two offers to the court of clemency, which involves him in whatever there is.

I don't know what there is, but I've asked him to come.

I've taken the attitude that he should be on leave from the Treasury while the proper investigations are going forward, and there should be no Treasury investigation.

However, now we have these reports from the grand jury that are leaked.

But at any rate, I've asked him to come in this evening and see me.

Well, let me put it this way.

I would not have called the others to leave.

I mean, I wouldn't aspire it because of the reports from the grand jury.

I would say that you could say that perhaps you should take leave at the conclusion of the grand jury's proceedings.

And if the grand jury, of course, is to indict, he has to leave if they don't.

in state i don't know what i don't know what it's going to be but an offer would not be uh

by itself, by itself, is not something that would convict him.

It's only a question of whether he was part of a conspiracy to get McCoy to shut up, and that he was there for one who offered fun and savings.

Well, I think the usefulness to the Treasury probably had him in.

Yeah, well, I understand that.

and we have a lot of tough things there we have some interesting good things and i've got a little side suggestion for you

you may or may not want me to pursue but anyway we'll put it forward here

and it was interesting to me none of them brought up the watergate it was interesting to me none of them brought up the watergate at all they brought up their problems and i talked about our problems they brought up their problems and i talked about our problems

And it was all for chicken, chicken, not for other purposes.

And it was all for chicken.

They didn't get anything.

And it's too damn chicken.

They didn't get anything.

And it's too damn bad.

But the main thing is you and your friends.

You know, colleagues are bad.

But the main thing is you and your friends.

You just got to keep your own chin up.

and with colleagues, and it's very hard for your staff, but you just have to ride through it.

Keep your original riding up to it.

It's a little better.

And we'll ride on through it.

We'll ride through it.

It's a little better.

There'll be some more health pay.

You know, everything we've done, everything we've done, we, we, of course, we have to work with that.

And my, my, my, I mean, I mean, we've got to go to the law.

We've got to go to the law.

We have a lot of money.

But may I say, I say, none.

I'm very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very

I'll go ahead on this strategy.

We will have some suggestions for your own actions, for your own involvement in it.

I think an address on this general subject would be something very good, very good.

But there'll be other ways you can ask.

And sooner or later, as we look at the 75 budget, 75 budget, and so on, we'll have to reflect it in there.

But I don't think it's in there.

But I don't think it's going to be costly either.

All right.

Well, we were talking about the water gang business.

We have a cell in the church that we need to call to.

She probably never...

I don't know.

Well, he, according to the wire, according to the wire, has testified, testified before the grand jury, and juries have made two offers to the court, which involves him, involves him, and whatever there is, whatever there is, I don't know what there is, I don't know what there is, but

I've been asking to kind of, I've taken the attitude that it should be on Lee's inventory while the proper investigation is going forward.

And there should be no quarterly investigation.

However, now we have these police reports from the Grand Jura.

Call me or just leave.

Leave.

I mean, I wouldn't justify our argument because it wasn't a report for the Supreme Court.

I would say that perhaps you should take the lead and the conclusion of the Grady jury should take the lead and the Supreme Court should take the lead and the Grady jury should take the lead and the Supreme Court should take the lead

Today, I don't know what, I don't, I don't know what would be an author of a feminist fantasy.

It would not be, uh, uh, by itself, by itself.

Right, right.

Yeah.

Well, well, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think,

I don't know if you'll be able to hear what I'm saying.

a lot a lot of things there we have some interesting good things you know we've got a little side suggestion for you you may or may not want me to pursue but anybody will put it forward in here

We are very close to being able to say we can balance the budget in fiscal 74.

And that is because the economy has been so strong.

And everybody is cussing the economy, but the economy is expanding very fast, and there are lots of jobs, and there's lots of production, and so on.

But among other things,

following our full employment principle in which we said well as the economy gets better revenues come in and the budget will come into balance and then it will start to exercise the discipline on the economy more and more that's happening exactly that way and our revenue estimates keep rising every time we get new information and more tax returns and so on

and we're now up to the point where our revenues are within three billion dollars of the budget number that you set forward 268.7 uh now we have as i'm sure ryan told you we we must make a statement a re-estimate of our budget picture at the end of this month and a balanced budget if we can put it forward

in a credible way i think it's worth reaching for in this particular economic climate it would be a measure of some real achievement it has a certain quality to it people think if the budget's balanced that's good and i think under these economic circumstances it is good and

how our revenue estimates will come along whether they'll come up to that number i don't know to some degree i suppose you can say by the time we're talking about three billion dollars on a base of 265 billion dollars nobody knows what is right but

I would like to see us make a try, a real try, to balance that budget.

And it probably involves some outlay decisions.

We do know that part of the price of this expansion is a rise in the interest rates we pay on our debt.

And so our estimates for interest are

uh have to be raised probably on the order of two billion dollars or so so we've got that voting against us we undoubtedly have some savings in there we i think have a strategy question on defense most of the people that you talk to including those defense think that we're we're not going to get a full defense budget

And I think it's a question whether you would want to cut it or whether you want to let the Congress cut it.

but if we reduced it some and i know roy has some thoughts on this where it might come i think we could make this budget balance now i'm as you know i'm a believer in a strong defense and i think we've come pretty damn far now uh but no it's not i think what we better do is to come in uh with the budget out of balance by three years and then let them cut it because i come to defense

Uh, the judge is going to take that and go down from there.

I've got a higher defense number, George.

That's okay.

We're having a hell of a time getting enough defense to do this.

All right.

But if we can somehow work it out to come to a balance, you'd like that nevertheless, even though we didn't touch defense.

Or would you?

Because I don't think we should stray.

I don't think we should put in a number.

That looks phony in order to say that we have a balanced budget.

It isn't worth it.

And it may be that they could...

I think I need a number.

I wouldn't try to make it balanced.

I don't think it's gonna mean that much.

I don't think the psychology is that important.

I think you just put in whatever's a good, honest number, George.

Don't try to get it all rolled up and, uh, and if it's that close, it's that close.

Okay.

Now, here is something on the side that you may not know to pursue.

In all of this energy talk, we have the fact that we burn a lot of gasoline in automobiles, which is a pollutant.

And we use that.

We have a terrific use there.

If we proposed an excise tax on gasoline, we would have something that would make a little contact with the environmental problem, would make a little contact with the conservation problem.

It would, of course, inflate the prices a little.

It would generate revenue at the rate of $1 billion per one cent.

of excise tax, a terrific revenue generator.

And if you wanted to do something that could balance the budget, provide some money for some things that you wanted to do,

and uh take a cut over in some of these other directions that's an angle and we could get up a proposal in the treasury pretty fast to do this and if you uh i think if it were done you wouldn't want to do a sin or or five cents or something you want to do enough to feel that you were cutting into the problem you generate a lot of money now we would uh we could combine it with a reduction in the personal income tax

or we could combine it with some other thing so that it wouldn't be you've got to go to the states of course use the gasoline tax and the uh oil companies of course resist any non-dedicated uh tax on gasoline and so it isn't as though it's a free shot by any means but it is a um

But it is an idea anyway, and I thought we've been wanting to play around with it some, but running by a few people, you know, that's a real tough one to see.

Well, I suppose I work on it, but within a very closed circle.

Good.

give you a statement about it in terms of the revenues, in terms of the politics of it as we would see it, and some of the ins and outs, and I'll come back to you on them probably.

Good, good.

We're working on it.

We have had a proposal around, Wilbur Mills proposed it.

Javits is pushing it.

You and I have some advice on the subject.

of letting go of our withholding on dividends paid to foreigners.

A foreigner invests in a stock in the US.

He gets a dividend.

We withhold 30%.

Now, under that circumstance, we can negotiate a tax treaty with another country and reduce it jointly.

But barring that, we have this withholding.

Many of our foreign friends have suggested that, as I said, Mills, Javits, and various others have suggested, I think Arthur Burns sort of liked it, that we ask the Congress to eliminate that withholding tax.

Now, this is not a new idea.

It's been around a lot.

It would cost us a little revenue, not a lot.

It has two powerful arguments against it.

One is that it would have to be administered strongly, or it would encourage U.S. citizens to try to escape tax by having their American investment held in some kind of numbered account, and then they wouldn't have to pay the dividend, whereas they would have to pay the tax on the dividend if it were rendered directly to them.

So we have to police that.

And it has the downside that...

People would say, well, why do you let farmers have a lower tax rate than an American citizen on a dividend from the same corporation generated exactly the same way?

That's a tough argument.

We talk about this a lot within the Treasury and with Herb and various other people.

And in our discussions, it's sort of a wash. People are at some

Nobody is really strongly for it.

Nobody's strongly against it.

Mills has pushed it.

Javits has pushed it.

And we are being asked for a position on it.

And I'm getting letters saying, what is our position on this?

I guess I have the feeling I'm sort of a coward way out here.

It's a sense of saying, well, if the chairman wants to,

push that, we'll offer no objection.

And we'll go along with it.

I'm afraid if we come out strong for it, then we'll catch all the downsides.

I have to put it this way.

I have to let the Congress do it, and we will not object to it.

But that's a decision that we will refer to the Congress.

So our position would be no objection.

No objection, but no recommendation for it.

Okay.

It's a matter for the committee to consider.

Right.

I think that's...

I have a letter here from Bob McNamara, and he has talked with me, he's talked with Henry, he's talked with a lot of people.

He's negotiated a bit with other countries quite a bit about the so-called fourth-rate punishment.

in the international development of the Idaho County World Bank.

And this is something that is rolling along.

It's a very tough deal for us in the Congress, and they have agreed to the third replenishment.

We made the first payment last year, but we were a year late making it, and now the fourth replenishment is coming around.

We have historically paid 40% of those replenishments, and we've taken a position with McNamara that that's too high a percentage.

It would generate revenue at the rate of $1 billion, at the rate of $1 billion per one cent of excise tax.

Per one cent revenue generated of excise tax.

Terrific revenue generated.

And.

If you wanted to do something.

That man.

Good.

Balance the budget.

If you wanted.

Provides you something money for that some things that you wanted to do.

And take good.

that cut over in some of these other directions the budget that's an angle and provides when we could get up a proposal in the treasury pretty fast the money for something that you wanted to do to do this and if you uh i think if it were done and you wouldn't want to do a sin or five cents uh take a cut over in some of these other directions that's an answer something you want to do enough to

feel that you were cutting into the problem and the problem is generating a lot of money we could get up a proposal in the treasury pretty fast now we would uh we could combine it with uh to do this reduction in the personal income tax if you uh i think if it were done you wouldn't want to do a sin or or

Or we could combine it with some other thing, so that it wouldn't be... You've got a problem with this in the States.

You want to do enough to feel that you were cutting into the problem.

The States, of course, use the gas to generate a lot of money.

Now, we could combine it with a reduction in the personal income tax.

Or we could combine it with some other thing so that it wouldn't be... You've got a problem there.

The states, of course, use the gasoline tax and the oil companies.

Of course, resist any non-tax on the oil companies.

Of course, resist dedicated tax on gasoline.

Any non-dedicated

And so it isn't as though it's just a free shot by any means, but it is a...

But it is an attempt to react on gasoline.

And so it isn't as though it's just a free shot by any means, but it is a... We've been...

Why don't you play around with it some, and but run it by a few people, you know, that's a real tough one to see.

But it is an idea and direction, and I thought that we've been, we've been, why don't you play around with it some, and but run it by a few people, you know, that's a real tough one to see, you know, politics of it, politics of it.

Well, Bozai, we're, well, Bozai, we're kind of, but within a very kind of,

but within a very closed circle, and give you a statement about it, and give you a statement about it in terms of the revenues, in terms of the politics of it as we would see it, and in terms of the revenues, in terms of the politics of it as we would see it, and some of the internet's not come back to you, some of the internet's not come back to you, probably.

Good.

We have had a proposal around Wilbur Mill's proposal.

And Javits is pushing it.

You and I, Javits is pushing it.

On the subject of letting go of our withholding on dividends, on the subject of letting go of our withholding on dividends paid to foreigners, a foreigner paid to foreigners,

invest in a stock in the U.S. to get the dividend.

We withhold 30% to get the dividend.

Now, we withhold 30%.

Under that circumstance, we can negotiate a tax.

Now, under that circumstance, we can negotiate a tax treaty with another country and reduce it.

We can negotiate a tax treaty with another country and reduce it jointly.

But barring that, we have this withholding.

We have this withholding.

Many of our foreign friends have suggested that, as I said, many of our foreign friends have suggested that, as I said, Mills, Javits, and various others have suggested that, Javits, and various others have suggested that, and Carpenter, and sort of like them.

that we asked the car to burn sort of license, that we asked Congress to eliminate the Congress to get that withholding tax.

Now, this is not an eliminate that withholding tax idea.

Now, this is not a new idea.

It's not a lot.

It has...

It would cause too powerful arguments against it.

Not a lot.

One is it has that it would have to be administered strongly or too powerful arguments against it.

It would encourage U.S. citizens to try to escape.

One is by having clear American events that it has held on some kind of numbered account.

would have to be administered strongly, and then they wouldn't have to pay, or it would encourage U.S. citizens to try to escape tax by having their American investment held on some kind of numbered account, and then they wouldn't have to pay the dividend, whereas they would have to pay the tax on the dividend, whereas they would have to pay the tax on the dividend if it were rendered directly to them.

So we have to police that if it were rendered directly to them.

So we have to police, and it has the downside that

And it has the downside that people would say, well, why do you let partners have a lower tax rate than an American citizen on a dividend from the same corporation?

generated exactly the same way generation generated exactly the same way that's a tough argument tough argument we talk about this a lot we talk about this a lot within the treasury and with Herb and various other people within the treasury and with Herb and various other people and in our discussion

And in our discussions, it's sort of a wash. A wash. Nobody is really strong for it.

Nobody is strong against it.

So that's all that we propose.

we got from the investment firm of Morgan Salmon.

We know that we got a good man.

He's in charge of their parents' office.

He's very young, and everybody agrees that he's bright, and he's energetic, and he's one of our people, and he's enthusiastic and so on, but he's young.

And because he's young, he won't be able to hold his own.

um in that atmosphere well our feeling is i've talked about this with bill and we've talked about various people we should bring on there's always a temptation to go for some established name from the past and bill and i have

said, well, we ought to try to get young people that are our people.

So 15 years from now, when they're looking for some established name to do something, they're going to be picking our people because we brought them in and we made them.

So I would like to, and I don't expect you to make any decision here, but I would like to reserve on that decision and

and try to work it back through you again to see if we could... Good.

Look, even on that, whatever you would sign an act to agree on, it's done.

You know what I mean?

Well, I...

I'm not so critical about it, so no comments in that area.

Do you know what kind of a question you want?

Well, Roy has a strong feeling that youth just doesn't work in international...

And I understand that problem.

But if he is good and mature and has sort of internal security as a person, then people will forget he's young and pay attention to the quality of his work and what he says.

And if he's energetic, we feel, in this World Bank business,

that we've got to get a guy who will get in and mix around with that staff and have an impact on what's going on in the processes in the bank, and not just sit around in the director's room and vote on things, ask the staff and the scientists.

He's got to get into the process and make an impact there so that what comes to the directors is something that he has done and had an impact on, and that takes a lot of energy and a sort of willpower to force his way in.

And we think this is a fellow who can do it.

Well, I will work that around back.

Mill Laird.

We have a health advisory committee to the cost of living council, which we have pretty well organized.

And there is a general agreement that if we could get Mel to be the chairman of it, that would be great from the standpoint of that committee.

And I sent a note through a while ago asking that— Sure.

Describing this and suggesting that you might call Mel and ask him.

I don't know that that's appropriate.

I can call him and talk with him.

I think it would be better if you called him.

I don't want to— But I didn't want to— I don't want to.

I think he's excellent, but I don't want to put him at the first time in a place where he has to say no.

Well, all right.

I did want to check to be sure that you had no objections, that you had something else you were thinking of going forward.

No, no.

This would conflict with an outlet.

I don't think he wanted to do anything else.

My guess is that he won't want to do anything else.

He can check it around.

I don't know.

I mean, he certainly don't want to.

It's not permanent.

This is temporary.

This is just something with me for six months, and it's part-time.

Okay.

In the general energy area, which we had some real organizational issues, Peter Flanagan knows a lot about that subject and becomes involved almost in the natural course of things, and at the same time, having to in it and then push out of it, he's very...

nervous about having anything to say on the subject theory, but that somehow you don't want it to be of any part of it.

And I told him I didn't think that was so.

I'm concerned only by the...

Probably best of interest and so forth, but maybe George doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference if he's a competent man and we know he's an honest man.

Christ let him get him.

That'd be my opinion.

Okay, well, let's do it.

And I said I would just check it out with you to be sure.

Oh, yeah.

I think the objections that we have before are no longer at all.

He's been testifying.

A lot of times.

He's been up to the Congress, and he's coming across well, and that's good.

That's not bad, right?

Finally, a pair of things which I juxtapose with some legislation, but not too much.

In the Texans Bureau, they made quite a seizure last Friday of 750 pounds of hash each.

They caught about five people, and they did a pretty good job.

So something good happened.

And it happened with the aid of these dogs.

They have these dogs that smell the drugs out.

And it's been quite a successful program.

And the dogs smelled out quite a little of this stuff on a double-decker London bus that was coming into the country.

And the customs people thought there was something a little odd about it.

And they turned these dogs loose on the bus.

And that was happening.

Well, that, on the other hand, brings me to a different subject, having to do with Cussin.

And I know that you know I'm not an impartial person now in this.

I'm not your assistant to the president.

I'm the secretary of the Treasury.

We have had this running twice with Justice.

We have reorganization plan number two.

I was not enthusiastic about that, as you know, but we have supported it fully.

And at the same time, it is going well in the Congress, and it's not our doing at all.

There's a personnel problem that the AFL-CIO is furious about.

Tom Steed, you know him.

He is very much in opposition to it.

And I believe, myself, in addition to the problems of changing things around having to do with drugs as such, that the argument of a kind of division of functions between the Justice Department and

the government's lawyer, and not only your lawyer as the attorney general, but as everybody's lawyer.

In that role, separating that from all of the investigative activities of the government as it's done in this department and that department and some other departments is basic.

Had we were being asked for a position on a bed, we were being asked, and I'm getting less for a position on a bed, and I'm getting letters saying, what is our position, and saying, what on this?

What is our position on this?

My, I, if I have the, my, I, if I'm feeling, I'm sort of a cowardly way out, and I have this here.

I'm feeling, I'm sort of a cowardly way out.

It's a sense of saying,

down here.

Well, if the chairman wants to push that, we'll offer help.

If the chairman wants to push that, we'll offer help.

We'll go along with it.

I'm afraid if we come out strong for it, then we'll catch all the downside.

I have to put it this way.

No objection, but no recommendation for it.

At the same time, to me, if I go back to Congress, Jordan, we will not object to it.

It's a matter for the committee to consider.

Right.

I think that's a decision that we will refer to.

No objection.

I have a letter here from Bob McNamara.

in the international development of the Idaho County.

He talked with me, he talked with Henry, he talked with a lot of people at World Bank.

And this is something that is rolling along.

It's negotiated a bit with other countries, quite a bit.

It's a very tough deal for us in the Congress.

So, of course, we're punished them.

in the international they have agreed to the third replenishment we made for element payment last year the ios account in the world bank but we were a year late making it and now the fourth and this is something that is rolling along it's a very tough replenishment is coming around we have a deal for us in the congress

And they have already paid 40% of those replenishments.

And we've taken a position with Max and agreed to the third replenishment.

We made the first payment last year, but that's too high a percentage.

And he has to get our percentage down.

But we were a year late making it.

But we cannot make a commitment.

The fourth replenishment is to him coming around and letting

We have firm commitments from the Congress.

We have historically paid for each appropriated committee percent in the office of those replenishments and recognizing committees.

Now, he has been taking a position with McNamara, and we've also had a percentage.

He said that it really isn't timely for us to talk to Congress about this subject.

We're still trying to get our percentage numbers down.

There's a very good reason that we cannot replenish them.

And at the same time, from his standpoint, to get this going to him, unless we have, he's not going to have the flow of funds, the earned commitments from the Congress, that he needs to appropriate the committee and the authorization.

So out of all of this back and forth, he has, he has,

In effect, you've also said that a proposal really is a timeline for us to talk to Congress about this subject, where somebody thinks he can make go and bring the Japanese and the German contributions up considerably in the midst of the very first one.

And at the same time, from his standpoint, reduce our share to around a third, at which point, if he doesn't get this going, he's not going to have the

raises the overall level of the replenishment to a built flow of funds there that he needs.

So out of all of this post-evaluation dollars total back and forth discussion in which he has envisaged

in effect, a proposal that he thinks he can make go and then bring the Japanese and the German contributions up considerably and reduce our share to around a third, and which raises the overall level of the replenishment to $1.5 billion post-evaluation dollars total, and which envisages payments

on a schedule on a schedule to coincide to co-excuse that is instead of making the payment with use that is instead of making in large lumps which then the payments in large lumps which actually gets paid over here then

actually get paid over a period of years and years by the bank, we would make the bank our payment as they made their commitment.

We would make them to spend our payment as they made their commitment.

The amount would be smaller than even spent the money so that the amount would be smaller

even though the total is larger, and they'd be strung out over a longer period of years.

Now, of course, in time, that tap is up with you, because the commitment is there, and it has a long time horizon.

I think he's negotiated a pretty good deal to get this percentage down.

He's negotiated a pretty good deal to get this percentage down.

It seems to me very awkward for us.

It seems to me

very in a position of saying we will participate in the refund.

Of course, for us to be in a position of saying we will participate in the refund.

And I've talked about this with Henry.

Henry, how do you guys feel?

We should go ahead with this, with this.

At the same time, I know some of your feelings about the bank.

I know some of your feelings about the bank.

Well, let's go ahead and think about it.

We would condition this with him strictly on the basis.

Well, let's go ahead and think about it.

We would condition this with him as if this is if Congress buys it.

And don't get the idea that the United States is strictly on the basis as if this is if Congress buys it.

And don't get that it's made a commitment.

All we have done is say yes.

that the United States government has made a commitment from the President's standpoint that we will work with them.

All we have done is say, as from the President's standpoint, that we will work with the Congress to try to work with them.

But until then, we don't have approval all around an agreement all around that's not a deal.

but that he can go ahead and try to work on the space.

We have a problem, and here is an issue, an issue which you may want me to address.

You may want to put me up on, you know, on the book of Roy, on the book out of Roy, about it, you know, so, so, on these things, they're the World Bank.

They're the World Bank.

With that, with that, they, they can slot, they can slot right now.

And we have gotten word from Mr. White and Mr. Weimer,

that we should take another person who we have

And we hope and we really hope that they do up to us.

We think that we really can stand up and we really can stand up and actually manage.

And we are smart.

So now the fellow that wrote the book, we got that from the investment firm.

We got Morgan Salen from the investment firm and Morgan Salen.

And we know that he's got a good man.

He's in the judge's office.

He's very young.

And everybody agrees that he's right.

He's energetic.

He's one of our people.

And he's a good people.

he won't be able to hold, and because he's young, he won't be able to hold, in that atmosphere, in that atmosphere.

Well, our feeling is, I talked about this with Bill,

Talking about this with Bill is what we've talked about, about various people, various people we should bring on, bring on.

There's always a temptation to go for, there's always a temptation to go for some established, established name from the past, name from the past.

Bill and I have, Bill and I have

said, well, we ought to try to get young people that are our people.

We ought to try to get young people that are our people.

So 15 years from now, when they're looking for some establishment, they need to do something.

15 years from now, when they're looking for some establishment, they're going to be picking up and they need to do something.

They're going to be picking our people.

So I would like to, and I don't expect you to

And I don't expect to make any decisions here, but I would like to reserve on that decision and try to work it back through you again to see if we're good.

Even on that, whatever you would sign an action, whatever you would do, it's done.

I actually agree on stuff.

Well, I will.

I will.

things, and I understand that it's possible to have a good foot, if he is good, and mature, if he is good, and mature, and has sort of internal security as a person, then people will forget his young, and pay attention to security as a person.

uh then people will forget his young and pay attention to the quality of his work and what he says and if he's energetic of his work and what he says and if he's energetic we feel in this world bank that we feel in this world bank business that we've got to get a kind

That we've got to get a car that will get in and mix around in and mix around in that stack.

And I'm having that stack.

and have an impact on what's going on in the processes, an impact on what's going on in the processes in the bank, and not just sit around in the direct bank, and not just sit around in the director's room and vote on things after the staff has messaged him.

He's got to get into the process.

Roman vote on things after the staff has messaged him.

He's got to get into the process and make an impact there so that what comes and make an impact there so that what comes to the directors is something that comes to the directors

did something that he hadn't done, but had an impact on him, and that takes a lot of energy, and that takes a lot of energy, and a sort of willpower to force his way in, and a sort of willpower to force his way in, and we think this is a fellow who can do it.

Well, I will work that around and do it.

Well, I will work that around back.

Back.

Mill there.

We have a health advisory committee.

We have a health advisory to the cost of living, which we have pretty well organized.

There is a general agreement that if we could get Mel to be the chairman of it, that would be great from the standpoint of that committee.

And I sent a note through a while ago asking that you might call Mel and ask him.

If you might call now and ask him.

I don't know that that's appropriate.

I can call him and talk with him.

I think it would be better if you called him.

I don't want to.

I think he's excellent.

I'll put it at the first time.

Place for him.

Say no.

Well, all right.

All right.

I didn't want to put a check to be sure that you had no objections.

If you had something else you were thinking about going forward, the business would conflict with it.

My guess is that he wouldn't want to do it.

This is just temporary.

This is just something that could be for six months.

That's part-time.

Okay.

In the general energy area, in the general energy area, which we had some real organizational issues, Peter Flanagan knows a lot about that subject.

Peter Flanagan knows a lot about that subject and becomes involved almost in the national course of things.

in the natural course of things, and at the same time having the in it, and at the same time having the in it, and then push out of it, he's very nervous about having anything to say on the subject theory of it.

that somehow you don't want it to be of any part of it, and I told him I didn't think that was so, and I told him I didn't think that was so.

I'm concerned only by problems of best interest and so forth, but maybe...

probably best in interest and so forth but maybe george doesn't make george doesn't tell a lot of difference if he's a confident man and we know he's not making a lot of difference if he's a confident man and we know he's an honest man

Christ, let it get him.

That'd be my feeling.

Let it get him.

That'd be my feeling.

And I said I would just check it.

I would.

You'd be sure.

Oh, yeah.

That's that confidence.

I'd hate to hear it.

Oh, yeah.

That's that confidence.

I'd hate to hear it.

Rejections that we haven't afforded no longer at all.

A lot of times.

He's been up to the Congress.

He's coming across well, and that's good.

That's a good idea.

Across well, and that's good.

That's a good idea.

Finally.

a pair of things which I juxtapose with some hesitation, but not too much.

In the Texans Bureau, they have made quite a seizure last Friday.

They made quite a seizure last Friday.

750 pounds of hashish.

And they caught about five people.

And they did a pretty good job.

And good happened.

And it happened with the aid of these dogs.

They have these dogs that smell like drugs now.

And it's been quite a

a successful program, and the dogs smelled out quite a little of this stuff on a double-decker London bus that was coming into the country, that was coming into the country.

And the Christmas people thought there was something a little odd about it.

And they thought there was something a little odd about it.

And there'd be dogs loose on the bus.

And there'd be cats loose on the bus.

Well, that, on the other hand, brings me to a different situation.

Well, that, on the other hand, brings me to a different subject, having to deal with God.

And I...

know that you know I'm a, I'm not a, know that you know I'm a, I'm not an impartial person now in this, I'm not your assistant, impartial person now in this, I'm not your assistant to the president, I'm the secretary of the treasury, I'm the president, I'm the secretary of the treasury, that's a, that's a, that's a, that's a, they, we have had this running fight with justice, they, we have had this running fight with justice,

We have reorganization plan number two.

I was not enthusiastic about that, as you know, but we have supported it fully.

The same thing time and time again.

Not our, not our, not our do-do-ing at all.

If a person has a problem with the PAML CIO, is furious about the PAML CIO, is furious about...

Tom Steed, you know him.

He is very much in opposition to it.

And I believe, myself, in addition to the problems

of changing changing things around having good things around having to do with drugs as such with drugs as such that that the argument the argument of a kind of a kind of division of functions between functions between the the justice department and justice department and

The government's lawyers are not only your lawyers, the attorney general, but everybody's lawyer.

In that role, separating that from all of the investigators,

Activities of the government.