Conversation 935-007

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

I had a good talk with Richardson.

He said that the charter that he gave to the cops on the hill included a mandate to clean up unresolved investigations.

He said that he had this thing that had been hanging fire for years.

This is the beard that was done there.

And that he had an inquiry from Eastland and he had to

he had no feeling, and he was very surprised that that thing played high.

He didn't think it would.

So he sent it over to the correspondents.

Then he said, you know, I feel I can serve the president best by keeping a distance between the president and myself.

And I said, Elliot, I said one thing better than O'Shea right now.

I said, you are selecting from your reputation and your qualifications, and there's no one that can challenge that impeccable record that you have.

I said, I think you are overly sensitive.

I said, the worst age for you, if you're pregnant, is any manifestation of the likelihood of conflict between you

I say, that's weird, brother.

It doesn't take your attention.

I held him.

He's one fast second smoothie.

I'd be goddamned if we had to put up with that crap.

That's right.

I said, the president's loyal.

I think he's loyal, but I think he's trying to posture himself in a way that

that by and by the attorney general of the United States and the president's top legal advisor, you can't do that.

Or, uh, what if I don't know?

Right, right, right.

We can't do it today, but boil over, right?

Well, I said, that's an untenable situation.

I said, if there's any evidence of a lack of confidence between you two,

That's on the table.

I said, well, of course, that's right.

I said, I think there's a degree of no sensitivity to artists.

I said, I'm worried.

You already made a question about it.

You had no guidance.

You had no direction.

But I said, as far as your role as attorney general is concerned, find out that I didn't pick you with full recognition of your qualifications.

You don't have to go asking them.

You can try and distance.

Are you sure or something?

Well, it would be a weird thing to have that come up again.

Well, no, it isn't going to do anything.

It wasn't going to happen anyhow.

And that thing doesn't, I don't believe it touches the White House anymore.

I got it.

Remember, the Hunlet out there, you know, see her with the red beard and all that, and one of Colton's little plays.

Nothing wrong with it, actually.

That's just the White House's boat out there.

I'm glad you called in.

We just didn't wonder if we just shouldn't.

I don't want any judges that he selects.

I'm going to look, I'm going to have to find another conservative to look over every one of these judge recommendations.

And I'm going to overrule him on a lot of them.

And U.S. attorneys as well.

Because he's likely to put in a lot of winners and all that sort of thing.

And I'm not going to have it out.

So set up some procedure whereby we get a conservative.

Like it was on her, it was already very good to check him out.

I'm sorry, I gotta check him out.

I'm not gonna give that son of a bitch any goddamn additional authority.

See, he does not want to get in my little country, but that would be why.

He's playing for his own long haul interest.

He's doing the right thing.

I've been waiting for that, waiting for that.

At that time, I'm afraid it was right.

We were in a poor position, but let's not play any more of those.

I was thinking about the Lady Bird Johnson, and I don't think that would work.

No.

It's just too much of a ploy, and I just get it.

There's no character.

No character.

No character at all.

I heard.

I heard you.

I like to think you're Walter.

I should have mentioned that.

I love it.

I play it every day.

If I could afford it, I'd play it every day.

I love it.

All right.

I'm sorry.

He used a regular spotter, a big claw, a big fix, and so forth and so on.

He did shafts for a certain amount of time.

I'm getting weaker by the day, George.

I watched Nick Bostick drive with his graphite shaft above the Augusta, of course.

One day, they gave him this club, and they moved it as far back as you could get on the practice range.

And he couldn't keep the ball in the ring.

He went right across the street.

He never saw a ball go this far in your life.

They tell you that they think it's just about losing the club out.

They're right about you.

Because of him.

Because of his history of all of them.

Oh, I must guess.

Oh, man.

You and me were talking.

I thought you were.

I think the last 10 years of my life.

They say the last, everybody says the last one is the 30th.

And I think it will.

I don't think it's that bad.

It's why, basically, the pole walkers now, you really can't compare 15-foot pole walkers 10 years ago with 18-foot today because they have a new pole walker.

It just sprints you up by a couple feet.

So how can you change it?

Charlie Patton, for his special machine, which were on the Lossie track.

Now they've got these very fine, fine tracks that you can run, you know, with one tenth or two tenths of a second faster.

So, um, well, you mentioned Charlie Patton, you know, it's the nature of your, of your, of your, of your, of your, of your, of your, of your, of your,

He was great.

He used to jump at the end.

I heard about that.

I don't see races.

They tell them the horse must be a great horse.

Oh, that's a man of war.

But I think it's right.

uh... uh... uh... uh...

But the reason is that they can win the dirty and you can win the pricks.

I mentioned $30,000.

But then way back, he would have to produce it over a million dollars a year.

The way that thing expands, I had studied it all weekend.

I'm trying to figure out what this might exist.

people.

And that's what is due, perhaps not due, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the economic factors that it is.

a question of whether the individuals involved are sensitive to the political realities.

I do not refer to climate change.

What I am referring to is the fact that at the present time we face not a theory but a condition.

And our condition is that there is no way, absolutely no way, that we can resist, that we can fight it, go to the country, you know, find a verbal roundabout, and some of the rest of you did, sell a space, go to the country, and all that sort of thing.

But if they send down three month freeze, first, when it goes to the Senate and the House, it will pass over on me.

If it comes here and I veto, I can go on national television, I can get all the leaders, I can list all the labor leaders, and they'll pass over the veto.

You've got to begin with that proposition.

I've analyzed it.

I've talked to several leaders over the weekend.

I totally agree with that.

Laird shares that with me, John, which is now yours.

He sent this package to him in Europe, and he says, he says, that's your problem.

He said, you have all these nice theories about what you're going to do, and you can go down places.

You want to remember that you're basically the fact that you're going to have a 90-day impossible freeze that's going to be imposed.

Of course, we didn't talk very good about the fact, but I'm sorry, that's the new portion.

That's all very well and good, but that will not work.

We're here.

We've got the responsibility.

That's the way it's going to happen.

I have a counter argument for this.

I know we're going to meet with the labor managers today, and I have an account of some labor leaders and some management leaders.

They're pleased not to do it, but they think it's true.

But if it comes to their going up to that hill and turning around that hill, they'll never be able to do it.

They'll never be able to do it.

Scott, looking forward to being, uh, uh, would you agree, Al, where's your favorite political character you've talked to, right?

Carlos, the general check, and Orson, too.

He is just as opposed and philosophic as all of us are to moving in that type of direction.

But his point is he's better at moving more dramatically than simply the space goes like a string.

And he's finding it better.

Because if you don't, you're going to get something in heaven or worse.

So that's the condition, basically.

and no amount of rhetoric and fine arguments and so forth can get away from that condition.

It isn't a question of whether or not the president's going to go out and fight for what he believes.

I will.

I will make speeches on it.

I mean, for option one, I'll go on television for option one, although that was a terribly half-assed speech that was prepared.

But I, in terms of, I think the first one, the second one,

But in terms of that, of that turning the country around and getting the country, getting the country in a position where they'll put pressure on the country, there is one way.

Now, we've got to talk about that.

We've got to understand that, because that is the best climate in which we are operating.

Now, the second part is that

So we have to see how we can do something, let's face it, do something to try to realize the economic standpoint virtually all of our advisors would prefer not to do.

They think it's wrong in any kind to bring recession.

They think it would bring black miners.

They think it would bring ration and so forth.

I agree.

But can they do something?

and cut that loss as much as possible.

The third point that I make is this, that the difficulty with the option that was presented to me

was that it presented option one in its best light and option two in its absolute worst light.

I have to be very candid about that.

But there's some other work in option two, obviously, you can't believe it.

So, yes, it's all right.

But I had to look at it that way.

Option two, in the way it was presented, would have been a disaster.

On the other hand, we come to the final crunch.

We cannot, at this point, close the crease and then leave.

While we want to leave our options open, we cannot leave a flat uncertainty out there.

John has made this point.

And he's absolutely right.

It is the uncertainty that really gives us trouble.

There was uncertainty even in August, after the 90 days where he fell on stage two.

There was uncertainty after not so long after he was on stage three.

That uncertainty, of course, has a devastating effect on the business community and on all the decisions of that story.

Now,

Can I tell that the question is, how can we do something which we have to do with the least harm to the economy, and which we believe would be better off if we did not?

How can we do something which will at least hold back this enormous pressure from Congress and the country ?

But at the same time, keep some options open.

A third, why don't we do something in that respect?

And at this time, right now, so that we don't, at least to postpone it, indicate as much certainty as possible as to what is to fall.

We

So that's my analysis of the situation as I see it today.

And that's what we've been talking about for a very long time.

So, George, I want you to pick up what you do.

Let me say it.

I say this.

With complete agreement, the views that George and Herb and John Ludlow have expressed in their various papers, I say that recognizing the pragmatic situation has nothing to do with opportunism, and so forth.

This is opportunism.

It makes us start a situation where we can fight and go down.

But my point is, you don't fight and go down.

Here, we are faced with the fact that we're going to have, from the Congress, and there's no question about it, a 90-day freeze.

Everything will be frozen, followed by something else.

We cannot allow that to happen.

That's where we are.

That's the game today.

Mr. President, I think, particularly in the discussion that Herb and John and I had last time, as we reflected on the fact that Al had given us over the phone, we did share the view that the

So the missing link here is what led to the freeze.

And it takes time to make it a decisive move.

This we have written down.

This is an effort to put down

my understanding of what you have determined.

But then I think we could have to see what comes next, whether we have a stance that moves strongly into control.

And I think option two that you got was echo two.

portray a full-scale operation would be like and we put question marks in here and there and so on so you can see where you might want to back off but the dynamic of the freeze i think you felt this during the 90 days

is towards something stronger than you thought you were going to do when you started it.

Because people like it so well, they hate to see a lot of go.

And they want something that's as close to a future get.

So I think there is a dynamic there that we need to recognize to begin with.

And if we are not going to go real strong in control, then we have to be...

I don't get the feeling from what you've said and from what I've heard, too, from Scott and people like that, that extolling the virtues of the marketplace is much of a winner these days, however much it may be.

I think that is the question.

I would like to really signal that it's something like option two.

And I believe the central question that has to be faced in that is the question of product.

The problem is farm prices.

And that's where it has come from.

And that question has all worked out with the export control, the DL-480 and so on, all these things that go together.

It was interesting to me last night, I got a call from John Turner, the finance minister up in Canada, who comes to us with his monetary meetings, and he said, can you tell me anything about what you're going to do?

I said, I don't know yet.

Well, he said, we have the same problem you do.

We are paying these international prices, too.

Whatever you do is going to have a big political effect on Biden.

That's why he was calling.

He just put that information.

But it was interesting that he is having a good seat with the president.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, it's hard to see.

I know it's hard to see operationally how you would do it, how you .

You have these auction bargains, and you just say you can have an auction, but the auction price can't be above that.

So operation, I suppose that's what you'd do.

I think it would have severe repercussions on the agricultural efforts in the long run.

independent way of

present discussions, it seemed to me imperative that we do a little bit more work and be in a position to do something for the future.

That's not a good view.

I shared that view at the beginning.

But as far as freezing and so forth, I don't see the...

I don't have a great theory.

Retail prices are at a crossroads.

Our food will be frozen.

That's the way to the region of the retail world.

That's all.

Well, that's the question.

You see, during the first three, I already showed you that unprocessed agricultural products are exempt throughout all the way through the year.

During phase two, when we were trying to tighten up on the food side, we said unprocessed agricultural products are exempt at the farm level.

But lettuce and artichokes and all those things are subject to the margin control in those parts of the station.

So that's kind of ambiguous at the moment, what would be the coverage of the trees.

But the problem is not adding the trees.

If you go back to the kind of thing we had in phase two, where food is controlled only by the margin, you control the process of the margin, or reach out to the margin.

uh...

John, you're, you're very sensitive to the second cultural products thing.

Leaking out the board .

Do you, do you see any way that we could go and convert agricultural products?

I mean, let me begin by saying we could do at least as much in agricultural products in this as we did in August.

In other words, do as much in the breeze and do as much in the days to come.

i mean just the fact look we don't know what's going to happen i understand that the agriculture products will continue to go remain where they are continue to escalate during summer months okay maybe they'll come down toward the end of the year or at least the rate of increase will come down but be that as it may the main thing is we must at least

give some assurance to the country that we're aware of the problem and are fighting the problem.

That's what we really got to do.

leaving out the foreign thing, which we've got to get at in another way.

Another way, John, you, let's address ourselves for this one single central point.

What would you do about, what should we do about the freeze on that basis?

Should we go back to what we did before?

At least that much status in the speech at this point.

The men on the article on food status, where he is proceeding on food prices at the retail level, including

Probably all prices at the farm level, the producer level, et cetera, so it's almost impossible to regulate, to administrate.

The other way to put the, excuse me, at the retail level is to max the price down because the guy's not, he's just not going to have it when it's in store.

If it's costing 75 cents a head, in fact, he's got to set it for 69.

He's not going to do it.

So if you do that, it brings work.

What do you do after?

I'll send that to you.

uh this is

But for option two, Senator Rose, I think you have forces at work in the economy that are just going to create problems for you for months and months and months, and you can still ride it out because you've got, I don't get all the food stuff, but go ahead, but you've got maximum capacity production now in the chemical field, in the steel, in the loom, in paper, in textiles.

This is 100% utilization, plant utilization, more than 100%.

And these are just prices that people can't stand in a lot of gas.

These are all basic elements of this economy and prices are going to go up.

That's all there is to it.

I don't think he's exempt to the private gasoline prices at the top, very frankly, because the prices are going to go up.

And they're going to go up even more.

And if you said it to nothing, I think you're wrong.

I'm right.

So you put the price on.

You face the ration.

All right.

Maybe you do.

But maybe you didn't.

Maybe you don't.

How do you have two choices of how you go?

If you're going to use it for use,

uh this means to me you have to think in terms of phase two uh being friendly for basic control a very comprehensive control system on everything and a gradual elimination or you can go the other way you can you can have you for easy

after the freeze with the idea of bringing additional commodities or industries or businesses under control so they get out of line.

I think you can go one or the other way, but if you're gonna bring additional businesses under control in phase two, then I think you have to have all of them refreeze.

I think with a 30-day freeze, you don't have much option but to come out of that with a substantial control over this economy.

That was a pretty conditional chemistry.

Section 9 control is phase 3.

And we brought the troubles under.

We brought them each under.

And the second thing that should be brought up, we talk about freezing gasoline, controlled gasoline prices at the retail level.

There's 200,000 total gas stations.

In the previous, in phase two, we had all employers of 60 or more, or less, if you were counting gas stations, how many had 60 employees?

Well, there you go.

That's all.

And this is the thing, I think.

and a diplomatic and theoretical argument about the practicality of administering assistance in this kind of environment on this scale is going to require thousands and thousands of people.

That's something that should be said.

Because we control the food prices at the retail level.

Not many grocery stores.

And you see, it's not going to be in phase two.

We had a situation where there was plenty of it.

So if you control the supermarket prices, a little store could have charged more because the vendor didn't like it if you go to the supermarket.

Now we're considering a situation where there is plenty of it.

We won't spend any broken prices.

There won't be plenty of meat.

There won't be plenty of food.

It seems to me, President, that the matter on – there is something there to be a little clearer about where you're going after a freeze than perhaps some of the people's discussion has suggested.

I think I agree with that.

On the industrial price side, I think the sort of thing we talked about was to say –

that we would increase the number of companies that had to pre-notify, say, down to 100 million, which would give us 3,000 companies instead of the present 700 companies.

And we would say that we make it clear now that we'll do it in January.

And we're talking, actually.

We're not supposed to vet that out, right?

We're just, we're away from the group now.

And so, we are...

I didn't mean...

But I mean, you would have this set at this time, and it says that after this freeze is over, that I am having machinery set up at this time, so that when the freeze is over, that we will have machinery placed into this first pre-modification.

But I think that degree of, certainly that degree of, would be, I think, a helpful business.

That does not get to your food problem, but on the industrial side, I think that

that impact .

And you also pick up an additional .

It affects a few laborers, so that's .

And a few other things .

And our gimmicks about rolling back the prime.

and not allowing the steel price to increase and so forth, all that should go in.

And we can thank John and Freddie Trump's teacher who put all this into it, and then push Congress very hard, and then just as opposed to,

Of course we're, now we're away from food prices, actually.

I think just to, I think we've got about, we can also use the 30-day freeze period to go through these profit requests that's down to, in effect, roll back prices.

Let me come back to the 30-day freeze period.

I don't like the idea of saying it's going to be indefinite and then have it leave the next day that's 30 days.

I mean, you can't get away with that.

Well, I think there's more something in the street.

One of the principal arguments, I think, in our previous discussions that I've had with the president is the view that the number expressed, including Mark Burdick, I'm not sure I disagree with, that at a certain point in time, you've got to start putting a reason away.

I understand, and let me suggest this, I understand the problem of the wages, but we're going to meet with these people, and I understand that they're, you've got the painters coming up, and we're going to do our best to see that that will be it, and we can have that stick in the closet, and we can clearly understand, and we will still say that we are not in good league for wages and salaries at this point.

Well, I think if you freeze prices and you prevent people to keep on negotiating, then there will be normal negotiating within our standards, 5-5 or whatnot.

And then those will result immediately in increased costs to those companies.

And if it's 30 days, then so they don't get too much of that.

But if it's 50 days or longer, then you can have a real nice weed.

And you can just talk about not 60 days or longer.

You're talking about something with nature.

Yeah, that's sort of the left side of the point, basically, and that's kind of back to the political point that I made, the political reality.

A 30-day thing is, if you go out and say, oh, there's got to be a reason, and it's an uncertain duration, and it'll all leak out, and there'll be counsel, and everybody says it's going to be 30 days, then...

That would look like a, a, too little, too, an hour.

can we go, can we stay precise with decision-based, for example, and then just try to live with it and .

I know the pressures will arise.

I know it can't be 90.

I know that somebody, you know, somebody has had a paper announced in just four or five weeks, but I'm not looking at the pragmatic problem again.

And the

There's a problem with that.

Well, I think the extent of where we're going after the freeze is

If it can be accomplished by the end of the freeze, it gives you that sense of certainty that the freeze gave and will give.

Well, it wouldn't be so if we went on the hard option that John has described, right, John?

If you say you're going to go to the hard phase two, that is a sense of certainty.

that we're going to use this for the purpose of putting in the machinery for this and that, and we're also going to use this for the purpose of urging the Congressmen on a basis of care that's also leaving their television sets and get busy enacting certain legislation that we need to intrigue in other areas, right?

And the Alaska pipeline.

So that's what we're going to do.

And have this sort of thing, so that we don't spend too much and so forth and so on.

Well, you have to make up your mind as far as here's the choice.

Assume 60 days.

One of you can do one or two things.

During that 60-day period, you don't freeze wages.

You just freeze prices.

The question is how much kickback you get from the business community of the country about the unfairness of freezing their prices and not their costs.

On the other hand, if you want to go 60 days, assume you freeze both wages and prices.

Then you've got a problem of which labor leaders do you put in behind.

Now, Fitzsimmons is the big one coming up with the teenagers.

That's the sort of thing that you do.

We've talked to Fitzsimmons.

That's the sort of thing that you say to them, look, Fitz, no matter what happens, you're going to get retroactive pay, like we did all during the last three years in Vegas, too.

For God's sake, why don't you stand still for this 60-day freeze, and then when it's over, you negotiate your settlement, just as if you hadn't had a raise.

That's the possibility, it seems to me.

But if you want to be wages out completely during 60 days and sort of restitution for it, then I think it takes a lot to have a perfect thing.

This is the vision you need to raise.

They don't they don't they don't condign and they say software and and so on.

But but

I can't see anybody taking a bump and the rest of their job and make the change in that atmosphere.

Well, let me say it.

You say this thing is going to be here.

But let's just have in mind the fact that you can go to occur.

We have been doing this.

That you can move this up, this up, this up, this up.

In other words, you don't have to keep the whole log on the thing.

Would you read that?

Sorry.

Where do you start?

I'm not sure you have to keep it that long.

I'm not that concerned about it.

It's very different from a presidential election.

But you're starting out.

You're leaving out that range.

You're starting with the number of things left out.

Okay.

We'll have a 60-day break

in the period of June 1 to 8, that is, we've got to be retrospective because there isn't so much talk about a freeze.

But I exactly awarded them the deal that we unprocess agricultural products in the farm level or in the ceiling prices are placed on food products at the retail level, also at the gas pump level on food items.

Skipping.

However, it may affect the L4A and the levels to be exported will be calculated as best as can be done to yield these broader cultural products at prices that are consistent with the ceiling prices so that we won't squeeze, we won't, we will try not to reproduce the broader problem.

The wages are not covered in the reviews and so forth and so on.

They will pay, but the wages are subject to the same reporting thing as the, you know, as the prices and so forth and so on.

Well, it's the same as phase three, basically.

And we say that we look to a phase four, or whatever it would be called, that is more comprehensive and tougher, and that has a bigger capacity.

Phase four being the close breeze.

But as I say, to keep it as close to the velocity of it

of the object line as you can.

That's my feeling on that.

Let's talk about the price and so on and so forth.

John, you're the idea then.

If you're gone on with your mastery of this labor, then you're nobody else.

And you put up a wage board and all the rest go through that agony and that.

What do you think, John?

I agree.

I just think it's a horrible thing that's false from anybody.

Nobody would have done it.

What about us, John?

We're all going to vote on it.

Nobody better do it than the president.

Nobody better do it than somebody who's smart.

I don't want any kids.

Why can't you do both?

I suggested two of them.

I don't want any kids.

Don't you still have a cost of living council?

I think it's probably desirable to have a phase four, have a little bit different institution structure.

And John can't end up working for a wage person and a price person.

But it doesn't make any difference to the way the person is.

But if you can get somebody who is well-known, that should be...

I'd rather have a price person under you than to have the price thing out here and the wage thing over here.

I think that just makes a difference.

In other words, you're the non-Henderson of this administration.

Oh, yeah.

Well, you know, so am I. I'm going to have to do the same thing.

an awful lot of stuff.

We all have to, but, you know, we, it's real talk, it really is.

How do you feel about that?

I'm sorry to tell you, that's as far as, yeah, it's going to be tough to tell.

You've got a question?

Well, sir, you say that you speak about trading through 1974.

Okay.

Mr. President, I guess, you know, maybe it's because of the background of some of this.

I hope it's not because I don't have any philosophy at all, but I guess the legal training, perhaps some of the other economists' training,

put you in a constant position where you can't always pick the same side of the enemy.

I mean, you've got to be on one side of the enemy.

That catches it.

You have to take a position on one side, and at the time that you get close to what you took the next time, you go into the corner.

And I think that's the position we're in.

I mean, you've got to factor in how much.

You've got to make the best argument you can.

But the point is that there are certain factors or so forth.

but that our firm commitment to the free market remains the same.

And always point out that we're going to move in that direction.

Let me say that.

That is being front, center, and forward every way we can.

I feel that very, very strongly.

I can't share it with you.

And I know for six months we've had that in phase three.

I see it on hundreds.

Well, it hasn't been anybody's fault.

God just didn't help us in this period.

That's right.

The average appetite of people around the world for food and so forth didn't help us.

We have a, should we talk a little bit about the labor market meeting?

Sure.

Well, they're coming in at 3.

And in calling yesterday, it comes from all over the place.

I said the president has not decided what he is going to do.

Well, he has decided that he wants to hear from this committee before he makes up his mind.

So this is a...

It's not a genuine consultation meeting.

It's going to go very fast, but you're genuinely being consulted.

So that's the atmosphere and that's how they're looking for it.

We've talked a little bit about how the meetings are going to operate and what possibility it would be for you to come at the beginning and say that

Herb and John and I are going to present some material to them about our view of what's happened to prices and various optional possibilities.

And then as soon as that's been done, we will come back and you want to listen to them discuss these options and hear what their views are.

That is the way that it could operate.

Or you could stay there.

throughout the whole period i think and we have prepared i think fairly concise statements of various optional arrangements which which which will be better from their standpoint

I was surprised to be there.

I think the more you're there, the older people, I expect you to be there.

The greater they feel about madness, the better chance there is.

Also, I get a feeling that what their problems and hang-ups are, and when we have to go, I can say, all right, we're going to go in a certain way.

All right, I'll stay with you.

We obviously can have some hope that whatever you say will get the positive statements out of these people.

I think they're all opposed to a freeze.

I think their posture is sort of like this.

I think the industry people are opposed to a freeze.

Labor law.

He said, I don't think that the answer is to jack up all the waste settlements to go with the price trends.

The answer is to keep the waste settlements down where they are and do something about prices.

He said, I don't know what to do, but I know you've got to do something.

And so I think by and large, the other people will probably come out that way.

The citizens will tell you you ought to roll food prices back in January.

But anyway, so that's the later people do have that.

On the other hand, they are definitely opposed to any of these problems.

I know a bureaucrat who told me the other day, kept telling me that, you know, I never really objected.

public statements to the contrary, but I'm interested to know that's your view.

So I think that's where they are now, where they will be as we go through the meeting.

The question remains to be seen.

They're probably focusing this morning on deciding.

I'm not sure.

I've seen that your position is a little more sophisticated than

that, I'm gonna use the word, they recognize that to take a position in ways that should be uncontrolled and price controlled is very realistic.

And they know as much about the economics of their own industry as anyone in the industry does, really.

And I think to them, on both sides, as I've talked with them, I've done a fair amount, they really are concerned about how to get out of this business.

And I really think, President,

One of the reasons for moderation on the wayside, not the only reasons, but one of the reasons, if I were someday to explain why they have been monitoring these people, one of the reasons is that I have told them and they have told each other that the only way they're going to get out of this business is by being monitored this year and have a chance of getting out next year.

Now the notion that on top of

I don't know

to play these kinds of programs in Britain, across the world, in this day and age.

OK, the country says we've got to do it for the country's benefit for a brief period.

We'll go off on that.

But we want to be regarded as a step-up in our business.

And that, I think, is very meaningful on both sides.

And they recognize that prices and wages are highly interdependent there.

They live in these industries and know all about it as they consider it.

There's a question about who you would want to have sit in.

I think this committee has been a very good talking committee with each other.

They have thrown their own staff out of the committee they meet.

So I think, in a way, the fewer people who are sitting around, the better.

would be the quadriad plus the two guns.

And I think the minimum would be Herb and John Dunlop somewhere in between there.

That would cause our concurrence.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Maybe you're right.

I really do.

I think you get a better distortion.

You think that's unsexual?

Yeah, I really do.

But if I'm in there, I don't know how you think Arthur and Roy.

Well, Arthur's not going to be there, and I don't think Roy's going to be there, so let's just have the three of us turn up.

Okay, good.

We'll...

How does this work, George, who I call upon?

Who is the honcho of his office?

Why don't you call on me, and I will ask her to make some brief statements against the church prepared on what's been actually happening to Christ, where are the problems, and then also to give us a little statement about where we see the economy.

um and our sense of that and then maybe john could lay out different possible types of things that we might do and you might then want to make any any comments you would like to make about the politics of it if you see it that is your comments about what the people in the senate say and so on and then i will just open it up to discussion

and let them talk to the extent that we can kind of draw them around to the sort of thing that you have in mind.

I think that's good.

At the same time, I think you have to assure them of the happy manner of a president who hasn't decided yet.

And you're listening to the word.

Because I will be listening.

Yeah, and I think they'll, they're very thoughtful.

No, no, I do.

We want to know.

They've been a great group, and don't worry.

I want to know what they've done.

They've really paid off on this waste side.

Oh, it's been very good.

And also on the strike side, it's been a great record.

There are some good things that are going on in the economy, which we have to have in mind.

If you can get, I'm just unavoidable, if you can get me and Woodcock and Fitzsimmons

stand up against the Congress a little bit, even, and say whatever it is that you decide is a good idea.

There's talk a lot, but it's a wild card system.

Right, Matt?

Well, isn't the event of the Democratic Caucus approved?

They're, you know, they're in the regions across the board.

Do they just do it?

Right.

Well, and just until the end of time.

Is that okay?

or excuse me, may go from 7 to 4, heaven forbid, but I'm going to indicate my total dedication to the free, in other words, the free interplay of the state.

I know that that's what I think the philosophical pieces of people are fighting, and that we face another medium of conflict we have to deal with.

I mean, you can't do it all necessarily.

Why don't you just limit this for food and gasoline?

You could accept the Industrial Commodities National in the last 60 days, I'm sure.

But it wouldn't be too bad.

What I haven't had is this.

I was just thinking about that.

The rail conference.

And it's going to be a 30-hour multi-group and it's going to have fluid, gas, and a pump.

And then go to option one regarding the mouse.

Is there anything else?

Is it the post-treatment?

Yes.

I think the freeze is not changing for 60 days.

Yeah.

Right.

You see, that's really what I think.

That's going to be hard enough anyway.

And rather than expanding our efforts, trying to see whether Woolworths is selling nine months or too much, it's much more important to see whether or not the giant is selling hamburger too much.

In other words, you're not going to use so much.

Could you put your mind to that, in other words, limit the, I mean in terms of the mandatory section, limit it to the problem that really is, I'm sure the industrial stuff is going on, but we have some fair things to deal with.

Yes.

Are you still thinking of Tuesday night, Mr. President?

Well, that's a little bit different.

We'll get it ready.

But on the other hand, the important thing is to do it well.

And if we can't get it done in the right way, we'll do it Wednesday night.

I mean, it could be done on the computer that Tuesday or Wednesday.

I mean, it may be that we need to do it Wednesday.

Because, again, once we say this for some, we're tied to it.

And if we need some...

It's kind of my whole concern about what the stock market is going to do and how many prices are going to be raised and the uncertainty and so forth and so on.

Well, I don't think we have to worry about that.

I'm just trying to take care of that.

If I go back to last week on the prices, no matter what they do, I'm going to have to go back on here after that.

But let us say, basically, I think maybe as we sit here, as we talk,

that we probably are better advised to try for Wednesday night rather than Tuesday night.

How do you feel?

Well, I think we do have a lot of work to do.

There's a lot of money in this licensing system.

That's not what I mean.

Could we point for another meeting with you tomorrow afternoon?

Absolutely.

When we would try to have all this fresh.

And then you could go from there.

Totally at your disposal.

uh...

One, do not work too long, and I know the agony that it causes.

I mean, such highly talented men there.

Now this is...

If this is one that's there, we may have control over the, okay, the question is whether we control events or will they control us in order to treat each other that way.

I'm sure otherwise.

But let's think in terms, you understand, right?

As close to, as close to phase three as we can, that post-period, as close as we can.

Giving the appearance, as much appearance as possible, of being strong in the other direction.

So, this is a pre-modification of the little girl there.

But I was on that pre-notification thing.

It's a tackle-a-boo thing.

Tackle what?

I'm not sure.

Well, tell him that I've heard pre-notifications.

You see, that's the harder problem.

You already won't get the pre-notifications from me no matter how much.

I'm a little bit out of line, but I think it's good to slowly trust your wife.

We had one in the area.

I mean, he made a point of the food.

Oh, as we went from phase two to phase three in the area, he was trying to do something.

When you have bureaucratic administration, pre-notification, everything takes three months to get done.

And if you switch to self-administration, anybody who thinks this case is proper can immediately put the price increase in.

So we've had a lot of price increases that were in the pipeline, but it was fresh.

And what pre-notification does is it puts a pipeline into the process again.

And it just stops everything for us that period of time.

So it will have an effect on us.

John once wrote a very good article on which Christ controls in World War II.

He was involved in that.

And he wrote about it.

And as I remember, John, the basic thesis you had was

And what wage and price controls did was delay things.

It didn't prevent anything from happening, but it happened anyway, but it delayed it all.

And so you've got, and the message is, don't be too efficient.

And I'll try to process that.

Well, I've eaten arms full, you know.

right after World War II, you know, just before the Korean War, was simply that head of demand had to go out and bust the system wide open.

I don't know that, I don't think I agree.

I realize that security can present some kind of problem, but I don't think it presents an incredible security force.

We shall see you at 3 o'clock and we'll continue to work on it.

And tomorrow, whenever you like.

Would you rather meet me tomorrow?

Well, why don't you decide?

Well, that's 3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

How's that?

Have a good time with you?

And we'll be ready then.

By that time, we'll have to sort of seal her down.

And I'd like to get to work tomorrow and have a speech.

Thank you, thank you.

Very, very good.

And I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope,

Profits are such that I don't think they'll, uh, uh, I don't think they'll, uh, I don't think they'll, uh, I don't think they'll, uh,

We did have a test case on this.

We had a 90-day freeze.

of prices and we thought it was on the wages, but it wasn't.

Because all of the deferred increases and so on, that pay, they got all, and it didn't put the hell to sleep in a lot of people, but they made it.

So how do you know you can do choice of days if you won't do it?

Well, speaking of a, not a new wage, speaking of a problem that we face, isn't the choice between 30 days or 60 days a night?

the choices between 30 days and 60 days are the way or 90 or 120 there which would be and by the mean of the congressional and have no illusions that's what we're going to have on this desk and there's no other beginning need to ever sustain on that uh most housewives and the rest i wish i wish you were different robert lee and i

Checked her out, and that's the situation.

Now I don't mind hearing that.

I don't think Congress would agree to that.

I don't know why.

Oh, they'd kill us.

Sure.

Go ahead.

You're done.

Well, it sounds to me, Mr. President, that what you are looking for is...

Something that goes as far in the direction of option two as can practically be done.

Well, but even looking at some of the administrative, I prefer option one, let's begin with that.

I prefer to get as close as I can.

or they'll be able to first get the country to understand that phase three is strong.

And it is in a number of ways.

We've moved in a number of areas nobody knows.

And in order to, that's why I want to educate the people.

And second, what we do is to change it some.

I mean, the object of the phase three.

And say, we're going to do this, and it's like what John Dunham said with regard to, but we're going to have 3,000 firms and all that.

You know what I mean?

I thought that what really, I'm trying to get at George, is that we must really have to have, is something that will show the, not all balance.

Those who can take us down are terribly, our religion, very dangerous.

Theirs leads to the others.

We must not let that happen.

And if, frankly, if us,

with terrible proposition goals and so forth.

Let's do it our way, knowing that our meeting on our goal is to get, is not to have permanent goals.

And again, having no illusions about how critical that is.

uh and all the rest

I don't believe in freezing cankers and dividends, and particularly rents.

I'm not going to put rents in there.

I know that rents is a big issue with a lot of people, but there's one thing that I probably would invest in.

A freeze on rents is something you'll never get rid of.

You can never invest here, and it'll have a devastating effect on the housing thing.

There are houses and apartments and so forth being built like crazy around here.

I don't think the freeze on rents can do much good.

Anybody?

I probably disagree with that.

We just got out of the rent control business, and we took about a month of terrific heat.

And now suddenly, I mean, obviously, we're not getting very much heat.

I agree with that, John.

I believe in rents, interest, dividends, outage, and bonds.

But if you're going to do that, then I'm not going to show it to you.

I've built for 30 days.

I think if you get it, then you'll move.

If you really have strict controls on other things, it's going to be good for us.

I just must say, I think if you move in this direction and don't either in the follow-up program to a good price, I don't think you can justify it.

Because I think they're going to continue to do well.

I think they're under pressure.

They're going to be the rest of this summer.

And if they prove at all, they'll always take it out.

But I just, I'm not at all saying that I was good at the food process.

I just might be bored out.

If you don't do something, then I...

The easiest way, I guess, is to mechanically administrate what is crazy at the retail level.

But this means that your exemption of 60 employees or less is fine, except for the food process.

I think the smaller stores and smaller times they have to be controlled through the process as well.

Because that's what's giving y'all trouble.

That's why we're getting rid of it.

Because of the crisis.

And we don't control it again, none of it.

And I will say, I keep talking about gas and the crisis.

They're going to get just as bad or worse.

One of the problems with that debt, John, is there's, I guess, many, many problems with it.

uh something more in this way uh use 3d food processes then if uh you don't go down that chain you we're going to have no more water uh because seed grades are going to come down uh you're going to have no more all kinds of other supplies and that's where the pressure comes on so you if you if you

really are tough on those food savings in your description of what's going on with this law, and you're probably right about that, then it seems to me we could, those prices underneath that are just gonna squeeze those people in the middle.

I don't understand this.

I don't know.

You're right.

The message is something I'm not gonna include that for, so I can always write those things.

Sorry.

And in addition to that point, we've been talking about it,

the problem we have there is basically going to the forest, which I know we talked about before, if I understand it in a good sense.

It has nothing to do with your, it has nothing to do with, it is all up to the board of policy.

I'm saying one thing we're going to do for sure, on the effort, at the very least, is this.

Don't ever put in a speech that I make the idea that we're going to, we are going to study

or we're going to consult foreign governments.

That is a dead loser.

Just forget it.

I mean, that's a very nice thing to do.

Of course we'll consult them and do it, but don't put it in the speech.

People think, well, isn't that nice to consult about the prices?

I would say, too, with regard that we will consider this for a while and determine whether it would be a good idea to have the controls or licensing system.

Don't say that.

We either have it or we don't.

say, at the end of this period, we are going to go license these exports.

I understand that I'm not deciding the question, but I'm saying you cannot, that in this kind of a state, you cannot be that uncertain.

Because all that will do is raise a dozen uncertainties.

There has to be the idea that we're either going to do it or we're not.

Also, in terms of packing the exports, we're going to license these things.

We're going to license them.

But if you're out there, Jack, you're still a problem because insurance wasn't working on this whole thing.

But for a, quite frankly, that would be a disaster.

I don't think we would be managing it because it's so hard.

So the whole safety station, I mean, those kids are going to survive.

It's tough enough right now with the restrictions.

I wonder, I wonder, we're talking about food for our city.

We don't pay on food.

We buy mail.

We put a trace on retail food.

We have a standing here for control of exports.

Right.

However, we don't make a sale to China.

We don't make a sale to Iran.

We don't make it.

In other words, we have a license system for control.

And China listens to foreign because we're dragging away from that.

That's our issue.

Yes, sir.

And we say, we so say, that we're doing the managiness to prevent charges at home, which the rest of us are in charge of.

Does that make sense?

We intend to meet our obligations.

And we intend to spend our control for political purposes as a reality, so that we are flexible enough when we have a key policy issue to make exceptions, which are overriding.

We have a certain legal problem here, as I understand it, that we can always send stuff under PL 4A to the Secretary of Agriculture.

The existing legislation, you know, they restrict the exports.

The Secretary of Agriculture is under charge.

So you can't control the exports if you want to.

Well, there's just state and national legislation changing that.

Wow.

Yeah, well, there's no surplus.

I don't see how we're going to deal with 40 sales now.

There's sure no surplus now.

The problem is, just in terms of the U.S. domestic economy, there's a surplus.

We are selling a terrific amount.

And if that was in effect the case, that there was a surplus, even counting everything we could sell abroad,

with the world demand being what it is.

We are technically in a position to make the certification for PL4A easier in some ways than we are to make the certification that would restrict the export.

Because we have money.

If we own it all here, we have money.

It's just a terrific world demand.

OK, there's a different world demand.

So if that's the case, are we saying that we should not license it?

I mean, what are we going to do about John's point is that you can't freeze this, you can't freeze Francis without doing something about the sales abroad.

I mean, Bob says it, so he means John finally began to come down last week to Canada.

I have a question.

Right.

In the one case, he has to say we've got a service.

In the other hand, in order to restrict that for him, he has to say, this is not a service.

This is not enough to meet the necessary demand.

And he can't really say that right now.

Although, I didn't do this.

We can't decide on the machinery for export licenses.

The reporting that they've asked for, I just don't know if we should ask that.

You can do that.

Get the information.

I'm sorry.

I have it.

What I mean is I want to be more certain than to say that we're going to study.

Well, we're just in the present draft.

What we have to say is that we are going to set up an export license system for the purpose of seeing to it that foreign demand does not raise prices at home.

And I would set it up, and I know it's going to be a terrible thing to administer.

But I think if you could do that, it won't do it at all.

That would be another thing to give to Congress.

I asked the Congress for a modification of the present legislation so that when foreign sales put too much pressure on domestic prices, that we can advise or advise or something like that.

Yeah, let's see.

All new exports to report from 92nd.

All unfilled orders.

These will be on all future controls.

If and when necessary.

uh... uh...

If they place any orders after today, we're not going to honor them.

You guys want to say that if they place any orders after the date of this speech, they're not necessarily going to be honored.

So that we want them to report the order they had before, and that tells the order.

Yes, I intend to report it, but my point is some strong language with regard to the fact that in the future we're going to have to control this, having in mind the arms pressures on the crisis.

Where do you stand?

You, Jonathan, I guess, are horrified at the idea of gas and the bomb and the mom and pop grocery stores.

That's the problem, isn't it?

Well, that's a horrified change.

No, I'm not.

If one's going to do it, I don't.

I'm not that horrified at saying they're going to go grocery stores down to 100,000.

or that are down to a very small amount of gas being pumped, I'm less horrified about that than the notion of carrying it down into the primary market, which I just think is even more difficult to go down that.

I don't know.

I have all kinds of personal problems.

I think it would be even less practical to go out and see if they want soybeans sold in the market

Or corn.

Mm-hmm.

Well, it wouldn't, wouldn't.

that if you impose a ceiling on the price of the end product, and the cost of what it takes to produce that end product rise, and you cause people to, in this case, deplete their flocks, then even after you take the lid off and give them the incentive, it takes a long time to recover, rebuild those flocks,

You basically have to control one way or another the feed subs that are present.

What he's talking about, the grains.

He's talking about the feed grains that you use in salt beans and so forth that you use on the middle of the water industry, the hog industry, the cattle industry, or how you, well, your electricity.

He just said you gotta license them.

You gotta license that whole spot.

I think it'll go a long way for tomorrow, I think.

You just ask the Department of Agriculture to say, we're going to have dollar-and-a-half, dollar-and-a-half, dollar-and-a-half, dollar-and-a-half, dollar-and-a-half, dollar-and-a-half, dollar-and-a-half.

some assurance to these uh poultry breeders and cattle people what do you expect to try to uh

That's right.

I don't know what you're saying.

Just saying here that you later introduced your mouse for that

For them, that's what it means.

Now, obviously, if you carry on enough, you're going to create charges.

You're going to create black markets.

There's no question about that.

We did it in World War II.

But it's also clear that you can do it for a period of time.

Maybe we're not talking over six months.

I hope we're not.

Maybe we're not talking about over four months.

But if you try to do it for years, obviously, you'll have charges of rioting and black markets.

No question about that.

It is an area where within two to three months, things should be better.

The marketplace should be better.

All right.

Fine.

Then, in other words, making a play on that now.

Well, I guess my view is that unless one firmly resolves to get out, the pressures of pushing you further and further in this direction are going to grow.

Now, it is true that we will have a critical period.

While we don't know one of the principal reasons in my mind for this form,

is that no one can now with confidence take the size of the crop, whereas in the course of 60 days or so, we will be very much in a position to take the size of the crop.

And that, I think, is an inclusive practice for being certain that we're going after what the country's been through.

But I do think there is some opinion which would say that food prices are not going to come down very fast.

and it may well be from 1974 until they come down.

And in that case, the Soviet would run a significant

that are receiving prices on foods in the country at retail from now through next, now June, year, now seems to me a very disturbing thought.

Right.

I think that the outlining of the tariff plan numbers, people have to ride with that.

Right.

But that we would have, if we don't control the export so closely, that's a problem.

We will have an intermediate period where the food prices will not rise very much.

But then in 1974, they were rising again because of the effect of the high wheat prices now, all through this summer and fall.

So these fountains did not have wheat in 1974.

But if you can get the prices of wheat down now to a high sufficiently rate with respect

Well, did you do one other?

It's one of the courses that may lead you to a deeper quagmire.

And that is, if it figures that the project is going to continue on foodstuffs, on exports of grain, then you go back to the Congress for the reverse type of support pricing.

You say that for others, for the hogs, for livestock,

Corn is paid $1.50 a week.

It's $1.80 and so forth for domestic consumption of feedstuffs.

So it affects your subsidization of the consumer price, and then you're selling the world prices in the export market.

That's another approach to it.

It's a subsidy in reverse of what you paid.

That's a possibility.

If you want to go that far, I don't think you do at this point, but it's something we can vouch your thing about.

You can check right back in the Congress.

If you, as evil as I am, I knew meat prices all last year.

You say, okay, what's the cost?

Okay, what's the cost of this?

It's a feast of meat grains.

They all have X amount.

Well, let's pay the price of feed grains for the limited purpose of feeding poultry, feeding hogs, and feeding cattle.

Those who feed by, feeds us at X price.

And elsewhere in the domestic economy, elsewhere in the world economy, it will feed us on love.

Thank you for that.

I'm not recommended in the court setting, but Charlie did that in World War II.

Yeah, sure.

It's not a new experience for the war.

I'm not saying that's desirable, but it's at least an avenue.

If you don't want to control the food prices, I'll support you.

I'm a fellow.

I'm basically an agro-coach.

So you have to fundamentally believe in good or bad.

That's right.

I raise cattle.

Cattle.

I raise sheep.

I raise wheat and soil.

if you put

That frees on the retail price of food.

If you oppose the licensing system, which has got to be very carefully managed, we understand that.

Then the main question that I have, that I don't think we really hone, is the duration.

30 or 60 days.

I think that it must not be a mystery if this is a manageable package.

I mean, I've discussed ways to draw on phase two.

We can go along.

We agreed during three, about 30 plus days in a row,

We do think that when we get to the face of the prosperity situation, we need to have a wage control system, which is mandatory and more of that parallel price control system.

And that raises, that raises essentially a political problem of congressional acceptance.

What is your feeling on that?

the wage control thing harder.

We've been through the agony of the flexible business and so forth and so on.

And of course, we know that the conduct has been a lot of the good, but we didn't, we could, must we address that correctly now as to what it should be?

If we do, we're in by as far as all these negotiations come.

Well, I guess I do.

If one runs a tight price control program after the freeze, I think there would be very strong opposition from the business community with some justification not to have the same kind of, shall I say, pre-numeration with the action on

waste cases in the same way that one would have actions on a piece of paper.

Now, that would seem to me to suggest that if you could then go back and try to set up a waste board, which I've done, which I myself guess that there's not any enthusiasm for on the planet of the people.

or to set up some place or somebody.

And I assume that there's not much enthusiasm for that.

So I don't particularly at this point.

So I think while one may not need to grant it in the sense of formally announcing it now, it seems to me very clear that if one has

a rigorous price control program for six months or some other certain period after the freeze.

One has got to have in mind a very

I think that's right.

I think who very considerably stand on the wayside for this year, particularly if somehow or other food crisis could be kept under control.

That is the most negotiations are done.

John says the construction industry is pretty well.

the oil industry is settled, the rubber industry is settled.

Fitzsimmons is pretty optimistic about the tincture settlement.

I think if you had a freeze on prices, wages, it would help to keep that tincture settlement moderate and would help in this kind of negotiations.

And they'll have to be done by the end of this month.

And all you've got now is the cost of workers.

responsible

leave the whole thing and don't get nailed down to the guidelines and so forth and so on.

I think that's one of the things.

I suppose that's the other problem.

When you do this, they'll say, what is your guideline?

Well, we still have a guideline of 5.5%, at least in our regulations.

And that's the way this thing has worked along the way.

There's no problem.

That's one of the other things.

We're confused about that.

And they've made a lot of noise because they have, in fact, been very cooperative.

As I told you, it's very different from what I said.

Well, I think it would be different.

Speaking of the way you said it all,

um

How long one wishes to have a fielded imperative to have strong price and weight control after the freeze.

If it's a modest period, once again, if it's a longer period, that's a very different ball game, that's one.

And two, it depends what happens in this period, if that's down to your food prices and the rest is a CDI situation.

if they remain relative.

Contrary to what Ms. Baker told us, others told us, some of us knew the year was going to be all right, because it has its roots in each one of them.

But if you get a long period of time where you're trying to run a mandatory waste control program, it would be very scary.

I think that's what we ought to do.

I mean, if we were sitting on this country and didn't have to be concerned about

I hear that they're going to force you out of the articles.

We just talked it through.

I know his dad, who's known to you, said he talked it through.

Well, that's very nice, but he didn't spend much time in the Hill.

He didn't know what they were thinking up there.

You know what I mean?

You're out in the Hill.

What's he going to do?

Well, it was President Barrow I had.

I was going to say, the business of Congressman Barrow just said he got to do something in the L.A.

They didn't have to have a word with you.

Exactly.

I don't know what follows on to be as believable as possible.

But believe me, as sure as possible, you know, I mean, if the pressure's come off, we must move her off.

I do not believe, I simply cannot accept the idea that we will sit here and

And I agree it's going to depend on what happens.

Because, again, we do have these enormous political pressures.

It may be .

there are great forces that work in the world

It's a world of man.

We all know that.

And we've had lousy weather.

We all know that.

That's the problem with regard to the blue net.

And I have learned that we're all worried.

It's tomorrow that's causing this.

the control system and the control system we have at the present time would have been positive if we didn't have it this year believe me so i'm not uh i'm not one of those that says about phase three since last year and so forth and so on and that's why we have this phase three would not have a fact i mean uh i mean phase three has if the move from phase two to phase three is not less responsible for the escalation

So what I have in mind is to move in the direction of

I personally feel, personally feel that we ought to move to 60 days.

I think we ought to say that's what I would like to do.

But mainly for the reason, I think you get it, if you say that it's uncertain and then it takes out four or five weeks, I mean, I don't know, I'm tired of hearing your argument on that.

But move to 60 days, and then...

Also, in a 60-day period, it's more realistic to say to the Congress, in a 60-day period, we ask the Congress to act on this, this, and this.

If you tell the Congress to act on this, this, and this, in 30 days, they're going to wait.

In 60 days, you'll say, in this period, we want them to act, create a thing on that, on that thing.

Everything that we can to last the pipeline.

Go ahead.

It poses a problem in business.

I agree.

But if labor is maintaining some sense of discipline at the moment, we just have to see that in truth.

At the end of the 60-day period, I would like to move to basically make more toward option one than option two.

In other words, just increase the number of reporters.

Everybody knows it.

That's the point.

It will give us a chance to hype over the fact that what we have been doing is an awful lot.

And it's right.

And we can have a few minutes.

We can have a few minutes.

Now, you get back to the critical thing on food.

How do you get food out of the mandatory control?

Food is out of the mandatory control, but it's really not done.

So the original, but only in market terms.

So the person, whether you want to translate that into dollars, that's zero.

Pound water is 75 cents.

I have a letter that's 35 cents.

Yep.

Sure did.

So is the audience.

Yeah.

Three years ago.

Yeah.

Pardon me.

I was not talking about forever.

Well, you know, look at it.

I'm just saying.

I'm trying to do something that's not my interest.

If you don't have it, I don't need none.

Thank you.

You're saying we've had a freeze of 30 to 50 days.

would pick out certain areas like food and gasoline right and put mandatory ceilings on right same way we now have on meat that's right and those in your direction would be all food plus gasoline

It depends on what area, what industry, what business, what firm creates the problems.

What we're really talking about here, John, is the, we're just talking about those who get wrong errors.

And I wouldn't get too concerned about paper, John.

Well, I understand paper and plywood and all that sort of thing.

But it's food and gas is the guy who writes in his solar buses.

Well, what we're saying, what we started off with, I heard it correctly, is we're not talking about the justification for that economic downturn.

No, we're not talking about what we as individuals would like to see done in terms of the conditions, the economy.

What we are talking about is responding to a political need, a reality, and a political reality.

And if you don't respond to food prices, I don't know how to look at the response you make.

If you don't respond to the police, I'm not going to respond to you.

In the light of the political lead you had, that's the point of the vote.

Now, when I talked earlier about the way this thing has come down, I don't want you to get the impression, Church, that I don't think this is a great improvement over the other.

It was the option to...

as presented in the Black Book was so hard and, you know, impossible.

That's what concerned me about it.

And this one moves.

I think I want this written in such a way that we can leave as much flexibility as we can to the price that weights are.

It was more in terms of the, of the, of the sort of melding together of the function one and two.

With any thought in mind, I, I, I emphasize again that believing I have no intention of whatever, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of,

You can't get it at the primary end of the auction.

John, would you agree with that?

I think it's due to your own work.

And that, also, if they're kind of ventilating up there on the supply end, I think the price would have exceeded them two degrees for a while.

on the

We are now, when it comes to a choice between the Philippines and the U.S., we're going to pick the U.S. You understand?

I mean, I've seen all these arguments.

I mentioned the PL-4E and the rest.

Let me say, I am more concerned about our previous contracts than anything else.

As far as Southeast Asia, the PL-4E is a big part of the bundle, right?

I mean, because basically the Congress says you can't have them.

money for security that you can't have for a various other things.

PL-480 is the device we use, not only for that, but for those, for the Indians, and the Pax, and all the other people with the Pax.

But if we have to choose, we're going to choose ourselves.

Well, we can say then that if you want a licensing system, we should try to work it out legally without disrupting PL-480.

If you know that we can do it,

However, probably they probably have now got their pipeline full so that the actual disruption in terms of what we get will be worse for every job.

We don't disrupt.

We do not retain any contracts.

for years what we're really talking about is a licensing system that will have a very

Go ahead.

It gives more time to get the machinery in place that we need to get it in place.

It gives more time from a very practical standpoint to get the climbers

office behind and say, look, here, you should pass these things in this 60-day period.

Well, so here's the 60 days to leave.

This has to be done.

It also will be a more believable, I mean, it's a more, the 30-day freeze, frankly, may not do the job that we need to to stop this damage from the Congress going

I would say that

I would say that we're putting it in in terms of indefinite duration.

So I thought about it.

I liked it at first, but I think if you say indefinite duration, and then whack it off.

But even in John 69, 6030 would be indefinite.

I don't think so.

I think if you want the rest of that, we should.

And the business community is going to squeal about the fact that wages are not controlled, but they're right.

Well, they know that in their lives, they're hard to tell.

They know also that in spite of the fact that they were frozen in August of 71, that they were able to get that fair dime of money retroactively.

So I just don't think you get that much kick if you don't have the sense to do it the same.

I don't think you do that much while it's lasting, but I see you see the other chomp other than the... Well, first of all, we're more of a small attribute.

Of course, one for my profession naturally thinks that there are a number of numbers between 30 and 50 characters.

Mr. President, we have several.

That's why I asked that, because you had a hearing on it.

That you got.

Yes, the bill got.

Bill who?

John.

John, how do you find it?

Now this is something that would require congressional action, right?

It requires congressional action, right?

It's a good thing to do.

Now, what are the, what are the names?

Is this the business community?

I think it's horrible.

I have a thought about it.

It's an idea that's around, but also an unfamiliar idea.

The Germans have just proposed it.

The Swedes have had some experience with it.

Well, let me say, if we go with this six feet, let me start with another proposition.

We have one more.

Here's France.

Each one of you prepared for your memorandum of

I appreciate it.

Our Congress was the most unrealistic thing I've ever met or seen.

I mean, because he just done the whole process of the last Congress for tax increase.

Now, we sat here and talked about that.

There is no way, no way you can get a response to the tax bill out of this Congress, and you wouldn't get it until six months from now.

That doesn't matter now, it's like, right, that's where we told you, we had to get our, goodness, George, well, that is trying to help the window.

Well, I think it also is, it's critically a job of our, because our, you remember John, George, you remember the campaign, you remember that big fight about the gold?

Uh-huh.

Well, everything was going to go to the niggers because the gas started

I don't mean that sometimes he's right, sometimes others are right.

But on this level, from a political, pragmatic standpoint, he should be one of the greatest politicians that's there all the time.

That is an exclusive.

It doesn't have to be an exclusive.

That's not how it goes.

I mean, he had made an observation that maybe he's wrong.

We're having a Germanic vote out here.

He constantly parts from this election.

Now, but he never raises monetary questions, and he's in charge of the monetary thing.

Now, he, as always, he wants to talk about what fiscal actions you ought to take, George, and the governor ought to take.

He never wants to discuss, and won't discuss, any monetary actions.

The supply of money is a lack of supply, and we just cannot raise it, and so forth.

So every time he comes to a long list of things that he opinions on the fiscal policy,

and most of the things he suggested the other day were not realistic.

I just thought, well, they're responding to you.

If we were a czar, a real czar, unfortunately, there are no real czars left until we make them a czar.

With both, of course, we have a way.

This is in effect what we treat as a tax measure.

And you won't come out with this, Mr. President.

If you go to the Hill, if you come out with a smart card or a whistle or something about it, if it had to go to the tax package charge, it would.

It goes their ways, it means.

It's a nice idea.

But I'll tell you what I would do, what I would like to do.

And I think this is a very good thing.

You know, you remember what you said.

Have people float out of life that look at you crazy ideas.

I think, what I'd like to see is maybe her, you think this is a good idea, you don't want to do it, but maybe you'll tell her, she'll say, well, one of the things we are studying is this.

I don't remember what I asked.

That's what I asked.

She said, good.

You said one of the things we're studying is this matter.

Float that out.

Let people argue about it.

Let the mills argue about it.

But don't put it in our package yet.

You like that, didn't you, Christopher?

That's something to be able to do.

Thank you.

All right.

I think that's good.

That's the way to handle it.

Well, I have a tax measure out there.

We are in effect to put pressure on Congress saying no.

Yeah.

Set aside trade legislation.

Take out taxes.

All right.

We want to work on trading.

That's right.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Yeah, there you go.

On your point of credibility for the post-freeze program, people believe it is going to be strong and so on.

And from the standpoint of just administrative necessity, we have to say and accept that we're going to build a good side of bureaucracy much larger than we had in phase two.

And I think people, knowing you're aversion to that, if you say that, they'll say, well, he must be serious because he really ain't that.

And I think...

In order to carry these things out, we need a lot of people.

Yes, we might as well say so.

And then we'll have to see if the appropriations and so on can get that.

But we are going to have to have more people.

And I'm sad that we're going to have to put a lot of IRS effort into it.

We've had some discussion of getting IRS out of it and letting somebody else do the policing.

But I would like to see that put the IRS into it.

What do you think, John?

Well, that's correct.

The issue is kind of what time frame.

So I'm not, I'm not one of those who says about page three, and so on, and that's why we have this, that 83 would not have a fact

Right.

So we see that's the call right here.

The call for response or something to the food.

is to move in the direction of

I personally believe that if you move in the direction of the first few people, that we ought to move in the direction of the first few days.

And then it takes off.

I don't know.

Also, in a 60-day period, it's more realistic to say that time changes in 60 days.

We're going to ask the Congress to act on this, this, this, this, this, this.

What happened?

It poses a problem in business.

I agree.

But if labor is maintaining some sense of discipline at the moment, we just have to see that in truth.

We just have to see that in truth.

At the end of the 60-day period, I would like to move to, at the end of the 60-day period, more for option one.

I would like to move to that option two.

In other words, basically, more is just increasing under the report, and everybody knows it.

More for option one.

That's the point.

It would give us a chance to heighten that option two.

In other words,

for the fact that what we have been doing is an awful lot.

It just increases every report, and it's running very well, and we didn't have any of that.

And everyone knows that.

That's the point of view now.

If we ever do any reporting with more of our hands, it's a hype over 45, and of course, something on the edge of the list.

The fact that what we have been doing now and when you get back to it, it's an awful lot.

And it's right how we're going to have it.

And we're going to have it.

We're going to have it.

She did.

Look at it.

I'm just saying.

It's not my name.

You're not talking about controlling gasoline.

I keep running that up.

Everybody down in the West Coast.

Everybody's next to me.

Thank you.

and put mandatory seedlings on, right?

We now have meat.

That's right, that's right.

And if those, and if those, and here you go, here you go, all food, all food, absolutely, absolutely.

And yeah, and yeah.

No, no.

If you follow that, follow that, there's no paper about it, no paper about it.

Depends.

We're not talking about justification or access.

And we're not talking about what we as individuals... We're not talking about what we as individuals... We're not talking about what we as individuals...

And if you don't respond to good questions, I don't have a good response to you.

And if you don't respond to a political need, a reality, I don't have a good response to you.

In the light of a political reality, and if you don't respond to good needs, that's the point.

If you don't respond to good questions, I don't have a good response to you.

Now, when I talked earlier about the way this, if you don't respond, please, when this comes out, I don't want you to get the impression, church, that I don't want you to get in the light of the political.

I think this is a great improvement over the other.

That's the point.

The option, too, as presented in the book,

was so hard and, you know, the way this thing has come down, impossible.

That's what concerned me about it.

And this is a boost.

I don't want you to get the impression, George, that I don't think this is it.

I want this, I think I want this to run in such a way that we can create improvement over the other, you know,

that entered in such a way that we can leave as much flexibility as we can.

The eye, too, as sent to the price weights are presented in the black book was so hard.

In other words, more in terms of, and, you know, impossible.

That's what the, you know, the, you know, concerned me about.

I think I want this written in such a way that we can leave as much flexibility as we can to the price and weights are.

In other words, more in terms of the

When he thought of mine, I emphasized again.

We're going to try to find ways to de-control.

We're going to try to find ways to de-control the muscle again.

The muscle again.

Do you understand?

I feel strong.

Do you understand?

I feel strong.

Do you understand?

You can't get it at the primary.

It won't work.

Yeah.

I would go into the positive way by saying there is going to be .

And that's kind of what I mean.

That doesn't mean that our positive way by saying there is going to be .

They have to impose it.

Maybe we need to .

And that's kind of what I mean.

That doesn't mean that .

I don't know about that.

But as John suggests, they have to impose it

I mean, we have to, on the, we need the legislation for the Congress.

I don't know about that there, but now it comes to a trustee between the Philippines and the U.S. as John C. Jackson.

I'm going to pick up on the U.S. to understand.

On the, I mean, I would say, you know, where now it comes to, sorry, I mentioned the PL4A, the trustee between the U.S. and the Philippines.

about our previous contract.

You understand?

I mean, I've seen all these arguments.

I mentioned the PL4A and the rest.

Let me say it.

I am more concerned about our previous contract than anything else.

Over as far as Southeast Asia, than anything else.

Over as far as Southeast Asia, the PL4A is a big part of the bundle, right?

The PL4A is a big part of the bundle, right?

I mean, because basically the Congress says you can't have it.

money for security that you can't have for various other things.

The L-480 is the device we use, not only for that.

I mean, because basically, if the Congress says you can't have money for security, you can't have it for various other things.

The L-480 is the use for the Indians and the Pax device.

All the other things we use, not only for that, but for the people of Canada.

But if we have to choose between those for the Indians,

Well, we can say then that if you want to license the packs and all the other systems, we should try to work it out.

But if we have to, without disrupting PL 480, if you're going to choose, we're going to choose ourselves.

If we can't do it, then we'll just have to ask you to say then that if you want to disrupt

We don't disrupt.

that will have

We don't disrupt the movement.

We do not retain any contracts.

for years way down the pipe.

What we're really talking about is the licensing system that will have a very bad effect on future contracts.

And on that, we'll just tell these four countries we just can't do it.

That's my, how was that Bobby?

because I think when you get down to the reality though, some instances we're talking 60, 90 days of letting supplies fail and it won't be enough.

And in the meantime, we've got to transition.

And it won't be enough.

Why can't you let this man get you drunk?

I'm sorry, I think we can make the decision.

It gives a lot more time.

It gets more believable.

I mean, it gets more on the mark.

From a practical standpoint, if they freeze, Frank, we may not do the job that we always find.

And say, look, here, you should pass these things in this 60-day period.

So here's the 60 days that this has to be done.

It also will be more believable.

I mean, it gets more believable.

The 30-day freeze, frankly, may not do the job that we need to do.

We need to stop this.

That's the real problem.

The other thing is that

Yeah.

I would say that putting in in terms of indefinite duration.

I thought I liked it at first, but I think if you say indefinite duration, I would say it, I would say

John, 69, putting it in in terms of indefinite duration.

Like, 60, 30 would be indefinite.

So, I thought about it.

I liked it at first, but I didn't like it.

I should say indefinite duration.

And then, why?

If you want to go to the same question.

And the ministry...

Uh, he, you know, but even John 69, 63 would be in debt.

Well, I don't know.

I don't think so.

But if you want the rest of it.

Yes, yes.

But.

Because you have a hearing on it.

That's right.

Compulsory corporate savings.

Yes.

Bill.

Now, this is somebody who would require congressional action.

It requires congressional action.

Now, what are congressional action?

What is the vote of the nays?

Now, what are the votes of the nays?

That's another question for them.

Well, let me say, if we go with this 60...

I'm sorry.

Here's friends.

Our Congress was the most unrealistic and unrealistic thing we've ever met.

First thing, I mean, because he never met.

First thing, I mean, because he just got in the whole process of the last Congress for tax increase.

Now, we said he got in the whole process of the last Congress for tax increase.

Now, we said about that.

There is no way, no way you can talk about that.

There is no way, no response to the tax bill out of this Congress.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

on this from a political pragmatist standpoint and he should be one of the greatest

Now, Lucid says I'm out of the game, but sometimes he's right, sometimes others are right.

But on this level, from a political, pragmatic standpoint, he should be one of the greatest politicians up there all the time.

That is a dead Lucid.

Lucid says I'm out of the game.

I mean, he had made an observation.

He had made an observation.

This is my part.

But he never raises monetary questions.

And he's never raising monetary questions.

And he's in charge of the monetary thing.

He's in charge of the monetary thing.

It's always he wants to talk about Flock's fiscal actions.

He ought to talk about Flock's fiscal actions.

He ought to take the working and the government ought to take.

He never wants to discuss.

He never wants to discuss any monetary actions.

And, and most of the things he, most of the things he suggested the other day, he suggested the other day, it's right, you were not, it's right, you were not realist, not realist.

It's, it's, it's, I know, I know, I know, I know, and I, I just thought about it, and I, I just thought about it, and it's fine, you see, if we were, fine, you see, if we were, if we were a summer, a real summer, that's fine, if we were a summer,

I'm sorry.

but I would like to, and I think this is a very good thing, John, I think this is a very good thing, John,

One of the things we are studying is this.

Thank you.

I think.

and believe it is going to be strong, and so on.

And to get to that point of just administrative necessity, we have to say and accept that we're going to build a good bureaucracy, much larger than we had in phase two.

And I think people, knowing you're a girl, you're a virgin for that reason.

If you say that, they'll say, well, he must be serious because he really is.

And I think it's happening to a lot of people.

Yeah, we need a lot of people.

We might as well say so.

And then we'll have to do safety appropriation.

And then we'll have to do safety appropriation and so on.

And so on.

But we are going to have to have more people.

More people.

We've had some discussion.

What do you think John?

Well, that's correct.

It was kind of what the time frame was.

Oh, all right.