Conversation 938-003

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Just a note that I have that there is a reference to you again and so forth.

There's some comments from earlier on.

And wait a minute, it's not about the butter cake.

I don't want you to take a look at it now.

Maybe we should just get it in there.

Maybe we've got it.

We'll be correct again.

Yeah.

So.

That's the message I've got to get off the site on.

It's like planets, and instead of the three that gain the planet, I've got to get rid of the one that's stronger off the ground.

I'm going to be honest with you.

One of the peripheral parts in it that does concern me, and I know that

I just want to be sure we've got Len under control.

I mean, I know that John and Bob very, very vigorously dislike him.

But if he is the guy that does leave the papers about the White House and so forth, we've really got to know it out.

We don't think so.

Uh, I don't mean by that that I agree with Lennon's reactions to things.

I don't.

I usually disagree.

Yeah, I know.

But, uh, I don't believe he's doing anything disloyal at all.

Good man.

Yeah.

And quite frankly, I think that's a bad way of looking at it.

Bad way of looking at it.

Well, I thought you should just take a look at him because he'll like you.

I thought you should know that.

The point that I made is that, first of all, the Vice President, I don't give a darn.

I mean, he is a constant nagging problem, and I'm just not going to let him get in too close when Harlow gets here and is going to sign him to him.

Schultz is a problem because at this time, Schultz has just screwed things up.

Not screwed me, but things are screwed up, and Schultz knows that he's part of it.

But Schultz, if Schultz goes, Simon Spade is.

handle that too.

I don't know, I don't believe that.

If I hadn't talked about that, it's actually going to be all right.

I mean, they did work with these people.

Ken Cole was too bad.

If Ken resigns, he resigns.

I don't think Ken's going to resign.

He's in very direct strength.

I talked to him before Laird came down.

But apparently, you see, they all, the acronym of each other, and I only mentioned it to you in terms

Don't be concerned about the fact that you're supposed to keep people out and so forth and so on, because believe me, if you don't, I...

I want you to.

I mean, I'm saying, as much as I possibly can, I can't say anything.

I'm planning a schedule for B&T.

You know, I don't think you're seeing any more people than you see.

Well, then, how many margins could I have held?

I just, you know, I don't believe that.

I mean, I don't accept it because... What did you think of John, then?

What did you think of John?

I think John is...

very much aware that a lot of the institutions he built around here are going to be dismantled.

That's a damn shame, but John didn't hear anymore.

That's my feeling.

He had an energy army organization.

We've begun to handle it anyway, I think.

That's another problem.

Sure.

And that layer knew what they were doing.

What he said about Richardson is correct, because we know that we're trying to handle it right.

We're very aware of that.

There's no question about that.

I don't think the White House stats morale is down at all, sir.

I can just be honest with you.

It was down.

It sure is not down now.

All the young people that have worked for me are higher than they've ever been.

Senior guys, of course, everybody's unsettled about mail.

They all know mail.

But we went into that with our eyes open.

As a matter of fact, that's exactly when Bryce has to come.

So Bryce is our chameleon.

I can, uh, we'll keep Ashton there balancing both.

Schultz has to be trained on him.

He can't do all the jobs that he's doing.

That's inevitable.

Schultz's problem is the fact that when I came here five weeks ago, when I went over and talked to him, he used to talk without resigning to me.

He was getting tired and overextended at it.

Well, his problems are no different today than they might have been.

I think he feels a little better than he did.

I think he does.

Connelly?

I think Connelly's been spoon-fed every inch of the way.

We had about a 48-hour period there when we were dealing with men.

And then his stealth, man, his stealth was a...

But Connelly also was a blow to him.

He's got a special relationship and he better know it's not just a joke.

And he's aware of it.

Clemens came over today and talked to me.

He thinks everything has come along better and he wants to do whatever he can to help.

He talked to Colleen last night at length.

And he would have told me if there was a problem with John.

I think John feels he doesn't want to be hanging around as he told you.

Yeah, and we held that out.

And I don't think it's healthy for him to do so.

I know it isn't.

Right.

Well, a lot of this, I think, does reflect the fact that, you know, the institutions that were built in our league changed.

And that's another one.

And it's going to shape up the apple tree.

But isn't that always the case with a reorganization?

I think it is.

And I'm not sure that there's a bad idea.

There's a bad idea.

That energy thing is a disaster.

It's got to be straightened out.

We've got a man floating around here with a staff working in effect for a deputy secretary and treasurer.

I've never seen it so crazy in my life.

It's in effect what he's doing.

God bless his soul, stepped into it.

Well, I'm glad John wrote me the, uh, he's, uh, wrote because it gives us the, uh, his own views on the thing.

But in my view, Al, I, uh, I just think I'm as fat as any of you, but as Mel, uh, it may be when Mel gets here, we've got to have a little go down and see who does what and so forth.

Well, this press conference wasn't the same.

But I talked to him about it afterwards, in a constructive way, so it wouldn't... Did he talk to you?

No, no.

It was unbelievable.

He had built him climbing the walls.

He had Ash climbing the walls.

And I talked to him in very frank terms about it.

I said, no, we don't need that.

We're trying to build a team, not to struggle with it.

Yeah.

We understand that.

Now, when you're flying, you talk to him.

That's right.

You talk to him in a different way.

Richards has been talked to as toughly as anybody could be talked to.

On Garvey, though, you don't think Garvey is battling too much for price?

See, I don't know where John got that.

I can't be sure of that.

I don't agree with a lot of Len's judgments, but I've never known anyone who worked harder than him.

It disappoints you to be patient with Len.

As you know, he's a great guy.

I think he's personal.

But it's a personal lawyer that he's interested in.

The presidency is such.

Well, hell, that isn't what we want.

No.

Golly, it's his presidency.

The presidency is not any abstract thing.

It's his presidency.

It's always the man.

It can't be anything else.

And I thought Glenn was very volatile.

Come in, come in.

That's a curse today.

That's good.

While they postponed today, 12 o'clock tomorrow, we were supposed to, we were hoping to

We had a terrible time.

That's our problem.

And our problem here.

So, in the last few days, I must have sent about four messages to Q.

Let me say this.

It's not all that cataclysmic, because after all, it has to do only with taking the present agreement and strengthening it in some respects with regard to infiltration laws.

I think we can do quite a job in getting the North Vietnamese to agree to such an agreement.

That probably is the sideline which you would like to rewrite the whole thing to this point.

Which of course the North Vietnamese aren't about to do it, which we can't.

We can't go back and renegotiate the whole logon agreement.

So we're down to a very narrow point.

We'll have a sort of a bilateral communique, indicate what we're doing in the country.

You see, as far as the country is concerned, Vietnam is way at the back of their consciousness.

The POWs are home when the war is over and all that.

whether or not we get a spring in the sea.

But we want to go out there for the future because we'd like to finally get Canada.

One of the crux of the problem is Cambodia.

And the key to Cambodia is not in Cambodia, it's in Peking.

And we can't say that, but we're very, very proud of Peking.

at this point, and that's going to take us about a month.

That's why it's very important that we continue our military activities, our bombing in Cambodia, until we get the deal.

Would you add anything to that summary?

Hey, sir, I talked to Johnny Rope today.

He was just back from the bullet gallery.

Great thought.

And he said that the, I can't believe they're actually doing that now a lot better than they were 90 days, or 60 days ago.

That without the lottery, they probably last about a month.

But with it, they're going through mail.

He doesn't know the political backdrop, but that's just pure monotony.

Yeah, in a sense, we think we can get it settled if we can keep that pressure on for another 30 days.

Well, we can for another 30 days.

Because we've got to the end of the fiscal year.

Well, we've only got 20 days left.

Right?

In that way, we're going to have to stop on July 1st.

We have to stop.

And that's also why this communique is important.

It will give us a backdrop for generating a sense of responsibility on some of these congressional leaders.

and a solution for Laos.

Laos was done.

That happened, well, in good shape.

The infiltration and so forth is in fairly good shape.

And actually, the South Vietnamese are coming along pretty well.

But so we're trying to get by.

At the present time, the danger is

The South Vietnamese continue to hang tough, and it's true by their minor points.

And our people have said, well, we won't sign this because the South Vietnamese are gifted.

And we've got to fuss about it and say, oh, well, that's that.

And get on with the national, which is the Russian.

But we've come down to the wire with the South Vietnamese so many times before.

These are things we never can admit publicly because Congress has ever got the idea that the South Vietnamese were blocking the Paris-Greece agreement.

But they actually want to aid anyone.

And not North Vietnam.

And not even South Vietnam.

What's huge, and that's the point I make to him, is what's involved here is congressional support for contributing to South Vietnam.

If the North Vietnamese are able to make the point that the South Vietnamese are blocking

And that's the truth.

So, you're playing a hard game all day, and all day yesterday.

I just wanted to know if there's some other things you'd like to do.

No, but I ain't there to be there.

I have so little time.

It just happens that you see her.

I just completed your meetings about an hour ago.

And they'll go back in tomorrow at 12 Paris time.

Oh, no.

Is that right?

Or 12 our time.

12 Paris.

12 Paris time, which would be 7 o'clock our time.

I'm going to wrestle with them a little bit more.

We'll hope that that doesn't come.

We have a need of an option, and we're already applying it.

There you go.

We'll go on with other things.

But it is rather difficult to be the only responsible policy in the area of the world.

Before history goes to Paris, the Senate and the House

uh, take away the stick.

I mean, you can't go away from the stick.

So, yeah, they could get it back, or you could cut the legs off of them, and they could wait a minute to get rid of it.

I stopped, stopped bombing Cambodia yesterday.

Watch for the shades on them.

Got to have a little stick there.

So there we go.

But that's not sure where they're going.

I won't worry about it.

I'll take care of it.

We'll handle it.

The main thing is that we've accomplished.

We've made an enormous accomplishment in the last four years.

We've gotten out of it.

We've gotten out of the way.

Whatever happens, it's all good.

I'm supposed to go out and pray.

They're strong.

They are strong.

The reason all of that is important is it has enormous relevance.

very much reduces their respect for us and our duties with them.

A very great relief to this, as far as Moscow is concerned, we got that all worked out.

When I say that all worked out, we have the agreements were ready.

Some are at such a top-tier level that we will not know about them until next week.

Over at Trey and a lot of other areas we will.

When I say they're ready, there are lots of things to talk to the direction of about in terms of what he wants us to do and so on.

But it will be a very successful meeting.

Very successful.

Except for the fact that the one person that will be more successful

We will not have an agreement on SALT to sign, that we will have an agreement on principles to sign.

Because the offensive weapons area is so complicated that they're going to have to go on and hang around with the workout numbers and so forth.

And so the principles will, as far as the people are concerned, will get us off to.

really enormous, uh, enormous and important, uh, reduction of the level of danger in the world.

So, we make progress in some areas.

I'll see what we can do here.

Mr. President, we have written down our understandings of the situation.

If you don't tell us what we have with you, just to be sure we're clear.

President Dover, proceeding on the right basis, and in terms of those three programs, I guess it's our understanding that these are intended to save people.

We have access to where we can actually get there, but at any rate, this has a direction.

I'm sure it's important that you presently want some.

We have that, and I believe that over here, I'll play a speech draft, which does require

They're talking about the rate of price in New York today.

I mean, it has nothing to do with substance, but some directions in the streets that will be back in a day or so, except as far as substance is concerned.

I told him I would put the wage in terms of, not in terms of the free to share, but I put it in general terms of... What did he say?

The situation with wages?

will be only so long as the wage surpluses are responsible.

They are having responsibility.

Now, with the phase three rules of January.

What?

Levels permitted by phase three rules.

Well, that's very permitted by the existing phase three rules.

I see.

The thought is that if, in this week, we find that they have violated the rules which have been in effect, we will force them to cut back.

And that reduced level will then be the level which they're frozen.

The base period seems to be wrong.

Yeah, that's a common fact.

The export license is restricted here.

It is possible.

Well, it may be that our best, strongest position is to call for these notification steps and ask the Congress for a grant authority.

But this is something we'll see.

Well, can I suggest that asking Congress for a different kind of authority is a good idea in any event?

I would prefer to leave it in this thing and ask the Congress for a different one.

and do what you can on the administrative side of putting the country through.

Do you think congressional authorities do their action?

Well, I think even if we felt that by making certain improvements we could develop some kind of a licensing system, it would be possible with different authority to develop a better one that gave more flexibility and allowed you to sub the L480 and some restrictions and so on.

So, conceivably, we can have a little bit of both here.

I wrote down two sentences instead of three.

Three, four, and five.

I say, I am asking for authority to control export of agricultural products under conditions less restrictive than those contained in the Constitutional Declaration.

or we will use the authority of the necessary to hold down exports of issues that raise a lot of domestic prices and fees, to the level that's consistent with the present retail prices if you take another animal product.

But putting it in a positive way, that you will use this authority,

The goal is safe, the goal is to get, that's probably why he's facing down to one of us and says we're going to take a retail price of it.

And we're going to get this property if necessary, but we don't know if we're going to promise it.

It will be necessary and it will be very good.

I don't have to use it.

That's fair.

I don't know, I took that trade with the enemy, but leave that out.

Yeah, well, we were just told by the Justice League that we were not going to do that.

Don't put that in.

What you just said was flat.

I think what you have, I think I even fuzzed up very much there.

The way you said it was much better.

He's got three, four, five.

Also, I heard that they were running, which is the greatest thing to do, is take points three and four of those three controls and weigh them more positively than you just looked at them.

In other words, phase four will require kind of expanded soil expression, and then, in my mind, it's going to be back to me at phase three and two, three, four, five.

The purpose will be that, I don't know if you can say it,

We'll talk about that in a minute.

What do you smile at?

You don't have any gas stations?

I don't.

You've got to have three trunks.

I don't worry about it.

It would be better if I just did that.

I was like, oh, we know how to drive at 50 miles an hour.

That's what he told me.

All right.

You know, it's hard to do it because there are many...

units that sell these commodities and there are lots of pressures that's why we're talking about the ceiling so difficult on the other hand it's something that the public generally cares a lot about so i suppose really

more than most parts of the control program.

But the whole control program is based not on the idea that we really can't police it, but on the idea that people will cooperate with it.

And by people, both the seller and the seller, they will have some sense of being policed by their customers.

Will they be policed?

Well, it seems to me that when we

We are briefing on the subject, and we're asked how you can control gasoline.

Well, that's the nature of the answer we get.

We can't say who we're going to put in the IRS.

The way I write this, I would take the two-point ceilings on gas and food and move that at the top right first.

and then come up with a balance.

In other words, what the people are interested in are those two items and then the balance.

What, uh... You said ceilings, Mr. President.

Do you mean dollars and cents ceilings?

Which, uh...

You know, most people that I've talked to, you know, have a hard time keeping them on during months.

If you want any meat at all, that's got to be more.

But more of you being ceiling to the sets of margins, which we don't present.

We're near those kinds of problems.

The administrative chore of doing that, I think,

is a very, very serious, and on the whole, it's a very important matter to find that.

It's hard to decide.

We will try.

But we will.

Well, it's desirable to be as specific as possible so that there isn't too much apprehension or concern or uncertainty what the future might be.

What if you backed off from something

quite so absolutely ceiling saying rigid controls possibly ceilings will be retained to have just a slight moving room here to work out what specific it is but with the idea of rigid controls possibly ceiling certainly suggesting something that you might like but in terms of uh i see your point you say in other words that uh the uh

If you use the word ceilings and so forth, you're not going to get any.

Well, we have, or I mean me, President Hughes, worked on ceilings on March 28th and 9th.

And on the whole, that has worked very well.

I think the view of our advisors in that area is that perhaps we could, I just had a small letter from Bill Fodder today,

that we can maintain also not too much difficulty through September, as he sees it.

But by that time, we will begin to have a very significant effect of 174.

Unless what?

Unless they're moved or, I suppose you could say, substantially increased, folded upwards or something.

Or what do you say, unless the price indeed drops substantially?

I think he has that in mind, but I agree that it's not just the price of need, it's the price of need and need in relationship to cost.

I do agree.

In a way, the phrase, ceilings will be retained, sounds as if we're going to be gone free forever, and then the subsequent ceilings will be the same as the trees.

They have to be higher, and they have to be greater.

Is the relative structure of those really what it is?

I mean, you've got to put a dollar a cent ceiling on each bottle of blistered your sauce, and let your... Let's come back to... Let's take the one... Let's take the gas...

Well, if we have rigid ceiling, that's the price that can be charged.

There are different prices in all of the countries.

People are more or less hit with their particular price.

I think we undoubtedly have to be following some system where you have a ceiling price and send it, at least for broad areas that can uniform ceiling price rather than have an individual ceiling of some kind.

Why don't you put it in terms of this, that after, so that you've got, so that after the century day freeze,

across the pre-council where we haven't been, will determine, in the case of gas, and in the case of food, will determine.

I think your point, in other words, if you just say you're going to freeze and keep it there, it isn't going to work.

If it can't work, we can't move in.

You can express some degree of rigidity or at least a tighter position on these two matters than on everything else.

And maybe the thing to do is to use those words and express a greater attention to these without being locked into at this stage specifically what that's going to be.

That's why I suggest Richard controls, possibly seeing if he's getting the... say, ready for this.

I would, I think, I would just think that it would be Catherine, who would be much more important, and more...

I think that's fine.

I think you're right.

You're right.

Well, you don't have to say that in a speech.

You don't have to say what you're going to do.

It's difficult.

You've got 60 days during this freeze to work it out.

I don't think it's all...

I think you can walk on both gasoline as well as foodstuffs, but it's not impossible to do.

It's going to be a tedious, difficult thing to do.

It's certainly not impossible.

But I don't think you need to cross that bridge.

I'm sure you can say something like that, but I'm sure that's part of the council.

Well, you can say it, but we have to say it.

I mean, it's part of the council.

So we'll develop regulations which together with the action taken on the price of meat will stabilize the retail price of food.

Stabilize it.

And I think that probably that's not a requirement, but we don't need to say that now.

We don't need to excuse on everything, but you can clutter.

This is the more main thing.

What I have to say, John, is not to put, let me say, having gone through the OPAs you did,

at a very minor level, P3.

I think that was a P5 for a lawyer.

I know that's a little far away from a lawyer.

A lot of money about that, $400 to $100.

But anyway, the point is that you get into the business of trying to control the price

thousand items in the grocery store or supermarket you are dead there ain't no way you've got to have a thousand people for every dog dog thing you're going to control uh so i i see your problem i see that we're critical to put some place in here to modify food to talk about the critical

See, I think if you say it's going to stabilize the price of food, it means it's going to stabilize the average price of food, because it means less.

I mean, less is going to fall to the average price.

Well, sure, strawberries are very, very high at certain times of the year.

Nobody should buy them, but they get to be pretty low, and that means they're viable at other times of the year.

You cannot take, for example, a truck cart and stuff.

There's no way that you're going to see them

No way in the shit.

You don't disagree with that?

No, basically I don't.

I think you're talking about eight or ten critical items of foodstuff.

You're probably talking about all your meats and butter and eggs.

But you don't have to freeze another egg on the counter or anything like that.

I've got all slices and a thousand more things.

Unless they're offenders.

But now, our report should show us which items are the offenders and those you're not taking.

And I've heard Ray Lantico say, I don't think the freeze is going to be.

And we want to have a freeze.

Because we're going to need to follow them.

You can make a report on their dealers.

They can't control the price, but they can at least tell you what they're going to charge you.

So, you know, we're not getting into an area that's totally unpermissible that you control a serial robot, and they sell it to you by accident.

You control, say, do you want to control the food?

You just tell them that you control the food at the price you charge for it.

If you want to, you go far enough to say, the price you sell butter for on June the 1st is the price you sell butter for.

If you don't get any butter, well, he's got a problem with that.

Actually, he may not.

But this is a jerk, isn't it?

This whole problem with food, see, if you don't get butter, your foods are so, okay, we let you raise the price of butter, set it to $0.03.

It's going to be back to $0.08, except as far as substances are concerned, all right?

And I told him I would put the wage down in terms of, not in terms of the free to share, but that is, I put it down in general terms of the... What did he say?

The situation with wages?

It will be almost as long as the wage settlements are responsible.

They are, and have been, responsible for that.

Now we live by phase three rules of January.

What?

Levels permitted by phase three rules.

Well, that's very permitted by the existing phase three rules.

Actually, the thought is that if in this week we find that they have violated the rules which have been in effect, we will force them to cut back.

And that reduced level will then be the level which they're frozen.

The base period seems sort of wrong.

Yeah, that should come back.

The export license of your business gets checked in here.

It is possible.

I see.

Well, it may be that our best, strongest position is to call for these notification steps and ask the Congress for a grant authority.

But this is something we'll see.

Well, can I suggest that asking Congress for a different kind of authority is a good idea in any event?

I would prefer to leave it in this thing.

and ask the Congress to do what you can on the administrative side of putting the country through.

Do you think the congressional authorities would do a better job?

Even if we felt that by making certain rulings, we could develop some kind of a licensing system,

It would be possible with different authorities to develop a better one that gave more flexibility and allowed you to sub the L4A and some restrictions and so on.

So to see what we can do with it out there.

I wrote down two sets of instead of three, three, four, five, six.

I asked the authorities.

I ask for authority to control exports of agricultural products under conditions less restrictive than those contained in the present legislation.

And fourth, we will use the authority, if necessary, to hold down exports of fisheries and bring about domestic prices and fees to levels consistent with the present retail prices we take on our animal products.

So I'm putting it in a positive way that you will use this authority

The goal is safe, the goal is to get, that's probably why he's facing down to one of us and says we're gonna pay $15,000, and we're gonna be good, it's probably unnecessary, but we don't know if we're gonna promise it.

It will be necessary, and it will be very good, I don't have to use it.

That's fair.

I took that treasure at the end of the act, but leave that out.

Yeah, well, we were just told by our justice that we might do that,

Don't put that in.

What you just said was flat.

I think what you have, I think I even fuzzed up very much there.

The way you said it was much better.

It's got three, four, five on it.

Right.

I also heard that they are running, which is the greatest of figures, 8.3 and 4.

Most of the recent troubles with waiting are possibly in the midst of the pandemic.

In other words, Phase 4 will require kind of expansion towards the government and the large industries that have been yet faced with the frequency of 2.3.4.5.

The purpose will be that, I don't know if you can say

We'll talk about that in a minute.

What do you smile at?

You don't have any gas stations?

I don't.

You've got to have three trucks.

I don't worry about it.

It would be better if I just did that.

I was like, oh, you know, it'll drive you 50 miles an hour.

That's what he told me.

You know, it's hard to do it because there are many...

units that sell these commodities.

And there are lots of pressures.

That's why we're talking about the ceiling.

It's so difficult.

On the other hand, it's something that the public generally cares a lot about.

So I suppose, really,

more than most parts of the control program.

And the whole control program is based not on the idea that we really can't police it, but on the idea that people will cooperate with it.

And by people, both the seller and the seller, they will have some sense of being policed by their customers.

Will they be policed?

Well, it seems to me that when we

We are briefing on the subject and we're asked how you're going to control gasoline.

Well, that's the nature of the answer we get.

We can't say who we're going to put in the IRS.

The way I would write this, I would direct Ray to write this.

I would take the two-point ceilings on gas and food and move that up top right first.

will be maintaining and so on.

And then come up with a balance.

In other words, what the people are interested in are those two items, and then the balance.

What, uh...

I think you said ceiling, Mr. President, if you don't mean, uh, dollars and cents ceiling, which, uh...

You know, most people that I've talked to, you know, have a hard time keeping them on another three months.

If you want any meat at all, that's got to be more.

But more of you mean ceiling to the sets of Martin, which we don't present if we're near those kinds of problems.

is a very, very serious, and on the whole, it's a very important matter.

We've never tried that.

It's hard to decide.

We want to try, but I think it's hard to do.

We know that it's desirable to be as specific as possible so that there isn't too much apprehension or dis-concern or uncertainty about the future.

It might be.

What if you backed off from something

I see your point.

You say, in other words, that, uh, down at the, uh,

you can use the word ceilings and so forth, you're not going to get any.

Well, we have, or I mean me, President, you work on ceilings on March 28th and 9th, and on the whole that has worked very well.

I think the view of our advisors in that area is that perhaps we could, I just had a long letter to Bill Farr today, I don't know whether it said anything before,

that we can maintain also not too much difficulty through September, as he sees it.

But by that time, we will begin to have a very significant effect on 74.

Unless what?

Unless they're moved or, I suppose you could say, substantially increased, folded upwards or something.

Or what do you say, unless the price indeed drops substantially?

I think he has that in mind, but I agree that it's not just the price of need, it's the price of need and need in relationship to cost.

I do agree with that.

In a way, the phrase, ceilings will be retained, sounds as if we're going to be gone free forever, and then the subsequent ceilings will be the same as the trees.

They have to be higher, and they have to be greater.

Is the relative structure of those really what it is?

I mean, you've got to put a dollar a cent ceiling on each bottle of blistered your sauce, and let your... Let's come back to... Let's take the one... Let's take the gas...

Well, if we have rigid ceiling, that's the price that can be charged.

There are different prices in all of the countries.

People are more or less hit with their particular price.

I think that will have to be followed some system where you have a ceiling price and send it, at least for broad areas, it's a uniform ceiling price rather than have an individual ceiling of some kind.

Why don't you put it in terms of this, that after, so that you've got, so that after the century day freeze,

across the pre-council where we haven't been, will determine, in the case of gas, and in the case of food, will determine.

I think your point, in other words, if you just say you're going to freeze and keep it there,

If it can't work, we can't move in.

You can express some degree of rigidity or at least a tighter position on these two matters than on everything else.

And maybe the thing to do is to use those words and express a greater attention to these without being locked into at this stage specifically what that's going to be.

That's why I suggest Richard controls, possibly seeing if he's getting the... say, ready for this.

I would, I think I would just take it to be Catherine, who I think would be much more important, and more...

I think that's fine.

I think you're right.

Well, you don't have to say that in a speech.

You don't have to say what you're going to do specifically.

You've got 60 days during this freeze to work it out.

I don't think it's all over.

I think you can walk on both gasoline as well as foodstuffs, but it's not impossible to do.

It's going to be a tedious, difficult thing to do.

It's certainly not impossible.

But I don't think you need to cross that bridge.

food, maybe you could say something like that, food, but I think that, but my food, that is the, that's what I would counsel.

What you could say is the same as what we have said, I mean, I mean, it's also, it's also like counsel, we all, we all, we all have regulations which together, they actually take on the price of meat, we all, uh, stabilize the price of, retail price of food, and stabilize it.

And I think that the, right?

I think that probably that's not a requirement, but we don't need to say that.

We don't need to, because he's done everything with you.

Butter, you know, this is the more main thing.

But I have to say, John, I did not put, let me say, having gone through the OPAs, you did, at the very minor levels, P3, I think that was a P5, but that's a little far behind the lawyer.

A lot of money, about $4,200, but anyway.

But you get into the business of trying to control the price of a thousand items in a grocery store or a supermarket.

You are dead.

There ain't no way.

You've got to have a thousand people for every dog-dog thing you're going to control.

So I see your problem there.

I see the problem.

But we're critical to put some place in here to modify food to talk about the critical events.

See, I think if you say the state-wide price of food means the state-wide fee.

The average price of food doesn't mean less.

I mean, less is not an option.

Well, sure, strawberries are very, very high at certain times of the year.

Nobody should buy them, but they get to be pretty low when they're at work or buyable at other times of the year.

You cannot take, for example, a truck cart and stuff.

There's no way that you're going to have a ceiling on that.

No way in the shit.

You don't disagree with that?

No, basically I don't.

I think you're talking about eight or ten critical items of foodstuff.

You're probably talking about all your meats and butter and eggs.

But you don't have to freeze another egg on the counter.

I've got all slices and a thousand more things.

Unless they're offenders.

But now, our reports should show us which items are the offenders.

And those should not be taken.

I've heard Ray Lantico say, I don't think the freeze is going to be.

And we want to have a freeze.

Because we're going to need to follow them.

You can make a report on their dealers.

They can't control the price, but they can at least tell you what they're using to charge you.

We're controlling, how many companies now?

500?

Jim?

Yes.

We're controlling 3,000 companies now.

Everything they sell.

So, you know, we're not getting into an area.

It's totally unpredictable that you control a cereal road.

Look, they sell it to you by action.

You control, say, do you want to control the food?

You just tell them that you control the food at the price you charge for it.

If you want to, you go far enough to say, the price you sell butter for on June the 1st is the price you sell butter for.

If you don't get any butter, well, he's got a problem with that.

Actually, he may not.

But this is a jerk, isn't it?

But if you don't get butter, your foods are said, okay, we'll let you raise the price of butter to 73 cents.

If I didn't get it to raise it to 74 cents, I don't think you, we have to approach it from the standpoint that you're making a decision today.

It's going to be, it'll last to infinity.

I just think you have to be prepared to adjust it and readjust it and to get out of it as soon as you can.

Because that's basically what you want to do.

But at the same time,

You put a freeze on here, and all these folks go out and try to say to the press, what does that mean?

What are you going to do after the freeze?

And you can't get the Mexican on it.

She said, I don't know.

She's got to say it.

Well, I really want to go farther in this agriculture thing.

We need to get rid of those tariffs, of course.

When you say butter, there's the Secretary of Agriculture sitting there with all that butter.

that she can't sell because we've got the 75% ticker in the court.

But that will be in PR.

Oh, it will be.

It will be reversed by the, uh, who said it's not controlled.

It's not controlled by the, uh, controller of the Congress.

Yeah, that's right.

And that whole part of going through is just so tight now.

I know.

But that's for next year.

That's about $8,000.

That's $75,000.

Well, in terms of the draft speech, Mr. President, the only comment I wanted to make myself, other than the points you've just made about ceiling on retail food and gas dashboards, which I'm satisfied with myself, is that I would hope that the speech could have a much firmer, sharper focus upon the farmer discussion, because

In a sense, there are really only two things that I think are economically sensible about food.

One is this restraint on foreign exports as a standard to try to do something to keep food going abroad.

The other is to get us a better legislative base for the future of agricultural policy in the country, which is, I'm sure,

given the rest of this decision.

Those two decisions are the current indications now on top of everything else you've done.

But what can be done about it?

Fair question.

How do you deal with that?

Well, I think you're right in approaching the point where you ought to try to get rid of it.

Obviously, the dairy producers are going to say to you, OK, you take out dairy support, and you'll wait in the middle.

And what only thing you're going to do is take those farm support prices down and what you're looking at and what you have, what the country has to then be prepared for as far as the formation of co-ops or associations of one kind or another on meats and on vegetables, on various farm produce.

You pass the day when the individual farmer is going to take his chances at the marketplace when he knows he's in an unequal contest.

So the milk producers have shown the way that if you want to be prepared for the farmers to, in fact, unionize, then that's fine.

I think that's what's going to come.

Because they're going to see some self-protection.

They're not going to be subjected to the General Motors on one hand, and the FFOC on the other.

It's not going to cut it.

That will come in six months.

I mean, I haven't in two years, but it's coming.

But that would mean that you ought to change the legislation.

In other words, we should write the bulletin on our legislation now.

Well, I don't think you have to do that.

I mean, we want to get rid of the trolls.

But I will do it in the time we want to get rid of the trolls now.

When you take the trolls off, you might want to do it.

You might want to get rid of the Interest Equalization Act.

You might want to get rid of a lot of things.

But we have a Senate bill that's going rapidly backward in opposition to the administration's position.

We understand that this is going to come out of the House committee.

It's very much like the Senate bill this week.

So this is about our right to change.

Well, I would certainly make my opposition clear that that's it, but I should not be doing it.

If you feel that strongly about it.

In fact, I think it's a good time to make reference right in here, though, let alone the bill coming down here of a position of the governor of Fresno.

Still contrary to the great policy of food that is implicit in this program.

Yeah, but we had the leaders in the other day, Jeffrey.

As you might expect, we haven't gotten 100%.

This is a great farm, Bill.

Henry Bellman.

best we can get.

Well, I mean, in fact, one of the things we need to do is just not telegraph too much and talk about, as Herb said, stabilizing food prices and both gas and food prices after the freeze period.

Well, but we've come down to the stabilizing.

Like John said, we've come down to the freezes.

And that's where our boys are going to have to step up to this talk, aren't they, George?

heard that John are going to have to adventure some of them.

And you'd be .

You said this is the matter we'll be announcing.

Sure.

Well, I assume your basic position is to try to stop food inflation.

Exactly.

You start with that.

And that doesn't mean that we have to control the portion to stabilize it.

It's a key part of the reason.

It doesn't mean you have to control every single item that's smuggled across from the shelf.

But it does mean that we're going to be prepared to move

against those items, to stabilize those items, is causing this enormous increase in the cost of food for the housewife in this country.

That's all I can say.

In order to do that, we're going to attack on not just the... We're going to attack on three fronts.

The first is the least important, although the most popular and the most understood.

in terms of the production.

The third front is on the supply level in terms of what happens to the production, how much of it goes abroad.

And so we're going to hit it on those three fronts.

And so we must recognize that just putting the ceiling on it will not do the job.

And so we're going to get it that we think that the time has come in this country to make a fundamental attack

on the basic causes for escalating food prices.

Those basic causes include farm legislation that is obsolete and some that is pending that will force those prices up.

It also includes foreign exports that have the effect of

So increasing the overall demand.

And so we're going to attack on those three points.

I think we should say, Steve, there's one other item on the food side, and that is the bread tax.

I don't know if we've discussed this here.

John?

This is about the legislation here, the 7,500 bushels of tax in the middle of the day on wheat, which goes into the price of bread.

And the new legislation would remove that.

And we have taken our demonstration position.

We've been opposed to it on the ground that we need the money, the $400 million.

Well, we can take over a four-year period.

I think the legislation does propose it be over a four-year period, doesn't it?

Well, at the moment, our position as a representative of the Department of Agriculture out there is opposed to it.

Yeah, it has been, but it's symbolically good, even though red symbolizes the right thing.

I hope the $400 million doesn't have to come out of one year only.

But my understanding is that whatever's coming through does have a

the scaling down of that program over a period of time, so we get the benefit of announcing it, but don't have to immediately pick up all that money on the cost.

I think that's the way it's going, so we can claim it.

But that's what I think we're all saying here.

I think that's the way it's going.

This is a change in our relationship.

We have under other circumstances.

Well, I think we better tackle that.

Do you want to tackle that?

Oh, sure.

I think we have to .

I'm not according to these full-employment budget people.

Look, the problem is not the budget at the moment.

We are much deeper.

And by the way, the bread tax, I think we'd better get at it.

Bread is a tax law.

It's tentative to at least appear as tax law.

One-tenth of us have low bread or something.

But it's not so good to get into bread, even though they'll never see the difference in prices.

It's a small amount of bread over here.

It's much more than this.

Just when we had the approach along here,

trying to do all kinds of things that will help, no one of which is, uh, has done from, so I used to say, on the front wall.

But, uh, this is a, this is a fun signal.

But if this weren't here, I think that number or something like that wouldn't be worth it.

But red is so central when you take it off.

You get more credit for saying it than the dollars because it's credit.

What are the taxes?

How much is a bushel?

75 cents a bushel.

That's a substantial portion of the value of a bushel.

The value of wheat is not as much as the value of rapeseed.

I understand that.

So you can't hear it.

You can't hear it.

This is what all of us agree on.

It's cost.

You can't tell the difference in price.

But you're talking about cost.

It's essential.

They won't see the money, but they'll hear the sound.

That's right.

I think it scales it down over time.

So we get the credit of announcing it, and then we'll have to pick up the whole work immediately.

And then we'll see at the price of credit.

We'll see before anybody, but we will get our credit for announcing it.

When we tackle that availability, there's one provision here that's very important.

Let me make sure it's scaled out.

I think it is.

Go ahead.

I'll get you a picture.

Well, should we go ahead and call for a deal?

Yes.

On the farm legislation that's coming down, John, you wouldn't whack that again, would you?

I'm going to hear it.

Mr. President, I don't think I'm confused with farm legislation, with what you're doing here.

I think you're mixing apples and oranges very frankly.

Here you talk about you want to get as much support for this program as you can throughout the country.

And you're freezing prices.

going to move into state-wide food prices and gasoline prices.

Now, during the next 60 days, if you want to come out and analyze it, I think it'd much better be through this discussion.

I'm not familiar enough with all the intricacies of this farm legislation at all, but during the 60-day bridge period, if you want to then decide to go against the farm legislation, that's fine.

you have a basic environment in which you can now do it, perhaps with higher good prices.

And this is, so you ought not to let this happen.

The problem is, the problem with watching the foreign legislation raises, uh, frontally, frontally, and this is that in terms of congressional support for this program, you lose about 45 to 50 percent.

I mean by that, that they're not that many that represent farm districts, but that that many that are affected by that.

And they're very powerful people.

The McClellan's, the Young's, the Stoose's, the Mahon's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's, the Hogan's,

I think we have to buy it.

The question is time.

I think it's important in terms of our psychology

You've got to make it a long-term goal.

The long-term goal must be to tackle the farm legislation, for example.

Tackle that dairy thing.

That's got to be done, John.

We all have friends on the dairy farm.

It has to be done.

We'll see.

But on the other hand, the question of how much you tackle at this point in this speech, you could say, well, this is the time to do it.

But we'll have enough answers, and this is what it is.

We've got to have a few that are for it.

We don't have the 60 days because the bill will be down here for a position.

Oh, I'm fairly certain.

The farm bills, each department.

Well, I'm going to veto it.

Well, then you are taking a position, at that time, on the very same subject, so... Yeah, but, boy, that's entirely different from what the first half of my first talk I had with you, you compromised it.

Oh, that's right.

Oh, I'm talking, I'm talking not simply about, not simply about vetoing the bill, but I'm talking about the act of evasion of farm legislation, which we have never done.

and know what restoration was done rather than fiddle-faddling around with the darkening and that is something that we've got to do.

I think the time has come and it's time for you to take a crack at the harm on destruction.

All across the board and it's something we've got to get much to work on and all the rest and it's going to be, I think we're going to see what is happening.

John says that we removed the dairy price, unfortunately, but growing butter and making the soil.

We've got to see what the problem is.

Maybe they won't.

I don't think they will.

But you see, we have two different problems.

I think the way I would refer to the law and legislation here is that in the list of things for the Congress to do and not to do, I would list that the Congress should not pass such a

And if it does, I shall leave to them.

I ask for your support if I leave to them.

That's what I would say.

That's what I want to say.

And in the meantime, the time has come for a complete re-evaluation of our farm legislation.

And we will be making that re-evaluation in terms of the fact that we now, that the farm legislation of 40 years ago, that we've been living with for 40 years, was developed to deal with a problem.

Now we have a problem with shortages, and it is no longer relevant.

And it is time that our farm legislation be reinvented in terms of the present and the times in which we presently live.

I'd like to sort of put it in that context.

So give a little shout out to Russ.

He gives us a chance to look at it.

like, but give a good signal that we, as far as the legislation is going to come down here, it's going to get a crack.

Because if it's bad, as you all say, I'll be told.

I don't know if it will be sustained, but I'll wait for it.

It may be sustained, you never know.

They tell me it could be in the House, due to the fact that John and I were talking about the leader meeting the other day, and they say that both in their voice don't have the control they've got over there.

The city boys were getting more and more.

I mean, the radical Democrats, they traded out with the voting groups.

The Democrats traded with the other day in support of minimum wage or in support of the big cities on the farm.

But that still doesn't mean that you can't sustain the people.

I think you probably can't.

I'd like to respond to...

There are two different strategies on veto, about the big spectrum bills and things like this.

One strategy is don't veto anything if you think that the Congress may override because it will indicate a lack of congressional support from the president at this time.

The other is veto if you think it's right, particularly the spending rate.

And if the Congress overrides, they override.

We have the issue.

And let me say that I come out very hard in the second option.

If I think that there's, I already mentioned that 69 tax fellowship vetoed.

And being overridden, if necessary.

We get overridden and it's no great tragedy.

I mean, sure, it must take off.

The president loses battle.

And when you win a battle, you know how important it is.

When you lose one, how important

I have certainly been on the veto as far as spending spending the leaders who stand for their seats in the office or spending them by all those principles that we believe in there will be vetoes and folks at VET who have tried not to give them a grin how old we are then 10 months from there and all of them will argue for signing unless and for those leaders who need to sign they don't like to they don't like to they don't like to vote

You know, the Republicans predicted to overwrite the President's veto.

That's not the right thing to do.

That's not the right thing to do, is it, Trev?

That's exactly right.

And just take the overriding sugar.

What would you say to the leaders of Ford, of Scott, when they said, gee, Mr. President, don't throw vetoes on the first resort like that.

We don't want to overwrite you.

What do you say to them?

Well, Hutch, you said you had a little responsibility.

I did not.

I didn't go wrong.

You did.

And I didn't.

You ought to support me if you possibly can.

If you just as a matter of conscience can't do it, well, then you ought to.

You can vote it over right now.

But the fact that you're going to vote it over right now doesn't mean I'm not going to change my mind.

I didn't go wrong.

I didn't actually protest it.

But, Hutch, I think you should have voted in the first place and said you didn't.

I don't think you should have.

I'm not asking you to do something to violate your conscience.

But if it doesn't violate your conscience, I'm going to ask you to support me.

Right.

Now, we won't pass that.

We don't want an individual basis to understand it, because, as I told you, my parents were ill, so I've got a special bond.

But we think we have it somewhat contained.

But the idea that we have to get a bill that I can sign, we will make comments, of course, but the idea that

Education bill comes down here, $700 million over, and we say, well, that's not as bad as it would be if we could just do that out.

That's the same with the farm bills.

It'll cut a lot of people both ways.

It's got to be pretty much a pretty simple standard.

You see, we have a...

We have to have some position of standing up against the irresponsibility of the Congress, which on the one hand, you know, say, freeze everything on the other hand, pass foreign legislation to push it out, and minimum wage legislation to push it out.

Minimum wage is not going to do anything.

It's not good.

I think a high minimum was expended, covered, and could have covered domestic workers.

What would be your advice to the person?

Well, I think that if you don't detail it, you have a lot of disappointed people.

I believe you have it.

Thank you.

And then he hears, they believe, they have plenty of votes to stand with each other.

Good.

And they believe that if that is done, then a reasonable minimum wage bill can be done.

That's what we'll do.

That's what we're prepared to do.

Well, I had a question.

I'll come back to this one.

I had a question.

I asked you what the

It all falls onto John, who wouldn't even produce these things.

These foods you can call them.

Baseboard, whatever you call them.

I've pulled out those two things, foods.

I've talked about stabilized foods, stabilized gas from Russia.

I've mentioned the products I'm using.

How about the ones that are stabilized?

Stabilized, it's the ceiling of the college.

You might want to put a month's fee on it, but if you're trying to make that decision, I was going to say today, let's take a look.

I've got it, too.

Sure.

Or a third key item.

A third key item.

But it's stealing on all of the prices.

No way.

You don't need to do it.

Let's take a look.

That's a good word.

I wish you a big load of pennies.

It's just something that is self-sufficient.

First, let me say that the act which I told Price, the 21 of your policies was closed for the most part.

I wanted to dissent on it myself.

It was not really planned.

It was strongly made.

I made it with the management people, and I made it again.

The purpose of this is not to get into the state, and it's not to make controls permanent, but the purpose of this is to deal with the problem which is temporary.

And the solution is one will be .

On point two, is that a clause that you wanted to put in?

The way you wanted to have fun, too, was about looking at the post-breach controls.

But this is what I said last time.

I think, Mr. President, that we just wanted to go over with you.

If you're sure we were on the same wavelength, we weren't looking for these to be in a preaching paper or in a speech.

We were just together and raised, to some extent, working from the stack of information.

You know, there's an old story, you know, about the...

I grew up in a farm and I grew up on a ranch.

And I just wanted a job training several thousand acres.

And my old man had eight acres of lemons in there.

It's the worst tan growth in Southern California.

I went to work at an oil field.

And I got a grocery store.

But that's where I went.

And I remember those days.

You said, here, Dave.

I used to pick lemons.

That was the job.

But I remember the story all farmers heard about.

A man had just beaten the hell out of a donkey.

A great big brick stick.

A nice little old lady, a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty.

She was a Quaker lady, a nice girl.

I said, why doesn't he talk to that beast rather than beat him?

turn to her and says, man, I'm just trying to get his attention.

What we're trying to do here, and I know how strongly you feel, and I appreciate it, and I sympathize with it, and I know what you're trying to do here, is to get the attention of the country focused on this problem, and also focused on what we're really doing in phase three.

We're doing well.

I want this program that follows on to be as close to phase three as possible, except in the ability to gas something where we're going to be on it.

I want it to be as close to it.

I think phase three is done quite well.

I think we've done a lot more than the country realizes.

I talked to Ray also, and it's my intention to follow this up, not only with appearances around eating various foods and so forth,

But looking at it in terms of a campaign, and it's being summertime support and so on, this is not the best time for public appearances.

Not the first public appearances.

This will go Thursday.

I'm going to make seven radio talks on Saturday, which will hit all day Saturday and hit all Sunday papers.

And they will hit various items of the whole economic thing.

The purpose will be

not to educate the great majority of people, but to reach those that matter.

And they are which they do read papers and the rest.

And that will also provide, first and foremost, it will provide media for the excerpts that I need for public appearances I make.

But we are going to just slap it out.

I'm going to slap it out for the whole period of 60 days.

And that's going to be one contribution in order

in addition to a number of public appearances.

The second thing is that we must mobilize an entire cabinet, and everybody else is willing to be activated at this point, to go out and sell what we have done.

And so what we're going to do, to talk about the fact that we're moving toward more freedom and less in the final analysis, that this is a temporary thing, but that we're dealing with a problem.

I know this sounds like small talk to the rest, but what we have to do is to, frankly, what we've got to do is start at this point to get the attention of the country and to get the people of the country to realize that we are aware of the problem.

We're trying to deal with the problem.

Having done that, then we have got to use the 60 days for purposes of developing the

Most programs reconfirm the delivery of the lease permit.

Second, we've got to use the 60-day for the purpose of getting the Congress to act, if it will, on all the items that we have down there.

And that's going to be in the speeches of this 60-day period, is the time the Congress can act.

tear themselves away from their television sets and to act in the interest of the country on this, this, this, and that other item.

Holding the line on spending, passing our trade bill, repealing the tariff, etc.

We put that at an end.

If the Congress does not act, or during this period, it's my intention to, of my heart, to

I hope the system will help you to take the progress of tasks that are not happening.

As I see it, it's a campaign that we're entering into here.

We're starting a splash that's going to improve.

On the other hand, which I have become convinced is the least we can do to get the attention

having inquired the attention, establishing some degree of confidence that we are going to, that not only are going to, but have been deeply concerned about this problem, are going to move on, and we are going to move on.

But I think we've got to tackle that discussion.

I've thought of it for a long time.

So that's getting me to the right end of the text.

We won't get it this year.

But we may lay the foundation for getting it later.

And it could be a bloody battle.

But we'll see what we can do.

Take the men away, you see.

On that, that's only a temporary problem.

That bill will be vetoed.

And they'll have to come back with another one.

It's got to be a battle.

Because if we just sit here and let our Congress return,

What's going to happen is they are due.

This is exactly what will come out of that Congress, despite what George and he said.

They'll give us a 90-day freeze of everything, and then follow on with a strict phase two, which is what Mansfield said.

And at the same time, they'll pass a farm bill that'll force prices up.

They'll pass a minimum wage bill that'll force prices up.

And they'll say, no, do something about it.

And we can't let this happen.

And also, they'll exceed the budget in place as far as crisis is concerned.

In other words, we have the need for executive leadership here.

And we'll see.

We've got to find out if Congress doesn't come along.

And I'm not sure they will.

What's your judgment on that approach?

I think that's the only approach you have.

How do you think the Congress will react?

Good.

You don't strike any position in the Congress.

They won't.

You're obviously not going to win them all over, but... What about the farm bill, for example?

Oh, you won't get it, you're right.

What should we... What should we do about the farm bill?

Let's face it.

How do we start fighting that?

Maybe we don't fight it.

You have to bite parts.

In other words, you've got... Let me give you an example.

You've got the peanut lobby.

Now, the peanut lobby affects virtually every southern suburb we've got, right?

It's an unbelievably bad program.

But it's there.

It isn't the mage who caused all our problems.

It's part of it.

On the other hand, you've got some other items that you could bite.

I think what you have to do is to set a long-term goal here.

Then, to get, to get, to start, start getting a farm, a little farm.

See, Butz is arguing all the time, he's like, these guys are our friends, we've got neighbors and so forth.

True.

But on the other hand, the farm legislation is no longer, no longer speaks to our time.

Listen,

What should we do about the farm?

Let's face it.

How do we start biting that?

Maybe we don't bite all of the whole thing.

Maybe you have to bite parts.

In other words, you've got, let me give you an example.

You've got the peanut lobby.

Now, the peanut lobby affects virtually every southern suburb we've got, right?

It's an unbelievably bad program.

But it's .

It isn't the .

On the other hand, you've got some other items that you could find.

I think what you have to do is to set a long-term goal here.

Then, to get, to get, to start, start getting in the farm, the whole farm.

See, Butz is arguing all the time, look, these guys are our friends, we've got neighbors and so forth.

True.

But on the other hand, the farm legislation is no longer, no longer speaks to our time.

Well, I appreciate your going through all this with us.

I think we're on the right thing.

Absolutely.

So I don't know how many kids we lost.

You have to.

You know, there's a lot of economic arguments, and I can't make as many for it as these policies make against it, but we've gone over that road time and again, and there's just no doubt about it.

You have to do something.

I don't know what else you can do.

You have to do it in the areas that we're talking about.

You have to do it in the food stuff, primary.

And I just don't know any other way to get to it.

Just do it, and we'll help make it right.

Sure.

I think we actually have 30, 30 extra all across the board.

Well, if you and Nellie listen and call me after we see Marlboro, I'll do it.

You always call me after I see you.

So, thank you for seeing that.

I'll be happy to have you for the weekend.

I really need to go, but if I can do anything else.

You know exactly why I think these folks are totally gone sometimes.

Well, it's now.

In fact, they're getting a break and so forth and so on.

And I'm not going to do that.

And I hope not to be here.

And I've talked very strictly about how you think you've got to share me with you and how you do your shit.

But I don't want to be here.

I have no place there.

And it's better that I'm not there.

You can have a little problem in casting this thing out in papers.

There's been an awful lot of information leaks out in the newspapers, and I frankly don't think, well, they had the impression that all of us agreed that there's one story that's out on that, that George and I agreed that we could go, and we can't do anything with it.

Well, I appreciate your going through all this with us.

I think we're about right then.

Absolutely.

So I don't mind the wrong, I don't mind the wrong choice.

In fact, you have to.

You know, there's a lot of economic arguments, and I can't make as many for it as these policies make against it, but we've gone over that road time and again, and there's just no doubt about it.

You have to do something.

I don't know what else you can do.

You have to do it in the areas that we're talking about.

You have to do it in the food stuff, primary.

And I just don't know any other way to get to it.

Just do it and we'll help make it right.

Sure.

I think we actually have 30 packs for all of us.

Well, if you and Nellie listen and call me after we see Marlboro, I'll do it.

You always call me after I see Marlboro.

I really need to go, but if I can do anything else, you know exactly why I think these folks are totally gone sometimes.

Well, it's now, so forth and so on, and I'm not going to do that, and I hope not to be here, and I've talked very strictly about how you've played, you've got to carry me, and how you do your shit, so I don't want to be here.

I have no place there.

And it's better that I'm not there.

You can have a little problem in casting this thing out of your papers that the public stand upon.

But all of us came to you with the lesser programs that you wanted.

You demanded more options.

You got more options.

And you were for a stronger program than any of us.

And I think that's probably the way to leave it.

I think that keeps from having the prey on everybody.

You don't think that you can get them.

I don't know that I could create anything except another body, but I'll be good at it tomorrow morning.

I really don't want to talk about it.

I think maybe I'm uneasy about the role, but I think I've done all I can do.

I feel uneasy about trying to be in any group, such as the cabinet or before the leadership, everybody else explaining it.

I think that puts me in a rather ambiguous role, but you have the responsibility just to do that.

I may be wrong, but I think practically my actions is more desirable than my personal

I feel pretty strong that I ought not to.

I think that puts me.

I think you've got a particular thought on that.

Oh, sure.

Sure, I can have that.

There's no reason I can't do that.

But I'm in a position where I'll really be just an advisor.

But I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the captain meetings, the formal meetings here.

This is a responsibility of George's to her.

I don't know what the rules are.

No, sir.

No, but...

I'm a fifth wheel in this, and there's been a lot of information leaks out in the newspapers, and I frankly don't think, well, they didn't pressure it.

All of us agreed that there's one story that's out on that, that George and I agreed that we could go and we can't deal with it.

Less of the program than you wanted it to be.

You want to retire the program, and I don't pressure it.

I just thought my media, my, my, my, we haven't discussed it ourselves, but that's the way I feel about it.

That's probably the cost you would leave it.

I'll talk to you later.

I'll talk to you tomorrow.

I'll see you Monday.

I don't know that I could create anything except another body, but I'll be good at it tomorrow morning.

I really don't want to talk about it.

I think maybe I'm uneasy about the role that I'm in.

I think I've done all I can do.

I feel uneasy about trying to be in any group, such as the cabinet or before the leadership or everybody else, explaining anything.

I just don't think that puts me in a rather good department.

Now, I've come back four months.

If you need me, I'm ready to come back.

I would like to be gone until then, but I'm not going to do that.

We have had an ironic debate about whether or not we should put an administration decision out.

We have a farm bill.

And so far, we haven't done that.

So that is one strategic point.

The other, as I understand it, if there is no farm bill, that is, if they pass one that you veto and veto the bill,

Then we revert to prior legislation, which is, in some respects, worse than what they might pass.

And people's role and responsibility is to do that.

Now, I may be wrong, but I think if I take my actions, it's more desirable in my presence.

Well, I'm not here to will talk.

But I'm here to make money.

So you're talking about that.

I feel pretty strong that I ought not to.

I think that puts me, I think you've got enough opportunity to follow up on that.

Oh, sure.

Sure, I can do that.

There's no reason I can't do that.

But I'm in a position where I ought to really be just an advisor.

But I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the cabinet meetings, the formal meetings here.

This is a responsibility of George's to her.

I'm a fifth wheel in this operation.

We haven't discussed our snubs, but that's the way I feel about it.

Well, I'll talk to you.

We'll talk to you later.

Talk to you tomorrow.

I'll see you tomorrow.

All right.

And I'll come back for one of these.

I would like to be gone until then.

Thank you.

We've had a running debate about whether or not we should put an administration decision out.

We haven't far come a bill.

So far, we haven't done that.

It's worse in some respects.

That is for particular crops, especially cotton, where it's terrible.

On the other hand, it's better in respect to many.

And in some ways, in terms of progress, so that is one strategic point.

The other, as I understand it, if there is no farm bill, that is, if they pass one that you veto, and they veto the bill, then we revert to prior legislation, which is, in some respects, worse than what they might pass.

It is worse in some respects.

That is for particular crops, especially cotton, where I gather it's terrible.

On the other hand, it's better with respect to many.

And in some ways, in terms of progress towards something better, probably the old legislation is better than what seems to be emerging now.

And furthermore, if something new comes in now, the probabilities are possible.

Then supplying that with a new and different concept next year is really as good as going for the whole West Buckeye question.

Well, Gus has the traditional Secretary of Agriculture position, but he doesn't want to put up a bill.

He wants to work with the committees.

Hardcore's around.

I remember we came up with this.

In fact, I remember sitting right in this room, and you were calling Elder.

I remember he was so mad about that bill because of this cotton point.

And debating whether or not it would be better to just go back to the old bill.

And I think we're coming right around in that same circle again.

But since none wanted to put up an administration bill, it may be too late to do it now.

It's too late for bugs to get built up through this time, with the ineptitude.

But let me say that I think, that I want, I want within our whole domestic crowd and herd, we need to work on this with the, we can't get all the life of the council to work on it.

He knows a lot about it.

He comes from a dairy district.

I think they've got to sit down with Boston.

They've got to start doing some kind of work.

And furthermore, if something new comes in now, the probability of a possibility of supplying that with a new and different concept next year is not really as good as going for the full West Buckley election.

Well, Buss has the traditional Secretary of Agriculture position, but he doesn't want to put up a bill.

He wants to work with the committees.

Hard work's around.

If it's the consensus of my Secretary of Agriculture not to leave this room, if it has to be vetoed, it will be vetoed.

If there's any question about that, I have no doubt.

It's like I'm on a wage.

I'm on a wage.

I remember we came up with this.

In fact, I remember sitting right in this room, and your colleague, Elder, I remember he was so mad about that bill because of this concoction point.

and debating whether or not it would be better to just go back to the old bill, but I think we're coming right around in that same circle again.

But Bucks has not wanted to put out an administration bill.

It may be too late to do it now, but it's our problem.

We have a voice as a standard for people around the world.

It's too late for Bucks to get a bill out there this time with the inactive gesture.

But let me say that I think that I want

I walked within our whole domestic crowd and heard Peter working on this with the, he can't get older, but the life of the councilor working on it.

I got to get Mellon on this, an awesome trade expert on the farm.

He knows a lot about it.

He comes from the dairy district.

You're used to it.

You put in your input for potential work time, which I love.

And I think they've got to sit down and focus and we've got to start doing some kind of hard thinking about the part of the administration where we want to sit.

As far as this, the first thing I'm going to do is rent out the property.

I'll be a signer.

I'm not going to sign it.

It's bad.

I mean, I think it's exactly what I agreed.

If you think you'd be better off with the permanent legislation than with the bill.

Do you think you have a job?

Yes, I guess.

A job has to have a living council.

the Food Advisory Committee, which has on representation of all parts of the industry.

They are against this bill, and they've written statements saying so, and we thought we might want to get it out.

So it's very good.

That's their view.

Very good.

Get it out.

That would be good.

It would be good to follow up on this.

Can I ask you to just be sure that you know where we are?

You want to give us a consensus of Secretary Becker, don't you?

Not the leaders of this group.

It has to be vetoed.

It will be vetoed.

There's no standout job.

You have to keep this as close to the base of the region as you can.

and without its appearance, without it being so, without it being so weak.

Question about that, I have no doubt.

It's like minimum wage, I know.

Right now the problem, I'm not going to sign it, it's bad.

I think it's the second way back, across the street.

And he thinks he'd be better off with the permanent legislation than with this bill.

Do you think he knows?

Yes, he does.

But he hasn't had it.

That phase three is not going to happen.

For the first time in people in the war, the phase three was pretty strong.

You think so?

Well, I think we have, in effect, to take it with the gas and move in there.

See, you're strengthening it through gas and food.

But let me ask you these questions.

I wonder if you should double the number of companies that are going to come.

Well, I just think that the pre-notification that is a advisory committee which has on representation of all parts of the industry, they are against this bill and they put the same rather important because there is a chance for two things.

One, it puts a further lag into the industrial price situation which is one of our problems.

to a greater degree, I think, to companies over $110,000 in sales, though they're not small companies, though they're $100 million.

And I think it is manageable.

Very much more than that, I think, is rather unadvisable.

So I would have said, as a matter of fact, my notion is that we should now make clear

I mean, it should be in speech.

Three things that we would do.

One, we would change the base date to January 10th in order to get a...

In order to...

This eliminates a lot of the previous extra bargaining there.

Secondly, I think we would... And we thought we might love it.

We'll get it out.

It's very good.

That's their view.

Very good.

Get it out.

It'll be good.

It'll be good to follow up on this.

Mr. President, we'll...

Right.

I can ask him just to be sure that we know where we are.

You understand now, John.

Do you?

Do you know where we are?

Keep this as close to phase three as you can.

And without this, expand the number of firms.

And certainly, it seems to me that we ought to indicate that those standards on the price side are for those without it being

without it being so weak that Phase III is not going to happen.

For the first time in people in the war, Phase III was pretty strong.

You think so?

Well, I think we have, in effect, to take it with the gas and move in there.

See, you're strengthening it through gas and food, but let me ask these questions.

I wonder if you should double the number of companies that are going to come.

Well, I just think that the pre-notification that it is one of your two companies are mandatory.

The reason I've come to that, too, is in terms of really the accounting and legal side of it, right?

Attributing the speech to other folks.

Well, our line is rather important because there is a chance for

One, it puts a further lag into the industrial price situation, which is one of our problems.

And secondly, it brings a presence to a greater degree, I think.

I agree with you.

accounting for over a hundred million dollars in sales.

And I think it is manageable.

More than that, I think it is rather unadvisable.

So, I would have said, as a matter of fact, that one of the things that distracted me from this argument was something else.

But at least 30, at least, at the finest.

We should now make clear, I believe it should be in speech, three things that we would do.

One, we would change the base date to January 10th in order to get a...

In order to...

This eliminates a lot of previous...

Secondly, I think we would expand the number of firms.

And thirdly, it seems to me that we ought to indicate that those standards on the price side are, for those tier one and tier two companies, are mandatory.

The reason comes at you.

The one in the 60-day thing, and I know how strong you are, most people are 130, so they're not high.

The point about 60 versus 50, it's realistic with the Congress.

And second, it means that within 30 days, you can be ready with what follows on.

And then perhaps with a good order, so that you have no uncertainty.

That rather than having a situation where you have a 30-day breach, and then from the day the breach goes in, they're going to say what follows on.

in terms of really the accounting and legal side of it.

That should be in the speech.

Well, I'm honored.

I'm honored, too.

I'm honored.

Well, I have 30 days, but...

some degree of specificity that will take out the further uncertainties.

Exactly.

And one thing, and another thing, and I didn't have that along that line, if we say we're going to treat wages and prices consistently.

If John said, if we say now, we have pre-notification of mandatory controls for big firms, that implies something about wage sizes.

You may want to talk with them about it before you go.

Incidentally, yesterday after the meeting, I talked to Fitz and told him,

Where do you want to be?

We have 60 days.

We have 30 days.

Think about it for a minute and say, well, I'll be bored.

I'll be distracted.

I'll be with my sister.

In other words, that would be the argument.

Or something else.

It's a good argument.

But at least 30, at least.

I'm not going to talk about it.

So, uh, if you would pass that to Mr. Burns or whoever.

Although, if it's anything, just talk to me.

But I want you to know that we've talked about it.

Thank you, John.

I'll let you know.

This probably is bad for his hands.

You mean it's bad for his hands to talk about his contract?

His contract, yes.

If you, uh, if he wants to come in after we do this, let me say, too,

Well, this will give this just...

The whole point of all these things, let's face it, is this.

That meeting the other day, this... George, very good, his...

He's very recognized.

The meeting yesterday was one where I was...

The one in the 60-day thing, and I know how strong you are.

Most people are 130, so they're not high.

The point about 60 versus 50, it's realistic with the Congress.

And second, it means trying to, you know, listen to everybody so that whatever we did, they'll think they were listened to.

Now, Paul Hall and Fitts will think this is the thing that happened to everybody else in the room.

He didn't take our view on the freeze.

On the other hand, everybody else in the room, they affected us in various ways.

The other labor leaders will say, thank God he didn't freeze wages.

The business leaders will say, thank God we're not going back to a rigid phase two.

And we're still for a free economy.

But the point is, with Vincent and Paul Hall, it's very important to me, because they're both, Paul Hall's a very influential

I think we have to be ready for the

state except that this is very much like Phase 2.

In some respects, it is a stronger program than the Phase 2 program.

You mean our fault?

Oh, yeah.

What we don't have is we

If John said, if we say now, we have pre-notification of mandatory controls for big firms, we have sent out a price commission to enable it.

And I think to some extent we'll be able to administer better with that.

But in terms of the substance, I think we're there.

And we couldn't... Oh, yeah, sure.

You mean that this 60-day period or the period beyond the 60-day period?

No, you can't say.

You can't go to the Capitol with a crisis.

A crisis?

Yes.

The difference between Phase 3 and Phase 2 isn't essential.

There's a pre-notification that you can't change your price until I tell you you can.

Or else you change it when you think you can.

Boy, this is quite different.

This is no competent person of business.

It's quite different from Phase 2.

We've heard it.

We'll preach later.

But I think the business community in general recognizes that labor is needed in Greenville.

But it seems to me that in terms of the way this is presented, at least, that implies something about wage cycles.

You may want to talk with them about it.

It's another yesterday after the meeting I talked to Chris and told him that anytime he wanted to talk about that thing, he'd let me know.

So people will say, well, what, how does this have to relate to Phase 2?

We try to argue that really this is...

All right, this is like phase three.

Let me say this.

All right, I don't think it's phase two, but act like phase three as much as you can.

That's what I'm really thinking.

If you would pass that test for me.

Although, if it's anything, just talk to me.

But I want you to know that you can take a breath.

Thanks, John.

I just...

I know this, I know the problem, and that's the way I know the problem with the city.

I mean, not the city, but the stability of farm prices in the rest of the country.

For once, our projections prove right.

I don't think yours, the Department of Agriculture and Food, if it gets down, if the ball does not come down, the slough off of the ball, I'll live.

You know what I mean?

I'm going to keep it.

I don't think we should keep her on.

Gas, I think, something else.

We can start with that.

Mr. President, Hugh Scott made a poll today at the Republican lunch.

30 Republicans.

And they came out 80 for status quo.

This probably is better than this.

You mean it's better than his contract?

His contract, yes.

If you want to come in after we do this, let me say it to you.

22 for some kind of control, broken down between heart rate, 6, and selective controls, 16.

That's pretty strong medicine on the other hand.

Well, selective controls and heart rate, that's pretty strong, too.

That's 22.

And when you look at your finger on my finger, it's all bad, don't it?

Bless me, thank you.

To all of you that I'm not.

Did I say that right?

I know how strong you feel, and I read all your papers, and, uh...

I, uh... Well, this will give this judge...

Uh, the whole point of all these things, let's face it, is this.

That meeting the other day, this... George very, uh, his... ...and total confidence in your judgment and so forth.

The problem that we have here is one that, is the one that he just nailed there.

The Republicans are that way, the Democrats are twice as bad.

Because they'll vote for partisan, at least not liberal.

It's very unrecognized.

The meeting yesterday was one where I was trying to, you know, listen to everybody so that, for reasons.

And it's a question of,

What I want to do, though, is to do some education in this country.

Is that all right?

And what, those six, can we get seven good speeches?

Ten of each?

Each Saturday.

Every Saturday.

That's right.

We keep repeating these things.

I mean, what this economy is about, what we've done in the way of... You know what I mean?

It doesn't have to be very...

It doesn't have to be exciting and new.

It just has to be educational.

and just whack out there.

It'll be a Sunday story, a lead story for Sunday training.

Huh?

It's a serious, serious topic.

Yeah, it's a project.

It's a project.

We might hit, we'll hit trade.

We might hit taxes.

We might hit, we'll certainly hit this thing.

Food prices.

Food prices obviously has to be discussed.

Energy in one station.

And it gives us a chance to devote entirely to the cases of domestic problems.

I'll stay away from such things as aid, M.I.T., and other things, insurance, or whatever we did that they were listening to.

Now, Paul Hall and Fitts will think this is the thing that happened to us.

Everybody else in the room will think, gee whiz, he didn't take our view on free.

I've got another question.

Oh, I hate it.

I'm ready.

Why don't you jump in?

No, I'm fine.

No, I

The administration urged me to come.

On the other hand, everybody else in the room, they affected us in various ways.

The other labor leaders will say, thank God he didn't freeze wages.

In fact, we did.

The students took a poll.

I put it against the sun on the floor.

It would come down.

It worried me not to go.

So it threatened me if I went.

So I thought under the circumstances, I should go.

Oh, good.

I'm not checking it out.

I thought, it turns out you have lots of friends there.

They gave me a standing ovation when they, when they moved me.

A group of about six totally looking characters came down the middle row, and they were met by my friends and police, and they moved me back, and the rest of the crowd all gave me a standing ovation.

So I'm here.

I'm glad you're back.

Well, you've got to accept.

I got this.

Some of the business leaders will say, thank God, we're not going back to a rigid phase two.

And we're still for a free economy.

But the business is not so good at this time.

Suppose you'd gone there at the time you were in.

We didn't have to go there.

And I'd like to invite you.

Or a separate dealer.

Or a money.

Or they'd kill you.

But I thought it was all well and good.

All well.

What is your school?

What is your country?

No.

Well, what is the University of Chicago?

You have two days with Vincent and Paul Hall.

It's very important to me because they're both Paul Hall.

And you're hired.

No, not at all.

I'm an engineer at a college in Berkeley, California.

Who's that fellow that was out of my right there, the guy that changed for a new car from Hale-Broadway Stewart?

Has he spoken to you about what he wants you to do?

No, he's been asking me if he's going to be the new president.

He's got a chance to rehearse at the California Energy Research Administration.

And I said, well, you can't have him for a long time.

Boy, do they need a chance.

Don't take the time.

And don't take it unless it's the library.

But it does show you that you've got a lot of friends.

Because Carter was this true guy, you know, in writing.

He didn't have to come down here and sign unless he's figured it all out.

I said, I know this is tough for you, and it's hard for all of us.

But I know some disagree with parts of the decision and others don't.

You know, sometimes the guy in this chair has got a name.

And we made it, in fact.

And I know it.

And he should know that the President was very much impressed with him and let him all that they did.

We had to come up with a race to the deadline, going for a budget deficit and the rest is just, God, I just like to go back and burn all my old speeches.

Some of us like to burn some of our old speeches, but the way I do it,

And I know it's hard, particularly for a man who's... We have to be ready for the state to accept that this is very much like Phase 2.

And in some respects it is a stronger program than the Phase 2 program.

You are, of course, scholars.

I think you would, you're not politicians.

I'll explain this, if I will, and all the rest.

What we don't have is we don't have set up a Christ Commission to enable it.

And I think to some extent we'll be able to... Now there's no other control.

That's not a thing.

If you guys sit off the inflation by your big expanse of policy in 1972 and up to zero, as they are, they've already anticipated the redacted control.

Oh, there.

There.

But we had to send you this.

Well, I'd forgotten who was for moving the budget down.

Minister, in terms of the substance, I think we're there.

And we couldn't... Oh, yeah, sure.

You mean that this...

I don't remember.

They were always accusing us of slamming on the brakes too fast.

And now they're taking the atmosphere.

Well, as a matter of fact, too, they were slamming the brakes too fast in 1972.

They were all about it.

The whole, the algorithm, we weren't spending enough in the public sector.

We were growing the whole bunch, so now we spend in the public sector.

We're still not done unless they recode some of this.

Well, hey, the main point is, we've got a position, we have a position, we're going to fight for it.

And by the way,

I do appreciate your time and also your guts.

It takes a little guts when you're in a tough fight.

But it's going to come out in the future.

I'm glad you'll attend us.

I'm your mom.

And as I said, we follow the study.

As long as we've got to.

I'm sure we'll come a lot here.

And we'll get a fresh map out of town.

I want you on California, this week particularly, and I mean this, how you arrange it, what you do with your wine and so forth, and what you can't take for the weekend and so forth.

You're going to need to take this down.

Did you use the heated pool this last time?

We used the big rectangular one, which is very nice.

No, that's not heated.

Did I period on it?

No, this would be done in your company.

Your company would have low prices.

Go over and use the pool and finesse.

It's heated at 92 degrees, so I don't have to take a bath.

And then you go to a sauna and you come out and you're awake and have one drink.

The difference between phase three and phase two is you'll be up practically on the ceiling and eat and watch a movie and you'll sleep.

There are four or five new moons, to all new moons.

Burt, it'll be hard.

It'll be hard.

I told you.

The idea of your sex movie, I don't know.

Burt, does anyone know me that much?

There'll be a pre-notification, and you can't change your press until I tell you you can.

Or else you change it when you think you can.

Boy, this is quite different.

This is an old cop with a curse for business leaders, but it's quite different from phase two regarding the way he treats laborers.

You arranged one for me.

See that, uh, he, uh, did they, did they, uh, they found more bucks in Australia?

I don't think that happened.

That's it.

But I think the business community in general recognizes that labor can be a free will.

I want you to know that on the, uh, first half of this week, I'm going to go down into the cabinet.

To you.

Down to you, Rushday.

We've got to take a step in defense and do it right and not head out and use the retreat.

Because they're next to you, though, they're coming at you.

But it seems to me that in terms of the way this is presented, at least, now they're getting their hands on people who would mind coming at us, but they won't get to the meeting.

Now, this is important.

This is important.

People will say, well, what?

How does this relate to space, too?

What happens about this?

But we can only go down to you and go further on that.

But we've been inviting secondary people.

There's a music afterwards, which will probably be Clyburn or something like that.

But they don't get to shake his hand.

But it's like there's no other cabin officer, I think, for the body of the monster crime.

He has asked me to invite a list of businessmen that they've designated greater than those back in the day.

Greater than a recession and warehouses.

That's all.

If you would do that, the main thing is not going to the dark man, everybody, but if you could invite as many businessmen to that as you could, Dennis could come there.

I can't bust that, too, because I can't get him to the... We want him to go further, but they're...

We try to argue, we try to argue that really this is, alright this is like phase 3, to an extent we'll lose the impact of it.

But look, let me say this.

A total of 30, so, and now, by the time we get through the State Department and umping others, we just can actually get the people.

Alright, then I'm thinking phase 2, but act like phase 3 as much as you can.

That's what I'm really thinking.

I, I just...

I know this, but I know the problem, and that's the way I know the problem in the city.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

I mean, not the city, but the stability of farm prices in the rest of the country.

For once, our projections prove right.

I don't mean yours.

The Department of Agriculture and Food, if it gets down, if all top comes down,

You know what I mean?

I'm going to keep it.

I don't think we should keep it on.

Gas, I think, is something else.

So I'm going to start with that.

Mr. President, Hugh Scott made a poll today at the Republican lunch, 30 Republicans.

And it came out, 80 for status quo and 22 for some kind of control, broken out between hard freeze, 6, and selective control, 16.

That's, that's pretty strong.

That's, you know...

I'll select your controls and R3 to get me strong too.

That's funny.

And when you... Well, let me say to all of you that I'm, uh... Did I say that right?

I know how strong you feel when I read all your papers.

And, uh...

I, uh...

The problem that we have here is the one that he just nailed there.

The Republicans are that way.

The Democrats are twice as bad.

Because they'll vote for partisan other reasons.

And it's a question of whether or not you can handle it.

What I want to do here, though, is to do some education of this country.

We get seven good speeches, ten of each.

Each Saturday?

Every Saturday, that's right.

We keep repeating these things.

I mean, what this economy is about, what we've done, you know what I mean?

It doesn't have to be very good.

It doesn't have to be exciting and new.

It just has to be educational.

And just whack out there.

It'll be a Sunday story, a bleak story every Sunday.

It's a serious, serious topic.

Yeah, it's a project.

It's a project.

We might hit trade.

We might hit taxes.

We might hit, we'll certainly hit this thing.

Food prices.

Food prices obviously has to be discussed.

Energy on one occasion.

And it gives us a chance to devote it entirely to the cases of domestic problems.

I'll stay away from such things.

Aid, M.I.T.

and other things, insurance, work.

But that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that

said that I shouldn't have a degree because I'm in the next administration house.

And the administration urged me to come back, and they did.

The students took a poll, and I put it against the sun on the floor, and they come down, and warned me not to go, and so on, and threatened me if I went.

And so I thought under the circumstances, I should go.

I'm not checking it out.

It turns out you have lots of friends there.

They gave me a standing ovation when they, when they, a group of about six tuggy-looking characters came down the middle row, and they were met by the Princeton police, and they moved back, and the rest of the crowd all gave me a standing ovation.

So they're here.

I'm glad you're here.

Well, you gotta accept it.

I got this, I don't know if you think this is a problem, so from this time, suppose you had gone there at the time of invading Tampo here.

And I would have invited you.

I would have had that party separate from you, or me, or me.

I would have killed you.

But I know that it's all relevant.

All relevant.

What is your school, what is your contract?

No, well, I have to go to Chicago.

It has to do with that.

You're hired.

No, not at all.

We're in Junior College, Berkeley, California.

Where are you from?

Berkeley.

Berkeley Center.

Who's that fellow who's got a mic right there?

The guy that changed from Ed Carter from Hale Broadway to us.

Has he spoken to you about what he wants you to do?

No, he's been asking me if he's going to be a new president after a chance for a university in California after he's in the administration.

And I said, you can't have him for a long time.

Boy, do they need a chance.

Don't take the jack then, and don't take it unless it's the line rush.

But I've got to show you that you've got a lot of friends.

Because Carter was this true guy.

He'd write, and then come down and decide unless he's figured it all out.

Go ahead and say, I know this is tough for you, and it's hard for all of us.

But I know some disagree with parts of the decision and others don't.

You know, sometimes the guy in this chair has got a name.

And we made it.

And I know it took a little less arrogance at the time.

We had to come up with a reason to deadline, going for a budget deficit.

And the rest is just, God, if you like, I'm going to go back and burn all my old speeches.

Now, some of us like to burn some of our old speeches.

But the way I do it.

And I know it's particularly for a man who's, any of you, all of you are, of course, you're scholars.

It's like, gee whiz, you're not politicians.

How do I explain this?

If I ruin all the rest.

Oh, ruin.

Oh, I know, I know.

They'll say, now, why is it, Mr. Stein, you changed your mind?

Well, they're already attacking us.

You haven't read this morning.

Now that you're out of control, that's not a thing.

Well, they forgot who was for moving the budget down.

They were always accusing others of slamming on the brakes too fast.

And now they're taking down the buses.

Well, as a matter of fact, too, they were slamming the brakes too fast in 1972.

the whole gallery thing, we weren't spending enough in the public sector.

We're growing the whole bunch, so now we spend in the public sector.

We're still not done unless they recode some of this.

Well, anyway, the main point is, we've got a position, we have a position, we're gonna fight for it.

And I do appreciate your time and also your guts.

It takes a little guts when you're in a tough fight.

I knew mom, as I said, as long as we got to.

She would come along here and give her impression of our town.

I want you on California, this week particularly, and I mean this, how you arrange it.

Did you use the heated pool this last time?

We used the big rectangular one, which was very nice.

and it's heated at 92 degrees, so I don't look like I'm tapping a bat.

And then you go over to a sauna, and you come out, and you're a woman, and you have one drink, and you'll be up practically on the ceiling, and at ease, and watch it open, and you'll sleep.

All right?

Okay, let us know.

That's what it was like.

Well, there's a red open seat.

We've got a fresh environment to use in the next few days.

Gretel, Birch, Dogwood, and The New Maple.

There are four or five new movies, which, to all the new movies, you might bring up the first one, Birch.

Birch, it'd be odd.

It'd be odd.

I've told everybody that if I did this next movie, I'd get out.

So, Birch is the only movie that bothered me.

But I think it's a little bigger if you bug the slice and stick it up there.

Right.

I want you to know that only Christians can go down into the cabinet.

But we can only go down to you and go further on that.

But we can invite a second or third people.

or the music afterwards, which would probably be Clyburn or something like that.

But they don't get to shake his hand, but there's no other cabin officer, I think, or anybody who wants to come.

He has asked me to invite a list of businessmen that they've designated, greater than those back in the day, to a reception at the warehouse.

That's all.

If you would do that, the main thing is not going to the dark man and everybody, but if you could invite as many businessmen to that as you could, then we could come there.

I can't bust that, too, because I can't get him to the... We wanted to go further, but they're...

A total of 30.

And now, by the time we get through the State Department and umpteen others, we're just going to have three dozen people.

Okay.

Thank you, George.