Conversation 456-012

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

The last time I heard it was all of a sudden.

Good.

Yeah, yeah.

This is temporary.

Yeah.

It goes to front layer.

Uh-huh.

Good.

And, uh, the second point is that, uh, that upon the governor's sitting there, we still, um, saw what we were doing off or on.

Oh, they found a room.

Good.

All right.

And they feel all right about it.

I think it's working.

Well, they're going to get that tonight.

Yeah, who sent it?

That's too much of a problem.

I won't give it in.

I'll just go over to the industry.

Yeah, well, why don't you get the word over to them tonight.

We're going to have a picture of the dining room.

And that's going to be the original picture tonight.

The director's on the hill having lunch.

He raises the question of whether he should read some of the key houses sent to people before or after the 2 o'clock announcement, whether it's Bobby Griffin,

This is all it does is just tell them we're going to use it.

It really could be one minute.

Just as the president was so excited to go on that, you could call them all five minutes before.

Okay.

And then 15 minutes before, you can tell the ones that need it in the labor committees.

.

We need to decide.

We've taken a stab at trying to do the getting the Irish eating at the White House on television.

There is substantial interest on the part of CBS in doing it.

Well, see, it has to be CBS because of the police.

Oh, I'm sorry.

that there's some problems in doing it.

And that if you were cutting the seating down to 225, Mrs. Nixon's already got a guest list of 300, skip it.

And just skip it.

Of course, that will drop some anyway.

Also, Mrs. Nixon has said no press coverage, as you know, by pressing yes.

But they are to be guessed this time.

Okay, that's clear.

So let's just not have to tell them.

Do you want to not have any newsreel coverage either?

Well, I've got to tell them it cuts to 2.25.

No, that wouldn't.

Okay, we can do reels apparently.

No.

Good.

The press that are guests will still be there as working press will they not?

Yep.

And if I go to the Betty, you know, and I'll get some press.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I hold them back.

They will be there as working press when they're coming as guests.

And I'm not going to have anybody there who's not a guest.

They can cover.

We already built our expanded reel coverage like we did in the Elmton thing.

I have a thing that reels will be all right.

because the reels in the R.I.D.

provided by the investment cuts substantially to the crowd.

In other words, they didn't have to hold it or something, but I don't mind the reels.

And I will not have a big deal with the big T.V.

subject matter.

That's fine.

I'd be honest with you, because I don't really testify to those three kinds of situations.

It seems like it's a better thing if the police is uptight and you know he's shaky about all this and how it's on TV.

It's just going to keep him out of it.

That's the way to go.

I agree with him.

It is a tough thing.

I mean, he's done it so much, television and the like, but that's not good.

I assume that being her birthday, this isn't the time to try and make the mildest of mistakes, but she has proudly said that those audience risers can't be used.

It's just a damn shame because

That's the only way people can see the show.

Somehow we've got to try to get her back on that.

Because it has two values.

One, that people can see the show.

And the other, they can see each other.

And those things have to look at the other people in the audience.

This is important in watching the show, especially if it's Beverly Sills or something.

I think they are going to be back.

I certainly think so.

That's for the state to be on the west side, right?

We've got New Yorkers all navigating the game, all having it at the end.

It's the worst possible, of all possible, having it on the west side.

If they put a stage that people can sit on, it's not all that easy.

Like Red Skelton.

We got her the Red Skelton and she did it.

And Jussie actually did the risings.

That was the best we've ever had, I know.

Red Skelton, we haven't flapped it, but it isn't too bad to go about it good if you've got everybody seated around like that.

It's just better.

I don't think she doesn't want it this time.

OK. As usual, there's two sides to everything.

Dr. Rogers, he says we're having leadership.

Yeah.

Not that story, but as that story says, Henry, the thing to begin with, he killed Patrick from the airplane going down to Florida.

Henry told Gil Patrick that there was going to be a, I don't want to tell you the reason, but there was going to be a big thing on the salt box, a follow-up background and everything.

That was going to be a big feature of the thing.

So that's how he did it.

And it says in that post-story that he did it.

The purpose is to get your report .

So, there's, I mean, Rodgers' point is that half the time Henry said that, he knew, because it was on record, that Larry Rodgers and ACTA were opposed.

I don't care what that says.

I want you to know that I want you to inform our friends.

I want you to tell them that the wage price freeze I thought would be unfair.

And it would have to be followed by the wage price board and all the rest of the state.

light and so forth, but it's time to say that.

Now, as far as the temporary age, I don't want that.

I don't want that.

We've got to deal with the pressure.

We ought to have some.

But I didn't mean anything to us at the broken time about this time next year.

My God, I saw that memorandum.

See, Hodgson came in with a wage price breach as a recommendation.

I know, I said that.

I cried to argue as hard as I could yesterday against it.

I know, I know, but you, and actually you're not, you have a hell of a problem, and he has too, with David Spade, and that's hard.

It just raises how the issue, you've got to say, you know, it goes back to 31 of all years.

I thought the David Spade thing is...

It will accomplish what we need to accomplish.

It's symbolic.

It's the right approach.

It's consistent with what I've been doing.

I called four of our best friends in this business last night, Mr. President, and did not tell them what we were doing.

I said, what if we did this?

What if we did that?

And in the case of Davis-Macon Hill, I said, that would be the best thing, provided

We understand that its purpose is to throw the ball back into our court.

That's right.

But not destroy it.

Well, I'm working with Clark Chilkinson.

Ray Price is going to go on your statement.

You've told us the main thing is that we are not about to go out and try to bust unions.

That's the thing we're having at the moment.

We're not going to go out there and give a lot of non-union work.

The purpose of this is to put the ball to their court so that they come up with a match.

That's the purpose of it.

That's how it's administered in Congress.

That's right.

The four or five biggest union leaders, the most important, Peter Brannan, for example, all say that if it's Davis-Facon and that's why you're doing it, that they

They can't publicly support it, but they privately think that's absolutely right.

Oh, absolutely.

Because they can see that where they'll never get out of it.

Well, and we won't get out of it.

Oh, does that?

We get into that.

As I said earlier, what's the next step?

Everybody around here comes in and gives us a recommendation.

Oh.

I can tell you what the next step will be.

Everybody on the left will say, why aren't you doing it here?

Why aren't you doing it here?

Well, all the legislative leaders meeting this morning, I mean, I could see it.

And I appreciate it, Dominic.

And I said, Jesus, we all fought against this damage.

And here you're using that authority.

That's the credibility as well.

That's the credibility.

And Tom is going to say...

You know, we're going to use it for us to say we're against it.

We're going to say today on the bill that we are not asking for it.

We have no, we do not object to Congress getting some power.

We're going to use it.

That's what we claim to be.

rather than have our guys have to step up in there and try to lose the ground.

That's what I'm saying.

But on Davis Bay, I think what they've got to know is that MJD1, the president, is a very strong people.

Personally, he wants them to feel that they're, he feels that his friends, he wants them to come in here.

And he personally is going to see that they're not.

See what I mean?

Yes, sir.

Quiet, please.

The announcement of June 8th is going to start at Davis-Bakers USA.

I think, as I said, I'm working with Shultz on his statement.

I think the important thing is for you not to be against the purpose of Davis.

The purpose of Davis' statement was to give you protection against breaking, but to be for a temporary

Well, wasn't that statement supposed to be wrapped around one of the rounds here?

It is.

I have it.

As soon as I have it right here.

Well, is this the one that is suspended in the air?

Is it bonded?

Has this been through the building?

This is the one that was suspended.

Well, that's a great question.

Over and over at this point.

You only have a disagreement on one paragraph, I think, so far.

The bottom paragraph is one.

No.

The bottom paragraph is one.

I'm sorry, maybe this is just.

John sent it down.

This is all he said in two pages, much more effective.

You know, it's not much trouble.

He's got it right, but he's a jurist, and he writes it.

And it's not as if he can do this.

A lot of this little thing is self-deliverance.

It's absolutely, a lot of it is a lie, and that's why.

That's the big disagreement.

Labor does not want that.

I wrote that in.

I think it's...

I haven't talked to George yet, but I think it's a... Well, this way, they haven't cleared this with Labor yet.

Well, it's clear that the Labor Department does not believe you should endorse Davis-Bacon as a principal.

I think if you endorse it as a principal, you take all the handy labor out of this.

Maybe this is a cracker.

It's still being staffed.

That's still being staffed.

John sent that down in response to your phone conversation.

Davis-Bacon remains a son of Mr. Trump.

That's true.

You can't just, I don't know that that would do it.

I think you should say that, but I'm not sure that you should put it in a public statement.

Today's made an act.

But it has been made.

Today's made an act.

I think the way it all exists is the purpose of the latest big act was at the time of this act, that you're protecting the wages.

The Davis and the Davis-Macon Act.

It has been.

The thing that's important is that it has been.

The Davis-Macon Act has been.

The Davis-Macon Act can be justified as a sound instrument of public policy only when used to protect union wages when they are reasonably bargained only when

I don't know the answer to that, Mr. President.

I just, on the way over here, discovered it was this round.

The words from the present time should be the very first line of the statement.

Thank you, Mark.

Well, they're being cuffed, as you know.

I know, but, uh, I guess if you want to get the word temporarily, you're shot on.

I may not have to tell you, but it's...

I don't think it's all about making money.

I don't think all the work in the world is going to make a whole lot of difference to these guys compared to what you just told them.

They've got to fight each other.

They've got to fight it.

It may not have the impact that we want if you don't do that.

From their standpoint, if we all do what I said, put it back in your court.

Well, it's a big thing that's present within you.

It's a big thing that you're attempting to pull it back into this court there, haven't you?

I do.

I understand.

You take out for the president, and then you say in the last, they want to start in the last paragraph,

They want to take it out all together and just not address yourself to the question at all, Mike.

I think you have to hold some sentiment.

The way you just did, because it says it very well, is that Davis-Lakenheck, in my view, can be justified as...

The Davis-Bacon Act can be justified as a sound instrument of public policy only when it is used to protect union wages that are reasonably bargained.

And then it should not, however, and then you go on, the purposes can once again be relevant, which is consistent with suspension.

If you were asking for repeal, then you wouldn't say that.

Strike up, strike up, strike up.

Good.

There's a part of it.

If you recall, I said that we would suspend temporary

Also,

and because they deal out of total all the way, I agree with the last paragraph, right in the sentence.

I agree with that.

The data statement can be justified as a sound instrument of public policy only when it is used to protect union wages that are reasonably bargained.

It should not be used to promote it.

The argument, of course, at the moment, cracking, I suppose, in St. Louis as well, is that it's an assonance to prepare the federal policy for Syria.

I think that's the first argument.

What we're trying to do is to throw us on the carrot.

to the unions to say that, well, look here folks, if you get back and give us reasonable bargains, maybe we'll change our minds.

Yeah.

And Mike, the question we had from you, basically your difference, what we would have to get George's patriotic labor to sit right here.

If you strike to the present time, would you strike the last paragraph or as modified and proven?

I was, I was living sure that this chap or the illusory or somebody like that

Right in communication with each other.

Chuck Davis said that we ought to cooperate.

Chuck has been talking to us about this.

He's a background in law, but I would just say it's a mistake, because I think it tends to give away your point before you've made it, sir.

Chuck, the problem has gotten worse.

Thank you very much.

You've got the problem of security leaking online.

And the problem of not sure what you put in the statement is going to make it all better.

I think what you tell these guys is going to make a difference.

Well, their point to me last night, Mr. President, was don't take them, and these are, they're trying to help you, don't take an anti-labor statement.

being against Davis-Lacon when it is misused, but holding out the opportunity that, in principle, it would come back sometimes, gives them more authority to deal with their membership.

In other words, if their membership feels that you're opposed to Davis-Lacon, jeez.

What about saying this?

How about saying this?

The Davis-Lacon Act can be justified as a sound instrument

only when it is used to protect union wages with a reasonable bargain.

Is that a bottom?

My father, by saying it's a sound instrument, I think that's altruist.

You know, he has no point in saying a big message that we're not mad.

We want to work with people.

And when the emergency passes, obviously, then the act goes back into effect.

And that message can't be gotten in here without, you know, thanks.

He feels it has to be in as direct as this.

Would that be a good strike at the present time?

I would.

I don't think that might be... Yeah.

Well, I don't think that's a good strike at the present time.

This is suggested by the final paragraph on the copy I have.

Page 6.

Page 6, and it was over on the 7th.

Seems like a reasonable end.

Particularly one might make a, somewhere in here, recognition of the fact that this is being done in the recognition of an emergency.

And when the emergency ends, then the meat goes in.

That is not in here.

The other thing that is in here is that we ought to get in.

There's some reference to the fact that you did do something about steel and you did do something about oil.

That has to do with business.

There was a diss track over here.

I told you about it.

I'm going to let you know.

Let's see.

Let's get somebody.

You see, that's required for a precise rating.

It's not right.

Oh yeah, we don't have that.

It's a good essay.

He doesn't rather have to write a verse, state it out, let it go.

What would you do with it?

Where would you put it?

There's something about that.

I'm trying to get that right in the theory of the paper, and I carry what's in the beginning.

That's a good point.

His action is consistent with the action I took earlier in regard to oil filters.

We didn't take any action on Steven.

That is, this is conception of the next steps that I have ordered.

I am taking or considering whether there is need in the case of, I will put it this way,

The steel industry made excessive price decisions, and I expressed that as a decision.

I frankly indicated

I firmly indicated that it is the policy of this administration that the anti-government programs, that had the anti-government program which contributed

to higher prices, put it quite directly.

Contributed to higher prices.

Modified or rescinded.

This action is consistent.

With this action, the labor cost is consistent with that general policy.

You see, what I'm getting at is just to put it somewhat along those lines.

Chuck, in terms of Davis-Bagin, if you just put in the first two sentences of paragraph six, that Davis-Bagin had the word signed, that the provisions of the Davis Act, that they would only be justified when they are used to protect women in wages that are reasonably marked.

The act, however, cannot, should not, cannot be used to promote excessive, for a reason we bargain, wage settlement, and so forth.

I think the problem with it is that we then, somebody says, well, what is a reasonably bargain wage settlement?

Then we have to have some handout, and I don't think we really need that right now.

What Chuck is trying to do, George, is to find some little...

I see that.

I don't know what we can do.

Is there anything else we can do?

George was saying earlier that you want to get in there when the emergency passes, you hope that you...

You're not anti, you're not anti the state construction.

You're anti, it's you.

On page six, this action, the action that I have taken today is taken because of an emergency which was created by escalating price increases in the construction industry.

What emergency?

I'm going to say in the past that you're going to be asked every month in the past.

In the past, I will, I will, I will, my future, my, my, why don't you say that I have, I have asked the Secretary of Labor for help.

I'm going to say, I'm going to give your actions a good one if you don't.

in regard to this act will depend upon how the construction of the contractors and labor unions work out a solution of their problems.

That's the point.

How would that be?

Without saying, this is not an instrument of public policy.

Go ahead, Eric.

You know practically what you have to say about it.

What about the sentence on page six

After the wine safari, the government is a part of these conditions, and is under difficult maintenance to serve both the public and the industry best by correcting that situation.

When this has been done, the emergency conditions that brought this action about will pass.

Of course you have this, huh?

Of course.

Following the first full paragraph on page six.

Yeah, right to the next paragraph.

Right.

And then he would say, when this has been done, that is, when the situation has been corrected, the emergency conditions that brought this action about will pass.

I don't like this sentence.

As far as the government is concerned, what you say, when this has been done, is there a reason?

Well, when...

When the situation has been corrected.

Correcting that situation.

It has been corrected.

The emergency conditions that brought this action, that have been required to take this action.

Required?

Yeah, will have passed.

Does that satisfy you, John?

That's the point that has to be made.

I think you ran a sequence.

Maybe that they don't make the point as directed by repeating.

All right, finally, we're directing that situation.

Then go on.

You could maybe add a sentence that the... Now, say...

I might not say it, just to say it a little more bluntly, George, I don't think it changes the meaning of what you have there.

Leave your sentence as you have it, but put a sentence immediately before that.

In fact, I have suspended the act because of the emergency of escalating crisis.

Because of the emergency conditions in the construction industry.

When the emergency passes, is that what you say?

Yeah.

Once the emergency, now once the, why don't you say this, once, could you go on and say, once the labor management, once the construction contractors and labor leaders

How about taking that last thing that's on page six and seven and changing it?

You know, they've seen that now over and out of the government, saying, those are final analysis, therefore.

Yeah, that's right.

That paragraph would say, our labor leaders will have full control.

That's right.

You see, now, I see your point.

The sentence that we have there, once the emergency passes, the need for this action, the justification for this action will have passed.

Right.

Right?

Yes.

And that follows the last paragraph.

Is that it?

Yes, that's how I go to the airport.

Yeah, yeah.

Sorry, you don't need either the how I go to the airport.

I need stronger, stronger how I go to the airport.

Now, coming back to the strength of the present time as we did, we want to run off this.

Should we run a sentence off and see what this looks like?

Why look at that black square now?

See all the stuff around here is a text.

I have to put down a sentence for an earlier letter.

The action I take today is consistent with earlier moves on government programs taken in the face of rising prices.

I will continue to examine the impact of government programs on other cases.

in price movements and take action to dampen any inflationary effect.

That's what you just wrote down.

I wanted to be a little more precise.

The action that I take, read that again.

The action that I take is that consistent to earlier moves on government programs taken in the face of rising price, earlier moves in the oil industry.

I put it down there.

Earlier, earlier moves.

that are earlier moves on government programs and in front of the rising prices of these people and all of that industry.

So I'd be plenty specific about that.

They want you to take something back.

I didn't get neither of the two, and I'll never repeat that piece.

It's a very good one.

The action I am taking today is consistent with earlier moves on government programs taken in the face of rising prices in the steel and oil industries.

I will continue to examine the impact of government programs on other wage and price movements and to take action to damage any inflation or any impact of these programs.

Well, it seems like we're up on a hell of a program, Spock and Gretchen.

What do you think about that program?

I think it's a good work.

It's the action I have taken today.

.

But I got something to say to you.

All right, so I'll take a second question.

You want me to bet that on for you?

No, you want me to bet that on for you?

Yeah.

We can do that in here.

All right, go for it.

You go out.

Let's just go around.

I read the goddamn thing.

It's too churchy, too long, involved, and so forth.

The point is that there's a hell of a weakness in our system over there.

The weakness here is that I would blow a sapphire off the state of the world.

We understand.

We've been right.

We're going to have to now run.

We're going to have to run.

.

I know that Christ had a word with him tomorrow.

I'll give it to him.

You know that.

What is it?

Let me ask you.

What in the hell?

What is it?

Then Henry had already told Hill Factory that he had headed in.

Was that Roger's story?

Then why did Roger's be able to compound it by having somebody say that they freaked it out?

That's what I mean.

Did Acton put it out?

Roger Smith?

Roger says that there are a couple hundred people here about the flat.

There was a flat on it.

Nobody would have known it if Henry hadn't.

made a public thing out of it to begin with.

And that's his argument that, you know, as soon as you start to plead with one side of the union, the other side reacts.

And that's what you got out of this.

And then his contention is that Henry knew there was disagreement on it in 1997, and that they thought it was a power play on his part to try and, by blocking it in publicly, force the thing to be included.

You see, I go on and talk back and go, that doesn't make this act right.

He said, no, it doesn't make it right, but it probably made it inevitable.

I'm going to talk about Henry, about the number of dismissals.

I'm going to go ahead and see what this thing is, about the number of dismissals.

The way I like

He's making work over there.

We've got to get it cut down.

I'll talk to you later, sir.

Come on.

Here's the way I like to say it.

The action I have taken today is based on the principle that government programs which contribute to excessive wage and price increases must be modified or rescinded in terms of inflation.

This was the principle I applied to industry in the case of recent excessive increases in steel and oil prices.

This is the principle I applied to other kinds of labor and construction prices.

Now that isn't too good, it's just that it's sort of awkward, but it's kind of the way that I think the air is going to get attacked in the industry.

Is that right?

I don't take that because I wrote it.

I don't have a prior authorship, but if it fits, I think it fits.

That's the thing.

This is the Davis-Bacon Act.

Once again, that is law.

If you're going to deal with the Davis-Bacon Act, you've got to ask your office to do that.

purposes of the nursing.

I don't like to use, I don't believe in all that shit.

They're critiques of the nursing.

So, let's, let's make up a quote.

What do you think, boss?

All right.

Thank you very much.

He said, he's a good guy.

He's a good guy.

I think Chuck is right.

Putting it this way, it can be an aid to them going to their local and saying, what do you want to give this app?

And it's real.

They prefer this to the way to price freeze.

Well, you see, that was the thing that I was pleased about.

Basically, I think this means more to the likes of Arthur Burge, and it means more to industry.

I love the energy bills.

If you think about it, they don't want the price for these.

Those pastors want the profits.

They prefer this.

This just kicks labor.

I know these industrial guys.

They aren't all the same.

They appear to be either.

You know, whatever.

Now, which is all right.

That's the way the business is.

I mean, the only way you have a re-productive economy is to have a lot of backers competing with each other.

I think you should call back and say to the president, work this thing up.

He wrote that plan to himself long.

We're going to do this.

That's what we're going to do.

We're going to do it in pairs.

Let's get it over with.

Is Hodge going to be released here?

Is he telling now that we're going to go on the statement as soon as it's finished?

He'll answer questions.

Oh.

You can tell him that I am.

agree with that paragraph.

They know that I don't want to do this big thing.

But they also know, and I have a long time with them, I said, look, I'm not a secretary of life.

That's not what I was ministering to, to be very honest with you.

So after that, I told them that George Wilson was going to be president.

He got his story.

We all worked together.

Hutch fought hard for him.

He fought right on.

And I did the thing, and there was some great Republicans in there.

All right, fine.