Conversation 602-006

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Oops, my hand's gone.

Okay, good.

Give it back, give it back.

Whoa.

See what we need to do?

Okay.

All right.

George, I don't know what it means, man.

Hello there.

The man who made the bodies of the people, the people, the origins of the stock, my wife, my wife, my wife, demonstrated them.

They're out of print now, aren't they, so to speak?

Isn't the sculptor dead?

He is dead.

They were carrying on the men that actually did produce the birds.

His assistants were capable of doing the same kind of work.

So there's Bill Sutter.

Limited editions.

I got one of the last, the e-design with which it was made, after he said,

Come on, girl.

All right.

You ready?

Don't fall in the other room.

Well, there are birds to save you.

Today doesn't even operate.

Come on.

This is a gross addition to how people make themselves happy.

Water quality.

It will get anywhere in the house.

It's just straightforward.

to see what the committee was thinking.

I was terrified.

I decided not to say anything about the conversation that I had with the leaders, and I said, well, we're going to get rid of all of the man-made industry, and we can't make a deal with the representatives of all the industries associations.

Although, I don't know exactly what I'm going to take care of.

Do you want to lean over him on the toilet?

No, no, no.

They know better.

Either that or they can fight with pride.

Senator Allen was not of the hearing party.

He called 39 and should stay.

Of course, he'd pretend to listen.

He's pretty tenacious.

That's right.

He won't be able to answer a question.

And his, because he has both spending on his projects and his state.

I hope I don't want to all outspend you.

No, no.

Very good.

I'm glad you asked this, but Senator, you've already done that earlier in the country.

Right.

And I'm afraid I'm in a position, and most of the government I'm in, so I'm too far-fetched.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, hi, how are you?

Sit down, sit down.

Sorry I have to offer a lot of projects.

If you have to, we'll get you out of pressure.

You made it possible for me to walk out of a very unpleasant time in your currency.

I'm grateful to you.

Thank you.

I was ranking on last before I became ranking on tonight.

I want to see you.

I was the Douglas watcher.

That's why I don't know where you were.

But I think Douglas was better than Proxmire.

In some ways, in other ways not.

Is that right?

Douglas is more of a hypocrite.

Why not?

Well, you could do the same with Proxmire than with Douglas.

But he is no, I guess, it's out of, out of the defense.

Percy, Percy did, Percy was a combination of a English sailor, too, who was, well, actually, I haven't had him in the last, he was very big, you know, he was sort of watered around.

He was a pilot, but this was, yeah, so he was a sailor, that's right.

Well, I, uh, I thought it would be useful, I mean, that's your deal, unless we, in fact, with the law, it's not.

He's on several sides of the issue.

But knowing your charm and everything, what's your advice to us as to what we ought to do with regard to, first, the tax problem.

The tax bill, how soon can we get it, and how clean and big, and what can we do?

The key vote could come early tomorrow, a decision whether or not we'll allow any extraneous amendments on the bill.

And I think maybe after a little kicking and screaming, Russell may go with us on that.

Because if he doesn't, Rivercock will put H.R.

1 on the bill.

And Russell doesn't want that.

I think this is our first big test that should come when we meet tomorrow.

And as I say, Ribicoft's going to put H5HR1, Hartke has some amendments.

But if we can get that decision made tomorrow, we can have the bill through the end of the week and on the floor by next Monday or Tuesday.

That's Russell's game.

That's the only basis on which we can do it.

That's what I told the staff to be prepared to spend next weekend preparing the report that will be introduced Monday and available to you.

Now we have some problems.

Senator Long has an amendment.

He may still offer it.

Which would, he says he's going to solve the ceiling on interest problem.

by putting a basis, setting a basis for interest and then a 100% tax on all interest above that basis.

That, of course, would be completely impossible.

He went to see George, or Arthur Burns last week and talked to Arthur about that.

Arthur had a fit.

And so with Archer's help, I'll be ready to argue that if he brings it up.

He may decide that's an extremism and let it go.

When I said to him, that's the jurisdiction of the Mass Committee, or the Bank of America, not the Mass Committee, he said, well, I'll make a tax out of it.

Bring it over here.

I was telling him what was on the side.

He said to Archer, after their conversation,

Well, what you tell me troubles me.

But I'm already committed to alter the amendment.

And then he says, you know, I'm a populist.

Well, we might have a struggle over that.

He is a populist.

He's a different kind of a populist than Pat.

But he's, yes.

But he's inherited this from his father, and it's part of the political atmosphere.

This is in trouble.

I don't think this will stay on the bill.

In fact, when I talked to the staff after the briefing we had last Thursday,

They're trying to develop ideas for other tax activities which might produce the same fact that this is supposed to produce.

What is the trouble?

Well, the AFL-CIO is opposed to it.

I'll give away the business.

And some of the members of the committee are disturbed because once the DISS Corporation has this deferred tax income, it can...

Loan that back to the parent corporation or loan that to some other corporation.

But there's really nothing in the bill which would ever bring that income under taxation.

Now whether we can put something in the bill with some limit of years in which it can be deferred, we can make the talking about that.

But there are a lot of people who, in the committee,

including some Republicans who have concern about this.

Since the traitors said they don't like the House version, and the House refused the tough version that they do like, I think that is in trouble.

I would not be surprised to see Russell offer some kind of an expropriation amendment.

I have a dedication to you.

Well, as I say, he sometimes decides what's extraneous and what isn't.

But I'm listening to all the problems that I see come up.

He tried to approach that on sugar, because we had an expropriation of sugar property, and we were able to talk him out of that.

So he said to me, I'm going to offer an expropriation amendment on every other bill as it comes along, including the tax bill.

So we might have to work that over.

And I understand you're getting some legislation ready or some policy ready or something.

This may not be the time to use it, but that's where it is.

Well, there's been quite a little discussion involving state and treasury and others.

And I don't think we're ready, as I understand it, to put forward a concrete proposal.

But certainly, Secretary Connolly is very strong for a slow line or a working out some method perhaps.

He said, don't try to be too responsible.

Just be tough.

It'll cause me no problems.

I did.

Well, I was the one who solved it in the sugar mill.

Because of the grace line.

It was right up in the middle of the pilot.

You can give those something that is safe.

Leave the, as we said, automatic jump on discretion.

Just be tough, because we're going to be very, very tough on them.

Russell doesn't want to leave them in discretion.

That's done.

Yeah, that's the problem, Mr. President.

We're all going to have to worry about that.

Don't leave them in discretion.

russell feels that those are the only notes i had about the tax bill and maybe some other

What's your judgment when you've got a true nominee?

Then when it comes out, it'll get meant to the ring up, right?

Or is it come out first or what's the situation?

Well, Russell has the feeling that it will get immediate action after he gets it to the floor.

That's a matter between him and Mansfield.

But the word he's giving us is that we'll get it out Monday on the floor and Tuesday we'll be prepared to take it out.

And then?

that Russell has been saying to me, if we can get the bill to the floor without any of these wild amendments, then I'll stand to again to fight the amendments on the floor.

But to never tell.

Yeah.

You know, you don't have any amendments.

I think if you could work it out all yet, so we can keep Russell, no extremists.

Thank you.

But we're going to have some amendments.

On the floor?

No, two of the bills, some proper amendments.

But they're not extraneous?

They're not extraneous.

But if you get into this business of HR1 and the rest of it, God save you, you don't have that thing on the floor.

Well, he won't support that.

And his grounds are the same as mine.

We haven't had adequate hearings.

This is a problem we've got to study.

The committee has another hat to wear when it approaches this.

This is a problem.

Now, turning over to the bill before the banking committee to extend your power to control interest and dividends.

The only reading I can get up there is Prossmeyer's determination to cut the time shorter by six months.

But Prossmeyer won't win.

I think if the department takes the lead in supporting us, and he does as far as I know now, we can get enough Democratic votes for the Republican votes so that we can keep the April 1973 date in there.

I think in the committee and on the floor, certainly we'll try.

I think that will be the only big issue in that.

rather than years of having things expire in October.

That's all I know about that.

It was suggested that you might want to talk about H.R.

1.

Well, the term's present position is

that as soon as the tax bill passes the Senate, if there is any, as soon as it passes, given the amount of time left in this session, we will start hearings on H.R.

1, but we will hear only those sections which are more or less non-controversial.

We'll talk about the Social Security sections.

And we will not go after the Family Assistance section until next year.

In the meantime, in the conversations with Elliot Richardson and with the chairman and with the staff of the committee, we've got a task force working at the staff level consisting of two or three of the committee staff, one man from Waiter, two or three men from HEW.

under instructions to try and develop a word-based approach to this problem.

They're assuming that H.R.

1, as it came from the House Family Assistance Plan, is dead in the sun, as I think it is.

And they're going to try and develop a practical

based on work.

They've had a number of meetings.

The staff, of course, have made it.

They're making pretty good progress.

But there is an understanding, a cooperative attitude between the three staffs.

And I've asked that in the future, when they have meetings, I be allowed to come and sit in them so that I can at least know what's going on, if not make some contributions.

Because I'm very devoted to the idea that we've got to make this a word fair bill, and it's got to be practical, one that can be administered from that point of view.

So we're going to do the best we can to try and get some .

What we're trying to develop is something that we hope can get the support of the majority of the committed

Then, if after we've developed the mechanics, the cabinet decides that they want it on an experimental basis, or one statewide experiment, or two or three statewide experiments, and will allow the present situation to run through an experimental period, I think that may be one of the ways out.

The thing that bothered me a year ago on family assistance was they wanted to change the system, put in the family assistance, and then experiment with some of these other approaches.

They wanted to push family assistance through without question, regardless of the experiment.

Well, that's just the way it is.

The main thing we have to avoid here is the Reykjavik thing.

You've got to let us know about that.

Under no circumstances would we, I mean, I don't care.

Even though it would be probably supported by some, we're all out supported by family assistance.

And that, you know, well, we better take it even though it's there.

But under no circumstances will a critical approach be approved.

But, you know, let me ask you, can you stand up there?

Well, we're trying to.

I suppose, I suppose that, no, it would be a mess anyway.

Because even though you stopped it, even though it went through the Senate, you'd have to compromise with the House, with Wilbur, with Jack and everything else.

In this work we're trying to do at the staff level, we're trying to weave in what the chairman wants, and weave in what I want, and weave in what Herman Tallent wants, and try and unify them so that we have a package that is unified and defensible.

And if we can do that, then we can get a majority of the committee.

and probably Anderson and Byrd on the other side.

And although one of those Republicans on our side, we could probably have a majority.

Then we'd have to fight with a cough on the floor, as we're going to have to do it on the tantrum.

The one Republican that we haven't got yet is Carl Curtis.

And his attitude is that this is not a federal problem.

It should be turned back to the states.

We should just give them as much federal money as they think they need and let them write their own ticket, which I can't buy.

I'm sure you can't either.

If we do a good job, we can get a buy-in.

That makes the best position for Curtis in Nebraska.

But I would say if we can get a buy-in,

position that the rest of us can agree on, as against Rubicon and that sort of thing, we may get triggered.

You don't expect anything before the end of session?

Not in the way of executive session?

No, I think you're not going to get out of committee, are you?

No.

On H.R.

1?

No, I don't think so.

I think the staff has been more or less promised whatever time there is in recess between sessions,

to continue their work.

Because this is trying to rewrite a piece of major legislation to do it with the cooperation of the departments.

You steer between me and the chairman.

Yeah, that's nice.

Firmer than the rest of us.

I hate you.

All right, thanks.

I don't see how you can do it.

Yeah, yeah.

I was going to ask Senator, if he sees any

any chance that the non-controversial that you put in sections of the bill will be separated off and sent forward before they end in this year?

Well, I'm going to do the best I can to prevent that.

It'll depend in part on the program in the Senate.

It may not, there just may not be time for that this year.

There may be other things that have a higher priority.

You see, first you've got to have the

and then they've got the Supreme Court justices, and they'll take two or three weeks to make on that.

And that's my judgment.

Well, can I have a reversion treaty, Mr. President?

We're pushing hard to get that.

We have to get that.

We hope.

Just Simon and Fulbright are giving us problems there, and I think we...

They want to know the details about nuclear weapons deployment in the Western Pacific.

That's a realistic, uh, use of gun connections, uh, side of the tunnel, another side of the tunnel.

How can I just do that and kill the whole thing?

I'm just worried about whether or not, when people are going to hold those hearings, there's a sense of tension.

Well, if I can't help it, I don't think Russell will do that, too.

So I don't know what would happen after we got a revenue-sharing bill.

I think this is the kind of bill it is, but I think it's certainly benign.

The welfare, social security bill.

And it's probably behind the medical bills.

The House is working on that now.

When that comes over, I might have to take its place in Ireland.

That will come before the revenue share.

That's the right issue.

I don't think it's the issue.

You may get a status on that study.

And we're going to start on the Social Security reform.

That's about it.

There may be pressure to... We're hearing rumblings like this, that people tax relief, and then the Social Security taxes go out and wipe it out.

So there may be pressure to make some changes in the Social Security taxes.

the situation this year.

I understand that the only scheduled change in the security tax is the raising of the wage base.

That's a constructive effect.

But since that's moving it from $7,800 to $9,000, that wouldn't have any major impact until along May and April.

April and May, because people don't get that income level.

That's a very high proportion until then.

We've got another, I think you're saying something.

I hope so.

Going back to the tax bill itself, we've got another interesting little technical problem we've got to work out.

By moving up the, let's see, I want to be absolutely sure of what I'm about to say.

We have created a situation in which the present withholding rate is not adequate.

But if we move it up to make it adequate, it represents a tax increase for some people.

And we've got to work that out in the next couple of years.

I shouldn't be bothering you with that, but that's one of the nods.

Well, this is one argument.

If you start maneuvering the effective date of the personal income tax changes, we're taking the one that is scheduled for January 1, 72, as the House did in part.

If you move it further, it might become part of the problem.

Toward January, 1971,

since that reduces the taxes of people.

So, what is the problem with being able to justify that?

Well, I'm sure we'll get that worked out.

Now, those are the problems that I see.

If you have some other ones, I'll try and respond.

I forgot about it.

Well, one thing that is perplexing to me, Senator Mansteel, in the resolution which he submitted to the Democratic policy,

Council, or committee, which supposedly was unanimously adopted a week ago, referred to final action by the Finance Committee on H.R.

1 this year.

And then subsequently, apparently, Russell Long said, no, that isn't right.

Do you know how that came about?

I don't know, but I hope it was a misunderstanding of Mr. Horowitz.

And Russell went back and corrected him.

Russell is the planning on the final action on H.R.

1.

Not only did Mike Mansfield make that statement, and not only is it contained in his resolution, but Hugh Scott commented on it with approval that H.R.

1 would be reported out of finance committee this year.

I can't see it.

Unless the Democrats just run over us and fall over the car and report it out, I don't think they'll do it.

I don't think they can get the walls down.

They've got to get Democrats to come for this.

You say the Democrats...

I'm thinking in the committee.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, they can overrun us, try and overrun us.

Yeah, yeah.

Your committee's not that bad.

Well, we've got four men.

The chairman, Anderson.

Tom Hitch.

Bernie.

Bird.

Which you can count on more or less all the time.

Sure.

With us, that would give us the control of the committee.

Because if you had courage on that, we would have a crash in D.C. by the way.

Because if you can't see it, it's not a big deal.

Oh, sure, sure.

Let me say it.

The worst thing that happened was Rick O'Connor.

Rick O'Connor is much worse than I am.

So we started with that proposition.

Kill it.

You have to kill it.

You have to throw the baby out of the padlock and let it go.

I don't know.

Too much work.

I don't think he's going to put it in.

But I could go to him and just beat him.

What a people.

I don't think he's going to do it.

I think we can get it on August.

Sir, I'll tell you when it comes down.

It's a good joke.

Even if it doesn't have our text on it.

Oh.

Okay.

Well, I'm trying to save you.

I think you can.

It's possible.

We're going to talk to this soldier on this bike that battles you.

Your colleague's on there.

Well, interestingly enough, it's easier to fight this year without talking with him than it was last year.

Yeah, John, it's got a kind of cross on it.

Well, he's our attorney.

And to do it his own way.

Right.

And you have the ability to talk to Russell.

Well, I try very hard to keep my lines open.

You could.

Well, he, when he talked to us, I know that.

I've seen you do this all the time.

Totally.

So your lines are perfect with Russell and Pat.

If you could keep very close to Russell, because you know he does require special attention.

Whenever you feel that he needs attention, you know, Clark can read that.

And you don't want to leave your own daughter.

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

that we would like to keep.

I don't want to do it at all.

And, you know, Russell doesn't come in unless he gets something.

You know, I've got more of that face than we have, you know.

Gosh.

That's one part of the profession I've never learned to have.

Well, you know,

That's right.

Move it in.

My problem is that you get it for nothing.

No.

You lost it.

Who got it?

Well, I haven't.

I got it.

I got another plan.

The Bar Association had the satisfaction of beating me down, so it is.

It's not the National Committee.

It's the U.S.

The U.S.

We can't send a man into a city for five or six hours and expect him not to react to what's best for him.

That's what he's there for.

Well, this business of having the bar check on us and being, shall we say, an agonizing repress, not just federal, shall we say,

As far as the bar, these other levels, the difficulty is more when the bar testifies.

So our problem is that that's the reason why we didn't advance, figuring that, well, they're going to testify and meet demand before the Senate is better to know and advance.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to think that we will do our own checking, putting ourselves in the position of the bar if we can.

If we think we can.

quite the case in the bar community, because by the way, Jesus loves us, you know.

I know that the bar basically isn't in such a way, you know, the bar association,

You know, all the time, I was a, in the five years I was a young lawyer, I never went to a bar association getting a bunch of cloths to go after that thing.

When I was in New York, in a major firm for eight years, I wouldn't go near the American Bar Association.

Curse.

Except for the man we won in Supreme Court.

How many men?

I have five men.

All right.

Well, we'll give you the...

Wonderful.

You golfers?

No, I'm the golfer.

I have, here's another pair.

You got golfers?

I haven't got them on, but I've got a lot of them.

Here's another pair.

That's for your top man.

I've got to wear these next quarter.

You said you'd do it.

Ah, yeah.

You got one of these, Jim?

Yes, thank you.

I've got one.

I've got it here.

That's right.

That's all you've got, you see.

We've got to give them a $15 million base and get you a bunch of trinkets.

Well, one of these days, after I have delivered, I'll bring you a book with me.

I'll write an autographed picture of you and Pat.

Yeah, because my wife is very fond of Pat.

We can take out of Washington and run him to your home.

I have a new one that I showed you, and I'd like to see it.

I'm bringing in one of those water, one of those pictures that we're using now, the cave in the way, the tube.

Yeah, you have one there.

And it's quick for your eyes.

I'll show you what it does.

And if you can get it, I'll get her to go to her seat.

And my wife will breathe it, and then I can come home.

This is one that was catered at the wedding.

Everybody liked it.

It was a snapshot.

They liked it so well, we made them order it in Kansas City for a while.

So your head stays there.

Well, I'll do the best I can.

This is a guy.

Stay with him.

Approachable.

Next time I suppose you're not admitted, you can have mine because it's different.

I'll tell you, bringing that up, he called me last night.

I thought he'd been smart.

He really got me.

He was really enraged.

He said, you know, we ought to be out of this coalition back and try more.

So I'm happy to get back and say I'm going to come.

I'll show you a picture.

I was having a bad moment.

You've never had a better issue than this, have you?

This is the first time for a senator, and this is the second.

And I'll admit it.

I'll admit it.

I'll tell you what I want.

A great impact is going to be on the Senate.

The first stage is over.

And the other thing is, it's just...

I don't know what he said.

He said, then, there's going to be people who are going to go back to the U.N. From now on, we will go, I mean, we will not go, but we will listen, but we are not going to ask.

He's just a bunch of, I mean, he's thinking about college.

He said, let's see these applicants.

I mean, he said, look at these guys who probably haven't had shoes on yet.

I mean, determining the future of the country, voting against the United States.

He's irritated a hell of a lot of people.

Well, that means we're going to become total abstainers and pass the vote.

Total abstainers.

We've got a lot of praise for that.

I'm sure that's all you've got.

Bye.