Conversation 124-006

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Thank you.

But we have exactly an hour for this meeting because we have a council meeting at this time.

So we'll move along.

We have a lot of questions.

Oh, come on in.

Well, he said 10 words.

It's not a surprise that somebody has to keep looking.

Well, first, I think it would be very useful for all of us to pay new recognition to the announcement that was made yesterday and, of course, our appreciation for those who have agreed to come on the

I begin with Al Haig.

He's been with us for a while.

I don't know whether many of you realize what a sacrifice he has made.

All of you have made sacrifices.

But Al Haig, who has a career, has 27 years in the Army.

He's now teaching a business career.

He's a four-star champion.

for many years, he stayed in, and he used to stand in the Army.

And because, well, in previous administrations, they have allowed O'Hare, Vaughn, and others to keep their military positions, and still serve in the White House staff, the President was not allowed.

So, Al hit the bullet.

They signed from there.

They heard you, you were jobless.

He had to give him that beautiful house.

He had to give the vice president a house.

A beautiful house out there, and all those aides and stewards and the rest of it.

And then I'll have to move it to some miserable apartment where he'll have to sleep.

And I'll want to stay where I am.

I think it's a good idea.

We can all know that as we move into this final phases of our White House administration, that there will be some differences from the way it was before.

And Al will keep you posted.

Al, go ahead and say a word here now.

All I have to say, Mr. President, is I'm very grateful for those kind remarks, but it isn't that bad at all.

I am very proud and very honored to have an opportunity to serve in this administration and this role.

And I think that's the important thing.

I think it's the greatest opportunity I've ever had, and I'm very grateful for it.

I mentioned that because on Mel's lap, he said, look, I'm talking about all the problems.

I'm throwing paint in his house.

I'm going to watch.

Nevertheless, he's had a rugged time, particularly in the country, making some of these tough decisions.

One of the times off, he promised his wife that she'd be back in a year.

He said he'd not be engaged in any more of those things.

So we talked about these decisions and those problems.

of the Council for Domestic Affairs.

Here we have a change.

We want to put it to a place where I can set the table.

Ken Cole will present the direction of the executive director of the domestic counseling.

I am the chairman.

Of course, the vice president is the vice chairman.

And we'll preside over all of these from I and none other.

But the Council for Domestic Affairs

He will be a member of the county.

He also will be an ex-lawyer for the National Security Council because of his background in that area.

But even more important, as counsel for the National Affairs, his work will not be at the area of all of the routine kind of activities that go on in that area.

uh his work will be more in terms of the policy area uh and of course working with the congress outside uh as a member of the cabinet speaking and so forth i don't want to spell it out but now if you'd like to say a word and incidentally uh i think in this instance

I didn't have to go through it.

I went through and resigned from the service, as I said yesterday.

I resigned from the service four years ago and I left the Congress and that was my service, the branch.

I do think that in this domestic affairs area, we have a great deal of work to be done during the next few years and particularly during the next few months.

In the international field, we have a clear-cut course that's been established

And we've been able to get a clear understanding throughout this country that the Nixon Doctrine with its three pillars of partnership, strength, and the willingness to negotiate are the keystone of our entire foreign policy approach.

And it's understood by the American people.

have not done a good job in associating with an overall policy objective that is understood by the people.

Revenue sharing is, of course, the most important policy and new policy approach that the next administration has put into effect.

But it is not the partnership aspects of that

and I think that we have to develop a overall policy objective in all of the domestic areas where we tie together a single approach that can be clearly understood and that we all try to follow.

Coming from the

Congress and then with the Cabinet, I think that I have appreciation, Mr. President, for the importance of the line agencies in this government, because they're the people that have the stats, they're the people that have to be relied upon, and they're the people that have to be listened to, not only within the administration, but they have to be listened to as far as their presentations to the Congress as well.

And I hope that we can develop that kind of cooperation.

I will be giving my counsel and advice to the President.

I don't expect it always to be followed, but I'm not going to be reluctant to get it.

And I think that's important, that we all should feel that way, and that we do have the opportunity at all times

It is that our concerns, and I want to listen to those pains and to those concerns.

I think that we've got a big job to do here in this domestic area.

I think it can be done if we all work together more and with the press.

Well, I would like to add here that an indication of Matt's attitude is when I said, what about staff?

He said he didn't want big staff.

He said that he wanted to use the cabinet.

Now, this is a very important point to have in mind.

However, I had a talk with John Connolly last spring, Bryce Harlow, the deputy.

The difficulty is that over the years,

I guess every now and then there's the Rosadon trade, the during the Rosadon trade.

It has been almost assumed that all ideas come from the land.

And frankly, the area will come down again.

And the cabinet officers, of course, carry on their responsibilities as they sell and so forth and so on.

But for this kind of a system to work, and Mel totally uses this,

this kind of a system to work.

We want the members of the UK speaking now in this domestic area, we expect them and the people down the line to come up with some imaginative ideas

to present them.

They can be presented, of course, in cabinet meetings, but one of the major responsibilities Mel will have will be not only to work with each member of the cabinet, but to see what ideas you have.

You then ought to be taking us here at this level.

And then I think if Mel, instead of becoming, as we agreed, instead of becoming and managing all the routines of how do we compromise this and how do we do that and so on, it's really the question of getting ideas and formulating them and putting them out in an effective way so that we have a coherent program in terms of selling them to the country.

Is that correct?

Is that clear with you?

That certainly is.

And Mel also is starting to, would like...

to see each member of the domestic side, every one of you, so that you can have a talk.

I don't know how you want to see all those members of Congress.

I called in last night to talk to you, and 35 members of the House came over to give you e-text condolences.

I got to pack them out of the apartment.

Never heard of you.

Right.

Well, it's great that I think that the Congress is

That probably will get over a little while.

I understand how those things come and go.

But I have agreed to go up to the Democratic caucuses on a regular basis in the Republican caucus.

And I have already been invited to the House Democratic speakers.

I don't want to do that too often.

I think probably once a month is enough.

I think it's all, it's a good idea to go on and listen to them, you know, and make a few suggestions from time to time, but I thought it was sort of fine that they were very receptive to that idea.

Just to say, you know, I actually trust people who are all working together.

I want this to be a team operation, but I want the cabinet to...

recognize that the responsibility of each one of you to bring ideas up rather than have it all float down and you carry them out.

We'll try to do both, but that hasn't worked for 50 years in this country, but I think it will start to work now.

Uh, now the, uh, another announcement that you're going to make today that will be of interest to you is the announcement of a nomination of the director of the NBI.

I, uh, returned, uh, after checking, we had about, finally we got down to 27 names that we considered to be good.

And, uh, after checking with everybody that I...

They have useful recommendations, and of course, the best man for the job is the best man for the job is Clarence Pulley.

His qualifications, I won't go into it in any way, might have an opportunity to meet him on his stomach.

His libel of his age, you have to realize he doesn't have a libel, he's 60 years of age, he's 51.

However, he's very, very, he's a great team in Kansas City.

There's no political stuff on him.

I asked him whether he got along with Eagleton.

Simon said he didn't know either very well.

He didn't give up hope to support him.

What is more important is that he is highly regarded throughout the local law enforcement areas.

I've only met him once before.

As a matter of fact, when I was in Kansas City in 1970, a couple of police would have been shot in some sort of a riot.

So I went out to see them, and the chief was there, and shook his hand, and said, okay, take your hand with me.

I remember that, however, it was just, you could tell sometimes by meeting an individual, whether he had strength, and I felt he had something, tossed his name into it, and how he rather started the proposition through.

Uh, but his, in addition to his qualifications, he is a lawyer.

He was formerly a member of the Bureau, and is one of the highly regarded police chiefs in the country.

As far as his responsibilities are concerned, I want to speak quite candidly here, Elliot, first, he can't cite any things today.

He can't ask a question because he has to go up for confirmation.

But I, when I talked to him yesterday, made three reports that I learned from him.

I want to thank you for creating these videos, and all others who have any law questions about the CIA in year two.

We have to face the fact that, particularly in his later years, that Mr. Hoover would not allow the FBI to work with other agencies.

We have a terrible time.

Customability is heavy here.

You wouldn't even talk to the FBI.

We had a terrible time with Customs and a lot of agencies and the Bureau of Industry and so forth, right within the Justice Department.

And one point that Mr. Kelly understands, one of his charges, is to say that the FBI works with all other law enforcement agencies within the federal government, and that there's damnable competition

and fighting for power, and so forth and so on, stops.

No, it will never stop.

But at least they can try.

And he recognizes that that has been a weakness and so forth.

Same point.

There was a need in the FBI for a new room.

I'm not referring to the agents down the line.

But when you have an organization of that kind, they're inevitably over.

You have a very strong man.

It means that you have a potential fight for power at those second levels.

That biker car broke loose once Mr. Hoover left.

And the FBI, to everybody's surprise, had released an almost unbelievable act of misdemeanor.

Pat Gray was unable to reinstall it.

I think this man, from his background, made the interdiction.

over there, just before the CIA.

That was no, that was no reflection on Helms, but the CIA has a lot of dead wood, the FBI has a lot of dead wood at the top levels.

And Elliot, I hope you know the problem along these lines, too.

The third point is this, and this is important, and this is just as important here, too, and that is cooperation with local law enforcement agencies.

Now, Hoover

The man very much knew that, you know, he had his school or his local black academy, at least academy.

And we put more and more money into that and he recognized it for it.

But as far as the average person in this country is concerned, he's not really so interested in organized crime instead of crime.

He's interested in street crime.

And that is why the FBI and the UN should play a greater role

in terms of cooperation with local law enforcement agencies.

And here, too, you'll find, for example, the chief of police in Los Angeles doesn't like the FBI.

There it is.

Now, that's probably more of a reflection on him than the FBI.

There's a great deal of competition out there between local law enforcement agencies and the FBI.

Fortunately, this fall, the head attendant in school got an award.

Of course, the FBI background feels strongly that there should be total cooperation.

So you see, what we have here is a man who's first independent,

Second, they're totally qualified.

Third, who recognize the necessity for reorganization, as we explained, recognize the necessity for developing a new sense of cooperation among all agencies of the government.

And finally, recognize the necessity to put the act

Where do people care?

And that is in the streets of this country.

And that's in all areas.

So I think you will be impressed by him.

I don't know, I'm sure you will be.

I should mention one other very sad personal fact.

His wife has bone cancer.

And nevertheless, you've taken the position.

So you should have that in the back of your mind.

Would you like to say a word about him, Elliot?

Do you have a chance to talk to him?

Are you aware of him?

Absolutely, Mr. President.

I had a fair amount of times that come to know him in the last few days, especially seeing him here today and in contact with you, Scott, and...

members of the leadership on both sides.

And I also found a good deal about him from people who work with him in the support of his innovative programs in Kansas City.

I think it's the most impressive thing I can say about him is that he is a man who's 21 years in the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

He is a strong man, as you said,

a man who clearly exercises his first leadership, maintains discipline, but he is also, according to the people who are interested in

the opportunities to improve the effectiveness of our police system, the most innovative police chief in the United States far and wide.

He's known to be basically progressive without necessarily being liberal in the sense of soft on crime.

There's no softness there, but he's very progressive in terms of new ideas, right?

The most dependent.

He has been conducting programs with LEAA money and police foundation's money

that are not only innovative and imaginative, but are being subjected to the most rigorous evaluation of any experimental efforts going on anywhere in the country.

I think that represents, I can't imagine a better combination to be brought to bear and to meet the problems of how silly the FBI is at this stage.

There's, of course, one problem.

It's a long way from Kansas City to Washington, D.C. And where he could make that jump, it's going to take a lot of cooperation.

And I go, too, without proposing bridging on his independence.

But this is an enormously important time assignment.

And while I think the country will welcome him, I think it will be very, very important

We don't think he has any specs on him, but you never know.

After all, he's a member of the Bureau of Investigation.

Well, the field check has already been done, and I'm updated.

And one person who I talked to, a man I have a great deal of respect for, as a matter of fact, is also the chairman of your government-wide advisory committee on drug abuse, Jim Wilkins.

He says that

I wasn't really surprised when he took over the Kansas City Department and cleaned it up and restored discipline and rebuilt morale.

But surprising was that he went on from there to make it to the most forward-looking department in the country.

And I think that the ability that he's shown to do that

So it's required somehow.

Quite a special combination.

I'm not serious.

I sort of look at them out of the corner of my eye as I see them and interact with other people.

And you begin to see what it is.

It's God.

And it's really beautiful.

of the enormous problems we have.

Bill had things to do with Mr. Hoover's last days.

to get together on a program.

And they got together and had a unanimous recommendation for a program.

And that recommendation included

And as they felt, this was the head of the CIA, the head of the FBI, Mr. Hoover, the head of the BIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the head of Geiger.

Yes, yes.

All these fellows never worked before together.

So they said after two months, they came in with unanimous recommendations.

as to what they want to do, and that recommendation included what they had been doing up to 1967.

That included, of course, wiretapping.

It included also what they call surveillance gathering, which means going into such organizations and attempting to get information prior to the time they commit, shall we say, an act against the national security.

They brought in a paper, and to me,

But then, but Andrew Hoover, while he was trying to, within five days, strangulously objected to it because he did not want to work for these other agencies.

And so he threw it out, didn't implement the goal.

It's a rhetoric in its history.

So we would hope now that we can have some cooperation within the law and between these various agencies.

This man, Mr. President, sounds very much like Orlando Wilson, who Mayor Daley brought into Chicago, and who toughened, cleaned up, and toughened, but also was a very innovative person.

So this combination of toughness, innovation, professionalism, and law enforcement can work very well together.

He did an outstanding job there.

Sounds very much like him.

Well, now we'd like to move to, I'd recommend you do three or four other points.

We have this meeting with our nominee chairman, with our two legislative leaders, and they have some ideas that they've been expressing to you.

other meetings, and so we'll give each other two or three minutes to, or, I don't know, I'm not gonna limit members of the Senate.

We'll start with you, and you, yours is very brief, I know.

I think Jared and, we'll let you be the lead up here.

Okay, Mr. President, the, I think the cabinet would be interested in the leadership meeting the other day, which the,

The agenda was unstructured.

The Congress had a chance to bring in their ideas to the president and discuss them.

But the thing I did want to stress, and I allocated two minutes, was that one of the things that all members of Congress appreciate is early consultation from members of the cabinet.

And the more of that that can happen, the better your programs can be.

With Mel here, I'm sure he'll be emphasizing this, and I expect him to speak to the leaders on that point.

And the second one is, without politicizing the administration, there's a strong feeling that we need political cooperation on appointments.

And that isn't to say that the administration won't have excellent Democrats in office.

But it is to say that there's great room for improvement.

I can report that the committee, the national committee now feels it has more input on this.

It has not had that in the past.

The president has indicated he wants this, not to sack the government from Capitol Hill, from the Republican headquarters, but more input on it.

and also to have some say so that we don't tear up the whole political structure by putting someone in who might be just persona non grata to a whole region or a whole state party organization.

So in conclusion, I would simply like to ask for your cooperation and feel free to discuss any individual cases that you might have.

But the machinery is set up in the White House

For a political input and a political clearance, our political people on the Hill and the Jerry Jones shop under Roy now meet with Hugh Scott and Jerry Ford.

And so I don't present this as something that's a horrendous problem.

I do present it as one where I would appreciate cooperation because we're moving into elections.

And after all, this is a Republican administration.

And it is one where we, I would simply solicit your earnest attention.

uh we are looking for and we continue to appoint qualified democrats uh the reason already that we need an input from the national committee on that

Is it, if you find a Democrat, at least don't appoint the campaign manager of the guy that ran against the incumbent Republican congressman, because that would send him up the wall.

That's the kind of thing we want.

There are Republican Democrats who basically will be, I imagine, as far as a Democrat might go.

You know?

I didn't ask you.

You didn't ask me.

He may well.

I'm sure he did act it, of course, and he went directly to the FBI.

Don't ask him.

It's a very good thing he didn't say.

He said that we didn't test him when he left us.

I don't even know whether he's a Catholic or a Protestant.

Did you check out such things as that?

Don't ask him.

Now we would like to hear from the two leaders.

Thank you, Mr. President, for several things.

First, for inviting you and myself to be here.

I'm looking forward to the opportunity in the future and very grateful for the chance to be here this morning.

But I think it's also appropriate

Thank you for all the members of the House of Democratic and Republican.

The reaction yesterday when I talked to either Democrats or Republicans that you and I designed to be here, it was universally thought it was a great idea.

It gives to them, through us, an opportunity to have an input not only

to you as we do in the regular meetings, but to each of the cabin officers on a regular basis.

I'm sure this will be beneficial and very productive.

I talked to the speaker, I talked to Skip O'Neill, I talked to our leadership, many of our fellows in the ranks.

Universally, it was thought to be an excellent idea.

I had the appointment of Mel,

just unbelievably well thought out.

And I'll hate the same way, and I think everybody recognizes how self-sacrificing he is to take the steps that he did.

Speaking to the members of the camp, there is a tremendous desire on the part of our people to have early consultation with you particularly,

although some of your assistant secretaries, at the earliest possible stage when legislation is submitted.

Now this means going back, actually, to the time when legislation is in the process of formulation.

We had some darn talented people, not only the ranking members, but people down in the latter, so to speak,

And they want to help.

Some of them you may not agree with.

But if you bring their day in court, in the process of the formulation of some legislation, you can turn them around if they don't agree with you.

And even if they don't, they'll try to help.

Instead of being roadblocks, they'll be more cooperative.

We've got some people on our side who have known

about problems, about legislation.

And their input can be exceedingly beneficial to you as you try to put something together in a bill.

And they welcome the opportunity to have this at the earliest possible stage.

Now, we do run into some administrative problems from time to time.

And Pete and I got a little problem tomorrow.

I want to talk to Pete to assure him we're on the same side.

We've got to find an answer to the problem.

And I know that Pete and I can somehow try to work it out so that we don't embarrass each other or embarrass the administration and still get the right answer.

Are you going to meet, maybe Pete, maybe you ought to meet today, tomorrow, we'll see.

Well, maybe I can talk to Pete later so that we get our, at least on the same wavelength that we can to try and resolve this very difficult problem.

But all I'm saying is... Well, we're talking about minimum wage.

Well, there's things that are in opacite.

This is right.

Opacite is not put on minimum wage.

I'm going to go under the gun on that one.

But then to take your problem as an administrative one, Mr. President, the one you brought up the other day, I think we've coined something.

Oh, you're apple brokers.

But what I'm saying is there is a great desire of people on the Hill to work intimately with the people in the executive branch.

particularly among Republicans, and we have some very good friends on the Democratic side, too, that you ought to meet with, that you ought to work with.

I emphasize that because the mathematics are that we're outnumbered to 240-some to 190.

If we're going to win on some of these things, we have to get X percentage of Democratic support.

And it will be a floating coalition.

Some days we'll work with this part of the Democratic Party, and the next day we'll work with another segment of the Democratic Party.

And I might be able to help you with trying to know who you ought to work with on a particular problem that you're faced with.

And myself and my office and others in our leadership, last hours would be invaluable in trying to find out who you should work with and what approach you ought to take.

Other members of our leadership can be also very helpful.

I want to just conclude by saying that our people are all on the same team.

The appointments that have been made, this invitation here,

will be received extremely well, and I think the results will be highly beneficial.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I'd like to just put one word in.

We've had this problem, Jerry, of going up in the early conference room.

We've had an in-house problem, which I think we've all got to recognize, and Roy's got a tremendous responsibility in this area.

We have not been able to go up at the formative stage of legislation

and really sit down with various members of Congress and get their input because of a lack of approval system, which you had to maintain, I think, in the way that you've done it because of the budgetary responsibility.

But we have, in order to do what Jerry wants to do, I think, in the House, we've got to figure out how to work out an input from the Congress during the formative state before we've got approval to go with either testimony or the legislation.

So I think this...

This does suggest that we find a new modus operandi internally.

We have to do it in order to do this.

We started the other day, as Roy knows, under the Department of Energy and Natural Resources.

We could use that format on every piece of legislation of major importance.

You'll get much more cooperation and we'll get better legislation.

When they're working with the Democrats and the Republicans side by side, and two months before finally it gets distilled, then you know it's essentially been modified to reflect those many discussions as well.

And I think modified in a way that all around is more acceptable and more workable, and that will be found out there.

You won't get unanimity, but at least the guy thinks he's had some say.

He's had his day in court, and his opposition will be modified by the fact that he really tried to do it, and for various reasons, hopefully good reasons, he wasn't successful.

At least he can't get up and say he never had a darn thing to say about what was going on.

Well, it's turning out to be a better package, too, which is a good benefit.

It'll be more likely to be approved.

That would be better in that sense, yeah.

There's one area.

Yes, go ahead.

I wanted to say, incidentally, it's really great to make this work.

It's getting surfaced early on, the understanding that you're dealing with an intrinsically difficult problem, whatever it is.

And that there are a lot of ways of dealing with it.

That there are major

interests that have to be reconciled.

I say that because if you don't get that understanding of the issue out first, the press will inevitably begin to keep score on who wins or loses in a given situation.

In the H.W.

area, for example, Kat may have an idea about how to deal with health insurance.

which is complicated and would need to go before the domestic council and then eventually wind its way through the OMB process and come to you for decision.

You may have some very tough calls to make.

Major budgetary implications may be involved in this.

And yet, if you're really going to get the Congress into the act, in the sense that Jerry talked about, you've got to take this out before the OMB and domestic counsel process is completed and before the decisions that you have to make have been presented to you.

Now, it can't.

If Cap's proposal runs into heavy going with members of the Republican side of the police and police committee, let's say, or Mills doesn't like it, or Mills does like it and Ash doesn't like it, or it goes into the domestic council and then the problem is competition for money, or you eventually conclude that, well, we'd like to do that, but we can't do it and also move forward in other areas.

And so, you know, this gets chalked up as a loss for Weinberger or maybe a win for Ash or something like that.

And this is one of the reasons why this is so difficult to do.

And I see no way of doing it unless

You get everybody involved on the outside, and the recognition that this is an exceedingly tough thing.

It's a tough thing not only in terms of competition for resources, but in terms of the merits of the issue.

And if you can get people participating in that way, and it seems to me only if you can do that, is this going to be able to transcend the pettiness with which this town keeps score.

Sounds like a good question to me, but I have a hard time with it.

You're just a canvas of expense.

There is one other aspect to it that adds to the difficulty Elliot mentioned, and it's perhaps part of the same thing.

And that's the importance, not for any reason of secrecy or because anybody wants to keep things classified or anything of that kind, but the way in which options can get closed off.

If there's a great deal of public discussion on the assumption that the administration is going this way before you actually are.

We ran into it on the school business.

We tried on the air team with a great many people.

to consult with a lot of the representatives of various school interests on what kinds of a better school plan we might put together.

And within half an hour, most of those representatives, and we haven't tried to square anybody, but it's obviously in a very preliminary stage, rushed up to the Hill, testified in some open hearing that the administration was going to do this and they were all against it.

and immediately a very bad clamp was created.

I agree with the early consultation of the Congress and I'm all for it.

It wouldn't be desirable to try to have some kind of understanding that what is being discussed is necessarily

tentative and that doesn't have to be slaughtered in public before it gets born because it may never get born and things of that kind so that there are real reasons for doing just what Jerry suggested there are reasons for trying to keep in mind the importance of doing it on a tentative preliminary basis.

Mr. President, I think our experience of the Better Communities Act is worthy of note here.

When we had our discussions and consultations this morning, both drew out in our discussion planning, we had four or five of the key committees over there, various options without letting us know which way we were leaning.

And to get their feedback, in fact, we're really going to avoid some of the things Kat mentioned, but I do think that we're particularly going to be faced with this very soon, with our part of the community development deal, and I think that we really have to wrestle with this one.

I think it's important to get this support and some feeling of input at this time.

I think it's the L.A. insurance and the Canada officers who have not had quite as much experience with Congress as others.

And here is an area where, for the outside interest, where the Metals Council is extremely valuable.

And he is quite an artist of growing up in another small town.

Mr. President, we had an excellent meeting with Cap and some of his people a week ago, I guess.

I'm the better in school than that.

And there were some knowledgeable people who had a good input.

They didn't necessarily agree with some of Cap's ideas, but so few people do.

But I think you got an understanding, Cap, of what it was feasible.

Very good.

get their backing by modifying a bit, you have advocates for your position rather than opponents, and it's darned important in a committee, whether you're testifying or whether the markup takes place, to have those people on your side when the gut decisions are made in a committee or on the floor of the House.

It's very useful to be in the other room in the queue, too, and say something.

Thank you.

Well, Jerry, I have one for you.

We'll talk.

The unemployment insurance.

We can't get a sponsor, but I can't get a Democrat sponsor, but I can get a Republican to back him up.

What do you think about that?

I'll be glad to.

I'm familiar with that.

Now, that's one of those old bills.

We can't get a sponsor out of the Republicans.

Well, I frankly apologize for not knowing about it.

Well, we did talk to the people involved.

We talked to Schneebly and...

but i'll talk to you about this bills i think will go for it i mean your statement would go with him well on that point the experience we've had in the past i don't know whether he does it outside

We try to get the ranking Republican members and myself and as many others as we can.

Now in some cases where you want bipartisan support and where a Democrat chairman is reluctant to have my name on it with him and yet he'll go on it, we get the chairman and the ranking Republican to do it.

and I can put it in separately, but not on the same numbered bill.

In this case, if her statement won't do it, I'll be glad to.

There's no problem there at all.

I think this illustrates, I frankly didn't know about this problem.

There's no difficulty whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.

Dillsburg, Sears, mills, mills, mills, mills.

I've got full consultation with the Congress, and the whole thing they've been pulling, and so then after you leave, they won't even know what the subject was.

I don't know what they're trying to do.

I don't know what you are trying to do.

Ah, let me, let me, let me find out, too, then, in this whole business of consultation and so forth.

I'll see if it's true, if I can find out who won and who didn't win.

But I don't think that at any time we need to be as concerned about that.

A lot of that is Washington talk, and in the end, the result is what matters.

You have to realize that we are living under a partisan period.

You have to realize and consult with the people who are sometimes responsible, but sometimes partisan.

And if we were in this place, we would be exactly the same way as them.

That could make them out a little differently.

in the press and the way you affected in your conversations so uh i think the the business of the consultation with the democrats and some republicans will play the same game for publicity purposes it's got to be very darkly handled now they've got timothy who's an expert on fishing and i would urge all of you i mean sometimes even though you have great experience about it before

If we're getting caught down there in that consultation process, be sure you know who you can talk to and who you can't.

Don't ever assume that you're right, Jerry.

You and I can talk to the leaders, but that's the point.

The leaders then can know how this thing is going.

We want to work the leaders very closely in with this.

But we also have to realize, as Jerry's pointed out, as you recognize, there's no way to get anything through or to stop anything without some kind of press.

So it's quite a game here to get the responsible Democrats to go along with the Republicans.

as we try to win those that are against us, not to forget those who are for us.

That's another very sensitive issue.

There may be more of them tomorrow.

You're going to notice those that are going to be against you every time.

You, you're the thing I'm better at this morning.

So you can do whatever you like.

All right.

what Darius said without repeating it.

He's covered the most important matter that we discuss ourselves in our joint leadership meetings.

And I may say that Jerry and I have been providing a meeting once a week that has not supposedly opened a single leak out of those meetings, although we've had others in there.

And it's been very helpful.

It's led to, I think, some improvements.

I think what Jerry's been saying, in effect, in asking for a pre-consultation and early

is that if you're facing into 100-mile willow walks, maybe you need to know where and when to tack in that wind.

There's no point in coming up there and saying that your administration has to have this program if you know that the majority on the other side are lined up in a straightforward line array against you.

And you are going to get it, unless you simply want to make an issue for the country.

But if you want legislation,

We've got to use these floating correlations that Jerry talks about.

I think it's also probably helpful if we have earlier consultations where vetoes are pending or likely, even though we have not yet finished the enactment of the bill in question, because we need to be able to hold out to our two bodies.

the possibilities of alternative legislation, and we have once or twice been able to do that.

We've gone up and said, was it early board or someone else had an amendment once where I was able to say at the Senate that if this is going to be vetoed, but the administration favors the early board approach, whichever it was,

And we pick up some boats that way.

I think, too, it's important to, well, first I want to make the point that our offices are available to all cabin officers, assistants.

Experts, during the consideration of bills which you feel are of major importance to your treasury, often does that, and others too, where you send your experts up and while we are considering amendments, and they come off pretty fast, and we now have the advantage of a little computerized television, which tells us exactly what amendment is pending and who's speaking for it and against it in our room,

There'll be a treasury expert, for example, who will give us an instant reaction to an unexpected amendment so that we know what the administration position is by having the rap on the hill with us.

And we want you to know that our officers are available for that purpose.

And I think we would want to ask you, don't put us under the gun unnecessarily.

Politicians have a sensitivity toward that.

They don't want to be wrong officially, more often than necessary.

Well, if you tell us that the administration's position is absolutely opposed to something, if you want us to write it down on the line, we'll tell our colleagues that.

That's why.

It's essential to know why.

If, however, someone in your department simply concludes that Amendments 4, 5, and 3

are merely unnecessary, and you conclude that they do no harm.

We have, nevertheless, in defense, been asked to oppose them.

Now, we had that with the matter that John Starr was handling the L.A.

He's had it for some minutes, and, you know, and the manager of the bill says, why do I have to go on the record?

Why do I have to ask all the other Republicans

to get an unnecessary roll call vote because an agency feels that this amendment is, while not harmful, is unnecessary.

So we would ask you to refine your implorings to us to the point where we do not have to go on record any more than we need.

We take too many votes anyway.

We had a record 525 last year.

Half of them are necessary, but that skews the Democrats very much.

But part of it's our fault because somebody in the administration, maybe a deputy assistant secretary who said a word to us, just doesn't really do any damage, but he doesn't add anything to the bill.

We don't care whether it adds anything to the bill or not.

If it doesn't do any damage,

put in all the mattress and cushion and fluff you want, let the countries take it out of you.

But don't make us, make our people go and wreck it where there's no substantive need for it.

We would like to know, too, what compromises are possible on bills which are subject to vetoes.

And that is what all track is.

You suggested we propose, and that's worked very well in a number of cases.

EDA is a case that we hope is true in vocational rehabilitation in terms of work in the old American tax, for example.

So we want to get on the good side of it, and we can.

Two other things, finally.

One that concerns our current leadership greatly is what happens to interim funding pending the action on revenue a number of times in leadership meetings.

And it is not yet fully clarified for us because

that some group of constituents representing a rather large number of people will get the word that their favorite program is out of the window forever.

They can, as Captain Moses wanted us.

And we had a lot of unnecessary work to do through no fault of the administration, but because of the hysteria and

people who have invested in the same daycare, the same old attachment, and every librarian in the country gets an impression that you've got to close up all the libraries, you know, and turn them into sports arenas or something.

So we would like, in that sort of case, if there is to be an economic package,

I would suggest, if I may, respectfully to the President, if he wasn't having my part in the meeting beforehand, because he thought attending to get locked in on some rather excessive positions, such as the Democratic Caucus,

But as the president well knows, when you get people down here like Mansfield, he tends, once you get him away from those horrific staff members he has, to be very strong, right?

If he can make a decision for himself before he really gets back into the clutches of these little monsters, he will often say to the president, well, that seems all right to me, Mr. President.

I suggest that if you've got a program where we can, you know, break the ranks of the Democrats in the House, and if I appeal it to that leadership,

Uh, before the speaker gets a chance to find out what Wayne Hayes thinks, for example, it, it seems to me that we might make some progress, but there's not any wrong on this, but I suggest as President, we are grateful to him for having, uh, suggested that the, uh, that Bill and Al and Andrew Kessinger come and see us, and we are asking them from time to time also,

to speak before our Republican conference.

We want to try to get Henry up the next time.

The vice president has spoken to us.

We'd like to ask him to do that again.

I'm especially grateful to him for his advice.

Thank you, Mr. President.

So, we had planned this morning to have a report from Secretary of Labor, ATW, and I might postpone those right at the moment because I've been assessing them.

You are a B.I.

man, aren't you?

I wouldn't have hoped that it would go on so close on you until the next meeting.

We'll expect each of you in the next meeting, if you will, or another before.

In any case, there is one problem you want to discuss.

Oh, yeah?

Suggest we compromise this one.

And you know, if they are suggested too early in the game, there is no way that you'll ever keep the position that you're in because then you'll be able to suggest a compromise and you'll be back, go back to there.

If you come to a time where any of them blows the game, it has to be handled very, in a very sensitive way.

I must say, for example, you take the education thing.

Our people think that they ought to be gave this soon.

Now, whether that's the right thing or not, you can see.

But each cabinet officer has got to watch this, and you've got to check the budget.

Here again, of course, that is in terms of .

The tactics, though, are very, very

that is important here.

And talking about compromises, well, like you think the labor negotiations, neither labor or management ever talks about a compromise unless they are pretty well ready to move to that direction.

Because they know very well that if they talk about a compromise, that they're going to be bargaining from there rather than from here, right?

That's right.

And it's exactly the same deal with these people.

Well, the times we've used it, of course, never been hearings.

I mean, they've already paid for it.

But rather than to gain votes to fend off a crucial amendment which will let the bill, which is just before the passage,

I'm not going to go into any of the foreign policy developments at this point because

We just let that rest where it is.

I will say that the meeting was very successful.

in terms of setting up what we believe is going to be a constructive program for after seeing the Russians developing a new relationship, a constructive relationship with my friends.

Now, getting back to the domestic areas, there's two areas that we've been spending, I've been spending, and some around this table.

And here's an area in particular that I'm interested in.

This is really helpful.

Two areas where we are trying to, where we are considering moving towards some more, some new directions.

One is energy.

We're not ready yet, but our energy package, the original one we did was good.

However, it gave us an issue.

And so we are going to have something to say on energy.

Not something to say, but something to do.

And what would you say in terms of timetable on that, or do we want to get tied to a timetable?

Well, I hope next week, sir, toward the end of the week, or at the end of the week, yes, because it involves running calls also.

The other is the subject that you mentioned.

We've been wrestling with this for a long time.

You sort of start with those who want to take the status quo and sell it better.

And you have others who say, well, we'll take the status quo a little more, and so on.

And then, of course, you have the extreme position, well, let's freeze everything for either 50 days, I mean, either five months, as the Senate would suggest, or 30 days, 60 days, or what have you.

We consider all these options as possibilities.

But I would suggest that if any members of the committee have strong views with regard to what

which direction we should move in the economic area.

Let's pass them through to George Shultz, because he will be very, very honest with you, seeing if they get paid.

You see, we've been meeting

in a very small group, it has to be kept small because there's been any congestion in this area to move the markets over, etc.

And that group consists of George Bernstein, and a representative of the American Council, Rick Cole, and John Cullen.

I just want the cabinet to be aware of the fact that we've been working on this for the past three weeks.

It's not that we do not recognize the necessity for action, if the problem is what kind of action will be most effective and what kind of action will do some good without doing too much damage.

You have also a very practical problem, a very practical problem that you mentioned, that the Congress might hang a freeze that would be totally labor-opposing, management-opposing.

The country would like others to think it would work, but if you take a five-month freeze on, well, your labor guys are going to like them, right?

on wages.

Well, they're looking for some relief.

They'll have to, like, if they're young, stand up and cake and eat it.

Sure.

But what I want to add is that apparently they're not competing with some of these folks, and they will, but...

They want something done for us, that's what they want.

But anyway, here's where we stand at the present time.

If any of you have views about this, you can send Roy Esch also.

I've talked to Paul, and there's a variety of views within the group.

And I, of course, will make my position.

If you have views, I would get them today, if you can.

I'm not going to prejudice any of you with regard to what your views may be.

by presenting the arguments that I have made for freedom, against freedom, and mostly against, for the state of the world, against, and so forth and so on and so on.

But as we like to see, are there any ideas we have from different areas?

So I just didn't want the people around this room who are not members of the small group that I could care to, would not be considered.

And that includes everybody, vice president, members of the National Council, and so forth, who are not.

members of the which has the primary responsibilities too.

Let me say that one of the reasons we have not discussed this in any particular forum is the very, and I'm sure you can realize, coaching.

that in this area, discussion of where it is that we have, where administration is going to move, and have as I've already implied, very great impact on economic planning and so forth.

For example, talking about cities and so forth, already it's going to be affecting some companies, jacking up their prices.

Mr. President, I'd like to underscore that last point, and I think we'll have both the price index being released today.

Again, that's very large increases in the food area, but also some of the very substantial ones in the industrial area.

There's a great abundance there, and those are the list prices that the companies post.

That's the market prices, but everybody's getting their list prices up as high as they can.

in anticipation of a possible freeze.

And it is a very inflationary thing, in a sense, to have the kind of talk the Senate resolution precipitates if it goes on and on.

Mr. President, I'm so happy to watch you, sir.

I think you should know your program to help the Vietnam veterans to succeed at our goal.

We placed in the facility in 1973, way over a million in jobs and training, and it was good.

It was also, you'd be glad to hear, very strong with the women's movement.

I led with 35, and we did very well.

And I think in that area would be the last sport at the moment.

I'd like you to know that I've been talking around the country, labor management and educational groups, and things don't come out as bad as the newspapers study here.

I've got letters to this and an invitation back and forth, and I can talk about what we're doing and let them know that by that standards, we're moving.

And sometimes I think you should look at some of these things.

A little different than what you would believe reading the papers and some of the things being said by some labor leaders.

Right and file, they're trying to run away from you and they're not running away from what we're trying to do in this country.

And I like to give you the details of that.

And what they want to do to help, and I like to know if we can get those green lights to go, because they really want to go.

We have a feeling that this country has very important, more important than what it gave us last year, and that's the gate to a happy home for all Americans.

I think we should be moving.

I find the more I get out there, the more I discuss, the more we turn them around.

And the letters here, and the stories of local hostages, it's much better than you're getting here in Washington or the New York Times.

It's a little different picture.

And everybody's not talking about the Watergate thing.

They've got a lot of other things they'd rather us be talking about.

I'd like to say to the President, the way we are doing it, we're talking to the people, and forget all the people that think that God ordained that and all the answers and claims.

Well, we will appreciate it.

As far as I've already indicated, the members of the cabinet, there's many engagements on the floor.

They must have been in the West Building.

It would be good for you, as a matter of fact.

It's good for a member of the cabinet to see that there's another world other than the world we live in here.

And it's also very important to indicate that this government is moving forward.

It's moving forward on the international front very, very rapidly.

It's moving forward also on the domestic front.

And all of its products are being...

I'm not able to move because of the obsession.

This is nonsense.

We all know that around this table.

But the way that has to be reflected is by what you say and what you do when you go out all the time.

So we'll appreciate your having very heavy schedules, particularly in the next months.

I, first of all, will have a very heavy international schedule because the president of business comes in and I'll have to spend the whole period with him because he spent the whole period with me when I was in office.

But that will be a big precedent.

Impressing in the sense that whether people agree or disagree with what we have actually come up with, and I think people, I have a lot of support, is that we have to realize that in this particular area, the country improves of what we have done.

We have not only ended the war,

which is country money.

We ended the draft.

For the moment, we've ended the riots.

I don't know if you can hear it.

We have a new relationship with one-fourth of the people in the world.

We have a negotiating relationship with the Soviet Union, where we used to be right at each other's throats with the danger of war at any time.

It doesn't mean we don't have very major problem areas.

The Mideast is very much concerned with what we're working on.

And of course, there are other parts of the world where something may bust out now and then.

But at the present time, the International Theater, we have to realize that one of the reasons we won so substantially in November

is that people realize that the world is a lot safer today, a lot better, and the chances of their children's love and peace are infinitely greater than they were when we came to office.

And we're going to continue over the next few years.

We're going to make that, we're going to make a lot more sense.

On the domestic front, our major problem we have to face is inflation.

The major problem here, of course, is this, which we all know is the irritation of Watergate, which will continue.

But we've studied this pretty much through, John was telling me about a conversation with Blue Hairs, John Connolly was, was that right, John?

She says inflation is a big concern.

And so inflation is a concern.

Also a concern that we may not be doing as much as we can.

The problem here is not only to move there, but to move in all these domestic areas.

in a way that will establish the faith of the people in the fact that they have a government that is alive, that is moving in their interest, and not shell-shocked by reason of the attention received.

And I would simply conclude by saying that we must not forget that this is not going to change

After Watergate, it'll be something else.

This is a political gunfight.

That's all for the present time.

Just as it was at the time of the bombing in December, where we had very little support, just as it was at the time of the Cambodia incursion,

just as it was at the time of the Navy's bombing in Maine.

Here, you get very deep division, and particularly here, among these so-called pigeon makers.

We have to realize that we have some very bigger supplies.

And that doesn't mean you agree with the percentage, because you must, you know, get the best you can out of it when you can.

But it does mean that you recognize that it's a battle.

And simply because you're having a battle doesn't mean that you should go and say, oh, gee, oh, everything's coming to an end.

We get through a battle, but we battled for four years in one election.

Now, we've got to continue the battle for the next three and a half years.

And we know what's best for the country.

We believe that we're working in the international field for a better world and a more peaceful world.

And we're working to make something this country hasn't had since Eisenhower was president.

And that is a full employment without undue burdens in place.

That's a tough one.

And apart from all that, we're working in a number of other areas that go to Asbury and all the rest of the areas that people who know about transportation, better communities and on the farm and so forth, rural areas.

In fact, what I'm simply saying is that nothing is polyamory about it.

The thing is that

And beyond that, though, we have to realize that we have a very good story to tell.

It's a strong story, and it must be told.

And do this until we get across.

That's really what you found, isn't it?

Yes.

In fact, I'm trying to get the other shell-shocked.

Let's let the opposition get into a state of shell-shock.

And now, how do you find that silver?

The inflation, of course, lending is a big thing, and people feel it, lose, you know.

In general, I think the attitude is very good, but we have to get out there, build it up, and show the people that we can.

So we have to get the FBI launched.

All right.