On June 29, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman talked on the telephone at Camp David from 1:33 pm to 1:43 pm. The Camp David Study Table taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 135-008 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Yeah.
Hello.
Hello.
Hello, John.
Yes, sir.
With regard to your suggestions with regard to people on the welfare rolls, it's come down in a way that is not too effective.
It says the Ribicoff proposals would total 35 million people on the rolls, and the reform bill would total 97 million.
My interest really is in how many they would add.
uh so is it basically this is that's the total so you'd say it would 23 million more uh and the other the other would be would be 75 million more or three times as many yeah well i think that yeah either way okay i get the point and that's the way it operates so they're so they're the the line that ribacoff would have been 80 million was too too high right these are these are senate financial committee staff analyses
And I think if you work in terms of percentages or times, that would be more graphic.
But percentages, I don't think percentages mean a hell of a lot to people.
I think they like to hear, just think of, they like to think of individuals.
Just think, 50 million people are going to be put in the welfare rolls, you know.
What a hell of a note, you know.
Rather than the number, that we will be increased by 33 and a third percent.
See, that's the stuff Henry always puts in, but it doesn't mean much.
On Rivercroft, you can say that what that amounts to is 23 million people.
Well, we could just say it triples the number of people in the welfare bill, or 23 million in the other bill.
I get the point.
I got it fine.
Okay.
Was there anything else that you had to suggest?
Oh, nothing further on the Social Security thing.
It's about where it was.
There seems to be a little give, apparently.
I talked to Clark a little while ago, and he thinks that 10 and 10 is an increasing possibility.
He had quite a long meeting with Mills and the Speaker, and they recognize the problem now, and they're not keen to be held in.
Mills particularly wants to get to Florida.
The way this answer that Buchanan has prepared here reads, it still says that I'm not going to approve a 20% rise because it would mean an increase in every working family's taxes.
Do we want to come down that hard?
No, I haven't seen that.
Basically, we shouldn't say that.
No.
I think you've got to keep your option open.
Keep it open, because I just might have to sign the damn thing.
I'll just say I will not approve any rise that is not financed.
I should point out, however, that if it's too high, it's going to wipe out the gains and the tax increases and so forth.
That's it.
I had a press conference here.
I'm in Springfield.
Oh, I see.
I'm sorry.
I had a press conference here this morning, and I flashed church pretty hard along that same line.
As you said, just looking at some of these other, the late news.
Nothing on that one.
Oh, gun control.
He says there's a clear discrepancy between what Treasury gave us on this and what your shop gave us.
If you can, well, of course, he's not for it, so I don't want to get into that.
We've got to be for gun control, John.
I mean, I don't mean for cheap handgun control.
Saturday night specials.
That's right.
Buchanan says this is primarily a matter for state and local, not federal control.
That never worked.
Never worked.
This involves imports besides.
Yeah, but again, that's actually a Senate bill.
But don't you think we just ought to say that a bill which deals with these Saturday night specials and their imports and so forth is a matter of, since they are, a lot of them are imported, is a matter of...
and I feel we ought to outlaw him.
Don't you think so?
Yeah, I'd say that you can wholeheartedly support congressional action in that front.
Uh-huh.
Yes, sir.
Let's see if there's any other that he raises questions.
The Supreme Court today, by a vote of 5-4, did you know this, voted the death penalty unconstitutional?
Yeah, I got a question on it this morning.
Would you support a constitutional amendment to overturn today's decision?
It says the Supreme Court ruling stands as a law of the land.
This administration accepts it as such.
Did the opinion apply to everything?
I don't know.
I assume so, but I don't know that.
Well, that's the point that I guess we'd better have checked.
I mean, well, I'll have it checked here.
You see, the problem is there that if it did not, I am just curious as to whether it applied to.
I guess if the Supreme Court does it, we have to see our four appointees to Senate.
And if the Supreme Court does it, we have to accept it.
But I don't know.
First and later.
What's your view?
Don't you think you have to... Well, yes.
I totally waffled it because I didn't know they'd done it.
I see.
And I assumed it from the question, but I decided I'd better just dance around it.
So I said that they want to know if you would offer a constitutional amendment.
Yeah.
Well, I couldn't speculate on a thing of that kind.
I do know that you have strong convictions about deterrence.
I don't think that...
I think I just said I'm not going to comment on that until I've had a chance to study the picture.
Sure, sure.
Yeah.
Cap reports that the House added $100 million to our $100 million supplemental.
For flood relief?
No.
Yeah, yeah.
Scott in the Senate has added $200 million.
Are you aware of the maneuvering that went on on Griffin's anti-bussing amendment?
No.
Tell me briefly about that.
He had an anti-bussing amendment, which he showed us first, which was in effect a moratorium.
He offered it as an amendment to the OEO extension.
Scott Javits came to him privately and said, we will offer an amendment to your proposal
which will be substantially the Broomfield Amendment.
Griffin saw that the Senate would cop out by taking the Broomfield Amendment, so he withdrew his amendment.
Yeah.
Well, the Broomfield is inadequate, isn't it?
Yes.
But it was obviously more appealing to a majority of the Senate.
So he's going to... Would Broomfield handle Detroit?
Well, temporarily it might.
We don't know.
That's that Attorney General's opinion you have.
It depends on whether it enters a final order that is a desegregation order.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
I understand.
Does Broomfield go further than 803?
No, it is 803.
Well, it's already in then.
It's in.
We've already signed it then.
That's right.
Well, then what's this all about?
It's a maneuver by Javits and Scott to water down the Griffin Amendment.
So he's withdrawn it?
So he withdrew it.
Oh, Christ.
So, well, I just have to say that I think we need the moratorium.
Stick with that.
Go back to your own legislation.
That's right.
That's right.
Fine, fine.
Fine, all right.
You're having a good time out there, I hope.
Oh, just a jolly event.
We've got the regional press of five states in here.
Great, great.
Well, good luck.
I won't hold you back.