Nixon, Broyhill & Timmons on Washington DC Subway and Appropriations

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

Hello, Joel, how are you?

I have an area for you over in the hideaway here.

Sit down, sit down.

What you trying to do, build a subway?

You trying to get rid of it before you think about our day?

There you are.

You got it?

Mr. Ferdinand, I've been discussing this with the staff over at the Tribal Act, and they have prepared a statement of the kind that is exactly what I had hoped that you would accept.

That's right.

Oh, yes, indeed.

In fact, I didn't want to stop you like this.

I wasn't going to get it through you.

This will get it through.

Without it, it's dead.

Well, now, what are you saying here?

You're saying that Nassau... Well, I'm not going to waste the money.

Nassau has, for the last few years, has said that unless we comply with the Act of Sympathy, there is no subordination.

Now, frankly, I think he's getting subordinated on that, and he is excused.

This is beside the point.

He has been sustained in using that as an excuse.

The President of the United States is saying, and he's got to say it because it's in court, the President is saying that we're going to comply with the Act of 1960.

In fact, he's stating there that you agree with the Act of 1960 and you're instructing your supporters to comply with it.

No one's going to challenge the President of the United States in his sincerity in saying we're going to comply with the Act.

Both of you are not sincere, or the district council is not sincere.

Here's a president saying, we're going to find out.

I thought I had been for this damn thing.

You have been.

We have been.

The problem's been the Court of Appeals.

Why did you recommend that group plan?

Let me tell you, he's not my patroness.

Isn't he awful?

That's his opinion.

This is what I'm saying.

It's a very positive statement.

If this is the problem, and that's your point, Mr. Beasley, let's get the Bridges bill to the Highway Act to fly with, and we'll release the money.

The President says we're going to do it, and if the problem is in the court, I'm expecting the attorney's ability was necessary in that regard.

Mr. President, I can't conceive of this being questioned by any significant number of members.

Tell me this, where does the legislative situation go?

Do you, is it now?

Where is it exactly?

Because I haven't followed that person.

Is it in the House?

It's in the appropriation bill.

It's all marked up.

And Mr. President... Well, then you can get it this way.

That's right.

This is a fungus portion, and this holds up to all the rest of the ballgame.

It's only $70 million being held up, but this holds up a total of $250 million in other funds, and then the suburbs, that portion, is going higher.

I'm not against the subway system.

I think you may have a few members of Congress that would be able to go to stop a lot of projects, and they'd cost a couple dollars.

But they're managing themselves, and everybody says they're in front of the subway system, but they're using it as a hostage to require compliance with the Act of 68 on highways.

Now, it's a silly thing, but frankly, the whole thing is silly right now.

You're really starting to fuck it down right here.

It just doesn't make sense, like a person should when you hear it.

But you know the establishment, Mr. President, when the incorporation committee comes out and says something, the chairman of the subcommittee takes a position, the tenants in the house is the faculty, and he has used as an excuse the fact that the district's on the government.

primarily, and the Department of Transportation, secondarily, is not really interested in complying with the Act of 1968, so he's using the holding of the responsibility for that.

You pull the rug out in that respect, and you're saying, you're for that act, and you're directing him directly here.

I read this, that you're directing them to comply with it.

They have to, and they're trying to, but they need your...

The Congress needs your assurance that they are going to comply with it.

Is this, uh, what would you do then when you take this down to the floor?

Well, listen, you want to be released at a stated value.

I know everybody got out, but what would you do?

And I'll write, I'll call our, uh, of course, I could notify the press also of my being, and I understand that you can't go and go and see.

They know what you're hearing.

That's right.

And we have, of course, uh,

The main thing is to get another bipartisan proposal from the SAR until we get the district passed.

Mr. President, I don't think this money will go into the bill in the first place, but maybe it will go into the bill in the second.

I don't think it will go into the bill.

But if it doesn't,

He may come up with something else that Bazelon has in his decision.

Now, then we go to

We can throw the floor there off in a minute.

Now, we almost overruled it the night of the last time.

But we didn't have the Republican leadership to do that because the administration hadn't taken it seriously.

And that's not just the story.

We don't want to take it seriously.

And now, with this thing, I'm just going to have to get off the floor, and it will be adopted.

Let me tell you, though, I have to depend here on Crowe and Caffrey.

They told me that what your views are, they're going to have to have my sign to get off the floor.

Well, I don't know if I'll be able to do it.

Now, what you should say is that, well, they don't know what you're saying.

I want you to say anything you want to say.

Use this as the purpose of a broker.

You use it.

Not that you need it, but I want you to know that we have so many things to this that we never get through or get done.

But when we do one like this, you go, okay.

And you say that you came in, that I told you that after meeting you, I put out this statement to explain the whole situation.

That's our position, and we're going to fight for it.

This is something that not only will help me as far as, but I think these people, they're very much upset about this.

Well, basically, it's very important.

I had a Powell thing on the police duty.

Ooh, that's where it went.

This is a very strong bullet.

You notice how I mentioned this great Virginia Chief Justice Department?

Not only did I notice it, we had a few other people out there that noticed it also.

Oh yes, this is a very great one.

And it's not that I can tell you all the facts.

That was Powell.

That just proves that there is a difference between the two.

I don't worry about that.

I mean, you could use it to your better self.

Grant would take it and he'd spoil it.

Well, this is good.

Grant's on our side this time.

We don't care how he does it.

That's good, and I wish you well.

Bill, you know we'll go over there to my office and give him the things for the secretary.

I'm not sure what all of the secretaries will do.

Bill, you're turning down.

I'll talk, Mr. President, to John Connolly.

John's, uh... What's he want to do?

John, the point is that the bill, it wouldn't be, it would present problems to beat up the bill, except it's not out of possibility.

I think he was being a little considerate of our politics.

The second one, he said, as far as the veto, he didn't tell the vetoes to turn him in or brought him out at all.

He said, you don't make the threat that you can get it across if it's under consideration.

This thought, and I think it's a hell of a lot better than what Scott and the rest of them want you to do.

They want you to call along, and I don't think that's at all possible.

Never.

But I think it could be postured on the basis that Scott and Griffin, they have talked to people and that they're very concerned about this legislation, and that they will recommend to you that we do it.

Right.

and that I said that I wouldn't have to consider it.

That's right.

Tell them that Scott and the director didn't have a problem with me.

They had the license to say that.

That I would say, well, I've had the surgery to consider it much as I want this bill.

I just can't be that irresponsible.

I'll do it.

Here, yeah.

All right.

Hello?

Oh yeah, you can call me.

Call me when she's done.

Well, the reason he wants it is to bail the Democratic Party out of its debt.

Isn't that it?

The Democratic Party has stepped on a big step.

We've got a small telephone company, an airline company, that's told the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee that unless this is cleared up by the 1st of December, we're going to cut off the telephone, cut off the airline tickets, and then we're going to take reservations to take people off to San Diego.

It doesn't play with the, as fast as we can put it out, why hasn't the C.A.B.

required American Airlines to take the demonstration?

That's why I have to stop them from doing it.

We've got to make sure that we arrest them again.

But why do you think, you don't think there's a chance to beat this thing?

There's a chance all over the world.

The court says that the mayor and parking lot of the Democrats .

The vote was on a biased motion in connection with one of the titles.

And so they voted .

on that revised motion, but when they come to the two titles of the bill, for instance, if I came and said I won't vote for this title, I would show them the prior party led on the final motion.

So it may be some leverage to switch it in there.

So I don't really have a sense of what I should report, but that's the idea.

You know, what Collins thought is that if we get to that, that the bar is lower than the credit.

Yes, John mentioned that recently, but here I know about the new game.

Uh, what if that doesn't work?

Well, if the county controls it, which might work very well, they will have to put in an incident.

And the county says, well, hell, we won't even let them audit it.

They can't put taxes on it.

Well, that's what they're going to do if they want to.

Uh, it would, uh, if they were going to put in an incident.

If they were going to form, wouldn't you have to have some piece of paper to let them?

This provides for how much?

There's a deductibility of $10 and a $1.

Well, it's a $1.

Yeah.

So they can just direct a portion of their tax dollars into your bill, or just pull it in with her.

So if the deduction bill is just a drop, then there wasn't a deduction bill, too.

Well, we can't get an alias, but I think this, the worst comes to worst, John.

I don't know what you mean.

I don't know.

I hope you won't.

I will say, too, that this election year, though, I don't think much of it, but this could only be used in the final candidates.

The national candidates and so forth.

Well, it's used for the candidate.

In the final candidates, it can't be used in the final candidates.

That's what we're putting in the election.

I do not believe, for example, that in 1968 the outcome was that they wanted to get them to spend more money.

They spent that money.

They spent money, you know, in those last few years, you know, they were going to cover themselves.

Both candidates, both candidates, eventually, if President Obama gets his name, they're short, short of, they're short of, they're inability to buy the time.

For what?

For the lack of money.

For what?

Well, they didn't have the money, but at the end of the campaign, they couldn't buy the time.

All right.

Let me talk to you one minute about some comments you all wrote.

Thank you.

Thank you a lot, Don.

We'll give him hell.

His law firm, or ours, he says that there's a couple of guys, they're using, they're partners, they're all, I don't know the name of them, Mayhem.

I said, I've never heard of them, but anyway, they're down there, and some sort of a man comes in,

And so they're talking all over.

He said, talk to you about lunch this Monday.

I just talked to the driver.

And it involves some rich booty.

And there's a big fight over a $400 million estate or something.

And then Roy called us in on one side.

And Arthur, apparently the old friend, was in it.

These two guys in town.

And they said, and John said, that Mahon has told people

I don't know what the hell it's all about.

Did he say that his law firm was in it?

Yes, we did.

His law firm's in it over there.

They represent one group.

Let me just give you a thumbnail sketch of it because I've been on top of it.

Harold Loughran represents an individual in one of the movies.

Cheryl, or whatever she's called.

Cheryl, who is Cheryl, who picked up the name.

That's what Loughran represents.

Their representation goes solely to a construction of an instrument.

in relationship to who should be the trustees of the foundation and so forth.

John Connors, for example, I understand, represents the corporation who have put the American International Insurance Company and so forth, who were taken over by a bunch of hoods.

And those hoods made all sorts of loans to the gamblers and the mafias up in that place, etc.

What has happened here is, and I'm sure you'll find out, there's nobody in our law firm doing this.

What has happened here is an ex-convict who has gotten next to the Sheryl Luthor and apparently been paid for it, who's been an informant for the Justice Department in the past, and he's been putting out all sorts of stories, trying to get the Justice Department and the IRS to investigate,

I've been talking to a great deal about it, and I've alerted Johnny Walters over here and I've asked him where the premise is.

So that these people cannot use, they've got to start a conference with this man, and we were going to investigate this.

This is a long committee, trying to get a long committee to investigate the Justice Department, why it's not investigating this, and so forth.

Actually, the investigation is over on Friday.

But it's this informant, this confidence man who's putting out all these stories, and I'm sure that there's nobody in that law firm who's probably not going to believe in that.

I told him, I didn't know that.

Mayhem in the law firm.

As a matter of fact, this is being handled directly under Dick Ritzel, and Dick was kept in his body.

But it's putting totally correct on the ground.

I always agree that somebody's pulling something.

Thank you.

or that these people cannot use, think about the service that we're doing.

I've had a conference with this man, and we've been investigating this.

This is a long committee.

Trying to get a long committee to investigate the Justice Department as to why it's not investigating this and so forth.

Actually, the investigation is over on Friday night.

But it's this informant, this conference man, who's putting out all these stories, and I'm sure that there's nobody in that law firm that can try to find out who's in that company.

Well, I told him, I didn't know that.

Mayhem in the law firm.

As a matter of fact, this is being handled directly under Dick Ritzel, and Dick has kept me by footage, but I told him to wrap it up with that, and I always agree with him.

So how do you pull this off?

Mm-hmm.

I think it's the first time I've shown the place in the store.

And also, find out if I was in our area at the end of those annual conventions.

Well, George is going to avoid you then, and he's cussed, and I have to say, he blisters the Lord, and he blisters her, and if you let him do that, it would stay on the world.

But they're going to fight.

I'm going to say a few good things about him.

I'm going to suck their ass.

I just want to say I'd appreciate it if you would support the fourth policy that's on here.

and I have been in support of Mr. Matthewsville, and we've all done a good job.

Talk about the dignity of work, and my father was a worker, and I'm proud of him.

They won't mind that either.

They don't know.

They like the dignity of work business, you know.

It's just this whole thing, they don't like to use that opinion about our Democratic friends.

But if the election was on, they all know that I don't have any election support.

I've got the NFL.

It's here.

Nixon, Broyhill & Timmons on Washington DC Subway and Appropriations

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on November 18, 1971

Cite this conversation