← 344-022344-024 →

Conversation 344-023

TapeTape 344StartThursday, June 22, 1972 at 1:08 PMEndThursday, June 22, 1972 at 1:35 PMTape start time03:00:12Tape end time03:01:29ParticipantsNixon, Richard M. (President);  [Unknown person(s)]Recording deviceOld Executive Office Building
AI Summary

President Nixon discusses the political strategy for securing defense funding from senators who support arms control measures. He emphasizes framing the legislative argument around the necessity of maintaining a strong defense posture to ensure the success of long-term arms limitation agreements. Nixon instructs his interlocutor to emphasize that failing to support these defense programs would undermine the progress made toward permanent offensive weapon limitations.

Arms controlDefense fundingCongressional relationsStrategic arms limitationLegislative strategy
AudioNARA Description

On June 22, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon and unknown person(s) met in the President's office in the Old Executive Office Building at an unknown time between 1:08 pm and 1:35 pm. The Old Executive Office Building taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 344-023 of the White House Tapes.

Nixon Library Finding Aid
Conversation No. 344-23

Date: June 22, 1972
Time: Unknown between 1:08 and 1:35 pm
Location: Old Executive Office Building

The President talked with an unknown person.

     Day care

                                        (rev. Jan-02)
Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

the president is that it would be ironic and it would be tragic if those, if there were senators who would support the arts control is limited and then vote against the
defense funding, which would enable us to make the next step of a permanent agreement.
In other words, that's what we want, see?
And that's what, and to put the V right on it, they will destroy the changes.
Those who got not supported, added an ongoing burden to deal with them, and destroyed the chances for a permanent limitation on offensive weapons.
Well, okay.
Now, you can say that,
destroy that and put it on that basis rather than on the basis of, well, because we have our implementation agreement, we must have the other program.
That isn't the point.
is because we have this, we want to build another one.
And in order to build another one, we must have an on-board drill.
← 344-022344-024 →