On December 1, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, H. R. ("Bob") Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichman, White House operator, and James Harvey met in the Oval Office of the White House from 11:46 am to 12:26 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 627-009 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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
I checked with the U.S. about the pharmaceutical thing.
He said the reason it is in the end is that you can't do it.
It's A, too expensive, even on a sharing basis.
There's no way that it's possible.
And B, it's impossible to administer.
So they have a huge amount of...
Well, it just can't be done.
I've had the OMB guys really dig into this.
I can't recommend it at all.
It's very expensive.
Almost impossible to administer without tremendous abuse.
The sharing thing has been studied out by R1B very carefully.
And it's still very expensive.
I figured I'd do this.
Right.
Well, of course, this reflects Lennox's point of view.
They'd all like a big ticket out of it.
I can't find it.
Well, I can't find it, and I'd recommend it.
But we go through here, and maybe...
No.
No.
They don't know it.
And what they've been subjected to is Russell Long coming up there and speaking to them, saying why we'd have had this social security legislation out a long time ago if the president hadn't insisted on having all that welfare stuff on there.
And he just says that's terrible stuff.
Now, we've all been up speaking yesterday, and we've been pounding away at the various benefits for older Americans in H.R.
1, aside from the Social Security stuff.
And we're beginning to penetrate a little bit.
Now, none of us use these numbers, except I did use a tax number that's in your speech, but I think that there is repeating that they can earn money.
The older people can earn money and keep it.
And they don't understand it.
We've flooded the place with fact sheets on everything we're doing, including H.R.
1, so that they're getting all this literature, and they're going to take this all back to their communities as their delegates.
But I don't think it hurts to go through that.
We've got very high visibility.
I tell you, I read this very carefully last night, and I think you can get away with this.
It's my feeling.
It's a very friendly audience.
Well,
You can do that, you're putting your chin out.
I saw that as being covered by your willingness to entertain all of their suggestions, and that most surely will be one of them coming out of this.
Maybe I'm unduly insensitive to the thing that Garment's talking about here, but I'm not so sure he's the best judge of this.
I just don't...
We always come up, you know, all these conferences, Jonathan.
I mean, that's why the folks come to the White House.
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
But we'll keep an open mind now.
We'll take a look at it another time.
I just don't think that's one that we can.
I'll tell you what I did over here yesterday, and I got a huge ovation and a lot of people coming up afterwards.
I said, we'll carefully examine everything you recommend.
And I told them about the machinery to do that and how you get option papers and how you work and so on.
I said, the president's going to review carefully, but you're in a typhoon of competition.
with other competing claims, libraries and schools and the military and all across the board.
It isn't enough for you just to come to Washington and say, we want this money.
You've got to make your case, and you're not going to win them all.
And so it behooves you all not only to try and get the administration to espouse your stuff, but you've got to work on the Congress, and you've got to make your case.
And that the political pressure isn't going to do it.
And I got big hurrahs at the end of the thing, and a lot of people coming up saying, gee, we're glad that somebody is doing something besides just promising this thing.
Well, yes, the real property tax thing is going to be the headline in this, I think.
Budget?
Well, you know, we did a work-up on that.
There is a draft that John Andrews did.
And I don't think it's the proper approach.
But I don't think it hurts to talk to them more in terms of inflation.
I pitched him on this checkoff yesterday.
Got a big hand.
I said that the president's going to veto this, there shouldn't be any misunderstanding about it, and why is he going to veto it?
It destroys the political system, but more importantly, it involves between 50 and 100 million dollars of taxpayer money going to pay for somebody's political campaign.
And the president feels that there's a much better use of 50 to 100 million dollars a year of treasury money that you all have sent in here in your taxes than to pay for somebody's political campaign.
Yahoo!
Big cheers!
And then I worked around the inflation and the need for more jobs, and that Congress has to reenact this tax bill.
And they stuck with it.
I kept getting hands on it right on through that subject.
It's pretty good in every interest group.
It's good.
A plot for diverting 50 to 100 million dollars in money could be used for... For your tax.
To go into the slush funds for political candidates.
Do you want me to rework the inflation part of this?
See if we can strengthen that up some?
Just a brush.
Just a little brush.
Yeah.
This real estate tax thing comes none too soon.
Haldeman's fellows have certainly got a source in the Muskie office.
And I'm sending you down a copy of a memo they stole.
He's on it.
He's had an issue poll in California, and real estate taxes shows up very high.
And so he's going out and had two days of hearings in California on real estate taxes around the 20th.
So I think we have to...
I thought I might give the vice president some material on this.
The assumption that he'd be speaking around.
He'd be whacking him.
Yeah, I'll give him the whole book to read, and then we'll talk about the parts that he ought to be emphasizing.
No, this is the last one.
Spanish speaking.
It's been indefinitely postponed as far as I know.
That was one that had been discussed.
I'll find out.
Well, you need to find out.
Well, I should know.
Do your best to see that we don't have it.
It would be a real good and bad in 1977.
Actually, this one has been hacked.
Fleming has done a very intelligent job on this.
You look at this audience, and it looks like the Federation of Republican Women
As a matter of fact, the chairman of the meeting I spoke to yesterday was the Colorado chairman of the Republican Women's Federation.
And she mentioned the fact, and they are, by and large, a friendly audience.
There are few, like, well, there are few professionals in the Trump Center.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I think you'll find that it'll float all right.
I really do.
And your headline will be the real estate taxing, I suspect.
Would you have a copy of that, so that I can have it with me?
Okay, I'll do it.
Okay, John.
Even that's because she's in her bed.
She's in her bed.
It really ought to have been that.
It's a great book that we can't end.
It's a long way along.
Good, because we're honest.
As you said on the prescription thing, as soon as you came over to the sharing thing, they'd come over and pay the whole cost.
You came out with the whole cost, they came out with paying the cab fare at the drugstore.
I tried, I tried, I tried.
It's a great service.
It's unbelievable.
On that Monday TV evening, McGregor and Timmons come up with, I think, probably a sound point, which is that the breakfast deal should not be with Mansfield and Scott.
It should either be with the Big Five, and it's at 4,000, the speaker, or, if that's too many, which the TV guys think it is, then it should be with the speaker rather than with the senators.
If you're going to put any focus on anybody, the speaker has to be at 4,000.
Well, we got the other one.
Probably got that box, but that one is a speaker.
The House has cooperated with us, and the speaker has cooperated, generally.
Mansfield is screwing it every turn, and the Senate is screwing it every turn.
I have one.
Well, the idea of a breakfast with the congressional people is pretty good.
And it's a logical thing to do, because you do do those experiments regularly.
I don't know what the hell you're going to discuss on that.
There's nothing going up there that they can have nothing to discuss that's to our interest.
You can go the long way for that matter.
If you have a more positive discussion with the houseguards, we can send that to you.
Well, if it's a speaker at all, you can send it to me.
Yeah.
Or if it's all time.
Or we can go with the speaker and Jerry and Bob, should I...
The breakfast deal should not be with Mansfield and Scott.
It should either be with the Big Five, and it's at 4,000, the speaker.
Or, if that's too many, which the TV guys think it is, then it should be with the speaker rather than the senators.
If you're going to put any focus on anybody, the speaker has to be at 4,000.
Well, we got the other one.
Probably had to have bombs, but everyone is a speaker.
The House has cooperated with us, and the Speaker has cooperated, generally.
Mansfield is screwing it every turn, and the Senate is screwing it every turn.
And yet, I have one.
Well, the idea of a breakfast with the congressional people is pretty good.
And it's a logical thing to do, because you do do those experiments regularly.
I don't know what the hell you're going to discuss on that.
There's nothing going up there that they can have something to discuss that's to our interest, and you can go the long way for that matter.
We can have a more positive discussion with the houseguards and the sound guys, too.
Well, if it's a speaker at all times, we can hold it down.
Yeah.
Or if it's all time.
Or we can go with the speaker and Jerry and Bob should have it.
It seemed like a good idea to have some congressional contact, and that the breakfast thing was a better way to get into a congressional meeting in here.
And it fits your pattern, because you do have a congressional breakfast.
They don't listen to the whole practice.
They don't have to do that.
They don't have to.
We can have them listen for any second that you want.
We have a complete... We get the belt.
We can deduct any end we want.
You read these things, wouldn't you agree with me?
Yeah.
I don't know.
I may be too grateful for the damn things, but...
I'm just a child, I'm just going to read that one, just let it fly.
I don't care how much you love it.
Are you thinking in terms of how an audience can invest in it?
That's part of it.
Part of it may be that we're too bureaucratized to, you know, that a speech has got to satisfy too many people.
Yeah.
You run it by 18 different people.
By the time you get a curve, it's done.
It's like the speech would get out of hand or shot.
They start slapping things in.
They start slapping things out.
Probably some of the worst speeches I've ever heard come from there.
So I've redone all those.
I had all the scenes at the domestic site where somebody could take those goddamn things.
They'd be possessed.
No, it should be able to, if he's done the speaking.
He's got the emotional stuff.
Well, it gives him time.
And it may be that we need to work harder on getting more out of him.
Well, he's got to spend some time on something.
I know this, but it's no good to do it.
It's not hard in Christ's name at all.
So far I've imagined there are a bunch of them involved, but it's harder than you'd ever get it.
I'm very sure.
The main thing is you just don't have more of them.
Agree?
Ja, I think so.
Hey, I also want to go before I go.
One other thing, which is that Mitchell and the Chief Justice are very interested.
You tape a greeting to that corrections conference that they're having in Williamsburg next week.
No, I told them just to do it right.
I've got a draft here.
If you want to do it before you go today, just get it out of the way before you go to do this game.
What they'd like to do is use it at the opening of the conference on Monday where you can come out and see mileage, which is probably the right thing to do.
Accidentally, this kind of thing for a conference like that, in my view, is better than going to the conference.
You'll get darn near as much news, probably, because they'll pick up that you called for.
In this kind of gazelle.
I think it's a cheap shot.
No problem.
We'll have to try and see.
Something actually comes out.
We have to do the revolving.
We have to do it.
By the 20th.
But before you get it, I'm not going to bring it on right now.
In case you think you're getting something, I'm going to bring it on.
It doesn't look like this.
Because I haven't figured how much I'll be doing it on.
It'll probably be 18.
That's Park Street.
They'll be in the lead somewhere near the 18th, but they will not actually call back.
Congressman James Harvey of Michigan, please.
Yes, I just wanted you to know that I've been following that legislation on lunch reform.
All the counties that bring in commerce strength out there on the lower track, we have some lovely counties.
I'm glad they listen to you.
What are your projections?
It did.
It did.
We're here trying desperately to get something out of there.
If you do, if you win it now, what about the next decision?
Yeah.
Sure.
Sure.
Yeah.
Well.
Well, there's certain people who appreciate it, and I have.
You have what I have, and we have confidence in you.
Okay.
Whatever you want to do is the most important thing, sir.
Okay.
All right.
Check.
Twelve.
Okay, gentlemen.
Thank you.
Still there?
I have a question on what you do on the TV.
We ought to set that up today.
The congressional guys would prefer to have a bond.
The TV guys would prefer to have a smaller group just because you get more conversation.
Another way, though, is that you show more power.
I don't think maybe you come out looking...
Looking stronger.
You get the whole, you know, it's an impressive total leadership there.
Ford and Arons.
Ford and Arons.
No, not Arons.
Ford, Boggs and Albert.
And that's what it's about.
Or you could go to the dream of the house, if you prefer that.
Go to Albert, Ford, and Bob.
I do not have our legislation.
I mean, I don't have it.
I don't have it.
Let's have a look.
You've got some stuff on both the Farm Bureau and the Agriculture Editors, if you want it.
They're being set up on the basis that you're not saying anything to them.
Are they being told?
Yes.
They're being told that you are going to drop by to shake hands and reach a chance to meet them individually after your 4-H address.
You go right into a
One room for reception of the 50 state presidents, CUFAs, the Department of Your Own, and the introductions as they go through the line, and you move right out of there down to the other room with just 100 of the editors.
The rest of the editors will introduce that.
We can, if you want to, just save time and...
If you do a photo with the editor, he'll run it in his paper, I suppose.
How's that?
Okay, we're going to have photos with the editors.
In some ways, maybe that's easier, too.
That gives you more to do with them, which gives you a reason not to have to talk to them.
Ja.
Ja.