Conversation 781-030

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

when he said he hadn't decided what his position was.

He knows very well what it is.

Tomorrow, we have 13 bills that we can talk about.

And they'll be divided into, your briefing paper will be divided into public and private.

That's all I need.

And so I, the private one, but I just went away to Washington, D.C.

Henry will be there, and we'll be prepared.

He'll be prepared to talk about the Jewish thing.

We took him over the dunce on that this morning at the staff meeting, and he had a chance, I think, with the moves earlier.

In some of these, like water, I will say the President doesn't have this yet.

We have not yet made a recommendation to him.

We see these problems.

I had a lobbying on today by...

They're making quite a pitch to the effect that they clean it up.

I don't know if they ever have a huge amount of money.

The question is whether we withhold it or not.

Exactly.

If we can, I'll sign it.

The lawyers still are looking at the tea leaves on the thing.

If the lawyers give me an opinion, I'll withhold it.

Sure.

And then sign it.

Here's another one just like that.

That's OEL.

I'll just hold everything.

What happens in OEO is this same kind of thing, mandatory spending.

But I wish you'd take a look at this paper, because Scott and Ford feel very strongly that you ought to sign it.

Although no commitment to sign the measure was ever given to members of Congress, they had every reason to expect approval after they eliminated the major points of disagreement.

A veto could strain our credibility in trying to clean up other legislation.

Tough call.

Your staff is about evenly divided on it.

And I wish you'd take the time to look it over so that I can say to them, look, both sides were presented to the press, and then you call it a little sale out of legal services.

Legal services are still in OEL.

We still have control of it.

There's no independent legal services with an independent board.

Well, we got it back because it wouldn't form a board that we could manage.

We want to understand, but what I've had is that the objection we have.

No, it's no longer an objection.

What is the objection?

The objection to it is that we are required to keep four existing programs, TAP and some of these others, in existence and spend a level of money without any discretion in us to cut back on for two years.

I won't do that.

Okay, well, basically, how in the hell are we going to do that?

That's the point.

That's one of the points of view in here.

Well, no.

Timmons says that there's a fighting chance that we can be sustained.

I wish he'd flip through this and take a look at both viewpoints, because Bill is very concerned about his equity with the Congress, and he's afraid that some of our guys will say, we had no idea he was going to veto this.

We thought we were doing what he wanted us to, and that that'll make problems for him.

So there that is.

But you have to weigh, well, you have to do the equity with the Congress, which was right, don't you?

That's right.

Whether or not we want to continue.

That's right.

And from a political standpoint, our guys argue that you get nothing but pluses for detailing it, because nobody likes it.

But there again, that's all in there.

Well, in the morning, I'll be prepared to trot quickly through 13 bills, or some fraction of 13, depending on how many of them are discussed.

Yeah, we'll discuss this one, among others.

are a couple of appropriations bills, the Highway Act, airport airways, consumer safety, minimum wage, consumer agency, child care, employee health benefits, welfare reform, water pollution, war power.

That's what we have.

So that's it.

Not a very impressive list.

This is where it would allow, this is mandatory spending of money for certain purposes.

It sows you into the four worst OEO programs there are for two more years.

I'll read it.

Sure.

I have a small side that is where you came out.

Well, I would like to go with Scott for it, but they can talk about the equity with the Congress and the rest, but I must say that certainly as far as Scott is concerned, we haven't had a hell of a lot of hell of a time.

No, no.

And also, we've really got to be thinking about what we're going to be stuck with when we get out.

We're talking about cutting this and having the same damn crowd.

See, that's it.

That's it.

Because we're getting challenged now by even our friends, Elsoff and others, about how you guys are going to cut back.

You can't cut back.

There's no way to cut back.

So...

if you want me to start to steal.

Well, the water won't do, too.

That has a different reading to it.

You don't need to say about the environment.

It has the same kind of issue in it as to whether you can withhold.

The other way to go on this, you can veto it.

You can say, if my veto is not sustained,

I intend to withhold monies from these four programs, notwithstanding the provisions of this law.

There is a legal question, and there is.

And this is a pretty good battleground in which to fight.

In other words, if you go to court.

So you can say that in veto.

Well, anyway, we'll do the best we can.

Yes, sir.