Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "170104068",
    "label": "Memorandum from Richard Neustadt to Charles Murphy, with Attachment",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/170104068"
}

{
    "id": "170104068",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/170104068",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Memorandum from Richard Neustadt to Charles Murphy, with Attachment",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/170104068",
    "collections": [
        "President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
        "White House Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602208/976343/976343-057-001.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602208/976343/976343-057-001.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602208/976343/976343-057-001.jpg",
    "imageCount": 7,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/170104068",
    "naId": 170104068,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "productionDates": [
        {
            "day": 23,
            "logicalDate": "1951-06-23",
            "month": 6,
            "year": 1951
        }
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 3,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602208/976343/976343-057-003.jpg",
    "mediaId": "5cb30c69c80f25d0",
    "ocrText": "- 3 -\nRECORDS\nEs\nOnly one of the staff members in Joe Short's office is covered by\na position description with one of the titles specified in this amendment.\nThat can easily be corrected before June 30. Otherwise, Hopkins does not\nbelieve that the White House would be affected, since Short's statutory\nduties have nothing necessarily to do with press or public relations.\n(6) The Douglas Amendment adopted by the Senate (CR 6/19 p. 6882) This\namendment reduces to 20 days the annual leave which a civilian employee can\nearn in any year. This affects White House employees as all others, but would\nnaturally not be something on which a White House exemption should be sought.\nWith regard to these six amendments, the White House should seek, first,\na restoration of the cut in salaries and expenses and, second, exemption from\nthe Jensen Amendment, if that amendment were to be adopted by the Conference.\nThird, it would also be desirable to get a restoration of the cut in the\nappropriation for the maintenance of the Executive Mansion, though as a\npractical matter this is not now as serious as the others. It is, however, a\nbad precedent.\nThe Senate Conferees on H.R. 3880 are McKellar, Maybank, O'Mahoney, Hill,\nMcMahon, Saltonstall, Bridges, and Ferguson. The debate on the Williams and\nFerguson amendments making the direct cuts in White House appropriations indi-\ncates that McKellar, Maybank, and Saltonstall could all be expected to be\nsympathetic toward a restoration of funds. Presumably this applies equally\nto the other three Democrats. In the roll-call vote on the Williams amendment,\nall six of these Senators voted against the amendment. Bridges and Ferguson,\nof course, voted for it.\nThe roll-call went against us 37-36. The Republicans picked up four\nDemocratic votes - Burton, McClellan, McCarran, and Frear. There were 23 not\nvoting. Of these, 9 were Democrats, the balance Republicans.\nThe House Conferees are Cannon, Thomas, Gore, Andrews, Yates, Phillips,\nCoudert, Cotton, and Taber. It will be essential, of course, to have the\nHouse Conferees stand firm against the Williams amendment (and also against the\nFerguson cut in maintenance funds). It is not as easy as on the Senate side\nto tell the attitude of all these Conferees. An effort was made when the bill\nwas before the House to reduce the appropriation for the White House Office.\nThe\namendment was offered by Gross of Iowa, who is not a Conferee. Thomas, the\nsubcommittee chairman, and Cox both spoke against the am endment, pointing to\nthe precedent involved. Gore, a conferee, had taken the same line - mildly -\nthe day before, in response to an inquiry on the floor. Phillips of California,\nalso a conferee, also spoke against the amendment, though he took a swipe at\nthe President for not voluntarily reducing hiw own office force. Gross insisted\non a division vote, which resulted in defeat for the amendment, 67-31 (CR 5/4\np. 5006; also CR 5/3 p. 4931).\nThe House Conferees met informally June 22. No date has been set for the\nfirst meeting of the Conference, but Lawton now thinks it may come as early as\nTuesday. Lawton feels that Maybank, Cannon, and Thomas are keys to the situation."
}