Mr. President?[note 1] The Presidential Recordings Program revised the following section of text in 2021 for inclusion in The LBJ Telephone Tapes, a project produced by the Miller Center in partnership with the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library to commemorate the library's 50th anniversary.

[talking on speakerphone] Yes, sir.

Yeah, they’re back on the [War on Poverty] bill. They voted the [Tonkin Gulf] resolution 414–0, with Adam [Clayton] Powell [Jr.] [D–New York] voting present.[note 2] The Southeast Asia Resolution passed the House 416-to-0. Representative Adam Clayton Powell (D-NY) voted “present” and Representative Eugene Siler (R-KY) did not to vote at all. E. W. Kenworthy, “Resolution Wins,” New York Times, 8 August 1964; William C. Gibbons, The U.S. Government and the Vietnam War: Executive and Legislative Roles and Relationships, 1961-1964 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 2: 308. Other sources cite the vote as 414-0; see Robert C. Albright, “Congress Backs Johnson’s Action in Asian Conflict,” 8 August 1964, Washington Post, A1. Congressional Quarterly records the vote as both 414-0 and 416-0. See Congresstional Quarterly Almanac, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, 1964 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965), 20: 332, 646.

Well, you’re going to have to have, then, 208 people to . . .

Yeah.

Very likely, unless somebody goes out, aren’t you?

Right. So . . . but—

Have you got 208 Democrats?

We haven’t got 208 Democrats yet, but we’re getting damn close to it. We’ve got 204 solids, a couple almost solids at 206, and we’re hovering on that.

You ought to have enough that would save us if they needed to, like [Joe M.] Kilgore [D–Texas] and—

Yeah.

—[Robert R. “Bob”] Casey [D–Texas] and [Omar T.] Burleson [D–Texas], [Walter E.] Rogers [D–Texas]—there’s four.[note 3] Representatives Joe Kilgore, Bob Casey, Omar Burleson, and Walter Rogers were Texas Democrats; Kilgore, Casey, and Burleson would vote against the economic opportunity bill, and Rogers would pair against it.

Mm-hmm. Right.

That’ll give it to you, won’t it?

Yeah. Yeah, I think, now, if we can just keep the boys that should be sober, sober, and the ones that should be drinking, drinking, that’s our job for the afternoon.[note 4] End of 2021 revisions.

OK. You have any idea what the vote’s going to be on or how they’re going to run it?

No, they’re—[Phil] Landrum is not going to fool around with that religious amendment that was kicked around all yesterday afternoon. We’ve gotten ahold of [James G.] O’Hara and those fellows and said—asked them to stay solid on the states’ rights amendment.[note 5] Representative James G. O’Hara was a Michigan Democrat. A Catholic, O’Hara had played a mediating role between the administration and Catholic Democratic members of the House during the dispute over the inclusion of funding for parochial schools in the economic opportunity bill. See John McCormack, Frank Thompson, and Jim O’Hara to Johnson, 3:55 P.M., 13 May 1964, in The Presidential Recordings: Lyndon B. Johnson: Toward the Great Society, February 1, 1964–May 31, 1964, vol. 6, April 14, 1964–May 31, 1964, ed. Guian A. McKee (New York: Norton, 2007), pp. 642–50; see also p. 524. For additional background on this controversy, see Conversation WH6407-16-4365 and WH6407-16-4369; and Guian A. McKee “Prelude to Faith-Based Initiatives?: The Johnson Presidential Recordings and the Debate over Parochial Schools in the War on Poverty,” Miller Center Report 19, no. 1 (Winter 2003): 21–27. And Landrum, then, the states’ rights amendment … we’ll try to hold it to that single amendment if we possibly can. Two or three fellows are carrying amendments around in their pockets.[note 6] O’Brien was referring to the governor’s veto amendment to the economic opportunity bill that would be proposed by Phil Landrum, the House floor leader for the bill. The amendment was actually part of a larger substitute bill that Landrum would offer in the House; it provided a modified version of the bill already passed by the Senate and allowed governors to veto any public or private program funded under Title II’s community action program. For the governor’s veto issue, see Conversation WH6408-04-4660, 4661 and WH6408-05-4667. For Landrum’s substitute bill, see Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., 1964, vol. 20 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965), pp. 227–28. Carl Albert—I just talked to him—is going around to them asking them to keep them in their pockets if they can. And we’ll go with the Senate bill plus the so-called Landrum amendment, try to avoid other amendments.

And we don’t know at this point what [Charles] Halleck’s recommit is. He’s having an argument with [Peter] Frelinghuysen.[note 7] Representative Peter Frelinghuysen, a New Jersey Republican, had proposed a Republican substitute to the economic opportunity bill in April. Prior to the final House vote on the bill, he would offer a motion to recommit the bill in favor of his substitute. The motion would be defeated. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. 20, 1964, p. 227. As I understand it, Halleck wants to go a straight recommit on the whole bill, and he says this bill stinks, and that includes Frelinghuysen’s [chuckles] version of it. And—so we don’t know what the recommit will be. If Charlie wants to go on the straight recommit on the bill, that’s fine with us. That would be a help.

[with O’Brien acknowledging] You ought to tell [Mike] Mansfield and [Hubert] Humphrey to be ready so that when it’s messaged over they can concur in it without—before it gets a lot of backlash and fighting and pressure. I’d call them now and tell them we think it’s going to be passed. We’d hope we could get it mashed over and just a motion to concur.

Yeah. Now, at the Republican meeting this morning, they said that it would be decided within five votes, and they thought it was leaning slightly toward us.[note 8] Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had held a closed-door breakfast meeting with congressional Republicans, the second such event in two days. Charles Mohr, “Goldwater Sees a Victory if He Takes 5 Big States,” New York Times, 8 August 1964. This was the report we got out of the committee from Mike Manatos’ contact in there.

That’s the Republican … the House members that met with [Barry] Goldwater?

Yeah … yeah.

OK.

OK.

Bye.