Oral History Interview with
Member of the staff of the Research Division of the Democratic
National Committee during the 1948 presidential campaign and of the House
Banking and Currency Committee, 1948-65.
John E. Barriere
December 20, 1966
Jerry N. Hess
[Notices and Restrictions | Interview
Transcript | List of Subjects Discussed]
These are transcripts of tape-recorded interviews conducted for the Harry
S. Truman Library. A draft of each transcript was edited by the interviewee
but only minor emendations were made; therefore, the reader should remember
that these are essentially transcripts of the spoken, rather than the
Numbers appearing in square brackets (ex. ) within the transcript
indicate the pagination in the original, hardcopy version of the Barriere
oral history interview.
See also John E. Barriere Papers finding
This oral history transcript may be read, quoted from, cited, and reproduced
for purposes of research. It may not be published in full except by permission
of the Harry S. Truman Library.
Opened October, 1967
Harry S. Truman Library
[Top of the Page | Notices
and Restrictions | Interview Transcript
| List of Subjects Discussed]
Oral History Interview with
John E. Barriere
December 20, 1966
Jerry N. Hess
HESS: Mr. Barriere, for the record, would you give me a little of your
personal background, where were you born, where were you educated, and
what positions have you held during your career?
BARRIERE: I was born in Worcester, Massachusetts, December 8, 1919, and
I was educated in the public schools of Worcester; and I graduated from
Clark University with an A.B. degree in 1942, and with a major in history.
After the war, in 1946, I went to graduate school at the University of
Chicago in the Department of Political Science. I was there for five quarters
June of '46 through
September of '47. From September of '47 to May of 1948, I was an intern
with an organization called the National Institute of Public Affairs,
which was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation. The objective of this
organization was to interest young men and women in permanent careers
in the Federal Government. The bulk of the people that were selected by
this organization were of this type, but they always admitted two, or
three possibly, each year who were interested not primarily in a permanent
career with the Government, but rather who were interested in teaching
political science; and I came down on that basis. I planned to return
to the University of Chicago in 1948 and complete my work for a Ph.D.
My first placement was with the National Labor Relations Board, my second
with the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, and that was the start
of my connection with the 1948 Truman presidential campaign. The Republicans
were in control of the Senate at that time, but Senator [Robert F.] Wagner
of New York who was the ranking minority man had a minority staff employee,
Mr. Joseph P. McMurray, who at the present time is president of Queens
College in Queens County, New York. When my second placement was about
to end in the spring of 1948, I told McMurray that I was interested in
some type of temporary employment for the summer. As I wanted to wait
and go back to Chicago for the fall quarter around the first of October,
and just perchance, he said that a Mr. William Batt, who has been recently
Area Redevelopment Administrator under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson,
and at that time was the research director of the Democratic National
Committee was coming to see him that afternoon and he said he would give
Batt my name. A couple of weeks later I got a telephone call from Batt
who asked me to come down, and he said that he was assembling a research
organization, that he had not completed his establishment and they had
a rush job to help the President get ready
for his so-called nonpolitical trip to the Pacific Northwest; and as
I recall he was leaving Memorial Day or the day afterwards, and this was
approximately ten days before that, and he hired me on a purely temporary
two week basis to do research for that trip. I was to prepare a one page
memorandum on each of the towns, and Batt gave me an itinerary he had
got from the White House as to where the President was going to stop on
this trip, and I was on my own from that point. While I did make use,
to some extent, of newspapers that we had in the office from various areas,
and also a few memorandums that Batt had secured from some local people,
the chief source was the WPA guidebooks.
HESS: Was that your idea to use those?
BARRIERS: Now, I'm not certain. I know I wound up at the Washington,
D. C. public library looking at the WPA guidebooks. We did not have them
in the office at that time, although later Batt did get
a set of them. My mind is blank as to whether it was my idea or Batt
suggested I go there. If I remember correctly, I think the President was
gone for ten days or so and we got about half of the material ready before
he left, and the other half was sent to some point where it was picked
up before he started back. The trip was a train trip, as you recall, and
I think everybody agreed, at least according to newspaper accounts at
the time, that the trip was a success; it gave the President a lot of
publicity and he got to see and talk to a lot of people. Batt then continued
me doing similar work on a temporary basis until I think up to about the
time of the Democratic National Convention that he went to see Senator
McGrath and got an okay from McGrath that I could stay on for the campaign.
At that time, I thought it would probably still be until just the first
of October when I wanted to go back to school. I think that is probably
enough in the way of background.
I think we can proceed to questions now.
HESS: Did you or any of the other members of the Research Division help
on the speeches for the June trip?
BARRIERE: I did not help on those speeches.
HESS: Your duty was the research and the background material on the stops,
is that right?
BARRIERE: That's right. Later on, Batt gave me orders to prepare duplicates
of this stuff, that is, there was a set to go to the White House that
was to be included for the trip, but there was also to be a set for the
office to be used by the fellows that were writing the speeches. I am
sure this was not done at this stage, and I don't remember anybody in
the office other than Batt himself, although I am sure there were some.
I have a remembrance that there were others there, but who they were,
and what they were doing, and just what they did for the trip, my mind
HESS: During the campaign, did the Research Division help with the speeches
and the whistle-stop speeches?
BARRIERS: Oh, yes, yes. On the whistlestop speeches, these very short
ones, particularly later in the campaign, the speeches were generally
used exactly the way the Research Division prepared them. On the longer
speeches, I think, the general practice was that a factual statement on
a subject was prepared in one of the departments or bureaus in the executive
branch of the Government. It then came to us and our speechwriters prepared
a speech draft and then it went to the White House for final polishing;
and generally (just from my memory, I didn't hear many of those speeches,
but I did read them in the New York Times), if I remember correctly,
generally there was some of the material that came from our shop that
was preserved in there, but the style generally had gotten a major rewrite
when it went to the White House.
HESS: Did you personally write any of the speeches?
BARRIERE: I wrote no major speeches, and I wrote none of the short speeches
until the very end of the campaign when I think the President was campaigning
in the Eastern area where there were more stops and they had to have a
large supply of these things, and I was pressed in, oh, maybe the last
ten days, to do a few of these; and I remember consulting that little
book that Senator [Frances J.] Myers brought out shortly after the election,
and I found one of my speeches, not in the community I had written for
-- it was given someplace else.
HESS: The research that you did during the campaign was bound and put
in as the "Files of the Facts," is that correct?
BARRIERE: Yes. Besides working on the memoranda for the President's trips
and to help the speechwriters when they were writing for the President,
I also did research on what the 80th Congress had done in various areas.
I did not write any of those, that
I recall now, putting them in final form. I would assemble the factual
information and one of the other staff would prepare the product.
HESS: On number six of the "Files of the Facts," "The 80th Congress and
the Lobbies," it is indicated that you and Frank Kelly were the authors.
BARRIERS: Well, I can't be dogmatic about this, but my recollection of
this thing is, that I was the only one who had had any practical experiences
on the Hill, and I think I did a considerable amount of research work
on that one, and Kelly thought I did a very good job and as a reward,
he put my name on it. I don't think I did any of the actual writing.
HESS: On that subject, in Mr. Truman's campaign, he attacked the 80th
Congress far more than he attacked Mr. Dewey, why did he do that?
BARRIERS: Well, the only thing I can give you is general opinion that
the 80th Congress had an extremely
conservative, vulnerable record and, of course, its record was in marked
contrast to Mr. Dewey's relatively progressive record as Governor of New
York, and also a rather relatively progressive platform the Republicans
had adopted at their convention, and somebody, the President or someone
advising him decided that it would be good strategy to zero in on the
HESS: Many historians like to point out that the 80th Congress really
wasn't all that bad particularly on foreign affairs, and many of the things
Mr. Truman will be remembered for were passed by the 80th Congress; the
Greek-Turkish Aid Bill, the Marshall plan, and things of that nature.
What is your reaction to that?
BARRIERE: Well, I have a general thesis on this that goes beyond the
1948 election, that I don't believe except in the case when you're in
a shooting war and mothers and fathers are seeing their boys drafted,
foreign policy plays a major role in the usual election, and it certainly
didn't play a
big role in the '48 election. World War II was far enough behind us,
both as an immediate conflict and, also, the irritations that had played
a role in the 1946 election, and Korea was ahead of us, and 1948 was an
election which was fought out on purely domestic issues. The Truman Doctrine
on Greece and Turkey and the Marshall plan may have been great things
for our country and what was needed in the world, but I doubt if they
lost or gained a vote for Mr. Truman in the 1948 election.
HESS: What were the big issues in the '48 campaign?
BARRIERE: Housing was one of them. It wasn't just a matter of the social
welfare aspect of housing. I am sure that the people who drafted material
on housing stressed this aspect -- and a lot of the things the President
talked about were orientated towards social welfare, which culminated,
of course, next year in the Housing Act of 1949 -- but,
you also had a very practical bread and butter issue in that there was
actually an acute shortage of the number of housing units. This had been
hid for many years by the depression and by rent control during the war
and when the dam broke, you had all of this long-term demand, plus that
large number of returning veterans who were either married or soon got
married; and this, in my opinion, was a real bread and butter issue in
the urban parts of the country in 1948.
HESS: What were some of the other big issues that you particularly watched
as a member of the Research Division?
BARRIERE: Well, we watched the development of the farm issue. The Republicans
had botched up that thing In the first place, the Republican Congress
had refused to provide adequate storage facilities for grain in the Middle
West, and it was clear that the Republicans were at fault there, the President
and the Secretary of Agriculture had
recommended this. And even conservative farm organizations, as I recall,
like the American Farm Bureau Federation, pointed out the need for this
storage; they were opposed to mandatory price controls for the long haul,
but they felt that we were faced with a practical situation and private
enterprise couldn't do it and the Government had to provide the storage
HESS: Did the members of the Research Division pay any particular attention
to the polls that were running heavily against the President?
BARRIERE: Well, you must remember, of course, that this was a long time
ago, and polls weren't as perfected as they are today. I don't think that
there was a feeling of confidence in the Research Division that the President
was going to win but I think probably that they were hopeful, but they
were not confident he was going to win, and I think that is about all
I can say on that. I think I would have to transfer to my personal feelings
at this point. I felt that Truman was nowhere as bad off as the polls
HESS: Did you think he would win the election?
BARRIERE: I thought it was possible. I thought it was quite possible.
You recall, in 1948 Gallup was still using that system by which, even
though he had a very small sample, he was giving individual states, and
we had information which indicated that the Republicans were in bad shape
in the Middle West, but Gallup kept giving most of those, if not all of
those Middle Western states to Dewey. My feeling was that if it weren't
for Thurmond and Wallace, Truman would win. I felt that Wallace was going
to cost us a considerable number of states in the South, maybe more than
he actually carried. I thought that we were going to do rather well in
the farm belt and I thought that, for example, he was going to carry my
own state of Massachusetts, which I believe Gallup was consistently giving
HESS: Which Mr. Truman finally pulled.
BARRIERE: That's right.
HESS: What particular attention was given to those two gentlemen by the
Research Division -- to Mr. Wallace and Mr. Thurmond?
BARRIERE: Well, I think that as far as Thurmond was concerned, I think
the general consensus in the Research Division was that, quite apart from
the right or wrong of the morals involved, that after the adoption of
the Humphrey-Biemiller amendment to the platform at the convention, that
you had no choice but to pursue a strong civil rights position and hope
that this would enable you to bring out a big minority vote in the key
urban industrial states and enable you to carry them; and that there was
no point at that junction of trying to placate the South, that is, for
better or worse you had taken the fork to try to get the Negro vote and
that you just had to take your chances with the Southerners, you couldn't
track at that point. It seems to me, that once that amendment had been
adopted the issue teas settled.
About Wallace, I think the general idea was that the more liberal and
the more aggressive the President was at hammering at the bread and butter
issues, the more he would be likely to undercut Wallace's support. I don't
think there was any discussion in the Research Division, and I am sure
there was none in my presence, about attempting to suggest that the President
should trim his sails on foreign policy to get the left back in.
HESS: What could President Truman have done to have cut former Secretary
Wallace's drawing power enough to keep him from taking New York away from
the Democratic column? Was there something that could have been done;
was there more that could have been done by the administration, or by
the Democratic National Committee?
BARRIERE: I don't know.
HESS: You mentioned the Humphrey-Biemiller civil rights plank. Do you
think that Mr. Truman was basically for or against the more liberal plank;
the Humphrey-Biemiller plank?
BARRIERE: I can just give you an opinion. I would suspect that he was
probably opposed to it, but once it was adopted, he recognized he had
to live with it, and he might as well try to exploit it, that would be
HESS: Well, some historians point out the fact that in the previous October,
I believe in '47, they brought out the civil rights To Secure These
Rights report, and then on February 2nd, of '48, he had sent his rather
strong ten point civil rights message to Congress, and then came the convention
and he seemed to be supporting the more conservative plank that did not
make it, and some people think that perhaps he really was for the Humphrey-Biemiller
plank but did not want to come out for it at that time.
BARRIERE: I was not there, so this is just secondhand information. Joe
McMurray, I think, told me once, that he attended a meeting the night
before this happened and all the powers that be, like Senator Myers and
Senator McGrath were there, and they were all supporting the milder, compromise
version. I can't imagine them doing this if President Truman felt strongly
the other way on the subject. I suspect that his advisers advised him
that this was tactically the best thing and he acquiesced in it, this
would be my guess. You have probably consulted the roll call. I think
you would find that most of the people who were ordinarily associated
with Truman, unless they are under real heavy guns from Negro constituencies,
supported the milder plank on the roll call.
HESS: How important did you think the Negro vote was going to be in that
election? Was there going to
be a "Negro vote.?" Was this being watched?
BARRIERE: Well, we hoped that there would be -- the President's recommendation
coupled with the Humphrey-Biemiller plank, coupled with the fact that
Thurmond had walked out, we hoped that there would be a reaction in our
favor on that basis, but I think that is about as far as I can go. You
must remember always, that I am sure there were discussions that took
place between Batt and the White House and maybe some of the senior members
of the staff, that I wasn't privy to.
HESS: Was it thought back at that time that any particular colored leader
could deliver a bloc of votes?
BARRIERE: I never heard the subject discussed.
HESS: Back to the convention -- Mr. Truman ended his acceptance speech
by calling the Congress back into special session. Do you know where that
idea came from?
BARRIERE: I don't know where it came from, I know it was discussed in
the Research Division by the whole staff before the convention. Now, whether
Batt or somebody else on the staff thought this up, or whether the idea
came from the White House and they sent it over to us for our opinion,
I don't know; we had a meeting and everybody was present. I know Batt
vigorously supported the idea, and everybody else there with the exception
of myself either supported it or at least didn't raise any objections.
I was not enthusiastic about it and I raised some objections to it. I
felt that the Republicans would embarrass the President because of the
fact that the Democrats in Congress wouldn't support the President or
the platform. Now don't forget that the Democratic Party being in the
minority in the Congress at that time had a rather high proportion of
southerners in its membership, and, of course, they had most of the senior
positions in the Congress. I felt that they would, of course, oppose us
on civil rights,
housing and etc., and this would embarrass the President.
HESS: What I have just handed Mr. Barriere was the memo from the papers
of Samuel I. Rosenman entitled "Should the President Call Congress Back?"
dated June the 29th, 1948. Have you ever seen that before?
BARRIERE: I can't say that I have.
HESS: But you thought it was an error to call Congress back?
BARRIERE: Yes, and I was one hundred percent wrong.
HESS: Do you think it was a fairly valuable thing in the final analysis?
BARRIERE: Yes, I do. I think that it crystallized things -- itwas sort
of the frosting on the top of the cake -- it actually dramatized the split
between Mr. Dewey and the Republicans in the Congress.
HESS: How was the liaison between the Research Division
and the White House carried on?
BARRIERE: Mr. Batt, insofar as I know, handled all this himself, and
I think that he talked to Clark Clifford and to Charlie Murphy, and probably
other members of the White House staff.
HESS: Did any members of the Research Division travel on the campaign
train that you recall?
BARRIERE: Not that I recall. David Lloyd possibly might have toward the
end but I am sure that the others didn't.
HESS: Did the Research Division ever get back any reports from the President
or over the President's signature, so to speak, giving his impressions
of the value of the Research Division; what kind of a job they were doing,
anything of that nature?
BARRIERE: I don't know.
HESS: Did you meet Mr. Truman during the campaign?
BARRIERE: Just once.
HESS: Would you tell me about that?
BARRIERE: It, was rather late in the campaign. I am sure it was after
the first of October because Hoeber had already left, and I recall that
we picked him up at the gate of the White House before we went in; and
if I remember correctly we went into the President's office first and,
I think, that our host was Mr. Daniels of the Raleigh paper...
HESS: Jonathan Daniels.
BARRIERE: ...Yes, and I think he handed us pens and pads as souvenirs.
Then he took us, by a roundabout method, to the lower level of the White
House, and I remember passing the swimming pool because I could smell
chlorine; and, I think, this program was sponsored by the International
Ladies Garment Workers Union; it was a brief, not more than a fifteen
minute broadcast, and, I think that Mr. [David] Dubinsky was there, because
I remember meeting him afterwards. My mind is sort
of vague -- I met the President afterwards, and shook hands with him.
Someone introduced each of us, and said we worked in the Research Division
and the President thanked us for what we were doing, and so forth, and
that was it.
HESS: You'll recall we discussed this briefly the other day. I looked
it up in the Public Papers and that was on October 21, 1948.
BARRIERE: It was. By the way, did you ever check about Tallulah Bankhead?
Somehow I think she may have introduced the President. Am I right or wrong?
HESS: This is the note to that particular item: "The President spoke
at 10:05 p.m. from the White House. During his address he referred to
former Representative William B. Bankhead and former Senator John H. Bankhead,
both of Alabama, actresses Tallulah Bankhead and Ethel Barrymore, and
Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr., of New Jersey. The address was carried
on a nationwide radio
broadcast." October 21.
BARRIERE: I don't recall meeting her, but maybe I did. I remember Dubinsky
and the President.
HESS: Did the President have any words of encouragement? Did he say he
was going to win the election or anything like that? Do you recall? What
seemed to be the President's attitude that night? Confident?
BARRIERE: Well, Jonathan Daniels said that the President thought he was
going to win -- I remember him saying that. Daniels made an interesting
comment, he said, "When I am around the President I think he is going
to win, then when I get back to North Carolina for a week or so, I don't
HESS: How were the general relations between the Research Division and
the regular Democratic National Committee? Do you recall anything along
BARRIERE: I don't think they were very friendly. We didn't have very
much contact with each other. I used to use their library; but we didn't
even go down there to get our pay, I remember they used to have a messenger
that used to come with our pay checks every Friday. I think that the division
was strictly the White House's idea and that Senator McGrath only tolerated
it because the President wanted it.
HESS: Did you ever hear him make any statements along that line.
HESS: Or anyone down there? Sam Brightman, Jack Redding?
Barrier: No, I heard from other members of our staff that they had heard
-- that somebody had reported to them at the club, or something, that
Redding had said something.
HESS: Second, third, and fourth hand.
BARRIERE: That's right.
HESS: Looking back, what do you think was the major campaign mistake
on the part of the Republicans; or mistakes if there were more than one?
What did they do wrong?
BARRIERE: Well, that is kind of a hard thing to answer. I think that
they were overconfident. The Republicans were overconfident. I think that
Dewey did not conduct as aggressive a campaign as he might; but I think,
basically, it was what the President and the Democrats did about activating
the Democratic votes rather than the mistakes the Republicans made that
made the difference; plus, I think, that if the election had been held
early in the summer, I think, Wallace would have done much better. I think
his campaign sort of fell apart.
HESS: Why did his campaign fall apart, any particular reason?
BARRIERE: Well, I think that the fact that he geared his campaign almost
entirely to foreign policy, and that his campaign in October almost reached
a hysterical stage; and on the bread and butter stuff, which was -- remember
this is my theory and I think it's true -- on what the people were interested
in '48, Truman was as liberal as Wallace, he was saying the same thing,
and more often. And so, I think, when Truman campaigned in an all-out
liberal platform, and then, I think the people, the marginal liberal voters,
more and more hesitated to vote for Wallace, with the idea that the Republicans
might get in, and they couldn't bring themselves to do this.
HESS: Where was Wallace drawing most of his strength? Who voted for Wallace?
Were there any particular blocs, or groups of people?
BARRIERE: I really can't answer that. I think it was mostly people who
were disturbed with the trend of foreign policy and weren't appreciative
threat of the Communists. I think that at one time there was a possibility
of Wallace getting a larger Jewish vote but, I think, the recognition
of the State of Israel helped Truman in that area. I don't think Wallace
had specific blocs, I think the bulk of his votes were from well-intentioned,
vague general citizens. Of course, some were Communists, but not many.
HESS: When did the Research Division disband?
BARRIERE: We disbanded about a week before the election, if I remember
correctly; a few days before the election.
HESS: I have a list of the members who were on the Research Division.
I wonder if you just give me a capsule comment on who these people were,
what you knew about them, and why they were brought in for this particular
operation? William Batt, the director?
BARRIERE: Well, as I understand it, Batt had done something
on a more modest scale of organizing research material for the municipal
election in Philadelphia the year before when [Joseph Sill] Clark and
[Richardson] Dilworth had run unsuccessfully for comptroller and district
attorney, and in some manner this came to the attention of Clark Clifford
and I think he was instrumental in getting Batt in on this.
HESS: Johannes Hoeber.
BARRIERE: I think that he came in because Batt had known him in Philadelphia,
and felt that he could handle some of the social welfare type of material.
HESS: Kenneth Birkhead.
BARRIERE: I don't know whether Batt knew him before or not. Birkhead
had been active in liberal movements, and his father was well known in
the area of civil rights and civil liberties, and I suspect that probably
because of AVC Batt knew him beforehand, but I can't say for sure.
HESS: Phil Dreyer.
BARRIERE: I don't know.
HESS: Frank Kelly.
BARRIERE: Birkhead and Kelly, I think, had known each other before, they
both came from Missouri, and it may be that is how Kelly got in there,
I don't know.
HESS: David Lloyd.
BARRIERE: Lloyd was the legislative representative for the ADA, and they
ran out of money -- the ADA -- they couldn't pay his salary. You know
Lloyd came with us much later than the rest. I think Jim Loeb talked Batt
into hiring him.
HESS: Did he do a pretty good job?
BARRIERE: He was a very good writer. He could write very well.
HESS: I have heard that a research division was set up
again in 1950 and 1952, do you recall anything about that?
BARRIERE: Oh, just slightly. In '50, Dreyer and Birkhead set up a research
division and just what they did, I don't know. In '52 they brought in
Bert [Bertram M.] Gross who had been secretary of the Council of Economic
Advisers, and he started, I think, to do a lot of sophisticated research
on attitudes, and so forth; but all of those Truman people who had been
hired by [Frank E.] McKinney were all canned when the Stevenson people
HESS: Anything else to add on the Research Division shut down, where
did you go from there?
BARRIERE: I went home for a brief time and then I came back here. I stopped
in Philadelphia on the way back and saw Batt. I thought that as Truman
had won I would stay in Washington. And Batt told me when I got back to
Washington to go and see Charlie Murphy, and I did that and told him I
looking for a job, and he made appointments for me in some different
places to go. I remember one was the legislative reference section of
the Budget Bureau, where I met Mr. Elmer Staats, and we didn't hit it
off at all. In the meantime, Congressman [Brent] Spence, who was the incoming
chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, either spoke to
the President, and the President talked to Murphy, or Spence talked to
Murphy directly. Spence was interested in getting some young man to come
to work for him on the staff of the Banking and Currency Committee. And
Murphy got ahold of me -- there was some time lapse in all of this. I
lived in a rooming house and the landlady wasn't too good about giving
messages. By the time I got the message, I think, Spence was out of town
or something, so I think it was after the Christmas holidays by the time
I actually got up to see Spence; he interviewed me, and his secretary
then called me back a week or so later and told me to come up again. He
told me I had
the job and that I could come as soon as he took over as chairman, which
was right after inauguration day. By the way, Spence had checked me out
with Joe McMurray.
HESS: How long were you on that committee?
BARRIERE: I was on that committee until September 1, 1965.
HESS: One of the categories we are trying to find information on at the
Library concerns White House-Congressional liaison, and drawing on all
those years of experience, I'd like for you to fill me in on what you
know about White House-Congressional liaison. Just who from the White
House saw who upon the Hill? How was it carried on? To start off, could
you pick a specific bill that was worked on, and using that as an example
relate just how the liaison was carried on?
BARRIERE: I want to tell you before I start this, there was no form of
organized, sophisticated type of congressional liaison as the type that
O'Brien has carried on under Kennedy and Johnson, everything was sort
of done on an ad hoc basis. But, to get to specific examples:
The first major bill that hit us, and this was shortly after I came up
here, was rent control. Rent control was scheduled to expire on April
30; and the rent control agency itself was a very weak one; they couldn't
get top-flight personnel because everybody thought the place was about
to die, and was always working on a year to year basis. So, Charlie Murphy
took this thing sort of under his wing himself and assigned David Lloyd,
who by that time had gone to work for the White House, to handle this.
Now Lloyd wasn't really very good at congressional liaison, but the reason
that Murphy gave him the job is he thought because of the fact he had
been congressional liaison for ADA, that he could do a good job. I worked
with Lloyd; the chairman told me that one of the chief jobs would be to
work with the White House, and he would even send me down before the bills
came up to find
out in general what was going to be in them, when they were going to
come up and how they were going to be handled and if there was a question
as to whether it would be likely to go to the Banking Committee or some
other legislative committee. I worked with Lloyd, and Lloyd reported to
Murphy on that bill, and we had a problem in that Tighe Woods, who was
the head of the agency, didn't have the confidence of the pro-rent control
groups. For example, one of the chief supporters of rent control was the
housing committee of the CIO, Leo Goodman was the secretary of that committee,
and he ran it; and he and Woods were always at dagger points. So you had
this problem tha