- 3 -

#64-11/6

At 1:45 the President will be paid a courtesy call by Mr. Henry C. Clausen, 33rd Degree Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite Freemasons of the Southern Jurisdiction. He has his headquarters here in Washington. This is a courtesy call.

At 2:00 the President will meet with Congressman Craig Hosmer of California. Congressman Hosmer is retiring at the end of this Congress and asked for this meeting to talk to the President about some areas of legislation that he has an interest in.

At 5:00 the President will meet with Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. The Senator called the President the other day from Montana and said that he was going to be leaving shortly for NATO -- I guess it is a parliamentary meeting -- and then the President would be going to Japan and they wouldn't have a chance to meet because of their travels, so it was agreed that Senator Mansfield would come in today. They both expressed interest in having a chance to talk about what this Congress can do in the lame duck session of benefit to the Country.

I am going to have a little something else about that lame duck session in just a minute. There will be a picture that you can take at that meeting.

Secretary Kissinger is in Saudi Arabia today. He is going to meet with Saudi leaders. As you know, Secretary Kissinger visited Cairo last night after delivering his opening speech at the World Food Conference in Rome. The Secretary said when he arrived in Cairo that he was visiting the Middle East to discuss with the parties their conclusions in light of the Rabat summit as to how further progress can be made toward a successful and lasting peace in the Middle East. He noted that the United States stands ready, as it has throughout the past year, to be helpful to the parties in making rapid progress toward peace.

Secretary Kissinger is reporting frequently to the President on his discussions with the various leaders, and the President is following these reports closely. The remainder of the Secretary's trips include Jordan, Syria, Israel, and Turkey. And he should be home some time this weekend.

At the end of the Cairo meeting, in case you haven't seen the copy, Secretary Kissinger said the talks were very good and he is hopeful of making progress towards negotiations.

MORE

# 64

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

November 8, 1974

No. 490

REMARKS OF
HIS EXCELLENCY YIGAL ALLON
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ISRAEL
AND THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
FOLLOWING A MEETING AT PRIME MINISTER RABIN'S RESIDENCE
NOVEMBER 7, 1974

Foreign Minister Allon

We had, as you know, a very long talk with Secretary Kissinger at the Prime Minister's house. We listened to a very interesting report of the recent trip of his to the Middle East after the Rabat Conference, which we found very interesting. But we need a few more hours to discuss the matters we heard tonight, and I don't think we can say any more now.

Secretary Kissinger

I agree with what the Foreign Minister has said. We reviewed the situation in a very friendly atmosphere, and we are looking at all the possibilities that exist after Rabat. We are going to continue this examination tomorrow, and we are not doing this in any contentious spirit but as people who are solving common problems and who are certain to find common approaches.

**QUESTION:** Has there been any progress between the two sides and the different views?

**SECRETARY KISSINGER:** Well, we don't start with such radically different views so that we are not negotiating against each other.

* * * * *

For further information contact:

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 STATE 245738

AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
AMEMBASSY ROME
USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
USMISSION NATO
AMEMBASSY SANAA
USINT BAGHDAD

UNCLAS STATE 245738

E.O. 11652: N/A
TAGS: PFOR
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFING
GENEVA FOR MEPC DEL

FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE FOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS
FROM DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN'S PRESS BRIEFING NOVEMBER 7, 1974:

Q. TWO THINGS ON THE MIDDLE EAST. ONE IS THAT WHILE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SCHLESINGER AND VARIOUS PEOPLE IN THE
STATE DEPARTMENT HAVE SAID THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN ARMS
DELIVERIES TO ISRAEL, THE INFORMATION MINISTER OF ISRAEL
SAID THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS STEPPING UP ARMS DELIVERIES.
COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT'S GOING ON ON THAT SCORE?

AND SECONDLY, DOES THE UNITED STATES NOW RECOGNIZE THE
LEGITIMATE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIANS AS STATED AT THE
WHITE HOUSE, APPARENTLY YESTERDAY?

A. WELL, ON YOUR FIRST QUESTION, LET ME SAY THIS, THAT
THE RECENT FLURRY OF STORIES ABOUT A SPEEDUP OF U.S. ARMS
TO ISRAEL ARE NOT ACCURATE. THERE HAS BEEN NO SUCH SPEED-
UP.

SECONDLY, WITH RESPECT TO OUR POSITION ON THE PALESTINIAN
ISSUE, IT WAS STATED YESTERDAY AT THE WHITE HOUSE BY RON

NESSEN, AND I WOULD REFER YOU TO THAT.

Q. WE RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMATE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIANS?

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 03 STATE 245738

A. I WOULD REFER YOU TO THAT STATEMENT.

Q. ON THE FIRST PART OF MARILYN'S QUESTION, YARIV IS QUOTED AS SAYING THAT ISRAEL HAS BEEN ASSURED AN IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF ARMS, AND THAT "AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS HARDWARE WILL GET TO ISRAEL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE." ARE YOU DENYING THAT THAT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT?

A. I WOULD LET MY COMMENTS STAND. I WOULD ONLY ADD THAT IT IS, AS YOU KNOW, OUR POLICY NOT TO DISCUSS DETAILS OF OUR ARMS SUPPLY RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. BUT I WOULD REFER YOU BACK TO THE STATEMENT PUT OUT BY THE WHITE HOUSE ON SEPTEMBER 13, IN WHICH IT IS STATED -- THIS WAS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT FORD AND ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER RABIN -- AND IT SAID: "THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRIME MINISTER REVIEWED THE ONGOING U.S. MILITARY SUPPLY RELATIONSHIP, AND THE PRESIDENT RE-AFFIRMED THE CONTINUITY OF THAT RELATIONSHIP." AND IT WAS IN THAT CONTEXT THAT THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SCHLESINGER AND AMBASSADOR DINITZ.

Q. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE SAYING ANYTHING TO US. I ASKED YOU TO COMMENT SPECIFICALLY ON THE QUOTE FROM MR. YARIV AND NOT ON THE STORIES THEMSELVES BUT ON THESE WORDS. AND WHAT THEY SAID AT THE WHITE HOUSE TWO MONTHS AGO I DON'T THINK RESPONDS TO THAT QUESTION.

A. I'M NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO WORDS WHICH YOU ARE READ-
ING TO ME FROM A NEWSPAPER. I'M COMMENTING ON REPORTS
THAT THE UNITED STATES IS SPEEDING UP ARMS SUPPLIES TO
ISRAEL.

Q. BUT WAIT. THE NEWSPAPER CARRIED MR. YARIV'S STATEMENT, BUT THAT'S NOT A NEWSPAPER REPORT.

A. I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON MR. YARIV'S STATEMENT.

Q. YOU WON'T SAY IT'S CORRECT OR INCORRECT?

A. I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON IT. INGERSOLL

UNCLASSIFIED

Public Statements [LC]
Nov. 7, 1974

- 10 - #65-11/7

Q Ron, will you also try to find out who Maurice Stans was seeing?

MR. NESSEN: If he was here, I will try to find out. Myube we can find out now and clear that up.

Q To return to the Gibson matter for one more question, if I may, I believe I saw published reports that the nomination of Mr. Gibson was decided on by the President without the knowledge of Secretary Morton. If my memory of those reports is correct, were those reports accurate?

MR. NESSEN: I don't know. I haven't see the reports, and I have never heard that.

Q Let me phrase it another way. Was Mr. Gibson a choice of Secretary Morton?

MR. NESSEN: I don't know that, Jim.

Q Ron, what sort of Administration, what sort of reaction has the Administration received from Tel Aviv from Israel on the statement you read yesterday about the PLO? Any?

MR. NESSEN: I am not aware of any.

Q The reason I ask is because we had a report out of Israel this morning that they were very apprehensive about the statement and in fact, there are a lot of unresolved questions they want to ask Secretary Kissinger when he gets there.

My question is, has the Administration moved to reassure Israel that that statement does not in any way reflect a change in policy?

MR. NESSEN: I don't know of any reassurance. I do want to emphasize that the statement that I read yesterday represents no change in American policy.

Q Ron, now that the election is over, can you tell us whether the President plans to make Cabinet changes. If so, when and who might be changed?

MR. NESSEN: I think Don Rumsfeld talked some about that Sunday on television, and I think basically the answer is that I know of no plans for any immediate change in the Cabinet.

MORE #65

- 5 -

#67-11/8

Q And the second question about controls on commercial exports?

MR. NESSEN: I don't have anything on that, Ralph.

Q Ron, on another subject, a question based on a report last month by the Knight Newspapers that told of a secret multi-billion dollar tripling of arms shipments including F-5G Fighters to Saudi Arabia in order to enlist Faisal's help in keeping oil prices down -- I have a two-part question, Ron -- the first part is, since the President sets foreign policy, could you either confirm or deny this report of the Knight Newspapers?

MR. NESSEN: What is the second part?

Q I would like to know by which specific law or authority can the Administration provide weapons to Saudi Arabia or Egypt or any other country, and are we doing this for the Ugandan Government?

MR. NESSEN: You have been spending some time at the State Department, Les, so I know you probably heard them talk about this same matter.

Q I know they always say, "Well, will you consult the White House?"

MR. NESSEN: Do they really?

Q Yes, it is kind of ping-pong diplomacy.

MR. NESSEN: The United States has an ongoing military supply relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Q Has it been increased?

MR. NESSEN: The Saudis have asked the United States to do an extensive survey of their defense needs. Ambassador Elsworth and George Vest of the State Department will be going to Saudi Arabia for further consultations on the continuing military supply relationship. For more details go to the State Department.

Q Thank you. That is more than I expected.

MR. NESSEN: Every day is a surprise here, Les.

Q Are we giving any military aid or otherwise to Uganda?

MR. NESSEN: I will have to check it for you.

MORE

#67

- 6 -

#67-11/8

Q Ron, is the United States considering military action against the Arab oil producers to bring down the price and keep the oil flowing?

MR. NESSEN: Norm, if you are basing your question on the Jack Anderson column --

Q I am.

MR. NESSEN: -- it is our policy, I think it is a wise policy, not to respond to every column.

Q Could you have that question repeated, please?

MR. NESSEN: Norm?

Q Is the United States contemplating military action against the Arab oil producers?

MR. NESSEN: I don't think that kind of speculation ought to be dignified with even a serious answer.

I will tell you that I know of no such consideration for that kind of action.

Q Is there any concern here that some of our NATO allies might be considering military action?

MR. NESSEN: I have no way of knowing whether they are or not.

Q Ron, you know that is kind of a weak denial as denials go. You are saying you know of no such action. In the past when spokesmen couched their answers in this way, it often has turned out that they really wanted to make sure they themselves didn't know so they wouldn't have to deny something that was true. Can you broaden it out at all? Can you say that the Government flatly is not contemplating any such action?

MR. NESSEN: I don't even want to talk about the issue, because I think the speculation is irresponsible, that kind of speculation, totally irresponsible.

MORE

#67

As long as you were asked about the
Jack Anderson column on the possibility of military
action against the Arabs, let me ask you about the
story in the New York Times this morning to the
effect that American officials believe unless they can pull
off a miracle of some sort, that there will be renewed
war in the Middle East in six to 12 months.

Is this an assessment that the White House
agrees with?

Q What was the question?

MR. NESSEN: The question was, does the White
House agree with an assessment in the New York Times
this morning that a new war in the Middle East is
inevitable in six months? Is that the thrust of your
question?

Q Six to 12 months unless we pull off a
miracle.

MR. NESSEN: I don't think I will comment on that
report, Jim.

Q Ron, will there be a group of Governors
here next week that the President will meet with?

MR. NESSEN: For what purpose?

Q I think there is going to be a couple of
days conference. I forgot the subject, but there was a
possibility Secretary Kissinger would brief them.

Q Coastal land, isn't it?

Q Right, offshore oil.

MR. NESSEN: There is some possibility there
will be a meeting here next week, but it is still being
worked out. I don't know precisely what it is about or
who is coming.

Q Did he say offshore oil?

MR. NESSEN: I don't believe he said that.
Somebody said it.

Q It is offshore oil.

MR. NESSEN: I don't know what the details are,
yet, Sarah.

MORE

#67

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[L.C]

November 8, 1974

NO. 490-A

EXCHANGE OF TOASTS BY
HIS EXCELLENCY YIGAL ALLON
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ISRAEL
AND
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AT A LUNCHEON HOSTED BY MINISTER ALLON
KING DAVID HOTEL, JERUSALEM
NOVEMBER 8, 1974

Foreign Minister Allon

Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary, colleagues and friends: this is an informal lunch, so I am not going to make a speech. We do deserve a good lunch, after working hard for, what is it, some twenty hours. Some people are always asking me if the Americans are already pressing and squeezing me. I say to them, "not yet," but I must admit that they are pressing us, because whenever Henry Kissinger and his friends are coming here, they make us work so hard that they are violating our own law of work and after work, rest.

Anyhow, I can say this, we were looking forward to your visit, Henry, and Joe, and friends. Because with Rabat, without Rabat, with that disappointing resolution of the Assembly, without it, we must concentrate our efforts in our tremendous undertaking to achieve a political settlement, which absolutely must lead to peace in this area. There are so many reasons to get desperate; it's a sort of perpetual effort, whenever you get closer to the horizon you find the horizon is a little bit further away, and still you have to stick to this dream, because this is one of the greatest dreams that our generation has to turn into a reality.

I know you are Secretary of State of a great country, but many people -- across the world, across borders -- look upon you not just as the Secretary of State of America but a man who undertook a special mission, which many people and many governments tried before, including ourselves, and unfortunately failed. What we need today is the combination of great vision, faith and skill -- three qualities that characterize you, Mr. Secretary, and we hope in this grave situation we did not have, neither you nor us, to take any decision, because no definite proposals have been put before us. But exchange of views in assessing the situation was so important for us, and for you and your colleagues, in our joint effort to achieve a joint goal -- which I'm sure will be the goal of some of our neighbors at least -- that this trip can be considered a very useful one, and I'm sure you can see yourself that the atmosphere was very friendly -- (and I say this) not just diplomatically, as when we meet we usually say what we think in candor and respect.

And I would like to raise my glass to all of us here, and I'm sure

[LC]

PR #490-A

- 2 -

the day will come when we will celebrate the great political achievement.
L'Chayim.

Secretary Kissinger

Yigal and friends, I hope you all noticed when Yigal started, he
started with "Mr. Secretary, Mr. Prime Minister, colleagues and friends,"
so at least we know who is not his friends. (Laughter). It is a policy
of equilibrium.

This is my ninth trip here in the last year, and there is a sort of
fever chart that precedes every trip, always profound analyses that the
United States has now finally changed its policy, and at last what has
always been suspected has come true, that the United States will now
really press Israel and force Israel to do things that Israel does not
want to do, and may already have done it, and if there is a word in some
communique that is not exactly the same word as in the former one, and since
we've never given credit for stupidity, it is always a profound design.

That fever chart we have gone through nine times, and the interesting
thing to me is that never have these predictions survived our first
meeting, because we always, when we meet and analyze the situation, develop
a common approach, and this is no accident, because our relationship is
not based on personalities, and anybody who talks about peace in the
Middle East will sooner or later be driven to the same conclusion, that
a peace to be lasting must make the participants feel that they are secure,
that they have a sense of participation, and therefore, knowing the
rivalries and the suffering and the tensions of the past generation, we
have deliberately moved step by step, to permit all those who negotiate
an opportunity to feel that what is being negotiated is really their
negotiation, and not something that the U.S. has given.

On this particular trip there have been important events. As I
said at the airport, and as I have tried to say for a week, not always
with great success, there has been no change in American policy, I'm not
here because there is a change in American policy but
because there is a continuing American policy, which in the light of
circumstances has to be analyzed from time to time. The objectives have
to be set so that we know what we are doing, with confidence in each
other, that has always characterized our relationship. We are now in an
extremely delicate phase; it is extremely complicated; in which a great
deal depends on psychological understanding, political sensitivity and on
confidence in each other.

I feel that after our talks here there is no question about the
confidence in each other; there is no question about the direction in
which we should go. We will now have to see what is possible, how it is
possible. We will stay in close touch, no doubt I will come back here,
no doubt there will be stories again that I am here to announce at last
the change that has always been predicted and has never happened, that
at last we are going to bring the pressure that has not occurred, and
that I am too cowardly to exercise anyway. (Laughter)

Be that as it may, there is no pressure necessary, because we are in
essential agreement on the course, I believe, I hope, and I pray that
we will look back to this trip as one of those that ushered in a period
in which new advances were possible, even though we have to move care-
fully, and we have to see what possibilities exist in a very complicated
situation that has arisen as a result of the Rabat Summit and other

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

November 8, 1974

No. 491

EXCHANGE OF REMARKS BETWEEN
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AND HIS EXCELLENCY YIGAL ALLON
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ISRAEL
UPON THE SECRETARY'S DEPARTURE FROM JERUSALEM, ISRAEL
NOVEMBER 8, 1974

## Secretary Kissinger

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I've said earlier that this is my ninth or tenth visit in one year, and we all now know that it follows a certain course. There's always, before I come, a great deal of speculation about the momentous changes that are going to be brought about in policy as a result of my visit and what new pressures may be brought on Israel. And then we meet, we agree, we pursue a common approach and we remain on the same course, which is to move step by step towards a just and lasting peace in the area, a peace that no people can want more and no people deserve more than the people of Israel. We have had two days of very cordial, very frank, very friendly talks, and we agreed that in the new conditions that have arisen in these months we need to explore carefully what possibilities do exist. We will jointly explore them. The United States stands ready to help all the parties that are ready to move forward, and the United States as always maintains the closest relations with its old friends in Israel.

So the talks have been good. We know where we're going. We will explore carefully and deliberately. We will stay in close touch with each other, and we have hope for the future.

Thank you.

## Foreign Minister Allon

While I can't but endorse everything that the Secretary of State had to say about his visit to the Middle East in general and to Israel in particular, it was quite natural that the Government of Israel was most anxious to hear an authoritative assessment of the situation after the Rabat Conference. I couldn't think of another person in the world today but Dr. Kissinger who could go to any Arab capital he wishes and from there go to Israel when his hosts there know very well that he is about to visit Jerusalem and talk to us. This gives us in addition to what we know from our own sources what was going on in Rabat, to hear Dr. Kissinger's opinion about the possibilities of the continuation of our joint political effort to achieve durable and just peace in the Middle East even if this has to be achieved step by step. We are very happy to hear from the Secretary of State that these options are not

PR #491

-2-

not blocked altogether. It is true that the situation is very complicated, very delicate and therefore what is needed today is a great vision, a faith in the need and possibility to achieve peace, and the skill of a mediator. Happily, Dr. Kissinger possesses all these qualities and therefore we think his visit to this country was most useful. We had good talks, very frank ones and a very friendly atmosphere. We do hope that sooner or later, better sooner than later, we shall hear some news about the possibilities of some political progress in order to keep the momentum alive.

I am very happy that Mrs. Kissinger, Nancy, could come with him, but unfortunately he keeps us so busy that it doesn't give us a chance even to look at her. I hope this isn't out of jealousy — just because we are hard-working people. So next time I hope he'll take an extra day and come to a nice place like my kibburz and relax a little bit, not only politically but also physically.

Thank you very much.

* * * * * *

that their mission was to help bring the peace or to alleviate suffering but where they might become the symbol for hatred or the object of a blind retribution. But they went and did their duty. And in so doing they ennobled all of us and reminded us that nothing is more important than to bring about a world in which such sacrifices will no longer be necessary and in which our officers can serve abroad under conditions that would fulfill the hopes and aspirations of those who gave their lives and of their families.

So we think of them with pride and affection and as an inspiration to the best in the Foreign Service.

Thank you.

## Additional Food for Peace Wheat To Be Sent to Bangladesh

AID press release 74-80 dated November 8

Bangladesh, plagued by severe floods and food shortages, will receive an additional 100,000 metric tons of wheat and wheat flour on concessional terms under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food for Peace program, USDA and the Agency for International Development announced on November 8.

Severe monsoon flooding struck Bangladesh this summer and destroyed or damaged large quantities of stored and standing rice. The concessional wheat sale announced on November 8, along with a similar sale of 150,000 tons of U.S. wheat and rice in October, will help Bangladesh alleviate its major food shortage. The 100,000 tons of wheat and wheat flour, valued at $18.9 million in the export market, will provide almost a pound of wheat per day for 7½ million people for one month.

The first shipments of wheat under the

earlier sale should arrive in Bangladesh in early December. Under the terms of the new sale, the United States is to be repaid in U.S. dollars over 40 years, with no repayment of principal due in the first 10 years. Interest is payable at 2 percent during the first 10 years and 3 percent thereafter.

The agreement also allows the Government of Bangladesh to sell the grain on the open market and to use the proceeds for rehabilitation and development programs, particularly those intended to increase the nation's food production, as well as direct relief. Included would be more research in solving the problems of small farmers, strengthening formal and informal training programs, better food storage and distribution facilities, and improved land and water management.

Previous emergency assistance for flood relief has totaled $3,086,865. The U.S. relief efforts included a cash donation by U.S. Ambassador Davis Eugene Boster to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, an airlift from Guam of 596 tents and 14,946 blankets, and an airlift from the United States of 133,000 pounds of Civil Defense protein-fortified biscuits. The first 500-ton shipment of an additional 6,000 tons of biscuits was scheduled to arrive on November 8. AID also provided vegetable seeds from the United States.

In addition, AID has authorized the use of $4 million under a previously committed AID relief and rehabilitation grant for purchase within Bangladesh of building materials to help restoration of flood-damaged homes and for purchase of locally available seeds to permit the farmers to replant crops.

Since Bangladesh achieved independence in 1971, the United States has granted or loaned on concessional terms more than $500 million toward the economic development of the South Asian nation.

934

Department of State Bulletin

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

November 11, 1974

No. 493

JOINT DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS OF
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
AND
HIS EXCELLENCY HABIB CHATTI
FOREIGN MINISTER OF TUNISIA
TUNIS, TUNISIA

NOVEMBER 9, 1974

Secretary Kissinger:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have had a very brief but very warm, cordial and useful visit here. The President and the Foreign Minister who were in Rabat explained to me their understanding of the significance of the conference of the Arab Chiefs of State. I told Tunisian friends that the U.S. believes that progress towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is possible on a step-by-step basis on which the U.S. would be prepared to participate if the parties involved were prepared to make the effort. President Bourguiba explained to me that in his own career, he proceeded step-by-step against many obstacles and some criticism, and finally prevailed in his objectives. We will come to draw courage from his example.

The Foreign Minister explained to me the important discussions that Tunisia arranged between the Foreign Minister of Portugal and the leaders of the Independence Movement in Angola that are taking place in Tunisia at this moment. The Foreign Minister also arranged an opportunity for me to meet the Foreign Minister of Portugal to discuss both bilateral Portuguese-U.S. relations, and the important negotiations going on here in Tunisia. I believe that the negotiations now going on in Tunisia can be of historic importance and will be supported by the U.S. I would like to congratulate the Foreign Minister of Tunisia and the Government of Tunisia for having taken this important initiative.

Finally, we reviewed the bilateral relationships between Tunisia and the U.S. which are excellent. We are here among old friends. We agreed to begin discussions about setting up a commission between Tunisia and the U.S. to explore ways in which this relationship can be further strengthened in many fields.

PR # 493

-2-

It remains for me only to thank the Government of Tunisia, its great President, and its Foreign Minister for having arranged on short notice such a warm and successful visit.

Foreign Minister Chatti:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

As you see, we were very glad to welcome Secretary of State Kissinger and Mrs. Kissinger. This was a visit marked by friendship which shows very well this durable, old and solid friendship that exists between Tunisia and the U.S.

The talks with the Secretary of State were as always extremely interesting, particularly on account of the trip he has just undertaken, and the many issues with which he has been dealing. Also, because of his style of diplomacy.

Our talks were very interesting and I would say even very important because they enabled us to gain an insight, a clear insight, into the situation as it exists in the Arab world, and also in the U.S., as an aftermath of the Rabat Summit meeting. The situation as it now exists is quite difficult, and the task of the U.S. Secretary of State in an effort to reach some middle ground between the Arab states and Israel has become very difficult. We are facing a situation which is more difficult but, at the same time, it is more clear, and therefore we must all act with determination so as to find the way to conciliation.

Tunisia, as well as the other Arab nations, are deeply dedicated to peace and wish to find a peaceful solution to this serious problem which poses a threat not only to the Mediterranean area, but to the whole world.

The Secretary of State has assured us that he will continue to act toward conciliation with a view to finding a just and durable solution to the problems of the Middle East. We are particularly gratified by his good and sound determination.

President Bourguiba said yesterday to Secretary Kissinger that Tunisia will do all that is possible on its part in order to help the U.S.; and both Tunisia and its President consider that the U.S. can play an essential part to assure the attainment of this peace that is so much wished for in this region.

Without saying that we are optimistic regarding the evolution in the Middle Eastern situation, still we are not pessimistic. And since Secretary Kissinger is always optimistic, his optimism is definitely contagious. We wish him the greatest measure of success in the continuation of his mission because it does concern all of mankind.

Regarding bilateral relations I have not much to say except they are the very best possible and that the weather is always in the position of the fairest weather.

*****

Public Statements

OAKLEG

[L.C.]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NOVEMBER 10, 1974

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

THE WHITE HOUSE

REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
UPON RETURNING FROM CAMP DAVID

SOUTH PORTICO

7:11 P.M. EST

I just want to announce that I had a very, very interesting, helpful and in-depth three-hour meeting with the Secretary of State. He reviewed the 17 countries on a backbreaking 17-day trip, and I can say on the basis of his analysis that it was basically very encouraging; the meeting with Mr. Brezhnev was very helpful.

The various capitals that the Secretary stopped in in the Middle East I think also brought back some encouraging news. The trips that he made to the sub-continent were very helpful in redirecting our policies in that vitally important area of the world.

So, I for one am very grateful and most appreciative of the almost superhuman efforts that the Secretary has made on this trip as well as in the past, and we are looking forward to a constructive trip to Japan and South Korea and to the Soviet Union.

So, let me just thank you very much, Henry, for a great job for us as Americans and for me personally.

Thank you very, very much.

END (AT 7:13 P.M. EST)

Public Statement
x Palestinians

NOV. 11, 1974

- 24 -

#68-11/11

MR. HUSHEN: All I can say is what I have said on this matter.

Q Jack, if I could go to another subject --

Q Jack, what does that mean about going back and checking the tape? That is just what the tape says. I think that is an absolute verbatim remark there.

MR. HUSHEN: Then let me check the tape.

Q Jack, we don't care what he thinks. What does the President say? Does he have the confidence of the President?

MR. HUSHEN: I am just not prepared to discuss that.

Q We are not asking you to speak as a spokesman for Mr. Gibson, we are asking you to speak as a spokesman for President Ford.

Q Does he have the support of the President?

MR. HUSHEN: I am not going to go any further that Ron went on Friday. It is the status of this nomination, and that is under review.

Q I have got a question that deals with a statement made by the White House by Ron where he said, "The U.S. recognizes that full consideration must be given to the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people if there is to be a just and durable settlement in the Middle East."

Now, since the term "legitimate interest" is the White House' own terminology, what specifically is regarded as the Palestinian legitimate interest?

MR. HUSHEN: Would you mind taking that question over to the State Department?

Q No, it was not made by the State Department, Jack, it was made right there. Now, since it was made by Mr. Nessen, who is lurking back there somewhere, could we get a clarification on what does the White House mean when they say legitimate interests? What are the legitimate interests of the Palestinians? The State Department didn't say that.

MR. HUSHEN: We will have to take that question.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Jack.

END (AT 1:04 P.M. EST)

Department of State TELEGRAM

[LC]

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 2 OF STATE 249366

USMISSION NATO
AMEMBASSY SANAA
USINT BAGHDAD
USINT ALGIERS

UNCLAS STATE 249366

E.O. 11621 N/A
TAGS: FOR
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFING

GENEVA FOR MEPC DEL

FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE FOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS
FROM DEPARTMENT SPOKESHAN'S PRESS BRIEFING NOVEMBER 12,
1974

QUOTE: MR. ANDERSON: I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR YOU. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES -- I BELIEVE THIS IS ALREADY OUT -- HAS AGREED WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF ALGERIA TO RESUME FULL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AS OF TODAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1974.

Q. WHEN ARE YOU SENDING AN AMBASSADOR TO ALGERIA? ANYTHING ON THAT?

A. THE PRESIDENT STILL HAS NOT ANNOUNCED HIS CHOICE YET. AND RICHARD PARKER, WHO HAS BEEN HEAD OF OUR INTERESTS SECTION IN ALGERIA, BECOMES THE CHARGE D'AFFAIRES.

Q. WHAT WILL BE THE SIZE OF THE EMBASSY STAFF?

A. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE IS NO CONTEMPLATED CHANGE. I AM UNAWARE OF AN INCREASE.

Q. THE PERSONNEL WILL INCREASE BY AT LEAST ONE, WILL IT?

A. PRESUMABLY, MAYBE NOT.

Q. WHAT'S HIS NAME?

A. THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT YET ANNOUNCED HIS CHOICE.

UNCLASSIFIED

29

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 03 STATE 249366

Q. WHAT ARE THE COUNTRIES WHICH SEVERED RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES IN THE 167 WAR AND WHO DON'T HAVE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THEM UP TO NOW? IRAQ I KNOW ONE.

A. YES, IRAQ, AND THEN SOUTH YEMEN IS THE OTHER ONE.

Q. THAT WAS NOT DURING THE WAR.

A. NO, THEY SEVERED RELATIONS IN 169. BUT THESE ARE THE TWO IN THE AREA THAT WE DO NOT HAVE RELATIONS WITH.

Q. ARE YOU WORKING ON RESUMING RELATIONS WITH THEM? IS THERE ANY ACTIVITY GOING ON?

A. I CAN'T GIVE YOU ANY ACCURATE REPORT ON THAT WHERE THAT STANDS.

Q. ON NOVEMBER 5, IN THE WHITE HOUSE, PRESS SECRETARY NESSEN MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: "THE U.S. RECOGNIZES THAT FULL CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE IF THERE IS TO BE A JUST AND DURABLE SETTLEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST."

WHEN I ASKED HUSHEN, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, YESTERDAY, HE REFERRED THIS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THIS QUESTION: WHAT DOES THE STATE DEPARTMENT REGARD AS THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AS OPPOSED TO THE ILLEGITIMATE INTERESTS?

A. LET ME JUST SAY THIS ON THAT, THAT THE SUBJECT YOU REFER TO IS A SUBJECT FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS IN TRYING TO ARRIVE AT A PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE PALESTINIANS, THAT IS A SUBJECT FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

Q. YOU DIDN'T TELL ME WHAT THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS ARE.

A. THAT IS A SUBJECT FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

[LC]

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 04 STATE 240366

Q. I'M PUZZLED. IT IS A SUBJECT FOR NEGOTIATION, THEREFORE IT HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?

A. THIS WILL BE A SUBJECT FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. I AM NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE DETAILS OF FUTURE AND CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS.

Q. WELL, THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NEVER DETERMINED, THEREFORE, SINCE THEY ARE GOING TO BE NEGOTIATED, WHAT THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS ARE. AM I CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION?

A. I DO NOT WISH TO GO INTO ANY DEFINITION OF THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE PALESTINIANS. THIS IS GOING TO BE A SUBJECT FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

Q. SO THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING WITH SOMETHING YOU JUST SAID, THE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED IS THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE, AND YOU SAID THAT THIS IS A SUBJECT FOR FUTURE -- AND THEN YOU ADDED "CURRENT" NEGOTIATION. IS THAT TO IMPLY THAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY IN NEGOTIATION?

A. WELL, AS WE ALL KNOW -- NO, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM GLAD YOU RAISED IT, BUT, AS WE ALL KNOW, IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE ARE HAVING WITH THE PARTIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, OBVIOUSLY THE SUBJECT OF THE INTERESTS OF THE PALESTINIANS HAS BEEN RAISED FROM TIME TO TIME. THIS IS AN OBVIOUS FACT.

Q. AFTER ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SECURITY SURROUNDING THE PALESTINE GROUP IN NEW YORK, WHY DID THEY SUDDENLY DECIDE TO PUT THEM IN THE WALDORF? WAS THIS AT THE REQUEST OF THE PALESTINE GROUP?

A. I DO NOT KNOW. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHO MADE THE DECISION, WHETHER IT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLO. HOW IT WAS WORKED OUT. I DON'T HAVE THE DETAIL. I DO NOTICE, INCIDENTALLY, THAT JOHN SCALI WAS BRIEFING THE PRESS ON SOME OF THIS BUSINESS YESTERDAY. I SAW A FEW TICKERS, ET

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

[Lc]

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 05 STATE 249366

CETERA, ON IT. I THINK HE IS CLOSER TO IT THAN WE ARE.
BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN IN DAILY CONTACT WITH THE U.N. PEOPLE,
ET CETERA.

Q. WOULD THERE BE EITHER OFFICIAL OR UNOFFICIAL CONTACTS
AT ANY LEVEL BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE PLO
DURING THIS VISIT?

A. ON THAT SUBJECT, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY PARTICULAR
CONTACTS WITH THE PLO DELEGATION.

Q. YOU ARE NOT EXCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY?

A. LET ME JUST CONTINUE HERE, FOR A MINUTE. NOW, DURING
THE COURSE OF DISCUSSING THE RESOLUTION, DURING THE
COURSE OF THE DEBATE, THERE MAY BE SOME LOW LEVEL CONTACTS
UP AT THE U.N. BETWEEN THE TWO IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
DEBATE AND DISCUSSING THE RESOLUTIONS. BUT WE DO NOT KNOW
THIS YET. BUT AS FAR AS ANY HIGH LEVEL CONTACTS ARE CON-
CEERNED, THAT IS NOT CONTEMPLATED AT ALL.

Q. HOW DO YOU DEFINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOW AND HIGH
LEVEL, MR. ANDERSON?

A. OH, WE HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR THE LAST TWO OR THREE WEEKS
ALMOST DAILY, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER DR. KISSINGER HAD ANY
PLANS TO MEET MR. ARAFAT. AND IT WAS BEEN MADE ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH PLANS AT ALL. NOW, THERE ARE
LOW AND MIDDLE-RANKING OFFICERS ATTACHED TO OUR DELEGATION
UP AT THE UNITED NATIONS, AND THEY, IN THE COURSE OF THE
DEBATE THAT GOES ON IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THEY HAVE
CONTACTS TO DISCUSS A GIVEN PARAGRAPH OF A RESOLUTION, ETC.
IT IS THIS TYPE OF CONTACT THAT I AM REFERRING TO.

Q. IS SCALI LOW, HIGH OR MIDDLE?

A. HIGH.

Q. WELL, HE IS OUT, THEN.

A. SERIOUSLY, WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE SOME OCCASION THAT

UNCLASSIFIED

[LC]

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 38. STATE 263580

MAY COME UP DURING THE CONFERENCE, IF ANY, THAT THE SECRETARY MAY RUN INTO THE HEAD OF THE PLO DELEGATION OR THE HEAD OF THE PLO INFORMATION DELEGATION. I DO NOT KNOW, BUT I WOULD JUST RATHER STICK WITH WHAT I SAID IN THE STATEMENTS THAT WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY CONTACT.

Q. I WANT TO REPEAT THAT IF YOU ARE NOT INCLUDING AN ACTUAL CONTACT IN DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT, I WILL BE THE HEAD OF THE PLO?

A. I WOULD DOUST THAT THIS WOULD OCCUR, FRANKLY, AND IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED.

Q. ISN'T WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT THERE WILL BE NO FORMAL CONTACT WITH THE PLO DELEGATION?

A. THAT'S RIGHT.

Q. THERE MAY BE ACCIDENTAL OR CASUAL IN CONNECTION WITH WHERE YOU PUT COMMAS IN A RESOLUTION, ETC.

A. IT MIGHT HAPPEN, BUT NONE OF THIS IS ANTICIPATED.

Q. ON THE SUBJECT OF THESE NEGOTIATIONS, WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR THE SECRETARY RETURNING TO THE MIDDLE EAST?

A. I CAN'T GIVE YOU ANY TIME FRAME HERE AT ALL. THE SECRETARY, THE LAST TIME THAT HE TALKED TO US ABOUT IT, WAS ABOUT THREE DAYS AGO, JUST BEFORE WE GOT BACK, AND HE DOES NOT KNOW YET.

Q. IF OR WHEN?

A. WHEN, NO, HE SAID, IN JERUSALEM AT THE LUNCHTIME THAT FOREIGN MINISTER ALLON GAVE HIM, AS I RECALL IT, HE SAID, "I WILL BE BACK." WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO TIME FRAME HERE AT ALL.

Q. WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR A NEWS CONFERENCE BEFORE HE LEAVES?

UNCLASSIFIED

[LC]

Department of State TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 1 OF 2

A. I HAD Hoped TO have SOMETHING ON THIS FOR YOU HOrEFULLY
TOMORROW, BUT FROM THE CONFERENCE WOuLD BE FOR TOMORROW, BUT TO
GET THE SECRETARY TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION ON IT.

G. WIIl THE SECRETARY SPEND ANY TIME IN NEW YORK DURING
THIS WEEK?

A. NO, THAT IS NOT CONSIDERATED. HE IS GOING OUT TO
CHICAGO, AS I THINK MOST OF YOU KNOW, ON THURSDAY AFTER-
NOON.

G. THERE IS ONE MORE QUESTION THAT I COULD ASK. DO YOU
HAVE ANY COMMENT ON TAD STOLEN PIECE IN THE POST ON
MR. KISSINGER'S ALLEGED HISCALCULATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

A. I HAVE NO COMMENT ON THAT PARTICULAR STORY, NO.

G. IS THERE ANY MEETING SET WITH ARAB FOREIGN MINISTERS
OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVES WHO MIGHT BE COMING INTO THE U.N.
SESSION WITH THE SECRETARY THIS WEEK?

A. I HOPE TO HAVE ... TO TIE DOWN SAUDI ARABIAN FOREIGN
MINISTER SAUDI. I BELIEVE HE IS COMING TO WASHINGTON
LATER IN THE WEEK.

G. IS HE THE ONLY ONE?

A. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT IS THE ONLY ONE. IF THERE ARE
ANY OTHERS, I WILL GIVE IT TO YOU.

G. HAS THE STATE DEPARTMENT MADE ANY FORMAL APPROACH TO
THE JDL AND THE MILITANT JENS TO COOL IT WHILE THE PALES-
TINES ARE IN NEW YORK?

A. ON THAT SUBJECT, I HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE AND EXPECT
THAT THERE WILL BE A STATEMENT ON THIS JDL REPORT, OR
THEIR STATEMENT THAT THEY MADE YESTERDAY. BUT I CAN'T
GIVE YOU ANY DETAILS ON THE QUESTION OF ...

G. WHERE WILL IT BE, THE STATEMENT? HERE OR IN NEW YORK?

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State
TELEGRAM

[LC]

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 06 STATE 1240385

A. IT WILL BE IN WASHINGTON.

Q. WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THE STATEMENT?

A. I AM NOT WUITE CERTAIN, YET, WHO WILL MAKE IT. IT MAY BE AMDE IN THE WHITE HOUSE OR DENT.

Q. IS THIS AN ANSWER TO THE JOINT STATEMENT THAT APART WILL NOT LEAVE NEW YORK ALIVE WHICH WAS REPORTED?

A. YES, IT IS. WHICH WE DISCLOSE, INCIDENTALLY. BUT I WANT TO WAIT UNTIL YOU GET AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT.

Q. ISN'T IT A QUESTION FOR THE POLICE? THIS IS AN OPEN THREAT TO KILL A MAN.

A. ABSOLUTELY.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS WHEN A THREAT HAS BEEN MADE TO ASSASSINATE A VISITING FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVE? IS THAT GROUNDS FOR ARREST?

A. COULD I JUST LEAVE IT FOR THE MOMENT UNTIL WE HAVE A STATEMENT? END QUOTE. KISSINGER

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

LIMITED OFFICIAL USE

PAGE 02 STATE 249708

TAGS: UN, XF

SUBJECT: U.S. PRESS STATEMENT ON PLO SECURITY

1. NEW YORK TIMES NOVEMBER 12 CARRIED FRONT PAGE STATEMENT BY SPOKESMAN FOR JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE THREATENING ASSASSINATION OF ARAFAT AND MEMBERS OF HIS PARTY. DEPT SPOKESMAN RELEASED FOLLOWING STATEMENT SAME DAY AND POSTS MAY USE AS APPROPRIATE.

2. QUOTE: THE STATEMENT YESTERDAY BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE JDL REPRESENTS AN INTOLERABLE THREAT TO PERSONS INVITED BY THE UNITED NATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DELIBERATIONS OF THAT ORGANIZATION AT ITS HEADQUARTERS IN NEW YORK. AS THE HOST COUNTRY OF THE UNITED NATIONS THE UNITED STATES HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT ALL SUCH PERSONS ARE ABLE TO COME AND GO SAFELY. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO TAKE ALL FEASIBLE MEASURES AVAILABLE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE LAW TO SEE THAT OUR OBLIGATIONS ARE MET IN THIS REGARD. THE DEPARTMENT APPRECIATES THE ASSISTANCE OF THE NEW YORK AUTHORITIES IN THIS EFFORT. END QUOTE. KISSINGER

LIMITED OFFICIAL USE

- 25 -

#71-11/13

Q Were you in effect inviting Congress yesterday to do those two things, to change the formula and to find other ways of raising additional money?

MR. NESSEN: Speaking of money, anybody that wants to go see the Mint Director present the coins should go to the side door right now.

I don't think it was an invitation, Jim. The President's invitation to Congress is to pass his economic program and stop sitting back and taking pot shots at it without doing anything about it.

Now, if another formula that has the same effect is more acceptable to Congress, he is willing to take a look at it. I don't think he is inviting them to throw his overboard. Congress has not done a thing about any of those points.

Q Ron, could I ask a question on a statement you made on November 5 to get clarification?

MR. NESSEN: All right.

Q You said the United States recognizes the full consideration that must be given to the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people.

I did check with the State Department. They said these interests had not yet been determined. I am just wondering, how can we be in favor of considering something that has not been determined? Since it was your statement, you may be quoting 242.

Do you have any idea of what you mean by legitimate, and what the considerations are?

MR. NESSEN: What is 242?

Q U.N. Resolution 242.

MR. NESSEN: Oh, that 242. That is where that language comes from.

Q Yes. I just wondered, Ron, did you have anything specific in mind, or is it just undetermined?

MR. NESSEN: Well, I think the answer to your question is that my answer really is the same as the State Department's answer.

MORE

#71-11/13

- 26 -

#71-11/13

You asked about biographies of the Press Office,
and they will be in the bins at the conclusion of this
briefing.

The recissions and deferrals announcement will
be available in the Press Office.

I do want to clear up something now that John
started, and it seemed to get further and further away from
what I said over here. I do not know when the President
learned of General Brown's statements, so I don't want you
to go away from here with the idea that I am saying that he
learned about it from the newspapers this morning.

At one point, I said that is a piece of the
puzzle that I don't know the answer to. I simply don't
know when he learned about the Brown remarks, so let's be
straight about that.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Ron.

END (12:47 P.M. EST)

#71

Public Statements [LC]
Nov. 13 a.m.

- 11 -

#71-11/13

Q Ron, can you tell us whether or not the President has spoken with General Brown or with Secretary Schlesinger with relation to Brown's remarks as reported today? And is he contemplating firing him at once?

MR. NESSEN: Shall we take those one at a time?

The President considers General Brown's remarks ill-advised and poorly handled. The President feels that very strongly. I believe I saw quoted somewhere that General Brown himself has said that his remarks were ill-advised and the President certainly believes that.

The President asked me to make clear that General Brown's remarks in no way represent his views or the views of any senior officials of his Administration, military or civilian. What I am telling you is, as far as the President's reaction goes, was communicated to General Brown's superior, who is Secretary of Defense Schlesinger.

Q Ron, is the President also going to ask that General Brown either explain why he said this, where he got such incredible information, or apologize to the Jewish community? I mean, to say that they were ill-advised and so forth, poorly handled, is hardly enough, it seems to me, after making a statement like this, setting down the Jewish influence and the banks and the newspapers.

This sounds like he has been boning up on the protocols. Does he have any further thing? I mean, is General Brown going to apologize or not, Ron?

MR. NESSEN: I believe you have to ask General Brown, Les. I gave you the President's reaction.

Q Ron, when you say that General Brown's remarks do not represent the views of any senior military official, does this mean that General Brown is no longer a senior military official?

MR. NESSEN: I guess we better say any other senior official.

Q In his communication to Schlesinger, has he made any suggestions about what should be done or said, anything in particular?

MR. NESSEN: He said just what I have told you, Fran.

Q Has Mr. Schlesinger been asked to formally reprimand or rebuke General Brown?

MORE

#71

- 12 -

#71-11/13

MR. NESSEN: I am not aware that he has, Ralph.

Q Is General Brown going to stay in his
job or do you expect any change in his role or title?

MR. NESSEN: I think you probably ought to
ask that over at the Pentagon.

Q That is a Presidential appointment, Ron?

Q They will not respond to that, Ron.

Q That is a Presidential appointment, that is why
I am asking.

MR. NESSEN: Let me come back to that. I am
told that they had a briefing this morning on film that
dealt entirely with the General Brown question.

Q Who is "they"?

MR. NESSEN: In the Pentagon. Was it the
briefer who had the briefing?

Q Bill Beecher.

MR. NESSEN: I guess Beecher had an on-the-record,
filmed briefing that dealt entirely with General Brown.

In answer to your question of whether he remains
in his job, I have not heard of any plans for him not
to.

Q Does the President expect General Brown to
make an apology?

MR. NESSEN: I think we have expressed the
President's views on this matter.

Q Does that mean he does not expect it; he
has said this, and it is a closed incident as long as no
one says anything else.

MR. NESSEN: This is the President's reaction
to the statement.

Q Ron, the President is saying that he thinks
that these statements were ill-advised and poorly handled
and indeed, General Brown has said that, too. Of course,
what General Brown means is that he should not have said
it. He is not dealing with whether or not he should
think it. The fact is this is what General Brown thinks.

Now, is the President going to let him stay in
that job, considering that this is what he thinks?

MORE

#71

- 13 -

#71-11/13

MR. NESSEN: Marty, this is the President's reaction to the statement, and I emphasize to you that the President holds these feelings very strongly, and he asked me to transmit the fact that he holds these feelings very strongly. I believe we will let the President's remarks stand as they are.

Bob?

Q Ron, on a perhaps related subject, is it true that the President has received a message from the King of Saudi Arabia warning that the United States is going to have its oil cut off unless it puts heavier pressure on the Israelis?

Q Question?

MR. NESSEN: Bob was wondering whether the President has received any communication from King Faisal concerning a threat to cut off the oil.

I just don't think we can discuss communications to the President from a head of State, if there were any such communication, Bob.

Q Is the Administration now contemplating a gasoline tax which it rejected in the past?

MR. NESSEN: I have heard nothing that leads me to believe that the President changed his position on that.

Q Ron, I don't think the statement either made by the President or what you have said here today meets the problem. General Brown made statements that disturbed greatly every Jew in the United States and there are six million of them, and a lot of other people who are interested in this.

For the President to say this is ill-advised is certainly a very pusillanimous view of it, and unless he does something about it, the only implication we can draw, the only inference I should say, is that the President is not really concerned about this. He is letting the man stay in his job, he has not contacted him personally, he has not asked him to apologize. He has done nothing about it. What kind of a situation is this?

MR. NESSEN: Is that your question, what kind of situation is this?

Q Yes, in the White House by the President.

MORE

#71

- 14 -

#71-11/13

MR. NESSEN: I have given you the President's reaction to this, which I emphasize he holds quite strongly. He disassociates himself from this view expressed by General Brown. It in no way represents the views of anybody else in the Government.

Q Ron, does the President feel -- and if you have no indication of the President's feelings, do you feel -- that General Brown can continue to lead the Armed Services of the United States, which today and in the past have included many Americans of the Jewish religion, after making a statement like this?

Is he, in the White House view, still an effective leader under the President of the Armed Forces in the United States?

MR. NESSEN: Jim, I am going to stick with the reaction of the President as I have given it.

Q Ron, may I ask, has the President either heard the tape or seen a transcript of General Brown's remarks at Duke University? Do you know that?

MR. NESSEN: I don't believe he has either heard the tape or seen the transcript. He is aware of what General Brown said.

Q Let me ask you this, Ron. What would you advise American citizens, regardless of their religious backgrounds, who are angered and outraged by General Brown's statement? What would you advise them to do? How would you advise them to make their feelings known?

MR. NESSEN: I would not pretend to advise American citizens, Jim.

Q Ron, are you going to discuss this with the President and ask if General Walker -- you remember General Walker, who was removed from his command in Europe for much less than this -- are you going to discuss this, bring to the President the concern certainly that you hear in this room from Jew and Gentile alike or not?

MR. NESSEN: I will.

Q Thank you.

Q Ron, will you address the other question of the increased staff of General Brown, which has come under criticism for going beyond the legal numbers.

MR. NESSEN: I didn't know anything about that, Fran. Is that the case?

MORE

#71

- 15 -

#71-11/13

Q I ask your comments today.

MR. NESSEN: I will look into that.

Q Did the President have a telephone conversation with the Secretary of Defense?

MR. NESSEN: He did not, Jim, but this was relayed to the Secretary of Defense.

Q Did he relay anything more than this statement? Did he say that he wanted anything followed up on it or did he give anything other than this statement you have given us?

MR. NESSEN: He expressed these views that I have relayed to you.

Q May we request a press conference with the President to examine this subject and others with him?

MR. NESSEN: Request a press conference?

Q Yes, sir.

MR. NESSEN: In addition to tomorrow's press conference. Do you want one in addition to tomorrow's or what?

Q I am sorry, I had a mental lapse and I forgot about tomorrow's.

Q Ron, could I follow up on that question. I am told, this is hearsay, that Secretary Morton this morning told a number of reporters that a possible gas tax increase is now again under consideration.

Q Secretary Morton said they told this group "It is on my burner as an option. If I think it is the right way to go, I am going to present it to the President."

MR. NESSEN: My understanding of Secretary Morton's remarks is that he said this is one of a number of options, and that he was not endorsing this option. Obviously, it is something that has been around for a long time as an option, and I have heard nothing to indicate to me that the President intends to change his mind about not increasing the gasoline excise tax.

Q Ron, in view of what the President said in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, among other places, how can this be considered an option? He said he definitely is not going to do it, he is not going to do it now, and he is never going to do it. Where does that leave it as an option?

MORE

#71

- 16 -

#71-11/13

MR. NESSEN: You don't destroy ideas by saying you are not going to put them into effect.

Q But/options are possible actions, things that you are considering as possible actions.

MR. NESSEN: I think it depends on what your definition of an option is. Let me just say what the facts are. As I understand Secretary Morton's remarks, it is an idea that is there and thought about by people, and at the White House there is no change that I am aware of in the President's opposition to it.

Q Ron, you say that the President did not communicate directly with either Secretary Schlesinger or General Brown on this issue?

MR. NESSEN: That is my understanding.

Q How did he get the message to Schlesinger?

MR. NESSEN: We have lots of folks here in the building with telephones.

Q Did he send a message or written note or telephone?

MR. NESSEN: Telephone.

Q Ron, may I ask a follow-up question to that. As I read through any notes on the General Brown question, we can see that President Ford is sorely displeased with General Brown's remarks. Can we safely assume that the President has, through normal channels, Secretary Schlesinger, reprimanded General Brown?

MR. NESSEN: I think you have to read these remarks and decide whether it is not -- when the President of the United States tells one of his Generals that the General's remarks were ill-advised and poorly handled and do not represent Administration policy or thinking, I don't know what else you could call that.

Q Was that specifically conveyed to General Brown?

MR. NESSEN: That is what I have said.

Q Ron, when and how did the President learn of General Brown's remarks?

MR. NESSEN: I am not exactly sure how the President learned about them. The White House learned about them before they were published in the newspaper.

MORE

#71

- 17 -

#71-11/13

Q How long before, Ron?

MR. NESSEN: Several days.

Q When was the reprimand conveyed to Secretary Schlesinger to convey to General Brown, immediately after you learned of it or after it appeared in the newspapers?

MR. NESSEN: It was conveyed this morning.

Q Why was it not conveyed at the time that you learned of it?

MR. NESSEN: I don't know that.

Q Could you find out?

MR. NESSEN: I could try to find out.

Q Ron, you left open the possibility that there might be further study or further action concerning General Brown, but at the same time, you have not said that there is going to be any further study or action concerning him. You also said when asked if he is going to be remaining in his job, "I have not heard of any plans for him not to."

This, once again, is the kind of answer you sometimes get when you are trying to say that you yourself don't know, but you have not really found out for sure one way or another.

Can you tell us one way or another? Will he remain or will he not; and if you don't know, can you check it for us?

MR. NESSEN: I have to tell you what I said before, which is I don't know of any plans for him not to remain in his job.

Q Ron, if I might follow up on that question, I asked a moment ago and didn't get an answer, is it conceivable to you as Press Secretary to the President that any responsible White House official would have known about that, whether several days ago, and permitted a delay in telling the President about it?

MR. NESSEN: I just would rather not speculate on it, John.

MORE

#71

- 19 -

#71-11/23

Q Yes, sir, that is a question. Did the President indicate his displeasure only when it became public information, or did he do it beforehand?

MR. NESSEN: Les, may I say to you that we are dealing here with a problem of a man who has made ill-advised and poorly handled remarks. I do believe that part of the project that we are all involved in here, which is to get out news to the American people, and I said this my first day here -- part of the project that we are all involved in is to change the mood of these briefings, which for five years has deteriorated into something that serves neither the public, the press, nor the White House. I think the briefings require a degree of civility, and I would hope that we can maintain a degree of civility.

Q Very civilly, I would like to ask --

MR. NESSEN: You often do not display civility.

Q I am sorry.

Ron, can you answer the question?

MR. NESSEN: Next question.

Q The next question is what do you mean by poorly handled? I put that into the context of Brown's remarks.

MR. NESSEN: I don't understand why that needs further elaboration, Helen.

Q You said they are ill-advised and poorly handled. Poorly handled by whom? You mean Brown poorly handled it?

MR. NESSEN: General Brown's remarks were ill-advised and poorly handled.

I understand the point you have all made, and I told Les that I would relay to the President the extremely strong feeling in this room and presumably on the outside. I am not sure we need to pick the President's statement apart word by word. I believe that everyone here understands how strongly the President feels, and if you don't, I can re-emphasize again how strongly the President feels.

MORE

#71

- 20 -

#71-11/13

Q Without picking apart the President's statement, I would like to ask you a question that I am confused about with respect to the timing. If the President knew about General Brown's --

MR. NESSEN: Jim, let me just stop you. In answer to John's question, I am aware that someone in the White House knew about this at least several days ago. The reason I cannot tell you when the President knew is because I don't know when the President knew. He may have known several days ago; he may not have known until this morning. I simply don't know that piece of the puzzle.

Q In that case, it was conceivably not the President. If a White House staff member knew about it several days ago and if that White House staff member and others in the White House were indignant about General Brown's statement, why was there no reprimand or admonishment delivered to General Brown at that time?

MR. NESSEN: I simply can't answer your question because I don't know who knew or when the President knew, at that time.

Q Could you find out for us by chance when the President actually was informed of General Brown's statement?

MR. NESSEN: Obviously that is the central point we are not able to clean up today, and I will.

Q Ron, do you know how this information got to the White House? Was it from a complaint? Did it funnel up through the Pentagon?

MR. NESSEN: I don't know how the information got here.

Q Ron, on Bob Pierpoint's question, you don't mean to suggest that a threat to impose an oil embargo against the people of the United States is a private concern of the President? Why can't you address the substance of the question?

MR. NESSEN: Well, the substance of the question was had a message been received from King Faisal.

Q No, had a threat been received from King Faisal to impose an oil embargo.

Q Has a message been received from Saudi Arabia? May I restate the question. Has the Government of Saudi Arabia warned the United States that it might impose an oil embargo if additional pressure is not put on the Israeli Government?

MORE

#71

- 21 -

#71-11/13

MR. NESSEN: Let me say first that I don't think we can talk about any communications, if there were any, between a foreign government and the President. Having said that, I want to say that I am not aware of any communication from Saudi Arabia.

Q Ron, could I try to ask a very civil question?

MR. NESSEN: I would like to see you try to ask a civil question. (Laughter)

Q Ron, when somebody in the White House discovered that Mr. Gibson was getting a lot of money from an oil company and apparently this did not reach the President and now we get a situation that someone, again unidentified, learned about General Brown's statements but again presumably it did not reach the President because I imagine the President would be immediately indignant if it did.

Now, I just wonder if you could give us, Ron, any kind of a guidance as to what is happening here. When the White House learns these things, gosh, it sounds like the President is not being informed, Ron, and this is a grim situation. I am wondering if you could shed some light on it, Ron.

MR. NESSEN: All I can say is that the President is amazingly well informed about a broad range of subjects, and it constantly amazes me with the amount of knowledge and information he has, and he is informed of all important issues in a timely and orderly way.

Q Does he feel that he is being completely informed when he missed the boat on a couple of things now or seems to have?

MR. NESSEN: I think we said that the Gibson thing was -- I forgot how we said it was handled, but --

Q Imperfectly?

MR. NESSEN: Imperfectly.

Q Ill-advised.

MORE

#71

- 22 -

#71-11/13

Q Ron, who is it that decides that information such as this can be kept from the President?

MR. NESSEN: I think you are making a terrible leap when you say that information is being kept from the President. It is not.

Q All right, makes the decision not to tell the President about something.

MR. NESSEN: I don't know that there was a conscious decision made not to tell the President about anything. You know, one of the points about the way the White House is organized now is that he has input from a wide range of people, both inside and outside the White House.

Q Ron, when did you discuss the matter?

MR. NESSEN: Which matter?

Q The Brown matter.

MR. NESSEN: The Brown matter, this morning.

Q Ron, could you assume we might be able to clean up some of this story later in the day? Could you take two or three of these questions about when the President --

MR. NESSEN: We take all the questions that are left hanging. That is why Joy is here. Aside from looking nice, she also writes down the unanswered questions.

Q -- and get back to us this afternoon on this, please.

MR. NESSEN: We do that. Don't we post answers?

Q This would be a good time to start the 4:00 briefing.

Q Mr. Rumsfeld ended up assuming responsibility for this. Can you tell us who ultimately will assume the responsibility for either telling or not telling the President about this? Is there some question as to whether the President knew in advance of the newspapers? If there is to be a Rumsfeld-type scapegoat in the General Brown affair, will you please tell us?

MORE

#71

- 23 - #71-11/13

MR. NESSEN: I got really lost in that question, the Gibsons and the Browns here.

Q You remember yesterday that you came up and told us that Mr. Rumsfeld said that he would assume responsibility for the imperfect handling. Inasmuch as someone here in the White House knew in advance of General Brown's remarks prior to their publication in the newspaper, will you at some point tell us who that someone was as you have in the Gibson nomination?

MR. NESSEN: I will certainly try and find out.

Q Thank you.

Q Ron, can I go back to the gas tanks question, please. You said, "I am not aware of any change in the President's opposition of it."

MR. NESSEN: Yes.

Q Can you be as specific as the President was last month in his speeches when he said time and time again he was totally opposed, I think the whole time, at least in the immediate future, to any increase in the Federal tax on gasoline?

MR. NESSEN: Whatever he said then is his position today as far as I know, and I have heard him talk about this issue since then and I see no change in his attitude.

Q Ron, did the President have a meeting last night on the coal strike, and what was discussed in that meeting?

MR. NESSEN: I am not aware that the President did have a meeting last night on the coal strike.

The President generally believes that the talks are moving ahead and making progress under collective bargaining, and he hopes that the strike will be settled this week. The White House is in touch with the Government officials who are responsible for following the situation. Certainly the collective bargaining system seems to be working in this case, the differences are being narrowed, and he hopes for a settlement.

Q Ron, might I ask you a question about your statements yesterday on the economic situation and the surtax?

MORE

#71

- 24 -

#71-11/13

MR. NESSEN: Yes.

Q You said at one point the President was not wedded to 5 percent, but that he was wedded to the surtax as a means of raising the revenue needed for the various programs that you have outlined.

MR. NESSEN: Yes.

Q Does this mean that the President would accept a different percentage, just as a hypothetical example 10 percent, on a different level of income -- for example, $25,000 instead of $15,000 -- would he accept some change or revision of that nature?

Secondly, is he in effect inviting Congress to do something along that line?

Thirdly, has he any idea for raising the additional revenue that would be needed if the percentage and the income were higher? In other words, it has been estimated that the type of situation I outlined would cut in half the revenue that would have come from the original proposals.

MR. NESSEN: Yes.

Q Does he have any proposals for raising that additional? I have three questions; I am sorry.

MR. NESSEN: Well, I have three answers.

Let's see if I can remember what your questions were. The President's basic interest in proposing the surtax was to raise the necessary money to pay for the anti-recession parts of his program.

Now if Congress wants to change the formula, he is certainly willing to take a look at it if it reaches the same goal, which is to raise the money needed to pay for these anti-recession aspects.

Q If it does not reach the same goal—I think the figure was just under $5 billion, if I am correct -- $4.7 or something like that. If it does not reach the same goal, does the President have any idea what he would like Congress to do to make up the difference?

MR. NESSEN: No. He anticipates that Congress would act in a responsible way here and not add any further net increase to the budget, and would act responsibly by finding a way to raise this money to pay for the two other parts of the program.

MORE

#71

Department of State

TELEGRAM

[L0]

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 STATE 250353

UNCLAS STATE 250353

GENEVA FOR MEPC DEL

FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE FOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS
FROM DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN'S PRESS BRIEFING NOVEMBER 13,
1974:

QUOTE: Q. SINCE ARAFAT HAS BEEN IN NEW YORK, WHICH AMERICAN OFFICIALS HAVE HAD CONTACT WITH HIM?

A. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO AMERICAN OFFICIALS HAVE HAD ANY CONTACT WITH HIM.

Q. WHO HAS HAD CONTACT WITH HIM SINCE HIS ARRIVAL IN NEW YORK -- JUST THE POLICE?

A. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER PEOPLE OTHER THAN SECURITY PEOPLE. AND THERE IS NO PLAN OR ANTICIPATION OF ANY MEETING WITH MR. ARAFAT ON THE PART OF OUR OFFICIALS.

Q. HOW ABOUT OTHER PLO DELEGATES OR PARTICIPANTS IN THE DEBATE FROM THE PLO?

A. I THINK ON THAT, I'D JUST GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID

YESTERDAY TO YOU: THAT NO MEETINGS ARE ANTICIPATED WITH EITHER THE HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION.

Q. WHEN IS HE GOING TO BE LEAVING, DO YOU KNOW?

UNCLASSIFIED

FORM 9-63 DS-1652

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 03 STATE 250353

A. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T HAVE ANY TIME.

Q. II MR. BUFFUM UP THERE?

A. NO, HE'S HERE.

Q. IS THERE ANYONE UP THERE FROM THE BUILDING?

A. THERE WAS ONE GENTLEMAN FROM THE NEA BUREAU THAT DID
GO UP. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT.

Q. WHO?

A. HIS NAME IS WAT CLUVERIUS, WHO IS AN OFFICER IN THE
NEA BUREAU, WHO WENT UP SOME DAYS AGO AT THE REQUEST OF
THE UNITED STATES SECURITY PEOPLE AND OUR UN MISSION TO
HELP THEM CARRY OUT ADMINISTRATIVE AND LOGISTICAL TASKS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE OBVIOUS SECURITY NEEDS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PLO'S STAY AT THE UN.

THAT IS THE ONLY REASON THAT HE WAS THERE. HE HASN'T HAD,
AND HE WON'T HAVE, ANY SUBSTANTIVE CONTACTS WITH THE PLO
DELEGATION.

Q. DO YOU FEEL THAT ARAFAT'S PRESENCE IN NEW YORK AND THE
WHOLE PALESTINE DEBATE WILL HELP OR HURT THE SECRETARY'S
EFFORTS TO ARRANGE A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT?

A. ON THAT I THINK THAT JOHN SCALI UP IN NEW YORK HAS
MADE VERP CLEAR OUR POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE FORTH-
COMING DEBATE. I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE HOW
THE DEBATE TURNS OUT. OBVIOUSLY, THE LESS ACRIMONY THAT
THERE WILL BE THE BETTER THAT WOULD BE TO ASSIST IN THE
ON-GOING EFFORTS THAT THE UNITED STATES IS TRYING TO MAKE
WITH REGARD TO OBTAINING A PEACEFUL SOLUTION IN THE MIDDLE
EAST.

Q. DOES MR. SCALI OR ANY OTHER U.S. OFFICIAL PLAN TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE DEBATE? ARE THEY SCHEDULED TO SPEAK?

A. I DO NOT KNOW THAT, WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK ON OUR SIDE,

UNCLASSIFIED

FORM DS-1652

Department of State TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 04 STATE 250353

OR IF WE ARE GOING TO SPEAK. I'LL TAKE THE QUESTION THOUGH.

Q. IT WAS REPORTED IN AL AHRAM THIS MORNING THAT KING FAISAL TOLD THE SECRETARY THAT SAUDI ARABIA AND THE OTHER COUNTRIES MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO REIMPOSE THE OIL EMBARGO IF PROGRESS IS NOT MADE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT?

A. WELL, THE REPORT I SAW SAID THAT THERE WAS AN ALLEGED LETTER FROM KING FAISAL TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE SECRETARY MENTIONING THE SUBJECTS THAT YOU JUST DID. I AM UNAWARE OF ANY SUCH LETTER. YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK THE WHITE HOUSE, BUT I CHECKED THE WHITE HOUSE EARLIER, AND THEY ARE UNAWARE OF ANY SUCH LETTER TOO.

Q. APART FROM THE LETTER HAS FAISAL OR ANY OTHER SAUDI OFFICIAL TOLD AMBASSADOR AKINS OR ANY OTHER AMERICAN OFFICIAL WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?

A. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO. LET ME ADD HERE, ON BACKGROUND, A QUESTION THAT I THINK MARVIN ASKED ME YESTERDAY ABOUT THE SECRETARY'S SEEING ANY ARAB FOREIGN MINISTERS. ON BACKGROUND. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT FOREIGN MINISTER SAQQAF, SAUDI ARABIAN FOREIGN MINISTER SAQQAF, WILL PROBABLY BE HERE TOWARDS THE END OF THE WEEK, AND THE SECRETARY WILL SEE HIM. BUT THERE WILL BE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ON THAT PROBABLY TOMORROW OR FRIDAY.

AND ALSO I MIGHT ADD THAT, AGAIN WITH REGARD TO MARVIN'S QUESTION, THAT JOE SISCO WILL BE GOING UP TO NEW YORK FOR A LONG-STANDING SPEECH HE WAS SCHEDULED TO MAKE TO THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS TONIGHT. AND THIS AFTERNOON HE WILL BE SEEING SYRIAN FOREIGN MINISTER KHADDAM AND LEBANESE FOREIGN MINISTER TAKLA.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE ISRAELIS OR ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS CONTACTED THE SECRETARY CONCERNING GENERAL BROWN'S COMMENTS?

A. I DO NOT KNOW.

UNCLASSIFIED

FORM DS-1652

14

#72-11/15

MR. NESSEN: You know we don't have to clarify the President's remarks. We never clarify the President's remarks. He speaks very clearly. (Laughter)

Q In speaking about the Middle East, he spoke first about negotiating with Egypt and other Arab Nations, and then later he spoke about Egypt and other Arab parties. Are the parties and Nations one and the same thing there or is something else meant?

MR. NESSEN: I am not sure I understand the question. Are you saying are Nations the same as parties in his reference in one place to "other Arab Nations"?

Q Right.

MR. NESSEN: I don't know. I would have to check out why he makes the distinction there.

Q While you are checking that, he also went on to say that the parties involved in negotiation should decide on -- I don't have the text in front of me -- decide on who should negotiate. The Arabs decided the PLO should negotiate. Is the United States encouraging the Israelis to negotiate with the PLO?

MR. NESSEN: Well, as he said last night, and I wouldn't want to go beyond his words because I think it was an excellent summation of the American policy in this area which many of you have been asking me about for a long time. It is clear and concise and precisely the American policy, which is that the United States is leaving the decision as to who will negotiate to the parties involved.

I believe further beyond what he said last night, Secretary Kissinger has expressed the hope that the process will go on to a successful conclusion.

Q Ron, in arriving at his decision now to run in 1976, did the President consult with party leaders, with Congressional leaders, Chairman Bush, and the second part of that question, did he have any rumblings after the recent election that perhaps other Republicans are beginning to gear up to challenge him in 1976?

MR. NESSEN: In answer to your first question, I really don't know who he conferred with on this decision, if anybody.

In response to your second question, he has read the newspaper sort of speculation and columns about other candidates, but I am not sure that he has been made aware of this in any other way.

MORE

#72

- 11 -

\#72-11/15

Q Has the United States turned down a request for a million tons of additional food at the Rome Conference?

MR. NESSEN: Helen, I think the words "turn down" are probably not the right way to describe the events. The facts are that some members of that delegation sent a cable here requesting something like that. I am not sure precisely what it was, but what the President did was to have a phone call placed to Secretary Butz who is the head of the delegation there, reaffirming that the American position is as Secretary Kissinger stated it in his speech to the food conference on November 5.

I can run over briefly what he said, because it is the American policy. What the Secretary said was that during this fiscal year the United States will increase its food aid contribution despite the adverse weather conditions which have affected our crops. The American people have a deep and enduring commitment to help feed the starving and the hungry. We will do everything humanly possible to assure that our future contributions will be responsive to the growing needs.

That is the Administration position and there is agreement on that position within the Administration. I think I have explained before, and it continues to be true, that the United States can not be more specific about the quantities of food assistance that it will help with until there is more information about the American crop this year.

The whole matter is being reviewed carefully by the Administration and the commitments will be made on a quarterly basis as the size of the crops are known. The purpose of doing it this way is to avoid compounding the inflationary problems here at home.

Secretary Butz, as I understand it, went on television last night and said that critics of the Administration's food program had failed to note the large amounts of grain recently made available to a number of countries. This is for this fiscal year under the P.L. 480 Food Assistance Program, and the amounts are as follow: The United States has provided 300,000 tons of grain to India, 250,000 tons to Bangladesh and 300,000 tons to Egypt, and there are many other countries which have received American shipments under P.L. 480 in smaller amounts.

The AID organization has complete details and the figures I have given you are for this fiscal year so far, which is, of course, not quite half over. Obviously the Administration is publicly on record as committing itself to do even more.

MORE

\#72

- 12 -

#72-11/15

Q Ron, this is an area I am not expert in, but
is this really 300,000 or 300 million?

MR. NESSEN: It is 300,000 tons.

Q Ron, was this response by the President himself?

MR. NESSEN: You mean the phone call?

Q Yes.

MR. NESSEN: He did not make the phone call.

Q But he authorized it?

MR. NESSEN: Yes.

Q Earlier this week the Domestic Council staff told me they were, in response to the telegram that Secretary Butz signed, making feasibility studies of the impact - the different levels of additional commitment would have on the domestic economy, the domestic food prices.

Were the computer runs completed before this
decision was made, and if so, what did they show?

MR. NESSEN: That sounds like something that they
would do, but we don't have the outcome here.

Q Ron, can we sum up what he said by saying
that the U.S. is continuing to review whether it can
increase and it has not turned down the request for a
million tons?

MR. NESSEN: I think in the specific response to that
cable that Secretary Kissinger's remarks are the American
policy and that is a promise to increase its food aid con-
tribution, but the exact amount cannot be determined until
we see what the size of the crop is.

Q Asking it another way, has the United States
approved such shipments as mentioned --

MR. NESSEN: The million tons of whatever it was?

Q Yes. You say it has not been turned down.
Has it been approved?

MR. NESSEN: I am saying the determination can't
be made yet, Gaylord, until sometime toward the end of
December when the food crop forecasts are complete.

Q Ron, Peter Brennan was overheard saying if the
miners fail to ratify the settlement that the Administration
may go to the Taft-Hartley Act. Is that Administration policy?

MORE

#72

PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1974

1457

sumption or have been released under the provisions of section 448 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1448 (b)), or

(b) have been entered or withdrawn pursuant to paragraph (2) hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixteenth day of November in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-ninth.

GERALD R. FORD

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 4:17 p.m., November 18, 1974]

## The President's Trip to Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the Soviet Union

### Remarks of the President Upon Departure From the White House. November 17, 1974

Let me just say a word or two, and at the outset thank all of my friends for coming out to see us off.

I think this trip has great significance, both as to timing and as to substance. We all live in an interrelated world.

No longer can we, in the United States, think in the terms of isolationism. What we do overseas has great significance for some of the problems that we have here at home.

This, I think, can be defined as a quest for peace, to broaden it, to strengthen it. And as I said in Arizona earlier this week, I would rather travel 1,000 miles for peace than take a single step for war.

We are visiting three great countries. The first is Japan, the first visit of an American President, a state visit, to that great country. We have a special relationship with Japan, and although we are separated by the broadest of oceans, we have the closest of friendships.

We also will be stopping in the Republic of Korea, a courageous and brave ally, an ally that joins with us in preserving peace in that part of the world.

The trip to the Soviet Union has special significance. There has been a tremendous effort over the years to broaden an effort of peace throughout the world, and I look forward to participating in the ever-increasing strengthening of our ties with the Soviet Union.

I go with optimism. I think we, as Americans, can be optimistic about the progress that has been made and will be made. I go with a dedication of service to my fellow Americans, and a pride in our great country.

Thank you very, very much.

NOTE: The President spoke at 9:22 a.m. on the South Lawn at the White House. As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

Releases relating to the President's trip will be printed in next week's issue.

## LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

### The President's Message to the Congress. Dated November 17, 1974.

Transmitted November 18, 1974

To the Congress of the United States:

I regret that commitments which I believe will advance the cause of international understanding prevent my delivering this message personally. On two previous occasions when I returned to the Capitol for formal communication with the Congress, I emphasized my sincere desire for partnership with you in the interests of our country. Nothing has changed that intention on my part.

On August 12, three days after assuming the office of President, I asked the Congress to join with me in a new spirit of action and accommodation in getting America moving again. On October 8, I presented a comprehensive 31-point program to strengthen our economy, share the burdens of inflation and stagnation and significantly reduce this Nation's dependence on outside sources of energy which is both strategically and economically undesirable.

There has been piecemeal criticism of my program and I expected it. But there has been no specific and comprehensive alternative program advanced and time is passing. I do not read any mandate in the recent

Volume 10—Number 47

1458

election so clear as the American people's concern about our economy and their urgent demand for fiscal restraint and responsible action on the economic front.

I am still ready to meet the Congress more than half way in responding to this call from our constituents. We cannot wait and the country cannot wait until next March or April for needed action.

I will always have a special affection for the 93rd Congress—the last one to which I was elected and in which I served both as Minority Leader of the House and as President of the Senate. But I hope this pride can be more solid than sentimental.

Time is short, but time remains for this Congress to finish its work with a real record of accomplishment. Your leaders have given me their assurance of a desire to do as much as possible.

There is much to be done. I am confident that if we all declare a moratorium on partisanship for the rest of 1974 we can still achieve much for America.

In this message I am listing those legislative actions, among the many I have proposed, to which I attach the highest priority. I respectfully request their careful consideration and resolution before the 93rd Congress takes its place in history.

## NOMINATIONS

I regret that neither body of the Congress has acted on my nomination of Nelson Rockefeller to be Vice President of the United States.

It has been nearly thirteen weeks since I nominated Governor Rockefeller. Our recent experience with the 25th amendment makes it plain that an incumbent Vice President is essential to continuity in Government. I appreciate the need for a thorough examination of this nomination, but it is in the highest national interest that I urge speedy confirmation.

Forty-three other nominations pending before the Senate lapsed with the election recess. I request that my re-submissions be given expeditious consideration so that vacancies in key executive branch posts may be filled with approval of the Senate at the earliest possible time.

I will also transmit to the Senate the names of other candidates for major Administration positions and urge their speedy confirmation. Good government makes it imperative that all pending nominations be acted upon during this session of the Congress.

## ECONOMIC ISSUES

No single issue has a higher priority than the economic health of our country. Prices rise while production lags and unemployment increases. It is a severe problem requiring specific corrective actions to start the recovery and to check inflation.

## EXPENDITURES

I am gratified that recent deliberations of the House and Senate have recognized the need to restrain Federal spending for fiscal year 1975. I am confident that this action reflects the strong desire of the American people.

Accordingly, for fiscal year 1975, I will recommend to the Congress next week more budget rescissions and will report on budget deferrals

Volume 10—Number 47

1459

and administrative actions to hold down expenditures. I will also request the Congress to make changes in existing authorizations and in pending appropriation bills. I urge the Congress to support these actions and move quickly to enact the required legislative changes.

I have already reported on a number of budget deferrals totalling more than $23 billion and requested seven rescissions of over $675 million. Failure to support these actions would increase outlays by over $660 million in 1975, $2.2 billion in 1976, and even more in subsequent years. I urge the Congress to accept these deferrals and take prompt action on the over $675 million in rescission proposals that have been submitted.

## EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE

In addition to Government belt-tightening, I also indicated in my economic message of October 8th that special legislation was needed to assist citizens who are particularly hurt by increases in unemployment. On that same day, I sent to the Congress my proposed *National Employment Assistance Act*. Under this plan, employment assistance programs would be triggered into action whenever the average national unemployment rate rose to six percent for three consecutive months.

In that event, these programs would provide special jobless compensation and work opportunities in those labor market areas where the rate averages six and one-half percent for three consecutive months.

These programs should be enacted immediately, since rising unemployment indicates they will very likely be needed before the 94th Congress convenes. I hope this Congress will recognize its responsibility in this important area.

## TRADE

Action is urgently needed on the *Trade Reform Act* which I consider absolutely essential to our economic health. Our trading partners in the industrial and less-developed world are waiting to see whether we can negotiate multilateral solutions to the common economic problems which plague us, as well as make much-needed improvements in the trading system. The unacceptable alternative is economic warfare from which no winners would emerge.

I urge the Senate to move as quickly as possible to adopt the Trade Reform Act, and to forego any encumbering amendments. If the Senate acts promptly—and only if it does—there will be sufficient time remaining in this Congress for both Houses to agree on a final measure.

## TAXES

The Congress has before it the tax reform proposals sent up in April 1973; the windfall profits tax proposals submitted in December 1973, and the economy strengthening and stabilizing proposals which I recommended last month.

The economic proposals of last month include surtaxes on all corporations and on individuals with well above-average incomes. They call for change in the investment tax credit and in the tax treatment of certain limited kinds of preferred stock.

My individual surtax proposal, I must emphasize, would apply only to families and single persons whose incomes exceed $15,000 and $7,500, respectively, and only to that portion of their actual income above those

Volume 10—Number 47

1460

levels. It is a very progressive tax proposal which takes much more from high bracket taxpayers than middle income taxpayers. New bracket taxpayers would be exempt. With a $16,000 income, for example, a family of four would pay a surtax of only $3. On the other hand, a family of four with a $50,000 income would pay $482 of surtax.

I also urge Congress to enact the windfall profits tax proposals so that we will not forever lose the chance to recapture a part of the excessive profits that domestic oil producers realize this year. I reiterate my support for eliminating the foreign depletion allowance.

I have asked the Secretary of the Treasury to work with the congressional committees concerned to develop balanced legislation, including additional tax reductions for low-income individuals.

## FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

There is great need for action on an Administration proposal to strengthen and revitalize banks and thrift institutions through the elimination of certain Federal regulations which impede efficiency and healthy competition. While retaining appropriate safeguards to assure solvency and liquidity, the proposed *Financial Institutions Act* would allow more competition in our banking system to benefit the small saver as well as the institutions themselves. This could also make additional dollars available to the private citizen and to industry.

Further, this proposal would provide the added incentive of the mortgage interest tax credit for our financial institutions to enable them to devote their resources to home mortgages and thus curb the wide and disruptive swings in home mortgage credit availability.

## REGULATION

The Congress has before it my proposal to establish a one-year National Commission on Regulatory Reform to examine the practices and procedures of the independent regulatory commissions. It has become clear that many regulatory activities of the Government are themselves stifling competition and producing higher prices without comparable social benefits. I urge this Congress to complete action on this important legislation. Such a Commission, to be composed of Congressional, Executive, and public members, should start now to formulate realistic proposals for reform of our regulatory system for early consideration by the next Congress.

## FOOD

Food prices concern everyone. The Congress must act rapidly to not only increase food production but to remove impediments to the maximum production of peanut and rice crops.

I am also recommending that we amend *Public Law 480*, the Food for Peace program. Additional flexibility is clearly needed to assure that our food aid programs can continue to serve the national interest and humanitarian goals.

## COMPETITION

Activities which are illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act disrupt the natural competitive forces in the marketplace and invariably result in higher prices to the American consumer. The Justice Department's

Volume 10—Number 47

1461

antitrust efforts against monopolies and activities which operate in re-
straint of trade must be strengthened.

The maximum allowable penalties for violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act should be increased from $50,000 to $1 million for corporations and from $50,000 to $100,000 for individuals. Maximum prison sentences for individual violations should also be increased to five years.

Current estimates by the Immigration and Naturalization Service indicate that there are some 4 to 7 million illegal aliens in the United States. Prompt action on a pending illegal alien bill would help solve this critical problem by providing sanctions against the hiring of illegal aliens. This would make more jobs available for our own citizens.

STOCKPILING

The General Services Administration has submitted stockpile dis-
posal bills for silver, lead and tin. These would permit sale of stockpile
quantities that clearly exceed our national security needs. This additional
authority will assure adequate supplies of these commodities and also
dampen excessive price fluctuations. The additional disposal authority
for silver, lead, and tin would also provide potential budget receipts of
$1.4 billion, of which about $150 million could be realized in fiscal year
1975 if legislation is enacted by the end of this year.

HOUSING

I thank the Congress for promptly enacting housing legislation making conventional mortgages eligible for purchase by the Government National Mortgage Association. This is giving the housing and real estate industry much needed support, even though the Act did not cover apartments and condominiums. I urge you to consider legislation to correct this omission.

ENERGY

In addition to my deep concern over the economy, I am committed
to resolving the problems of achieving sufficient energy supplies for our-
selves and our children. I repeat my earlier requests for action during
this session on several energy bills under consideration.

First, we need legislation to help increase the supply of natural gas
and permit competitive pricing of these new supplies. Our worsening
shortages are directly attributable to more than 20 years of unsuccessful
Federal regulation of natural gas. Unless we remove Federal regulatory
impediments with respect to new sources, supplies of environmentally
clean natural gas will remain in the ground. The shortage of natural gas
is already forcing curtailment of service to industry in many areas, re-
sulting in increasing unemployment and greater use of imported oil. New
homes are being denied natural gas service, forcing the use of alternative
fuels that are more costly and far less clean.

I urge the Congress to complete action quickly on legislation to establish a system of permits for the construction and operation of deep-water ports. This system is a far superior means—from both a cost and environmental point of view—for handling that portion of oil which we cannot avoid importing for some years ahead. I have asked the Secretaries of Interior and Transportation to work with the Senate and House con-ferees to develop a bill that I can sign within the next few weeks.

Volume 10—Number 47

1462

Last March, legislation was proposed to speed the licensing and construction of nuclear plants, allow more meaningful public participation at early decision points relating to their design and siting and encourage standardization of new nuclear plants. I urge that the Congress pass this bill to speed the development of domestic energy supplies, reduce dependence on imported oil, and help hold down electrical power costs.

The House and Senate conferees are now addressing the difficult issues in the proposed *Surface Mining Act*. I am still hopeful that the conferees can agree on provisions which strike a reasonable balance between our desire for environmental protection and reclamation and the need to increase the production of domestic coal supplies.

I must emphasize that some provisions of the bills now in conference are not acceptable. I have asked the Secretary of the Interior to continue working with the conferees to develop a bill which I can sign.

As a necessary step toward conserving fuel and saving lives, I urge the Congress to make permanent the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit. I also ask the House of Representatives to approve an extension of the car-pooling provisions in the *Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act* which expires December 31, 1974.

I have asked the Secretaries of Interior, Defense and Navy to work with the Congress in finding satisfactory ways of dealing with our emergency petroleum reserves to balance our domestic energy needs. We must proceed with development of the oil reserves at Elk Hills, California, and with exploration and development of the reserve in northern Alaska. We must not wait for another energy crisis to force action, perhaps too late, on these vital resources.

## APPROPRIATIONS

There are four regular appropriations bills still to be enacted—*Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer Protection*, *Labor-HEW*, *Military Construction and Foreign Assistance*—and the important *First Supplemental Appropriations* bill.

Action has not yet been completed in the Senate on the *Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer Protection Appropriation Bill* for fiscal year 1975. This bill was vetoed by President Nixon on August 8th because it would have substantially increased Federal spending. I urge the Congress to complete action on this appropriation measure as soon as possible within reasonable funding limits.

The *Labor-HEW* and Related Agencies Appropriations bill is currently in conference. Unfortunately, the totals are excessive. Unless the Congress reduces funding in both the House and Senate versions, I will have no choice but to veto this measure.

Appropriations now pending for Military Construction and Foreign Assistance should be given high priority.

The *First Supplemental Appropriation* bill has passed the House and is pending on the Senate calendar. However, I am concerned about the inflationary aspects of the Senate version and hope final action will produce an acceptable bill.

## VETOES

During the adjournment, it was necessary for me to pocket veto five bills. Two were private relief measures and three were legislative

Volume 10—Number 47

1463

issues: National Wildlife Refuge System, Farm Labor Contractor Registration, and Rehabilitation Act Amendments.

I have determined, en bloc, of the Attorney General that the absence of my signature from these bills prevented them from becoming law. Without in any way qualifying this determination, I also returned them without approval to those designated by the Congress to receive messages during the adjournment period.

If the Congress should elect to challenge these vetoes by overriding them, there could be a prolonged legal uncertainty over this legislation. However, I would welcome new legislation to replace the measures which were vetoed.

Specifically, while the *Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act Amendments* contained worthwhile provisions to protect migrant farm workers, an unrelated rider arbitrarily would have reclassified and elevated certain Federal employees to important Administrative Law Judge positions, regardless of their qualifications. I, therefore, urge the Congress to pass the essential sections of the vetoed bill without the personnel provision which would create serious pay inequities by legislatively overcompensating a particular class of employees in one executive department.

Similarly, the intent of the *Rehabilitation Act Amendments* section of H.R. 14225 is worthwhile. But the features which would force the creation of new and unnecessary bureaucracies in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare prompted my veto.

I have requested the Secretary of HEW to work with Congressional leaders in an effort to correct the serious difficulties in administration and accountability contained in the vetoed bill.

Although it was necessary to return to the Congress without my approval the *Freedom of Information Act Amendments* on October 17th, the day the Congress adjourned, I continue to endorse the intent of that legislation. I have already submitted to the Congress amendments which would eliminate the national security information problems and the damage to effective law enforcement inherent in the bill which I vetoed. I pledge the full efforts of the Administration in working out a fair, responsible way to increase public access to Federal papers and records without impairing individual rights and essential Government activities.

Just before adjournment, I also vetoed the *Atomic Energy Act Amendments*. I objected to a provision I consider to be unconstitutional. Because of this provision, the bill would not have become effective, even had I approved it, unless a Joint Committee of the Congress subsequently took affirmative action. I urge passage of a new measure removing the constitutional objection to section 12 of the vetoed bill, thereby eliminating the legal uncertainties which would becloud the entire nuclear energy program.

During the adjournment, I signed into law a bill overhauling the *Commodity Exchange Act*. This is an important step to assure full confidence in Federal regulation of commodity futures trading. Nevertheless, there are several provisions which need revision. First is the requirement for concurrent submission to the Congress and to the President of both the new Commission's budget and legislative proposals, and second is the need for Senate confirmation of a non-Presidential appointee.

Volume 10—Number 47

1464

These provisions run contrary to good management of the Executive Branch by the President and the traditional separation of powers. I hope these Constitutional and policy questions can be resolved.

## OTHER MAJOR LEGISLATION

In addition to pending nominations, economic legislation and energy issues, there are a number of other important bills awaiting final action by the Congress.

In today's world, all nations are interdependent. The United States owes it to itself, as well as to others, to provide military and economic assistance which may mean the difference between stability and instability in a global or regional context. Where there is instability, there is danger—danger of conflict which can involve the greatest as well as the smallest.

The *Foreign Aid Authorization* bill before you represents a sincere effort to reflect the realities of today's world. It remains my assessment of the minimum which is needed to sustain our peaceful objectives.

I urge the Congress to move quickly to enact legislation which will help to achieve these objectives and meet our moral, political and security obligations. If such legislation is to enable us to effectively carry forward the foreign policy of the Nation, it must not tie the hands of the President nor restrict his authority and ability to act when action is called for.

Also important to the achievement of our objectives overseas is legislation to enable the United States to contribute its fair share to the various multilateral development institutions and, at the same time, provide continued incentives to other nations to join in these international assistance efforts.

In order for the United States to maintain its strong position in foreign markets, it is important that the Congress pass the Export-Import Bank bill and avoid attaching unnecessary encumbrances.

The Congress is making good progress on the Administration's proposal to improve the regulatory climate in an important portion of the transportation industry. *The Surface Transportation Act*, as reported by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, is a beginning in the overall area of regulatory reform. This bill, with certain modifications to insure greater reliance on competitive market forces, would contribute substantially to the efficiency and vitality of this Nation's railroad system. I urge the Congress to complete its work on this vital legislation without waiting for the establishment of the National Commission on Regulatory Reform.

Earlier this year, legislation was submitted to provide reasonable increases in the size and weights of trucks traveling on interstate highways. These increases were to offset the economic disadvantages to truckers resulting from lower permissible speed and higher fuel costs. The Senate passed a bill containing most of the features of the Administration's proposal while a similar bill did not pass in the House. I ask the Congress for early action on this issue in the interest of economic efficiency and fuel conservation.

I also urge the Congress to act promptly to pass the *National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974*. This bill has been developed through close cooperation between the Congress and the Administration.

Volume 10—Number 47

1465

It will provide the Nation's cities with the Federal financial assistance needed to help them meet priority urban mass transportation needs. This bill establishes a long-term assistance program for mass transit—actually, for six years—and distributes a significant portion of the funds according to a simple and equitable formula. It also provides for an enhanced role for the Governors and local officials in mass transit decisions.

I consider the total dollar level of $11.8 billion over a six-year period to be at the upper limits of fiscal responsibility. The needs of the cities and the uncertainties and delays that would result from waiting until the next Congress for a transit bill make it imperative that this Congress act before adjournment sine die.

In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended the creation of 51 additional Federal District Court judgeships in 33 separate judicial districts across the country. Senate hearings on legislation incorporating this proposal were concluded in 1973. To date, however, this legislation has not been scheduled for floor action. The increasing backlog in the Federal courts makes this measure an urgent national necessity of a non-partisan nature—for justice delayed is too often justice denied.

Earlier this session, the House passed a bill to codify, for the first time in our history, evidentiary rules governing the admissibility of proof in Federal courts. This bill is the culmination of some 13 years of study by distinguished judges, lawyers, Members of the Congress and others interested in and affected by the administration of justice in the Federal system. The measure will lend uniformity, accessibility, intelligibility and a basis for reform and growth in our evidentiary rules which are sadly lacking in current law. I strongly urge final action on this important bill prior to the conclusion of this Congress.

With respect to the *Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act*, I urge the Congress to reconsider the action it has taken to date and send me instead legislation providing a straightforward 18.2 percent cost of living increase, effective January 1, 1975. Increased payments for our veterans in school are necessary. But while acknowledging our great debt to those who served during the Vietnam era, I must insist on a fiscally responsible bill on behalf of all Americans. I object to the inflationary 22.7 percent rate increase, retroactive to September 1, 1974, the direct loan program which the Congress has added and the extension of educational benefits allowing Vietnam era veterans to attend school for 45 instead of the present 36 months. This extra entitlement goes beyond the standard for World War II and Korea veterans.

*The Energy Transportation Security Act of 1974* would require a percentage of imported petroleum to be carried on U.S. vessels. Although I fully support a strong U.S. merchant marine, I am seriously concerned about problems which this bill raises in the areas of foreign relations, national security, and perhaps most significantly, the potential inflationary impact of cargo preference.

Administration officials have testified during congressional hearings on our concerns about the impact of this bill.

The House-Senate conferees adopted new language concerning the waiver provision so that the requirements of this bill "may be temporarily waived by the President upon determination that an emergency exists justifying such a waiver in the national interest." However, the

Volume 10—Number 47

1466

legislative history of the waiver does not expressly demonstrate that the Congress intends it to be broad in scope.

The potential problems which could arise if this bill becomes law require a provision which will permit the President to waive its requirements for economic as well as foreign affairs and national defense reasons. Since the waiver language in the bill is not explicit, the Conference Committee Report should make it clear that the Congress intends to grant broad waiver authority.

Other provisions in the bill which concern me are: the narrowness of the definition of which ships are eligible to participate in this trade, the rebate of oil import fees and the unnecessary anti-pollution requirement that vessels serving certain ports be built with expensive double bottoms.

Another measure on which action is required is comprehensive health insurance. I will continue to seek agreement with the Congress on legislation centered on principles incorporated in the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. To keep this program from feeding inflation, however, the Congress will have to join with me in cutting Federal expenditures before we can afford this program.

Included in the *Military Construction Authorization and Appropriation* bills now before the Congress are funds for completing projects and initiating new ones at installations in 42 States and the District of Columbia. I reiterate my strong conviction that the limited expansion of facilities on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is of critical importance.

## CONCLUSION

This list of legislative priorities represents a streamlined action program for the Nation. To achieve results will require partnership, not partisanship, on the part of both the executive and the legislative branches. It will mean long days and nights of hard work-of communication, conciliation, compromise, and cooperation between the White House and the Congress, the House and the Senate, and majority and minority within the Congress itself.

But it must be done for one overriding reason: America needs these actions. And the American people rightly expect us to do everything we can to accomplish them.

I pledge my full cooperation with the Congress in the weeks ahead. I am confident that the Congress will respond in the same spirit.

GERALD R. FORD

The White House,
November 17, 1974.

## Sugar Imports

*Statement by the President on Signing*
*Proclamation 4334. November 18, 1974*

I am announcing actions designed to (1) insu... the continued flow of sugar into this country from abroad and (2) encourage increased production domestically at the

same time. The actions I am taking will maintain duties on sugar imports at the lowest permissible rate under the Tariff Schedules of the United States.

The Sugar Act is scheduled to expire on December 31, 1974. If no action is taken, tariffs on imported sugar will rise about 1.3 cents per pound on January 1, 1975. The Act provides, however, that the President can continue the current rates in force if his proclamation extending the

Volume 10—Number 47

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED 7967

PAGE 01 USUN N 05279 01 OF 02 212315Z

64

ACTION 10-10

INFO OCT-01 EUR-12 NEA-10 ISO-00 SSO-00 NSCE-00 USIE-00
INRE-00 CIAE-00 DODE-00 PM-03 H-02 INR-07 L-02
NSAE-00 NSC-05 PA-02 RSC-01 PRS-01 SP-02 SS-15 AF-10
ARA-10 EA-10 SAB-01 SAM-01 AID-05 SR-02 ORM-01 /113 W
063841

O R 212216Z NOV 74
FM USMISSION USUN NY
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7712
INFO AMEMBASSY AMMAN
AMEMBASSY BEIRUT
AMEMBASSY CAIRO
AMEMBASSY DAMASCUS
AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
AMEMBASSY LONDON
AMEMBASSY PARIS
AMCONGEN JERUSALEM

UNCLASS SECTION 1 OF 2 USUN 5279

E.O. 11652: N/A
TAGS: PFOR, UN, XF
SUBJ: AMBASSADOR SCALI'S STATEMENT ON PALESTINE QUESTION

FOLLOWING IS TEXT OF STATEMENT ON PALESTINE DELIVERED
NOVEMBER 21 BY AMBASSADOR SCALI TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR JOHN SCALI, UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE UNITED NATIONS, IN PLENY, ON THE QUESTION OF
PALESTINE, NOVEMBER 21, 1974.

THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE, AS THE SPEAKERS WHO HAVE PRECEDED
ME HAVE AMPLY DEMONSTRATED, HAS COMMANDED MORE ATTENTION FROM
THE UNITED NATIONS THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER SINGLE ISSUE. THE
UNITED NATIONS HAS NOT RESOLVED THE BASIC CONFLICT IN
THE MIDDLE EAST, BUT IT HAS LIMITED THE TERRIBLE CON-

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

[L.C.]

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 USUN N 05279 01 OF 02 212315Z

SEQUENCES OF THIS DISPUTE. AS WE ONCE AGAIN CONFRONT THIS ISSUE, IT IS FITTING THAT WE REMIND OURSELVES OF THE LONG AND HONORABLE HISTORY OF THE UNITED NATIONS' EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN THE PEACE. WE ALSO SHOULD PAY TRIBUTE TO THOSE WHO SERVE IN THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE FORCES IN THE AREA AND TO THOSE WHO PROVIDE HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE VICTIMS OF WAR.

WE MUST NOT FORGET THE THOUSANDS OF HUMAN BEINGS WHO HAVE SUFFERED AND WHO CONTINUE TO SUFFER FROM THIS CONFLICT.

THOSE WHO SEEK A GENUINE RESOLUTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST PROBLEM MUST KEEP EVER IN MIND THE CONTINUING PLIGHT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE LEFT THEIR HOMES BECAUSE OF THIS CONFLICT AND HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO RETURN. CONTINUING EFFORTS BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO ALLEVIATE THE HARDSHIPS OF THESE PEOPLE ARE ESSENTIAL, BUT THESE EFFORTS ALONE ARE NOT A SOLUTION.

ONLY A JUST AND LASTING SOLUTION OF THE ARAB-ISRAELI DISPUTE CAN HALT THE KILLING, STOP THE SUFFERING, AND HEAL THE WOUNDS. THE GOAL OF THIS ORGANIZATION MUST BE TO SEEK WAYS TO PROMOTE MOVEMENT TO THAT END WHILE AVOIDING ANY MEASURE WHICH MIGHT MAKE SUCH MOVEMENT MORE DIFFICULT.

LAST YEAR'S OUTBREAK OF WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST DEMONSTRATED FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN A QUARTER CENTURY THAT MILITARY FORCE CANNOT RESOLVE THE ISSUES WHICH DIVIDE ARAB AND ISRAELI. IT MUST BE CLEAR BY NOW THAT MORE VIOLENCE CANNOT BRING PEACE. IT WILL ONLY INTENSIFY HATREDS, COMPLICATE DIFFERENCES, AND ADD TO THE SUM OF HUMAN MISERY.

THE SOLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE STERILE PURSUIT OF CHANGE THROUGH VIOLENCE IS NEGOTIATION. THIS PATH IS LESS DRAMATIC, BUT IN THE END IT IS FAR MORE LIKELY TO PRODUCE ACCEPTABLE CHANGE. THE GREAT ACHIEVEMENT OF THE PAST YEAR HAS BEEN THAT THE PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT HAVE AT LAST ACCEPTED THIS ALTERNATIVE, AND THAT THEY HAVE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEGUN TO MAKE IT WORK. A LANDMARK IN THIS EFFORT, AND IN ARAB-ISRAELI RELATIONS, IS SET FORTH IN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 338,

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 03 USUN N 05279 01 OF 02 212315Z

IN WHICH THE SECURITY COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST TIME CALLED FOR
IMMEDIATE NEGOTIATIONS "BETWEEN THE PARTIES CONCERNED, UNDER
APPROPRIATE AUSPICES, AIMED AT ESTABLISHING A JUST AND
DURABLE PEACE."

THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE PARTIES OF THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS
SET IN MOTION BY RESOLUTION 338 HAS LED TO THE CONVENING OF
THE GENEVA PEACE CONFERENCE, AND TO THE SUBSEQUENT, SUCCESSFUL
EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE SEPARATE DISENGAGEMENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
THE FORCES OF EGYPT AND ISRAEL, AND SYRIA AND ISRAEL. IN EACH
OF THESE DISENGAGEMENT AGREEMENTS THE PARTIES REAFFIRMED
THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF A STEP-BY-STEP NEGOTIATED
SETTLEMENT. THEY DID SO BY AGREEING TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT AS THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF EACH ACCORD: "THIS
AGREEMENT IN NOT REGARDED...AS A FINAL PEACE AGREEMENT. IT
CONSTITUTES A FIRST STEP TOWARD A FINAL, JUST AND DURABLE
PEACE ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECURITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 338 AND WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE GENEVA CONFERENCE."

THE CONSEQUENCES OF A POSSIBLE BREAKDOWN IN THIS NEGOTIATING
PROCESS CANNOT BE OVEREMPHASIZED. WAR HAS RAVAGED THE MIDDLE
EAST FOUR TIMES IN 26 YEARS BECAUSE PEOPLE DID NOT BELIEVE
THAT CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS POSSIBLE.
A FIFTH WAR WOULD THREATEN THE SECURITY OF EVERY COUNTRY AND
PRODUCE NO PERMANENT GAINS FOR ANY.

THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
THEREFORE, HAS BEEN TO MAINTAIN THE MOMENTUM OF THE NEGOTIATING
PROCESS. SECRETARY KISSINGER RECENTLY RETURNED FROM A VISIT
TO THE MIDDLE EAST WHERE HE EXPLORED WITH EVERY LEADER HE
CONSULTED IN THE AREA THE VITAL QUESTION OF HOW TO CONTINUE
BUILDING ON THE PROGRESS ALREADY ACHIEVED. THE ANSWER
TO THIS PARAMOUNT QUESTION STILL HANGS IN THE BALANCE.

IF THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS IS TO CONTINUE, EACH PARTY MUST
REMAIN COMMITTEE TO NEGOTIATING. EACH MUST BE PREPARED
TO ACCEPT A NEGOTIATED PEACE WITH THE OTHERS AND EACH
MUST BE PREPARED TO SEE DECISIONS ON HOW TO PROCEED EVOLVE
THROUGH UNDERSTANDINGS AMONG THE PARTIES. THIS IS HOW
THE GENEVA PEACE CONFERENCE WAS CONVENED, UNDER THE CO-
CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE SOVIET UNION AND THE UNITED STATES.

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED 7966

PAGE 01 USUN N 05279 02 OF 02 212325Z

64
ACTION IO-10

INFO OCT-01 EUR-12 NEA-10 ISO-00 SS0-00 NSCE-00 USIE-00
INRE-00 CIAE-00 DODE-00 PM-03 H-02 INR-07 L-02
NSAE-00 NSC-05 PA-02 RSC-01 PRS-01 SP-02 SS-15 AF-10
ARA-10 EA-10 SAB-01 SAM-01 AID-05 SR-02 ORM-01 /113 W
063914

O R 212216Z NOV 74
FM USMISSION USUN NY
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7713
INFO AMEMBASSY AMMAN
AMEMBASSY BEIRUT
AMEMBASSY CAIRO
AMEMBASSY DAMASCUS
AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
AMEMBASSY LONDON
AMEMBASSY PARIS
AMCONGEN JERUSALEM

UNCLAS SECTION 2 OF 2 USUN 5279

THE FOUNDATION OF SUCH STEPS TOWARD PEACE IS THE ACCEPTANCE
BY ALL PARTIES OF THE PRINCIPLES OF RESOLUTION 338 --
TO ENGAGE IN THE GIVE AND TAKE OF NEGOTIATION WITH THE
OBJECTIVE OF ACHIEVING A PERMANENT PEACE SETTLEMENT AMONG
THEM ON A BASIS THAT ALL PARTIES CAN ACCEPT. IF ANY OF
THE PARTIES REJECTS THIS GOVERNING PRINCIPLE OR QUESTIONS
THE RIGHT TO EXIST OF ANY OF THE PARTIES TO THE NEGOTIATION,
OUR BEST HOPES FOR NEGOTIATION AND FOR PEACE ARE LOST.
CERTAINLY IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL THAT ISRAEL HAS
A RIGHT TO EXIST AS A SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT STATE WITHIN
SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BOUNDARIES.

IN THE COURSE OF THIS DEBATE THERE HAVE BEEN SPEAKERS WHO
HAVE SOUGHT TO EQUATE TERROR WITH REVOLUTION, WHO PROFESS
TO SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS
AND A STRUGGLE FOR NATIONAL LIBERATION. THERE ARE THOSE

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 USUN N 05279 02 OF 02 212325Z

WHO WISH TO COMPARE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE
MANY OTHER WARS OF LIBERATION OF THE PAST 200 YEARS,
WITH INDISCRIMINATE TERRORISM.

IF THERE WERE INSTANCES DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WHERE
INNOCENT PEOPLE SUFFERED, THERE WAS NO INSTANCE WHERE
THE REVOLUTIONARY LEADERSHIP BOASTED OF OR CONDONED SUCH
CRIMES. THERE WERE NO VICTIMS, ON EITHER SIDE, OF A DE-
LIBERATE POLICY OF TERROR. THOSE WHO MOLDED OUR NATION
AND FOUGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM NEVER SUCCUMBED TO THE EASY
EXCUSE THAT THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.

WE HOPE THAT ALL MEMBER NATIONS WILL REAFFIRM THEIR SUPPORT
FOR A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST,
AND THEIR SUPPORT FOR SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 242
AND 338. WE KNOW THAT THESE RESOLUTIONS ARE THE BASIS
ON WHICH PROGRESS SO FAR HAS BEEN POSSIBLE. WE BELIEVE
THEY REMAIN THE BEST HOPE FOR CONTINUED PROGRESS. TO SEEK
TO ALTER THEM NOT ONLY RISKS DANGEROUS DELAY BUT COULD
DESTROY PROSPECTS FOR PEACE IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

CERTAINLY WE CAN ALL ACCEPT THE FACT THAT NEGOTIATIONS CAN
TAKE PLACE ONLY WHEN THE PARTIES ARE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE.
MY GOVERNMENT IS CONVINCED -- AND THE SUCCESSES OF THE PAST
YEAR STRENGTHEN OUR CONVICTION -- THAT THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP
THE PARTIES COMMITTED TO NEGOTIATIONS IS TO MOVE FORWARD
THROUGH A SERIES OF AGREEMENTS, EACH SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH
TO REPRESENT SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS, YET EACH LIMITED ENOUGH
FOR GOVERNMENTS AND PEOPLE TO EVOLVE, CREATES NEW CONFIDENCE,
AND ESTABLISHES NEW SITUATIONS IN WHICH STILL FURTHER STEPS
CAN BE TAKEN. WITH THIS APPROACH, THE PARTIES HAVE OVER
THE PAST YEAR SUCCEEDS IN TAKING THE FIRST SUBSTNATIAL
STEPS IN DECADES TOWARD RECONCILING THEIR DIFFERENCES.

IT IS MY GOVERNMENT'S FIRM CONVICTION THAT THE WAY TO MOVE
TOWARD A SITUATION MORE RESPONSIVE TO PALESTINIAN INTERESTS IS
NOT THROUGH NEW RESOLUTIONS OR DRAMATIC PARLIAMENTARY
MANEUVERS, BUT BY WEAVING THE PALESTINIAN INTERESTS INTO
THE GIVE AND TAKE OF THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS. THROUGH
THIS EVOLUNTIONARY PROCESS, PALESTINIAN INTERESTS CAN
BE BETTER REFLECTED IN THE NEW SITUATIONS WHICH ARE CREATED.

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 03 USUN N 05279 02 OF 02 212325Z

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT THUS BELIEVES THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION THIS ASSEMBLY CAN NOW MAKE TOWARD RESOLVING THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS TO HELP ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE IN WHICH THE PARTIES WILL BE ENCOURAGED TO MAINTAIN THE MOMENTUM TOWARD PEACE. WE ARE EQUALLY CONVINCED THAT THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE CAN BE PROMOTED IN THIS NEGOTIATING PROCESS, AND THAT THESE NEGOTIATIONS WILL LEAD TO A JUST AND LASTING PEACE FOR ALL PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

SCALI

UNCLASSIFIED