This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

# 1303

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:10 A.M. EST

MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 1972

MR. WARREN: The schedule for today has been posted. The President has been working in his office this morning in discussions with staff members.

He will see Arthur Fletcher at 11:45. Mr. Fletcher now is Executive Director of the United Negro College Fund and the President will meet with Mr. Fletcher at 11:45 this morning and will present Mr. Fletcher with a personal check, a donation to the United Negro College Fund.

QUESTION: How much?

MR. WARREN: It is a personal check.

QUESTION: You are not going to tell us how much?

MR. WARREN: No, I am not. Maybe Mr. Fletcher will tell you later, but I am not going to tell you.

At 12:15, the President will meet with members of the Health Services Industries Committee. This is one of the committees formed to assist the Cost of Living Council in administering the new economic program. The President will discuss with the members their work and also discuss the fact that has been made public before, that for the first time since, really, 1950, I am told, that the daily hospital services charge did not increase in the month of November. This has been reported. This, of course, is connected to the freeze, but it shows that the Committee has an area in which to work and can work.

At 3:00, the President will see Ambassador Kenneth Rush, United States Ambassador to West Germany. Ambassador Rush is in the United States on home leave and for consultations in the State Department. The President will see him, of course. The President did see Ambassador Rush in Key Biscayne last month during the meetings with Chancellor Brandt.

You have one release. The President today announced his intention to nominate Kenneth Franzheim II, who is our Ambassador to New Zealand and to Western Samoa, to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to Fiji. The release points out that Ambassador Franzheim will be the first United States Ambassador to Fiji which became an independent country on October 10, 1970.

Those are all the announcements we have.

The President will be working this week on upcoming messages to Congress. As you know, Congress convenes on the 18th. The President will be working on his State of the Union message which will be delivered in person at 12:30 on the 20th of January. The President also will be working on last-minute details on the budget and other messages which will go to Congress soon after they convene.

Those are all the announcements we have this morning.

MORE

#1303

- 2 -

QUESTION: Do you have times for the budget and what other messages are coming up?

MR. WARREN: Primarily it is the State of the Union, Helen. But there will be messages which will begin to go to Congress soon after they convene. I don't have a detailed rundown to give you on those, but we will try to round those up for you.

QUESTION: You don't have a date on the budget?

MR. WARREN: No, I don't at this point.

QUESTION: What work remains to be done on the budget?

MR. WARREN: Very little, but there are always last-minute details to be discussed with the President prior to the submission of the budget.

QUESTION: Will there be a State of the World message this year?

MR. WARREN: There will be a foreign policy report again this year, for the third time. Dr. Kissinger and some members of his staff remained in San Clemente after the President left to work on this foreign policy report. It will go to Congress, I believe, early in February, as was the case last year.

QUESTION: How about the economic message?

MR. WARREN: Do you mean the economic report by the Council of Economic Advisers?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. WARREN: I don't have a date on that, either, at this point.

QUESTION: Is Dr. Kissinger still in California?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

QUESTION: How long will he be there?

MR. WARREN: He will be back some time this week. I expect him to return this week.

QUESTION: Will this report be the same format as in the past years?

QUESTION: A lengthy document?

MR. WARREN: Yes, I believe it will.

QUESTION: When will the Peking delegation be back?

MR. WARREN: They will return this afternoon. They are now expected to land at Andrews at 2:50 p.m.

MORE

#1303

QUESTION: Jerry, are you ready to say anything yet about the Anderson Papers?

MR. WARREN: No, I am not ready to say anything.

QUESTION: If we asked all those questions, would we get all the same answers we have been getting, or should we bother?

MR. WARREN: Let's see, if you asked the same questions, perhaps you would.

QUESTION: I have a new question.

(Laughter)

MR. WARREN: All right.

QUESTION: Can you confirm a report that appeared over the weekend that the Justice Department has identified the individual who leaked the papers?

MR. WARREN: I would have no comment on that report. I saw that report. The Justice Department has not commented nor will I.

QUESTION: There is another question: Does Dr. Kissinger plan to sue anyone for libel in connection with this?

MR. WARREN: I assume you are referring to the appearance by Herb Klein on television yesterday. I don't, obviously, have any comment on what Dr. Kissinger might do in this case but I do think, personally, that Mr. Klein stated the case adequately and there is nothing to add from here.

QUESTION: Do you agree with Mr. Klein's description?

MR. WARREN: As I said, I think he stated the case adequately and I would have no elaboration on it.

QUESTION: Are we going to get anything other than a picture out of the meeting with the Health Services people?

MR. WARREN: I believe that is all you will get.

QUESTION: When did Ron leave for Peking? Do you have the date?

MR. WARREN: He left on the 29th. The party left on the 29th of December.

QUESTION: Has he been in contact with the President? Have you been getting reports?

MR. WARREN: We have been receiving reports from the team, yes.

There was another question back here about whether or not they would report to the President. I am sure they will be discussing the trip with the President after they return.

MORE

#1303

- 4 -

QUESTION: Is this the last advance?

MR. WARREN: I can't really tell you what the plans will be until General Haig and Ron return. Much of this will depend on the discussions that that team had while they were in Peking.

QUESTION: Jerry, the last advance gave us a briefing shortly after they returned. Might the same thing happen this time?

MR. WARREN: We will have to wait and see what will happen after they return this afternoon. I would not expect anything today.

Q Newsweek, this afternoon, says the President has decided to set a total withdrawal date and cessation of bombing within the next few months. Is that true?

MR. WARREN: Well, I can tell you that the President will make another announcement, as he said, sometime this month. I would remind you that he said that withdrawal would continue at the same rate, or perhaps an increased rate. Beyond that, I cannot respond to any stories that appear. I just cannot speculate on what he may or may not say.

Q Can you indicate when that will be? He indicated it would be before the first.

MR. WARREN: It will be this month.

Q Would you say after the State of the Union?

MR. WARREN: I cannot narrow it down for you, except to say it will be this month.

Q Can you indicate in what form that will come?

MR. WARREN: At this point, I cannot.

Q Aside from the question of whether you can say what the decision is, can you say whether the President has made his decision on this subject?

MR. WARREN: I could not even confirm that. The President will make his decision known this month.

Q Mr. Klein's statement on TV yesterday was that the source of the Anderson leak had not been identified. Was that statement also an adequate statement of the facts?

MR. WARREN: I am not in a position, John, nor will I be in a position to discuss questions along that line. I just have nothing on that for you.

Q Does the U. S. still consider Bangladesh a part of Pakistan?

MR. WARREN: Our position on this, and on any recognition of Bangladesh, is unchanged, Helen. The matter of recognition is not under consideration at this time.

MORE

#1303

- 5 -

QUESTION: Jerry, in Peking, was Ron setting up
Mrs. Nixon's schedule for when she is there?

MR. WARREN: I am just not sure what technical
matters they discussed as far as Mrs. Nixon's aspect of the
schedule. I would think we should wait until they get back
and then we can ask them.

QUESTION: Is humanitarian aid to Bangladesh under consideration?

MR. WARREN: The matter of humanitarian aid to the
entire area is certainly under consideration, but no decisions
have been made.

Q Do we still feel the U. N. is the proper
channeling point for humanitarian aid to the area?

MR. WARREN: As I said, our position on aid is under
consideration and we just have no decisions for you.

Q Why is it under consideration if they don't
want it?

Q What are the factors involved in that?

MR. WARREN: I would think you should ask that of
the people at your normal beat, Richard.

Q Get back to your normal beat! (Laughter)

Q Are you saying this is an abnormal one?.
(Laughter)

Q By the way you responded to Helen's question on
the Newsweek story, did you mean to leave open the possibility
that the President will set a withdrawal date on his next
announcement?

MR. WARREN: What I meant to do was not lead you to
any speculation about what the President may or may not say in
his next announcement.

Q Jerry what will you do to the Anderson leaker
if you catch him?

MR. WARREN: I am forced to "no comment" that.
(Laughter)

Q Do you expect the announcement on troop with-
drawals to be separate from the State of the Union?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q To get at Helen's original question, in a
different way, perhaps, does the President still oppose the
setting of a date for complete withdrawal of American troops
from South Vietnam?

MR. WARREN: The President's position on withdrawal
and Vietnamization is unchanged. He stated it to you most
recently in the CBS interview. So, I have nothing to give you
that would indicate to you a change in any way.

MORE

#1303

- 6 -

QUESTION: Will you be briefing this afternoon?

MR. WARREN: I will be here at 4:00. I don't expect very much.

Q How about producing Ron?

MR. WARREN: I would think that you people might want Ron to get a little rest before he comes in.

Q No. (Laughter)

MR. WARREN: I'll tell him you said so. (Laughter)

Q Will you have Art Fletcher out here?

MR. WARREN: I don't think so. I understand he plans a news conference here in the city this afternoon.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Jerry.

#1303

END

(AT 11:25 AM EST)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND CENTER
MESSAGE CENTER

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

YOU WILL RECALL, WHEN PRES NIXON CAME INTO OFFICE OUR TROOP CEILING WAS 549,500. THE NEW CEILING WHICH HE HAS ANNOUNCED NOW BRINGS THAT DOWN TO 69,000. WE STARTED AT A WITHDRAWAL RATE OF ABOUT 10,000 A MONTH, THE WITHDRAWAL RATE NOW IS 23,300 A MONTH. I THINK THIS IS VERY RAPID PROGRESS AND SOMETHING THAT WE CAN INDEED TAKE GREAT PRIDE IN.

Q: WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR BEFORE MAKING AN OFFER TO WITHDRAW ALL THE TROOPS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PRISONERS?

A: THE PRESIDENT HAS STATED THAT WE WILL HAVE A REMAINING PRESENCE IN SVN UNTIL THE POW QUESTION IS RESOLVED. THERE HAVE BEEN ALL SORTS OF EFFORTS, NOT ONLY ON THE NEGOTIATING TRACK, BUT ALSO TO CALL TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD THE FACT THAT HANOI REFUSES TO LIVE BY GENEVA CONVENTIONS. THE PRISONER ISSUE, OF COURSE, IS PRIMARILY A HUMANITARIAN ISSUE AND IT IS ONE WHICH WE SHOULD INSIST UPON. THE OTHER SIDE THE ENEMY LIVING UP TO THE INTERNATIONAL GENEVA CONVENTIONS TO WHICH THEY ARE A PARTY.

Q: YOU SAID UNTIL THE POW ISSUE IS RESOLVED, AND THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT TOO, THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY THAT IF WE DID OFFER TO WITHDRAW ALL OF OUR TROOPS AND CEASE MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN SEA, THE PRISONERS WOULD BE RELEASED. SO, THE QUESTION IS STILL, WHY DON'T WE MAKE THAT OFFER?

A: THOSE THAT SAY THAT ARE EITHER KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY AIDING THE ENEMY AND NOT HELPING OUR PRISONERS OF WAR. AMB PORTER HAS TIME AND AGAIN PUT THE ISSUE DIRECTLY TO THE NEGOTIATORS IN PARIS AND NEVER HAVE THEY BROKEN AWAY FROM THE 7 POINTS THAT THEY HAVE. THEY HAVE NEVER SEPARATED THE QUESTION OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE OTHER POLITICAL ISSUES WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN THEIR 7-POINT PORPOSAL. THE NVN AS RECENTLY AS THIS PAST WEEK AGAIN REJECTED DISCUSSION OF POINT 1 AS A SEPARABLE ISSUE. SO THESE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THOSE STATEMENTS, I CAN ONLY SAY THAT KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY, THEY ARE NOT AIDING THE POWS IN THAT ISSUE, BUT THEY ARE ONLY AIDING THE ENEMY.

Q: THE PRESS SPOKESMAN IN PARIS DID SAY, OUR SPOKESMAN SAID, THAT WE HAD NOT ACTUALLY MADE THAT OFFER. MY QUESTION STILL IS, WHY DON'T WE MAKE THE OFFER? WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?

A: WE HAVE ASKED TIME AND AGAIN IF THE NO. 1 POINT WAS A SEPARABLE ISSUE. THE PLACE TO DISCUSS THAT IS IN PARIS AND THUS FAR EVERY OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN TAKEN BY AMB PORTER, ONE OF OUR FINE NEGOTIATORS, TO BRING THIS OUT ON THE NEGOTIATING TABLE AND EACH TIME IT HAS BEEN REJECTED.

Q: BUT WE'VE NEVER MADE THE OFFER--

A: THE OFFER HAS BEEN MADE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 1970 THE PRESIDENT OFFERED A COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXCHANGE OF

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

ALL POWS AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL FORCES FROM SVN AND THAT PARTI-
CULAR PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED BY THE OTHER SIDE. AMB PORTER LAST
WEEK PUT THE QUESTION TO THE NEGOTIATORS IN A VERY FORTHRIGHT
MANNER. IF YOU WILL READ OVER THE PRESS COMMENTS OF THE NVN, YOU
WILL SEE THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY REJECTED BY THE ENEMY.

I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO
TRACKS STILL AVAILABLE AS FAR AS SETTLEMENT IN VIETNAM. THE
FASTEST WAY TO HAVE COMPLETE AND TOTAL WITHDRAWAL IS THE NEGOTIATING
TRACK. THE VIETNAMIZATION TRACK PROVIDES FOR TOTAL WITHDRAWAL AND
THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE FORCES OF SVN OF THE SECURITY RESPONSI-
BILITIES FOR THEIR COUNTRY. WE HAVE MADE ONE THING EVIDENT IN ALL
OF OUR DISCUSSIONS -- THAT WE WILL NOT CARRY OUT THE VIETNAMIZATION
PROGRAM TO ITS TOTAL CONCLUSION UNTIL THE POW ISSUE HAS BEEN
SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED.

ELIZABETH, I GET A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED FROM TIME-TO-TIME BY
THE COMMENTS THAT ARE MADE AND BY THE MISINTERPRETATIONS THAT
ARE SOMETIMES BROUGHT FORTH TO MISLEAD. I BELIEVE, PEOPLE HERE IN
THE U.S. AND YES, THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. BACK IN 1968 THERE WERE
CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE NOT RAISING THEIR VOICE AND HAD NOT
RAISED THEIR VOICE BECAUSE WE WERE ON THE ESCALATOR GOING UP AND
UP AS FAR AS AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT -- ON THE GROUND AND IN THE
AIR AND IN EVERY WAY. THOSE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS REMAINED
SILENT AS AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT WENT UP AND UP AND UP. SOMEHOW
OR OTHER, AS PRES NIXON BRINGS OUR INVOLVEMENT DOWN, DOWN, DOWN.
THESE SAME INDIVIDUALS ARE CRITICIZING THE WITHDRAWAL PROGRAM,
BUT THEY DID NOT CRITICIZE THE ESCALATION.

Q: I ASSUME YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SENATOR MUSKIE AND PERHAPS OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES?

A: I ONLY HAVE TO REFER TO THE LAST CAMPAIGN. THERE WERE TWO
INDIVIDUALS IN THAT CAMPAIGN. PRES NIXON HAS GONE FORWARD AND
APPROVED A WITHDRAWAL PROGRAM WHICH WE SET FORTH IN 1969, WHICH
WAS TO COMPLEKENT THE NEGOTIATION PROGRAM, NOT TO TAKE THE PLACE.
THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, ON THE ESCALATOR, THOSE SAME
PEOPLE, DID NOT RAISE THEIR VOICE. THEY RAISE THEIR VOICE AS WE
CONTINUE TO GO DOWN, HOWEVER.

Q: I'D LIKE TO RAISE MY VOICE FOR A MOMENT HERE, TOO, AND PUT
SOME QUESTIONS TO YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU SAID. I GATHER
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SENATORS HUMPHREY AND MUSKIE, AND I'D LIKE
TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF YOUR INITIAL STATENENTS.
YOU SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD MADE AN OFFER IN SEPT IN PARIS.
THAT'S TRUE AND IT HAD TO DO WITH MUTUAL WITHDRAWALS -- IN OTHER
WORDS...

A: THAT WAS BACK IN '70. NOW AMB PORTER THIS SEPTEMBER TRIED

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

TO PIN DOWN THE NVN DELEGATION AND HAS DONE SO ON EACH OCCASION
THAT HE'S HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE NO. 1 POINT
ON THE POW RELEASE WAS SEPARABLE FROM NO. 2 IN THE 7-POINT PROGRAM,
WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS WITH THE VIETNAM
SETTLEMENT. EACH TIME THE NVN HAVE INSISTED THAT THE PROGRAM MUST
PROVIDE FOR A STOP OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT FOR SVN. OF
COURSE, THIS IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF THE
PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY PEOPLE THAT HAVE TALKED
TO THE NVN, THEN MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS AS TO WHAT THE NEGOTIATING
BT
#5249
ANNOTES
DGR

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

NNNN

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

THAT AGAIN THIS WEEK, HAD TO DO NOT ONLY WITH RETURN OF THE POWS BEFORE WE WILL COMPLETELY WITHDRAW FROM SEA, BUT ALSO THAT THERE BE NEUTRAL WITHDRAWAL -- THAT THE NVN TROOPS WOULD GO BACK AND THAT THERE BE A CEASEFIRE. NOW THE NVN HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY WONT AGREE TO THAT, THAT THAT'S IN EFFECT ASKING THEM TO GIVE UP AND GIVE UP ALL THAT THEY'VE INVESTED. THAT WOULD MEAN THAT OUR PRISONERS WOULD NEVER BE RELEASED AS LONG AS WE INSIST ON THOSE TERMS. WILL WE INSIST ON THEM INDEFINITELY?

A: THE PLACE FOR NEGOTIATIONS IS NOT HERE IN WASHINGTON, IT IS NOT IN THE CONGRESS. IT IS NOT IN THIS TV STUDIO. IT IS IN PARIS, AND A MACHINERY HAS BEEN SET UP FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS AND THAT'S WHERE THE NEGOTIATIONS SHOULD BE CARRIED ON.

Q: ARE WE COMMITTED TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE THIEU REGIME?

A: WE ARE COMMITTED TO PROVIDE FOR THE CAPABILITY OF THE PEOPLE OF SVN TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN SECURITY.

Q: BUT YOU SAID AT THE WHITE HOUSE THAT THEY ARE NOW IN THE POSITION TO DEFEND THEIR OWN COUNTRY?

A: THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE OVER COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY THE GROUND COMBAT RESPONSIBILITY WHICH WAS PHASE I OF THE VIETNAMIZATION PROGRAM. THEY ARE MOVING VERY RAPIDLY TO COMPLETELY TAKE OVER PHASE II OF THE VIETNAMIZATION PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES THAT THEY WILL TAKE OVER THE LOGISTICS PROGRAM, THE AIR PROGRAM, AND THE OTHER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NEEDED AND NECESSARY.

PHASE I OF VIETNAMIZATION WAS TO TAKE OVER THE GROUND COMBAT RESPONSIBILITY. COULD MOVE FORWARD AT A MORE RAPID FASHION THAN THE AIR RESPONSIBILITY OR THE LOGISTICS RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN THE COUNTRY, IN SVN, BECAUSE OF THE TRAINING THAT'S NECESSARY. WE'VE GONE FROM SUPPLYING THE SVN WHEN PRES. NIXON TOOK OFFICE, THEY HAD A LITTLE OVER 250 ACFT IN THEIR AIR FORCE. NOW THEY'RE OVER A THOUSAND. THIS TRAINING OF THESE PILOTS, THE TRAINING OF THE MECHANICS AND THE TECHNICIANS, TAKES A LITTLE LONGER AND THAT'S WHY THE PHASE II OF VIETNAMIZATION PROGRAM DOES NOT COME INTO BEING AT THE SAME RATE OR AT THE SAME DATES AS PHASE I WHICH HAS NOW BEEN COMPLETED.

Q: ARE WE COMMITTED TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE THIEU REGIME THOUGH?

A: WE ARE COMMITTED TO PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY CAPABILITY FOR THE PEOPLE OF SVN, AND THAT'S WHAT THE PROGRAM OF VIETNAMIZATION IS ALL ABOUT.

Q: HOW LONG ARE WE PREPARED TO LET THAT TAKE PLACE BEFORE WE WOULD WITHDRAW?

A: WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO HAVING TOTAL WITHDRAWAL FROM VIETNAM NOW WHEN ONE STOPS AND REALIZES ELIZABETH, THAT WE HAVE NOW COMPLETED OUR WITHDRAWAL TO THE POINT WHERE 87.5 PERCENT OF THE AMERICANS

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

THAT WERE IN VIETNAM WHEN PRES NIXON TOOK OFFICE, HAVE NOW BEEN WITHDRAWN WITH THIS MOST RECENT ANNOUNCEMENT.

Q: ARE WE PREPARED TO, NOT ONLY WITHDRAW ALL OF OUR TROOPS, BUT TO CEASE ATTACKING THE NORTH FROM BASES ELSEWHERE OR FROM CARRIERS IN ORDER TO GET THE PRISONERS BACK?

A: I WOULD CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON ME AS SECY OF DEFENSE TO RECOMMEND THE USE OF AIRPOWER JUST AS LONG AS IT IS NEEDED AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE REMAINING AMERICAN FORCES IN VIETNAM, AND I WOULD SO RECOMMEND.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WOULD NOT BE WILLING TO MAKE THAT KIND OF AN OFFER?

A: IF IT PUTS IN JEOPARDY THE LIVES OF THE AMERICANS IN VIETNAM, I CERTAINLY WOULO NOT. AS SECY OF DEFENSE I DO NOT BELIEVE I SHOULD JEOPARDIZE THE LIEVES OF THE REMAINING FORCES, AND MY RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD ALWAYS BEAR IN MIND MY RESPONSIBILITY TO THOSE AMERICANS THAT ARE IN VIETNAM EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER GETS DOWN TO THIS VERY LOW LEVEL OF MAY 1, WHICH HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED BY THE PRESIDENT OF 69,000. I WILL SEE THAT THOSE FORCES ARE ADEQUATELY AND EFFECTIVELY PROTECTED.

Q: I ASSUME FROM WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND YOU SAID THAT OUR GOALS ARE (1) TO GET OUT AND (2) TO GET THE PRISONERS BACK.

A: OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE CAPABILITY OF THE SVN TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN LITTLE COUNTRY'S SECURITY. THIS IS THE VIETNAMIZATION GOAL. NOW, THE NEGOTIATION GOAL IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT BUT IT BRINGS ABOUT PEACE IN THE AREA THROUGH A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AND IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME PROCESS THAT THE VIETNAMIZATION PROGRAM IS. VIETNAMIZATION DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS. IT MERELY GIVES US ANOTHER WAY TO WITHDRAW AMERICAN FORCES FROM THAT AREA. WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON TOOK OFFICE THERE WAS NO PROGRAM TO WITHDRAW AMERICANS FROM THAT AREA OF THE WORLD.

Q: UNTIL WE TELL THE NVN THAT WE'RE WILLING NOT ONLY TO WITHDRAW TROOPS BUT TO STOP ATTACKING THEM FROM THE AIR, IS IT REASONABLE TO EXPECT THEM TO RETURN THE PRISONERS?

A: THE PRISONER ISSUE IS, OF COURSE, TIED IN VERY CLOSELY WITH THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS. NVN IS PARTY TO THOSE CONVENTIONS. THEY ARE FAILING TO LIVE UP TO THOSE CONVENTIONS ON A DAILY BASIS. I BELIEVE IT'S INCUMBENT UPON OUR GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD TO PUT AS MUCH PRESSURE AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN ON NVN TO ABIDE BY THESE HUMANITARIAN CONVENTIONS WHICH THEY ARE A PARTY TO.

Q: THE QUESTION IS HOW TO GET THEM BACK AND THE NORTH VIETNAMESE HAVE SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT GIVE THEM BACK UNTIL WE STOP ATTACKING THEM. SO, WHY DON'T WE MAKE THAT OFFER?

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

A: WE ARE CERTAINLY MAKING OFFERS ON A REGULAR BASIS IN PARIS, AND WE STAND READY AND WILLING TO NEGOTIATE THESE MATTERS IN PARIS. AMB PORTER AS RECENTLY AS LAST WEEK WAS COMPLETELY TURNED DOWN ON EVEN DISCUSSIONG THIS MATTER UNLESS THE UNITED STATES WOULD AGREE TO ALL OF THE 7 POINTS LISTED BY THE NVN. OF COURSE, YOU AND ALL AMERICANS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCEPT THAT KIND OF A POSITION TO START NEGOTIATIONS.

Q: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING IS WE'RE WONDERING WHETHER AS WE WINO DOWN OUR PRESENCE THERE AND TIME GOES BY. AND BT
#5250
ANNOTES
DGR

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

NNNN

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

THAT SOUTH VIETNAM WILL BECOME STRONGER, NOT WEAKER. I BELIEVE THAT
THEY WILL BE IN A BETTER POSITION AS TIME GOES ON, AND I BELIEVE THAT
TIME IS ON THE SIDE OF THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE AS THEY PREPARE THEM-
SELVES TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SECURITY WITHIN THEIR COUNTRY.

MISS DREW: YOU TALKED ABOUT WHETHER I WOULD ACCEPT ALL 7 TERMS.
I'M NOT NEGOTIATING EITHER.

SECRETARY LAIRD: BEFORE YOU STARTED THE DISCUSSIONS, IN NEGOTIATIONS BOTH SIDES HAVE TO SHOW A WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE, AND THE OTHER SIDE HAS SHOWN A TREMENDOUS INTRANSIGENT POSITION AS FAR AS ALL OF THESE PARTICULAR ISSUES. I WOULD DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PRESS STATEMENTS WHICH THEY MADE LAST WEEK WHICH AGAIN FLATLY AND TOTALLY REJECTED THE SEPARABILITY OF THE NO. 1 POINT OF THEIR 7 POINTS.

MISS DREW: WE'RE DOWN TO--NOT YOU AND I, BECAUSE I'M A
JOURNALIST--BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN THIS COUNTRY OVER
WHETHEROR NOT BY MAKING CERTAIN OFFERS, IN FACT THE PRISONERS WOULD
BE RETURNED AND WHETHER WE OUGHTN'T TO JUST FIND THAT OUT.

SECRETARY LAIRD: I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE NORTH VIETNAMESE ARE
MAKING A VERY GRAVE ERROR OR MISTAKE IF THEY MISINTERPRET THE
POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SECRETARY OF STATE
ROGERS, OR MY POSITION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RETURN OF OUR POWS
AND THOSE MISSING IN ACTION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA. WE PLACE A VERY
GREAT IMPORTANCE ON THIS, AND WE WILL CONTINUE IN EVERY WAY TO SEE
THAT THOSE PRISONERS, THOSE MISSING IN ACTION, ARE RETURNED TO
FREEDOM.

Q: ARE WE INSISTING ON NON-COMMUNIST LAOS AND CAMBODIA IN EXCHANGE, BEFORE WE WITHDRAW FROM SOUTHEAST ASIA?

A: THE SITUATION AS FAR AS LAOS IS CONCERNED, OF COURSE, IS
GOVERNED BY THE 962 ACCORDS. AS FAR AS CAMBODIA IS CONCERNED, WE'VE
MADE A VERY CONSCIOUS DECISION THERE TO GIVE MILITARY ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE NIXON DOCTRINE, BUT WE'VE ALSO MADE THE CONSCIOUS DECISION
OF NOT INSERTING AMERICAN FORCES INTO CAMBODIA, AND THERE ARE NO
GROUND FORCES. WE HAVE A VERY SMALL MILITARY DELIVERY TEAM THERE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE A DECISION WHICH IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM
THE DECISION MADE BY PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND PRESIDENT JOHNSON AS FAR
AS VIETNAM IS CONCERNED.

I'D LIKE TO GET BACK TO THIS ONE FACT, ELIZABETH. YOU KNOW I
THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND SUBTRACTION AND ADDITION. DURING
THE LAST ADMINISTRATION WAS ADDITIONS, ADD-ONS. IN THIS ADMINISTRATION
ALL WE'VE HAD IS SUBTRACTION, AS FAR AS OUR FORCES ARE CONCERNED
THERE'S A GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADD-ONS AND SUBTRACTIONS. I
BELIEVE THAT'S UNDERSTOOD BY MOST PEOPLE IN AMERICA -- THAT WE'RE
MOVING TO WITHDRAW IN VIETNAM AND WE'RE MOVING AT A VERY RAPID RATE.

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

WE STARTED AT 10,000 A MONTH WHEN WE ANNOUNCED THIS PROGRAM. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE WITHDRAWALS WE'VE MADE FROM THAILAND. FROM THE PHILIPPINES, FROM KOREA. WELL OVER 500,000 MILITARY PEOPLE TAKEN OUT OF ASIA IN THIS SHORT THREE YEARS OF THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION.

Q: WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN PEKING THAT COULD HASTEN AN END TO THE WAR?

A: I REALLY FEEL THAT IT IS GOOD TO DISCUSS THESE MATTERS, OF COURSE, WITH THE CHINESE AND WITH THE RUSSIANS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE GIVEN SUPPORT TO THE OTHER SIDE. THIS IS A MATTER WHETHER IT BE IN THE AREA OF POWS OR IN OTHER AREAS OF SUPPORT, IT SHOULD BE OPENLY AND FRANKLY DISCUSSED WITH ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD.

Q: I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO ANOTHER AREA AND CLEAR SOMETHING UP, AND THAT IS, DOES THE U.S. NOW PLAN TO MAINTAIN A NAVAL PRESENCE IN THE INDIAN OCEAN?

A: WE HAVE ALWAYS ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WOULD BE NAVAL OPERATIONS IN THE INDIAN OCEAN. WE'VE HAD OUR SHIPS IN THE INDIAN OCEAN FROM TIME TO TIME AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A PRESENCE FROM TIME TO TIME. IT WON'T BE A PERMANENT PRESENCE IN THE AREA, BUT CERTAINLY THERE WILL BE A PRESENCE FROM TIME TO TIME OF U.S. NAVAL FORCES IN THE INDIAN OCEAN.

Q: YOU SAID YOU ALWAYS ANTICIPATED, HAS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGE IN POLICY. WE'VE BEEN A BIT CONFUSED BY THE EVENTS OF THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.

A: I THINK IF YOU'LL GO BACK TO SOME OF THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS -- I REMEMBER THE STATEMENT THAT I MADE WHEN I VISITED THE 6TH FLEET IN THE MED. THAT WE WOULD BE HAVING A PRESENCE IN THE INDIAN OCEAN FROM TIME TO TIME. THIS IS NOT A NEW POLICY DECISION THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION WITHIN THE LAST FEW WEEKS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT; WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. WHEN I WENT UP TO GET THE APPROVAL OF THE DIEGO GARCIA COMMUNICATIONS STATION, I DISCUSSED IT OPENLY AND FRANKLY WITH THE VARIOUS CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD COME AS ANY SURPRISE THAT WE WILL HAVE A PRESENCE IN THE INDIAN OCEAN FROM TIME TO TIME AS FAR AS THE U.S. NAVY IS CONCERNED.

Q: I THOUGHT THE NIXON DOCTRINE WAS TO LOWER OUR PROFILE?

A: THE NIXON DOCTRINE IS TO BUILD STRENGTH, TO BUILD PARTNERSHIP, AND TO SHOW A WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. IF WE ARE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN OUR NEGOTIATIONS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, WHETHER IT'S IN THE MIDDLE EAST, IN ASIA, OR IN EUROPE, IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT WE GIVE STRENGTH TO OUR PARTNERS. WE CANNOT GO INTO THESE NEGOTIATIONS, WHETHER THEY BE MUTUAL AND BALANCED FORCE REDUCTIONS, SALT, OR THE MIDDLE EAST, AND SHOW

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

WEAKNESS IN ONE AREA OF THE WORLD.

WE HAVE DEPARTED FROM THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE THE COP ON
EVERY BEAT ALL OVER THE WORLD. WE WANT SOME OF THESE NATIONS, SOME
OF THESE PARTNERS, WHETHER IT BE IN SEATO, OR IN NATO, OR IN THE
MIDDLE EAST, TO TAKE OVER SOME OF THESE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THEIR
OWN BEAT IN THEIR OWN AREA. WE WILL SUPPLEMENT THAT THROUGH OUR
AIR AND NAVAL POWER AND IN NATO, VERY FRANKLY, I THINK THAT THE
MOVEMENT THAT WE'VE HAD IN NATO IN STRENGTHENING THAT PARTNERSHIP
AND BUILDING THE MILITARY STRENGTH AS WE APPROACH MUTUAL AND
BT
#5251
ANNOTES
DGR

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

NNNN

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

A: I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE RUSSIAN INTENTIONS. THEY ARE OPERATING IN THE INDIAN OCEAN. THEY HAVE FROM 6 TO 20 SHIPS THAT THEY'VE OPERATED FROM TIME-TO-TIME IN THAT AREA OF THE WORLD. THEY HAVE RECENTLY MOVED INTO THAT AREA AND THE SEALANES AND THE SEA ROUTES. OF COURSE, ARE IMPORTANT AND THEIR PRESENCE IS A POLITICAL PRESENCE AND IT HAS A TREMENDOUS POLITICAL EFFECT UPON THAT AREA OF THE WORLD. I'M SURE THAT THAT'S WHY THE RUSSIANS HAVE MADE THAT CONSCIOUS DECISION.

Q: AND SO OUR SHIPS ARE TO HAVE A POLITICAL PRESENCE ALSO?

A: I BELIEVE THAT THEY DO HAVE A POLITICAL PRESENCE AND THEY DO GIVE OUR PARTNERS AND OUR ALLIES THE FEELING THAT WE DO CARE BY MAINTAINING THE OPENNESS AND FREE ACCESS TO THOSE SEALANES.

Q: WHAT WERE THE SHIPS DOING THERE DURING THE INDIA-PAKISTAN WAR?

A: THEY WERE THERE TO BE AVAILABLE IN CASE OF EVACUATION FROM EITHER EAST OR WEST PAKISTAN SHOULD THAT BE NEEDED.

Q: I CHECKED WITH REPORTERS WHO WERE THERE AT THE TIME AND THEY TELL ME THAT EVERYBODY WHO WANTED TO GET OUT OF DACCA COULD GET OUT BY BRITISH FLIGHTS AND THAT THE SHIPS WERE PRETTY FAR AWAY FROM WEST PAKISTAN IN ORDER TO GET THEM OUT.

A: THAT'S NOT TRUE. THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN WE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY IN GETTING THE EVACUATION FLIGHTS INTO EAST PAKISTAN, AND IT TOOK A GREAT DEAL OF NEGOTIATIONS TO SEE THAT THOSE FLIGHTS GOT IN THERE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE MOVED HELICOPTERS AT ONE TIME TO HAVE A CONTINGENCY PLAN IN CASE THOSE PARTICULAR 130'S COULDN'T GET IN AND LIFT THE PEOPLE OUT OF EAST PAKISTAN. WE'RE WORKING VERY CAREFULLY WITH OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES AND FORTUNATELY THE EVACUATION DID GO FORWARD FROM EAST PAKISTAN. BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE KIND OF ASSURANCES SOME OF YOUR REPORTERS EVIDENTLY GAVE YOU THAT THAT WAS A VERY SIMPLE MATTER AND THAT IT WAS ALWAYS--.

Q: THEY JUST SAID THAT IT WAS DONE.

A: IT WAS DONE, YES, BUT IT TOOK A GREAT DEAL OF WORK ON OUR PART AND NEGOTIATIONS ON OUR PART, AND WE WERE WATCHING THAT I WAS INVOLVED WITH IT ALMOST CONSTANTLY. THERE WAS ALSO THE POSSIBILITY THAT WEST PAKISTAN AND THE AMERICANS THAT WERE PRESENT THERE, COULD HAVE BEEN PLACED IN SOME DEGREE OF JEOPARDY. SO WHEN WE HAVE...

Q: WEST PAKISTAN ITSELF, THE COUNTRY?

A: YES, THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY. WHEN I MADE THE STATEMENT THAT WE WERE THERE TO AID EVACUATION FROM PAKISTAN, I DID NOT LIMIT THAT TO EAST PAKISTAN IN MY BRIEFING IN THE PENTAGON PRESS ROOM. I WOULD HOPE THAT SOME OF YOUR REPORTER FRIENDS WOULD GO BACK AND READ THAT BRIEFING BECAUSE SOME OF THEM SORT OF READ

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNCLASSIFIED

9339

IN THE TERM EAST PAKISTAN, I APPLY IT TO ALL OF PAKISTAN AND THE AREA WHEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE. SO, I WISH THOSE VERY SAME REPORTERS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH YOU AND BRIEFING YOU WOULD READ THE RECORD OF OUR PENTAGON BRIEFING.

Q: WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH TIME. JUST ONE MORE QUESTION RELATED TO THE RECENT EVENTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA. IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH OUR WEAPONS, PAKISTAN IS USING THEM AGAINST EACH OTHER AND INDIA AND PAKISTAN USING THEM TO FIGHT EACH OTHER, IS THERE ANY RETHINKING GOING ON ABOUT MILITARY ASSISTANCE?

A: YES, WE'RE EXAMINING THE PROGRAM VERY CAREFULLY AT THIS TIME IN PREPARATION FOR OUR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.

Q: MIGHT YOU CHANGE IT SO THAT THESE USES CAN'T BE MADE?

A: THIS WILL BE MATTER THAT WE'LL DISCUSS WITH THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES AND IT WILL BE ALSO AN ISSUE THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET MESSAGE.

MISS DREW: WE'RE OUT OF TIME, MR. SECY. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UNQUOTE.

BT
#5252
ANNOTES
DGR

V

PAGE 3

NNNN

UNCLASSIFIED

01001011

- 6 -

#1313

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, what I am going to do to dig myself out of this is to say to you, in all seriousness, that the President did address this and it was in the Time Magazine interview that he had. I have nothing to add to that. I am not going to address specifically the Alsop column.

Q Given the sensitivity of this situation with regard to the Soviet ships, are we allowing the Coast Guard to handle this exclusively, or are there other agencies of Government involved and if so, who are they?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe I answered your question earlier. The Coast Guard is dealing with this matter. They have authority to deal with the matter in terms of the fishing areas that we claim, and so forth, and they are proceeding under existing authority. Other agencies are being kept informed of how they are handling it.

Q But the Coast Guard is giving the orders?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, of course, but other departments of the Government are being kept informed, and will give advice, if asked.

Q In light of recent incidents, does the President specifically, and the White House generally, have complete confidence in the Coast Guard in handling the situation?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe that they are dealing with this in an appropriate way.

Q Is there any consideration given by the United States Government to the recognition of Bangladesh as an independent country?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is a subject I am not going to get into. I don't think any other Government official at this time is prepared to address that question, so I think my answer would have to be just one of no comment.

Q Ron, why is no Government official willing to address that question? It is a fairly important one.

MR. ZIEGLER: I will take it beyond the no comment. It is something that we do not have under active consideration within the Government at this time.

Q Ron, the number of unanswered questions and major issues on which you are not prepared to comment seems to be piling up. When may we expect the President to hold a press conference?

MR. ZIEGLER: There is no date or time set, but you can ask the questions. I believe there was one I wouldn't answer this morning. If you have another one, you can try me on that.

Q Let me try one. Do you have an answer on the question raised here yesterday morning about the new HUD regulations giving greater priority to publicly supported housing outside areas of concentrated poverty?

MORE

#1313

January 20, 1972

FOR RELEASE AT 12:30 P.M. EST THURSDAY

JANUARY 20, 1972

TO ALL NEWSPAPERS, RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS

CAUTION: There should be no premature release of this Message to the Congress, nor should its contents be paraphrased, alluded to or hinted at in earlier stories. There is a total embargo on this message until released, which includes any and all references to any material in this message.

Ronald L. Ziegler
Press Secretary

THE WHITE HOUSE
STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE
OF

PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON
TO BE PRESENTED TO THE MEMBERS
OF THE SECOND SESSION
OF THE 92nd CONGRESS
January 20, 1972

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

It was just 3 years ago today that I took the oath of office as President. I opened my address that day by suggesting that some moments in history stand out "as moments of beginning," when "courses are set that shape decades or centuries." I went on to say that "this can be such a moment."

Looking back 3 years later, I would suggest that it was such a moment --- a time in which new courses were set on which we now are traveling. Just how profoundly these new courses will shape our decade or our century is still an unanswered question, however, as we enter the fourth year of this administration. For moments of beginning will mean very little in history unless we also have the determination to follow up on those beginnings.

Setting the course is not enough. Staying the course is an equally important challenge. Good government involves both the responsibility for making fresh starts and the responsibility for perseverance.

The responsibility for perseverance is one that is shared by the President, the public, and the Congress.

-- We have come a long way, for example, on the road to ending the Vietnam war and to improving relations with our adversaries. But these initiatives will depend for their lasting meaning on our persistence in seeing them through.

-- The magnificent cooperation of the American people has enabled us to make substantial progress in curbing inflation and in reinvigorating our economy. But the new prosperity we seek can be completed only if the public continues in its commitment to economic responsibility and discipline.

more

2

-- Encouraging new starts have also been made over the last 3 years in treating our domestic ills. But continued progress now requires the Congress to act on its large and growing backlog of pending legislation.

America's agenda for action is already well established as we enter 1972. It will grow in the weeks ahead as we present still more initiatives. But we dare not let the emergence of new business obscure the urgency of old business. Our new agenda will be little more than an empty gesture if we abandon -- or even de-emphasize -- that part of the old agenda which is yet unfinished.

## Getting Ourselves Together

One measure of the Nation's progress in these first years of the Seventies is the improvement in our national morale. While the 1960's were a time of great accomplishment, they were also a time of growing confusion. Our recovery from that condition is not complete, but we have made a strong beginning.

Then we were a shaken and uncertain people, but now we are recovering our confidence. Then we were divided and suspicious, but now we are renewing our sense of common purpose. Then we were surrounded by shouting and posturing, but we have been learning once again to lower our voices. And we have also been learning to listen.

A history of the 1960's was recently published under the title, *Coming Apart*. But today we can say with confidence that we are coming apart no longer. The "center" of American life has held, and once again we are getting ourselves together.

## The Spirit of Reason and Realism

Under the pressures of an election year, it would be easy to look upon the legislative program merely as a political device and not as a serious agenda. We must resist this temptation. The year ahead of us holds precious time in which to accomplish good for this Nation and we must not, we dare not, waste it. Our progress depends on a continuing spirit of partnership between the President and the Congress, between the House and the Senate, between Republicans and Democrats. That spirit does not require us always to agree with one another but it does require us to approach our tasks, together, in a spirit of reason and realism.

Clear words are the great servant of reason. Intemperate words are the great enemy of reason. The cute slogan, the glib headline, the clever retort, the appeal to passion -- these are not the way to truth or to good public policy.

more

3

To be dedicated to clear thinking, to place the interests of all above the interests of the few, to hold to ultimate values and to curb momentary passions, to think more about the next generation and less about the next election -- these are now our special challenges.

## Ending The War

The condition of a nation's spirit cannot be measured with precision, but some of the factors which influence that spirit can. I believe the most dramatic single measurement of the distance we have traveled in the last 36 months is found in the statistics concerning our involvement in the war in Vietnam.

On January 20, 1969 our authorized troop ceiling in Vietnam was 549,500. And there was no withdrawal plan to bring these men home. On seven occasions since that time, I have announced withdrawal decisions -- involving a total of 480,500 troops. As a result, our troop ceiling will be only 69,000 by May 1. This means that in 3 years we will have cut our troop strength in Vietnam by 87 percent. As we proceed toward our goal of a South Vietnam fully able to defend itself, we will reduce that level still further.

In this same period, expenditures connected with the war have been cut drastically. There has been a drop of well over 50 percent in American air activity in all of Southeast Asia. Our ground combat role has been ended. Most importantly, there has been a reduction of 95 percent in combat deaths.

Our aim is to cut the death and casualty toll by 100 percent, to obtain the release of those who are prisoners of war, and to end the fighting altogether.

It is my hope that we can end this tragic conflict through negotiation. If we cannot, then we will end it through Vietnamization. But end it we shall -- in a way which fulfills our commitment to the people of South Vietnam and which gives them the chance for which they have already sacrificed so much -- the chance to choose their own future.

## The Lessons of Change

The American people have learned many lessons in the wake of Vietnam -- some helpful and some dangerous. One important lesson is that we can best serve our own interests in the world by setting realistic limits on what we try to accomplish unilaterally. For the peace of the world will be more secure, and its progress more rapid, as more nations come to share more fully in the responsibilities for peace and for progress.

more

4

At the same time, to conclude that the United States should now withdraw from all or most of its international responsibilities would be to make a dangerous error. There has been a tendency among some to swing from one extreme to the other in the wake of Vietnam, from wanting to do too much in the world to wanting to do too little. We must resist this temptation to over-react. We must stop the swinging pendulum before it moves to an opposite position, and forge instead an attitude toward the world which is balanced and sensible and realistic.

America has an important role to play in international affairs, a great influence to exert for good. As we have throughout this century, we must continue our profound concern for advancing peace and freedom, by the most effective means possible, even as we shift somewhat our view of what means are most effective.

This is our policy:

-- We will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or of our allies.

-- We will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves.

-- We will faithfully honor all of our treaty commitments.

-- We will act to defend our interests whenever and wherever they are threatened any place in the world.

-- But where our interests or our treaty commitments are not involved our role will be limited.

-- We will not intervene militarily.

-- But we will use our influence to prevent war.

-- If war comes we will use our influence to try to stop it.

-- Once war is over we will do our share in helping to bind up the wounds of those who have participated in it.

## Opening New Lines of Communication

Even as we seek to deal more realistically with our partners, so we must also deal more realistically with those who have been our adversaries. In the last year we have made a number of notable advances toward this goal.

In our dealings with the Soviet Union, for example, we have been able, together with our allies, to reach an historic agreement concerning Berlin. We have advanced the prospects for limiting strategic armaments. We have moved toward greater cooperation in space research and toward improving our economic relationships. There have been disappointments such as South Asia and uncertainties such as the Middle East. But there has also been progress we can build on.

more

5

It is to build on the progress of the past and to lay
the foundations for greater progress in the future that I
will soon be visiting the capitals of both the Peoples
Republic of China and the Soviet Union. These visits will
help to fulfill the promise I made in my Inaugural address
when I said "that during this administration our lines of
communication will be open," so that we can help create "an
open world -- open to ideas, open to the exchange of goods
and people, a world in which no people, great or small, will
live in angry isolation." It is in this spirit that I will
undertake these journeys.

We must also be realistic, however, about the scope of
our differences with these governments. My visits will mean
not that our differences have disappeared or will disappear
in the near future. But peace depends on the ability of
great powers to live together on the same planet despite
their differences. The important thing is that we talk about
these differences rather than fight about them.

It would be a serious mistake to say that nothing can
come of our expanded communications with Peking and Moscow.
But it would also be a mistake to expect too much too
quickly.

It would also be wrong to focus so much attention on
these new opportunities that we neglect our old friends. That
is why I have met in the last few weeks with the leaders of
two of our hemisphere neighbors, Canada and Brazil, with the
leaders of three great European nations, and with the Prime
Minister of Japan. I believe these meetings were extremely
successful in cementing our understandings with these
governments as we move forward together in a fast changing
period.

Our consultations with our allies may not receive as
much attention as our talks with potential adversaries. But
this makes them no less important. The cornerstone of our
foreign policy remains -- and will remain -- our close bonds
with our friends around the world.

A **_Strong_** **_Defense_**: **_The Guardian_** of Peace

There are two additional elements which are critical to
our efforts to strengthen the structure of peace.

The first of these is the military strength of the United
States.

In the last 3 years we have been moving from a wartime
to a peacetime footing, from a period of continued confron-
tation and arms competition to a period of negotiation and
potential arms limitation, from a period when America often
acted as policeman for the world to a period when other
nations are assuming greater responsibility for their own
defense. I was recently encouraged, for example, by the
decision of our European allies to increase their share of
the NATO defense budget by some $1 billion.

As a part of this process, we have ended the production
of chemical and biological weaponry and have converted two
of our largest facilities for such production to humanitarian
research. We have been able to reduce and in some periods

more

6

[L]

even to eliminate draft calls. In 1971, draft calls -- which were as high as 382,000 at the peak of the Vietnam war -- fell below 100,000, the lowest level since 1962. In the coming year they will be significantly lower. I am confident that by the middle of next year we can achieve our goal of reducing draft calls to zero.

As a result of all these developments, our defense spending has fallen to 7 percent of our gross national product in the current fiscal year, compared with 8.3 percent in 1964 and 9.5 percent in 1968. That figure will be down to 6.4 percent in fiscal year 1973. Without sacrificing any of our security interests, we have been able to bring defense spending below the level of human resource spending for the first time in 20 years. This condition is maintained in my new budget -- which also, for the first time, allocates more money to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare than to the Department of Defense.

But just as we avoid extreme reactions in our political attitudes toward the world, so we must avoid over-reacting as we plan for our defense. We have reversed spending priorities, but we have never compromised our national security. And we never will. For any step which weakens America's defenses will also weaken the prospects for peace.

Our plans for the next year call for an increase in defense spending. That increase is made necessary in part by rising research and development costs, in part by military pay increases -- which, in turn, will help us eliminate the draft -- and in part by the need to proceed with new weapon systems to maintain our security at an adequate level. Even as we seek with the greatest urgency stable controls on armaments, we cannot ignore the fact that others are going forward with major increases in their own arms programs.

In the year ahead we will be working to improve and protect, to diversify and disperse our strategic forces in ways which make them even less vulnerable to attack and more effective in deterring war. I will request a substantial budget increase to preserve the sufficiency of our strategic nuclear deterrent, including an allocation of over $900 million to improve our sea-based deterrent force. I recently directed the Department of Defense to develop a program to build additional missile launching submarines, carrying a new and far more effective missile. We will also proceed with programs to reoutfit our Polaris submarines with the Poseidon missile system, to replace older land-based missiles with Minuteman III, and to deploy the SAFEGUARD Antiballistic Missile System.

At the same time, we must move to maintain our strength at sea. The Navy's budget was increased by $2 billion in the current fiscal year, and I will ask for a similar increase next year, with particular emphasis on our shipbuilding programs.

Our military research and development program must also be stepped up. Our budget in this area was increased by $594 million in the current fiscal year and I will recommend a further increase for next year of $838 million. I will also propose a substantial program to develop and

more

7

procure more effective weapons systems for our land and tactical air forces, and to improve the National Guard and Reserves, providing more modern weapons and better training.

In addition, we will expand our strong program to attract volunteer career soldiers so that we can phase out the draft. With the cooperation of the Congress, we have been able to double the basic pay of first time enlistees. Further substantial military pay increases are planned. I will also submit to the Congress an overall reform of our military retirement and survivor benefit programs, raising the level of protection for military families. In addition, we will expand efforts to improve race relations, to equalize promotional opportunities, to control drug abuse, and generally to improve the quality of life in the Armed Forces.

As we take all of these steps, let us remember that strong military defenses are not the enemy of peace; they are the guardians of peace. Our ability to build a stable and tranquil world -- to achieve an arms control agreement, for example -- depends on our ability to negotiate from a position of strength. We seek adequate power not as an end in itself but as a means for achieving our purpose. And our purpose is peace.

In my Inaugural address 3 years ago I called for cooperation to reduce the burden of arms -- and I am encouraged by the progress we have been making toward that goal. But I also added this comment: "...to all those who would be tempted by weakness, let us leave no doubt that we will be as strong as we need to be for as long as we need to be." Today I repeat that reminder.

## A Realistic Program of Foreign Assistance

Another important expression of America's interest and influence in the world is our foreign assistance effort. This effort has special significance at a time when we are reducing our direct military presence abroad and encouraging other countries to assume greater responsibilities. Their growing ability to undertake these responsibilities often depends on America's foreign assistance.

We have taken significant steps to reform our foreign assistance programs in recent years, to eliminate waste and to give them greater impact. Now three further imperatives rest with the Congress:

- to fund in full the levels of assistance which I have earlier recommended for the current fiscal year, before the present interim funding arrangement expires in late February;

- to act upon the fundamental aid reform proposals submitted by this administration in 1971;

- and to modify those statutes which govern our response to expropriation of American property by foreign governments, as I recommended in my recent statement on the security of overseas investments.

more

These actions, taken together, will constitute not an
exception to the emerging pattern for a more realistic
American role in the world, but rather a fully consistent
and crucially important element in that pattern.

As we work to help our partners in the world community
develop their economic potential and strengthen their military
forces, we should also cooperate fully with them in meeting
international challenges such as the menace of narcotics, the
threat of pollution, the growth of population, the proper use
of the seas and seabeds, and the plight of those who have been
victimized by wars and natural disasters. All of these are
global problems and they must be confronted on a global basis.
The efforts of the United Nations to respond creatively to
these challenges have been most promising, as has the work of
NATO in the environmental field. Now we must build on these
beginnings.

America's Influence for Good

The United States is not the world's policeman nor
the keeper of its moral conscience. But -- whether we
like it or not -- we still represent a force for stability
in what has too often been an unstable world, a force for
justice in a world which is too often unjust, a force for
progress in a world which desperately needs to progress, a
force for peace in a world that is weary of war.

We can have a great influence for good in our world --
and for that reason we bear a great responsibility. Whether
we fulfill that responsibility -- whether we fully use our
influence for good -- these are questions we will be answer-
ing as we reshape our attitudes and policies toward other
countries, as we determine our defensive capabilities, and
as we make fundamental decisions about foreign assistance.
I will soon discuss these and other concerns in greater detail
in my annual report to the Congress on foreign policy.

Our influence for good in the world depends, of course,
not only on decisions which touch directly on international
affairs but also on our internal strength -- on our sense of
pride and purpose, on the vitality of our economy, on the
success of our efforts to build a better life for all our
people. Let us turn then from the state of the Union abroad
to the state of the Union at home.

The Economy: Toward A New Prosperity

Just as the Vietnam war occasioned much of our spiritual
crisis, so it lay at the root of our economic problems 3 years
ago. The attempt to finance that war through budget deficits
in a period of full employment had produced a wave of price
inflation as dangerous and as persistent as any in our history.
It was more persistent, frankly, than I expected it would be
when I first took office. And it only yielded slowly to our
dual efforts to cool the war and to cool inflation.

Our challenge was further compounded by the need to
reabsorb more than 2 million persons who were released from
the Armed Forces and from defense-related industries and by
the substantial expansion of the labor force.

more

9

In short, the escalation of the Vietnam war in the late
1960's destroyed price stability. And the de-escalation of
that war in the early 1970's impeded full employment.

Throughout these years, however, I have remained con-
vinced that both price stability and full employment were
realistic goals for this country. By last summer it became
apparent that our efforts to eradicate inflation without wage
and price controls would either take too long or -- if they
were to take effect quickly -- would come at the cost of
persistent high unemployment. This cost was unacceptable.
On August 15th I therefore announced a series of new economic
policies to speed our progress toward a new prosperity without
inflation in peacetime.

These policies have received the strong support of the
Congress and the American people, and as a result they have
been effective. To carry forward these policies, three
important steps were taken this past December -- all within
a brief 2-week period -- which will also help to make the
coming year a very good year for the American economy.

On December 10, I signed into law the Revenue Act of
1971, providing tax cuts over the next 3 years of some
$15 billion, cuts which I requested to stimulate the economy
and to provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs. On
December 22, I signed into law the Economic Stabilization
Act Amendments of 1971, which will allow us to continue our
program of wage and price restraints to break the back of
inflation.

Between these two events, on December 18, I was able
to announce a major breakthrough on the international economic
front -- reached in cooperation with our primary economic
partners. This breakthrough will mitigate the intolerable
strains which were building up in the world's monetary and
payments structure and will lead to a removal of trade
barriers which have impeded American exports. It also sets
the stage for broader reforms in the international monetary
system so that we can avoid repeated monetary crises in the
future. Both the monetary realignment -- the first of its
scope in history -- and our progress in readjusting trade
conditions will mean better markets for American goods abroad
and more jobs for American workers at home.

A Brighter Economic Picture

As a result of all these steps, the economic picture --
which has brightened steadily during the last 5 months -- will,
I believe, continue to grow brighter. This is not my judgment
alone; it is widely shared by the American people. Virtually
every survey and forecast in recent weeks shows a substantial
improvement in public attitudes about the economy -- which
are themselves so instrumental in shaping economic realities.

The inflationary psychology which gripped our Nation so
tightly for so long is on the ebb. Business and consumer
confidence has been rising. Businessmen are planning a 9.1
percent increase in plant and equipment expenditures in 1972,
more than four times as large as the increase in 1971. Con-
sumer spending and retail sales are on the rise. Home building
is booming -- housing starts last year were up more than
40 percent from 1970, setting an all-time record. Interest
rates are sharply down. Both income and production are
rising. Real output in our economy in the last 3 months
of 1971 grew at a rate that was about double that of the
previous two quarters.

more

10

Perhaps most importantly, total employment has moved above the 80 million mark -- to a record high -- and is growing rapidly. In the last 5 months of 1971, some 1.1 million additional jobs were created in our economy and only a very unusual increase in the size of our total labor force kept the unemployment rate from falling.

But whatever the reason, 6 percent unemployment is too high. I am determined to cut that percentage -- through a variety of measures. The budget I present to the Congress next week will be an expansionary budget -- reflecting the impact of new job-creating tax cuts and job-creating expenditures. We will also push to increase employment through our programs for manpower training and public service employment, through our efforts to expand foreign markets, and through other new initiatives.

Expanded employment in 1972 will be different, however, from many other periods of full prosperity. For it will come without the stimulus of war -- and it will come without inflation. Our program of wage and price controls is working. The consumer price index, which rose at a yearly rate of slightly over 6 percent during 1969 and the first half of 1970, rose at a rate of only 1.7 percent from August through November of 1971.

I would emphasize once again, however, that our ultimate objective is lasting price stability without controls. When we achieve an end to the inflationary psychology which developed in the 1960's, we will return to our traditional policy of relying on free market forces to determine wages and prices.

I would also emphasize that while our new budget will be in deficit, the deficit will not be irresponsible. It will be less than this year's actual deficit and would disappear entirely under full employment conditions. While Federal spending continues to grow, the rate of increase in spending has been cut very sharply -- to little more than half that experienced under the previous administration. The fact that our battle against inflation has led us to adopt a new policy of wage and price restraints should not obscure the continued importance of our fiscal and monetary policies in holding down the cost of living. It is most important that the Congress join now in resisting the temptation to overspend and in accepting the discipline of a balanced full employment budget.

I will soon present a more complete discussion of all of these matters in my Budget Message and in my Economic Report.

## A New Era in International Economics

Just as we have entered a new period of negotiation in world politics, so we have also moved into a new period of negotiation on the international economic front. We expect these negotiations to help us build both a new international system for the exchange of money and a new system of international trade. These accomplishments, in turn, can open a new era of fair competition and constructive interdependence in the global economy.

more

11

We have already made important strides in this direction. The realignment of exchange rates which was announced last month represents an important forward step -- but now we also need basic long-range monetary reform. We have made an important beginning toward altering the conditions for international trade and investment -- and we expect further substantial progress. I would emphasize that progress for some nations in these fields need not come at the expense of others. All nations will benefit from the right kind of monetary and trade reform.

Certainly the United States has a high stake in such improvements. Our international economic position has been slowly deteriorating now for some time -- a condition which could have dangerous implications for both our influence abroad and our prosperity at home. It has been estimated, for example, that full employment prosperity will depend on the creation of some 20 million additional jobs in this decade. And expanding our foreign markets is a most effective way to expand domestic employment.

One of the major reasons for the weakening of our international economic position is that the ground rules for the exchange of goods and money have forced us to compete with one hand tied behind our back. One of our most important accomplishments in 1971 was our progress in changing this situation.

## Competing More Effectively

Monetary and trade reforms are only one part of this story. The ability of the United States to hold its own in world competition depends not only on the fairness of the rules, but also on the competitiveness of our economy. We have made great progress in the last few months in improving the terms of competition. Now we must also do all we can to strengthen the ability of our own economy to compete.

We stand today at a turning point in the history of our country -- and in the history of our planet. On the one hand, we have the opportunity to help bring a new economic order to the world, an open order in which nations eagerly face outward to build that network of interdependence which is the best foundation for prosperity and for peace. But we will also be tempted in the months ahead to take the opposite course -- to withdraw from the world economically as some would have us withdraw politically, to build an economic "Fortress America" within which our growing weakness could be concealed. Like a child who will not go out to play with other children, we would probably be saved a few minor bumps and bruises in the short run if we were to adopt this course. But in the long run the world would surely pass us by.

I reject this approach. I remain committed to that open world I discussed in my Inaugural address. That is why I have worked for a more inviting climate for America's economic activity abroad. That is why I have placed so much emphasis on increasing the productivity of our economy at home. And that is also why I believe so firmly that we must stimulate more long-range investment in our economy, find more effective ways to develop and use new technology, and do a better job of training and using skilled manpower.

more

12

An acute awareness of the international economic challenge led to the creation just one year ago of the Cabinet-level Council on International Economic Policy. This new institution has helped us to understand this challenge better and to respond to it more effectively.

As our understanding deepens, we will discover additional ways of improving our ability to compete. For example, we can enhance our competitive position by moving to implement the metric system of measurement, a proposal which the Secretary of Commerce presented in detail to the Congress last year. And we should also be doing far more to gain our fair share of the international tourism market, now estimated at $17 billion annually, one of the largest factors in world trade. A substantial part of our balance of payments deficit results from the fact that American tourists abroad spend $2.5 billion more than foreign tourists spend in the United States. We can help correct this situation by attracting more foreign tourists to our shores -- especially as we enter our Bicentennial era. I am therefore requesting that the budget for the United States Travel Service benearly doubled in the coming year.

## The Unfinished Agenda

Our progress toward building a new economic order at home and abroad has been made possible by the cooperation and cohesion of the American people. I am sure that many Americans had misgivings about one aspect or another of the new economic policies I introduced last summer. But most have nevertheless been ready to accept this new effort in order to build the broad support which is essential for effective change.

The time has now come for us to apply this same sense of realism and reasonability to other reform proposals which have been languishing on our domestic agenda. As was the case with our economic policies, most Americans agree that we need a change in our welfare system, in our health strategy, in our programs to improve the environment, in the way we finance State and local government, and in the organization of government at the Federal level. Most Americans are not satisfied with the status quo in education, in transportation, in law enforcement, in drug control, in community development. In each of these areas -- and in others -- I have put forward specific proposals which are responsive to this deep desire for change.

And yet achieving change has often been difficult. There has been progress in some areas, but for the most part, as a nation we have not shown the same sense of self-discipline in our response to social challenges that we have developed in meeting our economic needs. We have not been as ready as we should have been to compromise our differences and to build a broad coalition for change. And so we often have found ourselves in a situation of stalemate -- doing essentially nothing even though most of us agree that nothing is the very worst thing we can do.

Two years ago this week, and again one year ago, my messages on the state of the Union contained broad proposals for domestic reform. I am presenting a number of new proposals in this year's message. But I also call once again, with renewed urgency, for action on our unfinished agenda.

more

13

# Welfare Reform

The first item of unfinished business is welfare reform.

Since I first presented my proposals in August of 1969, some 4 million additional persons have been added to our welfare rolls. The cost of our old welfare system has grown by an additional $4.2 billion. People have not been moving as fast as they should from welfare rolls to payrolls. Too much of the traffic has been the other way.

Our antiquated welfare system is responsible for this calamity. Our new program of "workfare" would begin to end it.

Today, more than ever, we need a new program which is based on the dignity of work, which provides strong incentives for work, and which includes for those who are able to work an effective work requirement. Today, more than ever, we need a new program which helps hold families together rather than driving them apart, which provides day care services so that low income mothers can trade dependence on government for the dignity of employment, which relieves intolerable fiscal pressures on State and local governments, and which replaces 54 administrative systems with a more efficient and reliable nationwide approach.

I have now given prominent attention to this subject in three consecutive messages on the state of the Union. The House of Representatives has passed welfare reform twice. Now that the new economic legislation has been passed, I urge the Senate Finance Committee to place welfare reform at the top of its agenda. It is my earnest hope that when this Congress adjourns, welfare reform will not be an item of pending business but an accomplished reality.

## Revenue Sharing: Returning Power to the People

At the same time that I introduced my welfare proposals 2-1/2 years ago, I also presented a program for sharing Federal revenues with State and local governments. Last year I greatly expanded on this concept. Yet, despite undisputed evidence of compelling needs, despite overwhelming public support, despite the endorsement of both major political parties and most of the Nation's Governors and mayors, and despite the fact that most other nations with federal systems of government already have such a program, revenue sharing still remains on the list of unfinished business.

I call again today for the enactment of revenue sharing. During its first full year of operation our proposed programs would spend $17.6 billion, both for general purposes and through six special purpose programs for law enforcement, manpower, education, transportation, rural community development, and urban community development.

As with welfare reform, the need for revenue sharing becomes more acute as time passes. The financial crisis of State and local government is deepening. The pattern of breakdown in State and municipal services grows more

more

14

threatening. Inequitable tax pressures are mounting. The
demand for more flexible and more responsive government --
at levels closer to the problems and closer to the people --
is building.

Revenue sharing can help us meet these challenges. It
can help reverse what has been the flow of power and resources
toward Washington by sending power and resources back to the
States, to the communities, and to the people. Revenue
sharing can bring a new sense of accountability, a new burst
of energy and a new spirit of creativity to our federal
system.

I am pleased that the House Ways and Means Committee
has made revenue sharing its first order of business in the
new session. I urge the Congress to enact in this session,
not an empty program which bears the revenue sharing label
while continuing the outworn system of categorical grants,
but a bold, comprehensive program of genuine revenue sharing.

I also presented last year a $100 million program of
planning and management grants to help the States and localities
do a better job of analyzing their problems and carrying out
solutions. I hope this program will also be quickly accepted.
For only as State and local governments get a new lease on
life can we hope to bring government back to the people --
and with it a stronger sense that each individual can be in
control of his life, that every person can make a difference.

Overhauling the Machinery of Government:
Executive Reorganization

As we work to make State and local government more
responsive -- and more responsible -- let us also seek these
same goals at the Federal level. I again urge the Congress
to enact my proposals for reorganizing the executive branch
of the Federal Government. Here again, support from the
general public -- as well as from those who have served in
the executive branch under several Presidents -- has been
most encouraging. So has the success of the important
organizational reforms we have already made. These have
included a restructured Executive Office of the President --
with a new Domestic Council, a new Office of Management and
Budget, and other units; reorganized field operations in
Federal agencies; stronger mechanisms for interagency co-
ordination, such as Federal Regional Councils; a new United
States Postal Service; and new offices for such purposes as
protecting the environment, coordinating communications
policy, helping the consumer, and stimulating voluntary
service. But the centerpiece of our efforts to streamline
the executive branch still awaits approval.

How the government is put together often determines how
well the government can do its job. Our Founding Fathers
understood this fact -- and thus gave detailed attention to
the most precise structural questions. Since that time,
however, and especially in recent decades, new responsibilities
and new constituencies have caused the structure they established
to expand enormously -- and in a piecemeal and haphazard
fashion.

As a result, our Federal Government today is too often
a sluggish and unresponsive institution, unable to deliver a
dollar's worth of service for a dollar's worth of taxes.

more

15

My answer to this problem is to streamline the executive branch by reducing the overall number of executive departments and by creating four new departments in which existing responsibilities would be refocused in a coherent and comprehensive way. The rationale which I have advanced calls for organizing these new departments around the major purposes of the government -- by creating a Department of Natural Resources, a Department of Human Resources, a Department of Community Development, and a Department of Economic Affairs. I have revised my original plan so that we would not eliminate the Department of Agriculture but rather restructure that Department so it can focus more effectively on the needs of farmers.

The Congress has recently reorganized its own operations, and the Chief Justice of the United States has led a major effort to reform and restructure the judicial branch. The impulse for reorganization is strong and the need for reorganization is clear. I hope the Congress will not let this opportunity for sweeping reform of the executive branch slip away.

## A New Approach to the Delivery of Social Services

As a further step to put the machinery of government in proper working order, I will also propose new legislation to reform and rationalize the way in which social services are delivered to families and individuals.

Today it often seems that our service programs are unresponsive to the recipients' needs and wasteful of the taxpayers' money. A major reason is their extreme fragmentation. Rather than pulling many services together, our present system separates them into narrow and rigid categories. The father of a family is helped by one program, his daughter by another, and his elderly parents by a third. An individual goes to one place for nutritional help, to another for health services, and to still another for educational counseling. A community finds that it cannot transfer Federal funds from one program area to another area in which needs are more pressing.

Meanwhile, officials at all levels of government find themselves wasting enormous amounts of time, energy, and the taxpayers' money untangling Federal red tape -- time and energy and dollars which could better be spent in meeting people's needs.

We need a new approach to the delivery of social services -- one which is built around people and not around programs. We need an approach which treats a person as a whole and which treats the family as a unit. We need to break through rigid categorical walls, to open up narrow bureaucratic compartments, to consolidate and coordinate related programs in a comprehensive approach to related problems.

The Allied Services Act which will soon be submitted to the Congress offers one set of tools for carrying out that new approach in the programs of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. It would strengthen State and local planning and administrative capacities, allow for the transfer of funds among various HEW programs, and permit the waiver of certain cumbersome Federal requirements. By streamlining and simplifying the delivery of services, it would help more people

more

16

move more rapidly from public dependency toward the dignity of
being self-sufficient.

Good men and good money can be wasted on bad mechanisms.
By giving those mechanisms a thorough overhaul, we can help
to restore the confidence of the people in the capacities of
their government.

## Protecting the Environment

A central theme of both my earlier messages on the state of the Union was the state of our environment -- and the importance of making "our peace with nature." The last few years have been a time in which environmental values have become firmly embedded in our attitudes -- and in our institutions. At the Federal level, we have established a new Environmental Protection Agency, a new Council on Environmental Quality and a new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and we have proposed an entire new Department of Natural Resources. New air quality standards have been set, and there is evidence that the air in many cities is becoming less polluted. Under authority granted by the Refuse Act of 1899, we have instituted a new permit program which, for the first time, allows the Federal Government to inventory all significant industrial sources of water pollution and to specify required abatement actions. Under the Refuse Act, more than 160 civil actions and 320 criminal actions to stop water pollution have been filed against alleged polluters in the last 12 months. Major programs have also been launched to build new municipal waste treatment facilities, to stop pollution from Federal facilities, to expand our wilderness areas, and to leave a legacy of parks for future generations. Our outlays for inner city parks have been significantly expanded, and 62 Federal tracts have been transferred to the States and to local governments for recreational uses. In the coming year, I hope to transfer to local park use much more Federal land which is suitable for recreation but which is now underutilized. I trust the Congress will not delay this process.

The most striking fact about environmental legislation in the early 1970's is how much has been proposed and how little has been enacted. Of the major legislative proposals I made in my special message to the Congress on the environment last winter, 18 are still awaiting final action. They include measures to regulate pesticides and toxic substances, to control noise pollution, to restrict dumping in the oceans, in coastal waters, and in the Great Lakes, to create an effective policy for the use and development of land, to regulate the siting of power plants, to control strip mining, and to help achieve many other important environmental goals. The unfinished agenda also includes our National Resource Land Management Act, and other measures to improve environmental protection on federally owned lands.

The need for action in these areas is urgent. The forces which threaten our environment will not wait while we procrastinate. Nor can we afford to rest on last year's agenda in the environmental field. For as our understanding of these problems increases, so must our range of responses. Accordingly, I will soon be sending to the Congress another message on the environment that will present further administrative and legislative initiatives. Altogether our new budget will contain more than three times as much money for environmental programs in fiscal year 1973 as we spent in fiscal year 1969. To fall in meeting the environmental challenge, however, would be even more costly.

more

17

I urge the Congress to put aside narrow partisan perspectives that merely ask "whether" we should act to protect the environment and to focus instead on the more difficult question of "how" such action can most effectively be carried out.

## Abundant Clean Energy

In my message to the Congress on energy policy, last June, I outlined additional steps relating to the environment which also merit renewed attention. The challenge, as I defined it, is to produce a sufficient supply of energy to fuel our industrial civilization and at the same time to protect a beautiful and healthy environment. I am convinced that we can achieve both these goals, that we can respect our good earth without turning our back on progress.

In that message last June, I presented a long list of means for assuring an ample supply of clean energy -- including the liquid metal fast breeder reactor -- and I again emphasize their importance. Because it often takes several years to bring new technologies into use in the energy field, there is no time for delay. Accordingly, I am including in my new budget increased funding for the most promising of these and other clean energy programs. By acting this year, we can avoid having to choose in some future year between too little energy and too much pollution.

## Keeping People Healthy

The National Health Strategy I outlined last February is designed to achieve one of the Nation's most important goals for the 1970's, improving the quality and availability of medical care, while fighting the trend toward runaway costs. Important elements of that strategy have already been enacted. The Comprehensive Health Manpower Training Act and the Nurse Training Act, which I signed on November 18, represent the most far-reaching effort in our history to increase the supply of doctors, nurses, dentists and other health professionals and to attract them to areas which are experiencing manpower shortages. The National Cancer Act, which I signed on December 23, marked the climax of a year-long effort to step up our campaign against cancer. During the past year, our cancer research budget has been increased by $100 million and the full weight of my office has been given to our all-out war on this disease. We have also expanded the fight against sickle cell anemia by an additional $5 million.

I hope that action on these significant fronts during the first session of the 92nd Congress will now be matched by action in other areas during the second session. The Health Maintenance Organization Act, for example, is an essential tool for helping doctors deliver care more effectively and more efficiently with a greater emphasis on prevention and early treatment. By working to keep our people healthy instead of treating us only when we are sick, Health Maintenance Organizations can do a great deal to help us reduce medical costs.

Our National Health Insurance Partnership legislation is also essential to assure that no American is denied basic medical care because of inability to pay. Too often, present health insurance leaves critical outpatient services uncovered, distorting the way in which facilities are used. It also fails to protect adequately against catastrophic costs and to provide sufficient assistance for the poor. The answer I have suggested is a comprehensive national plan -- not one that nationalizes our private health insurance industry but one that corrects the weaknesses in that system while building on its considerable strengths.

more

A large part of the enormous increase in the Nation's expenditures on health in recent years has gone not to additional services but merely to meet price inflation. Our efforts to balance the growing demand for care with an increased supply of services will help to change this picture. So will that part of our economic program which is designed to control medical costs. I am confident that with the continued cooperation of those who provide health services, we will succeed on this most important battlefront in our war against inflation.

Our program for the next year will also include further funding increases for health research -- including substantial new sums for cancer and sickle cell anemia -- as well as further increases for medical schools and for meeting special problems such as drug addiction and alcoholism. We also plan to construct new veterans hospitals and expand the staffs at existing ones.

In addition, we will be giving increased attention to the fight against diseases of the heart, blood vessels and lungs, which presently account for more than half of all the deaths in this country. It is deeply disturbing to realize that, largely because of heart disease, the mortality rate for men under the age of 55 is about twice as great in the United States as it is, for example, in some Scandinavian countries.

I will shortly assign a panel of distinguished experts to help us determine why heart disease is so prevalent and so menacing and what we can do about it. I will also recommend an expanded budget for the National Heart and Lung Institute. The young father struck down by a heart attack in the prime of life, the productive citizen crippled by a stroke, an older person tortured by breathing difficulties during his later years -- these are tragedies which can be reduced in number and we must do all that is possible to reduce them.

## Nutrition

One of the critical areas in which we have worked to advance the health of the Nation is that of combating hunger and improving nutrition. With the increases in our new budget, expenditures on our food stamp program will have increased ninefold since 1969, to the $2.3 billion level. Spending on school lunches for needy children will have increased more than sevenfold, from $107 million in 1969 to $770 million in 1973. Because of new regulations which will be implemented in the year ahead, we will be able to increase further both the equity of our food stamp program and the adequacy of its benefits.

## Coping with Accidents -- and Preventing Them

Last year, more than 115,000 Americans lost their lives in accidents. Four hundred thousand more were permanently disabled and 10 million were temporarily disabled. The loss to our economy from accidents last year is estimated at over $28 billion. These are sad and staggering figures -- especially since this toll could be greatly reduced by upgrading our emergency medical services. Such improvement does not even require new scientific breakthroughs; it only requires that we apply our present knowledge more effectively.

more

19

To help in this effort, I am directing the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to develop new ways of organizing emergency medical services and of providing care to accident victims. By improving communication, transportation, and the training of emergency personnel, we can save many thousands of lives which would otherwise be lost to accidents and sudden illnesses.

One of the significant joint accomplishments of the Congress and this administration has been a vigorous new program to protect against job-related accidents and illnesses. Our occupational health and safety program will be further strengthened in the year ahead -- as will our ongoing efforts to promote air traffic safety, boating safety, and safety on the highways.

In the last 3 years, the motor vehicle death rate has fallen by 13 percent, but we still lose some 50,000 lives on our highways *each year* -- more than we *have lost* in combat in the entire *Vietnam war*.

Fully one-half of these deaths were directly linked to alcohol. This appalling reality is a blight on our entire Nation -- and only the active concern of the entire Nation can remove it. The Federal Government will continue to help all it can, through its efforts to promote highway safety and automobile safety, and through stronger programs to help the problem drinker.

## Yesterday's Goals: Tomorrow's Accomplishments

Welfare reform, revenue sharing, executive reorganization, environmental protection, and the new national health strategy -- these, along with economic improvement, constituted the six great goals I emphasized in my last State of the Union address -- six major components of a New American Revolution. They remain six areas of great concern today. With the co-operation of the Congress, they can be six areas of great accomplishment tomorrow.

But the challenges we face cannot be reduced to six categories. Our problems -- and our opportunities -- are manifold, and action on many fronts is required. It is partly for this reason that my State of the Union address this year includes this written message to the Congress. For it gives me the chance to discuss more fully a number of programs which also belong on our list of highest priorities.

## Action for the Aging

Last month, I joined with thousands of delegates to the White House Conference on Aging in a personal commitment to make 1972 a year of action on behalf of 21 million older Americans. Today I call on the Congress to join me in that pledge. For unless the American dream comes true for our older generation it cannot be complete for any generation.

We can begin to make this a year of action for the aging by acting on a number of proposals which have been pending

more

20

since 1969. For older Americans, the most significant of
these is the bill designated H.R. 1. This legislation, which
also contains our general welfare reform measures, would
place a national floor under the income of all older Americans,
guarantee inflation-proof social security benefits, allow
social security recipients to earn more from their own work,
increase benefits for widows, and provide a 5-percent across-
the-board increase in social security. Altogether, H.R. 1 --
as it now stands -- would mean some $5.5 billion in increased
benefits for America's older citizens. I hope the Congress
will also take this opportunity to eliminate the $5.80 monthly
fee now charged under Part B of Medicare -- a step which would
add an additional $1.5 billion to the income of the elderly.
These additions would come on top of earlier social security
increases totalling some $3 billion over the last 3 years.

A number of newer proposals also deserve approval. I am
requesting that the budget of the Administration on Aging be
increased five-fold over last year's request, to $100 million,
in part so that we can expand programs which help older citizens
live dignified lives in their own homes. I am recommending sub-
stantially larger budgets for those programs which give older
Americans a better chance to serve their countrymen -- Retired
Senior Volunteers, Foster Grandparents, and others. And we will
also work to ease the burden of property taxes which so many
older Americans find so inequitable and so burdensome. Other
initiatives, including proposals for extending and improving
the Older Americans Act, will be presented as we review the
recommendations of the White House Conference on Aging. Our
new Cabinet-level Domestic Council Committee on Aging has these
recommendations at the top of its agenda.

We will also be following up in 1972 on one of the
most important of our 1971 initiatives -- the crackdown
on substandard nursing homes. Our follow-through will
give special attention to providing alternative arrange-
ments for those who are victimized by such facilities.

The legislation I have submitted to provide
greater financial security at retirement, both for
those now covered by private pension plans and those
who are not, also merits prompt action by the Congress.
Only half the country's work force is now covered by
tax deductible private pensions; the other half deserve
a tax deduction for their retirement savings too. Those
who are now covered by pension plans deserve the assur-
ance that their plans are administered under strict
fiduciary standards with full disclosure. And they
should also have the security provided by prompt
vesting -- the assurance that even if one leaves a
given job, he can still receive the pension he earned
there when he retires. The legislation I have proposed
would achieve these goals, and would also raise the
limit on deductible pension savings for the self-
employed.

The state of our Union is strong today because of
what older Americans have so long been giving to their
country. The state of our Union will be stronger
tomorrow if we recognize how much they still can con-
tribute. The best thing our country can give to its
older citizens is the chance to be a part of it, the
chance to play a continuing role in the great American
adventure.

more

21

Equal Opportunity for Minorities

America cannot be at its best as it approaches its 200th birthday unless all Americans have the opportunity to be at their best. A free and open American society, one that is true to the ideals of its founders, must give each of its citizens an equal chance at the starting line and an equal opportunity to go as far and as high as his talents and energies will take him.

The Nation can be proud of the progress it has made in assuring equal opportunity for members of minority groups in recent years. There are many measures of our progress.

Since 1969, we have virtually eliminated the dual school system in the South. Three years ago, 68 percent of all black children in the South were attending all black schools; today only 9 percent are attending schools which are entirely black. Nationally, the number of 100 percent minority schools has decreased by 70 percent during the past 3 years. To further expand educational opportunity, my proposed budget for predominantly black colleges will exceed $200 million next year, more than double the level of 3 years ago.

On the economic front, overall Federal aid to minority business enterprise has increased threefold in the last 3 years, and I will propose a further increase of $90 million. Federal hiring among minorities has been intensified, despite cutbacks in Federal employment, so that one-fifth of all Federal employees are now members of minority groups. Building on strong efforts such as the Philadelphia Plan, we will work harder to ensure that Federal contractors meet fair hiring standards. Compliance reviews will be stepped up, to a level more than 300 percent higher than in 1969. Our proposed budget for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will be up 36 percent next year, while our proposed budget for enforcing fair housing laws will grow by 20 percent. I also support legislation to strengthen the enforcement powers of the EEOC by providing the Commission with authority to seek court enforcement of its decisions and by giving it jurisdiction over the hiring practices of State and local governments.

Overall, our proposed budget for civil rights activities is up 25 percent for next year, an increase which will give us nearly three times as much money for advancing civil rights as we had 3 years ago. We also plan a 42 percent increase in the budget for the Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for the Spanish Speaking. And I will propose that the Congress extend the operations of the Civil Rights Commission for another 5-year period.

Self-Determination for Indians

One of the major initiatives in the second year of my Presidency was designed to bring a new era in which the future for American Indians is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions. The comprehensive program I put forward sought to avoid the twin dangers of paternalism on the one hand and the termination of trust responsibility on the other. Some parts of this program have now become effective, including a generous settlement of the Alaska Native Claims and the return to the Taos Pueblo Indians of the sacred lands around Blue Lake. Construction grants have been authorized to assist the Navajo Community College, the first Indian-managed institution of higher education.

more

22

We are also making progress toward Indian self-determination on the administrative front. A newly reorganized Bureau of Indian Affairs, with almost all-Indian leadership, will from now on be concentrating its resources on a program of reservation-by-reservation development, including redirection of employment assistance to strengthen reservation economies, creating local Indian Action Teams for manpower training, and increased contracting of education and other functions to Indian communities.

I again urge the Congress to join in helping Indians help themselves in fields such as health, education, the protection of land and water rights, and economic development. We have talked about injustice to the first Americans long enough. As Indian leaders themselves have put it, the time has come for more rain and less thunder.

## Equal Rights for Women

This administration will also continue its strong efforts to open equal opportunities for women, recognizing clearly that women are often denied such opportunities today. While every woman may not want a career outside the home, every woman should have the freedom to choose whatever career she wishes -- and an equal chance to pursue it.

We have already moved vigorously against job discrimination based on sex in both the private and public sectors. For the first time, guidelines have been issued to require that Government contractors in the private sector have action plans for the hiring and promotion of women. We are committed to strong enforcement of equal employment opportunity for women under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. To help carry out these commitments I will propose to the Congress that the jurisdiction of the Commission on Civil Rights be broadened to encompass sex-based discrimination.

Within the Government, more women have been appointed to high posts than ever before. As the result of my directives issued in April 1971 the number of women appointed to high-level Federal positions has more than doubled -- and the number of women in Federal middle management positions has also increased dramatically. More women than ever before have been appointed to Presidential boards and commissions. Our vigorous program to recruit more women for Federal service will be continued and intensified in the coming year.

## Opportunity for Veterans

A grateful nation owes its servicemen and servicewomen every opportunity it can open to them when they return to civilian life. The Nation may be weary of war, but we dare not grow weary of doing right by those who have borne its heaviest burdens.

The Federal Government is carrying out this responsibility in many ways: through the G.I. Bill for education -- which will spend 2-1/2 times more in 1973 than in 1969; through home loan programs and disability and pension benefits -- which also have been expanded; through better medical services -- including strong new drug treatment programs; through its budget for veterans hospitals, which is already many times the 1969 level and will be stepped up further next year.

more

23

We have been particularly concerned in the last 3 years with the employment of veterans -- who experience higher unemployment rates than those who have not served in the Armed Forces. During this past year I announced a six-point national program to increase public awareness of this problem, to provide training and counseling to veterans seeking jobs and to help them find employment opportunities. Under the direction of the Secretary of Labor and with the help of our Jobs for Veterans Committee and the National Alliance of Businessmen, this program has been moving forward. During its first five months of operation, 122,000 Vietnam-era veterans were placed in jobs by the Federal-State Employment Service and 40,000 were enrolled in job training programs. During the next six months, we expect the Federal-State Employment Service to place some 200,000 additional veterans in jobs and to enroll nearly 200,000 more in manpower training programs.

But let us never forget, in this as in so many other areas, that the opportunity for any individual to contribute fully to his society depends in the final analysis on the response -- in his own community -- of other individuals.

## Greater Role for American Youth

Full participation and first class citizenship -- these must be our goals for America's young people. It was to help achieve these goals that I signed legislation to lower the minimum voting age to 18 in June of 1970, and moved to secure a court validation of its constitutionality. And I took special pleasure a year later in witnessing the certification of the amendment which placed this franchise guarantee in the Constitution.

But a voice at election time alone is not enough. Young people should have a hearing in government on a day-by-day basis. To this end, and at my direction, agencies throughout the Federal Government have stepped up their hiring of young people and have opened new youth advisory channels. We have also convened the first White House Youth Conference -- a wide-open forum whose recommendations have been receiving a thorough review by the Executive departments.

Several other reforms also mean greater freedom and opportunity for America's young people. Draft calls have been substantially reduced, as a step toward our target of reducing them to zero by mid-1973. Already the lottery system and other new procedures, and the contributions of youth advisory councils and younger members on local boards have made the draft far more fair than it was. My educational reform proposals embody the principle that no qualified student who wants to go to college should be barred by lack of money -- a guarantee that would open doors of opportunity for many thousands of deserving young people. Our new career education emphasis can also be a significant springboard to good jobs and rewarding lives.

Young America's "extra dimension" in the sixties and seventies has been a drive to help the less fortunate -- an activist idealism bent on making the world a better place to live. Our new ACTION volunteer agency, building on the successful experiences of constituent units such as the Peace Corps and Vista, has already broadened service opportunities for the young -- and more new programs are in prospect. The Congress can do its part in forwarding this positive momentum by assuring that the ACTION programs have sufficient funds to carry out their mission.

more

24

The American Farmer

As we face the challenge of competing more effectively
abroad and of producing more efficiently at home, our entire
Nation can take the American farmer as its model. While the
productivity of our non-farm industries has gone up 60 percent
during the last 20 years, agricultural productivity has gone
up 200 percent, or nearly 3-1/2 times as much. One result
has been better products and lower prices for American
consumers. Another is that farmers have more than held
their own in international markets. Figures for the last
fiscal year show nearly a $900 million surplus for commercial
agricultural trade.

The strength of American agriculture is at the heart of
the strength of America. American farmers deserve a fair
share in the fruits of our prosperity.

We still have much ground to cover before we arrive at
that goal -- but we have been moving steadily toward it. In
1950 the income of the average farmer was only 58 percent of
that of his non-farm counterpart. Today that figure stands
at 74 percent -- not nearly high enough, but moving in the
right direction.

Gross farm income reached a record high in 1971, and
for 1972 a further increase of $2 billion is predicted.
Because of restraints on production costs, net farm income
is expected to rise in 1972 by 6.4 percent or some $1 billion.
Average income per farm is expected to go up 8 percent -- to
an all-time high -- in the next 12 months.

Still there are very serious farm problems -- and we
are taking strong action to meet them.

I promised 3 years ago to end the sharp skid in farm
exports -- and I have kept that promise. In just 2 years,
farm exports climbed by 37 percent, and last year they set
an all-time record. Our expanded marketing programs, the
agreement to sell 2 million tons of feed grains to the Soviet
Union, our massive aid to South Asia under Public Law 480,
and our efforts to halt transportation strikes -- by doing
all we can under the old law and by proposing a new and
better one -- these efforts and others are moving us toward
our $10 billion farm export goal.

I have also promised to expand domestic markets, to
improve the management of surpluses, and to help in other
ways to raise the prices received by farmers. I have kept
that promise, too. A surprisingly large harvest drove corn
prices down last year, but they have risen sharply since last
November. Prices received by dairy farmers, at the highest
level in history last year, will continue strong in 1972.
Soybean prices will be at their highest level in two decades.
Prices received by farmers for hogs, poultry and eggs are
all expected to go higher. Expanded Government purchases
and other assistance will also provide a greater boost to
farm income.

With the close cooperation of the Congress, we have
expanded the farmers' freedom and flexibility through the
Agricultural Act of 1970. We have strengthened the Farm

more

25

Credit System and substantially increased the availability of farm credit. Programs for controlling plant and animal disease and for soil and water conservation have also been expanded. All these efforts will continue, as will our efforts to improve the legal climate for cooperative bargaining -- an important factor in protecting the vitality of the family farm and in resisting excessive government management.

## Developing Rural America

In my address to the Congress at this time 2 years ago, I spoke of the fact that one-third of our counties had lost population in the 1960's, that many of our rural areas were slowly being emptied of their people and their promise, and that we should work to reverse this picture by including rural America in a nationwide program to foster balanced growth.

It is striking to realize that even if we had a population of one billion -- nearly five times the current level -- our area is so great that we would still not be as densely populated as many European nations are at present. Clearly, our problems are not so much those of numbers as they are of distribution. We must work to revitalize the American countryside.

We have begun to make progress on this front in the last 3 years. Rural housing programs have been increased by more than 450 percent from 1969 to 1973. The number of families benefiting from rural water and sewer programs is now 75 percent greater than it was in 1969. We have worked to encourage sensible growth patterns through the location of Federal facilities. The first biennial Report on National Growth, which will be released in the near future, will further describe these patterns, their policy implications and the many ways we are responding to this challenge.

But we must do more. The Congress can begin by passing my $1.1 billion program of Special Revenue Sharing for Rural Community Development. In addition, I will soon present a major proposal to expand significantly the credit authorities of the Farmers Home Administration, so that this agency -- which has done so much to help individual farmers -- can also help spur commercial, industrial and community development in rural America. Hopefully, the FHA will be able to undertake this work as a part of a new Department of Community Development.

In all these ways, we can help ensure that rural America will be in the years ahead what it has been from our Nation's beginning -- an area which looks eagerly to the future with a sense of hope and promise.

## A Commitment to Our Cities

Our commitment to balanced growth also requires a commitment to our cities -- to old cities threatened by decay, to suburbs now sprawling senselessly because of inadequate planning, and to new cities not yet born but clearly needed by our growing population. I discussed these challenges in my special message to the Congress on Population Growth and the American Future in the summer of 1969 -- and I have often discussed them since. My recommendations for transportation, education, health, welfare, revenue sharing, planning and management assistance, executive reorganization, the environment -- especially the proposed Land Use Policy Act -- and my proposals in many other areas touch directly on community development.

more

26

One of the keys to better cities is better coordination of these many components. Two of my pending proposals go straight to the heart of this challenge. The first, a new Department of Community Development, would provide a single point of focus for our strategy for growth. The second, Special Revenue Sharing for Urban Community Development, would remove the rigidities of categorical project grants which now do so much to fragment planning, delay action, and discourage local responsibility. My new budget proposes a $300 million increase over the full year level which we proposed for this program a year ago.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has been working to foster orderly growth in our cities in a number of additional ways. A Planned Variation concept has been introduced into the Model Cities program which gives localities more control over their own future. HUD's own programs have been considerably decentralized. The New Communities Program has moved forward and seven projects have received final approval. The Department's efforts to expand mortgage capital, to more than double the level of subsidized housing, and to encourage new and more efficient building techniques through programs like Operation Breakthrough have all contributed to our record level of housing starts. Still more can be done if the Congress enacts the administration's Housing Consolidation and Simplification Act, proposed in 1970.

The Federal Government is only one of many influences on development patterns across our land. Nevertheless, its influence is considerable. We must do all we can to see that its influence is good.

## Improving Transportation

Although the executive branch and the Congress have been led by different parties during the last 3 years, we have cooperated with particular effectiveness in the field of transportation. Together we have shaped the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970 -- a 12-year, $10 billion effort to expand and improve our common carriers and thus make our cities more livable. We have brought into effect a 10-year, $3 billion ship construction program as well as increased research efforts and a modified program of operating subsidies to revamp our merchant marine. We have accelerated efforts to improve air travel under the new Airport and Airway Trust Fund and have been working in fresh ways to save and improve our railway passenger service. Great progress has also been made in promoting transportation safety and we have moved effectively against cargo thefts and skyjacking.

I hope this strong record will be even stronger by the time the 92nd Congress adjourns. I hope that our Special Revenue Sharing program for transportation will by then be a reality -- so that cities and States can make better long-range plans with greater freedom to achieve their own proper balance among the many modes of transportation. I hope, too, that our recommendations for revitalizing surface freight transportation will by then be accepted, including measures both to modernize railway equipment and operations and to update regulatory practices. By encouraging competition, flexibility and efficiency among freight carriers, these steps could save the American people billions of dollars in freight costs every year, helping to curb inflation, expand employment and improve our balance of trade.

more

27

One of our most damaging and perplexing economic problems is that of massive and prolonged transportation strikes. There is no reason why the public should be the helpless victim of such strikes -- but this is frequently what happens. The dock strike, for example, has been extremely costly for the American people, particularly for the farmer for whom a whole year's income can hinge on how promptly he can move his goods. Last year's railroad strike also dealt a severe blow to our economy.

Both of these emergencies could have been met far more effectively if the Congress had enacted my Emergency Public Interest Protection Act, which I proposed in February of 1970. By passing this legislation in this session, the Congress can give us the permanent machinery so badly needed for resolving future disputes.

Historically, our transportation systems have provided the cutting edge for our development. Now, to keep our country from falling behind the times, we must keep well ahead of events in our transportation planning. This is why we are placing more emphasis and spending more money this year on transportation research and development. For this reason, too, I will propose a 65 percent increase -- to the $1 billion level -- in our budget for mass transportation. Highway building has been our first priority -- and our greatest success story -- in the past two decades. Now we must write a similar success story for mass transportation in the 1970's.

## Peace at Home: Fighting Crime

Our quest for peace abroad over the last 3 years has been accompanied by an intensive quest for peace at home. And our success in stabilizing developments on the international scene has been matched by a growing sense of stability in America. Civil disorders no longer engulf our cities. Colleges and universities have again become places of learning. And while crime is still increasing, the rate of increase has slowed to a 5-year low. In the one city for which the Federal Government has a special responsibility -- Washington, D.C. -- the picture is even brighter, for here serious crime actually fell by 13 percent in the last year. Washington was one of 52 major cities which recorded a net reduction in crime in the first nine months of 1971, compared to 23 major cities which made comparable progress a year earlier.

This encouraging beginning is not something that has just happened by itself -- I believe it results directly from strong new crime fighting efforts by this administration, by the Congress, and by State and local governments.

Federal expenditures on crime have increased 200 percent since 1969 and we are proposing another 18 percent increase in our new budget. The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, the District of Columbia Court Reform Act, and the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970 have all provided new instruments for this important battle. So has our effort to expand the Federal strike force program as a weapon against organized crime. Late last year, we held the first National Conference on Corrections -- and we will continue to move forward in this most critical field. I will also propose legislation to improve our juvenile delinquency prevention programs. And I again urge action on my Special Revenue Sharing proposal for law enforcement.

more

28

By continuing our stepped-up assistance to local law enforcement authorities through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, by continuing to press for improved courts and correctional institutions, by continuing our intensified war on drug abuse, and by continuing to give vigorous support to the principles of order and respect for law, I believe that what has been achieved in the Nation's capital can be achieved in a growing number of other communities throughout the Nation.

## Combating Drug Abuse

A problem of modern life which is of deepest concern to most Americans -- and of particular anguish to many -- is that of drug abuse. For increasing dependence on drugs will surely sap our Nation's strength and destroy our Nation's character.

Meeting this challenge is not a task for government alone. I have been heartened by the efforts of millions of individual Americans from all walks of life who are trying to communicate across the barriers created by drug use, to reach out with compassion to those who have become drug dependent. The Federal Government will continue to lead in this effort. The last 3 years have seen an increase of nearly 600 percent in Federal expenditures for treatment and rehabilitation and an increase of more than 500 percent in program levels for research, education and training. I will propose further substantial increases for these programs in the coming year.

In order to develop a national strategy for this effort and to coordinate activities which are spread through nine Federal agencies, I asked Congress last June to create a Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. I also established an interim Office by Executive order, and that unit is beginning to have an impact. But now we must have both the legislative authority and the funds I requested if this Office is to move ahead with its critical mission.

On another front, the United States will continue to press for a strong collective effort by nations throughout the world to eliminate drugs at their source. And we will intensify the world-wide attack on drug smugglers and all who protect them. The Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control -- which I created last September -- is coordinating our diplomatic and law enforcement efforts in this area.

We will also step up our program to curb illicit drug traffic at our borders and within our country. Over the last 3 years Federal expenditures for this work have more than doubled, and I will propose a further funding increase next year. In addition, I will soon initiate a major new program to drive drug traffickers and pushers off the streets of America. This program will be built around a nationwide network of investigative and prosecutive units, utilizing special grand juries established under the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, to assist State and local agencies in detecting, arresting, and convicting those who would profit from the misery of others.

more

[Lc]

29

# Strengthening Consumer Protection

Our plans for 1972 include further steps to protect consumers against hazardous food and drugs and other dangerous products. These efforts will carry forward the campaign I launched in 1969 to establish a "Buyer's Bill of Rights" and to strengthen consumer protection. As a part of that campaign, we have established a new Office of Consumer Affairs, directed by my Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs, to give consumers greater access to government, to promote consumer education, to encourage voluntary efforts by business, to work with State and local governments, and to help the Federal Government improve its consumer-related activities. We have also established a new Consumer Product Information Coordinating Center in the General Services Administration to help us share a wider range of Federal research and buying expertise with the public.

But many of our plans in this field still await Congressional action, including measures to insure product safety, to fight consumer fraud, to require full disclosure in warranties and guarantees, and to protect against unsafe medical devices.

## Reforming and Renewing Education

It was nearly 2 years ago, in March of 1970, that I presented my major proposals for reform and renewal in education. These proposals included student assistance measures to ensure that no qualified person would be barred from college by a lack of money, a National Institute of Education to bring new energy and new direction to educational research, and a National Foundation for Higher Education to encourage innovation in learning beyond high school. These initiatives are still awaiting final action by the Congress. They deserve prompt approval.

I would also underscore my continuing confidence that Special Revenue Sharing for Education can do much to strengthen the backbone of our educational system, our public elementary and secondary schools. Special Revenue Sharing recognizes the Nation's interest in their improvement without compromising the principle of local control. I also call again for the enactment of my $1.5 billion program of Emergency School Aid to help local school districts desegregate wisely and well. This program has twice been approved by the House and once by the Senate in different versions. I hope the Senate will now send the legislation promptly to the conference committee so that an agreement can be reached on this important measure at an early date.

This bill is designed to help local school districts with the problems incident to desegregation. We must have an end to the dual school system, as conscience and the Constitution both require -- and we must also have good schools. In this connection, I repeat my own firm belief that educational quality -- so vital to the future of all of our children -- is not enhanced by unnecessary busing for the sole purpose of achieving an arbitrary racial balance.

more

30

Financing Our Schools

I particularly hope that 1972 will be a year in which we resolve one of the most critical questions we face in education today: how best to finance our schools.

In recent years the growing scope and rising costs of education have so overburdened local revenues that financial crisis has become a way of life in many school districts. As a result, neither the benefits nor the burdens of education have been equitably distributed.

The brunt of the growing pressures has fallen on the property tax -- one of the most inequitable and regressive of all public levies. Property taxes in the United States represent a higher proportion of public income than in almost any other nation. They have more than doubled in the last decade and have been particularly burdensome for our lower and middle income families and for older Americans.

These intolerable pressures -- on the property tax and on our schools -- led me to establish the President's Commission on School Finance in March of 1970. I charged this Commission with the responsibility to review comprehensively both the revenue needs and the revenue resources of public and non-public elementary and secondary education. The Commission will make its final report to me in March.

At the same time, the Domestic Council -- and particularly the Secretaries of the Treasury and of Health, Education, and Welfare -- have also been studying this difficult and tangled problem. The entire question has been given even greater urgency by recent court decisions in California, Minnesota, and Texas, which have held the conventional method of financing schools through local property taxes discriminatory and unconstitutional. Similar court actions are pending in more than half of our States. While these cases have not yet been reviewed by the Supreme Court, we cannot ignore the serious questions they have raised for our States, for our local school districts, and for the entire Nation.

The overhaul of school finance involves two complex and interrelated sets of problems: those concerning support of the schools themselves, and also the basic relationships of Federal, State and local governments in any program of tax reform.

We have been developing a set of comprehensive proposals to deal with these questions. Under the leadership of the Secretary of the Treasury, we are carefully reviewing the tax aspects of these proposals; and I have this week enlisted the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in addressing the intergovernmental relations aspects. Members of the Congress and of the executive branch, Governors, State legislators, local officials and private citizens comprise this group.

Later in the year, after I have received the reports of both the President's Commission on School Finance and the more

31

Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, I shall make my final recommendations for relieving the burden of property taxes and providing both fair and adequate financing for our children's education -- consistent with the principle of preserving the control by local school boards over local schools.

## A New Emphasis on Career Education

Career Education is another area of major new emphasis, an emphasis which grows out of my belief that our schools should be doing more to build self-reliance and self-sufficiency, to prepare students for a productive and fulfilling life. Too often, this has not been happening. Too many of our students, from all income groups, have been "turning off" or "tuning out" on their educational experiences. And -- whether they drop out of school or proceed on to college -- too many young people find themselves unmotivated and ill equipped for a rewarding social role. Many other Americans, who have already entered the world of work, find that they are dissatisfied with their jobs but feel that it is too late to change directions, that they already are "locked in."

One reason for this situation is the inflexibility of our educational system, including the fact that it so rigidly separates academic and vocational curricula. Too often vocational education is foolishly stigmatized as being less desirable than academic preparation. And too often the academic curriculum offers very little preparation for viable careers. Most students are unable to combine the most valuable features of both vocational and academic education; once they have chosen one curriculum, it is difficult to move to the other.

The present approach serves the best interests of neither our students nor our society. The unhappy result is high numbers of able people who are unemployed, under-employed, or unhappily employed on the one hand -- while many challenging jobs go begging on the other.

We need a new approach, and I believe the best new approach is to strengthen Career Education.

Career Education provides people of all ages with broader exposure to and better preparation for the world of work. It not only helps the young, but also provides adults with an opportunity to adapt their skills to changing needs, changing technology, and their own changing interests. It would not prematurely force an individual into a specific area of work but would expand his ability to choose wisely from a wider range of options. Neither would it result in a slighting of academic preparation, which would remain a central part of the educational blend.

Career Education is not a single specific program. It is more usefully thought of as a goal -- and one that we can pursue through many methods. What we need today is a nationwide search for such methods -- a search which involves every area of education and every level of government. To help spark this venture, I will propose an intensified Federal effort to develop model programs which apply and test the best ideas in this field.

more

32

There is no more disconcerting waste than the waste of human potential. And there is no better investment than an investment in human fulfillment. Career Education can help make education and training more meaningful for the student, more rewarding for the teacher, more available to the adult, more relevant for the disadvantaged, and more productive for our country.

Manpower Programs: Tapping our Full Potential

Our trillion dollar economy rests in the final analysis on our 88 million member labor force. How well that force is used today, how well that force is prepared for tomorrow -- these are central questions for our country.

They are particularly important questions in a time of stiff economic challenge and burgeoning economic opportunity. At such a time, we must find better ways to tap the full potential of every citizen.

This means doing all we can to open new education and employment opportunities for members of minority groups. It means a stronger effort to help the veteran find useful and satisfying work and to tap the enormous talents of the elderly. It means helping women -- in whatever role they choose -- to realize their full potential. It also means caring for the unemployed -- sustaining them, retraining them and helping them find new employment.

This administration has grappled directly with these assignments. We began by completely revamping the Manpower Administration in the Department of Labor. We have expanded our manpower programs to record levels. We proposed -- and the Congress enacted -- a massive reform of unemployment insurance, adding 9 million workers to the system and expanding the size and duration of benefits. We instituted a Job Bank to match jobs with available workers. The efforts of the National Alliance of Businessmen to train and hire the hard-core unemployed were given a new nationwide focus. That organization has also joined with our Jobs for Veterans program in finding employment for returning servicemen. We have worked to open more jobs for women. Through the Philadelphia Plan and other actions, we have expanded equal opportunity in employment for members of minority groups. Summer jobs for disadvantaged youths went up by one-third last summer. And on July 12 of last year I signed the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, providing more than 130,000 jobs in the public sector.

In the manpower field, as in others, there is also an important unfinished agenda. At the top of this list is my Special Revenue Sharing program for manpower -- a bill which would provide more Federal dollars for manpower training while increasing substantially the impact of each dollar by allowing States and cities to tailor training to local labor conditions. My welfare reform proposals are also pertinent in this context, since they are built around the goal of moving people from welfare rolls to payrolls. To help in this effort, H.R. 1 would provide transitional opportunities in community service employment for another 200,000 persons. The Career Education program can also have an important long-range influence on the way we use our manpower. And so can a major new thrust which I am announcing today to stimulate more imaginative use of America's great strength in science and technology.

more

33

Marshalling Science and Technology

As we work to build a more productive, more competitive, more prosperous America, we will do well to remember the keys to our progress in the past. There have been many, including the competitive nature of our free enterprise system; the energy of our working men and women; and the abundant gifts of nature. One other quality which has always been a key to progress is our special bent for technology, our singular ability to harness the discoveries of science in the service of man.

At least from the time of Benjamin Franklin, American ingenuity has enjoyed a wide international reputation. We have been known as a people who could "build a better mousetrap" -- and this capacity has been one important reason for both our domestic prosperity and our international strength.

In recent years, America has focused a large share of its technological energy on projects for defense and for space. These projects have had great value. Defense technology has helped us preserve our freedom and protect the peace. Space technology has enabled us to share unparalleled adventures and to lift our sights beyond earth's bounds. The daily life of the average man has also been improved by much of our defense and space research -- for example, by work on radar, jet engines, nuclear reactors, communications and weather satellites, and computers. Defense and space projects have also enabled us to build and maintain our general technological capacity, which -- as a result -- can now be more readily applied to civilian purposes.

America must continue with strong and sensible programs of research and development for defense and for space. I have felt for some time, however, that we should also be doing more to apply our scientific and technological genius directly to domestic opportunities. Toward this end, I have already increased our civilian research and development budget by more than 40 percent since 1969 and have directed the National Science Foundation to give more attention to this area.

I have also reoriented our space program so that it will have even greater domestic benefits. As a part of this effort, I recently announced support for the development of a new earth orbital vehicle that promises to introduce a new era in space research. This vehicle, the space shuttle, is one that can be recovered and used again and again, lowering significantly both the cost and the risk of space operations. The space shuttle would also open new opportunities in fields such as weather forecasting, domestic and international communications, the monitoring of natural resources, and air traffic safety.

The space shuttle is a wise national investment. I urge the Congress to approve this plan so that we can realize these substantial economies and these substantial benefits.

more

[L]

34

Over the last several months, this administration has undertaken a major review of both the problems and the opportunities for American technology. Leading scientists and researchers from our universities and from industry have contributed to this study. One important conclusion we have reached is that much more needs to be known about the process of stimulating and applying research and development. In some cases, for example, the barriers to progress are financial. In others they are technical. In still other instances, customs, habits, laws, and regulations are the chief obstacles. We need to learn more about all these considerations -- and we intend to do so. One immediate step in this effort will be the White House Conference on the Industrial World Ahead which will convene next month and will devote considerable attention to research and development questions.

But while our knowledge in this field is still modest, there are nevertheless a number of important new steps which we can take at this time. I will soon present specific recommendations for such steps in a special message to the Congress. Among these proposals will be an increase next year of $700 million in civilian research and development spending, a 15 percent increase over last year's level and a 65 percent increase over 1969. We will place new emphasis on cooperation with private research and development, including new experimental programs for cost sharing and for technology transfers from the public to the private sector. Our program will include special incentives for smaller high technology firms, which have an excellent record of cost effectiveness.

In addition, our Federal agencies which are highly oriented toward technology -- such as the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration -- will work more closely with agencies which have a primary social mission. For example, our outstanding capabilities in space technology should be used to help the Department of Transportation develop better mass transportation systems. As has been said so often in the last 2 years, a nation that can send three people across 240,000 miles of space to the moon should also be able to send 240,000 people 3 miles across a city to work.

Finally, we will seek to set clear and intelligent targets for research and development, so that our resources can be focused on projects where an extra effort is most likely to produce a breakthrough and where the breakthrough is most likely to make a difference in our lives. Our initial efforts will include new or accelerated activities aimed at:

- creating new sources of clean and abundant energy;

- developing safe, fast, pollution-free transportation;

- reducing the loss of life and property from earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters;

- developing effective emergency health care systems which could lead to the saving of as many as 30,000 lives each year;

- finding new ways to curb drug traffic and rehabilitate drug users.

And these are only the beginning.

I cannot predict exactly where each of these new thrusts will eventually lead us in the years ahead. But I can say with

more

assurance that the program I have outlined will open new
employment opportunities for American workers, increase
the productivity of the American economy, and expand
foreign markets for American goods. I can also predict
with confidence that this program will enhance our standard
of living and improve the quality of our lives.

Science and technology represent an enormous power in
our life -- and a unique opportunity. It is now for us to
decide whether we will waste these magnificent energies --
or whether we will use them to create a better world for
ourselves and for our children.

A Growing Agenda for Action

The danger in presenting any substantial statement of
concerns and requests is that any subject which is omitted
from the list may for that reason be regarded as unimportant.
I hope the Congress will vigorously resist any such sug-
gestions, for there are many other important proposals before
the House and the Senate which also deserve attention and
enactment.

I think, for example, of our program for the District of
Columbia. In addition to proposals already before the
Congress, I will soon submit additional legislation outlining
a special balanced program of physical and social development
for the Nation's capital as part of our Bicentennial celebra-
tion. In this and other ways, we can make that celebration
both a fitting commemoration of our revolutionary origins
and a bold further step to fulfill their promise.

I think, too, of our program to help small businessmen,
of our proposals concerning communications, of our recom-
mendations involving the construction of public buildings,
and of our program for the arts and humanities -- where the
proposed new budget is 6 times the level of 3 years ago.

In all, some 90 pieces of major legislation which I
have recommended to the Congress still await action. And
that list is growing longer. It is now for the Congress
to decide whether this agenda represents the beginning of
new progress for America -- or simply another false start.

The Need for Reason and Realism

I have covered many subjects in this message. Clearly,
our challenges are many and complex. But that is the way
things must be for responsible government in our diverse
and complicated world.

We can choose, of course, to retreat from this world,
pretending that our problems can be solved merely by trust-
ing in a new philosophy, a single personality, or a simple
formula. But such a retreat can only add to our difficulties
and our disillusion.

If we are to be equal to the complexity of our times
we must learn to move on many fronts and to keep many com-
mitments. We must learn to reckon our success not by how
much we start but by how much we finish. We must learn to
be tenacious. We must learn to persevere.

more

Weekly Compilation of

PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

Week Ending Saturday, January 22, 1972

Economic Assistance and Investment
Security in Developing Nations

The President's Policy Statement. January 19, 1972

We live in an age that rightly attaches very high im-
portance to economic development. The people of the
developing societies in particular see in their own
economic development the path to fulfillment of a whole
range of national and human aspirations. The United
States continues to support wholeheartedly, as we have
done for decades, the efforts of those societies to grow
economically—out of our deep conviction that, as I said
in my Inaugural Address, “To go forward at all is to go
forward together”; that the well-being of mankind is in
the final analysis indivisible; and that a better-fed, better-
clothed, healthier, and more literate world will be a more
peaceful world as well.

As we enter 1972, therefore, I think it is appropriate
to outline my views on some important aspects of overseas
development policy. I shall discuss these matters in
broader compass and greater detail in messages to be
transmitted to the Congress in the coming weeks. Nineteen
seventy-one saw great changes in the international
monetary and trade fields, especially among the developed
nations. A new economic policy was charted for the
United States and a promising beginning was made on a
broad reform of the international monetary system—
starting with a realignment of international exchange
rates. Now, in 1972, the problem of how best to assist the
development of the world's emerging nations will move
more to the forefront of our concern.

Any policy for such assistance is prompted by a mutual-
ity of interest. Through our development assistance pro-
grams, financing in the form of taxes paid by ordinary
Americans at all income levels is made available to help
people in other nations realize their aspirations. A variety

of other mechanisms also serves to transfer economic
resources from the United States to developing nations.

Three aspects of U.S. development assistance programs
received concentrated attention during the past year.
These were:

- Continuing a program of bilateral economic assistance

- Meeting our international undertakings for the funding of multilateral development institutions

- Clarifying the role of private foreign investment in overseas development and dealing with the problem of expropriations.

As to our bilateral economic program, it is my intention
to seek a regular and adequate fiscal year 1972 appropria-
tion to replace the present interim financing arrangement
which expires February 22. I urge that this be one of the
first items addressed and completed by the Congress
after it reconvenes. Looking beyond this immediate need,
I hope the Congress will give early attention to the
proposals which I submitted last year to reform our
foreign assistance programs to meet the challenges of the
'70s.

In regard to our participation in multilateral institu-
tions, I attach the highest importance to meeting in full
the financial pledges we make. In 1970, the U.S. agreed
with its hemispheric partners on replenishing the Inter-
American Development Bank. Our contributions to this
Bank represent our most concrete form of support for
regional development in Latin America. While the Con-
gress did approve partial financing for the Bank before
the recess, it is urgent that the integrity of this inter-
national agreement be preserved through providing the
needed payments in full.

These Inter-American Bank contributions—together
with our vital contributions to the International Develop-
ment Association, the World Bank and the Asian Devel-
opment Bank—are the heart of my announced policy of
channeling substantial resources for development through
these experienced and technically proficient multilateral
institutions. These latter contributions also require prompt
legislative action, and I look to the Congress to demon-
strate to other nations that the United States will

64

WEEKLY CAPITATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JANUARY 1972

65

continue its long-standing cooperative approach to inter-
national development through multilateral financial
mechanisms.

I also wish to make clear the approach of this admin-
istration to the role of private investment in developing
countries, and in particular to one of the major problems
affecting such private investment: upholding accepted
principles of international law in the face of expropria-
tions without adequate compensation.

A principal objective of foreign economic assistance programs is to assist developing countries in attracting private investment. A nation's ability to compete for this scarce and vital development ingredient is improved by programs which develop economic infrastructure, increase literacy, and raise health standards. Private investment, as a carrier of technology, of trade opportunities, and of capital itself, in turn becomes a major factor in promoting industrial and agricultural development. Further, a significant flow of private foreign capital stimulates the mobilization and formation of domestic capital within the recipient country.

A sort of symbiosis exists—with government aid efforts not only speeding the flow of, but actually depending for their success upon, private capital both domestic and foreign. And, of course, from the investor's point of view, foreign private investment must either yield financial benefits to him over time, or cease to be available. Mutual benefit is thus the sine qua non of successful foreign private investment.

Unfortunately, for all concerned, these virtually axio-
matic views on the beneficial role of and necessary condi-
tions for private capital have been challenged in recent
and important instances. U.S. enterprises, and those of
many other nations, operating abroad under valid con-
tracts negotiated in good faith, and within the established
legal codes of certain foreign countries, have found their
contracts revoked and their assets seized with inadequate
compensation, or with no compensation.

Such actions by other governments are wasteful from
a resource standpoint, shortsighted considering their
adverse effects on the flow of private investment funds
from all sources, and unfair to the legitimate interests of
foreign private investors.

The wisdom of any expropriation is questionable, even
when adequate compensation is paid. The resources
diverted to compensate investments that are already
producing employment and taxes often could be used
more productively to finance new investment in the
domestic economy, particularly in areas of high social
priority to which foreign capital does not always flow.
Consequently, countries that expropriate often postpone
the attainment of their own development goals. Still more
unfairly, expropriations in one developing country can
and do impair the investment climate in other developing
countries.

In light of all this, it seems to me imperative to state—
to our citizens and to other nations—the policy of this
Government in future situations involving expropriatory
acts.

1. Under international law, the United States has a
right to expect:

- That any taking of American private property will
  be nondiscriminatory;

- that it will be for a public purpose; and

- that its citizens will receive prompt, adequate, and
effective compensation from the expropriating
country.

Thus, when a country expropriates a significant U.S.
interest without making reasonable provision for such
compensation to U.S. citizens, we will presume that the
U.S. will not extend new bilateral economic benefits to
the expropriating country unless and until it is determined
that the country is taking reasonable steps to provide ade-
quate compensation or that there are major factors affect-
ing U.S. interests which require continuance of all or part
of these benefits.

2. In the face of the expropriatory circumstances just described, we will presume that the United States Government will withhold its support from loans under consideration in multilateral development banks.

3. Humanitarian assistance will, of course, continue
to receive special consideration under such circumstances.

4. In order to carry out this policy effectively, I have
directed that each potential expropriation case be followed
closely. A special inter-agency group will be established
under the Council on International Economic Policy to
review such cases and to recommend courses of action for
the U.S. Government.

5. The Departments of State, Treasury, and Commerce
are increasing their interchange of views with the business
community on problems relating to private U.S. invest-
ment abroad in order to improve government and busi-
ness awareness of each other's concerns, actions, and plans.
The Department of State has set up a special office to
follow expropriation cases in support of the Council on
International Economic Policy.

6. Since these issues are of concern to a broad portion
of the international community, the U.S. Government will
consult with governments of developed and developing
countries on expropriation matters, to work out effective
measures for dealing with these problems on a multilateral
basis.

7. Along with other governments, we shall cooperate
with the international financial institutions—in particular
the World Bank Group, the Inter-American Development
Bank, and the Asian Development Bank—to achieve a
mutually beneficial investment atmosphere. The inter-
national financial institutions have often assisted in the

66

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JANUARY 24, 1972

[v]

settlement of investment disputes, and we expect they will continue to do so.

8. One way to make reasonable provision for just compensation in an expropriation dispute is to refer the dispute to international adjudication or arbitration. Firm agreement in advance on dispute settlement procedures is a desirable means of anticipating possible disagreements between host governments and foreign investors. Accordingly, I support the existing International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes within the World Bank Group, as well as the establishment in the very near future of the International Investment Insurance Agency, now under discussion in the World Bank Group. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation will make every effort to incorporate independent dispute settlement procedures in its new insurance and guarantee agreements.

I announce these decisions because I believe there should be no uncertainty regarding U.S. policy. The adoption by the United States Government of this policy is consistent with international law. The policy will be implemented within the framework of existing domestic law until the Congress modifies present statutes, along the lines already proposed by this administration. The U.S. fully respects the sovereign rights of others, but it will not ignore actions prejudicial to the rule of law and legitimate U.S. interest.

Finally, as we look beyond our proper national interests to the larger considerations of the world interest, let us not forget that only within a framework of international law will the developed nations be able to provide increasing support for the aspirations of our less developed neighbors around the world.

## Disaster Assistance for Mississippi

*Announcement of Disaster Declaration and Assistance Following Heavy Rains and Flooding.*
*January 19, 1972*

The President today declared a major disaster for the State of Mississippi. Heavy rains and flooding occurred in the southwestern portion of the State in December, and the President's action will permit the use of Federal funds in relief and recovery efforts.

In his request for a Presidential declaration, Mississippi Governor John Bell Williams had advised the President that estimates of damage to public and private property, including agricultural properties and livestock, had exceeded $800,000. The bulk of the funds available from the President's Disaster Fund will be used for the repair and restoration of public roads and facilities.

The President declared a major disaster for Mississippi in February 1971, following the tornadoes which devastated the State on February 22. Allocations from the President's Disaster Fund for Federal disaster assistance have exceeded $4,000,000 to date.

Federal relief activities in Mississippi are being coordinated by the President's Office of Emergency Preparedness. Disaster specialists from OEP's Region IV Office in Atlanta have been in the area, working under William C. McMillen, Regional Director. Mr. Ronald Van Dame, Disaster Assistance Coordinator, OEP Region IV, has been designated as the Federal Coordinating Officer to work with the State in providing Federal disaster assistance under Public Law 91-606.

## THE STATE OF THE UNION

*The President's Address Delivered Before a Joint Session of the Congress.*
*January 20, 1972*

*Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, my colleagues in the Congress, our distinguished guests, my fellow Americans:*

Twenty-five years ago I sat here as a freshman Congressman—along with Speaker Albert—and listened for the first time to the President address the State of the Union.

I shall never forget that moment. The Senate, the Diplomatic Corps, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet entered the Chamber, and then the President of the United States. As all of you are aware, I had some differences with President Truman. He had some with me. But I remember that on that day—the day he addressed that joint session of the newly-elected Republican 80th Congress, he spoke not as a partisan, but as President of all the people—calling upon the Congress to put aside partisan considerations in the national interest.

The Greek-Turkish aid program, the Marshall Plan, the great foreign policy initiatives which have been responsible for avoiding a world war for over 25 years were approved by the 80th Congress, by a bipartisan majority of which I was proud to be a part.

This Copy For __________

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1322

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 12:16 P.M. EST

JANUARY 27, 1972

THURSDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We have several additional announcements, beyond the new appointments and adjustments in the Administration which the President announced earlier.

The President today accepted the resignation of Conrad L. Wirth as a member of the National Capital Planning Commission. That is effective immediately. We will post the information on that.

The President today is announcing three appointments and one reappointment to the National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services for terms of three years expiring in January of 1975, specifically January 30, 1975, and we will post the details on that.

The President today is announcing the appointment of two persons to be Members of the National Council on the Arts for a term of six years, expiring in January of 1978. We will post that.

Finally, the President is announcing the acceptance of the resignation of John R. Petty as Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs, effective on February 25, 1972. Mr. Petty was appointed to this position in June of 1969 and he is returning to private life to join the investment banking firm of Lehman Brothers Incorporated. He will join that firm in the capacity of Managing Director.

Q Where is he from Ron, please?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will post all that information for you.

Finally, the President today declared a major disaster for the State of Texas due to heavy rains and flooding which occurred in the northeastern portion of the State in December. The President's action in declaring the disaster will be to permit the use of federal funds in relief and recovery efforts. We will have additional information on the boards for you on that.

That is all we have.

Q Why did Wirth resign?

MR. ZIEGLER: For personal reasons.

MORE

#1322

- 13 -

#1322

Q It is not completed?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is right.

Q Ron, what about the question of the agenda? You seem to be re-writing the questions here, but I would like simply to ask has the agenda been completed of the discussions between the President and the Chinese leaders?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not prepared to talk to you about an agenda or to indicate to you that there will be a specific line-by-line agenda procedure in the discussions that the President will have with the leaders. I believe a lot of that will be worked out when indeed they get together in their first meeting. That is why I wanted to draw the separation.

Q You mean there is going to be a free-wheeling discussion?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe it will be a very complete discussion. I don't want to suggest to you that we have agreed upon an agenda for the discussions at this time, other than the points that Henry has made to you in his discussions about his visit, and I believe he told you some of the things that would and would not be talked about.

Q Ron, is there any significance to the presence in Washington of Ambassador Keating and is there any plan to change his assignment?

MR. ZIEGLER: Ambassador Keating came back, together with the Ambassador of Pakistan, Ambassador Farland, for consultations at the State Department. The significance of their return to Washington relates to that consultation, and nothing else.

Q Do you have any comment on the United States recognition of Bangladesh?

MR. ZIEGLER: There is no change in our position on that.

Q Is there any change in Mr. Keating's assignment being contemplated?

MR. ZIEGLER: I thought I answered that. No, they are here for consultation, not for the purpose of discussing a change in his assignment.

Q Is the question of recognition of Bangladesh one of the subjects being discussed with the two Ambassadors?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, it is not the reason they are here. You know, Bangladesh may come up, I assume, or would come up in their talks, but our position on that subject has not changed. They are not here for the purpose of reviewing that position and then moving to a decision.

Q Didn't you say last week that this government is not considering recognition of Bangladesh?

MORE

#1322

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1323

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

AT 4:27 P.M. EST

JANUARY 27, 1972

THURSDAY

MR. WARREN: We have very little this afternoon. The President, as you probably know, went to Camp David and he will return tomorrow mid-morning. He was working in his office this afternoon and decided to go to Camp David to do some reading this evening and will be back tomorrow morning.

The schedule for tomorrow we will post after this.

At 11:30, the President will meet with Dr. Rainer Barzel the leader of the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany. Mr. Barzel is in the United States on one of his periodic visits and will pay a courtesy call on the President. The President last met with Mr. Barzel on September 4, 1970. Since that time, he has become the leader of the Christian Democratic Party.

At 11:45, the President will meet with the Attorney General and with Myles Ambrose, Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs to discuss the Administration's new drug enforcement program. We will have a photo of that in the President's office.

The Attorney General and the Commissioner will be in this room at about 12:15 or so for a briefing on the new drug enforcement program. The President mentioned that in his State of the Union, you will remember. We will have that briefing here tomorrow for sound and film.

At about 12:15, the President will receive the first volume of the Encyclopedia Judaica from Ambassader Rabin of Israel.

At 3:00, the President will meet with members of the Construction Industry Collective Bargaining Commission. Secretary Hodgson and Director George Shultz will attend that meeting.

At 8:00 tomorrow night, the President and Mrs. Nixon will honor Mr. and Mrs. DeWitt Wallace at a dinner in the White House. It is a white tie dinner. There will be film and writing pool coverage at the beginning of the entertainment, and for the President's remarks prior to the entertainment.

You have a release. The President today declared a major disaster for the State of Arkansas resulting from flooding and severe storms in December. This disaster is related to the one in Texas that we announced this morning and also one in the State of Oklahoma, which we announced on January 14. These three States were hit by storms in mid-December.

MORE

#1323

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JANUARY 31, 1972

145

Hastings, Regional Director. Mr. Hastings has been designated as the Federal Coordinating Officer to work with the State in providing Federal disaster assistance under Public Law 91-606.

## Mahalia Jackson

*Statement by the President on the Death of the Noted Singer. January 27, 1972*

America and the world, black people and all people, today mourn the passing of Mahalia Jackson. She was a noble woman, an artist without peer, a magnetic ambassador of goodwill for the United States in other lands, an exemplary servant of her God. All her years she poured out her soul in song and her heart in service to her people. Millions of ears will miss the sound of that great rich voice "making a joyful noise unto the Lord," as she liked to call her work—yet her life story itself sings the Gospel message of freedom, and will not cease to do so.

## Annual Assay Commission

*Announcement of Appointment of 29 Members and 3 Ex Officio Members. January 28, 1972*

The President today announced the appointment of 29 persons to serve as members of the 1972 Annual Assay Commission and three persons who will serve on the Commission in an ex officio capacity. The appointees are:

* AUBREY E. AUSTIN, JR., of California, president and chairman of the board, Santa Monica Bank, Santa Monica, Calif.

* DAVIS H. CARR, of Tennessee, attorney-at-law, Boult, Cummings, and Berry, Nashville, Tenn.

* DANIEL J. CRYOR, of Pennsylvania, political editor, WCAU-CBS, Philadelphia, Pa.

* ROBERT DUPHORNE, of New Mexico, senior vice president, First National Bank, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

* RICHARD B. DUSTERBERG, of Ohio, assistant prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County, Cincinnati, Ohio.

* PAUL W. EGGERS, of Texas, attorney-at-law, Dallas, Tex.

* JAMES A. GREENE, of North Carolina, principal, Alleghany High School, Sparta, N.C.

* HOWARD W. GUNLOCKE, of New York, president, Gunlocke Co., Wayland, N.Y.

* GEORGE M. HALPERN, of New York, associate dean of faculty, New York Community College, New York, N.Y.

* WARREN S. HENDERSON, of Florida, State Senator, 32d District, Sarasota, Fla.

* THOMAS M. HIGGINS, JR., of Missouri, president and director, Twin Cities State Bank, Kansas City, Kans.

* LEWELLYN A. JENNINGS, of Maryland, chairman of the board, Riggs National Bank, Washington, D.C.

* SOL KAPLAN, of Ohio, president, Lewis M. Reagan Memorial Foundation, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.

* THOMAS E. KLUNZINGER, of Michigan, writer, Detroit, Mich.

* HERMAN A. KRAJEWSKI, of Connecticut, machinist, Buckland Manufacturing Co., Manchester, Conn.

* ROBERT F. KRIZ, of Florida, colonel, United States Army Reserves, retired, Merritt Island, Fla.

* BARBARA V. LIEN, of South Dakota, homemaker, Rapid City, S. Dak.

* ANNA S. LODING, of Alabama, secretary, Van Antwerp Realty Corporation, Mobile, Ala.

* CHARLES KEITH LYLE, of Florida, retired owner of C. K. Lyle Associates, Vero Beach, Fla.

* FRANK C. P. MCGLINN, of Pennsylvania, senior vice president, marketing department, Fidelity Bank, Philadelphia, Pa.

* RONALD W. PETERSON, of Oregon, president, Peterson Properties, Inc., Portland, Oreg.

* FRANK S. ROBINSON, of New York, staff counsel, New York Public Service Commission, Albany, N.Y.

* MILDRED W. JONES, of Maryland, physical science technician, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

* MARIA ESTELLA PEREZ ROSER, of Texas, Roser Customs Service, Brownsville, Tex.

* HIRSH N. SCHWARTZ, of Texas, Mayor, City of Schulenburg, Schulenburg, Tex.

* SAM SPARKS, of Arkansas, president, New American Investments, Inc., Little Rock, Ark.

* SAMUEL A. WHITWORTH, of Nebraska, assistant vice president, First National Bank and Trust Company of Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebr.

* LOUIS WEISER, of New York, executive vice president, Knickerbocker Travel Services, Inc., New York, N.Y.

* NAPOLEON C. ZBYSZEWSKI, of Illinois, project engineer, All-Brightnel Company, Chicago, Ill.

*Ex officio members:*

* PAUL J. MAGUIRE, of New York, assayer, U.S. Assay Office, New York, N.Y.

* WILLIAM B. CAMP, of Maryland, Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, D.C.

* JAMES H. GORBey, of Pennsylvania, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Assay Commission meets each year on the second Wednesday in February at the United States Mint in Philadelphia. They examine and test, in the presence of the Director of the Mint, the weight and quality of the coins provided them for this purpose by the several U.S. mints.

## Drug Abuse

*Statement by the President Upon Establishing the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, To Be Headed by Myles J. Ambrose, in the Department of Justice. January 28, 1972*

Drug abuse—as I said 7 months ago—is America's "public enemy number 1." It is an all-pervasive and yet an elusive enemy. I am convinced that the only effective way to fight this menace is by attacking it on many fronts—through a balanced, comprehensive strategy.

For the past 3 years, this administration has been working to carry out such a strategy. We have moved to eliminate dangerous drugs at their source, to cut their international flow, to stop them from entering our country, and to intercept them after they do. We have been educating our people to understand the drug problem more completely. We have expanded significantly our efforts to prevent drug addiction and to treat and rehabilitate those who have become drug-dependent.

146

A NEW INITIATIVE

Today our balanced, comprehensive attack on drug abuse moves forward in yet another critical area as we institute a major new program to drive drug traffickers and drug pushers off the streets of America.

I have signed today an Executive order establishing a new Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement in the Department of Justice. This Office will marshal a wide range of government resources—including new authorities granted in the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970— in a concentrated assault on the street-level heroin pusher. Working through nine regional offices, our new program will use special grand juries to gather extensive new information concerning drug traffickers and will pool this intelligence for use by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. It will draw on the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury to assist State and local agencies in detecting, arresting, and prosecuting heroin traffickers.

I am pleased to announce that the new Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement will be headed by Myles J. Ambrose, who has been serving as our Commissioner of Customs. Mr. Ambrose will also serve as my own Special Consultant for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, advising me on all matters relating to this important subject.

PROGRAMS ALREADY IN OPERATION

This effort to meet the drug menace directly on the streets of America—an effort which I promised in my message on the State of the Union—complements our other drug-related initiatives.

—The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, established on an interim basis last June and headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe, is already beginning to have an impact in the fields of drug abuse education, treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention. The Office is working to coordinate programs which are spread through nine Federal agencies and to develop a national strategy to guide these efforts. Drawing on private and public expertise, the Special Action Office has spurred new research, gathered valuable information, planned for a new drug training and education center, and helped in setting up a major program to identify and treat drug abuse in the Armed Services.

The Special Action Office—which has already done so much—can do much more if the Congress will promptly give it the authority and the funds I have requested for it.

—The Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control, established last September and chaired by Secretary Rogers, is taking the lead in our efforts to fight the international drug traffic and to eliminate drugs at their source. We have appointed Narcotics Control Coordinators in all affected American embassies around the

world and have been working closely with other governments to strengthen drug control efforts. We were especially gratified when Turkey announced last summer a total ban on the growing of the opium poppy.

—Drug dependence in the Armed Forces and among veterans is being reduced considerably by expanded drug treatment and rehabilitation programs in the Department of Defense and in the Veterans Administration. Drug identification and detoxification programs, which began in Vietnam, have been expanded to include all military personnel in the United States who are being discharged, sent abroad, or are returning from overseas duty. In the year ahead the Veterans Administration will offer treatment and rehabilitative service to an estimated 20,000 addicts. It will expand its drug dependence units by as many as 12, creating a total of up to 44 such units.

—We have also been moving ahead with a range of other activities. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970—which I proposed in July of 1969—was passed by the Congress and signed into law in October of 1970. The model State narcotics legislation which I also recommended has been adopted by 26 States and is being considered in 15 others.

Tens of thousands of teachers, students, and community leaders have been trained under our National Drug Education Training Program. A new National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information has been established. Some 25 million pieces of drug education information have been distributed by the Federal Government. We have established a Federal Drug Abuse Prevention Coordinating Committee at the interagency level and a number of White House Conferences on Drug Abuse have been conducted.

In addition, the Federal Government is carrying out a number of major research programs to help us better to identify and analyze drugs and more fully to understand how they are moved about the country and around the world. I have also recommended the creation of a United Nations Fund for Drug Control—to which we have already contributed $1 million and pledged $1 million more—and have recommended several steps to strengthen international narcotics agreements.

In the enforcement field, the number of authorized new positions in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and in the Bureau of Customs has jumped by more than 2,000 in the past year alone. We are expanding our program to train State prosecutors to handle cases under the newly enacted Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. We are stepping up the work of the Joint State-Federal Narcotics Task Force in New York City.

It is estimated that the amount of heroin which will be seized in the current fiscal year will be more than four times what was seized in fiscal year 1969. Since that time, the number of drug-related arrests has nearly doubled.

[LC]

147

OVERALL EXPENDITURES

Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of our stepped-up
campaign against drug abuse lies in the budget figures for
various aspects of our effort. In the last 3 years, for
example, Federal obligations for drug treatment and
rehabilitation have increased *nearly seven-fold*, from $28
million to $189.6 million, and we have proposed a further
increase of $40.6 million for next year. Obligations for
research, education, training, and prevention activities
have also grown *nearly seven-fold*, from $17.5 million in
fiscal year 1969 to $120.5 million this year, and our new
budget calls for a further increase of $14.5 million.

This means that we will be obligating more than eight
times as much for treatment, rehabilitation, research,
education, training, and prevention in the coming fiscal
year as we were when this administration took office.

As far as law enforcement obligations relating to drug
abuse are concerned, the level has increased more than
eight-fold in our first 3 years in office—from $20.2 million
to $164.4 million. We plan to increase this figure by an-
other $64.6 million next year to the $229 million level.

A BALANCED AND COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM

The central concept behind all of these programs is that
our overall approach to the drug menace must be bal-
anced and comprehensive—fighting those who traffic in
drugs, helping those who have been victimized by drugs,
and protecting those who have not yet been threatened.
The new initiative I have launched today in the area of
law enforcement is aimed against those who would profit
from the misery of others. It will confront the street-level
heroin pusher with a dedicated group of lawyers and in-
vestigators intent upon exposing and eliminating retail
sales of heroin. At the same time, however, we must be
sure that we have sufficient treatment facilities to handle
any increase in the number of addicts seeking treatment
because of the disruption of heroin trafficking. The Spe-
cial Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, which
helped in the development of this new law enforcement
program, has assured me that we will be able to meet an
increased demand in the treatment field if the Congress
passes its new legislation.

Drug abuse, as I said in my message on the State of the
Union, saps our Nation's strength and destroys our Na-
tion's character. The Federal Government cannot meet
this menace alone—but it can take a strong leadership
position. I believe we have developed a Federal program
for combating drug abuse which is both firm and com-
passionate. With the cooperation of the Congress, the
State and local governments, and the American people,
that program will continue to grow in effectiveness.

NOTE: The President signed the Executive order establishing the new Office during a meeting with Mr. Ambrose, Attorney General John N. Mitchell, Under Secretary of the Treasury for Monetary Affairs Paul A. Volcker, and Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, Special Consultant to the President for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and Director, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse. For the text of the Executive order, see the following item.

Concentration of Law Enforcement
Activities Relating to Drug Abuse

Executive Order 11641. January 28, 1972

The menace of drug abuse threatens to sap our Na-
tion's strength and destroy our Nation's character. It must
be combatted in a variety of ways—through international
measures, through domestic law enforcement, through
programs dealing with prevention, education, treatment
and rehabilitation. As one critical part of this balanced
and comprehensive program, we must now give special
emphasis to improving law enforcement activities at all
levels of government.

Now, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in
me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, in-
cluding section 5317 of Title 5 of the United States Code,
as amended, it is hereby ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. (a) The Attorney General of the United States shall provide for the establishment within the Department of Justice of an "Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement."

(b) This Office shall be headed by a Director who shall
have the title of Special Assistant Attorney General.

(c) The Director shall also serve as a Special Con-
sultant to the President for Drug Abuse Law Enforce-
ment. He shall advise the President with respect to all
matters relating to the more effective enforcement by
all Federal agencies of laws relating to illegal drug
traffic and on methods by which the Federal Govern-
ment can assist State and local governments in strength-
ening the enforcement of their laws relating to illegal drug
traffic. He shall, as appropriate, recommend to the Pres-
ident plans, programs, legislation, techniques, and other
measures designed to maximize at every level of govern-
ment the Nation's campaign to stamp out illegal drug
traffic through effective law enforcement.

(d) The Director shall be responsible for the develop-
ment and implementation of a concentrated program
throughout the Federal Government for the enforcement
of Federal laws relating to the prevention of drug abuse
and for cooperation with State and local governments
in the enforcement of their drug abuse laws. The Attor-
ney General is called upon to delegate to the Director
those duties and authorities vested in him as are neces-
sary to carry out those functions.

SEC. 2. The Director shall consult with the Director of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention and those officials shall ensure that all steps permitted by law are being taken by Federal, State, and local governments and, to the extent feasible, by private persons and organizations, to prevent drug abuse in this Nation and elsewhere.

SEC. 3. Section 1 of Executive Order No. 11248 of
October 10, 1965, as amended, is further amended by

148

[LC]

deleting "(12) Chairman, Pay Board," and by inserting in lieu thereof "(12) Director, Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement."

SEC. 4. Each department and agency of the Federal Government shall, upon request and to the extent permitted by law, assist the Director of the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement in the performance of functions assigned to him by or pursuant to this order, and the Director may, in carrying out those functions, utilize the services of any other agencies, Federal and State, as may be available and appropriate.

RICHARD NIXON

The White House
January 28, 1972

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 3:54 p.m., January 28, 1972.]

NOTE: For a statement by the President on signing Executive Order 11641 see the preceding item.

## Marble and Travertine Products

*Announcement of Decisions With Regard to Trade Adjustment Assistance and Tariffs.*

January 28, 1972

The President today announced his decision to permit firms and workers producing marble and travertine products for structural uses to apply for trade adjustment assistance. The President's action follows a tie vote by the Tariff Commission on an escape clause relief petition filed by the National Association of Marble Producers. The President accepted the finding that the industry is threatened with serious injury due to competition from increased imports, and informed the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce that the industry's workers and firms may request certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance.

The major quarrier-fabricators of structural marble and travertine are located in Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, Tennessee, and Vermont. There are also an estimated 300 independent fabricators that are widely dispersed throughout the country. The principal foreign source of marble is Italy, which produces some colors not found in domestic quarries.

Under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, firms certified by the Secretary of Commerce as eligible to receive adjustment assistance, may receive such help as loans and loan guarantees, technical assistance, and certain tax relief. Workers certified by the Secretary of Labor as eligible may receive cash adjustment allowances, counseling, training, and relocation allowances if needed and desired.

The President also announced that he has decided not to proclaim the tariff increases on finished marble and travertine which had been requested by two members of

the Commission. He has concluded that even the maximum possible tariff increases would not bring the prices of imports up to domestic price levels and would, to the contrary, serve to raise domestic construction costs and thus create inflationary pressures which could reduce the already limited demand for marble and travertine products.

The President has also decided to seek elimination of tariffs on all unfinished and some semifinished marble and travertine imports which are vital to domestic production and fabrication. This move, which will reduce costs for domestic producers and fabricators and enable them to compete more successfully against foreign bidders, is also designed to shift some U.S. imports from finished to unfinished marble products, thereby increasing U.S. employment in fabrication work.

## Presidential Medal of Freedom for DeWitt and Lila Acheson Wallace

*Remarks of the President and Mr. Wallace Upon Presentation of the Medal to the Cofounders of*

*The Reader's Digest. January 28, 1972*

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. and Mrs. Wallace and ladies and gentlemen:

This is a birthday party, as you all know, for The Reader's Digest, which is 50 years old. We have tried to pay a tribute to the Digest and to the founders of the Digest a little earlier in the State Dining Room, but since we have some special guests who were not able to join us there, but who we understand were able to be with us at another room that was available and also some special guests from the press, I think that all of us in this room would like to pay tribute to our honored guests.

I do not want to repeat here what I said in the Dining Room. And I have been trying to think of something that would perhaps express the feelings of everybody here who knows the Wallaces on this special day.

I think of the Digest, the years that I have read it and all the special articles, "How to Increase Your Word Power," "Life in These United States," but I think of all the special articles that I remember, the features, the one that perhaps made the most indelible impression was the series, "The Most Unforgettable Character I Ever Met."

Tonight we could speak of Lila and DeWitt Wallace in terms of by far the biggest circulation of any publication in the world. We could speak of them as having created a publication that is now read by over 100 million people in the world. We could speak of them also as people who have created a publication which has perhaps, in the deepest sense, done more good in creating a feeling of idealism in this country and among people abroad,

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1326

AT THE WHITE HOUSE
WITH RON ZIEGLER
AT 12:04 P.M. EST.

JANUARY 31, 1972

MONDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We have only a few additional announcements to give to you this morning.

Representatives of the President's Cancer Panel were out here to discuss their meeting with the President this morning, so you have the information on that.

In addition, however, we are announcing that President Nixon will delay for 90 days the first of the three scheduled reductions in tariff rates on window glass imports. I believe the release you have is self-explanatory.

Q What countries are affected? From where do we import these products?

MR. ZIEGLER: Roughly half of the imports come from Belgium, and the bulk of the imports come from Europe, the United Kingdom, Germany, and also West Germany. We also have some imports from Taiwan and Japan.

Q What States are largely affected?

MR. ZIEGLER: Arkansas, California, Illinois, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. West Virginia has four plants and Oklahoma two plants. These are the States that are involved in the window glass industry.

Q What is the total import dollar figure?

MR. ZIEGLER: We import about $15 million worth of window glass a year. The domestic industry is worth about $90 million a year.

Q Ron, what are the tariffs?

MR. ZIEGLER: Current tariffs are 21 percent. The three stages referred to would reduce the tariffs to approximately 14 percent, and as the release indicates to you, the industry reapplied to the Tariff Commission to make another report, and it is based upon that action that the President has delayed moving ahead with the three-step reduction. His decision on when to implement that is pending the review of the Tariff Commission problem.

MORE

#1326

- 5 -

#1326

MR. ZIEGLER: The President is meeting with the NATO Secretary General, Joseph Luns. The Secretary General is making his initial visit to Washington since assuming office in October of 1971. He succeeded, as you know, Manlio Brosio, and the President is talking about NATO matters, of course, East-West relations, European defense matters.

The President also, I am sure -- although I haven't discussed this with the President -- talked about his plans for the summit conferences that the President plans in Peking and Moscow. The Secretary General will also makes calls on the State Department and Defense Department today.

Q Did they specifically discuss the subject of mutual balanced force reductions? You mentioned European defense.

MR. ZIEGLER: They, no doubt, got into those matters. I don't know, because I haven't talked with the President since the meeting has ended. It just ended. They met for about 50 minutes.

Q Ron, the North Vietnamese today published their nine-point peace plan. Do you regard this as a positive development?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't want to characterize it. We have just seen the initial reports out of Paris, and we will have to study in more detail what they said before we have any comment on it.

Q Ron, will you be able to tell us whether they are indeed the same nine points we were talking about with them in the secret meetings?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will have to take a look at what has been released, as I said, before I have any comment. We will be prepared to do that, of course.

Q On the Middle East, is there any sense of optimism here at the White House that talks might start between Israel and Egypt?

MR. ZIEGLER: We here at the White House, of course, are very much aware of what is being said on the Middle East situation by the parties involved, but I don't want to give you a characterization of how we assess developments at this time.

Q Ron, is there any connection between the publication of the nine points and the postponement of the NSC meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: None at all

Q Ron, Great Britain is about to recognize the government of Bangladesh. Is that subject yet under consideration by this Government?

MORE

#1326

- 6 -

#1326

MR. ZIEGLER: Our view is unchanged.

Q You have been saying in the past that it
is not under consideration. Can you define that for me?
Does that mean nobody is even thinking about it?

MR. ZIEGLER: It means we are not considering
recognizing Bangladesh.

Q Ron, the first month of 1972 has now
passed. Sometime ago, I believe it was you or someone in
the Government, who said there was a hope for Presidential
press conferences at least on a once-a-month basis.

MR. ZIEGLER: That was for 1971.

Q Well, sure, I understand that is ancient
history. But I wonder if there is any modern application
to that? Can we expect that the President will hold a press
conference sometime in the foreseeable future?

MR. ZIEGLER: There is no date or time set for
one.

Q Do you think he will have one this week?

MR. ZIEGLER: Helen, I don't know. There is no
date or time set for one.

Q He is not avoiding one, is he?

MR. ZIEGLER: Of course not.

Q Do you think he will have one before he leaves
for China?

MR. ZIEGLER: There is none set, so I don't want
to say.

Q Ron, is the President reading and studying
about the Irish problem?

MR. ZIEGLER: He is, of course, very much aware
of the developments there. We don't like to see such
violence break out any where. He is following it and I
really don't have any comment to give you about the
situation.

Q Is the President studying any Chinese,
any slang words?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know that he will involve
himself in much slang when he involves himself in the
meetings there, but the President has been, as you would
expect, and this we have announced, doing a good deal of
reading and preparation for his upcoming trip to the Peoples
Republic of China. He spent a good deal of time the last
time he was in Florida and over on the island reading about
China and preparing for the meetings.

MORE

#1326

Some - you have read, no?

THE CONGRESS

x Persian Gulf

Smrit
4/1/72
file

Department Discusses Agreements on Azores and Bahrain Facilities

Following is a statement by U. Alexis Johnson, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, made before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on February 1, together with the text of a legal memorandum submitted to the committee that day.

STATEMENT BY UNDER SECRETARY JOHNSON

I welcome the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss our agreements with Portugal concerning facilities in the Azores and with Bahrain regarding our use of some naval facilities in that country.

It is my understanding the committee desires to discuss whether these two agreements have been properly entered into as executive agreements or whether they should have been submitted as treaties to the Senate for advice and consent. For the reasons which I will set forth in this statement, I believe the executive agreement form is the more appropriate in both cases.

Let me first indicate in as brief a way as I can the general practice in the Department of State in determining whether an agreement should be a treaty or an executive agreement and the standards which we apply in making such determinations. I am submitting a detailed legal memorandum covering these points for the record.

The Department of State has a procedure, known as the Circular 175 procedure, whose objective is to insure that the making of treaties and other international agreements for the United States is carried out within constitutional and legal limits. Under the

Department's regulations, the executive agreement form is to be used only for agreements which fall within one or more of the following categories:

1. Agreements which are made pursuant to or in accordance with existing legislation or a treaty in force with respect to the United States.

2. Agreements which are made subject to congressional approval or implementation.

3. Agreements which are made under and in accordance with the President's constitutional powers.

The Department's procedures require that before an authorization is requested of the Secretary of State for the negotiation or signature of any international agreement, the Legal Adviser's office must examine the proposed agreement and the legal and constitutional authority for entering into it.

In determining whether an international agreement should be concluded as a treaty or as an executive agreement, we consider such questions as whether the agreement involves important commitments to be undertaken by the United States; whether the subject matter has traditionally been handled by treaty or by executive agreement; whether it falls solely within the President's constitutional authority or into an area of powers shared between the Congress and the President; in the latter case, whether legislative authority exists for entering into the agreement; whether the agreement is to be self-executing, that is, to have the force of law without legislative action by the Congress; whether the agreement is intended to over-

February 28, 1972

279

ride state law; and whether it is desired to give great formality to the obligations undertaken.

## Agreement With Portugal

With this general background in mind, let me now turn to the specific agreements involving the Azores and Bahrain. The texts of these agreements have been provided to the committee. The first agreement between the United States and Portugal continues United States rights to station forces at Lajes Airbase on Terceira Island in the Azores. Although the use by the United States of facilities in the Azores goes back to World War II, our present defense relationship with Portugal is based on the North Atlantic Treaty and the Defense Agreement between Portugal and the United States of September 6, 1951, concluded pursuant to article 3 of the NATO Treaty. This 1951 agreement, through various unilateral and bilateral extensions since that date, continues to govern the use of Lajes Airbase by United States forces. This long history is set forth fully in a separate memorandum which I am submitting for the record.¹

Simultaneously with the exchange of notes, the United States gave to the Government of Portugal:

- A letter of intent concerning various forms of economic assistance to Portugal;

- A letter of explanation concerning possible Export-Import Bank financing of Portuguese projects; and

- A letter concerning support by the Government of Portugal of the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group in Lisbon.

The Department believes it was appropriate to conclude this agreement as an executive agreement for the following reasons:

1. The agreement contains no new defense commitment to Portugal—in fact, the grant to the United States of base rights in the

Azores involves no defense or security commitments by the United States at all. We are not required to station troops at Lajes. We could, without violating this agreement, bring them all home tomorrow. We have obtained from Portugal a commitment to make facilities available to us for a specified period of time. That is a commitment by Portugal, not a commitment by the United States. To cast the agreement in the form of a treaty and submit it to the Senate for advice and consent might carry the misleading implication that the agreement does involve a new United States security commitment. Of course, our defense commitment to Portugal is contained in the North Atlantic Treaty, which did receive the advice and consent of the Senate. The agreement on the Azores neither adds to nor subtracts from our commitment to Portugal under the North Atlantic Treaty.

2. Agreements implementing treaties traditionally have been concluded by executive agreement. The 1951 Defense Agreement and the 1971 exchange of notes have been entered into pursuant to article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty. In the context of the North Atlantic Treaty, the arrangement for stationing forces in the Azores is not unique or even unusual. The United States has concluded executive agreements for the stationing of forces with Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Iceland, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

3. In addition, it seems to me clear that as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, the President has constitutional power to conclude agreements providing for facilities for our military personnel abroad.

4. Congress alone has the right to authorize and appropriate funds. Consequently, our commitments to Portugal for assistance are made specifically within the limitations of applicable United States legislation and appropriations.

Before turning to the agreement with Bahrain, I want to make a few additional

¹ Not printed here.

280

Department of State Bulletin

observations about the Azores agreement. The military facilities in the Azores are important to the national security of the United States. The Azores have become increasingly important in recent years for antisubmarine surveillance in view of the buildup in submarine activity in the mid-Atlantic. Because of the strategic location of the Azores, the facility there is uniquely suited for this function, which could not be performed so efficiently from any other location. The airbase in the Azores is also valuable for aircraft refueling and staging over that part of the Atlantic, not only because of the location but also the good weather conditions prevailing in that area.

## Assistance to Portugal

Now, a certain amount of confusion has arisen concerning our assistance obligation because of distorted accounts in the press of the nature of the agreement. The only direct assistance which we are furnishing to Portugal in connection with this agreement consists of (1) the loan of an oceanographic vessel, the U.S.N.S. *Kellar*, (2) $1 million for use in the Portuguese educational reform program in metropolitan Portugal, and (3) $5 million, measured in terms of initial acquisition cost and not current value, in non-military excess equipment. The rest of the agreement on assistance concerns credits which are mutually beneficial to both countries. The P.L. 480 program permits Portugal to purchase surplus U.S. agricultural commodities on favorable credit terms, but these are sales, not gifts, of these commodities. The letters which accompanied the exchange of notes state that Portugal may purchase surplus commodities up to $15 million per year for the next 2 years. The offer of Export-Import Bank financing, which it was agreed would be subject to the normal Eximbank criteria and procedures in actually making specific loans on specific projects, will likewise benefit U.S. suppliers to the extent Portugal avails itself of these credits.

The figure $400 million, which has been used in connection with the Eximbank financing, represents the approximate value of development projects in metropolitan Portugal which the Government of Portugal has indicated it plans to put into effect in the coming years. To the extent the Portuguese may choose to buy American goods or services for use in these projects, we will receive and give expeditious handling to loan applications to the Eximbank they may care to submit. There is thus no commitment to extend any specific amount of credit.

As you know, the law which established the Export-Import Bank stated that the primary concern of that institution would be the promotion of the export of American products. Any future loan under the agreement to the Portuguese Government would be consistent with that purpose and in our own economic interest.

Some critics of the agreement have suggested that it provides assistance to Portugal which will help that country in its efforts to combat the insurgency in its various African territories. Newspaper accounts have inaccurately stated that the conflicts in Africa have put a strain on Portugal's foreign exchange reserves and that the new U.S. assistance to Portugal will relieve this strain.

In fact, Portugal's military efforts in the past seem to have been dictated by the military strategy it has chosen for Portuguese Africa rather than because of any budgetary considerations. Portuguese defense expenditures have risen only slightly in recent years and thus have declined in proportion to the total budget. Defense expenditures dropped from 45 percent of the total budget in 1968 to 33 percent in 1971. Portugal's balance of payments, likewise, has shown no sign of strain, continuing to register a surplus year after year. As a result, Portugal's gold and foreign exchange reserves have risen to an alltime high of almost $1.8 billion—equal to about 14 months' imports. By this standard no other country in the world is so well off. In the light of these facts it is clear that our grant assistance to

February 28, 1972

281

Portugal is of little financial significance. Its significance is that it will permit us to initiate programs of cooperation in such fields as education and oceanography which otherwise would probably not have come into being. Thus, none of the assistance under this agreement has any relationship to the Portuguese territories in Africa, where our arms embargo continues fully in effect.

## Agreement With Bahrain

Let me turn now to the agreement of December 23, 1971, between the United States and Bahrain. This agreement provides for the continued use by the U.S. Navy's Middle East Force of support facilities in Bahrain which it has long used. This includes access to a commercial pier on those occasions when the Middle East Force Commander's flagship or one of the two destroyers normally assigned to him is in port in Bahrain. It includes warehousing, cold storage, communications, and recreation facilities comparable to those which the Middle East Force has used over the years. The agreement also regulates the status of naval personnel when ashore in Bahrain in matters such as legal jurisdiction, tax status, and import duties. It provides the framework under which our Navy will make essentially commercial arrangements for required shore services for the Middle East Force.

We believe that an executive agreement was the appropriate form in which to conclude this arrangement with Bahrain. The agreement involves no new policy on the part of the United States. It reflects no change in our Navy's scope or mission in the Persian Gulf. It continues the right of access to these facilities enjoyed by the Middle East Force for two decades under informal arrangements with the United Kingdom on behalf of and with the approval of the Bahraini Government. Bahrain, as you know, was an independent state which entered into a special treaty relationship with Great Britain under which it delegated to the United Kingdom responsibility for the conduct of Bahrain's foreign relations and defense.

Bahrain and the United Kingdom have now terminated that special relationship. Thus, whereas up to that time we were in effect a sublessee of the British tenants, it now became necessary for the United States to enter into an agreement directly with the landlord, Bahrain.

The agreement with Bahrain contains no defense or political commitment whatsoever on the part of the United States. The President, as Commander in Chief, has constitutional authority to make arrangements for facilities for our military personnel. The Government of Bahrain has stated unequivocally that the facilities which it has agreed to make available to our Navy do not in any way constitute an American "base" in Bahrain. We agree. The United States is free at any time to terminate its use of the facilities and privileges granted under the agreement. For all of these reasons, an executive agreement seemed appropriate. Moreover, the conclusion of this arrangement as a treaty would have the strong implication of a commitment that is not in fact contained in and which is in no manner intended by either party to the agreement.

I should add that the rental payment for the use of the facilities in Bahrain pursuant to the lease agreement will be subject to congressional authorization and appropriation.

Finally, let me say a word about the rationale for this agreement. The arrangement with Bahrain will permit the Middle East Force to continue its peaceful mission of over two decades—visiting friendly ports on the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea littoral as a demonstration of American interest and good will. To have withdrawn our small naval contingent as Britain's special relationship in the area ended could have been misinterpreted as abandonment of American interest in this important part of the world.

I hope that with this brief presentation I have been able to explain the Department's policy concerning these two agreements. I will be happy now to answer any questions which members of the committee may have.

282

Department of State Bulletin

## TEXT OF LEGAL MEMORANDUM

### MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING CONCLUSION OF AGREEMENTS WITH PORTUGAL AND BAHRAIN

This memorandum describes the general practice of the Department of State in determining whether an agreement should be a treaty or an executive agreement and the standards which we apply in making such determinations. The memorandum then relates this practice and these standards to the exchange of notes on December 9, 1971 with Portugal regarding the continued use by American forces of certain facilities in the Azores and the exchange of notes on December 23, 1971 with Bahrain for the use of certain facilities in that country.

Both treaties and executive agreements have long been recognized as necessary and proper in the conduct of the foreign relations of the United States. The Department of State has a procedure, known as the Circular 175 procedure, which requires that the authorization of the Secretary of State be obtained before an international agreement may be negotiated or concluded. One of the purposes of the Circular 175 procedure is to make a determination as to the proper form of the agreement—treaty or executive agreement.

The regulations of the Department of State provide that an executive agreement may be entered into only if it falls within one or more of the following categories:

1. Agreements which are made pursuant to or in accordance with existing legislation or a treaty in force with respect to the United States;

2. Agreements which are made subject to Congressional approval or implementation;

3. Agreements which are made under and in accordance with the President's Constitutional powers.

The Legal Adviser's office is required to review all requests to the Secretary of State for authorization to negotiate or to sign any international agreement. The Legal Adviser's office examines the proposed agreement and the legal and constitutional authority for entering into it and specifically is required to show:

#### I

##### In the case of a treaty

(a) Whether or not the subject matter is within traditional limits;

(b) Whether or not the treaty will be self-executing, in whole or in part;

(c) If not self-executing, the part or parts which may require legislation and the plans contemplated with respect to formulation and presentation of proposed legislation;

(d) The extent, if any, to which the treaty is intended to prevail over existing Federal or State law and information as to groups in opposition to or in support of the contemplated change.

#### II

##### In the case of an Executive Agreement

(a) A precise reference to the pertinent legislative or treaty provisions, if any, constituting authority for the making of an Executive Agreement on the subject.

(b) If no antecedent legislative or treaty authority exists whether or not the agreement is to be made subject to legislation by the Congress.

(c) The Constitutional powers of the President relied upon.

The Department has other detailed standards which are followed in determining whether an international agreement should be concluded as a treaty. Under these standards, the treaty form is used:

a. When the subject matter and treatment thereof is traditionally handled by a treaty. This is not necessarily controlling in all instances but requires careful consideration before any departure therefrom.

b. When the subject matter and treatment thereof is not wholly within the delegated powers of the Congress and is not solely within the Constitutional authority of the President.

c. When the agreement itself is to have the force of law without legislative action by the Congress, and the action contemplated is not solely within the President's constitutional authority.

d. When the agreement involves important commitments affecting the nation as a whole.

e. When it is desired to give the utmost formality to the commitment with a view to requiring similar formality on the part of the other government concerned, in the interest of long continued respect for its terms.

Of course, it is not always possible to determine ahead of time the exact extent of the commitments that may be reached and it is sometimes necessary to await the outcome of the negotiations before making the final determination whether the new arrangement shall be a treaty to be submitted for the advice and consent of the Senate or an executive agreement for which there exists an adequate legal basis or for which legislative approval should be sought.

When considered in the context of the foregoing, conclusion of the agreements with Portugal of December 9, 1971, and with Bahrain, of December 23, 1971, as executive agreements is clearly appropriate.

Examination of the texts of the two agreements shows that neither involves any new policy on the part of the United States. Neither contains any

February 28, 1972

283

defense or political commitments by the United
States. To have concluded these agreements as
treaties would have given them a formality which
implied an importance and a U.S. commitment which
are neither involved nor desired. Both agreements
involve the granting to the United States of the
right to use facilities for our vessels, aircraft or
personnel and the governing of the status of our
personnel. These matters have been traditionally

handled by executive agreement and uniquely fall
within the authority of the President as Commander
in Chief under the Constitution. In the case of the
Azores, the agreement is concluded pursuant to
Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty. To the
extent that the agreements involve the expenditure
of funds by the United States, they are subject to
the authorization and appropriation of funds by the
Congress.

Department Reviews Fisheries Disputes and Their Effect
on Inter-American Relations

Statement by Charles A. Meyer

Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs ¹

Fisheries disputes between the United
States and certain countries of Latin Amer-
ica have been a disturbing element in our
relations with the hemisphere for almost 20
years. They have tended to cause periodic
problems in the normal conduct of our af-
fairs, which, when the boats went home,
often were set aside until the next fishing
season. Solutions have been either elusive or,
when reached, temporary. The dimensions
of these disputes changed significantly in
1971, so significantly that a problem which
once could be dealt with primarily as a
fisheries problem now forces itself on us as
one which involves a range of important
interests of the United States.

For this reason and because, in spite of
the combined efforts of the Departments con-
cerned, there is still no ready answer, I
especially welcome this opportunity to review
with you the nature of the disputes, the harm
they cause, and the prospects for realizing
our continuing hope that they can be re-
solved. With me today are, representing the
Special Assistant to the Secretary for Fish-
eries and Wildlife and Coordinator for Ocean

Affairs, Mr. Wilvan Van Campen, and Mr.
Charles J. Pitman, representing the Depart-
ment's Legal Adviser.

Fisheries disputes arise from differences
we have with certain Latin American coun-
tries regarding the breadth of the territorial
sea and coastal state rights over resources
of the waters adjacent to their coasts. The
United States recognizes a 3-mile territorial
sea and, in addition, claims a 9-mile contigu-
ous zone of exclusive jurisdiction over fish-
eries. Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil, the coun-
tries whose names are most closely associated
with the fisheries problem, claim 200 miles of
sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction over the
waters off their coasts. Thus, in some ways,
fisheries disputes can be seen as the result of
a contest between those who believe that the
waters beyond 12 miles are high seas and
those who claim 200 miles.

This is more than a numbers game, how-
ever, as basic to our dispute are differing
concepts of how we approach rulemaking
with respect to the world's oceans. The
United States believes that the question of
sovereignty and rights is one which must be
settled within the international community
in order to avoid the chaos of extensive and
conflicting unilateral claims. Certain coun-

¹ Made before the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Feb. 3.

284

Department of State Bulletin

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1328

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 12:01 P.M. EST

FEBRUARY 1, 1972

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The President's schedule for today has been posted. I don't think I have to go through that. There are no changes in that.

The President's schedule for tomorrow:

10:00, the National Security Council meeting will be held. That is the one which was on the schedule for Monday which was postponed and will be tomorrow at 10:00.

12:15 tomorrow, Pearl Bailey will be here at the White House. She will be presented with the Heart Association's Heart of the Year Award.

We have several announcements. I will go through those quickly for you.

The President is transmitting to the Senate today for advise and consent, the Convention on the taking of evidence abroad on civil and commercial matters. We will post the text of the Convention and also details on this matter.

The President has also signed today an Executive Order exempting Everette MacIntyre, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, from compulsory retirement for age until February 28, 1973. The current provision of the law requires the automatic retirement of a federal employee who has reached the age of 70 and completed 15 years of service, unless the President deems it in the public interest to exempt the employee. The President has deemed it in the public interest to exempt Mr. MacIntyre. We will post further details on that.

The President today is transmitting to the Congress the 8th Annual Report of the National Endowment for the Humanities. You have that message on the report. We also have limited copies of the report available in the press office.

The President is announcing the appointment of seven persons as members of the National Advisory Council on Vocational Education for terms which will expire January 17, 1975. Members serve for three year terms and when they are involved in work of the Commission, they will be paid $138.48 a day.

Q Will their names be posted, Ron?

MORE

#1328

- 4 -

#1328

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, he did. He discussed that at great length and my memory is not faulty on that, Dave, and I would refer you to the transcript on that.

Q Ron, on another subject, there are published reports this morning, I am sure you read them, that a figure of $16 billion is being discussed in the White House as the value added tax to take up the slack of property tax revision. Is that $16 billion in the ball park that is being discussed?

MR. ZIEGLER: You know what we are doing on the value added tax. We have asked the ACIR, Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, to take a look at this matter. The proposals that we have been working on are similar to that figure. But I should add that, and I think the story points out this morning, that we want to receive from the ACIR their thinking on this and that is why we asked them to study it.

We have by no means made a final decision on this matter. We do hold a positive attitude as we have said before, about value added tax. So, there is really no difference in what I told you several days ago about the subject than today.

Q Are Ambassadors Keating and Farland still in town?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. Ambassador Keating was at the Prayer Breakfast this morning. I didn't see Ambassador Farland there, but I think he is also.

Q Have they both met with the President?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, they have not.

Q Will they?

MR. ZIEGLER: There is nothing planned for that at this time.

MORE

#1328

- 8 -

#1328

MR. ZIEGLER: As soon as we get that matter finally worked out.

Q What seems to be the hitch in that, Ron? What is the occasion for the delay?

MR. ZIEGLER: Fairness.

Q Ron, can you give us the Administration's estimate of the impact of the public revelations of the secret talks in Paris, and the prospects for reviewing them and desirability of having them in the future?

MR. ZIEGLER: I really have nothing to add to what has been said on the subject. Again, Dr. Kissinger has talked at length about the subject. He was asked a similar question, and I have nothing to add to that.

Q Do we consider those nine points negotiable?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is why they are on the table.

Q No, the nine points they issued.

MR. ZIEGLER: Here again, the fact that the two plans virtually parallel one another is something that we have been negotiating about. They are something that is negotiable, of course.

Q Would it be as futile today as it was yesterday to bring up the matter of the Anderson papers?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, it would be.

Q Will that be the case for the forseeable future, like press conferences?

MR. ZIEGLER: We don't, as you know, place any embargo on questions asked in press conferences. You are free to ask anything you like.

Q When do you expect the President to hold a news conference?

MR. ZIEGLER: There is no date or time set at this time.

Q Did you get any reaction from the President to our request of ten days or so?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, as a matter of fact, I did.

Q Can you report that reaction?

MR. ZIEGLER: We do talk about this. I mention it every time you bring it up, as you would expect, and there is no date or time set yet, but we will let you know.

Q What is his reaction when you bring it up?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is not negative.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

END #1328 (AT 12:24 P.M. EST.)

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1331

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 12:57 P.M. EST.

FEBRUARY 2, 1972

WEDNESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The NSC meeting lasted for two hours and fifteen minutes and that is all the information I am prepared to give you on that, as is the normal procedure for NSC meetings.

Q Can you tell us who was there, aside from the usual participants?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, sir.

Q Was Ambassador Bunker there?

MR. ZIEGLER: Ambassador Bunker is now in town, as you know, for routine consultations, and he very well, as a part of that consultation, may be seeing the President at some point. There is nothing set for that at this time, however.

Q But you are not responding as to whether or not he was at the NSC meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. As is the normal practice, I have nothing to tell you about the NSC meeting.

Q Has the President met, or does he plan to meet with Ambassadors Farland and Keating?

MR. ZIEGLER: There is nothing firm on that yet. The President mentioned this morning that he may be seeing Ambassador Keating later in the week, but as soon as something is firm on that, we will let you know. Ambassadors Keating and Farland have also been in the United States for consultations, and I will let you know if anything firms up on meetings with either of those gentlemen.

Q Ron, does the President have any plans to meet with -- he may already have, and if so, to meet again with -- the Chairman and ranking Minority Members of the Labor Committees of the House and the Senate in connection with the message he sent up today and the legislation that is pending?

MR. ZIEGLER: He has nothing immediate set up for meetings with them. I don't want to rule out for all time the possibility of a meeting with them, but there is nothing on the schedule now.

MORE

#1331

This Copy For News C

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1332

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 4:35 P.M. EST

FEBRUARY 2, 1972

WEDNESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We don't have a lot for you this afternoon, but the President has been working over in his EOB office after the NSC meeting this morning and the presentation to Miss Pearl Bailey and the meeting with the new Congressman, Richard Mallary. He also met with former Speaker McCormick for 15 or 20 minutes today. The former Speaker is in town, as you know.

Tomorrow's schedule:

The President will meet at 10:00 with Ambassador Kenneth Keating.

At 2:00 tomorrow, the President will greet the White House Conference on Drug Abuse. I believe Jerry covered that with you this morning.

Q Is that what it is called?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is a Conference on Drug Abuse made up of athletes who, over the past months, have contributed their time and efforts in the fight against drug use, and the session tomorrow is called the White House Conference on Drug Abuse.

Then at 3:00 tomorrow, the President will meet with the Soviet poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko. The Soviet poet is in the United States on a speaking tour.

That is the schedule for tomorrow.

Q Will we see Keating, Ron?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q What is the purpose of the Keating meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: The Ambassador has been here in Washington over the past week or so for consultation and will meet with the President as part of that consultation before returning to his post.

Q Is Ambassador Farland going to see the President, also?

MR. ZIEGLER: Ambassador Farland has not been scheduled.

MORE

#1332

- 2 -

#1332

Q Is he still in Washington, Ron?

MR. ZIEGLER: He is, yes. There is nothing on the schedule yet for Ambassador Farland to see the President.

Q You sound as if it is likely there will be.

MR. ZIEGLER: I said this morning there is a possibility. We will let you know when those matters are set.

The President is today announcing the appointment of two persons to serve as members of the Construction Industry Collective Bargaining Commission representing labor. We will post the details on that.

The two members are Martin Ward of Bethesda, Maryland, General President of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada. and Frank Bonadio of Baltimore, Maryland, who is the President of the Building and Construction Trade Department of the AFL-CIO.

Q Are they replacing anyone or new appointees, Ron?

MR. ZIEGLER: Mr. Bonadio succeeds C.J. Haggerty who died recently, and Mr. Ward succeeds Peter Shoemann who retired from his position as General President of the Association.

Q Ron, why was Ambassador Dobrynin here this afternoon?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't think he was. He wasn't here to see the President.

Q Would you check to see if he was in the White House. I thought I saw him.

MR. ZIEGLER: We can.

Q Was Ambassador Bunker here today?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q Did he see the President?

MR. ZIEGLER: I said this morning that we would announce a meeting that the President would have with Ambassador Bunker. He has not had a meeting as such with the President.

Q Apart from the NSC?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think I said this morning that I wasn't prepared to discuss the NSC.

Q Is there a meeting tomorrow on SALT?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, there is nothing scheduled on SALT tomorrow.

MORE

#1332

#1415

MR. WARREN: I cannot tell you specifically what he will be working on.

Q Will anyone be going with him?

MR. WARREN: I do not know. All of this will be embargoed until the President leaves.

Q I was not here this morning. Did anything come up on Eban's visit to the United States?

MR. WARREN: It did not come up.

I am told Mr. Eban is here on a private visit and will see Secretary Rogers tomorrow.

Q My other question, in line with what you said, is: Will he be meeting with the President?

MR. WARREN: There is nothing scheduled for him to see the President.

Q Did the President meet with General Haig again today?

MR. WARREN: Yes, he did.

Q Is there anything new on the convention site in San Diego?

MR. WARREN: You will have to ask the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Ron addressed that this morning.

Q How much time will he spend in Camp David?

MR. WARREN: The President will probably spend the weekend. He has not determined when he will return.

Q Has the President decided yet, Jerry, just when he will make his troop withdrawal speech, or in what form?

MR. WARREN: There is nothing to add to what Ron said this morning.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Jerry.

END

(AT 3:15 P.M. EST)

#1415

182

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, FEBRUARY 7, 1972

Public Statements

[10]

Despite the remarkable advances that have been made in recent years, cardiovascular diseases remain our Nation's most pressing health problem. The continued cooperation of the public and private sectors is needed if we are to discover the underlying causes of coronary artery diseases, develop more effective methods of detecting and controlling high blood pressure, and find ways of preventing inborn heart defects.

In addition to sustaining research in these fields, professional and public education programs and community services must be intensified in order to bring the benefits of such research promptly to the people. America has the second highest heart disease rate in the world. As I said in my recent message on the state of the Union: the incidence of heart disease can be reduced in this country and we must do all that is possible to achieve such a reduction.

To encourage a continuing effective attack on cardiovascular diseases, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved December 30, 1963 (77 Stat. 843), requested the President to issue annually a proclamation designating February as American Heart Month.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICHARD NIXON, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the month of February 1972 as American Heart Month. I invite the Governors of the States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and officials of other areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to issue similar proclamations.

I urge the people of the United States to consider fully the nationwide problem of heart disease and to contribute to efforts aimed at countering it. Widespread support for programs to prevent premature deaths from heart disease and stroke is essential to combat this number-one threat to the Nation's health.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred seventy-two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-sixth.

RICHARD NIXON

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 5:03 p.m., February 2, 1972]

## White House Conference on Drug Abuse

*The President's Remarks to a Group of Athletes Attending the Conference. February 3, 1972*

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin this White House briefing with the confession that perhaps doesn't need to be made before this distinguished audience. It has been rather well publicized that I am somewhat of a sports fan. As a matter of fact, I have not been able to

demonstrate that too much over the past year. I have seen only one baseball game—incidentally, the Senators won that one, too—and no football games, but several on television, baseball and football. The only basketball game I saw, incidentally, was when the Lakers lost to the Bucks in that great game out there in Milwaukee a few weeks ago.

In the course of seeing games and, of course, commenting upon them and picking plays—usually ones that did not work—I learned a lot about the game, about the men in it, and what they have contributed to this country. As one who sees sports almost exclusively on television, I want you to know that the worst part of it is the commercials, except for one kind of commercial. I think it is one of the most exciting ventures in the whole field of sports, and also in the field of television broadcasting.

When I saw the breaks come, you know, in the timeout or whatever the case might be, and then on would come what you thought was an instant replay, and it was a commercial by a man whom you admired, admired as a fine athlete on the field or on the basketball court, as the case might be, or the baseball diamond. He would come on and he would talk very effectively, very eloquently, about the subject of drug abuse in the United States. I realized as I saw those commercials, first, that we were getting—by “we” I mean the United States Government, because we asked that those for whom you are playing, that they cooperate, and the networks, of course, have cooperated, and a number of other agencies—you wonder how effective they have been.

Let me tell you we have a little proof. Many of you will know that at the end of the commercials, there is a little sign that goes on, "If you want information about drug abuse, write to the National Drug Abuse Clearinghouse in Washington, D.C." Since those commercials began, there have been over 100,000 requests that have come in. That means you got through. People were listening. They were paying attention.

What I am saying to you is that, as a sports fan, I admire those here for your great achievements in your chosen professions at this time in your lives; but as an American, I am just as deeply grateful for this free time you have been giving, because you can command a little pay for that kind of time—don't give it away free, except to us—for the free time you have been giving in making these commercials and getting at a subject in which every American concerned about the future of his country, and particularly the future of our children, has a very, very great interest.

Now, as far as the briefing is concerned, to show you how broad our interest is, and how we are attempting to wage a battle against drug abuse, which is not limited to just one section, but it is total, it is what we might describe as total warfare against drug abuse in the United States and in the world. An indication of how it is total are the people who will be addressing you: John Ehrlichman, the head of our domestic staff, will be the master of ceremonies.

183

We have the Secretary of State, the top ranking member of the Cabinet. Why is he here? Because we want to try to stop drugs coming into this country at the source. We don't produce heroin in the United States. They do produce the poppy that grows heroin in Turkey and in some parts of Southeast Asia. We have made remarkable progress in this respect, and this is a result of the cooperation of the State Department, the ambassadors abroad working with the Governments of Turkey, France, and several other governments. The Secretary of State will fill you in on those activities: stopping drugs from coming in at the source, making it more difficult for them to come in.

Every program is not going to be completely successful. Some are going to get in. They are smuggled in, and there are a variety of ways they can get around anything we do.

The second phase of the program: Once they get in, then we want to have laws effectively enforced that will punish the pushers. Now, we have set up several programs in this field, the Congress has cooperated, and you are going to be briefed by the top people in our Government who have the responsibility for law enforcement at the Federal level and who, of course, are working with State and local and city governments in seeing that we punish the pushers.

There are many reprehensible crimes, in my opinion, in this country. I can think of no crime, including even the crime of murder, burglary—you name it—which is more reprehensible than for an individual to destroy the life of a young person by pushing drugs. It is a terrible thing to do. We are having an all-out offensive waged all over this country to punish the pushers.

Now, there is another side to it. You know, many times in the field of crime, and I speak now as a lawyer and, of course, the Secretary of State is a lawyer, and so is John Ehrlichman—we all will have this same view—many times in the field of crime there is a tendency to think all you need is a law with a strong enough penalty and there will be no crime. That is not true, because that is only one side of it. No matter how strong the penalty is, there are some who are going to break the law.

Once they break the law, particularly in the field of dangerous drugs, then you have to have some compassion; then you have to take care of the addicts. That doesn't mean you excuse them for breaking the law. It does mean that once they break the law, you have to find a way to get them back into productive society, to take what would otherwise be a totally destroyed human being and make him or her whole again.

That is why we have Dr. Jaffe here, who is the top expert in this country in the field of the treatment of drug addicts. He will tell you something about what we are doing, about how we treat them; not only prevent it, but then once a person becomes addicted, to treat that particular situation.

So we have named three of the great offensives: One, stop it at the source. That is the Secretary of State's pri-

many responsibility, and, of course, the Secretary of the Treasury, through Customs and the rest, work in this field as well.

Second, we have the law enforcement, and that is punish the pushers and the peddlers, and there you will hear from the responsible people in that area.

Then, third, you have the treatment of people once they go over the wall and finally become addicts. Dr. Jaffe and others will talk to you about that.

But now comes your part. The law can be the best enforced law. We can try to stop it at the source, and we can treat the addicts, but most important, what we have to do is to try to educate, particularly young Americans, so that there will not be the demand. We have to stop them before they start. That, of course, is where you, the champions on the football field and the baseball field and the basketball court, where you have really done a marvelous job, a job which we could not possibly pay you for adequately if we had to pay your television fees commercially. You have done a marvelous job of handling this problem.

I know, incidentally, having done a little television myself through the years, and having done a few spots, what a chore it must have been; you know, going over it, "Another take, please," "Another take, please," and you must have said, "Why do I have to do it again? Is it worthwhile?"

I just want you to know, and your wives who are here with you, we have looked at the situation, we have looked at the results, and I know of no program that has paid off more, that has been more effective, than what the athletes of America have done in this field, and we are here to thank you for it.

Later, at 5 o'clock, when the briefings are completed, Mrs. Nixon will be downstairs and we would like to welcome all of you and your wives in the dining room for some refreshments and greet you each personally.

At this time I will turn the program over to the experts, and will simply close by saying, as a sportsman, I admire what you have done in the sports field, but also, as one who has the responsibility to do everything that I can to deal with one of the major problems that America faces today, drug abuse, we want to thank people who can reach young people such as a preacher cannot reach them, a politician can't reach them, a teacher can't reach them. You can, because they admire you. They respect you. They want to be like you, and that is why you get across.

Thank you very much.

NOTE: The President spoke at 2:10 p.m. in the East Room at the White House. As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press release.

Those attending the conference included college and professional athletes, the commissioners and heads of the professional leagues, network officials, and representatives of the Advertising Council.

Following the conference, the President and the First Lady hosted a reception for the participants.

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1333

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

11:25 A.M. EST

FEBRUARY 3, 1972

THURSDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We have posted the President's schedule for today. I believe Jerry told you earlier that the President met at 10:30 with Ambassador Bunker, who is here on consultations, before returning to South Vietnam.

Earlier today the President met with Ambassador Keating, who is due to return to his post in India later this week.

Q How long was that meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: About 45 minutes.

Also, at 2:00 o'clock today the President will meet with the athletes who are here participating in the White House Conference on Drug Abuse, and who have given of their time over the past months in the fight against drug use.

There will be full coverage of the President's remarks to the college and professional athletes who will attend the conference. This will be in the East Room. There will be about 60 athletes in attendance at the conference.

The program that I referred to on the anti-drug abuse announcements on the part of the athletes originated in discussions between the National Institute of Mental Health and representatives of the professional leagues. Today, more than 170 athletes from the NCAA schools and the professional football, basketball and baseball leagues have agreed to participate.

I am told that 85 athletes have made radio and television tapes up to this point. These are the announcements you have seen during the various football games that some of you may have watched.

Q Will we have a list today?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will have a list of the people attending.

Q Am I right in assuming they did not get paid for these?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is right. It is all voluntary. So the President will express his appreciation for these efforts on the part of the athletes of the country, and express how important he feels this project is.

MORE

#1333

- 4 -

#1333

sabotage an agreement by North Vietnam to have neutral inspection of the prison camps. What is the White House position on that? Is it true?

MR. ZIEGLER: I would refer you to the State Department on the details. I understand the State Department has already explained to the Congress that there is no substance to these charges.

Q Do you have anything at all on Mr. Keating's call on the President?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, except to tell you what we have told you before: The Ambassador is in the United States for consultations, and as a part of those consultations, he is meeting with the President before he returns.

Q I want to ask about a report published in the paper this morning concerning the Vice President and the issue of free legal representation for the poor. What is the President's position on the scope of the responsibility and authority for the Federal Government to assist in the representation of the poor when that representation includes civil suits brought against agencies of Government?

MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, there is legislation on the Hill at this time, and that legislation was accompanied by a statement by the President.

The President supports a separate Legal Services Corporation, as I said, based upon the recommendations he sent to the Congress last year, at the time he sent the legislation for the two-year extension of OEO. In terms of getting into a discussion of the question you raised, I am not prepared to get into that with you.

Q Is it not true that the proposed legislation implicitly authorizes the representation of the poor by federally funded attorneys in actions against Government agencies?

MR. ZIEGLER: The legislation on the Hill calls for a separate Legal Services Corporation. It calls for that separate Legal Services Corporation to be under the direction of a Board of Directors. The functions of the Legal Services Corporation would be to carry on representation of the less privileged.

Q Does President Nixon support Vice President Agnew's intervention in this Camden situation?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is something that has not been discussed, as such, between the President and the Vice President. The Vice President, I believe, as he has explained, was acting in his capacity as liaison between Federal, State and local governments. It is my understanding that there was an impasse in Camden, and that the parties are now talking with one another. But this is a subject that you should raise with the Vice President's office.

Q If they have not talked personally, is it not a fact that through his aides the President has given the Vice President instructions to do exactly this?

MORE

#1333

- 7 -

#1333

Q But, Ron, obviously we have in existence the present Legal Services funded and supervised by the Office of Economic Opportunity. My question is: Does the President believe that the present Federal Legal Services is right and proper in representing litigants in suits against State and local governments?

MR. ZIEGLER: This is something I have never talked to the President about and I don't think it is a subject that has ever been raised with the President, so I cannot be responsive.

Q Was anybody else in the meeting between the President and Ambassador Keating?

MR. ZIEGLER: Dr. Kissinger sat in on that meeting. I have the times on those meetings. Ambassador Keating's meeting began at 10:15 and concluded at 11:00. So, that lasted about 45 minutes. The meeting with Ambassador Bunker has now ended. That lasted about 40 to 45 minutes. Dr. Kissinger also sat in on that.

Q Is Ambassador Keating taking back new instructions on recognition of Bangladesh or aid to Bangladesh?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have nothing to tell you that is new on that.

Q There are reports circulating in diplomatic circles that Le Duc Tho, the North Vietnamese Politiburo Member will be in Peking at the same time President Nixon visits Peking. Has the White House been advised of that?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have not. I have no knowledge of Le Duc Tho's travel plans. (Laughter)

Q Ron, we have established reports now that there are 4,800,000 aliens in this country on temporary visas, many of which are being extended and extended and extended, and that most of these are working, are holding jobs and also that some of these from Asian countries are making such good salaries on temporary visas in this country that they can afford riverside apartments in New York City. Doesn't the White House think that if they would stop this might be some solution to the unemployment problem in this country?

With 4,800,000 admitted by the Immigration Service to be in this country and most of them working, that is quite a bit.

MR. ZIEGLER: Sarah, those figures and that information are new to me.

Q It was new to me, too, but they say it is true.

MR. ZIEGLER: I think the Immigration Department will deal with that.

Q The point is that Immigration cannot cope with it and the State Department is complaining to Immigration. This is an inter-departmental matter. It is certainly a matter of policy now that is at the White House level.

MORE

#1333

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1335

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

10:05 A.M. EST

FEBRUARY 4, 1972

FRIDAY

(Key Biscayne, Florida)

MR. ZIEGLER: We are handing out to you a message on the District of Columbia Bicentennial plan. At 10:30 we will pipe the briefing here to this room which is going to take place in Washington so you can get a little more background on it.

Q Who will be piped?

MR. ZIEGLER: Mayor Washington, Judge Kunzig, and Bud Krogh.

This message has also been handed out at the White House, so you can handle the story either from here or from there. We will proceed with the briefing this morning, and then you can either cover this or write something else.

The President plans to spend the day and the weekend at his residence here in Florida reviewing and reading the extensive material he has with him relating to his upcoming visit to the People's Republic of China. The reason he came down here this weekend was to spend time preparing for his trip and reading that material.

We will post this afternoon at 5:00 o'clock, and we will post tomorrow at 12:00 Noon.

I believe I mentioned to some of you in Washington yesterday that we were going to have the foreign policy message on Monday, and we will. We will have it available for you Monday morning at 9:30.

Q When is it for release?

MR. ZIEGLER: Later in the week, and we do not have that exact date yet. Very likely it will be for release on Wednesday, but I will firm that up as we receive progress reports on how the printing is going.

Q Will there be a State Department supplement this year, as well?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. As is customary, they will be putting out a report from the State Department also.

Q Can you give us any description of the nature of this China material; how massive it is?

MORE

#1335

- 2 -

#1335

MR. ZIEGLER: It is very extensive. The President, as you know, has been doing a good deal of reading in preparation for his trip to the Peoples Republic of China. The material he has with him this weekend is material compiled at his direction by the State Department and the National Security Council staff, additional material that he has asked for and wanted to read.

Also, the President told me last night that he intended to again, probably this weekend, review the transcript and reports from Henry Kissinger's two visits to the Peoples Republic of China, and his discussions with Premier Chou En-lai. I would say the material is well over 500 pages that he has asked for.

Q Is the President also reading books on China?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, he is. He has read books on China. He has brought some of those with him, too. I asked him whether or not he would mind if I released the names of those books, and he said he would prefer not to at this time. But he is reading published books.

Q Is he reading the "Thoughts of Mao"? Has he seen that? Has he seen a copy of the so-called "Little Red Book"?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not know.

Q Has he brought in any outside specialists to help him prepare for this, any professors, or anybody from the academic community?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe the NSC and the State Department have, at the President's direction, talked to China scholars and China experts outside of the Government in compiling the material that the President has asked for.

Q Do you have any comment on the latest Viet Cong proposal in Paris?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. We really have nothing more to say on that today.

Q Can you comment on their flat rejection of the President's plan?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I have no comment on any statement they have made.

Q Ron, Britain and West Germany and a number of other European countries today recognized Bangladesh. Does the United States plan to do that soon?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have nothing new to give you on that subject beyond what I said before.

Q Is the position here that we are not considering recognition?

MR. ZIEGLER: The position we stated before has not changed.

MORE

#1335

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1336

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

12:10 P.M. EST

FEBRUARY 5, 1972

SATURDAY

(Key Biscayne, Florida)

MR. ZIEGLER: We have given you a statement by the President on the manpower special revenue-sharing message. The statement indicates that that message will go to the Congress on Monday.

The statement, which the President worked on this morning, and which was given to you at this time, as I said, speaks to the subject of the manpower special revenue-sharing message. We will have the message available at the White House at 9:30 a.m. on Monday morning, and Secretary of Labor Hodgson will brief at the White House on Monday morning at 10:30 a.m.

I know this will no doubt raise the question: "If this is available on Monday at 9:30, how about the foreign policy report? When will that be available?" That will be available Monday afternoon, now, because of the matter of mechanics, really. We wouldn't be able to get it off the printing press until sometime Monday morning. So we will have that available to you Monday afternoon.

I will give you an additional schedule for the President on Monday.

At 12:15, the President will receive diplomatic credentials from the Ambassador-designate of Mauritania, and also the Ambassador-designate from Poland.

At 9:00 p.m. Monday evening, the President will drop by the Sheraton-Park Hotel to address the White House Conference on the Industrial World Ahead. The President will address the opening dinner of the White House Conference on the Industrial World Ahead. The conference begins Monday afternoon and continues through Wednesday.

For a little additional information for you to fill out your report on this, on April 12, 1971, President Nixon announced he was convening a White House Conference on the Industrial World Ahead to discuss the necessity of business and Government planning for the future. The conferees will look into the areas of technology, resources, and social responsibility of business, and also into the future structure of the private enterprise system.

The President is scheduled to speak at about 9:00 o'clock. He will speak only briefly in giving welcoming remarks to the conference. About 1600 representatives

MORE

#1336

- 2 -

#1336

of business and consumer groups and organized labor are
expected to attend the conference and the informal dinner.

We have also given you a release which announces
the President's intention to nominate William A. Stoltzfus,
Jr., now United States Ambassador to Kuwait, Bahrain and
Qatar, to serve concurrently, without additional compensation,
as Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman and the United Arab
Emirates. I believe that is self-explanatory.

The United Arab Emirates consist, as you know, of
Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Um al-Quwain and Fujayrah.
So those will now be included in the responsibilities of
the Ambassador. We will post that information for you so you
can round out your reports on that.

The President today is announcing his intention to
nominate Michael H. Moskow, of Paterson, New Jersey, to be
Assistant Secretary of Labor. He will fill the vacancy
created by the resignation of Arthur Fletcher, who resigned
to become an Alternate Representative to the 26th Session
of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and has now
moved on to other responsibilities.

Q What is the salary on that?

MR. ZIEGLER: $38,000 a year.

The President today is releasing a proclamation
on National Safe Boating Week for 1972. You have a copy of
that proclamation.

Those are all the announcements that we have. We
will post this afternoon at 5:00 o'clock.

The President continues his work at the residence.
He was up relatively early this morning. As a matter of fact,
I received my wake-up call from the President, not the Signal
Corps, this morning, so he was up working at 8:00 o'clock,
if not before 8:00 o'clock. He is working on the China material
that he has with him, and he also talked to Secretary Hodgson
this morning about the manpower message and about the dock
strike on the West Coast.

The President will continue to work on the China
preparation and other matters throughout the day, and tomorrow.
I do not know at this point when we will return, but we
should have more concrete information on that subject at the
5:00 o'clock posting.

Q Can you rule out this evening?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, I would rule out this evening.
Julie is leaving this evening at 7:00 o'clock.

We will not brief tomorrow. We will have a posting
here tomorrow at 12:00 Noon.

Q Ron, did Secretary Hodgson deliver any sort of
report on the possibility of settling the dock strike through
private arbitration, as opposed to Government arbitration?

MORE

#1336

turned out that they both came to us and the representatives of all concerned said we'd like to have the United States play a role, then we'd consider it seriously.

But I have a feeling that a lot of these things that are being said now in this country are just being said for political purposes.

*Mr. Kalb: You mean Senator Kennedy's comments?*

*Secretary Rogers:* Well, I'm going to refrain from referring to anybody's comment, because I don't want to, as you say, get involved in the political arena. But I think it really is outrageous to suggest that somehow we can settle that problem that's lasted for centuries.

*Mr. Herman:* But your answer was that if both sides wanted you to, you might. Now, my understanding is that the Irish have asked you. Apparently, then, the British don't want you to.

*Secretary Rogers:* No, the Irish haven't asked us as such. They—

*Mr. Herman:* Didn't Mr. Hillery suggest—

*Secretary Rogers:* I told them—I told the Irish Foreign Minister that if there was something that he and the British could agree on that we could do that would be useful, we would give serious consideration to it.

## Middle East Arms Balance

*Mr. Childs:* On still another part of the world, Mr. Secretary, the front pages today report that the United States will provide 45, I think it is, Phantoms to Israel. This is in return for their agreement to negotiate seriously. Now, do you think those negotiations are on the track? What about Egypt? Do you think Egypt will negotiate?

*Secretary Rogers:* Well, we haven't any word from Egypt yet. In fact, we haven't really been in contact with them. We hope to have some discussions directly or indirectly in the next several weeks.

We certainly hope that it will be possible to get negotiations started, either the type that we are speaking about here today or under Ambassador Jarring's [U.N. Special Representative Gunnar Jarring] auspices. Because otherwise there's no alternative. And we think that if negotiations could be started that it's possible that a settlement could be worked out, certainly an interim kind of arrangement that would look toward a final settlement.

We—you know, we have done everything we can. Fortunately, the cease-fire is still in effect, and we hope that will remain in effect. Our policy on arms is as follows, Mr. Childs. First, President Nixon has said that he wants to maintain the arms balance. And we're prepared to discuss a limitation of arms in the area. But no one seems to be interested in that. Other than that, we're going to maintain an arms balance which will discourage, we hope, all persons from starting a war.

Secondly, we're going to do everything we can to get negotiations started. We think that there is a solution that's possible that would provide a fair future for everyone in the area.

*Mr. Kalb:* Mr. Secretary, has the new communique out of Moscow after President Satat's visit suggested that more Soviet arms are going to be going to Egypt or a more conciliatory role on the part of the Soviet Union toward—

*Secretary Rogers:* Well, it's not easy to— to conclude on that. My own assessment, Mr. Kalb, is that it was somewhat conciliatory. My own assessment is that the Russians probably have the same general view that we have and that is that they hope that a war, a major war, doesn't break out there. And that certainly is our point of view.

*Mr. Herman:* Is it correct that those 42 Phantom jets and 90 Skyhawks will, as the New York Times says, go to Israel? And when will they start?

*Secretary Rogers:* Well, Mr. Herman, we have said time and time, and we're going

272

Department of State Bulletin

to repeat it, we're not going to discuss Phantoms. We're going to discuss the negotiating process. We're not going to discuss arms. We think that all attention should be focused on the negotiating process, and we're going to continue to do that. The Soviet Union doesn't announce what they're delivering to Egypt, and we're not going to.

Mr. Herman: I hope you're not adopting
that just because it's the Soviet policy.

*Secretary Rogers:* No. But we think that this is a wise policy for us to follow. We're not interested in the buildup of arms. We're interested in working out a peaceful settlement in the area.

144th Plenary Session on Viet-Nam
Held at Paris

Following are remarks made by William J. Porter, head of the U.S. delegation, at the 144th plenary session of the meetings on Viet-Nam at Paris on February 10.

Press release 39 dated February 10

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

Ladies and gentlemen: Before giving my prepared statement, I have a preliminary remark to make.

Our side has taken note of your activities in connection with the gathering which is about to occur at Versailles. We consider both those activities and the Versailles affair to be incompatible with the purpose of these talks, which is to arrive at a peaceful settlement of the Viet-Nam problem. Therefore, on behalf of our side, I wish to inform you that at the end of today's meeting we will not agree to a date for the next meeting here until we can assess the atmosphere resulting from your behavior and that of the clique which will be performing at Versailles. We will be in touch with you next week about scheduling the next meeting.

OPENING REMARKS

Ladies and gentlemen: Once again you claim to make a "logical and reasonable" approach to these talks; once again you profess an interest in serious negotiations. If that is so, if you are really prepared to apply reason and logic to the eight-point proposal which is still on the table before you, and discuss this proposal seriously, then perhaps progress here is possible.

Even a casual comparison of the eight points indicates the effort our side has made to adapt to your nine points. True, the question of elections troubles you greatly, in fact causes dismay among you. But why should that be? Did you not boast here that you controlled 80 percent of the territory and 80 percent of the population of South Viet-Nam? A political organization which really enjoyed such support would be clamoring for elections, especially when they would be under international supervision and would be organized and run by an independent body representing all political forces in South Viet-Nam. But far from demanding such elections, you retreat behind a verbal smoke-screen when the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam offers them to you.

Although you claim to advocate the right of self-determination of the South Vietnamese people, the proposals you put forward reflect not an effort to see that right put into practice but your determination to avoid an election in South Viet-Nam until you are in a position to control the outcome 100 percent. You are unwilling to state what kind of safeguards should be developed to insure that the people of South Viet-Nam will determine the future of South Viet-Nam, free of outside interference. You insist on the immediate resignation of the head of the government and the dissolution of the army, the police, and the civil administration. Only after these things come about will you proceed to discuss, with persons and groups whose identity is known only to you, the future of South Viet-Nam. As you make no mention of cease-fire, you expect the South

February 28, 1972

273

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1338

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

5:35 P.M. EST

FEBRUARY 7, 1972

MONDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: I mentioned to the President someone's request this morning that there be a text for his address tonight at 9:00 o'clock, so we are going to have a text. It will be available here in about an hour and a half, as soon as it is run off.

Q Is this an address? I thought you indicated the other day that it was just going to be fairly short.

MR. ZIEGLER: Then it has expanded itself. I have not had a chance to count it.

The pool is AP, UPI, Newsweek, UPI Audio, network
reel crew CBS, radio engineer is ABC, and UPI and AP photos.
You should be here at 8:45.

We have given you a statement by the President
relating to the signing of Senate Bill 2819, the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1971, the Act which authorizes appropria-
tions for international development assistance programs until
June 30, 1973.

I believe that statement, together with the Fact
Sheet we will give you shortly, will give you all the infor-
mation you need on this.

Q Is there money on this?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will have that in the Fact Sheet.

Q The stories at the time the House sent the bill
here said that all spending under the bill would be cut off
after April 30th until the President releases $2 billion in
frozen funds for HEW and Agriculture. Are you going to
release those funds?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not familiar with what you are talking about.

Q It is one of the restrictions of the bill the
President says he doesn't like.

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sorry; I am not aware of that.
We will have to check that. That is the first I heard of
that.

MORE

#1338

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL
12:00 NOON, WEDNESDAY
FEBRUARY 9, 1972

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

THE WHITE HOUSE

PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
DR. HENRY A. KISSINGER

ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

THE BRIEFING ROOM

4:25 P.M. EST

MR. ZIEGLER: You have had a chance to read the material on the foreign policy report. Dr. Kissinger will give you a brief overview of the foreign policy report that you have. His remarks are on the record, and will be embargoed for use until noon on Wednesday, which is the embargo indicated on the foreign policy report itself.

As we mentioned this morning, when you have had an opportunity to read it between now and 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, Dr. Kissinger will be available to you again to take your questions on the report.

At this time, Dr. Kissinger will have a few overall remarks on the scope of the report.

DR. KISSINGER: Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you a brief summary of what the report intends to do. Then we will have a more detailed briefing on Wednesday, when I will answer any questions you may have, which is hard for me to imagine, after having read this full and detailed and conclusive account of events of the last year.

Q There will be no questions today?

DR. KISSINGER: I will take a few questions today, also.

What we are attempting to do in this report is to indicate that while in the first two reports we were describing the building blocks of this Administration's foreign policy, in this report we could show how the pattern was beginning to emerge, and we consider this year, this past year, the watershed year in the sense that our various initiatives in various areas came to fruition, and in other parts, the beginning of the basic structure that we are aiming for became apparent.

As we pointed out previously, our policy has been based on the conviction that by the time this Administration came into office, a reorientation of American foreign policy had become inevitable, not because all previous policies had failed, but because many previous policies had succeeded, and had created the conditions which they were designed to bring about, and, therefore, required a new assessment.

For example, the emergence of Western Europe and the recovery of Japan had been basic goals of American postwar foreign policy. To the extent that they came into being, as they had to, in considerable extent by the late 1960s, they required a new political approach.

MORE

- 2 -

Similarly, in the field of international economic policy, many of the measures that were taken at the end of World War II, when the United States' economy was the only one that had emerged from the war essentially intact, and when the dollar was the reserve currency, this structure was bound to be affected by the recovery of the other industrialized nations.

Now, with respect to the other two areas that are covered in the section on the areas of major change, the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China, 1971 saw the coming to fruition of the basic approach that was outlined by the President early in his Administration. You will remember that in, I think it was, the President's first press conference, but in any event early in the new Administration, the President laid down certain principles by which we were going to regulate our relationships with the Soviet Union, the attempt to conduct negotiations on the basis of concrete, detailed negotiations, the effort to get to the root causes of the cold war. The realization of progress in one area was related to progress in other areas.

All of these principles were established, and at the appropriate time, when progress had been made on a sufficiently broad front, the time might come at which the leaders of the two countries might meet.

These conditions were essentially fulfilled in 1971 when there was a preliminary agreement on SALT, which has led to rather substantial progress in the subsequent negotiations which we hope to bring to a conclusion this year, when there was an agreement on Berlin, and a whole host of other agreements that are listed in the report.

Now, the initiative toward the Peoples Republic of China had been developing over a period of three years. Again, early in this Administration, we began, both through official and secret channels, to contact the leaders of the Peoples Republic of China, with a view toward pointing out that it was imperative for the world's most powerful and for the world's most populous nations to be in communication with each other.

Now, these initiatives, which followed an uneven course, finally came to a head in the summer of 1971 when direct contact was established with the leaders of the Peoples Republic of China, and this, in turn, led to the visit which the President will be making to Peking.

Again, we are pointing out in this report that what we are attempting to do with the Peoples Republic of China is not to have a visit; what we are attempting to do is start a historic evolution in which two great countries which had been out of contact with each other can understand each other's purposes over a period of time sufficient so that where they differ they can regulate their conflict without an outbreak of hostilities, and where they have parallel interests, they can pursue them.

Many of the expectations, therefore, of this trip will depend on intangibles, and on a somewhat philosophical assessment by the two sides of each other. We do not, in other words, consider this trip as an end in itself, but as the beginning of a long process.

MORE

- 3 -

We have, of course, also had some areas of dis-
appointment. We are pointing out in this report that we
are trying to give an account of the situation in various
other parts of the world, such as Southeast Asia, Latin
America and Africa, in which progress has not been as
dramatic as in the areas that I have just mentioned, and
we also are describing the actions we have taken in Indo-
china and to try to give a fair assessment of where we
stand in South Vietnam, although no doubt this is an issue
on which feelings run so high and convictions run so deep
that different views as to the significance of this or that
event are undoubtedly possible.

We are describing both the policy of Vietnamiza-
tion and the efforts we have made in the field of negotia-
tion, and indicate where we intend to go, and we point out
that our failure up to now to bring about a negotiated
settlement has been the gravest disappointment in this
Administration; but, nevertheless, it is a course we intend
to pursue with great energy.

The chapter on South Asia attempts to explain,
since we could not get all the documents declassified, our
view of the situation and why we acted as we acted. But it
is clearly also listed under the categories of our disappoint-
ments.

The remainder of the report deals with the approaches
to national security, our general policy of arms control, and
it has a concluding chapter in which we are attempting a
definition of what we mean by "a generation of peace."

Now, let me make one intention of this report plain.
I noticed, for example, last year that a great deal of the
comment concentrated on one chapter, the chapter on Indo-
china. This is natural, because this is in people's minds.
But this attempts a philosophical explanation of what it
is that this Administration is trying to achieve in the field
of foreign policy, what the premises of our approach are,
why we have acted as we have acted across the board. It
is not a justification of one particular set of policies in
one particular area of the world.

It is in this general philosophical approach that
we consider the basic significance of this document to reside.

The Department of State and the Department of
Defense are going to issue reports which will go in greater
detail into policies vis-a-vis individual countries, for
which this report has no space, or into specific weapons
decisions, which again we do not cover in this report.

This attempts to lay out the basic philosophy, the
basic pattern, the interrelationhiip as we see it, so that
the American public can understand what its Government's
perception of international affairs is, so that foreign
countries can understand why we are acting as we do, and so
that we have a framework for a debate on foreign policy in
this country.

Now, as Ron has pointed out to you, I will meet
with you again Wednesday at 10:00 a.m., by which time I am
sure you will have found the verbs, which are in the last

MORE

- 4 -

chapter of the report, and I will answer your questions,
but I will answer a few questions now.

Q Can I ask what you meant when you said the
Russians exercised in the end the restraining influence, on
page 26, on the India-Pakistan war? You also said the
President worked with the Russians to keep the war from
spreading destruction to the West Pakistan Army. Can you
explain how that happened?

DR. KISSINGER: No. I can only repeat what is in
the report, which is: While our views are not the same
about the origins of the war, and the role various countries
played in making the war more possible, we do have the
impression that during the second week of the Indo-Pakistan
war, that the Soviet Union played a restraining role, but I
do not want to go into it any further.

Q Dr. Kissinger, you mentioned that you found
mutually friendly countries or intermediary countries
to conduct your initial approaches to Peking. Can you
identify them, and were France and Romania among them?

DR. KISSINGER: We have adopted the policy that we
would not mention the intermediary countries that were used.
Of course, it is obvious that one of them had to have been
Pakistan, since the flight that I took originated in Paki-
stan. But we will not identify any of the other countries.
We tried very many approaches until we could find one that
both sides felt equally comfortable with.

Q To follow up on the first question, that sec-
tion of the report, if I remember rightly, also says that
the Government had convincing evidence of the Indian inten-
tion to occupy Kashmir and to destroy the remainder of the
Pakistan armed forces. Can you give us some indication of what
the nature of that evidence was, and how strong and credible
that evidence was, and what the sources of it were?

DR. KISSINGER: I cannot go into the nature of the
sources, except to repeat what we have said consistently:
We considered the evidence overwhelming. It was supported
by other events, such as the disinclination of the Indian
Government at that time, at the time of the crisis, to give
us unambiguous assurances about its intentions with respect
to West Pakistan; that we did not make this statement
lightly, and it reflected our best judgment.

Q Dr. Kissinger, as the American role shrinks
in the world, can you look confidently forward to a 500-
page report next year? (Laughter)

DR. KISSINGER: The rhetorical ability of my
staff bears no relationship to our involvement in world
affairs.

Q Dr. Kissinger, on page 168 you say that the
Soviet Union was willing to make military moves to deter
China on India's behalf, and for the U.S. to get in an
arms race and threaten China was out of the question. Can
you give us some idea of what moves were taken by them to
deter China?

MORE

- 5 -

DR. KISSINGER: This is in a section in which we are discussing what the choices were that we had. The argument that is made here is that had we adopted a different, more ambiguous position, the result might have been to encourage an attack on West Pakistan without changing the fact that it was the Soviet Union which, during that crisis, was bound to get the principal credit.

What we had in mind here were the threats that the Soviet Union made against the intervention of other powers, which would be taken as a threat to Soviet security.

Let me say one thing about this chapter. It is not our intention to indict any country in this chapter. The theme of this chapter, at least the intended theme of this chapter, is to do two things: One, to explain the reasoning that went into the decisions that were taken; and to explain that the Government was not acting out of pique, but out of its best judgment of the requirements of the American national interest at that period.

Secondly, now that the crisis is over, we are also emphasizing in this chapter our seriousness in re-establishing a dialogue with all of the countries in South Asia and, therefore, the significance of what we say here about the past is to explain to the American people why we acted in the way we did; abut equally, we are saying to all of the countries on the subcontinent that we now have to face the future and that we are prepared for a realistic dialogue.

Q Has that already begun? Have you had any secret talks with Ambassador Jha, for instance?

DR. KISSINGER: I don't want to go into discussions of who talks to whom, but I do not conduct secret talks in Washington. (Laughter) But the dialogue has already begun.

Q In the dialogue with the nations of South Asia, the report is silent on the diplomatic recognition of Bangladesh. Is that a deliberate silence?

DR. KISSINGER: I would like to think that everything in this report is more or less deliberate. There are some people in the press corps who are cheating, who are reading from the back forward. The report indicates our basic attitude toward the people of East Bengal indicates that we want to maintain our relationship with them, indicates our attitude toward the problem of humanitarian and other relief. In that area, it does not discuss the juridical basis under which this was taken, which is under active review, and, therefore, we could not say anything.

MORE

- 6 -

Q You listed a lot of moves we made last year to open the door to China, new relations, trade, and passports. You made two startling omissions. One was the removing of the 7th Fleet, and also the stoppage of the U-2 flights over China. Were they not significant?

DR. KISSINGER: The removal of the 7th Fleet? I don't exactly know what you are talking about.

Q From the Formosa Straits.

DR. KISSINGER: That action was taken the year before.

Q Secretly?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, not very secretly.

Q Did that have an effect?

DR. KISSINGER: There has been no removal of the Fleet. There has been a particular patrol which had a symbolic significance. It may have had an effect. I don't want to get into reconnaissance flights.

Q On Page 25, where you talk about the tasks ahead in Moscow, "One, an accord on an initial SALT agreement or the issues to be discussed in the second stage," this suggests that you might settle for no agreement except an agreement on what to talk about in the second stage; is that correct?

DR. KISSINGER: No. The negotiations that are now going on concern an initial agreement; that is to say, they concern the implementation of the May 20th understanding between the President and Prime Minister Kosygin. Now, we did not want to leave the impression that the completion of that negotiation will inevitably have to wait until the summit. Therefore, either that agreement will be completed at the summit or if it is completed prior to the summit, we will, at the summit, discuss the follow-on agreement.

In any event, it is our expectation that we will make major progress towards a SALT agreement this year.

Q Dr. Kissinger, you said a minute ago that the juridical basis of our action in East Bengal is under review. Does that mean there is active consideration of our recognition of Bangladesh?

DR. KISSINGER: We are considering the whole issue of the situation in Bangladesh.

Q I have a question on the question of the initial agreement, getting back to the May accord, the initial agreement will include an agreement on limiting ABM and some agreement on strategic weapons?

DR. KISSINGER: The initial agreement will be within the framework of the May 20th agreement. That is to say, it will include an agreement on defensive weapons as well as a limitation on offensive weapons. The nature of the limitation on offensive weapons is at present under negotiation, but any agreement will include offensive limitations. That issue is no longer in dispute. That has been agreed to.

MORE

Q On that same page, Page 25, Dr. Kissinger, you say that we want to establish a political framework for dealing with the issues still in dispute. What do you mean by a political framework?

DR. KISSINGER: Obviously, we will not settle all outstanding issues in Moscow. Those that we cannot settle, we would like to establish some groundrules about, either how we are going to bring them forward by negotiation, which is most hopefully what we will do, or if we do not see how a negotiation can develop at that moment, they could be handled so that the rivalry does not flare up into confrontation.

Q Do you see something institutional being established?

DR. KISSINGER: I think not, not necessarily anyway, and probably not.

Q That applies mainly to the Middle East -- partly at least?

DR. KISSINGER: It could apply to the Middle East.

Q On Page 40 you state that the historic significance of this journey, going to Peking, lies beyond whatever formal understanding we might reach. Can you speculate with us on what areas you might reach some formal understanding?

DR. KISSINGER: Mr. Ziegler hasn't let me in on his negotiations. He was there more recently than I was. (Laughter.)

Q Just the areas.

DR. KISSINGER: We would prefer not to speculate on this, although we obviously would like to have more institutionalized diplomatic and other contacts.

Q Dr. Kissinger, I have gotten as far as Page 9. (Laughter) On Page 9, under the heading, "The Problem of Timing," you say, "By the end of the year, however, it was clear that our initiatives toward both our friends and our adversaries were in basic harmony. Progress in each contributed to progress in the other. In phase, each reinforced and gave added momentum to the other."

Does this mean that the President feels that progress in our China initiative gave impetus to progress in our Soviet understandings or vice versa.

DR. KISSINGER: No. What this meant was that this referred to the fact that some of our allies were temporarily disquieted by our initiatives toward our adversaries and we believe that during the discussions that went on in the second half of the year with our allies, a substantial rapport was re-established. So there is now a considerable understanding by each side of where we are going, what we are likely to do. It referred to the friend-adversary problem and not the Soviet-China problem.

MORE

Q Have any of your experts or Mr. Ziegler's experts found out how many words are in this statement?

DR. KISSINGER: I have not seen any authoritative count, and I would not risk a credibility gap.

Q Would you welcome a debate on this report? Earlier today we heard that a White House spokesman said that some criticism was not conducive to peace.

DR. KISSINGER: One of the purposes of this report is to have a serious debate about the national purposes, and we would welcome a debate.

Q On Page 164, Paragraph 4, you say "Moreover, at the same time India built up its capacity to produce its own heavy arms -- a capacity which Pakistan did not have. As a result, the military balance shifted decisively toward India between 1966 and 1971."

Does this imply that you are opposed to such a shift being made? Do you plan to aid Pakistan now?

DR. KISSINGER: This was an analysis of the causes and the structure of the war. This does not reflect a value judgment; nor is it a guide to future American policy. It is simply a description of what happened prior to the outbreak of the war, the principles that will guide future U. S. policy on the subcontinent are stated at the end of the chapter and are attempted to be put forward in a constructive and conciliatory spirit.

Q It says here non-African powers should not seek opportunities for exploiting local conflicts. Instead of speculating that this is addressed to the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, I wonder if you would explain that, please.

DR. KISSINGER: I think it is a general question of restraint that we are applying in each area of the world, and it was not directed at any specific country.

Q The United States and the Soviet Union both seem to be putting a high priority regarding the summit on the Middle East. You list it as Number 2 on page 25, after SALT, and before European Security. What useful role do you think the Soviet Union can play in the Middle East at this time?

DR. KISSINGER: We have been talking in this report about the need for restraint of all parties with respect to the arms balance in the Middle East; whatever contribution the major countries can make to matters of this kind.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END

(AT 4:58 P.M. EST)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FEBRUARY 9, 1972

THE WHITE HOUSE

THE EAST ROOM

10:10 A.M. EST

MR. ZIEGLER: You have had an opportunity to read the Foreign Policy Message. Dr. Kissinger will discuss it with you this morning. What he says is on the record. It is embargoed until after the President's statement that he will make this morning on nationwide radio.

DR. KISSINGER: The last time I talked to you I explained what this report represents. I might say a word about how it was put together. The process of writing the report started in the fall when the various departments were asked to submit their ideas as to the content. The State Department, Defense Department, and for the economic sections, the Treasury Department, were asked to make recommended submissions. This is then put into turgid prose by members of my staff.

We circulate these drafts to the departments, get their comments, and then go through various drafts. When the drafts reach a stage approaching finality, the President reads the drafts, gives his suggestions, and then the final product emerges.

Now, let me go to your questions.

Q Dr. Kissinger, in the message, on Page 137, it refers to the turn of the year when there were many signs that the enemy was preparing for a major offensive in Vietnam. What is your current estimate as to the extent of this offensive and the timing of it relative to the Peking visit?

DR. KISSINGER: We have no additional information to what we have already given you. The enemy has stepped up infiltration compared to last year, infiltration of men. Infiltration of material is slightly above last year, if our estimates are correct. He appears to be concentrating, especially in the area of the Central Highlands, but perhaps also for high point activities, as far south as the Delta.

That offensive could start at any time. We are not saying it will start. We are saying he is putting himself into a position in which he has the capability to start and we expect that it may well start, but we have really nothing to add to what has already been said and what is in this report because the decision now is up to the other side.

Q Dr. Kissinger, On Page 155, talking about the Soviet Union's moves in the Middle East, you say, "The Atlantic Alliance cannot ignore the possible implications of this move for the stability of the East-West relationship." What action by the Atlantic Alliance was contemplated when you made that statement?

MORE