This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1225

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 12:05 P.M. EDT.

OCTOBER 29, 1971

FRIDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: You have the President's schedule today. That has been posted.

Tomorrow, as we have already announced, the President will have a final meeting with President Tito at 10:00 in the morning, and then President Tito will leave on his additional stops that he has planned for the United States.

Q Do you have any details of these other stops?

MR. ZIEGLER: We do not at this time. Those will be provided tomorrow.

Q By State?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, by State.

Q What is the rest of the President's schedule for tomorrow?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is the only thing on his schedule at this time. His weekend plans at this time are not set.

Q When do you think you will be able to tell us about that?

MR. ZIEGLER: Tomorrow.

Q Do you think he will stay in the area, maybe Camp David?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is my feeling now, but he has not decided.

Q Should we send for advance money? The banks will be closed tomorrow.

Q Shall we take prudent precautions?

MR. ZIEGLER: If I were a prudent reporter, I would always carry money around in my pocket. (Laughter.)

MR. ZIEGLER: We have no other announcements to provide you today.

Q What time will you be briefing tomorrow? I assume you will brief tomorrow.

MORE

#1225

- 2 -

#1225

MR. ZIEGLER: We will have a joint statement or
communique tomorrow after the final meeting here.

Q That will be around noon?

MR. ZIEGLER: You should be here by 11:00.

Q Will there be a public appearance together
tomorrow morning by the President and President Tito?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will not have a photo opportunity,
but as he leaves, we will have a picture of the departure.

Q Did the President ask President Tito to
suggest possible solutions to the Middle East dispute?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have seen those stories, and the
assumption of the question which was stimulated by the stories
is in error. The President, of course, is very interested in
learning from President Tito his assessment of the Middle East
situation. As you know, he met recently with President Sadat
of Egypt and other leaders.

But the United States has not requested President
Tito to play a direct role in our efforts in relation to the
settlement of the Middle East problem. The President was
interested, as I said, in hearing the views and the reflections
of President Tito. We said yesterday that the President
valued very much the time spent with him. But the basic
assumption as put forth in the stories that I noted this morning
was incorrect.

Q Ron, instead of a question, this is a statement
and a plea. When we have material like this in connection with
Mr. Ruckelshaus and the environment, we would be able to ask
much more intelligent questions and perhaps save time if we
had it well in advance.

MR. ZIEGLER: There is no question about that.
I agree with that, Jack. We blew it this morning. It should
have been handed out to you sooner.

Q Ron, the FBI in checking out potential
opponents of the President's potential nominees to the Supreme
Court is not only asking what the views are on the nominees,
but asking if they intend to testify before the Senate hearings.
Do you think this line of questioning is proper and do you see
any tone of intimidation from an FBI agent to someone who may
be trying to decide if they should testify?

MR. ZIEGLER: Tom, I don't think I will attempt
to serve as a spokesman for the FBI. They have been asked
to look very extensively, as you would expect, into the
background of the nominees, and I assume they are proceeding
along that line.

But I would simply make this observation. I
recall standing here answering questions previously, some months
ago, about perhaps not as extensive checks being made as some
felt should have been, and apparently as I have read the story,
you can read it in two ways. As I read it, it conveyed to me
they are attempting to solicit as much information as they can

MORE

#1225

VISIT OF PRESIDENT JOSIP BROZ TITO
OF YUGOSLAVIA

Public [c]
Statements

*Joint Statement by President Nixon and President Tito Following Their Meetings on October 28 and 30. October 30, 1971*

At the invitation of the President of the United States of America, Richard Nixon, the President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito, accompanied by Mrs. Broz and their party, is paying a State visit to the United States. Following their Washington stay from October 28 to October 30, 1971, President Tito and Mrs. Broz and their party are to visit several points of interest in other parts of the country, remaining in the United States until November 2, 1971.

The meetings between the two Presidents, which took place in a cordial, frank and friendly atmosphere, provided the opportunity for comprehensive discussion of the principal issues on the current international scene. Full and mutual respect was accorded the views expressed by both sides in the talks, which covered areas of agreement and areas where differences existed. Each side presented its full and candid views on a broad range of topics which included, in addition to Yugoslav-US relations, European security, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, Africa, the developing countries, the international monetary situation, and others. In the course of the visit, problems of environment and international measures for the control of illicit narcotics traffic were also discussed.

The two Presidents devoted particular attention to the importance of guaranteeing peace and stability by the peaceful settlement of disputes and by adherence to the principles of independence, mutual respect and the full equality of sovereign states, regardless of divergence or similarity in their social, political and economic systems, in full accordance with the spirit and principles of the United Nations Charter.

They welcomed the continuing growth of cooperation throughout the world and increased reliance on participation in negotiations to reconcile the interests of all nations, large and small, in a world of indivisible peace and interdependence.

It was emphasized in this regard that Yugoslavia's policy of nonalignment has been a significant factor in international relations. Countries following such a policy, together with the rest of the world, can make an active contribution to the resolution of world problems and to the more favorable evolution of international relations.

Presidents Tito and Nixon stressed that meaningful disarmament and arms control measures, as well as productive economic and social development, are inter-related factors of peace, stability, and progress in the world. The two Presidents reviewed the problems and needs of the developing countries and the efforts these countries are making in order to improve their position, as well as the possibilities and interest of the international community to assist them in this, particularly in view of the present economic and monetary situation in the world.

Presidents Tito and Nixon agreed that, since their last meeting, measurable progress has been made in the search for lasting peace and security in Europe. They believe that it is possible to take further significant steps along these lines which would serve the interests not only of the

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, NOVEMBER 1, 1971

1459

countries of Europe and the Mediterranean basin, but of world peace generally. They expressed their strong view that a firm peace and true security are indivisible and can be attained only in Europe as a whole, and not in only one or another part of it. They are convinced that each of the European and other interested states has an indispensable role in the construction of a Europe in which reconciliation, peace, and security are fully assured to all its peoples.

Both sides expressed the belief that general improvement in the international atmosphere and the broadening of the area of negotiations and cooperation must be supported by urgent efforts to achieve peaceful settlements of the more critical and dangerous conflicts, particularly those in the Middle East and South Asia. Each side stated its view on Southeast Asia.

President Tito conveyed to President Nixon his impressions from his recent meetings with the leaders of various countries. He acquainted President Nixon with the activities of Yugoslavia in the international field, and also with certain domestic questions concerning the Constitutional amendments and the economic development of the country. President Nixon reaffirmed the interest of the United States in the independence and nonaligned position and policy of Yugoslavia.

President Nixon advised President Tito of the current initiatives of the United States Government in international relations, of his contacts with world statesmen and of the new economic policy of the United States. President Tito expressed his great interest in the foreign policy initiatives of the United States Government and in its important role in international affairs.

Presidents Tito and Nixon expressed satisfaction with the development of Yugoslav-US bilateral relations in all fields in the year since their last meeting. Noting that consultations between the two countries had broadened significantly at all levels on matters of mutual interest, the two Presidents reaffirmed their conviction that extensive bilateral exchange on all topics has served the interests of the two countries and of world peace, and resolved that these consultations should be continued and further extended.

The two Presidents also agreed that in the further development of cooperation in fields of common interest, particular attention should be paid to the more advanced forms of economic relations including industrial cooperation, joint investment, cooperation on third markets, etc., to new, broader joint programs in scientific and technological research; and to working out a long-term program of cultural and artistic exchange.

They expressed the conviction that relations between the US and Yugoslavia, characterized by equality and complete mutual respect, represent an important factor for the peace and stability of Europe and the world in general, and serve the aims of broad international understanding. Guided by these goals, and in the interest of the further development of friendly relations between the two countries, the two Presidents resolved to continue the useful practice of the exchange of mutual contacts.

The two sides will base their cooperation and relations on lasting foundations in accordance with the understanding achieved and in the spirit of the principles reflected in this joint statement.

1453

Preparations for the President's Visit
to China

*Announcement of Status of Arrangements Following Meeting in Peking Between Premier Chou En-lai and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. October 27, 1971*

Premier Chou En-lai and Dr. Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's Assistant for National Security Affairs, held

talks in Peking from October 20th to 26th, 1971, in order to make concrete arrangements for President Nixon's visit to China. These arrangements are proceeding well.

It is expected that another announcement concerning President Nixon's visit will be issued in the near future.

**NOTE:** The announcement was issued simultaneously in Washington and Peking. It was read by Ronald L. Ziegler, Press Secretary to the President, at his news conference at 4:03 p.m. on Wednesday, October 27, 1971. It was not issued in the form of a White House press release.

*Exchange of Remarks Between President Nixon and President Tito at the Welcoming Ceremony on the South Lawn. October 28, 1971*

PRESIDENT NIXON. President Tito, Madam Broz, our distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

Mr. President, I am very honored on behalf of the American people to welcome you again to the United States and to our Nation's Capital. I welcome you on this occasion first as the leader of a nation with which the United States has very friendly relations, but I welcome you also as a world statesman of the first rank.

I recall on the occasion of the visit that I made to your country—the privilege of being the first President of the United States to visit Yugoslavia—the long talks that we had, not only about relations between our two countries, but about the problems of the world generally. I look forward to resuming those talks today and on the occasions that we will meet while you are here. I know that our discussions will further the interests of better relations between our two countries, but will also contribute to the goal of peace in the world, to which you are dedicated and to which we are dedicated.

A moment ago, across these south grounds of the White House, we heard the music of your national anthem. The words of that national anthem also have very great meaning. One phrase reads like this: "We will stand steadfast and strong, like a granite mountain." Mr. President, may our friendship between Yugoslavia and the United States always be steadfast and strong, and may our dedication to the principle of the right of every nation in the world to be independent in a world of peace be as steadfast and strong.

Mr. President, we welcome you warmly, not only to our Nation's Capital, but also to the other parts of America that you will visit in the days that you are here.

PRESIDENT TITO. Mr. President, Mrs. Nixon, ladies and gentlemen:

May I thank you most warmly on behalf of my wife, my associates, and in my own name for this solemn and friendly welcome, and for your kind words.

I feel great satisfaction in the fact of meeting you again after your important visit to my country, the first visit paid by an American President

1454

to Yugoslavia. Encounters and talks eloquently reflect the traditionally friendly relations prevailing between our two countries, allies in the World Wars, participants in the founding of the United Nations, which have had much in common in their past history.

Today we are also bound by the fact that the fate of all countries and peoples is becoming ever more common, as we live in a world in which, in view of the present level of progress of mankind, we can achieve general prosperity or suffer general catastrophe.

Founded on mutual respect and enriched by new possibilities for equal cooperation, our relations are developing in all fields. We have come here, in the same way as you came to Yugoslavia, to strengthen and promote precisely such relations still further. This is in the interest of our two countries, while at the same time these relations constitute a significant factor of peace and stability in Europe and in the world.

Mr. President, we are looking forward with particular interest to our talks with you and your associates on many important questions of international relations in which your country plays a very important role and bears a great responsibility. As an independent and nonaligned country, firmly resolved to remain the sovereign architect of its own internal development and of its foreign policy, Yugoslavia is vitally interested in the broadest democratic international cooperation and in the removal of all barriers and divisions that are hampering it.

Striving to contribute to the utmost to such cooperation in a world of indivisible peace and freedom, we are following with great attention and understanding the new trends in the "era of negotiations" to which you, personally, Mr. President, are contributing with your initiatives and active involvement.

We are confident that this time, too, our open exchange of views will contribute to better mutual understanding, to the expansion of bilateral cooperation and strengthening of joint efforts for the easing of tensions and peaceful solution of international problems which are burdening the world.

I am gratified, esteemed friend, that this time I shall also have the opportunity to visit some parts of your great and beautiful country, whose talented and enterprising people are engaged in accomplishing great achievements as well as in a search for solutions for the problems and needs of man in this dynamic epoch of development of science and technology.

I bring to the American people and to you, Mr. President, the friendly greetings of the peoples of Yugoslavia.

PRESIDENT NIXON. Zivila [Long live] Yugoslavia!

PRESIDENT TITO. Long live America!

NOTE: The President spoke at 11:06 a.m. on the South Lawn at the White House where President Josip Broz Tito was given a formal welcome with full military honors. President Tito began his remarks in English and continued in Serbo-Croatian; as printed above, his remarks follow the text of the White House press release.

1455

## National Association of Manufacturers

*The President's Remarks for a Nationwide NAM Teleconference. October 28, 1971*

Good morning, Mr. Gullander, ladies and gentlemen:

I regret that I am unable to be with you today in person, but I do wish to take this opportunity to greet you and to make a few remarks on the subject of this very important NAM teleconference. I am happy to report that the 90-day wage-price freeze we put into effect in mid-August, has been extraordinarily successful. This success has been a great tribute to the patriotism and the pride of the American people.

In just over 2 weeks we shall move into the post-freeze program. In formulating this economic stabilization program I have talked with representatives of all segments of the population, including labor leaders, business leaders, manufacturers, agricultural groups, industrialists, congressional leaders, and consumers. Through this program the existing price and wage freeze will be replaced by price and wage control exercised by the Pay Board and the Price Commission working with the Cost of Living Council.

We are confronting inflation head on with this program. We have launched an offensive in this battle against inflation and we are going to win this battle. I say that with confidence because the American people and you, an important and influential segment of the American people, have shown such cooperation during Phase 1.

The ideal of prosperity in a world of peace has caught the imagination and summoned up the will of the American people. And I call upon you this morning, the leaders of American business, to join with me during the post-freeze period in the great task of revitalizing America's economy so that together we can achieve that great goal of full prosperity in a world of peace.

I wish you every success in today's NAM teleconference.

NOTE: The President's remarks were recorded on audio tape for closed-circuit television replay to regional meetings of the NAM in 26 cities. Some 20,000 business and civic leaders attended the sessions.

## Visit of President Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia

*Exchange of Toasts Between President Nixon and President Tito at a Dinner Honoring the Yugoslavian President. October 28, 1971*

PRESIDENT NIXON. Mr. President, Madam Broz, our distinguished guests from Yugoslavia, and all of our distinguished guests from the United States:

As I was talking to President Tito tonight, my memory went back to other occasions in this State Dining Room of the White House when other world leaders have occupied the chair which he now sits in. The great leaders of the world have been here.

I recall the evening when Winston Churchill was in this chair, Charles de Gaulle, Adenauer, Nehru, Sukarno. I think of those leaders and many others, and then I think of President Tito of Yugoslavia, our distinguished guest tonight.

The men that I have mentioned all headed countries that were bigger than Yugoslavia, both in territory and in numbers. But I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that no world leader who has been honored in this room has personally met and known more world leaders in his capacity as head of state and government than President Tito of Yugoslavia.

This means that one who is so fortunate to have the opportunity to talk to him is able to talk to one who is as well informed, if not better informed, than any world leader in all the world today. This tells us something about both the man and his country.

Yugoslavia is a country about the size of Wyoming. It has 20 million people, a diverse country in terms of its people, just like the people of the United States are diverse. Yugoslavia has followed, under the leadership of President Tito, a policy of what is sometimes called "non-alignment," but which I would say simply would be one of trying to have good relations with all nations, whatever their philosophies, whatever their geography, whatever their background.

For this reason, our distinguished guest tonight has traveled throughout the world, has been received, honored, and respected in nations throughout the world; and, consequently, he has demonstrated that it is possible to have good relations with nations who may not have good relations with each other. This makes him rather unique on the world scene today.

For that reason, the talks that I had with him a year ago, and again on this occasion, have been most helpful and constructive. And his contribution not only as a leader in war, but even more as a leader in peace, to the cause of peace, to which he is dedicated and we all are dedicated, will be one which history will record is unique because of the position that he has held.

In proposing a toast to him tonight, I can refer to him as the President of a friendly country, I can refer to him as a leader in war, but I think that he would prefer to be referred to as one who is a leader in peace.

I know that all in this room, including the several of our guests from America who have backgrounds, as do so many millions of Americans, from Yugoslavia, that all of you will want to join me in the toast that I will propose not just to the man, President Tito, a world renowned figure, but to a country of brave people and courageous people with whom we are fortunate to have friendly relations, and to the future of that country and all countries like it in the world. They may not be large

1456

in terms of territory, they may not be numerous in terms of numbers, but they are proud, they cherish their independence, and they have a right to that independence. We respect it.

To the man who stands for the right of every country in the world to choose its own way, to have its own policy, the man who stands for independence and peace in the world, President Tito, I propose his toast tonight.

To President Tito and Madam Broz.

It is with particular pleasure that I have responded to your cordial invitation to pay my first state visit to the United States of America. On behalf of my wife, my associates, and in my own name, I wish to thank you sincerely for the warm words you have addressed to us. We are greatly honored by this distinguished gathering in the famous building in which so many of the architects of your country have lived and have been engaged in creative activity.

This, Mr. President, is my second meeting with you. I also had the pleasure of meeting Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. Meetings at the highest level between our two countries have already become a tradition and are a reflection of good and friendly relations, as well as of the constant concern shown by our two governments for such meetings.

Your exceptionally significant visit to Yugoslavia has raised relations between our two countries to a higher level. You have deeply impressed us by your broad interest in the intensive development of these relations, and by your efforts to promote meaningful cooperation. It is also our desire that these relations should be constantly expanded, and that our cooperation should be further enriched and expanded. In this connection, I have in mind consultations and exchanges of views in the context of our joint efforts to solve international problems, more developed economic cooperation, and new projects in the scientific, cultural, and other fields.

Constant progress in our relations has been due precisely to the fact that they have always been founded on equal rights and mutual respect, and that, on this basis, we have been successful in discovering new possibilities for their development. Relations built on such foundations correspond best to the interests of our two countries and constitute, at the same time, a contribution by Yugoslavia and the United States of America, with all their specific features, to international cooperation in general.

Mr. President, I have always been impressed by the results of the dynamic development of your country. The great achievements of the American people, who are about to celebrate the 200th anniversary of their revolution and independence, have meant much for the general progress of mankind. The United States has made, and is making, a major contribution to the solution of many problems facing man, the citizens and producers of material goods.

Important process and reforms are underway in Yugoslavia. On the basis of the results achieved so far, they are creating conditions for an ever fuller assertion of man, of his creative initiative and his role in society, for even more democratic relations in our multi-national community. We are just as resolutely endeavoring to stabilize our economy and to eliminate difficulties that we have never concealed, although they were not always caused by developments on our soil, and which are understandable in such a fast development as ours. Both actions will further strengthen the power and unity of Yugoslavia and its role in international cooperation.

During your visit to Yugoslavia, Mr. President, I acquainted you with our views of the world and our place in it, and I have tried to explain the basic principles of our foreign policy and how we see the most important international issues. I merely wish to underline on this occasion also that independent and non-aligned Yugoslavia never develops its relations with one country to the detriment of its relations with another country.

We have thrown open the borders of our country to a free flow of people and the widest circulation of ideas and goods. In our cooperation with other countries, we are not guided by any prejudices, and we appraise our partners according to their actual behavior toward the world and ourselves.

We know from experience that differences between countries do not, in themselves, preclude good cooperation, just as similarities do not automatically guarantee friendly relations. Our policy of non-alignment, policy of active coexistence, is aimed at strengthening equitable international cooperation, the independence and unhampered development of all countries, and peace in the world.

Non-alignment, in our view, is an active international factor, and not a policy of some kind of opportunistic "equidistance" or a priori alignment with these or those stands. We support all that we believe to be positive, and oppose the use of force, attempts at domination, and all pressures, no matter where they come from, and we shall persevere along this road.

We have always appreciated, Mr. President, the understanding that the Government and public opinion of the United States have shown for Yugoslavia's progress and its position in the world. Your statement in Belgrade to the effect that the United States of America respects Yugoslavia's non-aligned and independent position was received with particular satisfaction.

Mr. President, we are following with great interest and attention your initiatives, your realistic appraisal of new trends in the world, and your personal contribution to the "era of negotiations." Certain progress has been achieved in international relations in the past year. This has found expression in the expansion of the substance and increase in the number of participants in negotiations, in the alleviation of some major confrontations, and in the finding of solutions for some problems, for instance, those in the center of Europe which have been

1457

the constant cause of tension over a number of years. However, we continue to be deeply concerned at the lack of progress with regard to the solution of numerous burning problems and open foci of conflict that threaten world peace, like those in the Middle East and in Indo-china.

We are going to continue, Mr. President, our useful and open talks and, therefore, it is not my intention to deal with international problems at length at the present moment. However, I should like to draw attention to some issues in which the whole world is greatly interested. I have talked about them with many responsible statesmen in the course of the present year. Quite recently, in particular, I have had a series of meetings during my visits to Iran, India, and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

What is involved are grave problems that burden the world, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, between the developed and the underdeveloped, the hotbeds of war, dangerous confrontations, vestiges of colonialism, and so on. In paraphrasing the words of your great President Lincoln, we can say even today, transposing them to the broader international plane, that a world divided against itself, half slave and half free, cannot endure permanently. It is generally felt that all of us together—in addition to our awareness and material power—should possess sufficient will and courage resolutely to discard confrontations which have never brought profit even to one's own people, but have always done harm to others. I believe that you share the view that we should proceed with the energetic and rapid solving of outstanding issues and take concrete measures contributing toward the end.

In your last year's message on the foreign policy of your country, you stated so eloquently and rightly that the edifice of peace could not stand if all nations did not take part in its construction and if, in all this, they failed to discern their own interests as well. This is precisely the demand put forward by the largest number of countries which support negotiations, while insisting, at the same time, on their own participation in the solving of acute problems. I feel that we can all agree, Mr. President, that in a world of indivisible peace and freedom, peace and freedom for all can only be the work of all.

The strengthening of the United Nations is, in our opinion, the best way to achieve this. That is why we consider that we all should jointly exert efforts in order to ensure that the world organization should become the actual expression of the interests and will of the entire international community. The recently adopted important decision on the inclusion of almost one-third of mankind into the United Nations is a decisive contribution to its universality and it is in accord with current significant actions aimed at establishing contacts and dialogue between all, conducive to peace and stability in the world.

Yugoslavia is particularly interested in detente and security in Europe and in the development of the broadest

cooperation among all European states. Positive processes and achievements have already taken place—as I have just mentioned—in certain parts of Europe. It is our desire, however, that this should also come to pass on the continent as a whole, including the regions directly linked to Europe, such as the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Dear friend, we can state, therefore, that there exist good reasons for, and mutual needs, in developing relations between our two countries. Our relations are traditionally good; we were allies in great wars against the common enemy; generations of our emigrants have taken part in the great construction of the United States. I am confident that we can go much further in expanding our cooperation.

We shall be gratified if this visit and our talks, too, will contribute to the further development of friendly relations and ties between our Governments, countries, and peoples.

I propose this toast, Mr. President, to you and Mrs. Nixon's personal health and happiness, to lasting friendship between Yugoslavia and the United States, and to the well-being and prosperity of the American people.

I propose to rise in toast to the President of America and Mrs. Nixon for long life, happiness, and health.

NOTE: The President spoke at 10:05 p.m. in the State Dining Room at the White House. President Tito spoke in Serbo-Croatian and his remarks were translated by an interpreter. As printed above, his remarks follow the text of the White House press release.

## Foreign Assistance Program

*Statement by the White House Press Secretary Following the Senate's Rejection of the Foreign Aid Bill.*
October 30, 1971

President Nixon feels this vote by the Senate is a highly irresponsible action which undoes 25 years of constructive bipartisan foreign policy and produces unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States.

President Nixon urges immediate restoration of the absolutely vital foreign assistance program so that we can continue the efforts to construct a more peaceful world.

It is up to the Congress to act immediately to restore a coordinated foreign aid program. Foreign assistance has been the fundamental framework of a bipartisan foreign policy for over a quarter of a century, and it is vital to the United States interest that it continue.

A piecemeal or patchwork restoration of foreign aid is not an alternative. A carefully planned foreign aid program is essential in order to continue assisting underdeveloped countries and providing urgently needed humanitarian, economic, and other assistance to friendly nations.

NOTE: Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler read the statement to reporters at 12:35 p.m.

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1228

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 11:42 A.M. EST

NOVEMBER 2, 1971

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: You have the releases which we are
giving you this morning. There is one addition to the schedule.

The President will meet at 3:30 this afternoon with
the Cabinet Group on Executive Reorganization. Secretary
Romney, Secretary Richardson, Secretary Stans, George Shultz,
among others, will be in the group. We will post a complete
list of those who attend this afternoon.

The meeting of the Cabinet Group on Executive
Reorganization precedes the opening hearings tomorrow in
the House Government Operations Subcommittee on the new
Department of Community Development, which has been proposed.
Hearings have been held on the overall subject of reorganization.
This is the first hearing on a specific department. We will
attempt to have Secretary Romney and perhaps George Shultz
available here at the 4:00 briefing to discuss the meeting
and the reorganization proposals.

We have several other announcements.

The Secretary of State has already told you that
President Nixon has designated Mrs. Nixon as his Personal
Representative to head the United States delegation at the
ceremonies marking the inauguration of President William
Tolbert, Jr., of Liberia in Monrovia on January 2 through
the 4th. The other members of the delegation will be
announced at a later date.

Also, the President today is announcing that Secretary
of Commerce Stans will visit the Soviet Union in response to
an invitation by the Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade, Nicolai
Patolichev. The visit is for exploratory talks on the potential
for expanded commercial relationships between the United States
and the Soviet Union.

Q Ron, on that point, will they be discussing the
various propositions for large sales of machine tools and
planning?

MR. ZIEGLER: Let me finish the announcements.

The Secretary's departure is set for mid-November
and while in the Soviet Union he will explore, at the President's
request, a broad range of topics relating to opportunities
for increased trade and industrial cooperation between the two
nations and the possibility for resolving obstacles to such
expansion.

MORE

#1228

[L]

- 2 -

#1228

I think that is as specific as I can be to your question, Chuck.

The President has accepted with deep regret the resignation of Douglas MacArthur, II, as Ambassador to Iran effective February 29, 1972. Ambassador MacArthur plans to retire from the Foreign Service. He was appointed to his present post by the President on September 15, 1969. He has been in the Foreign Service for 37 years. During that time he has served as Ambassador in a number of posts. We will post the details on the bulletin board. He was also Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations from 1965 to 1967.

In his letter to the Ambassador, the President noted that he has served the nation and her leaders with uncommon dedication and skill. The President said that Ambassador MacArthur's contributions to the conduct of our foreign policy and his loyalty in representing America's interests will long stand as a source of inspiration to all those who enter the diplomatic service.

The President today is also announcing his intention to nominate Roy E. Batchelor to be an Assistant Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity. The salary for this position is $38,000 a year. There are five Assistant Directors.

Finally, the President today is announcing his intention to nominate Vincent E. McKelvey to be Director of the Geological Survey in the Department of Interior. He will succeed William T. Pecora -- many of you know him, he has been over here frequently -- who was appointed Under Secretary on May 5, 1971. The salary level for this position is Level 5, $36,000 a year. He serves at the pleasure of the President.

Those are all the announcements that we have for you today. We will have a session here at 4:00, as I mentioned earlier, and we hope to have Secretary Romney and perhaps George Shultz at that time.

Q Ron, does Mrs. Nixon's trip to Liberia mean she will not be going to China with the President?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is one of the best ones you have come up with. (Laughter) Well, first of all, we haven't indicated when the President will be going to the People's Republic of China for his visit. We said on background that we would make such an announcement prior to December 1, so I think your question will have to go unanswered until we make that announcement.

Q Ron, what will Secretary Romney and George Shultz be here about?

MR. ZIEGLER: They will be here prepared to talk about the government reorganization proposal with you, as I indicated earlier.

MORE

#1228

going to assure the Vietnamese that as a former Member of Congress, that my estimate of the situation is that corrective action will be taken so that the program as planned to bring about the Vietnamization program and the total program will be able to go forward. I intend to give that kind of an assessment of the situation as far as our country is concerned and to assure the Vietnamese that this program can go forward as planned.

Q. Mr. Secretary, in view of the Senate's action on Friday, are you placing more importance on the discussions you will be having with New Zealand and Australia to provide troops for the training of Cambodian units in either Viet-Nam or Cambodia?

Secretary Laird: That is a matter I will be discussing with the Vietnamese and with the Joint General Staff of the South Vietnamese Army. I will also be discussing it with the Prime Minister of Australia at 5:00 this evening. I don't care to comment any further on it.

Q. When you said that there was some movement on the prisoners of war, we know what the South Vietnamese did. Were you referring to that or to some other aspect of securing the release of Americans, without getting into the specifics?

Secretary Laird: I was referring specifically to the public announcements that have been made within the last week. This, of course, is not as great a movement as the President had advocated some months ago when he expressed the desire of the United States for a total and complete exchange of all prisoners of war and missing in action, not only in North Viet-Nam but in Cambodia and Laos and South Viet-Nam and all those in the hands of the South Vietnamese.

This offer which was made by the President of the United States, of course, was the most comprehensive prisoner exchange that had ever been proposed in the history of the world. It was almost a 10-to-1 exchange.

In my comments earlier, I was referring to the public announcement which had been made by the South Vietnamese Government.

Q. Have you had any favorable reaction from Hanoi on this or any other sources of contact with Hanoi?

Secretary Laird: All I will say is every avenue is being pursued, and I do not believe that in this area any further public discussion of the approaches that are being made serves a useful purpose. I have always taken that position with my friends in the Pentagon press corps, and when I come over here to talk to the White House press corps, I don't change my position.

The press: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

## SECRETARY ROGERS' NEWS CONFERENCE OF NOVEMBER 2

White House press release dated November 2

Mr. Ziegler: The Secretary of State met with the President for over an hour this morning. They talked about a number of subjects, and the Secretary is here to give you a general run-down on their talks. Mr. Secretary.

Secretary Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Ziegler.

Ladies and gentlemen, first let me welcome the members of the Australian press who are here with the Prime Minister. We very much look forward to his visit, and I have the privilege to host a luncheon in his honor at the State Department at noon and I am sure that it will be a very successful visit.

The President asked me to announce this morning that he has designated Mrs. Nixon as his special representative to attend the inauguration of President William Tolbert in Liberia from January 2d to the 4th. It will be a historic event in that it is the first time that a First Lady of the United States has visited Africa, and I am sure that it will be greatly appreciated by Africans and particularly Liberians.

We talked a good deal this morning about the action of the Senate in defeating foreign aid legislation. Let me say that the action of Congress in defeating this legislation has been a very serious blow to the foreign policy of the United States. Tomorrow morning I will appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Com-

November 22, 1971

583

[L]

mittee to convey this message to that committee
and to express the hope that action will be taken
quickly to repair the damage that has been done.

As you know, there is now general support,
I believe, for the idea that a continuing resolu-
tion will be enacted which will enable us to
continue the foreign aid programs during the
life of that continuing resolution. We think it
is essential that Congress now act to pass a
foreign aid bill which will be coordinated and
balanced and which will permit us to carry on
the very successful foreign policies of President
Nixon.

I think any action of the kind that the Senate
has taken, unless remedied, will seriously affect
our foreign policy in a number of ways.

First, it will be a damaging blow to the Nixon
doctrine, because the Nixon doctrine, as you
know, provides that we will gradually reduce
our troop strength in some of the Asian coun-
tries and at the same time support them finan-
cially and in military ways so they can take up
the slack. And if our foreign aid program is
defeated, of course, this would not be possible.

Secondly, it makes it impossible or at least
difficult to maintain the security commitments
that we have with the Asian nations. They have
relied on the United States over the years to
carry out these treaty obligations, and we have
given them our assurance that as we end the
war in Viet-Nam, and as we reduce our troop
strength in Korea and other Asian nations, that
we will provide assistance to help them to make
the adjustments that are necessary as a result
of this policy.

Thirdly, I think it weakens the President's
power in negotiations which we are conducting
throughout the world.

Consequently, we will make a very stern and
strong appeal to the Members of Congress to
act responsibly to correct this damage that has
been done.

I might say in conclusion that I have been,
I am sure, as you have been, impressed by the
fact that Congress does act responsibly when
the occasion arises, and I am confident they will
in this case. As you know, this bill was defeated
at a time when there were 32 absentees in the
Senate. It was defeated probably as a result
of conflicting irritations and emotions and frus-

trations. But the fact is that the foreign policy
of this country has, over the years, been
bipartisan.

Congress has acted responsibly in every oc-
casion when they were called upon by the Pres-
ident, and we are convinced they will act
responsibly in this.

Thank you.

Q. Mr. Secretary, what reforms do you feel
are needed in the foreign assistance bill or
foreign assistance program to reverse the Senate
action and have Congress act favorably?

Secretary Rogers: As you know, President
Nixon had a commission that studied foreign
aid and made a very comprehensive and, I
think, useful report, and the President sub-
mitted recommendations based on that report.⁵

Now, the Congress felt in its wisdom that
it was not timely to consider those at this ses-
sion and felt that it would be better to consider
those more fully the next session. That was the
reason the House passed the bill in its present
form, the form which was defeated in the
Senate.

We think there are reforms that are necessary.
We think they should be considered very care-
fully and with plenty of time by the Congress
before it makes its decision. We don't think that
the way to achieve reform is to act the way the
Senate did the other night and defeat the au-
thorization bill.

It seems to me it is quite counterproductive.
It has the opposite effect. I must say, and I
am sure that you ladies and gentlemen realize
this, that the reaction throughout the world has
been extremely adverse and it has been very
difficult to explain it to our friends and allies.

We have made solemn commitments in the
nation over the years that we would take into
account the problems that are created when we
withdraw our forces from some of these coun-
tries. We have provided other countries with
assurances that we will take action which will
provide stability in the world, and to abruptly,
late on Friday afternoon, with 32 absentees,

⁵For text of the report of the Presidential Task Force on International Development, see BULLETIN of Apr. 6, 1970, p. 447.

584

Department of State Bulletin

pass this legislation, was a very damaging blow
to our foreign policy.

Mr. Kalb [Marvin Kalb, CBS News]?

*Q. Mr. Secretary, if foreign aid is not re-
constituted as the administration would like,
could this affect the character and pace of the
withdrawal program from Viet-Nam?*

*Secretary Rogers:* Well, I think it is certainly
a factor that will have to be considered in the
light of the economic situation in South Viet-
Nam. We have, as you know, reduced the troop
strength in Viet-Nam by a very large amount,
over 350,000, but this defeat would not permit
us to provide supporting assistance. That will
have to be taken into account.

I would not want to leave the impression that
the President's decision is going to be directly
affected, but certainly it is one of the factors
that will have to be taken into consideration as
we look down the road the next year or so.

*Q. To what do you attribute the Senate action, Mr. Secretary?*

*Secretary Rogers:* I attribute it in part to
the number of absentees. I attribute it in part
to the fact that I think many of the Members
of the Senate felt that the legislation would
be enacted. And I suppose, as I indicated a little
earlier, partly because of the frustrations that
some Members of the Congress feel that we
have not been appreciated, that we have been
doing more than our share, and so forth.

*Q. May I follow that by asking about the
U.N. vote. How much of a factor do you think
the U.N. vote was in the Senate action?*

*Secretary Rogers:* It is difficult to say, Mr.
Lisagor [Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News].
I suppose it has some effect. I suppose it con-
tributed to the feeling that other nations have
not been fully appreciative of the things we
have done for them over the years. How that
translates into numbers of Senators, I don't
think I could say.

*Q. Mr. Secretary, on the U.N. question, when
you met with us the morning after the vote
and were asked about the demonstrations in the
hall, you returned what seemed to most of us a
rather general answer on the subject in terms

of our reaction. Twenty-four hours later the
administration reaction came out a good deal
harder than it had been. Can you explain the
change to us?

*Secretary Rogers:* Yes, I hadn't seen the pic-
tures. I had not watched television that night
and seen what happened on the floor. I don't
think the President had either. Later on, as you
gentlemen know, television replayed those
scenes and it was based on that, that Mr. Ziegler
made the comments that he made. Also, I should
point out that Mr. Ziegler, at that time, did say
the President supported the United Nations and
he would continue to support the United Na-
tions effort, so we did not intend that the com-
ments Mr. Ziegler made should be construed as
opposition to the foreign aid bill.

*Q. Mr. Secretary, given a continuing resolu-
tion, which might carry you over as far as next
year, what reforms in foreign aid in particular
would you consider seeking once you get the
continuing resolution problem taken care of?*

*Secretary Rogers:* I think it is too large a sub-
ject to discuss here. I will be talking to the
Senate committee to some extent tomorrow. I
think if the Senate is going to embark on that
kind of program, of a balanced and coordinated
program—that is, different than the present
one—it should be based on the Peterson com-
mission report and it should be the result of
long and thoughtful intensive hearings.

*Q. Mr. Secretary, when you say that this
weakens the President's power in negotiation
throughout the world, could you explain what
that has reference to? Does this refer to the
Middle East arms situation and the talks with
the Soviets?*

*Secretary Rogers:* I don't want to go into all
of the negotiations that are being conducted,
but let me give you two examples. Certainly it
weakening our position in Paris because it looks
as if the Congress will not support the President
in his Vietnamization program.

Now, the Vietnamization program, as you
ladies and gentlemen know, is working, and we
think it is still possible that negotiations in
Paris might possibly make some progress. We
never know. Obviously you never know whether

November 22, 1971

585

negotiations are going to make progress until
progress is made, and one side is always intran-
sigent until it starts to make some compromises.
Certainly that is one area where our negotiating
stance is weakened.

Certainly in the Middle East it is affected. We
have indicated to Jordan that we could give
them some military assistance to provide greater
capability on their part to handle problems of
internal security, and the stability of Jordan is
very essential to the negotiations in that part of
the world.

There are a lot of other ways it could be
harmful to the President's ability to negotiate
successfully and at a time when I think all agree
that the President's foreign policy is succeed-
ing, at a time when the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee was extremely complimentary
to the administration and to the President for
his foreign policy—many of you ladies and
gentlemen were there, so you know what I am
talking about—why they, at that point, should
take the action which has the effect of seriously
damaging the President's foreign policy is diffi-
cult to understand.

Q. Mr. Secretary, some time back, about a
week ago I believe, there were expressions from
various administration officials to the effect that
the President would veto the foreign aid bill if
it contained restrictions on the Indochina pol-
icy. After a meeting with bipartisan Members
here with Dr. Kissinger [Henry A. Kissinger,
Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs], Hugh Scott said the administration
would rather have no bill at all than one that
had these restrictions.

How do these statements coincide with the
statement we are now getting concerning what
happened, because the foreign aid bill did not
pass, and do you think they at all contributed
to the failure of the bill to pass?

Secretary Rogers: I have difficulty answering
questions like that. I don't know what motivated
each Senator in his vote. We certainly were
opposed to the Cooper-Church amendment for
the reasons which you are well aware of.
Whether that had any effect on a particular
Senator or not, I don't know.

Q. Could I follow that one question up?

Secretary Rogers: Surely.

Q. If the Senate should now pass a foreign aid bill, whether it is a continuing resolution or some other aid bill, and attached to it the Cooper-Church amendment in substance, would the President veto this bill rather than take Cooper-Church?

Secretary Rogers: Well, in the first place, of
course, if they pass a continuing resolution that
problem won't arise.

Q. They could attach it even to a continuing
resolution.

Secretary Rogers: Insofar as what the Presi-
dent would do in light of a completely new au-
thorization bill, I certainly wouldn't want to
make any comment.

The press: Thank you, sir.

135th Plenary Session on Viet-Nam
Held at Paris

Following are remarks made by Ambassador
William J. Porter, head of the U.S. delegation,
at the 135th plenary session of the meetings on
Viet-Nam at Paris on November 4.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

Press release 254 dated November 4

Ladies and gentlemen: Last week you re-
portedly stated during an interview with a
distinguished mayor of an American city that
you "do not understand how anyone could get
the idea that the return of prisoners was con-
connected with anything other than the withdrawal
of American troops from Viet-Nam." You also
reportedly said during the same interview that
a new list of war prisoners was being prepared
by Hanoi which would be made available when
ready. Then you issued a statement that such
information was "null and void," but you did
not deny that you had said such things.

586

Department of State Bulletin

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 STATE 202042

FORWARD DISCUSSION IN AN ATMOSPHERE OF FRIENDSHIP, WHICH HAS CHARACTERIZED THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRIME MINISTER.

THEY TALKED, OF COURSE, ABOUT THE SITUATION IN SOUTH ASIA IN SUBSTANTIAL DETAIL, AND ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXCHANGE VIEWS ON MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN THAT AREA, AND ALSO OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.

I SHOULD ADD THAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRIME MINISTER WILL MEET AGAIN TOMORROW MORNING AT 11:00 O'CLOCK, SO THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THEIR DISCUSSIONS AT THAT TIME, AND ALSO, THEY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK SOME THIS EVENING AT THE STATE DINNER, WHICH WILL BE HELD STARTING AT 8:00 O'CLOCK.

AS I MENTIONED, THE CONVERSATION TO A GREAT EXTENT, HOWEVER, FOCUSED ON SOUTH ASIA AND THE SITUATION IN THAT AREA, WHICH YOU ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH.

THE PRESIDENT, OF COURSE, EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE UNITED STATES WANTED TO DO WHAT WE COULD TO HELP WITH THE SITUATION IN THAT AREA.

WITHOUT GETTING INTO ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS AS TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND PRIME MINISTER COVERED, I SHOULD TELL YOU THAT THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS, OF COURSE, WOULD FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL THRUST OF THE UNITED STATES POLICY AS IT RELATES TO THE SOUTH ASIA AREA, SPECIFICALLY, THE SITUATION IN PAKISTAN AND EAST PAKISTAN, AND AS IT RELATES TO INDIA.

THE UNITED STATES, AS WE HAVE SAID BEFORE, WANTS TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO ASSIST THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THE EVENTS SINCE MARCH. THE UNITED STATES, AS YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELIEF EFFORT BY CONTRIBUTING ASSISTANCE VALUED AT ABOUT $203 MILLION. THIS IS A MAJOR COMPONENT OF THE EFFORT, WE FEEL, TO REDUCE TENSION BECAUSE FAMINE IN EAST PAKISTAN, OF COURSE, COULD ONLY CREATE A NEW FLOOD OF REFUGEES.

ALSO, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE A POLITICAL SOLUTION, AND HAVE, TO THE SITUATION IN EAST PAKISTAN, AND ALSO EN-

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 03 STATE 202042

COURAGE MODERATION SO AS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF WAR.

I THINK THAT THOSE TALKS SHOULD BE REGARDED AS AN
EFFORT, AND INDEED I THINK THEY WERE, BY BOTH SIDES TO ACHIEVE
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OTHER'S POSITION. THIS, OF
COURSE, IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY,
ESPECIALLY WHEN TWO HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEET, AS WAS THE CASE
HERE. WE HOPE THAT THEY CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A FUNDAMENTAL RE-
DUCTION OF TENSIONS.

AS I SAID, THE TALKS WILL CONTINUE TOMORROW BETWEEN
THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRIME MINISTER.

Q IS THAT AN UNSCHEDULED MEETING, SUDDENLY PUT ON?

MR. ZIEGLER: NO. IT WAS ALWAYS ON THE SCHEDULE THAT WE HAD FOR THE PRESIDENT, SO IT WAS NOT AGREED TO JUST TODAY FOR THE MEETING TO TAKE PLACE AT 11:00. I UNDERSTAND, HOWEVER, THAT BEFORE I CAME OUT IT WAS NOT ANNOUNCED AS PART OF THE SCHEDULE, BUT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ON THE SCHEDULE.

Q WHO ELSE WAS AT THE MEETING?

MR. ZIEGLER: TO CONCLUDE, I BELIEVE I SAID EARLIER THAT THE TALKS, LASTING FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT THEY DID, SHOULD INDICATE TO YOU THAT THEY WERE VERY COMPLETE, AND MATTERS WHICH I HAVE REFERRED TO WERE DISCUSSED IN SUBSTANTIAL DETAIL, AND THEY WILL BE CONTINUING.

Q WILL THERE BE A JOINT STATEMENT TOMORROW?

MR. ZIEGLER: NO, NO JOINT STATEMENT IS PLANNED.

Q DID THE PRESIDENT SPECIFICALLY URGE SOME POLITICAL SOLUTION TO REDUCE THE RISK OF WAR, AND DID HE MAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS ON THAT SCORE?

MR. ZIEGLER: FIRST OF ALL, HELEN, I REFERRED TO THE HUMANITARIAN RELIEF THAT WE ARE PROVIDING, AND, OF COURSE, THAT THE UNITED NATIONAS IS PROVIDING TO THE AREA. THAT, IN ITSELF, CONTRIBUTES, OF COURSE, TO THE EASING OF TENSIONS IN THE AREA.

UNCLASSIFIED

["Department of State TELEGRAM", "UNCLASSIFIED", "PAGE 04 STATE 202042", "I AM NOT PREPARED TO COVER WITH YOU IN ANY DETAIL\nWHAT THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE PRESIDENT SAID, BUT I BE-\nLIEVE YOU CAN CONCLUDE FROM WHAT I HAVE SAID THAT THE UNITED\nSTATES, OF COURSE, IS NOT SITTING BACK AND LEETING EVENTS\nTAKE THEIR COURSE. THE FACT OF THE MEETING TODAY BETWEEN THE\nPRESIDENT AND MRS. GANDHI, AND ALSO THE CONTACTS THAT PRESI-\NDENT NIXON HAS HAD WITH PRESIDENT YAHYA KHAN, SHOULD INDICATE\nTHAT WE ARE INVOLVED IN AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION IN\nSOUTH ASIA. IT SHOULD, HOWEVER, BE RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE\nSOME SEVERE LIMITS, OF COURSE, UPON WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVE IN\nRELATION TO THIS.", "Q. DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT THE $203 MILLION\nYOU MENTION WAS BEING SPENT IN EAST PAKISTAN?", "MR. ZIEGLER: THE $203 MILLION IS THE RELIEF EFFORT\nTO THE AREA. THAT IS THE VALUE OF THE RELIEF THAT WE HAVE\nPROVIDED.", "Q. IS IT BEING SPENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER?", "MR. ZIEGLER: IT IS BEING SPENT IN THE AREA; YES.", "Q. RON, WAS THE SENATE'S ACTION IN KILLING THEAID\nBILL DISCUSSED WITH MRSM GANDHI?", "MR. ZIEGLER: I DID NOT GET THAT IN MY BRIEFING OF\nTHE MEETING, BUT I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE MATTER OF ASSISTANCE\nWOULD VERY LIKELY COME UP IN THE DISCUSSIONS. IF IT DID NOT\nTODAY, IT PROBABLY WOULD TOMORROW, BECAUSE ASSISTANCE IS A\nVITAL PART OF RELIEVING TENSIONS IN THE AREA.", "Q. WAS THERE A DISCUSSION OF AIDING THE FLOOD\nVICTIMS IN WEST BENGAL?", "MR. ZIEGLER: WE, OF COURSE, FROM A HUMANITARIAN\nSTANDPOINT, AS OUR EFFORTS UP TO THIS POINT HAVE INDICATED,\nSINCE MARCH, WANT TO ASSIST WHERE WE CAN AND WHERE THE NEED\nARISES FROM A HUMANITARIAN STANDPOINT. THE STATE DEPARTMENT\nIS PREPARED TO PROCEED WITH ASSISTANCE WHERE NEEDED.", "UNCLASSIFIED"]

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 05 STATE 202042

Q BUT THIS FLOOD OCCURRED AFTER THE AID BILL WAS KILLED. DOES THAT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?

MR. ZIEGLER: AS WE HAVE BEEN SAYING, WE FEEL THAT AID WILL NOT BE KILLED, THAT IT WILL PROCEED AFTER NOVEMBER 15TH.

Q WERE THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS OF THE SOVIET-INDIAN TREATY?

MR. ZIEGLER: I DO NOT KNOW, PETE. I ASSUME THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS OR WILL, DURING THE COURSE OF THIS DISCUSSION OF INTERNATIONAL MATTERS, TALK TO THE PRIME MINISTER ABOUT HIS UPCOMING TRIP TO CHINA AND TO THE SOVIET UNION, AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT WOULD NO DOUBT DISCUSS THE NON-ALIGNED POSITION OF INDIA AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH CHINA AND THE SOVIET UNION.

I DO NOT KNOW SPECIFICALLY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE TREATY, WHICH WAS RECENTLY SIGNED BETWEEN INDIA AND THE SOVIET UNION WAS DISCUSSED. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT MADE REFERENCE TO THAT IN HIS REMARKS, AND MADE REFERENCE TO OUR RELATIONS WITH INDIA IN HIS REMARKS AT THIS ARRIVAAL CEREMONY.

Q WHO ELSE WAS AT THE MEETING, RON?

MR. ZIEGLER: DR. KISSINGER SAT IN A PORTION OF THE MEETING, AS DID THE PRIME MINISTER'S PRIVATE SECRETARY, MR. HAKSAR.

Q HOW LONG WERE THE TWO PRINCIPALS ALONE?

MR. ZIEGLER: I DO NOT KNOW.

Q WERE THEY ALONE AT ANY TIME?

MR. ZIEGLER: YES, THEY WERE.

Q DID THE PRESIDENT URGE MADAM GANDHI TO PULL BACK HER TROOPS FROM THE PAKISTAN BORDERS?

MR. ZIEGLER: HERE, AGAIN, I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO DISCUSS WITH YOU ANY SPECIFICS ABOUT THE TALKS BETWEEN THE

UNCLASSIFIED

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 06 STATE 202042

PRIME MINISTER AND THE PRESIDENT OTHER THAN TO GIVE YOU THE
GENERAL REMARKS WHICH I HAVE GIVEN YOU.

Q DID YOU SAY WHAT A POLITICAL SETTLEMENT WOULD
MEAN? WHAT DO WE BIEW AS A POLITICAL SETTLEMENT IN PAKISTAN?

MR. ZIEGLER: I AM SORRY, I AM SIMPLY NOT PREPARED
TO STATE TO YOU IN A PUBLIC FORUM WHAT THE SOLUTIONS COULD
BE OR WOULD BE IN TERMS OF ARRIVING AT A SOLUTION TO THE
PROBLEMS OF THE AREA.

Q ARE WE PUTTING ANY POLITICAL CONDITIONS ON THE
HUMANITARIAN FLOOD AID?

MRM ZIEGLER: NO.

Q RON, I THINK YOU SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
HAD CONTACT WITH YAHYA KHAN OVER THE ISSUE OF WEST PAKISTAN.
I HAVE TO PROFESS IN PUBLIC THAT I MISSED THIS. HAVE THOSE
BEEN RECENT CONTACTS, AND WOULD YOU DESCRIBE HOW THEY WERE
MADE?

MR. ZIEGLER: THROUGH DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS.

Q IS HE ALSO URGING THE PAKISTANIS TO SEEK A
POLITICAL SOLUTION?

MR. ZIEGLER: I HAVE GIVEN YOU A GENERAL SUMMARY OF
OUR POSITION AND THE UNITED STATES POLICY FOR THE AREA OF
SOUTH ASIA.

UNQUOTE ROGERS

UNCLASSIFIED

1482

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, NOVEMBER 5, 1971

Reorganization of the U.S.
Intelligence Community

*Announcement Outlining Management Steps for Improving the Effectiveness of the Intelligence Community.* November 5, 1971

The White House announced today that the President has directed a number of management steps to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the U.S. foreign intelligence community.

The President's objectives are to ensure:

- Continuing review of the responsiveness of the U.S. intelligence effort to national needs.

- Strengthened leadership for the community as a whole.

- More efficient use of resources in the collection of intelligence information.

- Elimination of less efficient or outmoded activities.

- Improvement in the quality, scope, and timeliness of intelligence information.

The improvements directed by the President follow an exhaustive study conducted at his direction by the staffs of the National Security Council (NSC) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with contributions from the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), the President's Science Adviser, and the intelligence community.

The major management improvements include:

- *An enhanced leadership role for the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) in planning, reviewing, coordinating, and evaluating all intelligence programs and activities, and in the production of national intelligence.*

- *Establishment of a National Security Council Intelligence Committee, chaired by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Its members will include the Attorney General, the DCI, the Under Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Committee will give direction and guidance on national intelligence needs and provide for a continuing evaluation of intelligence products from the viewpoint of the intelligence user.*

- *Establishment of a Net Assessment Group within the National Security Council Staff. The group will be headed by a senior staff member and will be responsible for reviewing and evaluating all intelligence products and for producing net assessments.*

- *Establishment of an Intelligence Resources Advisory Committee, chaired by the DCI, including as members a senior representative from the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Central Intelligence Agency. This Committee will advise the DCI on the preparation of a consolidated intelligence program budget.*

- *Reconstitution of the United States Intelligence Board chaired by the DCI, including as members the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (Vice Chairman); Director of Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department; Director of National Security Agency; Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; representatives of the Secretary of the Treasury and of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Atomic Energy Commission. The Board will advise and assist the DCI with respect to the production of national intelligence, the establishment of national intelligence requirements and priorities, the supervision of the dissemination and security of intelligence material, and the protection of intelligence sources and methods.*

The President has also directed certain changes in the Department of Defense's intelligence organization.

A National Cryptologic Command will be set up under the Director of the National Security Agency. Under this command will be consolidated activities now carried out by separate agencies. A further change is the consolidation of all Department of Defense personnel security investigations into a single Office of Defense Investigations. The President has also directed that a Defense Map Agency be created by combining the now separate mapping, charting, and geodetic organizations of the military services in order to achieve maximum efficiency and economy in production.

## Imports of Petroleum and Petroleum Products

*Proclamation 4092. November 5, 1971*

MODIFYING PROCLAMATION NO. 3279, RELATING TO IMPORTS OF PETROLEUM AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

*By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation*

The Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, with the advice of the Oil Policy Committee, has found that the national security will not be adversely affected by changes in the oil import program which would

- extend indefinitely the provision permitting the importation of No. 2 fuel oil into District I,

- enable holders of allocations made pursuant to this program to obtain No. 2 fuel oil manufactured in Puerto Rico, and

- authorize the suspension, from time to time, of the requirement that such No. 2 fuel oil be manufactured in the Western Hemisphere from crude oil produced in that hemisphere.

WEEKLY COMPETITION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, NOVEMBER 8, 1971

1483

The Director, with the advice of the Oil Policy Committee, has recommended that Proclamation No. 3279, as amended, be further amended to adjust imports and to improve the administration of the program in conformity with these findings.

I agree with the findings and recommendations of the Director and deem it necessary and consistent with the security objectives of Proclamation No. 3279, as amended, to adjust the imports of petroleum and petroleum products, and to improve the administration of the program, as hereinafter provided.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICHARD NIXON, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, do hereby proclaim that, effective as of the date of this Proclamation, Proclamation No. 3279, as amended, is further amended as follows:

1. Subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a) of section 2 is amended to read as follows:

"Except as otherwise provided in this proclamation, the maximum level of imports (exclusive of imports from Canada provided for in paragraph (a) of section 1A), subject to allocation, of crude oil, unfinished oils, and finished products (other than residual fuel oil to be used as fuel) into Districts I-IV for a particular allocation period, shall be an amount equal to the difference between (i) 960,000 barrels per day during that allocation period and (ii) the quantity of crude oil and unfinished oils which may be imported pursuant to paragraph (h) of section 1A of this proclamation during the particular allocation period plus the quantity estimated by the Secretary by which shipments of unfinished oils and finished products (other than residual fuel oil to be used as fuel) from Puerto Rico to Districts I-IV during that allocation period will exceed the quantity (as adjusted by the Secretary as he may determine to be consonant with the objectives of this proclamation) so shipped during a comparable base period in the year 1965. Within this maximum level, imports of unfinished oils and imports of finished products (other than residual fuel oil to be used as fuel) shall not exceed such levels as the Secretary may determine to be consonant with the objectives of this proclamation. In addition to the imports permitted under the first sentence of this paragraph, for the period January 1, 1971 through December 31, 1971, and for each allocation period thereafter, there may be imported into District I, an average of 45,000 barrels per day of No. 2 fuel oil, manufactured in the Western Hemisphere from crude oil produced in the Western Hemisphere, for allocation, under regulations of the Secretary, to persons in the business in District I of selling No. 2 fuel oil who do not have crude oil import allocations into Districts I-IV and who operate deep water terminals in District I or have throughput agreements with deep water terminal operators in District I who do not have crude oil import allocations into Districts I-IV, on a fair and equitable basis, to the extent possible, in relation to such persons' inputs of No. 2

fuel oil to such terminals, having regard to any product import allocations into Districts I-IV made to such persons. No person who manufactures in Puerto Rico No. 2 fuel oil from crude oil produced in the Western Hemisphere shall incur a reduction of an allocation or be deemed to have violated a condition of an allocation by reason of a shipment of such oil to a person who holds an allocation under the preceding sentence and who relinquishes an amount of the allocation equal to the amount so shipped, so long as the total of all such shipments from Puerto Rico during a particular allocation period does not exceed an average of 5,000 barrels per day. Whenever the Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, as a result of his surveillance under paragraph (a) of section 6, finds that because of supply, price or other considerations, the requirement that such No. 2 fuel oil be manufactured and produced in the Western Hemisphere is restricting the availability of such oil for importation into District I and is not required for the national security, he shall so advise the Secretary who may then suspend such requirement by appropriate regulation. No such suspension shall be renewed except upon a new finding by the Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness as required under the preceding sentence. The Secretary may, by regulation, provide that a holder of an allocation for the importation of No. 2 fuel oil under the provisions of this subparagraph may import crude oil produced in the Western Hemisphere in lieu of No. 2 fuel oil, barrel for barrel, and exchange such crude oil for No. 2 fuel oil."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5th day of November, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-sixth.

RICHARD NIXON

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:02 a.m., November 8, 1971]

## Digest of Other White House Announcements

Following is a listing of items of general interest which were announced to the press during the period covered by this issue but which are not carried elsewhere in the issue. Appointments requiring Senate approval are not included since they appear in the list of nominations submitted to the Senate, below.

### November 1

The President today accepted the resignation of Herbert F. Travers, Jr., of Holden, Mass., as United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, effective upon his qualification as an Associate Justice of the Superior Court of Massachusetts.

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1236

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

11:05 A.M. EST

NOVEMBER 8, 1971

MONDAY

(Key Biscayne, Florida)

MR. ZIEGLER: We have a couple releases and announcements to give you.

The President today has announced the appointment of Louise Blackwell as a member of the National Council on the Humanities for the remainder of the term expiring January 26, 1976, and she succeeds Louis W. Norris, who resigned effective December 1, 1970.

I think I should point out that Dr. Blackwell, who received her Ph.D. from Florida A&M, is a resident of Tallahassee, Florida.

The President is also announcing the appointment of Betty Dillon as the representative of the United States on the Council on International Civil Aviation Organizations. I believe that is self-explanatory. The salary for this position is $36,000 a year. She is not related to Douglas Dillon.

She is the first woman appointed to this post. Did you get that, Helen? (Laughter)

Q I won't stop at anything until we have a Cabinet officer. (Laughter)

MR. ZIEGLER: The President has signed Senate Bill 137, which authorizes the conveyance of approximately 85 acres of land to the successors in interest of Ferne N. McNail upon payment of the 1949 fair market value. We will post the details on that. That is an individual, private bill.

Q Where is the land?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is in Wyoming. All the details are in the posting.

The President will leave here in the early evening. He has not said when he will leave, but generally he leaves at about 6:00 or 7:00 o'clock, and I think that pattern will hold.

The Air Force One press pool: Henry Truitt of Newsweek; Bob Pierpoint of CBS, or Hal Walker of CBS; Jim Deakin of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the two wire service photographers.

MORE

#1236

#1236

The President has been over in his study this
morning making phone calls and doing some work there. I
assume he will get a little sun today, also, while he works
from the Key Biscayne residence.

We will take your questions.

Q When is he going to see Secretary Laird?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will have the schedule for tomorrow
posted at 1:30, but he will see him sometime this week,
Carroll; perhaps tomorrow.

Q Has he decided how he will announce the
troop cut?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not have anything new to give
you on that today. The President will make an announcement,
as he said, either before or on November 15th.

Incidentally, be sure today to leave all your
names and locations at the Message Center in case we do leave
before we anticipate, so we can get hold of you in plenty of
time.

Q Do you have a baggage deadline?

MR. ZIEGLER: Let's make is a 3:00 o'clock baggage
call in the lobby of your hotel, except for the beach. Bring
those to the Message Center.

Q Has Mr. Ruckelshaus submitted his resignation?

MR. ZIEGLER: Absolutely not. There has been no
talk on our part or his part of his resignation.

Q Has the United States decided to cancel
Pakistani arms?

MR. ZIEGLER: The State Department is going to deal
with that question fully today, so I would suggest that you
address your questions to the State Department about 45
minutes from now.

MORE

#1236

Secretary Rogers Reviews U.S. Objectives in the World

Following is the transcript of remarks made by Secretary Rogers before the 62d Anniversary Convention of Sigma Delta Chi at Washington on November 12, together with questions and answers which followed.

Press release 260 dated November 12

REMARKS BY SECRETARY ROGERS

Ladies and gentlemen: I would like to, if I may, make a few introductory remarks and then suggest that if you have some questions, I will try to give an answer to those questions.

I am particularly pleased to be here today at this meeting of Sigma Delta Chi for many reasons.

First, I have always had a very deep and abiding interest in the media. I must confess, however, that I expected to see some of the same, older faces that I have been accustomed to. I had no idea that we would have so many young men and women here today. I am very pleased that that is the case.

As I said, I have had over the years a great interest in the press and had the privilege of representing the press on a number of occasions, and particularly in connection with the first amendment right. I always have supported the first amendment, as you might expect, the right of free speech, free press—until I became Secretary of State. [Laughter and applause.]

I want to, in order to lay a little groundwork for what I am going to say preliminarily, point out that in the field of foreign affairs the news that is made is always bad news. There is very little attention given to good news.

And in the case of the United States, we are to blame for the bad news, no matter where it occurs, because we are the strongest and most powerful, successful, if you will, nation in the world. We have a heavy responsibility in deal-

ing with international affairs, and people do blame us for things that happen, regardless of whether we could have prevented it, regardless of whether we were prepared to meet the humanitarian needs that developed in any kind of crisis.

I was reminded of this not so long ago when my briefing officer came in in the morning reciting what happened throughout the world during the night. Every morning I get a briefing of that kind. And this particular day, everything he said was bad. There wasn't a bit of good news, and I finally said to him, "The news is very bad today, isn't it?" And he said, "Mr. Secretary, the news is very bad today." I said, "Is there any good news anywhere in the world?" And he said, "No, sir, there's no good news in the world." [Laughter.] "But," he said, "I will say this, and you may be pleased to note, that there is some bad news that we are not to blame for." [Laughter.] I said, "What's that?" And he said, "The Aswan Dam is leaking." [Laughter and applause.]

Well, I want to say that the only way that it's possible to judge foreign affairs is in relative terms. You have to ask yourself: "How do we stand today compared to where we stood at some other time?"

Now, I don't suppose there has been a time in the history of this country when international affairs were in a more fluid state throughout the world. And for that reason, I think it's a particularly interesting time to be alive, and I think particularly you young men and women who are interested in journalism should feel very fortunate.

There is a tendency in this country to say that we are becoming less involved in the world. And others say we should become less involved in the world.

Now I want to say to you ladies and gentle-

December 6, 1971

647

States and the Soviet Union will intensify their efforts in a very serious and substantive way. Our efforts will be directed toward achieving an agreement within the framework of the May 20 announcement made by the President and by the Soviet leaders of Moscow, which contemplates a limit on both protective and offensive weapons.²

Having concentrated on ABM [antiballistic missile], on the defensive weapons, during the Helsinki round last summer, we and the Soviets will be discussing offensive limitations in greater detail in Vienna during the coming session. We have every reason to be hopeful that those negotiations will result in a successful conclusion.

Now in addition to these SALT talks, Europe has been the scene of other very active negotiations. For example, as you know, we have achieved a preliminary settlement dealing with Berlin.³ At the present time there are talks underway between the two Germanys, and if the two Germanys are able to carry out the specific commitments that are necessary, pursuant to the agreement of the four powers, we believe that this problem which has plagued society since World War II can be greatly improved and the tensions alleviated.

We also, as a result of the fact that the Soviet Union now has made a positive response to the NATO initiatives on mutual and balanced force reduction, feel that there is some hope that those discussions could at some point get underway.

The former Secretary General of NATO, Mr. Brosio, has been named as "explorer" and will go to Moscow with the thought in mind of discussing with the Russians how we could initiate those discussions dealing with mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe.

As you probably know, we also are contemplating the possibility of a conference on European cooperation and security.

So that in the European picture particularly there are very active negotiations going on which could lead to a much more peaceful climate in that area of the world.

² For background, see BULLETIN of June 7, 1971, p. 741.

³ For background and text of the quadripartite agreement on Berlin signed Sept. 3, see BULLETIN of Sept. 27, 1971, p. 317.

## The Middle East and South Asia

In the Middle East, as you know, I am sure, we have taken a very active role, and as a result of that there has been a cease-fire in effect for 16 months.

We have urged the parties to take further practical steps toward an interim agreement, which would be a litmus test for peace. This step would help maintain the cease-fire. It would divide the two nations. It would diminish the risk of confrontation between the national powers. It would give a new lease on life to efforts to achieve a final peace settlement.

We have suggested to the parties that ways be found to intensify the negotiating efforts. The practical fact is that the discussions between the parties have reached the stage where the differences are difficult to rectify by means of negotiations at a distance. What are required are negotiations in close proximity so that the parties can exchange thoughts quickly. So one nation could say, "If we're prepared to make the following concession, would you be prepared to do the following?" As it is, long-distance discussion—it's a very cumbersome procedure.

We are very concerned about the buildup of forces in South Asia and the rising number of armed clashes over recent days along the East Pakistan border. We are apprehensive that these clashes might lead to an outbreak of hostilities in the days ahead. We believe that a war would solve nothing but would merely add to the mass of problems that already exist in the area. In view of these concerns, we have urgently counseled both sides to exercise maximum restraint.

We have also been the principal supporters of an international program designed to meet the problems that have arisen from the huge exodus of refugees from East Pakistan into India; and through quiet diplomacy on both sides, we are seeking to encourage steps which would defuse the situation, get a dialogue going between those principally concerned, with a view to making practical progress toward a political accommodation.

And then finally, as you know, the President is planning to meet at the summit with the two great Communist powers.

The current situation is unique in this post-

December 6, 1971

649

*leadership in the United Nations after the
defeat on Taiwan?*

A. Well, I don't think we lost our leadership in the United Nations because of the defeat on Taiwan. That suggests that any time you lose a vote in a democratic institution, you lose your leadership. The whole point of a democracy is that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose and you are bound by the majority of votes.

I don't think that we lost our prestige in the United Nations. In the first place, I think our position was sound, and I think people will recognize it as sound. Second, I think people feel that we made a good, stiff, hard fight to succeed. And third, we acknowledged right after the defeat that it would not affect our relations with the United Nations, that we would continue to support it and continue to be an active participant.

So I don't think we have lost at all. In some ways, I think we've gained. I don't think you lose prestige every time you have a defeat. If you believed that, you wouldn't really believe in the democratic process.

*Q. Sir, there has been some speculation that the United States is declining to almost a second-rate power. Since our involvement in Viet-Nam and our deescalation of Viet-Nam, how have our diplomatic relations been with our allies?*

A. Well, any time you are going through a period of change, you have some problems with your allies; and certainly our new economic policy has created some problems.

In terms of our standing throughout the world, that just is not true. We have not lost our standing in the world. We are by far the most prominent and powerful nation in the world. Sometimes I hesitate to say it, because it sounds so immodest. I think sometimes it's better if we're a little self-effacing. But the fact is that the position of the United States is probably adversely affected by our power.

So the mere fact that we are so powerful and so successful has caused a certain amount of annoyance and irritation on the part of other nations, and I suppose that's inevitable. That's been true throughout history.

Generally speaking, our relations with our

allies are very good. We've got problems that we're working on, but we are going to solve the problems and we're going to continue to have very close alliances as we have had in the past.

## Relations With India and Pakistan

*Q. I noticed that the United States is apprehensive that trouble may break out between India and Pakistan. There has been some speculation that war may break out soon. Whose side would the United States take if we get into that, or would we remain neutral?*

A. Did you hear the question? No? Good, I'll go to another question. [Laughter.]

The question really was: If a war breaks out between India and Pakistan, whose side are we going to take?

The answer is: We have good relations with both India and Pakistan. We have, as you know, provided more assistance to India than to any other country in the world, and we have provided a good deal of assistance to Pakistan.

Since 1965 we have not provided any substantial military equipment, except by way of spare parts, to either side. We have had an arms embargo on every major item. We have provided spare parts because up to 1965 we provided military equipment for both India and Pakistan; so the Government took the decision at that period of time that we would continue to supply spare parts, because otherwise they wouldn't have been able to get them for the equipment that we provided, and we would not supply arms to either side. That is our present position. We are not supplying arms to either side, and recently we have not granted any licenses for further spare parts, so we are not providing any military equipment to either side.

Now, diplomatically, we are going to do all we can to prevent a war from breaking out, and obviously if a war should break out, we are going to do everything we can to stay out. We have no intention of getting into any other war. [Applause.]

*Q. Some of our colleagues in Washington press corps panels here are talking about a credibility gap; and I have not been able to reconcile in my own mind how you can say, on*

652

Department of State Bulletin

[L]

the one hand, you have no intention of misleading the American people, yet we were not advised of Mr. Kissinger's whereabouts. Does your statement mean that you are willing to mislead us on a short-term basis but not on a long-term basis? [Applause.]

A. Well, that's a little bit like some of the discussions we used to have in philosophy classes. If you say that a government cannot do what we did in that instance, then I think it is quite impractical. There are times when it is important for practical reasons to do what we did. Now, that wasn't misleading, except for a couple of days [laughter], and we had an agreement. Well, if you agree with the idea that the visit should take place—and most people do—and you accept the proposition, which is the correct proposition, that we couldn't have done it except as we did it, then do you seriously argue that we should have jeopardized the visit? Now, I don't think you do. I think, on reflection, you will say to yourself, "Well, that was a practical thing to do, and that is the kind of thing that happens in human affairs generally." I suppose that everybody has told a little white lie once or twice, hasn't he? [Applause.]

Q. Mr. Secretary, back to the India-Pakistan question, the United States announced just prior to Indira Gandhi's visit with the President that there would no longer be any military assistance sent to Pakistan. Now, I am wondering how this affects our relations with Pakistan and what their reaction was?

A. Well, it's a good question. Our relations with Pakistan will not be affected, because we did work it out with the leaders of Pakistan. We explained that it was causing very serious problems here domestically. It was misunderstood. It was causing a problem in India because it had taken on an importance far beyond its means. And it was agreed that this would be done. So, we have tried not to pass judgment on the events in the subcontinent. We have tried to maintain friendly relations with both sides. We have very active consultations underway with both India and Pakistan, and we would hope that our role will help in alleviating some of these problems.

Q. Mr. Secretary, nobody in the media or

otherwise has commented upon the overseas Chinese reaction to what happened in the United Nations. I would like to know what you have learned or what you feel, about the overseas Chinese [inaudible] bankers in Southeast Asia feel about what is happening and what this means to us in terms of our foreign policy in that part of the world?

A. I think it is difficult to answer that question because they don't speak with one voice. There are lots of different viewpoints among the overseas Chinese, and I suppose it would be the same as the reaction throughout the world. There are some who look upon it unfavorably and others who support it, so I don't believe it is possible to answer that.

I think there is this recognition, though, in the world, that because of the recent policy decisions of the People's Republic of China, and because the People's Republic of China has been more active diplomatically, that it was inevitable that they would become members of the United Nations.

Now, as you know, we felt that it was desirable to have Taiwan represented, too, because in the absence of that representation, the voices of 14 million people are not heard. As you know, the other nations, at least a majority of them, disagreed with us. What the overseas Chinese feel about that, I'm not sure.

## Viet-Nam Negotiations

Q. Mr. Secretary, are there any day-to-day negotiations concerning the American prisoner of war issue, and do you hold any further hope on the Paris peace talks, and do you feel the President's trips to Moscow and Peking will in any way affect the outcome of the peace talks?

A. Well, in answer to the first question, yes, there are discussions going on about the prisoners of war. So far they have not been fruitful. We would hope that at some point they would be. As you know, Ambassador Porter continues to talk about the prisoners of war at the Paris peace talks.

Whether there are prospects for successful negotiations in Paris or not, I don't believe it is possible to predict. Certainly there has been no progress to date. We continue to hold out hope

December 6, 1971

450-241-71-2

653

there was a man in your administration named Secretary Hickel that seemed to be very much concerned about these issues, and in fact at the time they banned DDT, he was fired the next day. [Applause.]

A. The question was: What are you doing about the environment? [Applause.]

There are a good many things about it. Obviously the bombing is one of those things that all Americans wish were not necessary, but as far as the environment is concerned we have many things underway. As you know, Russell Train is the head of the Environmental Council; and in the case of the State Department, we have Chris Herter, who is the son of a former Secretary of State, who is actively preparing for the Stockholm meeting dealing with the environment under the auspices of the United Nations. It is a major problem in the world. We are committed to doing everything that we can, including the expenditure of a great deal of money to help solve these problems. And I think particularly because the environmental problems are not basically political problems, we should be able to work out arrangements with all nations to make progress in this area. I have been particularly pleased that in the discussions we had with the Soviet Union they approach it in the same way.

## Rehabilitation in Viet-Nam

Q. Mr. Secretary, I am a Viet-Nam combat veteran. My wife is Vietnamese. I know what has happened to the family structure in Viet-Nam through the American war effort and the Communists. I know what has happened in one family, and you can multiply that a million times. I feel bad about the Americans who died and I feel bad about the Vietnamese who have died. What are we going to do, after the fighting is finished, to rebuild what we have done over there?

A. I guess most of you heard the question, and it is a very good question. We are going to offer—we have offered and are prepared to help to rehabilitate South Viet-Nam. As you know, both President Johnson and President Nixon have indicated a willingness to help North Viet-

Nam. You are absolutely right. We have a great responsibility to the people in that area to help them. The devastation has been very great. I have been in Viet-Nam twice, and I must say we are encouraged by the progress that has been made; but there is a great deal of repair work that has to be done, and the United States is fully prepared to assist in that regard.

Q. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to return to Pakistan for one moment, if I may. India is the largest and most important country in that part of the world, and it has always had a nonalignment policy. Does the administration have any fear that our Pakistan policy may change that nonalignment?

A. No, I don't think so. When Prime Minister Gandhi was here, we talked about that matter. She assures us that their nonalignment policy will continue regardless of the recent treaty that was signed with the Soviet Union. We have no reason to doubt that. We have, as I say, contributed a great deal to both nations in the way of foreign assistance, and the legislation that was passed by the Senate yesterday provides further economic assistance of that type.

Q. Mr. Secretary, how has Mr. Nixon's China policy affected our relations with the Republic of China and Japan?

A. Well, in the case of the Republic of China, I think the answer is obvious: that they have been very disappointed in developments. They are particularly disappointed at the result of the United Nations. On the other hand, I am sure that they have complete confidence in us, in the sense that they know we did everything we could to succeed, and they have expressed their appreciation for our efforts. So I think our relations are as good with the Republic of China as they could be under the circumstances. When I say "under the circumstances," I mean considering the fact that they are naturally disappointed.

As far as Japan is concerned, I think our relations are good. I was particularly pleased that the Okinawa Treaty was enacted, was ratified, with such speed by the United States Senate. And I think this is a good example of what I started out by saying, and that is that

December 6, 1971

655

A. Nothing. Let me be sure, now, that you listen to the answer. Are you suggesting that we went to other governments and said, "Please come in and complain?"

Q. It appeared to me there was some intimidation by the United States.

A. Oh, I don't think that is serious. I'd like to talk to you about that. No, we had cables from other governments immediately, and we had their Ambassadors come in and talk to me at once. We have enough complaints without stimulating them. [Laughter.]

## U.S. Assistance to Israel

Q. Do you foresee any incidents in which the United States might withdraw support from Israel? There have been pressures, for example, for the President to make a deal with the Russians, or some comment that this would make relations with Russia better. Now, might we withdraw support from Israel?

A. No. I'm glad you asked that question, because it illustrates the problem we have around the world. When we adopt a new policy, a policy of trying to get along better with the People's Republic of China, we have to be sure that our friends and allies do not think that we are doing it at their expense. And when we discuss matters with the Soviet Union, we have to convince our friends and allies that it is not at their expense. And it is not an easy thing to do, because of articles that are written and speculation, and so forth.

Now, in answer to your question, specifically, the United States has supported Israel since its inception, and we have made it clear that we are going to continue to support Israel's sovereignty, its right to be free from interference from its neighbors. We have provided a great deal in terms of supporting assistance. In fact, yesterday, when the Foreign Assistance Act was up, someone raised this question with me, and I called the Members of the Senate who are concerned with it and said that I would make it clear to them that it was the policy of the administration to authorize the expenditure of all the money that was included in that bill. And there was, at that point, another $85 million for

supporting assistance to Israel. So the United States in its efforts to get along with other nations in the world is not going to do it at the expense of our friends and allies.

Q: Mr. Secretary, we have had summit conferences before. What is there different about Moscow and Peking that would offer some assurance of peace, or some prospect of peace?

A. Well, the question is: What is new about the summit conferences with Peking and Moscow? Well, of course, the thing that is new about the summit meeting with Peking is that we have never had one before. You can't be any newer than that. [Laughter.]

Now, as far as the Soviet Union is concerned, President Nixon said that he did not want to have a meeting at the summit unless he felt that there were prospects for some concrete results, and that is why we waited until the Berlin agreement, that is why we waited until there had been progress in the SALT talks. So we now think that there is some prospect of progress at the summit meeting.

Q. Mr. Secretary, specifically, how will foreign aid be restructured because of recent voting on the foreign aid bill?

A. I'm not sure. It is a matter now, really, between the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I would like to say this, however: that we would very much hope that a continuing resolution would be enacted, because in the absence of a continuing resolution we are in direct conflict with what is called the "Deficiency Act." The Deficiency Act says that no member of the executive branch should authorize or obligate funds without an authorization and an appropriation by the Congress. So that if, after November 15, there is no continuing resolution and we authorize any expenditure of funds—for example, if we approve the purchase of a plane ticket or buy new supplies or anything of that kind—we violate the law, and the antideficiency law says you shouldn't obligate any funds until Congress has authorized it. So we very much hope now that in view of the fact that both the Senate and the House of Representatives have made it clear that they favor a Foreign Assistance Act, that

December 6, 1971

657

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1243

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 4:42 P.M. EST

NOVEMBER 15, 1971

MONDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We have nothing to give you this afternoon except the schedule.

The President will meet with the Republican Congressional Leadership tomorrow morning at 8:00.

And then at 10:00, the President will meet with Members of the President's Committee on Mental Retardation. Secretary Richardson will also attend the meeting. He is Chairman of the Committee. The Committee Members will bring the President up to date on recent developments in the field of mental retardation.

The President at 12 noon tomorrow will meet with Dr. Arthur Flemming, Chairman of the White House Conference on the Aging and Dr. John Martin, Special Assistant to the President on Aging. Johnny Unitas also will be in attendance. He is the President of VIP Inc, sponsor of Salute to Older Americans. Mrs. Eisenhower is the Honorary Chairman of this year's Salute.

We will, of course, have a briefing following that meeting. (Laughter.)

The President will meet at 11:30 tomorrow with Prince Sadruddin Aga Kahn, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the problems of East Pakistan refugees and the administration of the international efforts to relieve their suffering.

The President then at 5:00 tomorrow will meet with the Attorney General.

The President has accepted the resignation of two Ambassadors. John Patrick Walsh, the Ambassador to the State of Kuwait and Charles T. Cross, the Ambassador to the Republic of Singapore. Both resignations become effective on dates yet to be determined and we will post the details on that.

Ambassador Walsh is a career Foreign Service officer. He will be reassigned in the United States. He was appointed to his post on September 19, 1969 and at that time was Acting Executive Secretary of the Department of State and Special Assistant to the Secretaries in Chicago and New York City.

Ambassador Cross is also a career Foreign Service officer and was appointed September 15, 1969. He was born in China of American parents and at the time of his appointment was Deputy for Civil Operations in the I Corps in South Vietnam. His new assignment will be in the United States. We will post further details on that.

MORE

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1246

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 11:38 A.M. EST

NOVEMBER 17, 1971

WEDNESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We have given you a couple of statements this morning. First of all, you know that the President is meeting with Governor Reagan this morning. The Governor has just returned from a trip which he took to Asia during the period of October 9 to the 23rd and on that trip he was the President's Personal Representative to the Republic of China's National Day Celebration, which took place on October 10th and he subsequently visited South Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand, South Korea and Japan. The President, of course, wants to convey his appreciation to the Governor for his efforts in representing the United States. Governor Reagan will be out after this briefing and after his meeting with the President to talk to you briefly about his session with the President and about his trip.

Q Ron, did you mention South Vietnam?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, I did.

But before the conclusion of the meeting, we have
several other announcements.

President Nixon has signed H.R. 8687, which authorizes
for fiscal year 1972 appropriations of $21,316,870,000 to fund
within the Department of Defense and the military departments,
activities relating to procurement of certain weapons systems,
research, development, test and evaluation activities and anti-
ballistic missile system construction. The bill also prescribes
the reserve strengths of the Armed Forces.

H.R. 8687 authorizes $871.4 million less than the
$22,188.3 million requested, for these purposes by the
Department of Defense. We will post for you the complete
details of this bill and we will have Xeroxed copies of the
details of the bill to provide you at the conclusion of
the briefing.

The statement you have by the President refers
to the signing of the bill, H.R. 8687, and addresses itself
to Section 601 of that bill, the so-called "Mansfield
Amendment." I believe that the President's statement on that
subject is clear and self-explanatory.

Also, we have provided you a release which announces
the appointment of Colonel Brent Scowcroft of the United
States Air Force to be the Military Assistant to the President.
Colonel Scowcroft will replace Brigadier General Hughes, I know
most of you here know Don Hughes, effective February 1, 1972,
when General Hughes will become Vice Commander of the 12th
Air Force Tactical Air Command at Bergstrom Air Force Base in
Austin, Texas. I believe that you will find that the release
contains all the details.

MORE

#1246

- 2 -

#1246

General Hughes, as you know, has been with the
President since he came into office and I know that Don
felt that he wanted to resume his career in a command
position and the President understood this and General
Hughes will be leaving and the replacement is being
announced today.

Q Will Colonel Scowcroft come on board before
the formal changeover?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, he will. He will be coming on
board, I think, quite soon. I don't have the date he will
join us.

Q When will Hughes be leaving?

MR. ZIEGLER: February 1.

Q He will be here until then?

MR. ZIEGLER: Don will be here until February 1,
1972.

Q He will make the Peking trip, right, because
he was part of the advance? (Laughter)

MR. ZIEGLER: Hubbard, you know you make an effort
occasionally. That was one of your better efforts.

Q If the trip should occur after the first of
February, would you expect General Hughes would be
temporarily detached back here?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think we will have to wait and
answer those questions when we announce when the trip to
China will be.

Also the President is sending to Congress a combined
supplemental request for various departments and agencies
of the government in the amount of $91,531,000 in budget
authority and $273,635,000 in proposals not increasing budget
authority. We will post for you the details of this action
and we will have Xeroxed copies of that.

Finally, the President is announcing that Edgar
R.Fiedler will be the new Assistant Secretary of Treasury
for Economic Policy. He will succeed Murray L. Weidenbaum
whose resignation was accepted in June of 1971. The
position is a Level 4 position, $38,000 a year.

As you know, Murray Weidenbaum resigned to accept
a job at Washington University, in St. Louis, Missouri.

Those are all the announcements that we have today.

Q Ron, does the President's signing of the
Military Procurement Authorization Act mean that the United
States is going to be going against the overwhelming
U.N. vote of the other day concerning the buying of
chrome from Rhodesia.

MORE

#1246

- 3 -

#1246

MR. ZIEGLER: First of all, that matter is contained in the Military Procurement Act and will be spelled out in the material that we will give you. The provision, as will be spelled out, of the Congressional amendment on that matter to the Military Procurement bill, does not take effect until January of 1972. I think you are aware of the fact that negotiations are now under way between Britain and Rhodesia, and in light of that, in light of these current negotiations, we do not feel that it would be helpful for the United States to comment or take any action now which might jeopardize the long term settlement of these problems in relation to Rhodesia.

Q Is the amendment permissive or mandatory on the President?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is permissive.

Q He has discretion to act or not act?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q On Governor Reagan, when he went to Asia, excluding South Vietnam, did he go as the President's Personal Representative?

MR. ZIEGLER: The Governor was the President's Personal Representative to the October 10th celebration in Taiwan and the Republic of China and was his Personal Representative throughout the trip.

Q Ron, if there is no resolution of the negotiations between Britain and Rhodesia, is it the President's intention to do nothing--no resolution before January 1, 1972 -- is it the President's intention to do nothing with regard to the chrome amendment, take no action and therefore keep, in effect, the present embargo?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I said earlier, in light of the negotiations taking place now, I don't want to comment on the matter. The Congress amended the Military Procurement bill to include this authority. I don't want to speak to the use of that authority in this time where these negotiations are taking place for the reasons I stated to you.

Q Ron, doesn't the bill remove the President's authority to ban such trade?

MR. ZIEGLER: It removes his authority to ban such imports, but it does not require him to proceed with such imports. I think that is correct. In other words, as he said, it is permissive.

Q They wouldn't be done commercially or privately, or would they?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know the answer to that.

Q Are you saying the President is not going to act until the outcome of these talks?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am saying that the amendment does not apply until January of 1972 and I am not going to comment on this particular amendment beyond what I have said, because of the reasons I gave you and that is the negotiations now occurring between the United Kingdom and Rhodesia.

MODE

#1246

- 4 -

#1246

For your DEEP BACKGROUND, obviously, if those negotiations are fruitful, then there would be no sanctions, you see.

Q In the President's comments on the Mansfield Amendment, he seems to be less stringent on POW release than the Mansfield Amendment itself is. The amendment says subject to the release of the prisoners and the President says our troop withdrawal timetable is going to be determined, among other things, by progress toward obtaining release of all our prisoners. Is this an indication that if the other side just gives us certain concrete indications that that would be sufficient?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't think you should read around what the President says. I think he is quite specific in what he says. He is referring to in absence of such a settlement or until such a settlement is reached, the rate of withdrawal will be determined by three factors, by the level of enemy activity, the progress of our Vietnamization program, and by progress toward obtaining the release of all of our prisoners wherever they are in Southeast Asia. Obviously he is referring to negotiating progress.

Q He says he is going to ignore the amendment.

MR. ZIEGLER: I think the President's statement is clear and you can use his words -- you don't have to use mine -- in his feeling about the amendment.

Q On that subject, Ron, regarding the President's objections to establishing the final date, isn't it a fact that he has established a final date for withdrawal of all U.S. forces subject to release of prisoners, but has not announced it publicly?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, that would be an incorrect inference to draw. We have been through that a number of times. The President has made an announcement just a few days ago regarding the next step of withdrawal of U.S. forces and at the time of that announcement, he indicated that he would be considering the next increment based upon the various criteria that he stated to you at that time.

Q Hasn't the President also said that he will not withdraw all of our forces out of Southeast Asia so long as there are prisoners still held and does he still feel that way?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think the President has made it clear that it is his determination to achieve a negotiated settlement or end the U.S. involvement and bring a solution which would be the withdrawal of POW's from Southeast Asia, that in proceeding with this program, he does not intend to take away the negotiating incentive which he has. But there is no need for us to go through that because you can refer to what the President has said himself.

MORE

#1246

- 5 -

#1246

Q I want to come back to it because referring to what the President told Associated Press editors -- that must be close to two years ago -- didn't he in fact say at that time we would be entirely out of Vietnam by the 1972 election?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't recall the specific quote and the context in which he made it. I can only tell you that is the policy the President is pursuing, which you are familiar with, and consistent with that policy, on the one hand, the process of Vietnamization which contains the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Vietnam, 45,000 now between December 1 and February 1, and our efforts to negotiate. That is the policy that this Administration is proceeding with, and I believe the President makes clear here that that is the policy. Then he reiterates for you in the statement our goals and the President's hope and I have nothing to add to that.

Q Ron, could I ask what the first sentence in the third paragraph of the President's statement means or the reason why. He said that the Mansfield Amendment which is written into the bill which Congress has passed and the President has signed is "without binding force or effect."

Since it has been passed by Congress and he has signed it, why is it without binding force or effect?

MR. ZIEGLER: The amendment itself does not imply specific action that the President must take. It states that this is the policy. That is the wording of the amendment, the wording of 601. The President is saying that the policy that this Administration is proceeding with is determined and being determined by the President of the United States.

The goals of that policy have been stated and that which has been stated by the President and by this Administration is, in fact, the policy we are following.

Q Ron, has the President talked to Senator Mansfield about this and told him his position on this?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sure Senator Mansfield is aware of the President's position. This is not a new position.

Q Is the President going to address the AFL-CIO in Miami this weekend?

MR. ZIEGLER: There is no plan for that. There is speculation about that, but I really can't tell you now what the President's plans are for this weekend. Very likely he may stay in the Washington area. As soon as the plans are set, we will let you know.

There is nothing definitely set for him to speak to the AFL-CIO.

Q Is the President keeping in touch with the Thailand situation?

MR. ZIEGLER: We are, of course, aware of the situation, but I have no comment on it.

MORE

#1246

- 6 -

#1246

Q Ron, could I ask you to clarify one sentence in one of your remarks. You say the bill removes the President's authority to ban such imports which by itself is very clear. Then you say, but it does not require him to proceed with such authority. Isn't that a contradiction between those two clauses? If it removes his authority to ban imports you are saying, in effect, that imports ---

MR. ZIEGLER: Could come in.

Q Yes. But doesn't it conflict with your next clause?

MR. ZIEGLER: My intent is that it removes his authority to ban it, but, in other words, it does not say he must import chrome into the United States.

Q Can't private interests import chrome if the ban on imports has been removed?

MR. ZIEGLER: I will have to get that answer for you.

Q Ron, on the Mansfield Amendment on Vietnamization, hasn't the President in past speeches and declarations talked about Vietnamization more in terms of its success as being one of the factors which would lead to withdrawal of American troops, and the statement this morning refers to the progress of our program of Vietnamization. Isn't progress a slightly more relevant word than success?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, we feel that Vietnamization is successful and has been successful and indeed, it is on that success that the President has based his withdrawal announcement and, in fact, the withdrawal of some 80 percent of our forces from South Vietnam when compared to the level it was when we came in office based on a success of Vietnamization.

Vietnamization is successful and has been successful. That does not mean, as we continue with the process of Vietnamization, that we are not ever again going to assess how it is moving along and that is what that sentence means. We are going to continue to assess it.

Q Ron, the President, if I recall correctly, has on several occasions in the past added that in addition to the return of our prisoners, another condition for total withdrawal, which paraphrased is that he must determine that the South Vietnamese are capable of taking care of themselves, defending themselves from a Communist threat. That is not related to prisoner withdrawal and it is an additional criterion that he would apply to the situation.

MR. ZIEGLER: That is right, but you also have to keep in mind that the President has also put forth the proposal that the entire prisoner of war matter be separated as a humanitarian issue, and be dealt with in that way. He has called for immediate exchange of prisoners. But you are right in what you say.

MORE

#1246

- 7 -

#1246

The policy which we are now pursuing in the negotiating field and in the Vietnamization field is designed to obtain release of prisoners from a negotiating standpoint. It is designed also to bring about and to work for the release of prisoners of war, but also to give the opportunity to the South Vietnamese to do it on their own.

Q So, in effect, progress in Vietnamization, as it is used in this statement, could be defined in terms of the President's other language, that before total withdrawal, quite without regard to the prisoner issue, he will wish to determine that the South Vietnamese can, at a given point, take care of themselves without the presence of American troops?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think the way to answer your question is, he has not -- and this is implied by this statement and implied by what he said in the press conference the other day -- he has indeed not made the final assessment.

Q Why is there a change in the wording of the third criterion? It always used to be, or frequently and consistently for a long time, the third criterion was progress toward negotiation or progress in negotiation. The other two being level of enemy activity and progress in Vietnamization. Why is it phrased differently now?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, it says the same thing because we have put emphasis, as we have in the past, on the fact that our goal is to achieve a negotiated settlement and we are ready to negotiate. We have said that over and over again. We have proposals on the table.

The other side has not been responsive to our overtures to negotiation and have not responded to the proposals that we have put on the table in Paris.

What this says is if there is not progress in negotiations, then this is the way he will proceed on the other track, but I wouldn't read anything into the fact of the wording as such.

Q Wouldn't you acknowledge that the tone of this is different than the tone of the President's other statements?

MR. ZIEGLER: The intent is to state the policy as it is.

Q In other words, there is no change. When he speaks only of POW's in the third criteria, this time it is as broad a statement as the previous statements were and were more clearly?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is correct. We want to obtain the release of the prisoners of war. We also want to achieve a settlement in South Vietnam as we have articulated and said to you before.

Q Ron, on another subject, some Israeli newspaper is supposed to report today the President is considering separate meetings with the Israeli Prime Minister and Egyptian President to try to settle the Mideast situation. Is there anything to that?

MOPE

#1246

- 8 -

#1246

MR. ZIEGLER: I find myself in an unusual position which I don't always find myself in when I deny stories. I understood the Israeli Government already denied that. There is nothing to the report.

Q Does the President believe that the tax checkoff is a better means of financing political campaigns?

MR. ZIEGLER: We are going to have to take a better look at that. The Senate is going through a process now where they are substantially amending the tax bill which is before them and we are just going to have to take a real good look at those amendments.

Q Are you going to conclude that look by the time the campaign bill comes up for vote and have a position on it before it is acted on?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will see.

Q Ron, I believe this is a direct quote. Mr. Reston in the New York Times says the President and the White House and Republican Party are blocking any and all campaign spending limitation legislation in Congress while appearing to support it. Is that true?

MR. ZIEGLER: I would refer you to what we have said here and I would put more weight to what we have said here and what the President said and what our leadership has said than I would to the columnist in stating our policy.

Q Does that mean the answer is no?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is a round about way of saying no.

Q Is the President considering a possibility of ordering a federal grand jury investigation into the killings at Kent State?

MR. ZIEGLER: The Justice Department has spoken to that, I have nothing to add to that.

Q On the Middle East, has any decision been made on the Israeli request for Phantoms and is that under active consideration by the White House now?

MR. ZIEGLER: Our position has not changed in relation to the Middle East. The President is going to continue to watch the situation in making sure that the military balance is maintained.

Q If I may follow up on that, does he share the Secretary of State's view that the military balance is not shifting?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not going to expand or add to what the Secretary of State has said. I will tell you that this government's position and our policy is that we are going to continue as we have in the past in relation to the Middle East and continue to assess the situation to see that the military balance is maintained.

MORE

#1246

- 9 -

#1246

I am not asking you to expand it, merely to
endorse it.

MR. ZIEGLER: The Secretary of State, I don't think, really needs endorsement from the Administration when he comments on matters of foreign policy.

Q Has the Phantom request been disposed of at this point? Is that consideration of the Israeli request for Phantoms closed for the time being?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have never discussed, and I won't this morning, the status of our assessment of the military balance. We have given you a policy statement which I have reiterated again this morning and that is as I stated it.

Q Let me clarify something. When you were asked before on the President's statement about a cease fire in Southeast Asia, one of your replies said our proposals are on the table in Paris. Then you said South Vietnam. How do you relate Paris to the cease fire in all Southeast Asia, which is Laos and Cambodia? Are they negotiating in Paris for the other two countries also?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, you may have misunderstood me or I may have misspoken myself and I always welcome the opportunity to clarify something I said. I was referring to the fact we have proposals on the table in Paris. One of those proposals is the Indochina-wide cease fire.

Q Ron, the question a few moments ago was whether the President was considering reopening the Kent State matter and you responded that the Justice Department had already spoken to that and you had no more to say. I would like to restate the question, which was, is the President considering the petition of these 10,000 students who signed the petition to overrule the Justice Department and ask for a new look in the Kent State matter?

MR. ZIEGLER: I would stand on my previous answer. This is a matter that the Justice Department has been dealing with and they have dealt with it thoroughly and have issued a very complete statement regarding the decision they made and I have nothing to add to it.

Q There is no consideration being given by the White House to that issue?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have nothing to add to what the Justice Department said.

Q Does the President's five point peace initiative still stand as he originally stated it about a year ago?

MR. ZIEGLER: The proposals that the President has put forth and which the United States and the South Vietnamese have put forth in Paris are still on the table. Absolutely.

Q Has any foreign country, Ron, asked a limit on the number of black soldiers assigned to their area?

MR. ZIEGLER: I saw that story and saw the reports, and the Defense Department is going to have a session today where they will speak to that and I think they will speak quite clearly on that matter.

MORE

#1246

- 10 -

#1246

Q Could you tell us the upshot or the topics of the President's meeting yesterday afternoon with the Attorney General?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I can't.

Q In the last ten days there have been expressions of alarm -- Secretary Rogers and others have made public expressions of alarm about the situation in India and Pakistan about the possibility of war there. What is the view of the Administration now that Mrs. Gandhi has returned and made her statement in Parliament as to the danger of that situation and the probability for it?

MR. ZIEGLER: The question is in the last few days the Secretary of State and other Administration spokesmen have addressed themselves to the situation in Pakistan and India as a result of the Pakistan refugees, I assume you were inferring in your question.

Q Yes.

MR. ZIEGLER: And have expressed concern about the possibility of the outbreak of war in that area and now that Prime Minister Gandhi has returned to India, does the White House have anything to say in terms of a comment about the possibility of a conflict breaking out in that area.

After repeating the question, I hate to give you a short answer, but the short answer is that I have nothing to add to what the Secretary of State has said.

Q Ron, back to the issue of agreements with other governments limiting the numbers of black servicemen assigned, does the White House have any view as to whether this is a proper kind of agreement for the U.S. Government to take?

MR. ZIEGLER: It would be improper. That would be our view if that is the case and the Defense Department is going to speak to this today. We haven't had a chance to examine the report which the Black Caucus referred to, but the Defense Department will cover that in detail today. Chappie James is going to have a press conference over there at noon.

Q The White House would think that it is improper?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think so, yes.

Q Back to Mitchell, was there any discussion of his resignation?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

END

(AT 12:08 P.M. EST)

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1250

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:10 A.M. EST

NOVEMBER 22, 1971

MONDAY

MR. WARREN: Good morning. We will try to get through this rather rapidly in case any of you want to attend Secretary Connally's news conference across the street.

We have no schedule to announce this morning. The President has been meeting with staff members this morning. He has met with Dr. Kissinger, Mr. Haldeman, Clark MacGregor, Rose Woods and others this morning, and will be doing that most of the day.

We do not plan to brief this afternoon. I will be here with schedule information and whatever else we might have at 4:00 o'clock for those who are interested in that.

You have two releases this morning. One is an Executive Order which amends the earlier Executive Order on the Phase 2 apparatus to establish a Rent Advisory Board composed of members which the President appoints. The President also designates the Chairman of this Board. This Board will be advisory to the Price Commission only because this is the main area of concern. The Price Commission has the responsibilities to deal with problems which may arise in the rent area.

You may recall that earlier it was thought that the Rent Advisory Board would be a part of the Price Commission, but in discussions since the Price Commission was created and got into its work, it was felt that a separate entity should be created, and that is what we are doing today.

Also, you have a letter of transmittal from the President to the Senate of the United States transmitting for advice and consent to ratification of the Senate of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which was adopted under the United States auspices at a conference in Vienna in 1969. The convention was signed by the United States on April 24th of 1970.

Most of the information you need is in the transmittal letter. We do have limited copies of the analysis of the convention by the Secretary of State, and those are available in the Press Office.

Q This language about honoring contracts in the thing, did the President get that from Mr. Meany, or what is the purpose of it? (Laughter)

MR. WARREN: I think that is self-explanatory.

MORE

#1250

#1250

Q When will the President name the Rent Board?

MR. WARREN: I would expect that the members would
be named very soon.

Q Can you be more specific than that, possibly?

MR. WARREN: Certainly this week. I would expect
the members to be named early this week.

Q I take it the Price Commission will make the
actual decisions on rent?

MR. WARREN: Yes, indeed. This will be an Advisory
Board. The Price Commission will make decisions on that.

Q Aren't they due to meet tomorrow?

MR. WARREN: That is correct.

Q Then they will be named by tomorrow?

MR. WARREN: That is my hope.

Q Since the Price Commission has said that they
will not act on the question of rents on non-new housing
until this Board is appointed, will this Board make a formal
report to the Price Commission prior to its action?

MR. WARREN: How that will work out, I believe, is
up to the Price Commission and the Board. Once the Rent
Advisory Board meets and gets organized, then those details
will be worked out between the Rent Board and the Price Com-
mission.

Q How many members are going to be on this Board?

MR. WARREN: The Executive Order leaves that open.
I just do not know at this point how many members there will be.

Q Will there be any women named to it?

MR. WARREN: Why don't we wait until the Board is
named.

Q What is the present status of rents? Are
they frozen, or what?

MR. WARREN: That is a question that you should
address to the Price Commission. I am just not in a position
to address that question from here.

Q Do you have a time frame to give us as to when
this Board is to have its report, in whatever form it is, and
then the Price Commission take the remaining freeze off of
rents?

MR. WARREN: That, again, is a question you should
address to the Price Commission. I am not in a position to
address that from here.

Q I don't remember any uncertainty at the time
the Phase 2 program was announced as to the role of a separate

MORE

#1250

- 3 -

#1250

Rent Board. When was that uncertainty a factor?

MR. WARREN: "Uncertainty" is your word, Jim. What I said was that at the time the mechanism was announced, it was felt then that the Price Commission would name an Advisory Board from within the Price Commission, or perhaps adding other names. Since that time, in discussions, it has been decided that a separate entity should be appointed by the President, and that is what we are doing this morning.

Q Decided by whom; the Price Commission or the President?

MR. WARREN: In discussions with the Chairman of the Price Commission, and members of the Administration and the Cost of Living Council.

Q Are you saying that there was never any question that there would be an attempt or that rents would come under these controls?

MR. WARREN: No. It has always been felt that rents would be a part of the purview of the Price Commission, and that is unchanged.

Q My recollection is that the President said that there would be a Rent Advisory Board which would include representatives of both the renting companies and the consumers. How does that differ from what we have now?

MR. WARREN: That does not differ from what we have now. I was taking you back further, when it was discussed in the information you received on October 15th. You might recall that information said that there would be a Rent Advisory Board within the Price Commission. I was just pointing out to you that this is taking it a step beyond that.

May I move along, and we can take questions later? I have some other announcements to make.

The President has signed House Joint Resolution 946, which provides continuing appropriations for the Federal Government until December 8th. This is the continuing resolution which provides for appropriations to, in addition to foreign assistance, to portions of the Defense Department, and the District of Columbia.

Q And OEO?

MR. WARREN: It also includes OEO.

Q When did he sign that?

MR. WARREN: He signed that over the weekend, Jim.

Q Can you be more precise?

MR. WARREN: It was signed Saturday.

The President has signed H.R. 11418, the Military Construction Appropriations Act of 1972. We will post that information.

MORE

#1250

- 4 -

#1250

The President has signed H.R. 1680, which continues for two years the suspension of duties on certain classifications of spun silk yarn. We will post that information.

The President has signed H.R. 5060, which amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to make it unlawful for anyone, while airborne, to shoot or attempt to shoot for the purpose of capturing or killing any bird, fish or other animal.

The President has today announced his intention to nominate Kenneth K. Hall, of Charleston, West Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia. He will replace Judge John Field.

The President today acknowledged the retirement of Richard E. Robinson as United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, effective upon the appointment and qualification of a successor.

This morning we would like to announce formally that the President and Mrs. Nixon will attend the dedication ceremonies of the Eisenhower Memorial Hospital in Palm Desert, California, on Saturday, November 27th. The ceremonies will begin at 11:00 o'clock, Pacific Time. The President will have remarks at that dedication.

This is the first increment of the Eisenhower Medical Center, which is located between Palm Springs and Palm Desert. The hospital occupies approximately one-third of the 80 acres which has been set aside for the Eisenhower Medical Center. The hospital will serve as the basic unit for the medical center's future expansion into research and teaching.

Also participating in the program will be Mrs. Mamie Eisenhower, Governor and Mrs. Reagan, and Mr. and Mrs. Bob Hope. Mr. Hope has been very instrumental in the plans for the Eisenhower Medical Center, and also, I am told, donated the land for the site of the Eisenhower Medical Center.

Q All of it?

MR. WARREN: Yes, 80 acres.

Q Can you elaborate on your phrase "the first increment"? What all is to be there?

MR. WARREN: This will be the first thing on the site for the medical center. That will be other buildings.

Q This is the first building?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q Is there anything there now but bare land?

MR. WARREN: This building is there. The President will be dedicating this.

Q Is it completed?

MR. WARREN: Yes, the hospital building has been completed.

MORE

#1250

- 5 -

#1250

Q How large a hospital is it?

MR. WARREN: It is a 140-bed hospital, and is a
$7.5 million facility.

Q Is it affiliated with any medical school out
there?

MR. WARREN: We are checking on that.

There is under construction now an office building
for physicians.

The hospital was funded by private donations and
will go into operation in mid-December.

Q What other buildings will go up apart from these
two buildings?

MR. WARREN: I am sorry, I do not have that.

Q But you did mention it is going to be used
for research and teaching?

MR. WARREN: It is my understanding that this is
the first part of an overall complex, a medical center, and
that this will serve as the basic unit for the medical center's
future expansion into research and training.

Q Is this directed at any particular branch of
medicine, or is it just general; it is not a center for cancer
or some other specific?

MR. WARREN: I do not know.

Q Do you know whether there is Federal or State
money involved?

MR. WARREN: There is no Federal money involved.

Q How and when will the President get there, and
where will he be coming from?

MR. WARREN: As to how, he will get there in the
normal fashion. As to when, he will arrive in Palm Desert
sometime around 11:00 o'clock Saturday.

Q From where?

MR. WARREN: Those are details which I am not pre-
pared to give you at this point. We certainly understand
your interest in this, and we will provide you with those
details just as soon as we can.

Q Do you know when that will be?

MR. WARREN: Just as soon as possible.

Q The 80 acres is what; the center or the hospital?

MR. WARREN: The site of the entire center.

Q Are you saying the structure there now is a
140-bed hospital?

MORE

#1250

- 6 -

#1250

MR. WARREN: That is correct.

Q Did Clark MacGregor give the President a run-
down on the status n the Senate of the tax check-off amendment?

MR. WARREN: I am sure they discussed that. I have
not had a chance to talk to Clark, because he is with the
President now; but I am sure that was one of the topics dis-
cussed, yes.

Q Will the President veto that bill if it comes
to him?

MR. WARREN: That is a question which is impossible
to answer at this point, because the bill is not before the
President. The President has a position on this, and that has
been discussed at great length on the Hill.

The White House feels that this amendment is unwise.
There are many, many questions about this particular amend-
ment which raise constitutional questions and other questions.
This has been discussed before by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States back in the middle '60s
and at that time it was, in effect, tabled by the Congress of
the United States as unwise.

Q What constitutional amendments does it affect?

MR. WARREN: This is being discussed on the Hill;
but it raises questions about whether or not Congress can give
to private citizens the responsibility of appropriating funds
which is the responsibility of the House of Representatives
and the Congress.

Q Did anybody in the White House have anything
to do with the full-page ad on the subject of that check-off
in the Washington Post?

MR. WARREN: Not to my knowledge, John.

Q What is the appropriation of funds that is
involved in this process?

MR. WARREN: The process would allow an individual
taxpayer to say where his money would go.

Q You mean the designation of funds?

Q How does that differ in principle from the tax
investment credit? You can take it or not take it.

MR. WARREN: I am not sure that the tax investment
credit applies here at all, because this is a situation where
an individual taxpayer would be able to say where one dollar
of his taxes would go.

Q He can say yes or he can say no. That is the
principle involved in the investment tax credit. You either
take it or you don't take it.

MR. WARREN: The point is that when you say yes, and
you check off the box, then the money that would go to the

MORE

#1250

- 7 -

#1250

general fund to fund the operations of the Federal Govern-
ment goes out of that general fund and is spent in another
way. It is up to the House of Representatives to appropriate
money from that general fund for specific purposes.

Q Jerry, the President has laid some stress on
the importance of this tax bill in a number of statements.
Is it possible that he would veto a bill that he considers
absolutely essential to the economy in order to eliminate this
tax check-off?

MR. WARREN: There is no question about the position
of the President on the need for this tax bill, but here,
again, I, from this podium, am not going to talk about the
President's action on a bill which has not reached the Presi-
dent's desk.

Q You do that sometimes, Jerry.

MR. WARREN: I do not, Don.

Q Is the President encouraged or discouraged about
the prospects of labor continuing to cooperate with his Phase
2 programs?

MR. WARREN: The President said in Miami Beach that the cooperation of all segments of the American society is necessary to make this thing work. He also said that it must work. Labor is participating, and the process is continuing, so I would not take it beyond there.

Q I just wondered if he thought Friday's events
were a setback in any way to the process of cooperation.

MR. WARREN: We expect cooperation from the American
public. We have received expressions of support for the Phase
2 operations. We expect that there will be cooperation.

Q Jerry, the White House opposes the Pastore
amendment because it enables citizens to appropriate money,
but the White House favors the Howard Baker amendment which
would permit a citizen to designate the party to which he
wants his dollar to go, unless I misunderstand it. How is
one more favorable?

MR. WARREN: I am sorry; I am not familiar with
that amendment.

Q It is the Mathias amendment.

MR. WARREN: I am not familiar with that. I do not
mean to focus your attention entirely on this particular point.
There are other things in this amendment which Contribute to
the position of the Administration.

Q Would you spell that out?

MR. WARREN: I believe it has been spelled out in
the debate on the Hill. I do not think that I am in a posi-
tion to go over that; but the position is very well known on
the Hill.

MORE

#1250

- 8 -

#1250

Q Except that you said that it raises constitutional and other questions in the White House view, and you mentioned one constitutional and no others.

MR. WARREN: For example, I believe I said that the money which would be appropriated for this would be everybody's money, because it comes from the general fund, which everyone contributes to. It seems to me, and to members of the Administration, that it would diminish to some extent the personal involvement of Americans in the political process, Americans who work and contribute anywhere from $1 to $25 toward the political process. This has the effect of having that personal impact on a candidate, whether he is a candidate for President or Congress or the Board of Supervisors in a county.

Q Can we go back to the Rent Board? There are a few questions I would like to ask. Am I right that when Ted raised the possibility of a meeting tomorrow of the Rent Board, you said yes, such a meeting is scheduled: Is that right?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q Can you tell us where in Washington, and what time, and have the members been notified?

MR. WARREN: I cannot tell you when and where because I do not know. Whether the members have been notified or not, I am just not sure. I believe they will be notified, obviously, before the meeting. (Laughter)

Q Will you announce it during the day today?

MR. WARREN: I will not be announcing the members during the day; perhaps tomorrow.

Q Do you think you will slip it in on us before the meeting is held?

MR. WARREN: I hope so.

Q Are you saying, in effect, that the Nixon Administration could not possibly favor any political funding amendment that took money from the Federal Treasury; that it would be against anything along that line because of that constitutional point?

MR. WARREN: I do not want to make that commitment on behalf of the Administration; but speaking to the specific amendment, that is certainly one of the bases for the opposition.

Q Jerry, just to return for one second to the Rent Advisory Board, I would assume that if a meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, then the members must have already been selected. What is the reason they are not being announced?

MR. WARREN: For your BACKGROUND: One reason is that we want to create the authority for their being members of this commission. That is what we are doing this morning. We are announcing that the President has signed this Executive Order. This Executive Order then will be printed in the Federal

MORE

#1250

- 9 -

#1250

Register, which is the vehicle for announcing to the world
that such action has been taken. Once that has been done,
then we will announce the members of the Board.

Q Is there any other reason?

MR. WARREN: No, absolutely not.

Q Why would that interfere with your announcing
the names?

MR. WARREN: It doesn't interfere. Again, for your
**BACKGROUND:** It was just felt that it would be better to have
the authority effected before we announce the names.

Q Have these people been selected? Have you got
members?

MR. WARREN: They are moving along in that area,
but the point is that the announcement will be made. There
is no problem with the Rent Advisory Board. it was just
deemed that it would be better to announce it after the
authority was announced.

A I just don't understand why that should be
so. What difference can it make. Nothing can stop it. You
publish it in the Federal Register, but why should that inter-
fere with their names being announced today?

MR. WARREN: I am not saying that it interferes.
I am just saying that that happened.

Q You said that was the reason, and I don't under-
stand why it should be the reason. There must be something
that I don't understand about this. What is the necessity for
having the thing printed?

MR. WARREN: What is the necessity for announcing
the Board today?

Q What is the necessity for not announcing it?
That is what I am asking.

Q Because they are having a meeting tomorrow.

MR. WARREN: We will have them announced before the
meeting, very properly and very legally.

Q How can these people meet if they don't know
who they are?

MR. WARREN: I can assure you they know who they are.

Q What is the President doing today to try to
assure peace in the Middle East?

MR. WARREN: The State Department, as you should
be well aware, is working on that matter and has been for some
time.

Q Jerry, on a different subject, when will the
President announce a new Marine Commandant who takes office
on January 1st?

MORE

#1250

- 11 -

#1250

Q When the President nominated Dr. Butz, did he know about that speech Senator Proxmire publicized over the weekend?

MR. WARREN: I don't know whether he did or not, John.

Q What sort of response have you had following the President's appearance at Miami Beach at the AFL-CIO Convention?

MR. WARREN: There have been a number of telegrams and telephone calls coming into the White House, almost unanimously in support of the fight against inflation and the program to reduce the cost of living and stem inflation.

Q Has he replied to the President of the Teamsters Union?

MR. WARREN: I am not sure he has yet.

Q There was a report on television, I think it was on Metromedia, the other day that the White House has requested a copy of the UPI film of that Presidential appearance in Miami Beach at the AFL-CIO convention. What does the White House want to do with the film?

MR. WARREN: If indeed the White House requested it, I would assume that someone in the White House wants to see it.

Q Is it planned to use this film in the Presidential campaign?

MR. WARREN: No.

Q How much mail is the White House receiving now compared with a year ago and what is the subject matter?

MR. WARREN: I'm sorry. I have not checked the total amount of mail received by the White House. I know it has increased yearly since we have been here. I don't have an up-to-date count on it.

Q Jerry, there is a published report in London that when Henry Kissinger was in Peking last month the Chinese Premier suggested a new international conference on Indochina to replace the Geneva Agreement of 1954. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. WARREN: No.

Q Do you have any comment, Jerry, on a published report over the weekend that J. Edgar Hoover is going to be asked to resign before he becomes a possible political issue in the campaign?

MR. WARREN: No, I have no comment.

Q Does the President still have confidence in J. Edgar Hoover?

MR. WARREN: Of course.

Q Will we be getting more information this week on the China trip?

MORE

#1250

- 12 -

#1250

MR. WARREN: I have nothing new for you on that. The situation is as stated. You will receive the next announcement by the first of December.

Q You don't know whether that announcement will be made from here or elsewhere?

MR. WARREN: I just can't give you any help on when or how the announcement will be made.

Q I think it was before December 1; not on. Does that still hold?

MR. WARREN: It still holds.

Q Have you confirmed that the President is going to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Mier?

MR. WARREN: There are no definite plans for such a meeting with the President at this time.

Q Is it known that she will be here next month?

MR. WARREN: I understand that she will be in the United States, but there are no definite plans for a meeting with the President at this time.

Q But you are saying in effect that he expects he will probably meet with her, but no final meeting time has been arranged?

MR. WARREN: There is nothing definite at this time.

Q Is there something in the works?

MR. WARREN: Well, Helen, that is a matter into which I cannot go. (Laughter)

Q Back to Miami Beach. Senator Humphrey said that the President went there intending to -- not quoting him exactly -- but in effect intended to goad or make an issue, make a show of opposition here for political purposes. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. WARREN: No.

Q Jerry, the President said in his speech that if labor declined to cooperate he would nevertheless press ahead with his program to control inflation. If they walk off the Board, what would he do and how would he keep that Board going?

MR. WARREN: First, it is important to keep in mind that the President has an obligation to the American people to see that this program works. As he said in Miami Beach, to the AFL-CIO Convention, he intends to fulfill that obligation. As to what may happen and what the President might do in any hypothetical situation, I am just not going to stand here and speculate on that.

If there are changes, or if there are developments, then they would be assessed at the time, but I have no predictions to make.

MORE

#1250

- 13 -

#1250

Q Is there contingency planning going on as to what would happen if they walked out?

MR. WARREN: The hope and the expectation of this Administration is that these programs will work. We feel they will work. I would have nothing for you on expectations.

Q Jerry, did the White House intervene with the business members of the Pay Board to stiffen their stance on retroactivity?

MR. WARREN: I know of no such intervention, if there was any. I am quite sure there was none.

Q Jerry, is the President at all concerned about the Pay Board's approval of the coal miners' contract which is approximately three times above the standards set by the Board?

MR. WARREN: That is a matter that the Pay Board considered. The Pay Board is an independent board. It was created to assess these matters. I have no feeling to give you from here.

Q To go back to a question you were asked a minute ago, which you sort of turned aside, the question was: Has the White House requested a copy of the UPI film of the President speech to the AFL-CIO? Why can't you tell us whether or not the White House has indeed requested it?

MR. WARREN: Because I don't know whether or not somebody in the White House has asked for it.

Q Can you undertake finding out whether it was done?

MR. WARREN: Of course. But if somebody in the White House did request it, I am sure it is because they want to take a look at it. I am sure they would be interested in seeing what the entire film looked like.

As you know, there was no live coverage of this, and so people who are interested, in the White House, might want to see it. I see nothing unusual about it.

Q You seem to be saying that this has indeed been done.

MR. WARREN: I don't know that it has been done.

Q But that you strongly suspect that it has been done? Can you find out who made this request to the UPI?

MR. WARREN: Sure, not that that might make any difference. There is nothing mysterious about this at all.

Q How does the President feel about the reception he got down there?

MR. WARREN: I discussed this in Florida, and that is the way he felt.

Q Do you have a better line today about why he left Florida?

MR. WARREN: I don't know if I can improve on the truth. (Laughter)

MORE

#1250

- 14 -

#1250

If you want, I will give it a try.

Q Let's hear that one.

MR. WARREN: You have heard it before. The President went to Miami to address the AFL-CIO Convention. It was very easy for his staff, including this member of his staff, to conclude that it would be likely for him to stay down over the weekend, so preparations were made for that. The President decided to return home to accompany the First Lady to a performance of the classical Khymer dancers at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Friday night, and he did that.

Q Are you saying that he never intended to stay in Florida over the weekend?

MR. WARREN: No. What I am saying is that his intentions about the time of his return were known to me following the speech and that was when he wanted to return and that is when he returned.

Q Why didn't anybody ask him beforehand?

MR. WARREN: Because it didn't make that much difference. The President always has the flexibility of returning after a day or two when he goes to Key Biscayne, just as he does when he goes to Camp David.

Q Of course, he has the flexibility, but it would seem that somebody would say, "How long do you plan to say down there?" No one asked him?

MR. WARREN: I am not saying no one asked him.

Q If the President did not feel that he was rather poorly, discourteously handled by the AFL-CIO audience down there, why did the White House Saturday release telegrams and letters that were instigated by the reception the President got and expressing sympathy with him?

MR. WARREN: The telegrams which the White House received were from all segments of the society. They started to come in that evening and continued the next day. It was rather an unusual amount of telegrams and phone calls following a Presidential speech or press conference or something like that. It was felt that they might be of some interest to those who are covering the President because we regularly get calls and questions about what kind of response we are receiving.

Q When you gave your answer on Friday as to the President's feeling about his reception, the bulk of the media reporting of that reception was not in, the TV news and the bulk of the printed word. I am trying to find out if the President thinks the reception was as hostile as most of the news reports indicated, or whether he thinks the news reports were exaggerated in that respect. What can you tell us about that?

MR. WARREN: I have no Presidential judgment to give you on the news reports, however, I can repeat what I said in Florida, in answer to a question, that the President was not upset by the reception he received at the AFL-CIO Convention. He was not ruffled. I think I made it known that he fully understood the situation when he went to Miami. He knew, as

MORE

#1250

- 15 -

#1250

he mentioned in his speech, that there were areas of agreement and areas of disagreement. So, he was not upset.

Q Would you say, do your comments indicate that he was pleased by the reception?

MR. WARREN: No, not at all, nor do they indicate that he was displeased. I was asked a question as to whether or not he was upset by the treatment received. I answered, no, he was not upset. He knew before he went to give that speech that there were strong feelings and he knew that there were areas of agreement and areas of disagreement.

Q It is sort of like Billy Kilmer in the first quarter yesterday? (Laughter)

MR. WARREN: I'm afraid I was not able to see the first quarter or the third quarter yesterday. (Laughter)

Q When were David and Julie notified in Jacksonville?

MR. WARREN: I'm not sure exactly when. I think it was that morning, though. I just don't know.

Q Before the speech?

MR. WARREN: I'm not sure whether it was before or after the speech.

Q Jerry, does the President feel that the comments over the weekend by President Sadat have diminished the prospects of peace in the Middle East?

MR. WARREN: I have no direct comment or expression of feeling from the President on President Sadat's speech. Obviously, by your questioning, I am moved to remind you that the United States believes that a continuation of the cease fire is in the interest of all parties. The United States is continuing its efforts to seek negotiations toward a settlement of the situation. But I would refer you to the State Department for whatever details are available.

Q Has the President met with Secretary of State Rogers over the weekend or been in touch with him?

MR. WARREN: No, there has been no meeting. I believe he talked to him by telephone, but there has been no meeting with the Secretary.

Q Has there been any feeling of urgency or deeper concern than usual in the White House today about the Middle East situation?

MR. WARREN: I really believe that the place for you to address questions on this situation is the State Department. I have said that our feeling is that a continuation of the cease fire is in the interest of all parties. I am not going to give you an expression of Presidential feeling one way or the other. I will leave it with the State Department.

Q Did the President discuss this matter with Dr. Kissinger this morning?

MORE

#1250

- 16 -

#1250

MR. WARREN: I am not sure what they discussed this morning.

Q Jerry, for GUIDANCE, if the President is going to be in California on Saturday and the first of December is next Wednesday, could we assume that the announcement on the Peking trip will come from there?

MR. WARREN: I just can't help you with when or how the announcement might come, Jerry.

Q Jerry, do you have any expression of Presidential opinion on the statement over the weekend by Premier Kosygin that he would welcome an expansion of trade relations between the United States and the Soviet Union?

MR. WARREN: Well, you must remember that the President has discussed the opening of trade many times. Also, Secretary of Commerce Stans is in the Soviet Union to explore possible areas of expansion of trade between the two countries, so I have nothing to add.

Q Is the White House aware of any activity in the India-Pakistan situation today?

MR. WARREN: Well, again, this is an area where you should take your questions to the State Department.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Jerry.

END

(AT 11:54 A.M. EST)

#1250

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1251

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

11:25 A.M. EST

NOVEMBER 23, 1971

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: You have several releases there. I would like to call your attention first to the letter that the President sent to John Stennis regarding the legislation that is being considered in the Senate, the amendment to the bill they are now considering which calls for unilateral reduction of U.S. troops.

I think the letter to Senator Stennis points out the President's view. We have expressed this view previously, and still hold it. We don't feel that now is the time for the Senate or for the Congress to move unilaterally in this area to reduce U.S. forces in Europe when we are, as the President points out in his letter, moving toward important negotiations on these subjects.

Also, it should be pointed out that a mandatory and unilateral drawdown of 60,000 troops, which the amendment calls for in Europe, would seriously affect the delicate balance in the Eastern Mediterranean area, not only through a thinning of actual military capability; but perhaps more importantly, through the perception of the military balance by contending powers in the Mediterranean on the one hand, and assessment of the United States resolve to maintain a stable balance.

So we feel that action by the Senate in terms of the Mansfield amendment would be ill-advised.

You also have a release by the President announcing the appointment of 14 persons to be members of the Rent Advisory Board. The Board, as you know, was created by an amendment to the President's November 22nd Executive Order. I believe this is self-explanatory. Jerry spoke to it yesterday and there is nothing to add to that.

I believe the other releases that you have are self-explanatory also, so we will not take the time to read over those.

Q Ron, could I ask you a question about this Rent Advisory Board list of members?

First of all, do you happen to know whether Mr. Curtis, the Chairman, still lives in St. Louis? I can check that myself, but the Encyclopedia Brittanica is located in Chicago.

The other question, it says he is a former State Congressman from Missouri. I don't know what the State Congressman is. If the implication is that he served in the State

MORE

#1251

- 2 -

#1251

Legislature, that is not correct. He was a Member of Congress
from Missouri in that period.

MR. ZIEGLER: I appreciate your pointing out the
apparent error in terms of State Congressman. We will have
to check the other question.

Q About the troop statement, what delicate balance
in the Eastern Mediterranean are you talking about, and if my
notes are correct, you said "Eastern Mediterranean." Are my
notes correct?

A Yes.

Q I thought we were talking about Central Europe
here. What delicate balance in the Eastern Mediterranean are
you referring to?

MR. ZIEGLER: We are talking about NATO forces, and we
are talking about NATO forces as they apply to the Mediterranean
area. If you draw down NATO forces, that would, as I pointed
out, have an effect on the balance in the Mediterranean area,
because as there is an environment of uncertainty in that area,
it is important, in terms of NATO strength and in terms of the
United States posture in that area, that we not at this time
unilaterally reduce forces that can apply themselves to that
area of the world, the southern tip of NATO.

Q Are you making a distinction between the Middle
East and the Eastern Mediterranean, or are you talking about a
delicate balance in the Middle East?

MR. ZIEGLER: The Mediterranean area most certainly
applies to the Middle East, but I am not, in the remarks I gave
you earlier, specifically referring to the Middle East; only
from the standpoint that the U.S. posture in that area of the
world has an effect on that area of the world. We do not feel
that it should be reduced.

Q But you mean to specifically include the Middle
East in that?

MR. ZIEGLER: You gentlemen know as well as I do that
at the time of the Jordanian crisis, the forces in the Medi-
terranean area were postured in that particular set of circum-
stances.

Q Have you advanced this argument previously on this
matter, Ron, or is this something new?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, it is not new. The President made
the point over and over again when he made his trip to that
area of the world, when he visited the Mediterranean, when he
visited the Sixth Fleet, when he visited the Southern Command
of NATO. The President made the same point. That is what I
am referring to.

Q Is it your point that reducing 60,000 troops in
Central Europe will have an impact on the delicate balance in
the Eastern Mediterranean? Is that what you are saying?

MORE

#1251

- 3 -

#1251

MR. ZIEGLER: Because it thins, as I said, the actual military capability in Europe, and it therefore thins the overall military capability in Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, the southern tip of NATO.

That is the thrust of our view. We do not feel--as the President points out in his letter--that as we are moving into negotiations on mutual balanced force reductions, as we are moving into other discussions on the offset matter with West Germany, and as it is important at this time as the President is preparing to enter into major talks with the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China, that the NATO posture should be weakened by unilateral reduction.

Q How many troops are there now? How many would this 60,000 be subtracted from?

MR. ZIEGLER: 310,000.

Q Could you be more illustrative in saying that forces in the Mediterranean area were postured in that particular set of circumstances? What do you mean by that, during the Jordanian crisis? Do you mean they were on alert?

MR. ZIEGLER: Without my taking everybody's time at this moment to recap that period, I think everyone is aware of what I am referring to.

Q You used the phrase, Ron, "contending powers" in reference to the Eastern Mediterranean balance. Would you list those countries?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. I think everyone is aware of who and what I am referring to.

Q Are you simply saying that with fewer troops in Central Europe, you don't have the flexibility to move them into the Middle East and reposition them?

MR. ZIEGLER: Certainly. As I said, our capability and capacity.

Q Why would it be easier to move them from Europe into the Mediterranean than from the United States?

MR. ZIEGLER: Let's not let this get out of proportion. We are saying we have forces and NATO strength in Europe and in the Mediterranean area. As you know, the President made a trip to the Mediterranean area. He visited the Southern Command of NATO. That applies itself to the entire Eastern Mediterranean area.

We are saying that now is not the time to unilaterally reduce the capability of the NATO forces. Now is not the time to unilaterally reduce the United States strength in the Mediterranean area, in Europe, and, therefore, we feel that if the Senate would take the action that the Mansfield amendment calls for, we feel it would be unfortunate.

Q Is it the President's view that a unilateral withdrawal of our forces at this time and to this extent would increase the threat of resumption of hostilities in the Middle East?

MORE

#1251

- 4 -

#1251

MR. ZIEGLER: That is difficult for me to say. The United States position has been, in relation to the Middle East, in relation to the conflict which is referred to as the Middle East, one where we are hopeful that a negotiated settlement will occur; that the cease fire will continue. And our posture has been that the military balance will be watched very carefully by us, and it will be maintained.

That does not relate itself specifically to the matter I am referring to about the NATO forces and in the Eastern Mediterranean area.

Just to conclude, what I have been saying in relation to U.S. strength in the Mediterranean area, we feel that the unilateral reduction of the 60,000 called for in the Mansfield amendment cannot help but affect U.S. strength in the Mediterranean area.

Q. You say this is not a new position. Why does the President pick this particular time to write this letter?

MR. ZIEGLER: I will tell you -- and then I am going to recess the briefing in order to let you file, because the Senate is ready to vote on this question. We want our position understood:

We have sent a letter to Senator Stennis. The President of the United States has spoken to this matter on many occasions. Our legislative liaison people have been making this point to Members of the Senate who will be voting on this matter very shortly, and we want to make it clear in this briefing that we do not feel that it is advisable for unilateral cutbacks at this time to take place in relation to our forces in NATO.

Q. Are our troops on the alert in the Mediterranean?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, of course not.

Q. Did Stennis ask for the letter?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not think he asked for the letter, but he would be the committee chairman who would receive such a letter.

Q. Do you mean to suggest that you are relying on the press to carry the day in this matter?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, but you are a part of the process, and we didn't want to leave you out. We have covered all other bases.

Q. The last time the President was concerned with this problem, Ron, he called in a great many supporters of NATO and the European Alliance. Does he have plans for doing that here, or is it too late?

MR. ZIEGLER: He would have to call them together rather quickly, because they are to vote in 15 minutes, I believe.

Q. Can we resume later?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

(A short recess was taken.)

MORE

#1251

#1251

MR. ZIEGLER: Moving along, I believe you have all of the releases. We have one other announcement: The President will meet with Prime Minister Golda Meir at 3:00 o'clock on December 2nd. The Prime Minister is making an un-official visit to the United States the 1st of December, and while she is here on private business, the President will meet with her. She also will meet with the Secretary of State, I believe at noon on December 2nd.

I have been asked whether or not the President would meet with the Prime Minister while she is here, and I want to confirm that this morning. The President last met with the Prime Minister in October of 1970 during a White House dinner in honor of the 25th Anniversary of the United Nations, and Mrs. Meir also made an office call on the President on September 18th of 1970.

Q Does the President have any plans to meet with any officials of the Government of Egypt?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not know that any officials of the Government of Egypt plan a private visit to the United States, so I do not believe there are any scheduled meetings with officials of the Government of Egypt planned.

Q Ron, has the President sent any message to the leaders of India and Pakistan, or intervened personally in the light of the current reports of fighting between those two countries?

MR. ZIEGLER: The United States effort in relation to that area or the world, as you know, has been a major effort in terms of humanitarian relief. Our concerns are aimed at stability in that area, and we have focused our attention on the humanitarian aspects of the situation.

We have referred to the fact that the United States, being interested in stability in the area, has made that view known. I am not prepared to cover with you that process, however.

Q But you emphasized the humanitarian aspects, which we appreciate, but now there are reports of imminent war. Pakistan claims full-scale Indian invasion at certain points. I wondered if you could answer my question in the light of what Pakistan claimed yesterday.

MR. ZIEGLER: I would not be prepared to address myself specifically to the reports yesterday. As you said in your question, we have focused our attention on the humanitarian aspects of the problem. I think that our view would be that use of military force in the area would not be understood by the people of the United States when the countries involved have such urgent domestic needs, which I referred to earlier.

Q Ron, now that the Senate has passed the tax relief bill with the amendment giving money to the political parties to run Presidential candidates attached to it, could you either confirm or deny reports that the White House aides have said that the President will veto that bill when it reaches his desk, if it does so with that amendment on it?

MORE

#1251

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1252

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 4:41 P.M. EST

NOVEMBER 23, 1971

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We don't have much to give you this afternoon. You have been briefed by Secretary Morton on the proposed Federal acquisition of Big Cypress Swamp for a national reserve. I cannot give you any more detail on that than you already have.

I will give you the President's schedule for tomorrow: The President, at 10 o'clock tomorrow, will meet with Secretary Connally and George Shultz and John Ehrlichman. They will be talking about the fiscal '73 budget.

At 11:30 tomorrow the President will meet with Dr. Arthur Burns and Secretary Connally to talk about economic matters.

At 3:00 o'clock tomorrow afternoon the President will meet with the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, James R. Schlesinger. They will be talking, obviously, about matters relating to the Atomic Energy Commission. The purpose of the meeting is a general discussion to review the activities of the AEC and various matters in the national security area.

That is the schedule as it stands at this time for tomorrow. We don't have any other announcements for you at this time. I will take your questions, if you have any.

Q What did the President and Secretary Connally discuss this morning?

MR. ZIEGLER: I was not in the meeting. They met alone. I think they probably reviewed the international monetary situation and talked about the economy, things of that sort. That was the direction of the conversation when I left.

Q Do you have any comments on the Senate vote to provide $500 million for jets and other equipment for Israel?

MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, we have said all along that we are continuing to watch the military balance in the Middle East. We will continue to watch that balance because we have said that the military balance must be maintained in the Middle East to assist in stability in the area. So, the Senate action today provides funds for military equipment. If the decision is made that in order to maintain the military balance, this type of equipment is needed by the Israelis, it can be provided by the United States with these funds.

MORE

#1252

- 2 -

#1252

Q I have not heard the full story on the legislation, but do you know, is it permissive or does it require the President to make this judgment?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. It is permissive. It is an authorization.

Q Ron, how do you view the speculation that the President would sign the tax bill, but instruct the IRS not to put the check-off into operation while it is taken to the Supreme Court to test the Constitutionality of that section?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have not even heard that theory until just now.

Q Sounds good, huh? (Laughter)

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't think that that is a solution to it.

Q What do you think is?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, we spoke to that this morning. We have concern about that whole process, the constitutionality of it. I don't think I have to add to those remarks.

Q Did you fail to finish a sentence? You said, "If a decision is made that this is needed to maintain the military balance," then what?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think I completed the sentence. "Then these funds are available for that purpose."

Q Will you use them for that purpose?

MR. ZIEGLER: If we determine that the additional equipment is necessary to continue the military balance in the Middle East, then these funds are available to us in the Middle East to meet that objective.

Q But you do not consider that this is a mandate from the Congress at all?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I said, our policy does not indicate that we need a mandate from the Congress in relation to the Middle East.

Q Perhaps I was not clear. You do not consider that Congress is directing you to spend $250 million for additional Phantoms, new Phantoms for Israel; is that right?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is not my understanding of the legislation. I have not read it carefully, but I do think it is permissive.

Q Am I interpreting you correctly in telling us you could not do this without the Senate authorization?

MR. ZIEGLER: We had funds for the Middle East in the Foreign Aid Bill. These funds have now been added to this particular bill. We need funds. We need authorized funds to use for credit in the event that we would provide additional equipment.

MORE

#1252

- 3 -

#1252

Q So, this is the only method at the moment that you have, if you should decide to grant the most recent Israeli request; is that correct?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not sure if this is the only method. I think there may be funds contained in the continuing resolution, but I am not sure of that.

Q Have not the jets been sold to Israel?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. This does not apply to a current sale.

Q But in the past have not these jets been sold?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, but they have been sold in several different ways, as I understand, and I am not an expert on it. I think some of them have been sold through credit arrangements.

Q May I ask what I really meant to ask and I am sorry for being so vague? Do you anticipate that you will be using these funds if this provision is adopted by the House and accepted by the conference committees?

MR. ZIEGLER: That would depend entirely on our assessment and our on-going assessment of the situation in the Middle East. I will say it again, and we have said it often: The position of the United States in relation to the Middle East is that the military balance must be maintained. These funds are now available for our use, if we determine that that balance no longer exists

Q The President said this morning in his letter to Senator Stennis that he expects Mr. Brosio to be received in Moscow next week. The State Department doesn't know anything about that. Does the President have any information they don't or is that merely a hope?

MR. ZIEGLER: What do you mean, "The State Department doesn't know anything about that."?

Q The State Department spokesman said they don't know anything about an agreement with the Russians.

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, maybe they don't know about it, but, as we said in the letter, as the President pointed out in his letter, we expect that Manlio Brosio will be going to Moscow for the purposes stated in the President's letter. We don't have a definite date set. We don't have a definite confirmation from the Soviet Union on the matter, but as the President said in his letter, he expects this will take place.

Q Was the Brosio mission to Moscow announced earlier?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. It has been referred to. We have said that Manlio Brosio would serve as the individual on behalf of NATO who would enter into discussions with the Soviet Union in relation to mutual balanced force reduction talks between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries, but as the President pointed out in his letter, these would be discussions of only the basic issues. They would not be negotiations. They would simply be talks about where negotiations could lead and the process.

MORE

#1252

- 4 -

#1252

Q The President used the phrase "next week." Does he anticipate that the meeting will occur next week?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is his expectation, as he said in the letter, but it is not a firm meeting which has been set. I suppose if you want to get down to the final period, the President did not intend, nor am I today, announcing the fact that the meeting definitely will take place next week. But we expect that this will happen.

Q Is there any consideration being given to withdrawing the nomination of Mr. Butz?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, absolutely not.

Q Ron, can you give us any guidance on whether the President still has full confidence and intends to push for Mrs. Banuelos' nomination?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President has confidence in Mrs. Banuelos. I know of no change in that view.

Q Do you have anything to tell us beyond the remarks and colloquy of this morning as to the President's plans for the Thanksgiving holiday?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. I guess I got a little too heated on that this morning. I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I hope I did not. The fact of the matter is, Jim, that because of the uncertainty in the Senate and when they are going to recess, the President has not made up his mind about what he is going to do. I cannot give you any guidance. I think tomorrow morning, by the 11:00 briefing I will be able to give you guidance and you will have adequate time to make arrangements.

I talked to the President before the briefing and he was not inclined to decide what he is going to do because the Senate is voting on important matters and he has other matters on his desk, so he simply has not decided.

I am not attempting, nor is the President attempting to make your lives difficult. It is a fact that he has not decided.

Q Do you still expect him to fulfill the engagement on Saturday?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, he will be there Saturday. The question is: When will he go and when will he return. When he decides, we will tell you.

Q Could it be a one-day trip?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know.

Q Did Senator Scott indicate that they might quit by the first of December, as he said last week? Senator Scott said he thought the Senate would adjourn by December 1.

MR. ZIEGLER: I am, of course, talking about when they are going to recess briefly for the Thanksgiving holiday. I don't know when the Senate will complete its business. They have a lot to do. You will have to ask the leaders.

MORE

#1252

- 5 -

#1252

Q Is the President's meeting with Connally and Burns tomorrow related to the continued decline in the stock market?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I don't think their meeting will be focused on that. Their meeting tomorrow would relate to general economic conditions and policies.

Q It will not affect the change in the margin requirement to emerge shortly after that meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Is the change in margin requirement under consideration?

MR. ZIEGLER: The only thing I have heard about the margin requirement in the last two weeks was Bob Pierpoint's reference to it just now.

Q What information is the White House receiving that you can discuss with us as to the situation with respect to India and Pakistan, and military action between India and Pakistan, and specifically, with what degree of seriousness does the White House view the situation there?

MR. ZIEGLER: I had some things to say about that this morning.

Q I beg your pardon; I was not here.

MR. ZIEGLER: The State Department also has spoken to that matter. I said this morning that our major effort has been focused on the humanitarian relief, and that we feel this will assist in stability, in bringing stability to the area.

I also said that it is our view that military force is not something that the United States or the citizens of the United States would approve, because there are many urgent domestic matters that have to be dealt with there. We do not feel, obviously, that military force is the way to deal with the situation.

Q I am sorry to ask a question that was brought up in the second part of your briefing this morning. Let me see if I can ask one that did not come up there.

Does the President have any plans to send any emissary to the area, either to get him additional information or to attempt any type of mediation or negotiation between India and Pakistan?

MR. ZIEGLER: Again, that was asked in the second part of the briefing, and I do not think I should repeat what I said.

Q Do you know whether Dr. Burns or Secretary Connally will be available for questioning tomorrow morning?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, they normally are not, after those meetings.

MORE

#1252

- 6 -

#1252

Q Does the air power we are using in Cambodia fit into the President's statement in his press conference that we are not involved in any combat; there are no advisers in Cambodia, et cetera? Isn't air power combat?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President has spoken to the matter of use of air power throughout Indochina in a number of statements. I can give you many quotes.

Q He doesn't consider air power as combat?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President has spelled out the United States policy in terms of air power on numerous occasions, Helen, and the action in terms of our use of air power throughout Indochina is totally consistent with that policy.

Q Do I understand your statement about Pakistan, as a point of clarification in effect that this Government believes those people ought to stop fighting because they have better things to do, they have bigger problems at home?

MR. ZIEGLER: First of all, I am not prepared to assess for you the scope of the conflict that has been reported in terms of military action. What I am saying to you is: Obviously we have concern about the area. We have concern about the humanitarian aspects of the area. That is where we have focused our attention, because we feel that dealing with those problems will assist in stabilizing the area.

The second part of my response, both this morning and this afternoon, is that because of these many human problems involved in that area, it would be difficult to understand, I think, and we feel, as an Administration, by the people of this country, that the solution to the conflict in the area would be through the use of military force, because the human problems are so vast that we feel if they are concentrated on and efforts are made and progress is made in solving those humanitarian matters, that that will go a long way toward bringing stability to the area.

Q Can you think of any other area in the world where that statement might apply?

MR. ZIEGLER: Sure, in many under-developed countries. That is why the President has, as you know, spoken so strongly for foreign assistance.

Q Back to the Senate vote on Israel, do you approve or disapprove of that action, the Senate voting $500 million in credits?

MR. ZIEGLER: We did not oppose it.

END

(AT 5:00 P.M. EST)

#1252

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1253

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

10:07 A.M. EST

NOVEMBER 24, 1971

WEDNESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The announcement I am about to make is being made simultaneously in Paris.

Prior to his visit to Peking and Moscow, President Nixon has expressed a desire to meet with the President of France to review the international situation. President Pompidou has agreed to meet with President Nixon in the Azores on December 13 and 14 to discuss the current international issues and U.S.-French bilateral relations.

President Nixon also expects to meet with the Prime Minister of Portugal at some point during his stay in the Azores, Prime Minister Caetano. President Nixon is grateful to the Portuguese Government for having made facilities available for the meeting with President Pompidou in the Azores.

Accompanying President Nixon to the Azores will be Secretary Rogers, Secretary Connally and Dr. Kissinger.

I should tell you that Mrs. Nixon and other wives will not accompany the Presidential party going to the Azores. The number of staff who will go will be limited.

These will be strictly business meetings that will be held between the U.S. Government and the French Government.

Q Do you know what the name of the air base is there?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is Lajes Air Force Base.

Q Is that where the meetings are going to be held?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have not made the final arrangements yet, so I cannot tell you specifically where the meetings will be held in the Azores. As soon as that is firm, we will, of course, give it to you.

As you know, the Azores are located about 1,000 miles west of the coast of Portugal. The Azores include nine islands, the largest of which is San Miguel, and the islands are, of course, under Portuguese rule.

Q Does President Nixon plan to meet any other European leaders either on this trip or before his trips to Peking or Moscow?

MR. ZIEGLER: I would say this to you: that when the President announced his trip to Moscow, he indicated, as

MORE

#1253

- 2 -

#1253

you know, that he would be consulting with our allies. This
is part of the process of consultation prior to his trips to
Moscow and to Peking.

In relation to other meetings, I have nothing further
on that now, but you will be informed as such meetings develop.

Q Will the President return to Washington directly
from the Azores?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is the plan, yes.

Q Are those two days the total length of his
visit there?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, December 13 and 14.

President Pompidou paid a state visit to the United
States in February of 1970. The President also met briefly
with him at the time of the funeral of General de Gaulle in
November of last year.

With respect to your question, I could add that in
respect to the possibility of other meetings between the
President and other allied leaders, as I said, the President
has indicated that he will consult with our allies. The
consultation process will be accomplished through the North
Atlantic Council in Brussels. As I said, I have nothing further
now on any other meetings other than this. You will be in-
formed as such meetings develop.

END (AT 10:12 A.M. EST)

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1255

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

12:10 P.M. EST

NOVEMBER 24, 1971

WEDNESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The President, as you know, has been meeting this morning with Secretary Connally, John Ehrlichman and George Shultz on the budget. We announced that yesterday.

Then he was scheduled to see Dr. Burns this morning. He is scheduled to see Secretary Rogers. The meeting with Jim Schlesinger has been postponed. He will not meet with Dr. Schlesinger today. We will post for you the schedule and times right after this meeting.

Q Was that only with Burns, or was it Burns and Connally?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe Secretary Connally may have sat in on the meeting, too. I am not sure.

Q What was the subject of that meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I mentioned yesterday, economic matters.

Q International or domestic?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not knww. I would assume they are talking about the domestic economy, but perhaps they could cover some of the international developments.

Q How about Rogers?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President is meeting with Secretary Rogers. It is a regular meeting with the Secretary; nothing particularly dramatic about the meeting. It is just a regular meeting to talk about foreign policy matters, and I am sure about the upcoming trip I announced this morning; matters of that sort.

Q How about India and Pakistan and the Middle East?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sure they would touch on those subjects, but the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss specifically those two matters.

The President today is announcing the appointment of Nathaniel Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife, as Commissioner of the United States Section of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. We will post the details on that.

MORE

#1255

This Copy For _________

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1256

AT THE WHITE HOUSE
(Laguna Beach, California)

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 12:22 P.M. PST

NOVEMBER 25, 1971

THURSDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: Let me give you a little bit about the President's schedule and then we will get into the discussion of the material you will receive. We are going to give you a letter from the President to the Attorney General in a moment.

First, the President got in the office this morning about a quarter of seven. I think one of the reasons he did was because of the fact that he wanted to wrap up his paper work and make phone calls before the football game started. He is watching the football game and he will watch the others and plans to remain at his residence throughout the day. He will spend a quiet day there and have Thanksgiving dinner this evening, he said, at about 6:00 with Mrs. Nixon, his personal secretary, Rose Mary Woods and Dr. Walter Tkach, the President's physician.

So, that gives you a little rundown as to what he will be doing today.

He made, this morning, about 20 phone calls to members of the staff and to members of the Cabinet and others to talk to them and wish them Happy Thanksgiving. Among those whom the President called were Governor Rockefeller and Governor Reagan. He called a good many members of the Cabinet, including Secretary Hodgson. Of course he talked to Secretary Hodgson about the East and Gulf Coast dock dispute. Also he talked to Secretary Hardin, the Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, Secretary Connally, Secretary Laird, Secretary Volpe, Secretary Romney. He called former President Johnson.

Q Where, in Texas?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, I believe he was at the ranch.

He also called Congressman Ford. He placed a call to Congressman Albert and Senator Mansfield, but the calls, he told me, had not been put through when I talked to the President, so he may have reached them in the meantime.

Q To wish them all Happy Thanksgiving.

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q What about Secretary Rogers?

MORE

#1256

- 2 -

#1256

MR. ZIEGLER: He saw Secretary Rogers yesterday for a good amount of time. Also Secretary Morton he saw yesterday.

He also called Tricia and Julie to wish them a Happy Thanksgiving.

Q Where are they, Ron, do you know?

MR. ZIEGLER: Tricia is spending Thanksgiving at Ed Cox's parent's home.

Q In New York?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. And Julie is spending Thanksgiving in Phoenixville with David's family. So he called Tricia and Julie, and the list I gave you, among others, to wish them a Happy Thanksgiving and to talk to them about other matters.

In addition to that, he called Prime Minister Heath and talked to the Prime Minister for close to half an hour.

Q Where was he?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sorry, I don't know where he reached the Prime Minister, Chequers or where. The operator cannot tell me that and I am sure the President didn't inquire of the Prime Minister really where he was. But he talked to him in England for about a half hour. They talked about various matters of mutual concern. The President said they did talk about, among other things, the situation in South Asia, specifically, the India-Pakistan situation. They talked about the negotiations that are now taking place between Great Britain and Rhodesia. I don't have an extensive comment to give you on that, but as these negotiations are moving along, we hope they will open the way to a constructive solution.

Q This is your comment or the President's?

MR. ZIEGLER: Mine. So they talked about these matters and they talked about the President's upcoming trips to Peking and Moscow--and I wouldn't be surprised if David Kissinger's name came up in the course of that conversation. (Laughter).

Q Is that serious?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know.

Q Did that get quite a play in England?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sorry, I don't know.

In relation to the India-Pakistan situation, as you know, we have done a great deal in terms of providing relief assistance to deal with humanitarian problems that have developed in the area.

MORE

#1256

- 3 -

#1256

As I said the other day and I am sure the President made this point to Prime Minister Heath, that to resort to military action would be hard for the American people to understand. As we have said before, there are so many humanitarian problems involved in the area that the solution seems to be quite self-evident in terms of stability in the area and that is to make every effort to bring about a solution to the very severe humanitarian problems that exist in that area. Just to repeat, as I said the other day, it is our feeling that to resort to military action would be hard for the American people to understand.

Q Ron, I don't quite follow. I may have missed something you said, but is this what the President told the Prime Minister or why are you bringing this up?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am saying they talked about India and Pakistan and I am bringing it up because I am restating our position regarding the area. I don't have a specific quote to give you by the President.

Q After you said they talked then you are restating what you said the other day?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is right. I said I am sure he probably made this point to the Prime Minister.

Q Did he ask Heath for any joint action?

MR. ZIEGLER: From the standpoint of joint action, I think the British are contributing to the humanitarian relief.

Q I mean finding a political solution.

MR. ZIEGLER: I can't get into that, but I don't contemplate any as such.

Q Did they discuss a future meeting in relation to the announcement that you made in Washington yesterday?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, I am not prepared at this time to discuss the possibility of the President meeting with other Heads of Government, or Heads of State, but I would remind you what I said yesterday and that is that the President said at the time of his announcement that he was going to Moscow and to Peking, that he wanted to consult with our allies prior to these visits. But I don't have anything to give you today in terms of future meetings, but as they develop, we will let you know.

Q Do you think it came up in the conversation?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sure the subject of the President's trips came up and I am sure a discussion about the consultative process between President Nixon and the Prime Minister also came up.

MORE

#1256

- 4 -

#1256

Q Is the President considering a personal appeal to India and Pakistan in an effort to settle the dispute?

MR. ZIEGLER: As the State Department has said, we have taken certain diplomatic steps in relation to the problems that the area faces, but I am not prepared to give you a catalogue of the steps.

Q Has he asked Yahya Kahn to release the Bengali leader from prison?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I said earlier, I am not prepared to get into a catalogue or rundown as to the diplomatic steps that were taken, nor the content of any of those steps.

Q When you say the solution seems to be self-evident, to bring about a solution to the severe humanitarian problems in that area, are you talking about the problem that exists now or the problems that existed prior to the introduction of West Pakistani forces in that area? Do you see what I am driving at?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. My reference applies itself to the very serious humanitarian problems that exist now.

Q As a result of the military action?

MR. ZIEGLER: Not necessarily, but there are very serious humanitarian problems there, including the dislocation that exists, as you were well aware of. That is what I am referring to.

Q Why isn't this a good time to take the India-Pakistan problem to the U.N. Security Council?

MR. ZIEGLER: This is a problem we do have which has been referred to, Carroll, by some. There was a good deal of reporting on that on the wires yesterday. We do have that possibility under consideration.

Q When would you make a decision on that?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, we don't have a deadline as such as to when we will make a decision on it, but we do have it under consideration and we want to assess ---

Q Do you think the President discussed it with Prime Minister Heath?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know. They did talk about India-Pakistan.

Q You were interrupted. You want to assess what?

MR. ZIEGLER: We want to continue to assess the development in the area.

Let's now move on to the letter. Would you hand that out.

MORE

#1256

- 5 -

#1256

Q Ron, while that is going on, what initiated the telephone call to Prime Minister Heath today, among these other Thanksgiving calls?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think the President wanted to talk to him about India-Pakistan and about the Rhodesian developments.

Q The Rhodesian thing is settled, isn't it?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q We are talking about India-Pakistan in relation to the U.N. Security Council and not Rhodesia, right?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, let's not be confused on that. My quote was that possibility is under consideration.

Q Ron, how often does he call up Prime Minister Heath? Every couple of days?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, of course not. But he has talked to Prime Minister Heath often by phone, but not every couple of days obviously.

Let me go through this and then we will take questions. You have before you a letter which the President has sent to the Attorney General which instructs the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief in relation to the dock disputes on the East Coast and Gulf Coast.

Just to refresh your memory, on October 4th of this year, a Board of Inquiry was appointed by President Nixon to inquire into the Longshoremen's disputes affecting ports on the Atlantic, the Gulf, Pacific Coast and Great Lakes Port of Chicago. The Board's report was submitted to President Nixon on October 6th and subsequently the Justice Department was ordered by the President to seek an injunction against the West Coast with respect to its dispute there and also the Great Lakes ports.

On November 23rd, which was two days ago, the parties in the East and Gulf Coast disputes called an indefinite recess in relation to their talks and because of that, President Nixon reconvened his Board of Inquiry and asked them to examine the status of the negotiations on the East Coast and the Gulf Coast and the President asked for that report today. He received the report earlier this morning. Apparently the Board met and inquired into the status of the negotiations until 6 a.m. this morning and submitted the report to the White House and it was then transmitted out here to President Nixon.

Q That is 6 a.m. Eastern?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, the President, I believe, got it about 9:30 our time here on the West Coast, about 12:30 East Coast time. So among other things the President did this morning, in terms of phone calls and conversations with Prime Minister Heath, he also, as I said, talked to Secretary of Labor Hodgson. He read the report and concluded that he would instruct the Attorney General to seek the injunctive relief.

MORE

#1256

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1257

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 8:35 A.M. PST

NOVEMBER 26, 1971

FRIDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: I am going to read a joint announcement to you. This is not to be moved on the wire until 9 a.m. It is for immediate release at 9 a.m. We will give it to you early so that those who deal in the wire service process can be writing it up.

Q How about radio?

MR. ZIEGLER: And radio, of course, sir.

President Nixon and Prime Minister Heath of Great Britain have agreed to meet on December 20th and 21st in Bermuda, where the President will be the Prime Minister's guest. This meeting has been arranged in accordance with the President's wish to have a series of meetings with major allied leaders.

That is the end of the joint announcement.

Now, as will be the case in the meeting with President Pompidou in the Azores on December 13th and 14th, President Nixon will be accompanied by Secretary Rogers, Secretary Connally, and Dr. Kissinger. And again, on this particular meeting in Bermuda, Mrs. Nixon and other wives will not accompany the President and the various officials. Social activities and the number of staff will be kept to the absolute minimum. This will be, as in the case of the meeting with the President of France, strictly a business meeting.

As I said when we announced the meeting with the President of France, President Nixon has said that prior to his visit to Peking and Moscow that we wanted to have full consultation with other allied leaders and this is part of that consulting process.

We do not have the details worked out yet in terms of exactly where the meeting will take place in Bermuda. As soon as we have those firm we will let you know. Let me say it is very likely it will take place on the main island of Bermuda, which is called Hamilton. The capital city of Bermuda is Hamilton. As you know, Bermuda is a British colony. It is about 600 miles east of North Carolina. There are seven principal islands in Bermuda and, as I said, the capital city is called Hamilton. There are 20 square miles of island area.

MORE

#1257

- 5 -

#1257

Q But it is in print.

MR. ZIEGLER: It has been printed, but it is
not officially stated by me.

Q Do you have anything to tell us about going
home?

MR. ZIEGLER: He hasn't decided. I think we
will probably know Sunday what he plans to do. He simply
has not decided.

Q There is a report this morning that President
Sadat has sent a letter to President Nixon expressing concern
over reports that the United States will supply Lance
surface-to-surface missiles to Israel. Do you have anything
on that, please?

MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, we don't discuss the
details of our military supply relationship with the Mid east
countries and I won't on this occasion. I don't have a
comment beyond this.

Q Will you confirm there was a letter, Ron?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I cannot.

Q Are you going to have a text of the
President's remarks?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't believe so unless he decides
to work one up today. But I don't think he will. We will
let you know at the 1:00 posting.

Q How about some kind of fact sheet on the
Eisenhower Medical Center?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will have a full fact sheet and
press kit available today at 1:00 at the posting.

MORE

#1257