considered legal at that time, according to
legal processes, I will be prepared to account
fully to the appropriate committees of the
Senate.

Now, your other question on the impact of
Watergate on foreign policy. The foreign
countries have to assess what sort of a coun-
try they are dealing with, how steady it can
be in the carrying out of its commitments,
and the degree of authority possessed by its
leaders.

To the extent that these are affected, there
is a long-term effect on foreign policy.

Our intention will be, as I have stated prior
to this appointment, to emphasize those as-
pects of foreign policy on which most Ameri-
cans agree, to carry out a foreign policy that
has the widest possible support on a bipar-
tisan basis, and since I am confident that that
can be achieved, I believe that the effect of
Watergate on the conduct of foreign policy
can be minimized.

Murrey.

Q. Dr. Kissinger, a related question: You have publicly expressed concern that the consensus in the United States on the formulation of foreign policy has been eroding. You also have expressed concern about an orgy of recrimination setting in. Have we not been experiencing some considerable recrimination with the President himself attacking Congress over his policy in Indochina?

Dr. Kissinger: That last question about the
orgy of recrimination, or the comment about
"orgy of recrimination," I was asked very
early in the Watergate affair at the end of
April whether it might have an effect on
foreign policy.

At the time one's knowledge of it was con-
fined essentially to the break-in of Democrat-
ic campaign headquarters.

At that time, I said that if an orgy of re-
crimination set in, it might have an effect
on foreign policy. Now, there is no question
if the divisions in a country grow too deep,
then the conduct of foreign policy will be af-
fected, and then people have to decide
whether the issues on which they are being
divided are worth it.

On this, I am not now taking a position. I
am just stating the facts analytically.

Now, it is true that the consensus on which
foreign policy was conducted in the late
1940's and through the 1950's and 1960's is
eroding in part because the conditions in the
world have changed so enormously. In the
late 1940's and in the 1950's foreign policy
was essentially designed to prevent what was
considered a monolithic communism from
militarily overrunning the world.

Today we are conducting a foreign policy
in which at one and the same time we are
engaged in détente with the Soviet Union and
the People's Republic of China and on the
other hand we are trying to strengthen the
traditional friendships with Europe and Ja-
pan. On the one hand, we are stressing the
need for adequate defense budgets, and on
the other, we are conducting negotiations for
the limitation of strategic arms. This re-
quires a complexity of thought and a sophis-
tication on the part of the American public
that was not called for in the 1940's and
1950's.

We have had the legacy of a war thatbit-
terly divided Americans, and that has to be
healed. And therefore one of the prime ob-
jectives of the administration will have to be
to create a consensus in which the American
people and the American Congress can un-
derstand and will support the necessity of
carrying on adequate defense programs
and disarmament negotiations. Friendship,
strengthened friendship with traditional
allies, and nevertheless a policy of reconcilia-
tion with former enemies—and in that sense,
we have to create a new consensus which
can give a new impetus and a new excitement
to our foreign policy for the next decade or
two.

Q. Dr. Kissinger, a question on the Middle
East. For the past four years you have main-
tained a low profile in this particular area.
Do you plan to continue that, or will you be-
come a more public figure in pursuing settle-
ment of the Middle East situation?

Dr. Kissinger: The President has repeat-
edly stated that the Middle East is an im-

372

Department of State Bulletin

portant area and perhaps the most dangerous area, and I will pursue, under the President's direction, those policies which are considered necessary. And in the past, that has sometimes meant a less than restrained profile.

**Q.** *Dr. Kissinger, may I follow on to that? How do you plan to put to rest the apprehensions that have been expressed by some Arab leaders about your family heritage and how that might affect our policy in the Middle East?*

**Dr. Kissinger:** I am asked to conduct the foreign policy of the United States, and I will conduct the foreign policy of the United States regardless of religious and national heritage.

There is no other country in the world in which a man of my background could be even considered for an office such as the one to which I have been nominated, and that imposes on me a very grave responsibility which I will pursue in the national interest.

**Q.** *Dr. Kissinger, how close, or how close do you think you were to a settlement in Cambodia, a negotiated settlement, at the time the Congress imposed a deadline on bombing?*

**Dr. Kissinger:** I don't think I want to speculate on that on this occasion. What I hope to achieve in the relations with Chairman Fulbright and other members of his committee is an ability by which we can lay out our general strategy with respect to key areas so that when individual decisions come up for congressional vote, they will know what the overall design is rather than be confronted with a series of individual pressures.

**Q.** *Dr. Kissinger, why did the President cancel plans for a trip to Latin America?*

**Dr. Kissinger:** The question is why did the President cancel plans for a trip to Latin America. Because he has been preoccupied with domestic matters.

**Q.** *Dr. Kissinger, if I may, sir, a couple of very quick questions. Is the United States willing to allow Prince Sihanouk to return to power, and what is it the United States wants that Sihanouk does not find acceptable?*

*The other question is, how much of a factor*

in U.S. foreign policy has grain sales become, and is it being used to revive the ailing American dollar, and if so, how long will this go on?

**Q.** *Yes or no?*

*Dr. Kissinger:* Can I answer it yes or no?
[Laughter.]

The first question I am sure will be discussed at the Senate hearings and is a rather delicate subject which will lead, we expect at some point, to some negotiation, and therefore I don't think I should comment on it.

With respect to the grain sales, I think it is important to understand that there are major areas of American foreign policy—or let me rather put it—of the American position in the world in which approach and reality are fundamentally changing. For example, for the entire postwar period and the entire first term of this administration, it was considered axiomatic that the United States could never sell too much grain.

The entire foreign policy, and the entire foreign policy as it was expressed in—as it related to agricultural policy proceeded from the assumption that with our huge surpluses and our huge productivity we should stand for free markets. For our almost entire postwar history we have considered ourselves more or less self-sufficient in raw materials.

Now we find a greater dependence on foreign sources of energy. We find that for the first time, because of a combination of factors, there is a shortage of American food for export, and this has profound consequences for the conduct of our foreign policy when free access to foreign markets had been one of the cardinal tenets of our policy previously.

So what we have to change first is our traditional approach, and we have started prior to this appointment already a study on an interdepartmental basis in this government to examine how over the next 5 to 10 years world needs and American productivity could be brought into some relationship.

And I mention those two examples as one of the two big problems that the United States faces in adjusting its perception of the

September 17, 1973

373

[L.C.]

world to the new conditions, and therefore I
cannot yet answer you what exactly the pol-
icy will be until we have completed those
studies.

Q. Dr. Kissinger, did you get any indication from the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about how quickly they would act on your nomination and what the outcome would be?

Dr. Kissinger: I did not think it was appro-
priate for me to raise the question of my con-
firmation. I did call all the members of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and told
them about the philosophy that would ani-
mate my conduct of the office of Secretary of
State if they confirmed me. I did not raise
the issue of a schedule nor did I ask them how
they would vote, and I might add that I do
not intend to do this.

Q. Dr. Kissinger, when does the President plan to go to Europe, and what are the prospects now for some kind of statement of principles while he is there?

Dr. Kissinger: The question is when is the
President likely to go to Europe and what is
the prospect for a statement of principles
while he is there.

The decision as to the timing will be made
after the meeting of the European Foreign
Ministers which is taking place in September,
and on that occasion he can also answer what
will emerge; but we would expect that when
the President goes to Europe it will be for a
significant substantive result and not simply
on a grand tour.

Q. Dr. Kissinger, when your change has
been consummated will the National Security
staff remain in and around the White House,

or will it be shifted with you to the State
Department?

Dr. Kissinger: I plan to maintain an office
in the White House and to spend some of my
time in the White House on interdepartmen-
tal matters and on being available to the
President. I would expect that some of my
associates would join me in the State Depart-
ment to ease the cultural shock and I also
would expect that some of the best people in
the State Department would move to the
White House in order to see the interde-
partmental operation from a White House
perspective, but we would keep the agency
structure in place for the interdepartmental
business and for the Presidential business.
We would hope to give even more vitality to
the operation of the State Department, and I
can only reiterate that if what has been done
can be built on and if it is to last, it must
engage the commitment of the professionals
who will have to carry it on over a period of
time and this will be one of my principal
purposes at the State Department.

Q. Dr. Kissinger, you played a major role
in reopening the door to China. What can you
tell us about reopening the door to Cuba?

Dr. Kissinger: Well, I think this is a mat-
ter that we will have to study, and there have
not been any major developments in that
respect.

Q. Technical question. Do you prefer to be called Mr. Secretary or Dr. Secretary?

Dr. Kissinger: I don't stand on protocol. If
you will just call me Excellency, it will be
okay. [Laughter.]

The Press: Thank you very much, Dr.
Kissinger.

374

Department of State Bulletin

NEWS CONFERENCE

This Copy For

#1801

AT THE WESTERN WHITE HOUSE
(Laguna Beach, California)

WITH JERRY WARREN

12:15 P.M. PDT

AUGUST 27, 1973

MONDAY

MR. WARREN: The President has been in his Western White House office this morning, together with Rose Mary Woods and Al Haig. He talked on the phone with Ron Ziegler.

Yesterday, he worked some in his study at the residence at the Western White House, and talked by phone with his daughter, Julie, who had returned to Washington. He talked by phone with Counsellor Laird, who is back in Washington; and talked by phone today with Dr. Kissinger.

Dr. Kissinger, as you know, returned to Washington yesterday, and is having some discussions with some of the people with the State Department today, and will return to the Western White House this evening.

Now, there has been lots of speculation around, I know, about the President's return to Washington. The President will return to Washington toward the end of the week, and will spend Labor Day weekend with his family at Camp David. (Laughter) We will let you know the exact day in plenty of time to make your plans, but do not plan on tomorrow, as some people have been asking me earlier.

We have some announcements which I will go through for you this morning.

The President is today announcing he will nominate James E. Akins to be United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Mr. Akins is a career Foreign Service officer, and since 1969 has been Director of the Office of Fuels and Energy in the State Department. He will succeed Nicholas G. Thacher, who is a career Foreign Service officer, and who will be returning to the State Department.

The President today is accepting with regret the resignation of Clarence M. Coster as Associate Administrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Mr. Coster served as Associate Administrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration since December 1969. He is a former chief of police of Bloomington, Minnesota, and we have no future plans to announce for him at this point. He will be doing that himself, I am sure.

MORE

#1801

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AUGUST 29, 1973

Office of the White House Press Secretary
(San Clemente, California)

THE WHITE HOUSE

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

The American people have the deepest concern and sympathy for the people of Pakistan as they battle terrible floods, the most serious of this century, under the leadership of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Whole areas of Pakistan are being ravaged. Initial reports indicate that the number of people dead or missing is tragically large, that millions of people are homeless and that the extent of property damage is mounting into hundreds of millions of dollars. The previously bright prospects for Pakistan's development have been temporarily dimmed.

In an immediate response to this situation, U. S. helicopters and boats with their crews are already engaged in helping with immediate rescue work and with the movement of vital relief supplies. Medical and other urgent needs are being met. Pakistan needs help and I know its friends in the international community will respond generously.

In response to longer term needs, I have directed that 100,000 metric tons of U.S. wheat be made available to the people of Pakistan to provide some immediate relief before their next harvest.

Further, I am directing that the U.S. begin now in helping with the rehabilitation and recovery of Pakistan to assure prompt and effective action for immediate relief and for our contribution to an early recovery, I have asked A. I. D. Deputy Administrator Maurice J. Williams, my special relief coordinator for major disasters abroad to go to Pakistan to review with the Pakistan government immediate relief and longer-range reconstruction needs. He will report to me and, after appropriate consultation with the Congress, we will continue to assure that the government of the United States, in cooperation with other countries will do all that it can to help our Pakistani friends recover from this terrible devastation.

#

#

#

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1803

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:55 A.M. PDT

AUGUST 29, 1973

WEDNESDAY

MR. WARREN: There is one release in which there
is an error which I would like to point out. We will
find the error first, and then we will get on with other
matters.

The President today announced his intention to
nominate Robert G. Neumann to be Ambassador to Morocco.
He will succeed Stuart W. Rockwell, a career Foreign
Service officer who is returning to the Department of
State.

The next line says, "Since 1966, Ambassador Neumann has served as Ambassador to Morocco." That should read, "has served as Ambassador to Afghanistan." I want to point that out to you immediately. We regret the error.

Ambassador Neumann was a professor at UCLA for
20 years prior to his becoming U.S. Ambassador to
Afghanistan in 1966.

You may recall that we announced on August 1st
that the President would nominate Theodore L. Eliot, Jr.
to be Ambassador Neumann's successor in Afghanistan.

I will go through the rest of the announcements
now that we have started.

The President today is announcing the appoint-
ment of four persons to serve as members of the National
Advisory Council on Extension and Continuing Education.
The four individuals are listed on the release that I
believe you have, and which will be posted. We also
will post an explanation of the charter of this particular
Council.

The President has been working in his office
since before 9 o'clock this morning. He has been
meeting with Mr. Haig and Ron Ziegler.

The President has asked that I inform you this
morning that he has sent a personal message to President
Luis Echeverria of Mexico in which he says, and this is
a direct quote from the personal message, "The people of
the United States join me in extending deepest sympathy
to you and to the people of Mexico who have suffered so
much from today's tragic earthquake."

That was sent late yesterday.

MORE

#1803

- 9 -

#1803

MR. WARREN: That does not accurately reflect my --

Q And Duzhardt.

MR. WARREN: I do.

Q Jerry, what would the rereading of the
President's press conference statement show us?

MR. WARREN: I think it would put it in context
for you.

Q Jerry, on what matter was Larry Higby in touch with
Western White House yesterday?

MR. WARREN: I have no idea. Larry Higby
works for Roy Ash in the Office of Management and Budget.
Roy Ash is here. I don't see anything unusual about
Larry Higby being in touch with the Western White House.

Q Is it possible to find out?

MR. WARREN: I don't think so, Grace, because
White House aides talk back and forth together quite often.

Q Could you rule out that he discussed any
matter connected with the tapes or Watergate?

MR. WARREN: I would not rule anything in or out.

Yes, Ma'am.

Q Jerry, have there been any other visitors
to the Western White House or did the President have any
other telephone calls like the one to Finch?

MR. WARREN: Like the one to Finch? No, Ma'am.
No.

Q Jerry, how about Dr. Kissinger? Has he
seen any more ambassadors?

MR. WARREN: Dr. Kissinger saw, as you know,
Ambassador Sullivan and Ambassador Johnson yesterday.
Today he is seeing Ambassador Habib and Ambassador L.
Dean Brown, who is the United States Ambassador to Jordan.

Q Jerry, in answer to Lou's question, did you
say that you would only post if the President has a
comment.

MR. WARREN: No, I will post.

Q In any case, you will let us know?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q Jerry, do you have any doubt that the appeal --

MR. WARREN: Listen, I can't comment on something
that has been delivered by a judge during the time I am
standing up here. I just can't.

MORE

#1803

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DPC 157

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS, RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS BRIEFING

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1973, 12:46 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. HARE: Good afternoon. I don't have any announcements, but in view of the questions which I received over the Labor Day weekend, I'll just pre-empt one of your questions by saying this about the situation in Libya.

First, I think I should say that we have been following the events in Libya very closely as they affect the U.S. oil industry over this past weekend. We have not yet seen the official text of the Revolutionary Command Council Decree nationalizing fifty-one percent of a number of U.S. oil companies. Nor have we had an opportunity to study fully Prime Minister Jallud's press conference or to consult with other interested parties. However, the United States Government position on nationalization is clear and has been stated at the highest level before.

I would like to repeat that position for you. When an expropriating act occurs, the United States has, under international law, a right to expect: one, that any

2

taking of American private property will be nondiscriminatory;
two, that it will be for a public purpose; and three, that
its citizens will receive prompt, adequate, and effective
compensation from the expropriating country.

As you know, the U.S. Government will not recognize
as valid an expropriation that does not meet these requirements
of international law.

I would only add that the United States deeply
regrets the action taken by the Libyan Government, which
does not comport with its obligations under the Concession
Agreements. It should be noted in this connection that the
Concession Agreements provide that disputes between the
companies and the Government not otherwise settled shall be
settled by arbitration.

Now, I'm afraid, for the reasons that I outlined
at the beginning, that I'm not going to be able to be very
forthcoming or have any further comment since we
are in a process of still looking into what has actually been
said by various Libyan authorities over the weekend.

Q Paul, for the record at any rate, has the
United States discussed with other governments the possibility
of a boycott of all Libyan oil?

3

A I'm not going to address those questions
today.

Q Will you take it, please?

A I'll look into it.

Q What has happened to the Bunker Oil -- I've
forgotten the name of the company?

A Bunker-Hunt?

Q Yes. Well, you declared a boycott
on everything that was coming from these wells. But was
it effective, this branding or this labelling of this oil?

A I would have to check whether the
fact that we expressed our concern on this issue actually
led to effective action.

Q Paul, can you say whether the United States
is discussing the implications of the Libyan action with
other governments?

A We stated at the outset that we really had
not had the opportunity to consult fully with the other
interested parties. That would include the oil companies.
It would include other interested governments.

With respect to the latter, I would note that
there is a framework for discussions within the OECD, the
Oil Committee of the OECD.

4

Q Can you confirm that that Committee is
meeting today?

A No, I can't.

Q Do you have any assessment as to what the
impact on the United States would be of either a boycott
of Libyan oil or a refusal by Libya to increase production?

A I don't have a general assessment, and I
don't really want to speculate about the future, given
the state of play. In terms of Libyan oil imports into
the United States, I think they run some place around 4.2
percent. That gives you some idea. But the importance of
Libyan oil is also related to the fact that it's of low
sulfur content and is important from an environmental stand.

Q Paul, did you say that the Libyan oil
production imported to the United States is 4.2 percent?

A That's an estimate. I'd better put that
ON BACKGROUND since these statistics worry me.

Q Four point two percent of the Libyan
production. Do you know the percentage of U.S. imports
that are Libyan?

A No, 4.2 percent of our oil imports are.
That is product and crude.

5

Q I think you described the Bunker-Hunt as discriminatory at the time. It's no longer discriminatory in the sense that other oil companies now suffer the same fate. Will the boycott of Bunker-Hunt oil from the field continue?

A Will the what?

Q As I understand it, the British and American Governments have made diplomatic representations to other governments to dissuade them from buying oil from the field.

A That's correct.

Q Until settlement is reached with BP and Bunker-Hunt. We now have the situation of Bunker-Hunt no longer being discriminatory because other oil companies are being treated in the same way. Will the boycott of Bunker-Hunt oil continue?

A I can't answer. It's a good question, but I just can't answer it right now.

Q But there is no boycott of this oil?

A No, no, there's no boycott, but an attempt to dissuade others from purchasing oil from the Bunker-Hunt fields.

6

Q May I change the topic?

A Yes.

Q Do you have anything on the state of negotiations between Washington and East Berlin, anything new?

A I understand that an administrative team of six representatives of the GDR Foreign Ministry arrived in Washington today. They will be looking for suitable facilities for an Embassy here. The team is headed by -- I'll just spell the names -- Joachim Mallasch. He is the Chief of the Division for Economic and Financial Support of GDR Foreign Representations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Are you interested in the other team members?

Q No.

A No? Okay.

Q Six?

A There are six. The team will be meeting today at 2:00 p.m. with representatives of the Department of State. I would note that discussions will be purely technical and will not involve substantive matters.

Q Is the U.S. team back?

7

A They visited East Berlin last week. They released a statement on their departure last -- I guess it must have been around August 31 -- a copy of which is available in case you want to look at it.

Q Paul, when does the American team come back?

A I think they are already back.

Q Are they back?

A Yes, they are already back. They released the statement. The germane part of their statement was that the team received a number of specific proposals from appropriate agencies of the Government of the GDR, and the team will be taking back these proposals to Washington for further study.

Q Proposals for what?

A This has to do with housing, logistics, that type of thing.

Q Paul, the meeting in the State Department this afternoon means that you are giving all the technical support to this delegation of six, helping them to look around for real estate or whatever they want? I mean they can count on support by the State Department. How far does the support go?

A I can't predict. I really can't predict what will be the result of the discussions. But I assume they

8

would be similar to discussions that we had in East Berlin.

Q Paul.

A Yes, Julie.

Q Yesterday afternoon eleven North Korean
Observer Mission arrived in New York. I wonder if you
could provide us the names of the eleven North Korean
diplomats.

A I don't have it here, Julie.

Q Thank God. (Laughter)

Q And could you tell us where they are staying
in New York?

A No. Why don't you touch base with the UN?
I think that might be the simplest way to get information
about them.

Q The UN Mission side told us that we should
ask the State Department. (Laughter)

A Uh huh. They always do that to us. I don't
know why. You know, I would prefer for the United
Nations to talk about this rather than from down here. I
see no reason why we should be providing that information.

Q Paul, pending the hearing and Senate action
on Secretary of State-Designate Kissinger, is your office

9

going to be keeping the press informed of his activities?

A Well, we try to keep abreast of his activities but not to talk about them. (Laughter) We're basically leaving questions of that sort to the White House. That's where he's sitting right now.

Q Paul, there was a puzzling press report to the effect that Israel and the United States will sign an agreement for an estimated $220 million early this month, September, for the purchase of Phantoms and Skyhawks. What is all this about?

A I think you know what it's all about. But we don't discuss our on-going military supply relationship with Israel.

Q But is there a signing taking place?

A We don't discuss our --

(Laughter)

Q Don't discuss?

A On-going. Do you want me to repeat it?

Q Oh, I see. I mean about the meeting itself, quite apart from substance or the agreement.

A I don't have anything to say.

Q Do you have anything to say about the report by the President of Algeria to the effect that American troops

10

training in California are politically and psychologically
oriented for an attack on the Middle East?

This is supposed to have come up at the meeting
of the non-aligned meeting in Algiers,

A I haven't seen it, haven't looked into it.

Q Can you tell us anything about the troops
training in the California desert.

A I would prefer to leave it to the Department
of Defense.

Q Paul, what is the current status of Ambassadors
being brought back to the United States for consultations with
Dr. Kissinger?

A I understand that the process is still going on.

Q Is the State Department going to be in a
position to provide information about that process while
it's going on?

A In my long-standing consistent position, we have
not been talking about it here. The White House has been
handling that.

Q I was hoping that, in light of the new declared
open position of Foreign Policy that you would start talking
about things that you have not been talking about in the past.

11

A Well, I appreciate that, but we're in an interim period here, and I'm just leaving things to the White House with respect to Dr. Kissinger's schedule.

Q These consultations are going on now?

A I understand that some took place in San Clemente and some will take place in the course of this week.

Q In the course of normal State Department business, are there officials who are preparing for testimony on the Hill soon after the reconvening of Congress?

A Well, we'll find out for you. We have attempted to establish a procedure whereby we will post the scheduled appearances of State Department Officers, Officials, before various Congressional committees a week in advance.

Q Which is why I was asking.

A Yes. It has been in recess and we haven't done it, but we'll do it right away.

Q Paul, has there been a date set for Dr. Kissinger's confirmation hearings?

A I would refer you to the Senate Committee. I'm not quite sure where it stands, but I have a fair idea.

12

Q Paul, is there any effort being made to communicate to King Faysal the views of the United States Government concerning the linkage he made, and has been making, between U.S. policy in the Middle East and future oil supplies?

A All I can really say--I don't really want to go through something which was characterized as bromide the other day --so all I really can say is that we are in continuous touch with the Government of Saudi Arabia.

Q About this question?

A About the whole variety of matters which concern our two countries.

Q Thank you, Paul.

A You're welcome.

(The briefing ended at 1:05 p.m.)

This Copy For __________

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1806

THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:50 A.M. EDT

SEPTEMBER 4, 1973

TUESDAY

MR. WARREN: As you know, the President spent Labor Day weekend with his family at Camp David. The President returned to the White House with his family last evening at 10:15 p.m. He has been working in his Oval Office this morning, meeting with top staff people, including Ron Ziegler and Al Haig.

You have had a pool report I am told on the swearing-in of William E. Colby as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Colby was sworn in by Federal District Judge George L. Hart. I think we have posted -- if we have not, we will shortly -- those who attended the swearing-in, and we will have a transcript of the President's remarks and Mr. Colby's remarks available sometime after this briefing.

For the rest of the week, there will be a meeting of the Cabinet and the Republican leadership later on this week. I don't have any firm dates for you at this time.

Q Two meetings?

MR. WARREN: Two individual meetings, separate meetings, Adam. But I don't have a precise schedule for you at this briefing.

You have three releases, I believe. The President today is announcing his intention to nominate George H. Hearn of Brooklyn, New York, for reappointment as a Federal Maritime Commissioner. Mr. Hearn has been a Federal Maritime Commissioner since 1964, and serves as Vice Chairman of the Commission. That position is elective by his fellow Commissioners.

Q Is he a Republican or Democrat and what is the salary?

MR. WARREN: He is a Democrat and the salary is $38,000. This is for a term of five years, expiring June 30, 1978.

You have two proclamations. The President is issuing the annual proclamation designating October 24 as United Nations Day. In this proclamation, the President also announces that he has appointed Donald S. MacNaughton of Madison, New Jersey, as National Chairman for United Nations Day. We will post biographical information on Mr. MacNaughton.

MORE

#1806

- 12 -

#1806

Q Jerry, has the President said anything, or do you anticipate he will make any statement in regard to the Arab threat to curtail oil availability in the United States unless the United States alters its policy toward Israel?

MR. WARREN: Would you repeat that, please?

Q Well, the current meeting, I believe it is in Kuwait, of Arab oil producing nations, as well as Libyan refusal to accept dollars, all of which, based on a policy that the United States can be coerced into reversing its policy in support of Israel.

I am wondering if the President has any comment on that, or will?

MR. WARREN: The President has not commented on that personally. That is a matter the State Department is watching very closely and will. The meeting is being watched very closely.

Q I see, thank you.

MR. WARREN: I wouldn't comment from here but perhaps State might.

Q Thank you.

Q Jerry, two questions, firstly, was there any contact whatsoever this weekend, or prior to the weekend, between the President and the Attorney General, or any members of their respective staffs, on the question of presenting evidence to the Grand Jury on the Agnew matter?

MR. WARREN: The matter that you refer to, the only contact -- and I can't tell you if there was any this weekend, or not -- the only contact between the Attorney General's staff and the White House staff has been very general in nature. But this is a matter that the President looks to the Attorney General to handle and I would not take you beyond the position that the President stated in his press conference.

Q Jerry, do you expect the Attorney General to consult with the President before making that decision?

MR. WARREN: The President looks to the Attorney General to handle this. The President has spoken to it in his press conference, the Attorney General has spoken to it, and I just have nothing to add to that.

Q Does he not expect to be consulted?

MR. WARREN: I just have nothing to add to that this morning.

Q Why can't you tell us whether he discussed it?

MR. WARREN: Helen, this is a matter that we discussed this morning and I think the President made it clear that he feels quite strongly that this is a matter that should not --

MORE

#1806

- 13 -

#1806

[LC]

Q You discussed it with the President this morning?

MR. WARREN: Yes, Ma'am, and this is a matter that should not be discussed from the White House.

Q Jerry, is Governor Love working on the problem and the White House? What will we do if a lot of the production of oil in the Arabian countries is cut back and Libya is threatening to cut back her production? What will we do?

MR. WARREN: Sarah, as I said in answer to a similar question earlier --

Q He was asking you how you would counter Israel and you said, "go to the State Department." I imagine there is a lot up here at the White House.

What will we do? This is pretty basic, we are right at it.

MR. WARREN: This is a matter that is being watched, being given careful study throughout the Administration. I just have nothing to tell you this morning.

Q Jerry, does the President's strong feeling that the Agnew matter should not be discussed from the White House extend to offering advice from the White House to Attorney General Richardson on the decision he might be going to make?

MR. WARREN: It extends to my not discussing it from the White House and I refer you back to what the President said in his press conference and what the Attorney General has said on this matter.

The President is looking to the Attorney General to handle this matter and I am just not going to take it any further today.

Q Jerry, nobody is asking you to make value judgements but simply to discuss the machinery for this liaison between the Attorney General and the President.

MR. WARREN: I am giving you what I have.

Q Jerry, I can understand, I suppose we all can, the President's view that information should not be leaked on the investigation. He was very forthright on that subject. Nevertheless, he and the Attorney General and briefers -- briefer, since it is only you these days -- have left a very considerable area of confusion as to the relation between the Justice Department and the White House on this. So this, all we are trying to do is get a sensible, straight answer. Why can't you give one?

MR. WARREN: I thought I gave that to you. I am sorry if I didn't. What I said was the contact between the Attorney General and his staff and the White House staff has been general in nature.

The President looks to the Attorney General to handle this matter, as the Attorney General said when he spoke to members of the press and to the American public and that is where it stands.

MORE

#1806

PRESS CONFERENCE NO. 33

of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

3:05 P.M. EDT

SEPTEMBER 5, 1973

WEDNESDAY

In the East Room
At the White House
Washington, D. C.

THE PRESIDENT: Won't you be seated, ladies
and gentlemen.

Ladies and gentlemen, before going to your
questions, I have a brief announcement that I think will
be of interest not only to our listeners and to you, but
also to the Congress.

The Congress is returning today from its August
recess, as I am, and as I look over the record of accom-
plishment this year, I find it is very disappointing in
terms of the Administration initiatives, those initiatives
that I believe are bipartisan in character and are of
vital importance to all of the American people.

Consequently, I will be sending what is in effect
a new State of the Union message, one which will concentrate
on the measures presently before the Congress which have
not been acted upon and which I consider urgent to be acted
upon before the end of this year.

I am not trying to present to the Congress an
impossible task; consequently, I will not cover the whole
waterfront, but it is important that in several areas
that actions be taken or it will be too late to act for
the interests of the people.

In my statement today, I will cover four or
five areas that will be included in that message, which
will be distributed to you on Sunday night and delivered
to the Congress Monday at the time of the opening of
business.

The first is the very high priority area of
fighting inflation. As you know, we are going into a new
set of tough controls on September 13th. In addition
to that, the Federal Reserve is tightening up on the money
supply and we are moving on the supply fronts, particularly
in the field of agriculture, so that we can eventually
look forward to halting the rise in food prices, and we
trust, eventually lowering them.

MORE

[LC]

Page 2

These three areas are vitally important in fighting inflation, but the three alone are not enough without the fourth area. Inflation must be fought on four fronts at all times. The fourth area, of course, is the Federal budget. It is very disconcerting to note that already before the Congress are spending proposals, which, if enacted, would bust the budget to the tune of at least $6 billion. These proposals I do not look forward to vetoing and to go through the agony of having to fight with the Congress on the veto.

I trust that the Congress, in the spirit that Mr. Tip O'Neill suggested, may work with the Executive in this instance in finding a way to control the spending so that we do not break the budget and raise the prices of the family budget for every American.

The second area has to do with the area of national defense. I have noted that several members of the Congress have suggested that the way to balance the budget is to add to the domestic budget to whatever amount they would like and to take it out of defense. This would be a fatal mistake because we can have the finest domestic programs in the world and it isn't going to make any difference if we don't have our freedom and if we are not around to enjoy them.

At the present time, we are in negotiations with regard to the reduction of our forces in Europe. The Soviet Union, as you note, is moving forward in the modernization of its own weapon system, which they have a right to do under the present SALT agreement, but we are looking forward in the next summit meeting, in which preparations are already going forward, to limiting nuclear arms, including MIRVs which, of course, will add a new dimension to their strength as well as to ours; limiting nuclear arms and thereby reducing not only the burden of armament, but the danger of war for the whole world.

This great effort will be destroyed in the event that the Congress reduces the Federal budget for defense in a substantial amount. It means that we will go into these negotiations in a second-class position and there will be no incentive whatever for the Soviet Union or others involved to negotiate with us for the mutual reduction, which is the only way to assure that we can have peace as well as limiting the burden of arms.

The third area is one that many of you ladies and gentlemen have been writing about for some months and with very good reason, the area of energy. We were lucky this summer. We didn't have some of the things happen that we had feared would happen with regard to brown-outs, et cetera, although there were some problems in some cities. But the prospect for the future could be very dangerous.

This Saturday, I am calling a meeting in which Governor Love will report to top Administration officials with regard to the whole energy problem. But essential to our success in meeting the energy needs for this winter and particularly for the future is congressional action.

MORE

[L.C.]

Page 3

There are seven major proposals, including the Alaska pipeline, which you have all written about, including, for example, research and development in the field of coal and other areas, including the deregulation of gas produced in the United States. There are seven of these proposals in the energy field which the Congress has not yet acted upon. If the Congress does not act upon these proposals, it means that we will have an energy crisis, not perhaps just this winter, but perhaps, certainly later on as well.

And if the Congress does not act upon these proposals, which in effect, have as their purpose, increasing the domestic capacity of the United States to create its energy, it means that we will be at the mercy of the producers of oil in the Mid-East.

All of you ladies and gentlemen very properly have been writing of your concern about the developments in the Mid-East which might cut off, or at least reduce, the supply of oil that goes to Europe and to the United States. Under these circumstances, to meet the problem of energy, it is essential that we move in these energy areas that I have mentioned.

Finally, there is the area that I could perhaps generally describe in the words of Mr. Mel Laird as being the whole domestic group of programs: The Better Schools Act, the Better Communities Act, and a new housing proposal that I will be sending to the Congress within the next two weeks. These are only three of several. I mention them because I think they are of vital importance and I am going to urge the Congress to act on these proposals so that the country, in this period of peace-time, can begin to move forward on what are these, really, achievements and dividends for peace.

I could mention a number of other areas, but the message will speak for itself. I am simply suggesting in conclusion at this time that we have had this year, as far as the Congress is concerned, a disappointing performance so far. I am not placing individual blame on that. I am simply saying we have three months left and I know that the Congress is usually a last quarter team. In that last quarter, we have to score a lot of points.

The Executive, the White House, all the agencies of the Government will work with the leaders of the Congress to move forward on these initiatives for the people. But it is time for us to turn to these initiatives that are in the interests of all the people and turn to them on an urgent basis.

I think Miss Thomas has the first question.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you met with the Vice President for two hours on Saturday. One, can you tell us what you talked about? Two, will you have any part in any future legal moves against the Vice President? And three, did you call John Connally afterwards, as was reported?

MORE

[L]

Page 5

QUESTION: Mr. President, you alluded to this a moment ago, but what exactly are you doing to meet these threats from the Arab countries to use oil as a club for us to force a change in the Middle East policy?

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Cormier, that has been a subject of major concern, and what we are doing, some can be talked about, and some cannot. Obviously, we are having discussions with some of the companies involved. Obviously, as far as some of the nations involved -- for example, Libya -- our relations are not that close that we could have too much influence.

With regard to Saudi Arabia, perhaps the relations with the United States has with Saudi Arabia might lead to more influence there.

What I would suggest is this: In a broader context, that the answer to the problem of oil that we presently depend upon in the Middle East, we depend upon it not, of course, nearly as much as Europe, but we are all in the same bag when you really come down to it.

The problem that we have here is that as far as the Arab countries are concerned, the ones that are involved here, is that it is tied up with the Arab-Israeli dispute. That is why in talking to Dr. Kissinger, both before I nominated him and since, that we have put at the highest priority moving toward making some progress toward the settlement of that dispute. That is one side of it.

The other problems, of course, are the radical elements that presently seem to be on ascendency in various countries in the Middle East, like Libya. Those elements, of course, we are not in position to control, although we may be in a position to influence them, influence them for this reason: Oil without a market, as Mr. Mossadegh learned many, many years ago, does not do a country much good.

We, and Europe, and the market and I think that the responsible Arab leaders will see to it that if they continue to up the price, if they continue to expropriate, if they do expropriate without fair compensation, the inevitable result is that they will lose their markets, and other sources will be developed.

Q Mr. President, there have been some conflicting reports about your real estate dealings in California, and I would like to ask about that. Several different versions have been released by the White House, both as to your own personal financial involvement and as to the Government's expenditures in San Clemente and Key Biscayne, and your auditors, I understand from news reports, say that the entire audit has not been released on your financial dealings out there.

I would like to ask you why we have had so many conflicting reports to start with, and second, one of the questions that is raised by the only partial release of the audit is have you paid the taxes on the gain realized from the sale of the land to Mr. Rebozo and Mr. Abplanalp at San Clemente?

MORE

QUESTION: Mr. President, to follow up on the tapes question, earlier you have told us that your reasons are based on principle -- separation of powers, Executive privilege, things of this sort. Can you assure us that the tapes do not reflect unfavorably on your Watergate position, that there is nothing in the tapes that would reflect favorably?

THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing whatever. As a matter of fact, the only time I listened to the tapes, to certain tapes -- and I didn't listen to all of them, of course -- was on June the 4th. There is nothing whatever in the tapes that is inconsistent with the statement that I made on May 22 or of the statement that I made to you ladies and gentlemen in answer to several questions, rather searching questions I might say, and very polite questions two weeks ago, for the most part, and finally nothing that differs whatever from the statement that I made on the 15th of August. That is not my concern.

My concern is the one that I have expressed and it just does not cover tapes, it covers the appearance of a President before a Congressional Committee which Mr. Truman very properly turned down in 1953 although some of us at that time thought he should have appeared. This was after he had left the Presidency but it had to do with matters while he was President. It covers papers of the President written for him and communications with him and it covers conversations with the President that are recorded on tape. Confidentiality once destroyed cannot in my opinion be restored.

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you intend to veto a Minimum Wage Bill, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. With very great regret my Secretary of Labor, Mr. Brennan, has urged me to sign it. As a team player he however recognizes some of the arguments that I have made for not signing it. What it has to do is not my dedication to the minimum wage. I have always voted for it in the past and I have signed several bills in this Administration, at least two. The difficulty is that the Minimum Wage Bill which is presently before me on my desk would raise the minimum wage by 38 percent. It would deny employment opportunities to unskilled and younger workers who at present are in the highest numbers and the highest percentage of unemployment, it would increase unemployment. And it would give an enormous boost to inflation. Therefore, I am going to ask the Congress in my veto message to write a new bill, to send one down that will not be inflationary and that will not cost jobs for those who need jobs among the unskilled and the younger workers.

QUESTION: Mr. President, I would like to check the Arab oil pressure if I may again. Is it possible that the threat of limiting the supply of oil would cause a moderation in U. S. support of Israel?

MORE

[L.C.]

Page 13

THE PRESIDENT: I think that that question is one that has been understandably speculated about a great deal in the press but obviously for the President of the United States in answer to such a question to suggest that we are going to relate our policy toward Israel which has to do with the independence of that country to which we are dedicated to what happens on Arab oil I think would be highly inappropriate. I will say this and I will put it in another context, however. Israel simply can't wait for the dust to settle and the Arabs can't wait for the dust to settle in the Mid-East. Both sides are at fault. Both sides need to start negotiating. That is our position.

We are not pro-Israel and we are not pro-Arab and we are not any more pro-Arab because they have oil and Israel hasn't. We are pro-peace and it is the interest of the whole area for us to get those negotiations off dead center and that is why we will use our influence with Israel and we will use our influence, what influence we have, with the various Arab States, and a non-Arab State like Egypt, to get those negotiations off.

Now one of the dividends of having a successful negotiation will be to reduce the oil pressure.

Mr. terHorst.

QUESTION: Sir, you mentioned a while ago Representative O'Neill's proposal that the Democratic leadership of Congress and the President get together on some bipartisan areas. Can you suggest some bills or some measures of vital concern which a new bipartisanship in his format would work out?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would suggest, Mr. terHorst, the ones I mentioned in my opening statement would all fit in that category with the possible exception of those that I said were in Mr. Laird's particular responsibility -- better schools, better housing, and also the Better Communities Act. Those do involve basic philosophic differences and bipartisan-ship may not be possible, but on the other hand holding the budget down so that we don't have inflation is a bipartisan concern.

Maintaining a national defense that is adequate so that the United States is not in a second position in dealing with the Soviet Union or any other country in the world is a bipartisan concern. Seeing to it that we have adequate energy supplies. In fact, some of the best conversations I have had and the best suggestions I have had in the field of energy have come from Democrats, Senator Jackson among them. I think that we should get a bipartisan policy going with regard to dealing with the problems of energy, and there could be others.

MORE