FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 16, 1972

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

THE WHITE HOUSE

PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
DR. HENRY A. KISSINGER, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

THE BRIEFING ROOM

11:32 A.M. EDT

MR. ZIEGLER: I think you are all aware of the fact that Dr. Kissinger left Washington Saturday morning, September 9th, and flew to Munich, where on Sunday, September 10th, he met with Chancellor Willy Brandt and Foreign Minister of Germany Scheel, and also the opposition leaders.

He left Munich on Sunday and arrived in Moscow Sunday night, September 10th, where he conducted meetings with the Soviet leaders in Moscow. We have released a joint statement on those meetings this past Thursday.

Dr. Kissinger then went to London and to Paris to meet with the leaders there, and also, during the course of his visit, as we have already announced, held meetings with Special Advisor Le Duc Tho, and also Minister Xuan Thuy of North Vietnam.

So as we told you last week, Dr. Kissinger would be prepared to discuss his trip with you this morning, and that is why he is here. His comments, of course, are on the record, as has been the case in the past.

Q The recent past? (Laughter)

DR. KISSINGER: First I want to make a personal comment about a remark in a newspaper, whose enthusiasm for us is occasionally limited, which referred to my German accent. I wanted to say that when I was in Germany, I had occasion to make a brief statement on television, and I thought I might watch myself speak in one language correctly. Now I find I speak German with a Swedish accent. (Laughter)

Now I decided I might just as well proceed recklessly.
(Laugh ter)

MORE

[L]

- 2 -

I thought the best way to proceed would be to give you a brief summary of what we did on this trip and how it came about and then to take your questions.

The origin of the trip was during the summit meeting when, on the last day, General Secretary Brezhnev and the President agreed that when our bilateral discussions had reached a point where significant progress could be made by high level decisions, they would establish direct contact with each other, in addition to the regular exchanges that are going on all the time anyway.

That point was reached in the course of the commercial negotiations and the discussions on European security and mutual balanced force reductions, with respect to SALT and it was therefore decided that I should go to Moscow on behalf of the President to see whether these various matters could be brought to a further stage of negotiation.

The possibility was foreseen in the summit communique. In the weeks prior to my visit to Moscow, the President and the General Secretary exchanged communications, reactions to the ideas of both sides and primarily to propositions that the President made on how one might advance various of these issues, as I will explain in a minute, so that when the discussions actually took place in Moscow, they could proceed rather expeditiously; or at least one could focus on the issues. Nothing happens expeditiously in these discussions.

Let me now talk about my trip in two groups: One, my discussions in Moscow and, secondly, my discussions with the leaders of the Western Alliance, with the German, French and British leaders, and, thirdly, just a very brief word about my meeting with special advisor Le Duc Tho and Minister Xuan Thuy yesterday.

First, the discussions in Moscow: You have the list of the people of my staff who were accompanying me and present also was Under Secretary James Lynn. Most of the discussions took place between General Secretary Brezhnev, on the Soviet side, and myself. I spent about 21 hours with General Secretary Brezhnev and an additional maybe three hours with Foreign Minister Gromyko.

MORE

[L]

- 3 -

On the Soviet side, the General Secretary was always accompanied by Foreign Minister Gromyko, by the Ambassador to the United States Dobrynin and by his personal assistant Alexandrov. Then, as specific topics came up, such as trade, we would be jointed by appropriate Soviet experts.

On our side, the membership was rotating with the exception of my senior staff assistant Sonnenfeldt, who is handling the Soviet matters on my staff and who participated in practically all of the discussions.

Now, let me discuss in general terms what was done. First, I would like to say that we were treated really with extraordinary hospitality and were very well taken care of. All our comforts were attended to. The discussions took place in a very frank and open atmosphere, but with a very constructive attitude on both sides, with the attitude that we wanted to come to agreements or to make progress that was in the interest of both sides.

We covered essentially all of the topics that you can find in the communique that was issued at the time of the summit conference. We reviewed the progress, as our Joint Statement says, of those agreements that were then made in order to see whether they had fulfilled the expectations and what further accomplishments could be made. It was a sense that we were moving in the right direction and that we could continue and even accelerate the progress in those areas where agreements had been achieved.

Let me talk about those areas in which some new steps were either taken or were prepared. First, the area of lend lease, trade, and the general commercial relationship between our two countries. As you know, this was discussed at some length at the summit and some progress had been made then. There had been an agreement to create a U.S.-Soviet Economic Commission, the first meeting of which, chaired by Secretary Peterson, took place in July. When Secretary Peterson was in the Soviet Union there was a further advance in defining the issues.

Prior to my visit to the Soviet Union, the President communicated directly with the Soviet leaders with the approach that what we should do is, rather than deal with each of these topics separately, to see whether we could manage a global approach that would tie together the issues of lend lease, most favored nation, a trade agreement, a maritime agreement, into one overall negotiation in which we would set ourselves an objective of where we wanted to be and then work towards it.

These issues, as you all know, are technically extremely complex. I am not the best qualified person, to put it mildly, to get into all the technical subtleties or the legal issues that each of these issues raise. However, we made major progress on the lend lease issue in the sense of agreeing on a method by which the sums could be determined in the negotiations that are now starting and with relation to a whole host of issues like postponement and rate of payment that had been left unsettled. A Soviet group will come over here next week and we are confident that a satisfactory solution will be achieved.

MORE

[c]

Concurrently with this, we discussed the issues of
how to proceed on the trade front and the granting of most-
favored-nation status to the Soviet Union. Again, this
raises a whole host of questions, such as the definition; how
we would define most-favored-nation status; issues related
to market disruption, to arbitration, so that our businessmen
have assurances of some appeal mechanisms that are not depen-
dent entirely on national jurisdictions, business facilities, trade
centers, et cetera, and again, very major progress was made
in all of these categories, first in principle between General
Secretary Brezhnev and myself, and then in detail between
Under Secretary Lynn and his Soviet counterpart.

And again, a Soviet group will come over here next
week to conclude the arrangements.

The third area was to settle some of the remaining
issues with respect to the maritime agreement, and there,
too, many of the difficulties were ironed out. Again, a Soviet
group is coming here next week and we are confident that we can
conclude the arrangements.

Q Three groups are coming?

DR. KISSINGER: The essence of this arrangement is
that, on the basis of the President's approach, it is being
handled as one negotiation, but it is in the Soviet bureaucracy
split up among three different ministries. For that reason,
three different groups are coming, but we are working accord-
ing to an overall concept.

Then there were some discussions about the exten-
sion of credits in which I believe we achieved a satisfactory
meeting of the minds, and about the joint development of
certain natural resources in the Soviet Union, which is a matter
that has to be handled primarily by private capital, but in
which, as a first step, we are planning to set up mechanisms
to make a systematic review of the problem and to permit us
to make decisions on an overall basis, rather than on an ad
hoc approach. Those will be announced in due course.

So much for the trade issues, which was the first
issue discussed, I may say, because I always read accounts,
which was discussed without relationship to any other topic
and without its being made conditional on progress in any other
area. Indeed, it was essentially concluded before we turned
to any other area.

Now, with respect to the other issues that were dis-
cussed and that were covered in the communique, it was, first
of all, the problem of our mutual balanced force reductions
and the European Security Conference. You ladies and gentlemen
are all familiar with the Soviet position, which has been
that there should be a preparatory European Security Confer-
ence toward the end of this year. Indeed, the joint communique
that was issued at the Summit meeting made reference to prepara-
tions in that direction.

The United States position, which was also provided
for in the Summit communique, to which our NATO allies agreed,
was that there should be a relationship between that conference
and a conference on mutual balanced force reduction which
should take place in some related manner.

MORE

[L]

Now, this, of course, raises the theological problem of linkage which you ladies and gentlemen and we have discussed at enormous lengths, and which the Soviet Union has never accepted as a formal concept. Matters were at somewhat of a stalemate in this respect, but we had extensive discussions of this problem.

The President, again, prior to my arrival there, communicated again our general attitude on this issue to the General Secretary. As a result of it, of this and the discussions, the Soviet Union has now made a general proposal to us which we are discussing with our allies and other interested parties. The details I cannot go into until we have the reaction of other countries, but on the basis of preliminary discussions by myself with European leaders, and by Mr. Sonnenfeldt at the NATO Council, indications are that it is at least worthy of very serious consideration. So this is a matter that will now be pursued in diplomatic channels, and as soon as these consultations are completed, we will make announcements, but I think it is correct to say that we have made significant progress in this area, too.

The third area that was discussed concerned the resumption of the SALT negotiations, which was discussed on two levels: one, the procedural one of when these talks might resume; and the second in terms of a very general philosophical discussions of what the direction might be in which these talks could go in a very preliminary way, but still in order to lay the basis for working along parallel lines. Again, we have reason to believe that progress has been made, and as soon as the precise date is fixed, we will announce it, but we are on the approximate schedule that we have set for ourselves. We believe that the second round of SALT can make a major contribution to peace and stability of the world.

In addition to the topics that were covered in the communique specifically, there was the review of the international situation with the major areas being covered, but I will reserve that for the question period.

Now, a word about my meeting with European leaders. We have, of course, always considered our relationships with Europe a cardinal aspect of American policy, and the cornerstone of the whole structure of peace, which has been pointed out in each of the President's annual foreign policy reports. The President urged me to stress to all of the leaders, each of the leaders that I saw, that his conviction that whatever progress we were making in our dealings with other nations, similar and preferably greater progress has to be made in European-American relationships.

We are now at the end of the period in which military security alone could be the cement of Western relationships. Of course, Atlantic relationships have to be adapted to the circumstances of the emergence of a more united Europe and an economically much stronger Europe, and also to the tendency in the world in which negotiation is increasingly replacing confrontation. So I was asked on behalf of the President to point out to them that as soon as his schedule would be less pressed by domestic exigencies, he hoped to resume most intense consultations with our European friends on how to put relationships between Europe and the United States on a new, even more dynamic and constructive basis, consistent with the change in the international situation that had occurred.

MORE

[c]

Finally, I had, as you know, a meeting yesterday with
the North Vietnamese negotiators. But, as always, by mutual
agreement, we will not discuss the substance of these discussions
and therefore, I not only cannot be very specific, I cannot
say anything about the substance of those discussions at all.

Those were the highlights of the trip. Now, I will
be delighted to answer any questions on anything that I may
have said or anything that I should have said.

Q Henry, in simpler language, could you tell us
what you meant by the statement that the President asked you
to convey to European leaders?

DR. KISSINGER: At Harvard, as you know, complexity
is identified with profundity, or as Ron Ziegler says, in simpler
language, "This is as simple as I ever get."

What I meant was that the world in which Atlantic
relationships were formulated was essentially a bipolar world
which was based on and which grew out, at that time, of European
weakness, of common fears of aggression and of American
dominance in almost every field.

We now face a situation in which the European economic
community is becoming increasingly strong and in which the
accession of four more countries to the Common Market will
create an even larger grouping. We face a situation also in which
the domestic stability of European countries has been substantially
assured and in which the bipolar world in the 50's and even
60's is being replaced increasingly by a more complex set of
international relations.

Therefore, it becomes important that when we speak
about Atlantic partnership that we do not affirm it in the abstract
every six months but have nothing concrete to work on together,
but to find some common task and to define what is needed for
the solution of these issues that are arising and that will be one
of the principal tasks of our foreign policy in the next phase.

Q Do you see that the Viet Cong announcement this
past week, endorsed by Hanoi, offers any prospect at all for
a widening or a progress in the negotiations?

DR. KISSINGER: As you can appreciate, it is extremely
difficult for me to comment about any particular proposal
that may have been made publicly without getting into the
substance of the talks. Our position has been this: As you
know from our public statements, we are prepared to leave the
future political evolution of South Vietnam to the decision
of the South Vietnamese. We do not insist on any particular
political orientation, nor do we insist that the government in
South Vietnam inevitably be pro-American.

What we do reject, however, is that we, as a result
of the negotiations, impose a particular form of government
on the South Vietnamese or that we would accept proposals
whose practical consequence and clearly predictable consequence
is to bring this about. These are our principles in handling
this negotiation and we are pursuing them very earnestly and
with every intention of bringing about a rapid conclusion
of the war.

MORE

- 7 -

[Lc]

Q Do you think the Viet Cong's latest proposals do that?

DR. KISSINGER: The latest Viet Cong proposal leaves something to be desired in that respect.

Q Dr. Kissinger, did you discuss with General Secretary Brezhnev or with any of the other Heads of State or their assistants the matters of air piracy and other forms of terrorism and if it were possible for any of them to use their influence not to accept and honor terrorists or air pirates?

DR. KISSINGER: As you know, the issues which you have just mentioned are being pursued very actively in diplomatic channels. They require, really, for an effective control, a global cooperation of at least a majority of countries. I know that the State Department is pursuing it extremely actively and the Secretary of State has made approaches to many leaders of the world.

So, I have confined myself on this trip to underlining the importance that the President attaches to the solution of this problem, without going into the details of a negotiation which is being conducted in diplomatic channels, but we did under-line the importance of the subject.

Q Do you think that after your talks in Moscow the Helsinki Tea Party, as an opener for the European Security Conference, can take place on the 22nd of November, and, secondly, in a parallel set of timing, the MBFR discussion can also be initiated?

DR. KISSINGER: The question, which was very objectively stated, was, whether the Helsinki Tea Party could take place on November 22nd, which for the benefit of the Washington Post means whether the European Security preparatory conference can take place then and whether the MBFR conference will take place at a roughly parallel period.

The exact date of these conferences will have to be established through the consultations that are now taking place in response to the Soviet proposal that has been made.

Our position is that unless these two conferences take place in some related time frame, it will be very difficult for us to agree to what you call the Helsinki Tea Party. We think a framework for the solution of this problem now exists and that progress can be made without tying ourselves to any one particular date. We think that this is approaching a solution.

Q Dr. Kissinger, you said in San Clemente that you had some reason to believe that...

DR. KISSINGER: Did I talk to the press in San Clemente?

Q Yes, you did. You said you had some reason to believe that North Vietnam would negotiate seriously. Has that belief been realized? Are they negotiating seriously?

DR. KISSINGER: Yes, I remember, that was in July. Isn't there a statute of limitations on my statements? (Laughter) I said that we were entering these discussions and on the basis of the preparatory exchanges that had taken place we had made clear our view that we expected some serious negotiation. All I can say is that the fact that these talks are going on would indicate a certain seriousness.

MORE

[L]

Q Dr. Kissinger, what is your latest information regarding the possibility that North Vietnam will launch another offensive this fall, either major or minor?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, you know, the affected parties always have a high incentive to predict constant offenses because that way they can never be accused of intelligence lags, so one would not be surprised if there were other high points and even some offensives. We do not anticipate that they will reach the scale, the intensity or the duration of the military activities earlier this year, or that they will not be able to be essentially contained without precluding a setback here and there.

The major point, though, now about military action is that it is essential to understand that there is no purely military solution to this problem. We have recognized that there is no purely military solution to this problem. We hope that North Vietnam will also realize that there is no military solution to this problem.

When there is no military solution to this problem, then the only alternative is to negotiate on a basis that is just to both sides and that both sides will have an interest in maintaining.

Q Dr. Kissinger, what, then, would you say has been the impact of the bombing and the mining and the possibility that if they have not done something so far, that they would in the future?

DR. KISSINGER: I just don't want to discuss where we stand in the negotiations. It is always very dangerous to take isolated intelligence reports or isolated excerpts from intelligence reports and build profound conclusions on them. Every report is based on a set of assumptions. It depends very much on what question it is supposed to answer. Therefore, I really don't want to discuss what may or may not have happened in these negotiations, to what degree what is happening now may or may not be affected by military actions. I do not think it is helpful, and, frankly, I don't think that isolated reports without very careful analysis can be used for definitive conclusions.

Q Dr. Kissinger, going back to the latest Viet Cong proposal, do you see any difference in this proposal? Is there anything different from the earlier position?

DR. KISSINGER: Again, I don't want to conduct the negotiations that are going on now publicly. As I have said, our basic principle is that we will not, as a result of a negotiation, impose a particular form of government that guarantees predominance to one side. I will stick to what was said at the plenary sessions by Ambassador Porter, and I will not go beyond that.

Q They said that their proposal was domination by no side.

DR. KISSINGER: The question is not what was said, but what the actual consequence of it is.

MORE

[Lc]

- 9 -

Q You characterized your meetings in the Soviet Union with words such as "major progress," "significant progress"? Could you use the same adjective to describe your meetings with Le Duc Tho?

DR. KISSINGER: I just wouldn't comment on the substance. I would like to, but we have an understanding that neither side will comment on the substance of the meetings, and I must maintain that.

Q Why is it that you didn't see Kosygin and he didn't take part in these discussions?

DR. KISSINGER: I think when General Secretary Brezhnev holds his next press conference, that will be a very good question to put to him. (Laughter)

Q Dr. Kissinger, in your discussions in Moscow, did you take up the question of the Russian ransom on Jewish would-be emigrants?

DR. KISSINGER: We raised this question in a number of ways, yes.

Q At this meeting?

DR. KISSINGER: Yes, at this meeting.

Q In your opening remarks, you suggested you might be willing to say something about your discussions on Vietnam in the Soviet Union; that is, were they productive or can you say anything about them? Before you left, there were some reports that some people in the Administration, notably Secretary Rogers, held out hope for a settlement before or just after the election. Do you share this?

DR. KISSINGER: First, about the discussions on Vietnam in the Soviet Union, as Ron Ziegler has already said at his briefing, Vietnam was discussed and obviously it was discussed at some length. Again, it is clear that the Soviet Union stands for certain principles in its international affairs and that they have a different perspective on Vietnam than we do. But we had a full discussion, and that is really all I want to say about it.

Secondly, however, it has always been understood, we have always understood, that the issue of Vietnam will be settled finally in negotiations between us and our allies and the North Vietnamese and their allies, so that the ultimate solution of the Vietnam problem is not being sought by us in Moscow or Peking, or any other capital, but in the negotiations that are now going on in Paris.

Now, as for speculating when the war might end, as I understood the Secretary of State, he listed all the factors that might lead reasonable people to conclude that this was an opportune moment to end the war. All I can say, and I can only speak for us, we have always wanted to end the war by negotiation. We would like to end it as rapidly as possible through negotiations. I think it is better to let results speak for themselves, rather than to set arbitrary deadlines.

MORE

- 10 -

[LC]

Q In light of your remarks about what the President asked you to convey to European leaders about more intensive consultations about the changed relations in the world, does that indicate to us that maybe the President is planning a trip to Europe soon after the election? If so, how soon?

DR. KISSINGER: This did not refer to any particular trips that the President might take. Let me say two things:

First of all, he was not speaking only about consultation; he was talking about content. One cannot always substitute consultation for policy. Our intention is to develop a program for an Atlantic partnership in close cooperation with our European friends, but it is reasonable to assume that one way or another they will expect to be in close touch with each other. I must say that the feeling that I conveyed on behalf of the President was strongly reciprocated by European leaders.

Q Dr. Kissinger, you said that you raised the question of ransom or exit fees for Soviet Jews. Can you tell us whether the Soviet Union indicated how seriously they are going to pursue this imposition?

And a related question: How does the Administration view the concern being expressed in Congress on this question of most-favored-nation for the Soviet Union so long as they maintain these exit fees?

DR. KISSINGER: We take Congressional expressions of respected Senators extremely seriously. When and if we conclude an agreement, we will submit it to the Congress for its approval. Then there can be a full debate on this particular issue. As for what may or may not happen in the Soviet Union with respect to this issue, I think I would rather not comment.

Q Dr. Kissinger, can you amplify on the SALT discussions that you had? Since the Summit meeting, there has been extensive debate about the Summit, with contentions made that the United States may be put in an inferior position. As you know, the Jackson resolution insists that there must be equality in the further discussions. Can you tell us whether the prospect for the second round of SALT has been impaired in any way by this debate?

DR. KISSINGER: No. We think that the prospects for the second round of SALT are good. I think both sides have now gained valuable experience in talking to each other about issues that great nations have never in the past talked to each other about. I have every hope that the next round of SALT may move even faster than the first round of SALT.

On the other hand, the conceptual problem with respect to the next round of SALT is much greater than it was with the last one for the following reasons: We have no difficulty whatever, indeed we agree with the proposition, that any agreement that may be made in the field of strategic arms limitation must be based on the principle of equality, and, indeed, I believe that we will have no difficulty getting Soviet agreement to this as an abstract proposition. The difficulty with respect to such a proposition is to define equality. How do you relate various weapons systems to each other when the weapons on both sides have been developed, at least to some extent, according to different objectives and with different technical criteria and with a different mix? So this is a problem that will have to be carefully and thoughtfully addressed. Secondly, the first round of SALT concentrated primarily on quantitative limitations. It may well be that in some of the early phases of SALT II this will be the case.

MORE

[L]

- 11 -

Yet, as one looks ahead in the more distant future,
one has to recognize that the strategic balance now can be
upset perhaps more decisively by qualitative changes than by
quantitative changes.

If you look at the problem of verification, you will
recognize that qualitative changes are infinitely harder to
verify and control than quantitative changes.

So I would say that we have a major intellectual
problem ahead of us, first, within our government to come up
with definitions to the problems which you raise.

Therefore, it is probable that the first stage of
these negotiations will concern principles, approaches, rather
than very precise negotiating positions, as indeed SALT 1
did also.

But, on the other side of the ledger is that one
cannot help but be struck by the fact that one can now talk
to Soviet leaders about weapons on which the survival of
both sides depends, in a way that would have been inconceivable
in traditional diplomacy and would have been quite difficult
to imagine even in the first phase of the SALT negotiations.

But we have not developed our own thinking to a
point where we can be concrete and my impression was that the
Soviet leaders have the same intellectual problems that we
have, but it was interesting that both sides found it possible
to talk even about those.

Q Do you expect to have this trade treaty
ready to submit to Congress this session?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, I don't want to predict when
this treaty will be finished. The Soviet delegations are
coming over here. We certainly hope to have it completed
before the end of this year. To have it ready by the end
of this Congressional session would be pushing it a little
hard, but we expect to iron out many of the remaining
difficulties; most of the remaining differences in the next
few weeks. How this will relate to the Congressional session
we cannot be sure. But this is our approximate schedule.

Q Do you consider the Jackson Amendment to be
a useful bargaining tool?

DR. KISSINGER: I think we have pretty well exhausted
the Jackson Amendment. It has now been passed by the Senate
and we stand by what we previously said with respect to it.

Q Was there any discussion with Soviet leaders
on the possible development of the Japan-China relationship?

DR. KISSINGER: As I pointed out, there was a general
review of the international situation, and this is not
one of its least significant aspects, but most of us recognize
this is a matter to be decided by the Government of Japan
and by the Government of the People's Republic of China, in
which, either separately or jointly, it would not be proper for
us to take a position.

MORE

[L]

- 12 -

Q At the time General Lavelle was carrying out unauthorized bombing raids over North Vietnam you were having private conversations with the North Vietnamese. Can you assess the impact of those unauthorized bombing raids on the conversations?

DR. KISSINGER: Of course, the North Vietnamese would not know which raids were authorized and which were unauthorized. (Laughter)

Secondly, as it happens, there were no private talks going on at the time between our side and the North Vietnamese. There were efforts to set them up, which foundered for a variety of reasons, including the presumed illness of Special Adviser Le Duc Tho. This particular issue has never figured in them, but there were no actual discussions; which, however, is not to defend unauthorized raids.

Q Dr. Kissinger, in relation to the ransom issue and what you remarked about this morning, are you saying, in effect, that the White House is opposed to something like the Ribicoff Amendment that would tie the ransom to the trade agreement?

DR. KISSINGER: I don't want to get into the particular legislative proposal that has been made in relation to this issue. When we have concluded a trade agreement, it will be put before the Congress and then there will be sufficient opportunity for Congressional leaders to express their opinion. That will be the appropriate time for us to express our opinion.

Q Henry, when do you anticipate the second round of SALT will begin?

DR. KISSINGER: We have not set a precise date for it yet, but I think it is reasonable to assume that it will be this calendar year.

Q When do you expect the Soviet leaders to come over to the United States in reply to the invitation?

DR. KISSINGER: Again, no precise date for that has been set, but there were some general discussions. We expect it in the not indefinite future.

Q Dr. Kissinger, did the Soviet leaders ask you to explain the Administration's support of the Jackson Amendment and if they did, how did you explain it?

DR. KISSINGER: We discussed, in a general way, the conditions in which our relationships can be developed on a basis of mutual confidence. I believe that when I left there was a mutual feeling that we had made considerable progress in that direction and that events that had happened in the interval, whether or not they were liked in every detail by both sides, had not stood in the way of a further development of Soviet American relations.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Dr. Kissinger.

END

(AT 12:25 P.M. EDT)

TOTAL
EMBARGO FOR WIRE TRANSMISSION
AND RELEASE UNTIL 12:00 NOON E. D. T.

SEPTEMBER 14, 1972

Office of the White House Press Secretary

U.S. - U.S.S.R. JOINT STATEMENT

As previously agreed, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant for National Security Affairs to the President of the United States of America, visited the Soviet Union from September 10 to September 14. During his visit to Moscow he had discussions with Leonid I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and Andrei A. Gromyko, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.

There was a general review of the course of Soviet-American relations since the Summit meeting and of international problems of interest to the Soviet Union and the United States. The exchange of views was frank and constructive.

In the course of the discussion of major international issues, prominent attention was given to the problems relating to European security, and progress was made regarding the next steps to be taken.

There also was a discussion of issues connected with the resumption at an early date of negotiations on the limitation of strategic arms.

Implementation of the bilateral agreements reached at the Summit meeting was reviewed. It was agreed that there already have been substantial accomplishments and that further accomplishments can be anticipated.

Special attention was given to the status of commercial relations. Both sides reaffirmed the importance of these ties in strengthening mutual relations. Significant progress was made on several issues of principle in commercial relations between the two countries. It was agreed that in view of this progress, negotiations on a lend-lease settlement and on concluding a trade agreement would be continued in Washington in September with the aim of completing them in the near future. It was also agreed to conclude promptly the negotiations of the maritime agreement between the USSR and the USA.

Both sides reaffirmed the importance of continuing the practice of exchanging views on questions of mutual interest in various forms and at various levels, including the highest level.

#      #      #

including the highest level.

Both aides restated the importance of continuing the practice of exchanging views on questions of mutual interest in various forms and at various levels.

Both aides restated the importance of continuing the practice of exchanging views on questions of mutual interest in various forms and at various levels. Both aides restated the importance of continuing the practice of exchanging the maritime agreement between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. in the next future. It was also agreed to conclude promptly the negotiations of which the two countries are engaged in the two countries. It was agreed that in view of this progress, significant progress was made on several issues of principle in commercial relations between the two countries. It was agreed that in view of this progress, Special attention was given to the status of commercial relations. Both aides

means and that further accomplishments can be anticipated.

the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic.

The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic, and Andrei A. Cromko, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the C.R.U., and Andrei A. Kromko, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R., visited the Soviet Union from September 10 to September 14. During his visit to Moscow he had

Attitude to the President of the United States of America, visited the Soviet

AND RELEASE LIMITED 12:00 NOON E.T.
EMBARGO . FOR FIRE TRANSMISSION
TOTAL

SEPTEMBER 14, 1985

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 16, 1972

THE WHITE HOUSE

THE BRIEFING ROOM

11:32 A.M. EDT

Q The recent past? (Laughter)

MORE

MORE

- 3 -

MORE

- 4 -

Q Three groups are coming?

MORE

- 5 -

MORE

MORE

- 7 -

Q Dr. Kissinger, did you discuss with General Secretary Brezhnev or with any of the other Heads of State or their assistants the matters of air piracy and other forms of terrorism and if it were possible for any of them to use their influence not to accept and habor terrorists or air pirates?

MORE

- 8 -

MORE

- 9 -

Q At this meeting?

MORE

- 10 -

MORE

- 11 -

MORE

- 12 -

END

(AT 12:25 P.M. EDT)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OCTOBER 26, 1972

THE WHITE HOUSE

PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
DR. HENRY KISSINGER, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

THE BRIEFING ROOM

11:35 A.M. EDT

MR. ZIEGLER: Dr. Kissinger will be on the record
this morning.

DR. KISSINGER: Ladies and gentlemen: We have now
heard from both Vietnams and it is obvious that
a war that has been raging for 10 years is drawing to a
conclusion, and that this is a traumatic experience for all
of the participants. The President thought that it might be
helpful if I came out here and spoke to you about what we
have been doing, where we stand, and to put the various alle-
gations and charges into perspective.

First, let me talk about the situation in three
parts: Where do we stand procedurally; what is the sub-
stance of the negotiations, and where do we go from here?

We believe that peace is at hand. We believe that
an agreement is within sight, based on the May 8th proposal of
the President and some adaptation of our January 25th proposal
which is just to all parties. It is inevitable that in a war
of such complexity that there should be occasional difficul-
ties in reaching a final solution, but we believe that by far
the longest part of the road has been traversed and what
stands in the way of an agreement now are issues that are
relatively less important than those that have already been
settled.

Let me first go through the procedural points, the
arguments with respect to particular dates for signing the
agreement. As you know, we have been negotiating in these
private sessions with the North Vietnamese for nearly four
years. We resumed the discussions on July 19th of this year.
Up to now, the negotiations had always foundered on the North
Vietnamese insistence that a political settlement be arrived
at before a military solution be discussed, and on the com-
panion demand of the North Vietnamese that the political
settlement make arrangements which, in our view, would have
predetermined the political outcome.

We have taken the view, from the earliest private
meetings on, that rapid progress could be made only if the
political and military issues were separated; that is to say,
if the North Vietnamese and we would negotiate about methods
to end the war and if the political solution of the war were
left to the Vietnamese parties to discuss among themselves.
During the summer, through many long, private meetings, these
positions remained essentially unchanged.

MORE

XII-21

[10]

As Radio Hanoi correctly stated today, on October 8th the North Vietnamese for the first time made a proposal which enabled us to accelerate the negotiations. Indeed, for the first time they made a proposal which made it possible to negotiate concretely at all. This proposal has been correctly summarized in the statements from Hanoi; that is to say, it proposed that the United States and Hanoi, in the first instance, concentrate on bringing an end to the military aspects of the war; that they agree on some very general principles within which the South Vietnamese parties could then determine the political evolution of South Vietnam, which was exactly the position which we had always taken.

They dropped their demand for a coalition government which would absorb all existing authority. They dropped their demand for a veto over the personalities and the structure of the existing government.

They agreed for the first time to a formula which permitted a simultaneous discussion of Laos and Cambodia. In short, we had for the first time a framework where, rather than exchange general propositions and measure our progress by whether dependent clauses of particular sentences had been minutely altered, we could examine concretely and precisely where we stood and what each side was prepared to give.

I want to take this opportunity to point out that from that time on, the North Vietnamese negotiators behaved with good will and with great seriousness. And so did we. We have no complaint with the general description of events as it was given by Radio Hanoi.

However, there grew up the seeds of one particular misunderstanding. The North Vietnamese negotiators made their proposal conditional on the solution of the problem by October 31st, and they constantly insisted that we give some commitment that we would settle the war and complete the negotiations by October 31st.

I want to stress that these dates were not dates that we invented or proposed. I would like to stress that my instructions from the President were exactly those that were stated by him at a press conference; that is to say, that we should make a settlement that was right, independent of any arbitrary deadlines that were established by our own domestic processes.

In order to avoid an abstract debate on deadlines, which at that time still seemed highly theoretical, we did agree that we would make a major effort to conclude the negotiations by October 31st, and it is true that we did, from time to time, give schedules by which this might be accomplished. It was, however, always clear, at least to us, and we thought we made it clear in the records of the meetings, that obviously we could not sign an agreement in which details remained to be worked out simply because in good faith we had said we would make an effort to conclude it by a certain date.

It was always clear that we would have to discuss anything that was negotiated first in Washington and then in Saigon. There has been a great deal of discussion whether Saigon has a veto over our negotiations, and I would like to explain our position with respect to that.

MORE

- 3 -

[LC]

Clearly, the people of South Vietnam, who have suffered so much, and the Government of South Vietnam, with which we have been allied, who will be remaining in that country after we have departed, have every right to participate in the making of their own peace. They have every right to have their views heard and taken extremely seriously.

We, of course, preserve our own freedom of judgment and we will make our own decisions as to how long we believe a war should be continued. But one source of misunderstanding has been that Hanoi seemed to be of the view that we could simply impose any solution on Saigon and that their participation was not required. But I also want to make clear that the issues that remain to be settled have a number of sources and I will get into them in some detail.

Saigon, as is obvious from the public record, has expressed its views with its customary forcefulness both publicly and privately. We agreed with some of their views. We didn't agree with all of them and we made clear which we accepted and which we could not join.

In addition, while my colleagues and I were in Saigon, we visited other countries of Southeast Asia and we had extensive conversations with American officials, and it appeared there that there were certain concerns and certain ambiguities in the draft agreement that we believe required modification and improvement. But I want to stress that what remains to be done is the smallest part of what has already been accomplished, and as charges and counter-charges fill the air, we must remember that, having come this far, we cannot fail and we will not fail over what still remains to be accomplished.

Now, let me first go briefly over the main provisions of the agreement as we understand them, and then let me say what, in our view, still remains to be done. We believe, incidentally, what remains to be done can be settled in one more negotiating session with the North Vietnamese negotiators lasting, I would think, no more than three or four days, so we are not talking of a delay of a very long period of time.

Let me, however, before I go into the issues that still remain, cover those that are contained in the draft agreement, of which, on the whole, a very fair account has been given in the radio broadcast from Hanoi. I don't refer to the last two pages of rhetoric; I am referring to the description of the agreement.

The principal provisions were and are that a cease-fire would be observed in South Vietnam at a time to be mutually agreed upon-- it would be a cease-fire in place; that U.S. forces would be withdrawn within 60 days of the signing of the agreement; that there would be a total prohibition on the reinforcement of troops; that is to say, that infiltration into South Vietnam from whatever area, and from whatever country, would be prohibited. Existing military equipment within South Vietnam could be replaced on a one-to-one basis by weapons of the same characteristics and of similar characteristics and properties, under international supervision.

MORE

- 4 -

The agreement provides that all captured military personnel and foreign civilians be repatriated within the same time period as the withdrawal; that is to say, there will be a return of all American prisoners, military or civilian, within 60 days after the agreement comes into force.

North Vietnam has made itself responsible for an accounting of our prisoners and missing in action throughout Indochina and for the repatriation of American prisoners throughout Indochina.

There is a separate provision that South Vietnamese civilians detained in South Vietnam, that their future should be determined through negotiations among the South Vietnamese parties, so that the return of our prisoners is not conditional on the disposition of Vietnamese prisoners in Vietnamese jails on both sides of the conflict. With respect to the political provisions, there is an affirmation of general principles guaranteeing the right of self-determination of the South Vietnamese people and that the South Vietnamese people should decide their political future through free and democratic elections under international supervision.

As was pointed out by Radio Hanoi, the existing authorities with respect to both internal and external policies would remain in office; the two parties in Vietnam would negotiate about the timing of elections, the nature of the elections, and the offices for which these elections were to be held.

There would be created an institution called the National Council of Reconciliation and Concord whose general task would be to help promote the maintenance of the cease-fire and to supervise the elections on which the parties might agree.

That council would be formed by appointment, and it would operate on the basis of unanimity. We view it as an institutionalization of the election commission that we proposed on January 25th in our plan.

There are provisions that the disposition of Vietnamese armed forces in the South should also be settled through negotiations among the South Vietnamese parties.

There are provisions that the unification of Vietnam also be achieved by negotiations among the parties without military pressure and without foreign interference, without coercion and without annexation.

There is a very long and complex section on international supervision which will no doubt occupy graduate students for many years to come and which, as far as I can tell, only my colleague Ambassador Sullivan understands completely.

But briefly, it provides for joint commissions of the participants, either two-party or four-party, for those parts of the agreement that are applicable either to two-parties or to four-parties; it provides for an international supervisory commission to which disagreements of the commissions composed of the parties would be referred, but which also has a right to make independent investigations, and an international conference to meet within 30 days of the signing of the agreement to develop the guarantees and to establish the relationship of the various parties to each other in greater detail.

MORE

- 5 -

[L]

There is finally a section on Cambodia and Laos in which parties to the agreement agree to respect and recognize the independence and sovereignty of Cambodia and Laos, in which they agree to refrain from using the territory of Cambodia and the territory of Laos to encroach on the sovereignty and security of other countries.

There is an agreement that foreign countries will withdraw their forces from Laos and Cambodia and there is a general section about the future relationship between the United States and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in which both sides express their conviction that this agreement will usher in a new period of reconciliation between the two countries, and in which the United States expresses its view that it will in the post-war period contribute to the reconstruction of Indo-China and that both countries will develop their relationships on a basis of mutual respect and non-interference in each other's affairs, and that they will move from hostility to normalcy.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, in the light of where we are, it is obvious that most of the most difficult problems have been dealt with. If you consider what many of you might have thought possible some months ago compared to where we are, we have to say that both sides have approached this problem with a long-term point of view, with the attitude that we want to have not an armistice, but peace, and it is this attitude which will govern our actions despite occasional ups and downs which are inevitable in a problem of this complexity.

Now, what is it, then, that prevents the completion of the agreement? Why is it that we have asked for one more meeting with the North Vietnamese to work out a final text? The principal reason is that in a negotiation that was stalemate for five years, and which did not really make a breakthrough until October 8th, many of the general principles were clearly understood before the breakthrough, but as one elaborated the text, many of the nuances on which the implementation will ultimately depend became more and more apparent.

It was obvious, it was natural, that when we were talking about the abstract desirability of a cease-fire that neither side was perhaps as precise as it had to become later about the timing and staging of a cease-fire in a country in which there are no clear front lines. And also the acceptance on our part of the North Vietnamese insistence on an accelerated schedule meant that the text could never be conformed, that English and Vietnamese texts tended to lag behind each other.

And that ambiguities in formulation arose that require one more meeting to straighten out. Let me give you a few examples, and I think you will understand that we are talking here of a different problem than what occupied us in the many sessions I have had with you ladies and gentlemen about the problem of peace in Vietnam, sessions which concerned abstract theories of which approach might succeed.

We are talking here about six or seven very concrete issues that with anything like the goodwill that has already been shown, can easily be settled. For example, it has become apparent to us that there will be a great temptation for a cease-fire to

MORE

be paralleled by a last effort to seize as much territory
as possible, and perhaps to extend operations for long enough
to establish political control over a given area.

We would like to avoid the dangers of the loss of
life, perhaps in some areas even of the massacre that may be
inherent in this, and we, therefore, want to discuss methods by
which the international supervisory body can be put in place at
the same time that the cease-fire is promulgated.

The Secretary of State has already had preliminary
conversations with some of the countries that are being asked
to join this body in order to speed up this process.

Secondly, because of the different political circum-
stances in each of the Indochinese countries, the relationship
of military operations there to the end of the war in Vietnam, or
the cease-fire there in relation to the end of the war in Viet-
nam, is somewhat complex, and we would like to discuss more
concretely how to compress this time as much as possible.

There were certain ambiguities that were raised by
the interview that the North Vietnamese Prime Minister, Pham
Van Dong, gave to one of the weekly journals, in which he seemed
to be, with respect to one or two points, under a misapprehension
as to what the agreement contained and, at any rate, we would
like to have that clarified.

There are linguistic problems. For example, we call
the National Council of Reconciliation an administrative struc-
ture in order to make clear that we do not see it as anything
comparable to a coalition government. We want to make sure that
the Vietnamese text conveys the same meaning.

I must add that the words "administrative structure"
were given to us in English by the Vietnamese, so this is not
a maneuver on our part.

There are some technical problems as to what clauses
of the Geneva Accords to refer to in certain sections of the
document, and there is a problem which was never settled in
which the North Vietnamese, as they have pointed out in their
broadcast, have proposed that the agreement be signed by the
United States and North Vietnam; we on behalf of Saigon, they
on behalf of their allies in South Vietnam.

We have always held the view that we would leave it up
to our allies whether they wanted a two-power document or
whether they wanted to sign themselves a document that estab-
lishes peace in their country. Now they prefer to participate
in the signing of the peace, and it seems to us not un unreason-
able proposal that a country on whose territory a war has been
fought and whose population has been uprooted and has suffered
so greatly, that it should have the right to sign its own peace
treaty.

MORE

[c]

This again strikes us as a not insuperable
difficulty, but its acceptance will require the redrafting
of certain sections of the document, and that, again, is
a job that will require several hours of work.

We have asked the North Vietnamese to meet with us
on any date of their choice. We have, as has been reported,
restricted our bombing, in effect, to the battle area in
order to show our good will, and to indicate that we are
working within the framework of the existing agreement.

We remain convinced that the issues that I have
mentioned are soluble in a very brief period of time. We
have undertaken, and I repeat it here publicly, to settle
them at one more meeting, and to remain at that meeting
for as long as is necessary to complete the agreement.

So this is the situation in which we find ourselves.
With respect to Hanoi, we understand its disappointment
that a schedule toward the realization of which it had made
serious efforts could not be met for reasons beyond the
control of any party, but they know, or they should know,
and they certainly must know now, that peace is within reach
in a matter of weeks, or less, depending on when the meeting
takes place, and that once peace is achieved, we will move
from hostility to normalcy, and from normalcy to cooperation
with the same seriousness with which we have conducted our
previous less fortunate relationships with them.

As far as Saigon is concerned, it is, of course,
entitled to participate in the settlement of a war fought on
its territory. Its people have suffered much, and they will
remain there after we leave. Their views deserve great
respect. In order to accelerate negotiations, we have pre-
sented them with conclusions which obviously could not be
fully settled in a matter of four days that I spent in Saigon.
But we are confident that our consultations with Saigon will
produce agreement within the same time frame that I have indi-
cated is required to complete the agreement with Hanoi, and
that the negotiations can continue on the schedule that I
have outlined.

With respect to the American people, we have talked
to you ladies and gentlemen here very often about the nego-
tiations with respect to the peace, and we have been very
conscious of the division and the anguish that the war has
caused in this country. One reason why the President has
been so concerned with ending the war by negotiation, and
ending it in a manner that is consistent with our principles,
is because of the hope that the act of making peace could
restore the unity that had sometimes been lost at certain
periods during the war, and so that the agreement could be
an act of healing rather than a source of new division.
This remains our policy.

We will not be stampeded into an agreement until
its provisions are right. We will not be deflected from an
agreement when its provisions are right. And with this
attitude, and with some cooperation from the other side, we
believe that we can restore both peace and unity to America
very soon.

Thank you. I will be glad to answer your questions.

MORE

- 8 -

Q Do you feel that this program could not have been achieved four years ago?

DR. KISSINGER: There was no possibility of achieving this agreement four years ago because the other side consistently refused to discuss the separation of the political and military issues, because it always insisted that it had to settle the political issues with us, and that we had to pre-determine the future of South Vietnam in a negotiation with North Vietnam.

As the statement from Hanoi said on October 8th, Hanoi, for the first time, made what it called a very significant proposal in which it accepted the principles that the military issues should be settled first, and that the political issues should be left essentially to a negotiation among the South Vietnamese parties, with just the most general principles to be settled in the private negotiations.

As they say, "With a view to making the negotiations progress" -- this is reading from the Hanoi statement -- "at the private meeting on October 8th, the DRV side took a new, extremely important initiative. It put forward a draft agreement and proposed that the government" and so on, "immediately agree upon and sign this agreement to rapidly restore peace in Vietnam."

In that draft agreement, the DRV side proposed the cessation of the war throughout Vietnam, a cease-fire in South Vietnam, and a total withdrawal of U.S. forces, and then it said, "The two South Vietnamese parties shall settle together the internal matters of South Vietnam within three months after the cease-fire comes into effect."

This is not an exact description of what the agreement says. The agreement does not say it must be done within three months. The agreement says that the two parties will do their utmost to get it done within three months. The exact text to which I referred is as follows:

"Therefore, as the U.S. side has many times proposed, the Vietnam problem would be solved in two steps. The first step is to end the war in Vietnam, to have a cease-fire in South Vietnam, to end military involvement in South Vietnam. In the second step, the South Vietnamese sides will jointly solve South Vietnamese internal problems."

This has been our position since the beginning of these negotiations. It was never accepted four years ago, three years ago, or two months ago. The first time it was accepted was on October 8th. As soon as it was accepted, we completed within four days a rough draft of an agreement from which we have since been operating.

Q What is the recourse if the negotiations for elections break down? That has been a point at which the North Vietnamese have balked in the past.

DR. KISSINGER: The agreement provides that the cease-fire is without time limit.

MORE

XII-28

[c]

Q Does President Thieu go along with this whole
deal?

DR. KISSINGER: As I have pointed out, the South
Vietnamese agree with many parts of it and disagree with
some aspects of it. We agree with some of their disagreements
and not with all.

Q Have the South Vietnamese been informed of the
negotiations?

DR. KISSINGER: The South Vietnamese were informed of
the negotiations as they went along. However, the negotiations
really were composed of two phases. There were the negotiations
between July 19th and October 8th. In that negotiation,
the other side constantly proposed various formulas for
the institution of a coalition government which would replace
the existing government in Saigon and which would assume
governmental power, and Saigon was informed.

I took a trip to Saigon in the middle of August to
have a long discussion with the South Vietnamese Government.
My deputy, General Haig, took another trip to present to them
the various formulations that had been developed.

On October 8th, for the first time, Hanoi presented
the different approach which they have correctly described in
their statement. They then insisted that we, on the basis of
this approach, begin to draft the outline of an agreement in
order to meet their deadline for October 31st.

Now, if we had wanted to protract negotiations, we
could easily have said that we have to return to Washington
first, or return to Saigon for further consultation. We believed
that this was such an important step on the part of
the North Vietnamese that took into account so many of the
proposals that we had made, and such a significant movement in
the direction of the position consistently held by this
Administration, that we had an obligation, despite the risks
that were involved, of working with them to complete at least
an outline of an agreement, and we spent four days, sometimes
working 16 hours a day, in order to complete this draft agreement,
or at least the outline of this draft agreement.

I mention this only because, if we had wanted to
delay, we had much better opportunities than to raise a few
objections of the kind that I have described, at the very end.
But we did insist and we constantly emphasized that we could
not conclude this agreement without a full discussion with our
allies in Vietnam.

I want to make clear another thing: that many of the
concerns that I have expressed here, while they are also
shared by Saigon, are ours as well, and the particular issues
that I raise would require a solution if the agreement is to
bring a real peace, and if it is not to lead immediately to
endless disputes as to what its provisions mean.

Q Why are you waiting for Hanoi to propose the
date of the next meeting? Why don't you suggest that you
start tomorrow?

MORE

- 10 -

[L]

DR. KISSINGER: Because we are not eager to score debating points. Obviously, the North Vietnamese negotiators have to get wherever we are going to meet from where they are. We have told them that any day they are ready to meet, we will be there. We have sugessted Paris, but we have also told them that we would meet in other locations that might be more convenient for them.

Q Would you go to Hanoi, Dr. Kissinger?

DR. KISSINGER: I think we should complete the agreement elsewhere.

Q Dr. Kissinger, you have, in effect, encouraged the American people that you are on the brink of peace. By coincidence -- this happens to come by coincidence, you say at any rate -- this comes at a time when the American people are about to vote for President. What assurance can you give the American people that this will not somehow fall down; that is, that it will not come off after the election?

DR. KISSINGER: We can only give the assurance of our record. We have conducted these negotiations for four years and we have brought them to this point with considerable difficulty and with considerable anguish. We cannot control if people believe or if people choose to assert that this is simply some trick.

We have negotiated seriously and in good faith. We stand by what we have agreed to, and we give the assurance that we will stick by what we have negotiated and what we have achieved so laboriously.

As for the point that this is by a so-called coincidence, I can only repeat that the deadline was established by Hanoi and not by us, and that we were prepared to keep this whole agreement secret until it was consummated, and we would not have revealed it if it had not been consummated before the election.

Q Dr. Kissinger, what are the main differences between Saigon and Washington now, and what will happen if the agreement is not reached?

DR. KISSINGER: We are confident that agreement will be reached. No useful purpose would be served by going into the details of consultations that are still in process, but we are confident that we will reach agreement within the time frame that I have described to you.

Q Is the U.S. prepared to sign a separate agreement with North Vietnam if President Thieu refuses to sign the agreement?

DR. KISSINGER: I see no point in addressing a hypothetical question which, as I have said, we are confident will not arise, and as I have indicated, the particular objectives which we seek for ourselves in the remainder of the negotiations are all views which we strongly hold as the United States Government.

Q Dr. Kissinger, you haven't said whether President Thieu accepts a cease-fire.

MORE

XIII-31

[Lc]

- 12 -

Q Do you believe the North Vietnamese will leave on the negotiating table the proposals they have accepted thus far, if you don't make the October 31 deadline?

DR. KISSINGER: I cannot believe that when this major progress has been made, that an arbitrary deadline should be the obstacle to peace, and we believe that the negotiations will continue.

Q On the same point, with respect to the 8th of November deadline, what is to assure them that our side will not harden our negotiating stance once the pressure of the election is off?

DR. KISSINGER: Our negotiation has not been framed by the election. We have not revealed any of our positions throughout the election, and had not Hanoi revealed the text or the substance of the agreement, we would have had no intention of disclosing it until or unless an agreement had been reached.

We have given a commitment that a text that will be agreed to at the next session will be the final text and that no new changes will be proposed. We will maintain this commitment. We are not engaged in Vietnam for the purpose of conducting a war.

I would like to suggest to you ladies and gentlemen that while it is possible to disagree with provisions of an agreement, the implication that this is all a gigantic maneuver which we will revoke as soon as this period is over is unworthy of what we have gone through.

Q Dr. Kissinger, can you say whether President Thieu himself would insist on signing an agreement or whether somebody else might, for his government?

DR. KISSINGER: The level at which the agreement will be signed has not been finally determined, but it is almost certainly not at the Presidential level.

Q Dr. Kissinger, does the resupplying and re-equipment of the Communist forces apply only to those in South Vietnam and if so, are the North Vietnamese at liberty to take as much from the Soviet Union as they can get?

DR. KISSINGER: The formal provisions apply only to South Vietnam, but there is no question, and there can be no question, that the general conditions in Indochina will govern the actions of many of the countries, but I don't want to go into greater detail.

Q Does your formal explanation there cover U.S. support, the status of continuing U.S. support?

DR. KISSINGER: There is no limitation of any kind on economic aid. Military aid is governed by the replacement provisions that I have described. There is no limitation of any kind on economic advisors, and the military presence is governed by the withdrawal provisions.

Q Is bombing covered within the concept of a withdrawal of U.S. forces?

MORE

- 13 -

[Lc]

DR. KISSINGER: It covers an end to all military activities over the territory of North Vietnam from whatever direction.

Q What effect does it have on Thailand and the Seventh Fleet?

DR. KISSINGER: There are no limitations on American forces in Thailand nor on the Fleet.

Q Dr. Kissinger, do you think that the mining of the harbor and the bombing of North Vietnam contributed to the acceleration by the North Vietnamese of negotiations?

DR. KISSINGER: I don't want to speculate on
North Vietnamese motivation.

Q Would you tell us, please, what concessions
did the United States make to get this agreement, in your
judgment?

DR. KISSINGER: The United States made the concessions that are described in the agreement. There are no secret side agreements of any kind.

Q Did you discuss with Le Duc Tho at any time
the deadline of October 31st to sign the agreement, and
if he raised this question, what did you reply?

DR. KISSINGER: We believe that it is quite possible
that an honest misunderstanding arose. We always said that
we would make a major effort to meet the deadline and we
developed various hypothetical ways by which this deadline
could be met. We also said, and that is equally in the
record, that all of this depended on a satisfactory completion
of various parts of the agreement. But they may have
misunderstood, honestly, the conditional or hypothetical
nature of some of the schedules.

But the most significant aspect cannot be whether
one signs on one date or another. The significant aspect
is that when one is so close to an agreement, whether one
perfects it and then signs it regardless of the deadline.
There is no magic about any one date.

MORE

-14-

[L]

Q Why did Hanoi want that deadline?

DR. KISSINGER: You will have to ask Hanoi.

Q Is it still possible to achieve that deadline of
October 31? What countries would participate in the ceasefire
and in the conference?

DR. KISSINGER: We are committed to achieving an agree-
ment in another session of several days duration, and it is up
to the other side to determine when they want to meet.

As to the second question, until all countries are
approached, I don't think it would be proper for me --

Q Is the United States one of them?

DR. KISSINGER: The United States is a party. It
cannot be part of the supervisory mechanism, but the United
States is a party to the four-power Joint Military Commission.
That is one of the bodies that supervises those provisions
that apply to the four parties. It is not part of the inter-
national body, but it is part of the international conference.

Q How broad would the conference be, sir?

DR. KISSINGER: Again, it would be inappropriate to
list the countries until they have been approached.

Q Would you amplify somewhat on the Cambodian-Laos
agreements. Both sides must withdraw forces and cease major sup-
plying, is that what you implied before?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, I have given the general outline
of the agreement, but it is envisaged that foreign forces are
withdrawn from these countries.

Q When was Hanoi advised one more meeting would be
necessary?

DR. KISSINGER: I believe on Sunday morning our time
here, and we also informed them that we would stop military
activities north of the 20th Parallel.

END

(AT 12:35 PM EDT)

[lc]

Now Available

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATION MANUAL

[1972-73 Edition]

The 710-page publication—official organization handbook of the Federal Government—describes the creation and legislative authority, organization, and functions of the agencies in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. It contains the U.S. Constitution and its amendments; 46 charts showing the organization of Congress, the executive departments, and the larger independent agencies; and lists the names and titles of more than 5,400 key Government officials, including the Members of Congress.

Included with most agency statements are "Sources of Information" sections which give helpful information on:

* Employment

* Contracting with the Federal Government

* Environmental programs

* Small business opportunities

* Federal publications

* Speakers and films available to civic and educational groups

The Manual is an indispensable reference tool for teachers, students, librarians, researchers, businessmen, and lawyers who need current information about the U.S. Government.

Price: $3.00

Compiled by Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration

Order from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF

*Presidential Documents*

Published every Monday by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C. 20408, the *Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents* contains statements, messages and other Presidential materials released by the White House during the preceding week.

The *Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents* is published pursuant to the authority contained in the Federal Register Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch. 15), under regulations prescribed by the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register, approved by the President (30 F.R. 9573; 1 CFR Part 32).

Distribution is made only by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The *Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents* will be furnished by mail to subscribers for $9.00 per year, payable to the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The charge for a single copy is 25 cents.

There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the *Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents*.

[LC]

Weekly Compilation of
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

Week Ending Saturday, November 4, 1972

Crime and Drug Abuse

*Statement by the President in Connection With His Visit to Cleveland, Ohio. October 28, 1972*

From the day we took office, this Administration has made the battle against crime and drug abuse one of our highest domestic priorities.

During the two preceding Administrations, serious crime in America had increased by 122 percent. Drug addiction had mushroomed into a national scandal during those permissive years, with the number of heroin addicts in this country more than doubling from 1965 to 1969.

Now, through the outstanding efforts of our local police forces and with massive Federal support, we have succeeded in stopping the spiraling growth in criminal activity. The FBI crime index showed an increase of only 1 percent for the first half of this year—the closest the Nation has come to an actual decrease since the index began 12 years ago. In nearly half of our Nation's largest cities—including Cleveland, Columbus, Youngstown, Akron, and Parma, Ohio—crime has already begun to decrease.

As a result of our total war on drug abuse, the rate of growth in new heroin addiction has declined dramatically since 1969. By next June, we will have created the capacity to treat up to 250,000 heroin addicts annually—a thirtyfold increase over the amount of federally funded drug treatment which existed when I took office.

A key to our successes against the drug menace has been the all-out attack on drug pushers. The pusher's crime is one of the most reprehensible known to man—the enslavement of other human beings to a life of degradation, dependence, and suffering. The punishment for this crime must be strict, and it must be certain.

We can be encouraged that Federal narcotics law enforcement officials are arresting pushers at twice the rate of the previous Administration, that illicit drug seizures have quadrupled in the past 4 years and that more nar-

cotics traffickers are being brought to justice than ever before.

Here in Ohio, the Federal Government has already put almost $6 million of treatment funds into communities across the State, with further grants nearing completion. The U.S. Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, which I created last January, is currently working with State and local enforcement officials in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati to root out the heroin traffickers and bring them to justice.

Similar efforts are being pressed in other cities throughout the country, but much still remains to be done. To keep the pressure on, I intend to take the following steps:

- I will urge the Congress to appropriate whatever funds are needed for Federal drug law enforcement and to build the clinics needed to treat those addicts who seek help.

- I will expand our present massive funding for local law enforcement assistance, and will again ask the Congress to enact my proposal for Law Enforcement Special Revenue Sharing.

- I will appoint judges who will help to strengthen the peace forces as against the criminal forces in our country, and who will oppose without equivocation the permissive trend toward light or suspended sentences for convicted drug pushers.

- I will ask the Congress to amend the Federal drug statutes so as to require tough, mandatory sentences for heroin traffickers.

- I will not hesitate to suspend all military and economic assistance to any country which condones or protects the international drug traffic.

- I will continue to carry out my 10-year reform program for the Federal prison system.

My goal for the next 4 years is for every American city to begin realizing the kind of victories in the war on crime which we have already achieved in the Nation's Capital—where the crime rate has been cut in half since my Administration took office, and where heroin overdose deaths have almost disappeared.

This kind of progress can and must be made all across America. By winning the war on crime and drugs, we can restore the social climate of order and justice which will assure our society of the freedom it must have to build and grow.

1596

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, NOVEMBER 6, 1972

1597

# The Nation's Economy

A dynamic economic expansion is surging all across America. Today, more people are at work earning more real spendable income than ever before in our history. This record of economic success is particularly evident here in Ohio.

Across the entire State, more people are working than in 1971. And the rate of unemployment in Ohio—4.1 percent in the latest available measurement—is well below the 1971 Ohio rate.

In every major city in Ohio except one, in fact, the current unemployment is less than the national average and substantially below the Ohio rate of 1971. In Cleveland, the largest city, the rate was 4.0 percent according to the latest statistics.

Cleveland also is doing remarkably well at holding back the cost of living. In the latest available reports, prices were up only 2.4 percent over a year ago. That amounted to a reduction of more than half in the former 6.1 percent rate of price increase that was hitting the people of Cleveland three years ago.

Nationally, the evidence proves that our current economic policies are working to enable our people to produce a better material life for themselves and their families:

- In the past year, we have added $105 billion to our gross national product. That is a healthy 7 percent expansion rate.

- There are now 82 million Americans at work, an all-time record, and in the past year jobs increased by a near-record 2½ million.

- Real spendable earnings for the average production worker are rising at a rate of over 4 percent a year—the equivalent of two extra weekly paychecks.

- Continued strong economic activity in the future is assured by all advance indicators of job-building action. In August, for example, new orders for nondefense capital goods were 22 percent above the previous August. New plant and equipment expenditures are expected to rise about 10 percent this year, as compared with 2 percent in 1971. And all the indexes of business and consumer confidence are high.

All this heartening economic growth should be sending us this clear policy message: continue on course. This is not a time to experiment with chancy economic theories or to add vast expenditures to the Federal budget and thereby force a tax increase. Either of these paths would upset the progress we are making, and risk reversing our economic resurgence.

In Ohio, as in the Nation, we intend to keep pressing forward toward achieving what America has not had since President Eisenhower was in office—full employment without war and without significant inflation.

# North Royalton, Ohio

The President's Informal Remarks. October 28, 1972

Could I have your attention for just a moment please.

I wish that time would permit our stopping a little longer in each one of these wonderful towns that we have been traveling through today, but we have 4 hours of motorcading and each town is waiting.

I wanted to stop here for two reasons: one, to express my appreciation to you, to the Mayor, to this marvelous band and to all of the people that have come out and welcomed us so graciously.

Another reason—and I say this from having talked to my good friend and great supporter, Bill Minshall, your Congressman, before, as we drove through Parma, Ohio—I saw that the flags were at half-mast. When I saw those flags at half-mast I asked one of our Secret Service men, a man who has given 30 years of his life to Government service and has risked his life many times, why the flags were at half-mast.

He told me that what had happened is that just 2 days ago a policeman, in the line of duty, trying to apprehend a criminal—who proved to be a criminal, certainly, by his actions in killing the policeman—was murdered. As a result, the town, of course, was paying its respects to that man of the law.

I just want to say this as I stand here in the presence of the United States Secret Service, people from the Sheriff's Department, and people in the Police Department: I just talked to a couple of the men in your Police Department, the Sheriff's Department. I said, "How do you like your job?" They said, "We like it fine."

Let me tell you, you can't pay these men what it is really worth. You can't pay a man enough who risks his life to help you keep your life. One thing you can do is this: Respect them, honor them. I have seen on occasion over these years sometimes some scroungy-looking people that are spitting on policemen and calling them pigs and the rest. It makes my blood boil.

When I think of that fine young man that was killed in Parma, Ohio, I say I am proud that in our Administration we have stood up for the men of law and order and we are going to for the next 4 years.

NOTE: The President spoke at 1:30 p.m.

1598

# Mantua Corners, Ohio

## *The President's Informal Remarks at the Residence of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Lorence. October 28, 1972*

**THE PRESIDENT.** How are you? Your son lost in Vietnam? What year was he lost?

**MRS. LORENCE.** 1969.

**THE PRESIDENT.** Was he with the Army?

**MRS. LORENCE.** Yes. The Infantry.

**THE PRESIDENT.** The Infantry. Where did he serve?

**MRS. LORENCE.** The 25th. He was near Truang Banh.

**THE PRESIDENT.** Oh, I know Truang Banh. I have been there. I have been to that place, yes. I have been there quite often. I went up to see where the Army was. I have seen the Marines at Danang and all the rest and they are wonderful men, all of them.

You know, we owe a great debt to your son and to all of them like him.

You are his father? Do you have other children? Did you serve, too? Where are your children? Isn't it wonderful that you have these other children and your grandchildren. You can be mighty proud of that fellow. He makes it possible for all others to grow up in a world that is going to be a little safer and perhaps more free from this kind of aggression. That is what it is all about. We wish we could bring him back. We are going to do everything we can to see that it doesn't happen to these boys, and no other boys. Right? That is what we are going to do.

Don't worry about that amnesty. Never. After all—

**MRS. LORENCE.** I don't want to feel like he went for nothing.

**THE PRESIDENT.** That's right. Some boys, you know, a lot of them hadn't made a choice, nobody really wants to go. They give up their lives, but they do it to serve their country, and the few hundred that deserted this country, the draft dodgers, are never going to get amnesty when boys like yours died, never. They are going to have to pay a penalty for what they did. That's the way I feel.

So we thank you for being such wonderful Americans. We thank your son for what he did for this country.

*NOTE:* The President spoke at 4 p.m. During his motorcade through Mantua Corners, the President stopped to talk with Mr. and Mrs. Lorence after seeing a sign they had prepared indicating that they had lost a son in Vietnam.

# Warren, Ohio

## *The President's Informal Remarks. October 28, 1972*

### *Mr. Mayor and Congressman Stanton, Mrs. Stanton, Senator Taft:*

I want you to know that as we complete our motorcade of the State of Ohio that it is a very great privilege for us to be here in Warren again.

I just told the Mayor that I remember being in Warren in 1952, 1956, 1960. In all of those years we won. We are here in '72 and we think Warren is our lucky city in Ohio.

Also, I just gave the Mayor a pen, one of the White House pens, and the revenue sharing bill that Bill Stanton, your Congressman worked so hard for in the House that we just signed will soon be here in Warren, and he is going to use it to hire back some police and firemen they had to lay off. So Warren is going to be a greater city because of revenue sharing.

Most important of all, we want you to know that as we go through this campaign that we are glad we are here at a time that we have made a very significant breakthrough in bringing peace in Vietnam and building peace in the world.

And so, to all of you, we wish you the best next week. And vote on Election Day. Thank you.

*NOTE:* The President spoke at 5:30 p.m.

# Federal Spending

## *Statement by the President in Connection With His Visit to Saginaw, Michigan. October 28, 1972*

The number one domestic issue of this election is the right of the working men and women of America to keep most of what they earn to spend as they choose, rather than seeing half of their earnings or more taxed away and given to someone else by bureaucrats in Washington.

A few politicians have called for huge new spending programs which would add as much as $150 billion to the Federal budget and would require the biggest tax increase in American history.

I have pledged to hold the line on taxes in 1973 and throughout my second term as President, assuming co-operation from the Congress.

I am committed to resisting with all the powers at my command any Federal spending which would confront us with the unacceptable choice between higher taxes which would take more of the worker's paycheck, and renewed inflation which would erode the buying power of that paycheck.

That is why I asked the Congress to place a $250 billion ceiling on Federal spending in the current fiscal year—which it refused to do. That is why I vetoed a number of budget-breaking money bills yesterday.

If we can succeed in keeping taxes from going any higher, and if we can continue gaining ground in the fight against rising prices—a fight which has cut the rate of inflation almost in half since 1969—then we can have the kind of vibrant, prosperous economic growth which generates real jobs, and provides higher living standards for all Americans.

1599

I believe that this country needs 4 more years of the solid pocketbook progress we have achieved this year, when real spendable earnings of the average wage-earner have made their first major gains since 1965—a buying power increase equivalent to two extra weekly paychecks in a year.

I believe that Michigan needs more of the economic policies which have brought the gross weekly earnings of manufacturing workers here in Saginaw up more than 11 percent this August over last August, and which have cut inflation in the Detroit area from a rate of 6.1 percent during 1970 to 3.9 percent so far this year.

But I am far from satisfied with our record on combatting inflation and on finding jobs for everyone who wants to work. We must do still better, and we shall.

In this effort, I hope to have the invaluable assistance of Senator Bob Griffin in the future as I have had it in the past.

From his key position on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Griffin has supported my new economic policy; he has supported my efforts to clamp a tax-proof lid on the Federal budget; and he has fought for passage of General Revenue Sharing, the major new law I signed in Philadelphia last week, which can help to provide local tax relief and give the people of every city and State greater control over their own lives.

I consider him an exceptionally able advocate for the workingman and for Michigan, and a staunch ally in our battle against higher prices and higher taxes.

## Saginaw, Michigan

### The President's Remarks at a Rally at the Tri-City Airport. October 28, 1972

Thank you. Could I have your attention for just a moment.

First I want to tell you that we are very sorry we were over an hour late, but there is a good reason. We were in Ohio. The crowds were so big that we couldn't get here until just now, and all that means is that we are going to have a big win in Ohio and a big win in Michigan.

Now I would like to say a word about all of those that are here today with us, to pay my respects, of course, to Governor Milliken, to pay my respects and express my appreciation to the Members of the Congress who are represented here, to Garry Brown, Al Cederberg, Mrs. Jim Harvey, who is here although her husband could not be here because he is a little under the weather, but boy, he is really there when it counts on the votes in the United States Congress.

But particularly I am here in Michigan to ask for your support not only of our ticket, but also for your support of these Members of the House of Representatives to whom I have referred, and particularly for a Member of

the United States Senate. I want to say a word about the United States Senate because I know it well. I was a Member of the Senate before the people in that band, that marvelous band over there, were born. I remember the years 1950, '51. The Senate is a great body. I preferred over it for 8 years as Vice President. In the past 4 years, of course, I have worked with the Senate and with the House of Representatives for what I have thought and what they have thought were the interests of the Nation.

Let me tell you a thing about the Senate. It is considered to be the most exclusive club in the world. Now Members of the House won't agree with that, but at least the Senate is smaller. There are 100 Members of the Senate, two from each State, as you know. I can tell you that of those 100 Members there are five Members of the Senate who are the big men. They are the ones that will determine the future of this country, and one of those five is Michigan's Bob Griffin. I need him in the Senate, Michigan needs him in the Senate, America needs him in the Senate.

Let me tell you just a word about what Bob Griffin has worked for, what these Members of the Congress have worked for, and what we are going to work for in these next 4 years. First, I have noted the interest that everybody here and the interest that I have seen all over Ohio today in what every American wants, and that means peace, just not now, but for a generation to come. As you know, we have made a very significant breakthrough in the negotiations. As you know, we now can look forward with confidence to winning the kind of peace in Vietnam that all Americans want, and that is the kind of a peace Bob Griffin has worked for and supported—peace with honor and not peace with surrender. But beyond that, Vietnam being over, we are proud of the fact that our trips to Peking and to Moscow have paved the way not just for ending this war, but for a generation of peace so that those young people that we see over here can have something that we have not had in this century in America, a full generation without war. We have a beginning, but we need to continue and we ask for your help to continue to work for a generation of peace over these next 4 years. I pledge you, that is what we are going to work for.

If we are going to have it, we need a strong America. Don't listen to the voices of those that would have America have the second strongest Army, the second strongest Navy, the second strongest Air Force in the world.

Let me tell you, that when it comes to football we, of course, can take a little pride in whether we are number one or number two, but let's make sure that the United States is never number two in the world so that the United States can continue to lead the world to peace.

Then here at home, could I say a word about Bob Griffin and his leadership in the Senate? Everybody in this great tri-city area, in this State of Michigan, that contributes so much to the economy of this country, is in-

[lc]

1600

terested in jobs. But you want peacetime jobs. Our goal is
full employment without war and without inflation, some-
thing we have not had in America since Dwight Eisen-
hower was President. We can have it again, but we need
your help. We need Bob Griffin's help in the United States
Senate and these men that I have mentioned for the Con-
gress of the United States.

But jobs, as good as they are—and I know they are very
good in this State—let me tell you they don't mean any-
thing if your income is eaten up by higher prices or higher
taxes.

I think that government in Washington has grown too
big. Bob Griffin agrees. I believe that the government in
Washington is taking too much money out of your pocket.
He agrees. He has been a strong man in voting against
more spending in Washington so that you can spend more
here in Michigan. We are for that and I hope that you
will send him back so he can continue to work for that
cause.

Finally, let me say a word on another subject that is
of great interest to everybody here in this State. I know
that it is not one of particular concern in this area, and
it is that of education, to which I addressed myself just a
few days ago on radio. The best education is the educa-
tion you get in the school that is closest to your home. The
Senate needs Bob Griffin standing against any kind of pro-
gram that would bus children away from their homes
across town. We need him in the United States Senate for
that kind of leadership. We also need him because we can
have peace abroad, we can have good jobs, and it isn't
going to mean anything if our cities are ridden over with
crime and drugs and all the other things which are part
of modern life.

Let me tell you, there is no man in this country today
who, with his legal background, gives us better leadership
as he does in the United States Senate, than Bob Griffin,
in developing that kind of support we need for strong
judges that will strengthen the peace forces as against the
criminal forces in this country. We need him in the Sen-
ate for that.

If he would step up here for one moment—let me just
close with one word. In speaking of him, I speak of all
of those who support these principles that I have spoken
of. These are not partisan principles. Democrats as well as
Republicans want peace in the world. Democrats as well
as Republicans want jobs and prosperity, without war and
without inflation. Democrats as well as Republicans want
good education, education close to home and not clear
across town. Democrats as well as Republicans want prog-
ress, progress for their children and their children's chil-
dren in the years to come.

One of the things that impresses anyone who runs for
any office, and particularly for President, to see the won-
derful young people that we have seen by the hundreds
of thousands today, and the thousands here today, let me
tell you what I feel at a moment like this. I know many
of you have been here for almost 4 hours. I know that

you didn't even know that we were going to have a meet-
ing here until yesterday. Thank you for coming. Thank
you for coming.

Let me tell you, I realize that for many who are here,
who are 18, 19, and 20, this is the first time you will have
had an opportunity to vote. I want your first vote to be
remembered as one of your best votes. I want the next 4
years and Bob Griffin wants the next 4 years to be the
best 4 years in this country's history.

Thank you.

NOTE: The President spoke at 6:30 p.m.

## Defense Policy

*The President's Address on Nationwide Radio.*

October 29, 1972

*Good afternoon.*

I want to talk to you this afternoon about national de-
fense. Defense policy is the most important single issue in
this election. It represents a choice which must be made
not on the basis of name-calling or appeals to emotion,
but on the basis of thoughtful analysis of the alternatives.
That is the purpose of my talk this afternoon.

When a President thinks of his responsibilities to the
American people, he must think first of all about the need
to keep this country strong, about the need to maintain a
national defense second to none in the world.

A President also has an obligation to spend no more
of the Nation's limited resources on defense than is ab-
solutely required, because he knows there are other urgent
human needs to be met.

Today, no nation on earth is more powerful than the
United States. Not only are our nuclear deterrent forces
fully sufficient for their role in keeping the peace, our con-
ventional forces also are modern, strong, prepared, and
credible to any adversary.

During the past 4 years, however, because of the prog-
ress we have made in bringing the Vietnam war to an
honorable conclusion and in reducing tensions among the
great powers, we have also been able to reduce substan-
tially the size of our military establishment.

We have reduced our total military manpower by near-
ly one-third from the 1968 level. We have closed large
numbers of unneeded military bases and installations.
Under the Nixon Doctrine, we have successfully per-
suaded our allies to take up a greater share of the free
world defense burden than they have in the past.

Before we took office, less than a third of every dollar
the Federal Government spent was devoted to human re-
sources, while close to half of every budget dollar was spent
for defense. Today those proportions are reversed, with
the military down to a third and human resources getting
nearly a half.

[L]

1601

Most important, all of this has been achieved without jeopardizing our security and without betraying our allies.

But now in this campaign our opponents have proposed massive new cuts in military spending—cuts which would drastically slash away not just the fat, but the very muscle of our defense.

These are the specific proposals they have made: America's strategic bomber force would be cut by 60 percent, our tactical air wings by 30 percent, development of the new B-1 bomber would be cancelled.

The number of Navy warships would be cut almost in half. Our aircraft carrier fleet would be cut from 16 to 6. They would cut the Marine Corps by almost one-third. The 7th Fleet in the Far East and the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean would be sharply reduced and weakened.

Missile modernization programs like the Minuteman III and the Poseidon would be halted.

The result would be to leave America with the second strongest Army, the second strongest Navy, the second strongest Air Force in the world.

Now some might ask, what is wrong with being second? Isn't it jingoistic and nationalistic for the United States always to have to be Number One?

The answer to that question is that the day the United States becomes the second strongest nation in the world, peace and freedom will be in deadly jeopardy everywhere in the world.

We do not seek power for its own sake. What we seek is the assurance that our survival and that of other free nations will never be threatened by some other nation whose intentions are less peaceful than ours, and whose military forces are more powerful than those of the United States.

History has taught us again and again that war is caused not by the strength of one nation alone, but by the weakness of one nation in relation to another.

Last spring in Moscow I signed an agreement for the limitation of offensive and defensive nuclear weapons on the part of the United States and the Soviet Union. We would never have reached that agreement if the United States had unilaterally given up the ABM as some had recommended, or if we had begun stripping away our offensive missile forces.

If we were to take such action now, we would destroy any chance for further arms limitations in the second round of strategic nuclear arms limitation talks which are to begin with the Soviet Union next month. If we unilaterally reduced the forces now supporting our NATO allies in Western Europe, as has also been proposed by our opponents, we would throw away the prospect of mutual and balanced reductions of Soviet forces in Eastern Europe.

Strength and resolution command respect. They are an incentive for negotiation leading to peace. But weakness and naive sentimentality breed contempt. They are an

open invitation to pressure tactics and aggression leading to war.

That is why I say let us never send the President of the United States to the conference table as the head of the second strongest nation in the world.

It may be argued that as long as we have our nuclear weapons we have nothing to worry about. Because the United States relied heavily on a deterrent policy of massive nuclear retaliation during the 1950's, this theory says, we can safely gut our conventional forces today and go back to the policy of massive nuclear retaliation in the 1970's.

The flaw in that argument is that during the Eisenhower years the United States held a 15 to 1 or even a 20 to 1 ratio of nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union. Massive retaliation was credible then, in the 1950's, and it was credible during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, when our nuclear advantage was about 8 to 1. No enemy would dare to test such overwhelming odds.

However, when I came into office in January 1969, I found that this massive nuclear superiority no longer existed. For 6 years the Soviet Union had moved forward with a massive buildup of their nuclear forces, while the United States was standing still. As a result, today the United States and the Soviet Union are equal in nuclear capability.

It has, therefore, become totally unrealistic to believe that we could any longer deter aggression against a small nation, particularly one whose survival did not directly affect our own survival, if our only option were a nuclear retaliation which would lead to nuclear suicide for the United States.

The mutual destruction would be too great, and both sides would know it. No potential aggressor would respect America's security commitments to our friends and allies under those conditions.

The Middle East is an example. In the fall of 1970, when Syrian tanks poured into Jordan, what might have become a grave world crisis was quietly defused by the movement of the United States 6th Fleet into the eastern Mediterranean. The possibility of a war which could have threatened the existence of Israel and dragged in the great powers was averted.

American naval superiority kept the peace in that situation, where nuclear threats would have been powerless to do so. That is why, for the sake of Israel and other small nations we are committed to defend, as well as for our own sake, we must never give up our superiority on the sea and in the air in the name of false economy.

The time has come to stand up and answer those of our own countrymen who complain that American power is an evil force in the world, those who say that our foreign policy is selfish and bad.

We can be proud of the fact that in four wars in this century the United States has fought only to defend free-

1602

dom, never to destroy it; only to keep the peace, never to
break it.

The men and women who have fought in those wars
deserve the highest respect this Nation can pay them, as
do those who serve in our peace forces today, and those
who will serve in years to come as we end the draft next
summer and move to a volunteer armed force. They are
the real heroes of our time.

Rather than talking about amnesty for a few hundred
who chose to desert America, let us honor the millions
who chose to serve America in Vietnam. As this long and
difficult war draws to an end, it is time to draw the line on
this issue once and for all. There will be no amnesty for
draft dodgers and deserters after the war.

Millions of Americans chose to serve their country in
Vietnam. Many gave their lives for their choice. The few
hundred who refused to serve, or who deserted their country, must pay a penalty for their choice.

A few days before I left for Peking last February, I had
as a guest at the White House the brilliant French thinker
and statesman Andre Malraux. Let me share with you a
comment which he made to me that night.

"The United States," he said, "is the only nation ever
to become the most powerful in the world without seeking to."

Think for a moment of how true this statement is and
what it means. This country did not push its way to the
position of world leadership which we have occupied for
a generation. That position came to us unsought, but we
have borne it nobly and well, guided not by ambition or
greed or ideology, but only by the high ideals of human
liberty and lasting peace.

Uniquely among the great powers of the world in our
own time or in any previous time, the United States is
trusted with power by all the peoples of the earth. No nation which refrains from aggression against its neighbors
has anything to fear from America, and all nations know
that is true.

For the United States to abdicate its leadership role
in the world, or to attempt to meet its responsibilities
through good intentions alone, without the backing of a
strong defense, would be one of the greatest tragedies of
history.

Let us never go down that road. That is the road which
led an unprepared America into two world wars earlier
in this century.

Let us remain instead on the high road of peace through
strength, the road mapped out by five successive Presidents
in our time, Democrats and Republicans alike—by
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower,
John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson.

As long as I am your President, I shall keep America
on that road. I shall keep this country strong militarily,
strong economically, and strong in the moral values and
the trust in God which is our ultimate defense.

Only in this way can we make certain that the 1970's
will not be the twilight of America's greatness, but the
dawn of a new age; not a time of tension and turmoil,
but the beginning of a full generation of peace for us and
for all mankind.

Thank you and good afternoon.

NOTE: The President spoke at 12:07 p.m. in the Library at the White House. The address was broadcast live on nationwide radio. Time for the broadcast was purchased by the Committee for the Re-election of the President.

Social Security Amendments of 1972

*Statement by the President on Signing H.R. 1 Into Law. October 30, 1972*

It gives me very great pleasure to sign H.R. 1, landmark legislation that will end many old inequities and will provide a new uniform system of well-earned benefits for older Americans, the blind, and the disabled. This bill contains many improvements and expansions of the social security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs which this Administration recommended and is proud to bring into reality today.

But this legislation aims at goals which are larger than
the sum of all of its various program improvements:

- It represents another step in my effort to end the gap that separates far too many older Americans from the mainstream of American life.

- It furthers my concept that, rather than being viewed as a problem, older Americans should be recognized and utilized as a priceless American resource whose energy, ideals, and commitment the Nation needs. But first they have to be protected against both the realities and the fears of income and health problems—and this bill will do much to advance such protections.

- It reaffirms and reinforces America's traditional efforts to assist those of our citizens who, through no fault of their own, are unable to help themselves. America has always cared for its aged poor, the blind, and the disabled—and this bill will move that concern to higher ground by providing better and more equitable benefits.

- Finally, it supports my conviction that the best way to help people in need is not with a vast array of bureaucratic services but by providing them money and insurance so that they can secure needed services themselves.

H.R. 1's cost has always been a part of my budget estimates for fiscal year 1973. Due to its late enactment, the bill will actually provide a $900 million surplus over the additional outlays in fiscal year 1973.

Therefore, I am able to sign this bill without violating
my promise to hold down Federal spending in order to
avoid a general tax increase.

1603

The social security taxes imposed by this bill, to pay for these benefits, also were included in my fiscal year 1973 budget estimates.

H.R. 1, as enacted, does not contain my proposals for reforming the welfare system for families with dependent children. This is a deep disappointment to all—including the taxpayers—who are the victims of the existing welfare mess.

In the next Congress, I will renew my efforts to achieve a work-oriented welfare program that will help all deserving people on a fair and equitable basis—but which will contain firm work requirements, and will not encourage idleness by making it more profitable to go on welfare than to work.

Despite this major omission, H.R. 1 does give life to many of my recommendations to improve the quality of life for older Americans, the blind, and the disabled.

*Social Security*—It provides increased benefits for 3.8 million widows and widowers; it liberalizes the retirement earnings test by increasing from $1,680 to $2,100 the amount a beneficiary can earn without having benefits reduced, a provision that will aid 1.6 million persons; it establishes a special minimum benefit of $170 per month for 150,000 persons who have worked for long years at low wages; and it improves benefits for men retiring at age 62 and for those who work beyond 65.

*Medicare/Medicaid*—It extends Medicare to cover 1.5 million Social Security disability beneficiaries; it limits the monthly premium under Part B of Medicare, an expense I had urged be eliminated; it permits optional Medicare coverage through health maintenance organizations; and it extends Medicare coverage for kidney transplants and renal dialysis—the cost of which is beyond most individuals—to workers under social security, and their dependents.

I am especially pleased that this legislation embodies my recommendation that the Federal Government bear the full cost of skilled nursing home inspectors to ensure that all such institutions meet the standards that a dignified and humane existence—and the law—require.

Many of our nursing homes are of good quality. But many others fall woefully short of standards and many patients are forced to live their later years in institutions which are unsanitary and unsafe, overcrowded and understaffed. This intensified inspection program will help clean up such neglect and degradation.

H.R. 1 also contains an important provision, sponsored by Senator Wallace Bennett of Utah, for the mandatory establishment of Professional Standards Review Organizations which will review the medical necessity, appropriateness, and quality of services covered under Medicare and Medicaid. This will assure that patients are getting exactly what they need—and nothing which they do not need—with the highest possible quality of care all along the line.

*The Needy Aged, Blind and Disabled*—H.R. 1 will establish, beginning January 1, 1974, a nationally uni-

form system of benefits for people in these groups. As delegates to the White House Conference on Aging pointed out, these people now are subject to great inequities and considerable red tape inherent in the present system of varying State programs with different benefits, eligibility standards, and rules. The cost of this measure for calendar year 1974 is estimated to be $1.5 billion over what is being spent under the current law.

The new national plan—one I have long urged upon the Congress—will provide a minimum monthly benefit of $130 for an individual and $195 for a couple. States currently paying higher benefits would be encouraged to continue to do so by Federal assumption of any new costs involved.

This entire program will be fully financed by the Federal Government and efficiently executed with a minimum of paperwork by the Social Security Administration.

This legislation once again provides dramatic and heart-warming evidence that America is the country that cares—and translates that humanitarian care into a better life for those who need, and deserve, the support of their fellow citizens. The American way of life is the high achievement of our era and the envy of the world, and responsive and responsible legislation such as this is one major reason why.

I am highly gratified to be able, at long last, to put my signature on H.R. 1—thus lifting these long-sought benefits out of debate and placing them into the laws of our generous and compassionate land.

NOTE: As enacted, the bill (H.R. 1) is Public Law 92-603, approved October 30, 1972.

## Approval of Legislation

*Statement by the President on His Decision To Sign Additional Bills Passed by the Congress.*

October 30, 1972

Last Saturday, I commented on several of the bills which passed the Congress during its closing days and which I decided to approve. Today I am announcing a number of additional decisions concerning bills which have come to me for signature.

A list of the additional legislation which I am signing will be released with this statement.

I am taking this opportunity to comment on some of the most significant bills which are included on that list.

*Helping Minority Enterprises and Other Small Businesses*

In messages to the Congress in late 1971 and early 1972, I requested that our program to help minority enterprise be strengthened by giving four new authorities to Minority Enterprise Small Business Investment Companies. S. 3337, the Small Business Investment Act Amendments of 1972, adopts all four of these recom-

1604

[L]

mendations—lowering requirements for Federal assist-
ance, providing increased equity by enabling the Small
Business Administration to purchase preferred stock in
such a company, lowering interest rates on SBA loans to
such companies, and allowing them to organize as non-
profit corporations so as to qualify for more favorable tax
treatment. It also strengthens regular Small Business In-
vestment Companies, permitting maximum utilization of
the SBIC guarantee authority which this Administration
had earlier sought, and which was enacted last year. As a
result of this bill, more Americans—especially disadvan-
taged Americans—will be able to gain a piece of the
economic action in our country, and we will be closer to
our goal of providing an equal opportunity for every citi-
zen to share fully in the great American adventure.

## Meeting Health Needs

The Emergency Health Personnel Act Amendments of
1972, S. 3858, will strengthen and extend the life of the
National Health Service Corps which has been working
for the last 2 years to meet the needs of areas with critical
health manpower shortages. In order to improve recruit-
ment for this program, the bill also authorizes a program
of scholarships for students in the health professions. This
legislation addresses a need which has concerned me for
a long time, and I am pleased to sign it into law.

Another important initiative in the health field is H.R.
15475, a bill which establishes a National Advisory Com-
mission on Multiple Sclerosis to help determine the most
effective means for finding the causes and cures for this
disease. It represents a promising step in our battle against
a terrible and elusive enemy, and I am happy to give it
my approval.

## Other Forward Steps

Among the many other bills receiving my approval are
S. 2318, which will update and expand compensation
benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers; S. 3843,
which helps restore and replace essential railway facilities
and equipment which were damaged during Hurricane
Agnes and other natural disasters this past June; H.R.
8273, which liberalizes the Immigration and Nationality
Act; and H.R. 15461, which implements the boundary
treaty which our Government signed with Mexico in
1970. Another significant forward step is the creation, by
H.R. 10751, of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development
Corporation, a measure which I discussed in a separate
statement last week.

One of the purposes of another of these bills, H.R.
4678, is to prohibit the importation into the United States
of precious pre-Columbian art treasures illegally removed
from their countries of origin—our close friends and
neighbors of Central America. It is with special pleasure
that I sign this legislation.

I am also very happy to sign H.R. 14911, which will
allow prisoners-of-war and those who are missing in action
to accumulate military leave time at the normal rate with-
out limitation, so that they or their survivors can be more

generously reimbursed when they are returned from
prisoner-of-war or missing status. This same bill also
carries out another Administration recommendation by
authorizing a second Deputy Secretary of Defense to be
appointed by the President.

NOTE: The list of bills referred to in the statement included the following: H.J. Res. 733, H.J. Res. 912, H.R. 1, H.R. 1467, H.R. 3786, H.R. 4678, H.R. 7093, H.R. 8273, H.R. 10556, H.R. 10638, H.R. 10751, H.R. 11563, H.R. 11773, H.R. 12807, H.R. 13158, H.R. 14542, H.R. 14628, H.R. 14911, H.R. 15461, H.R. 15475, H.R. 15735, H.R. 15763, H.R. 16074, H.R. 16804, H.R. 16883, H.R. 16925, H.R. 17034, H.R. 17038, S. 216, S. 655, S. 909, S. 1462, S. 1524, S. 1971, S. 2147, S. 2270, S. 2275, S. 2318, S. 2469, S. 2714, S. 2741, S. 2753, S. 2822, S. 3055, S. 3230, S. 3240, S. 3257, S. 3310, S. 3326, S. 3337, S. 3483, S. 3524, S. 3545, S. 3583, S. 3671, S. 3822, S. 3843, S. 3858, S.J. Res. 204, S.J. Res. 221.

For the public and private law numbers and the approval dates
of the bills, see page 1618 of this issue.

## Vetoes of Legislation

### The President's Memorandum of Disapproval of Two Bills Concerning Programs for the Elderly.
October 30, 1972

I have announced today the signing of H.R. 1—a bill which represents a tremendous forward step in improving the income position and health services for older Americans. Two other bills concerning the elderly have also come to me for signature—the Older Americans Comprehensive Service Amendments of 1972 (H.R. 15657) and the Research on Aging Act of 1972 (H.R. 14424). Although I support some of the goals of these two bills, careful review has persuaded me that neither bill provides the best means of achieving these goals. Both authorize unbudgeted and excessive expenditures and would also require duplications or fragmentations of effort which would actually impair our efforts to serve older Americans more effectively. I have decided therefore to withhold my approval from these two pieces of legislation.

### Older Americans Comprehensive Service Amendments of 1972 (H.R. 15657)

Last March, I submitted to the Congress a plan for strengthening and expanding service delivery programs under the Older Americans Act. This program would begin the development of more comprehensive and better coordinated systems for delivering services at the local level. In addition, I submitted a proposal to broaden the highly successful Foster Grandparents Program. The Administration will continue its vigorous pursuit of both these objectives.

However, the Congress added to the bill containing these provisions a range of narrow, categorical service programs which would seriously interfere with our effort to develop coordinated services for older persons. This is particularly the case with two categorical manpower pro-

1605

[lc]

grams which were added on the floor of the Senate and were considered without regard to manpower programs already serving older persons. Furthermore, this bill would authorize new funding of more than $2 billion between now and fiscal year 1975—far beyond what can be used effectively and responsibly.

I cannot responsibly approve H.R. 15657.

## *Research on Aging Act of 1972 (H.R. 14424)*

In my Special Message to the Congress on Older Americans last March, I also emphasized the need to develop a comprehensive, coordinated program of aging research—one which includes disciplines ranging from biomedical research to transportation systems analysis, from psychology and sociology to management science and economics. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has since appointed a new Technical Advisory Committee for Aging Research to develop a plan for bringing together all the resources available to the Federal Government in the aging research field.

H.R. 14424, however, would set up an entirely separate aging research institute that would duplicate these activities. This bill would create additional administrative costs without enhancing the conduct of biomedical research for the aging. In fact, it could even fragment existing research efforts. This bill also contains a new grant program for mental health facilities for the aging which duplicates the more general and flexible authorities contained in the Community Mental Health Centers Act.

In sum, I feel that both research and mental health programs for the aging should be carried out in the broader context of research on life-span processes and comprehensive mental health treatment programs now underway.

H.R. 14424 would not enhance and could inhibit Federal efforts to respond to the needs of the elderly, and I cannot give it my approval.

### RICHARD NIXON

The White House,

October 30, 1972.

## Commuter Train Wreck in Chicago

### *Statement by the President Following the Tragedy.*

October 30, 1972

I want to express my deepest sympathy and concern over the tragic accident in Chicago this morning which has cost so many lives and inflicted so much suffering. The heart of the Nation goes out to the victims of this tragedy and to the people of Chicago.

NOTE: Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler read the statement at his afternoon news conference on Monday, October 30, 1972. It was not issued in the form of a White House press release.

Mr. Ziegler announced that the President, shortly after the accident, dispatched Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe

to Chicago to survey the damage first-hand. In addition, Mr. Ziegler said that because of the tragedy, the President had canceled plans to visit Chicago on Tuesday, October 31. The visit was later rescheduled for Friday, November 3.

## Older Americans

### *The President's Address on Nationwide Radio From*

Camp David. October 30, 1972

*Good afternoon.*

A President signs many bills, but one that I signed today gave me special satisfaction because of the enormous impact it can have on the lives of millions of individual Americans.

I refer to the legislation known as H.R. 1—and especially to its provisions for helping older Americans. Many of these provisions grew out of recommendations which I have been urging the Congress to act on for several years.

Let's look at some of the things H.R. 1 will do:

First, nearly 4 million widows and widowers will get larger social security benefits—the full 100 percent of what was payable to the individual's late husband or wife. This will mean more than $1 billion in additional income for these deserving people in the next fiscal year.

Second, over a million and a half older Americans who are now working can earn more income without having their benefits reduced.

Until today, if you were receiving social security, every dollar you earned above $1,680 cost you 50 cents in benefits—and every dollar you earned above $2,880 cost you a full dollar. But under the new provision—which I have advocated for years—you can earn up to $2,100 without losing a cent of social security, and every dollar you earn above that $2,100—no matter how many—will cost you only 50 cents in benefits. This will encourage more older Americans to work—helping them and helping the country.

Third, millions of older Americans who live in poverty, along with the blind and the disabled, will be helped by a new Federal floor under their income—a monthly minimum of $130 for an individual and $195 for a couple. Free of the inequities and red tape which plague the present system, this program will channel an estimated $1 billion in the next fiscal year to those whose needs are greatest. For millions of older people, it can mean a big step out of poverty and toward a life of dignity and independence.

In addition, H.R. 1 will pay a special minimum benefit of $170 per month to 150,000 older persons who worked for long years at low wages. Men who retire at 62 will also be helped. Medicare coverage will be extended to cover 100 percent and not just 80 percent of home health services, and to cover more of the cost of nursing home care,

1606

to pay for kidney transplants, chiropractors, and other services formerly not covered at all, and to cover disabled Americans of all ages. The patient's fees for Part B of Medicare will be limited. And steps will be taken to increase the quality and the appropriateness of services which are paid for by Medicare and Medicaid.

Altogether, H.R. 1 will improve the income position of millions of older Americans. That, in my judgment, is the best way to help older people—by providing them with more money so they can do more things for themselves.

H.R. 1 is only the latest in a series of steps we have taken to improve the incomes of older people. In the last 4 years, for example, social security benefits have gone up 51 percent. That is the largest and most rapid increase in history. But the important thing is not just that benefits have been brought up to date. The important thing is that they now can be kept up to date. That is a result of the automatic increase provisions which I have been pushing for many years and which finally became law this summer.

Social security, in short, is now "inflation proof." Payments that keep pace with the cost of living are no longer something the elderly have to battle for in the Congress year after year. They have at last become a guaranteed right for older Americans.

There have been other forward steps as well—proposals to make private pension programs more comprehensive and more reliable, for example, and to let older people receive more tax-free income.

Inflation is a special menace to the income of older Americans. Since 1969, we have cut the rate of inflation almost in half. In the area of medical care prices, we have cut inflation by nearly two-thirds—an achievement which is particularly important to older people because they spend more than three times as much per capita on health care as do younger people.

And we are also moving to relieve the property tax burden which falls so heavily on older citizens. Two-thirds of older Americans own their own homes. Yet, even when their income has gone down because of retirement, their property taxes have kept going up—by more than 100 percent in the last 10 years. The result: The home which was once a symbol of financial independence too often becomes a cause of financial hardship.

There are over 6 million American homeowners who are more than 65 years old. More than 1 million of these retired Americans live in their own homes on an income of less than $2,000 a year. In the Northeast, to take one example, these elderly citizens are paying an average of 30 percent of their income in property taxes.

This is wrong. We must stop it. One of my highest priority proposals to the new Congress will be property tax relief for older Americans.

Another problem which is of critical concern for older Americans—and for this Administration—is the quality of our nursing homes. Many of them are doing a good job, but too many have been below recent and decent

standards. In 1971, I launched a new eight-point action plan to change this. Under that plan, we have already cut off Federal funding to hundreds of hopelessly inferior homes. H.R. 1 will permit the hiring and training of 2,000 inspectors to enforce strict regulations. And we have substantially expanded Federal efforts to make all nursing homes brighter and better places.

We also want to help more older Americans live decent, dignified lives in the familiar settings of their own homes. This is why we have increased budgeting under the Older Americans Act eight-fold in the last 4 years, expanding a wide range of services in fields such as health, education, homemaking, counseling, and nutrition.

While the Older Americans bill is being perfected in the months ahead, these programs will all move forward under a continuing resolution. We have also taken special steps to fight crime in areas where older people are living, to provide more housing and transportation for older people, to fight job discrimination based on age, and to expand opportunities for older people to find self-fulfillment in useful voluntary action. We have doubled the budget for the Foster Grandparent Program. We have tripled the budget for the Retired Senior Volunteer Program.

This summer I launched a new program called Project Find. Its purposes were expressed in its name—to "find" older people who are so isolated that they are not receiving the help which should be theirs.

The results have been remarkable. One and a half million names have already come into us. And now, with the help of the American Red Cross, we are mobilizing an army of 20,000 volunteers to make personal contact with each one of these elderly persons.

Already over 300,000 contacts have been made. In Des Moines, for example, a group of high school students has been giving many hours a week to visiting older people. One girl, Carol Clayton, discovered a 79-year-old man a few weeks ago who spoke only Spanish. He lived on very little income, and he had never heard about food stamps. And now, as a result of Project Find, Trinidad Medina has made contact with the Polk County Department of Social Services. Just as importantly, he has made a friend, Carol Clayton. He can't communicate with her in English, but with the help of his Spanish guitar, he has no trouble communicating friendship.

This, in the final analysis, is what our programs to help older people are all about: not lines on an organization chart, or numbers in a budget, but helping individual men and women live fuller, richer lives.

In less than 4 weeks, we will celebrate another Thanksgiving. Our family will think back to our first Thanksgiving in the White House 3 years ago. Our guests that day were over 200 older Americans. When I talked with them, I found that many were particularly excited about the moon walks that they had recently watched on television. And it occurred to me on that day that most of our guests could also remember the first airplane flight by

[LC]

1607

the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, over a half century ago.

Our older generation has lived through the greatest period of change in human history. They have brought our Nation through all that change with colors flying. We owe them more than we can ever repay.

But when we think of older Americans, we must not think only about what they have already given. We must also think about what they still can give. They are our seasoned veterans, and America can never be at its best if we keep them on the bench.

We hear a lot about generation gaps these days. We cannot afford a generation gap which shuts out the young in this country. But neither can we afford a generation gap that shuts out the old.

And so we must develop a new attitude toward aging in America, one that stops regarding older Americans as a burden and starts regarding them as a resource.

Senior power can be a tremendous source of energy for our country. Churchill was a great leader at 81. Holmes was a great jurist at 91. Clara Barton led the Red Cross at 83 and Connie Mack led the Athletics at 88. Michelangelo was painting at 89; Toscanini was conducting at 87. And for every celebrated name like these, there are millions of ordinary citizens in their seventies and eighties who are making extraordinary contributions to their communities.

Senator Green of Rhode Island used to contend: "Most people say that as you get old you have to give up things. I think you get old because you give up things."

I believe that millions of older Americans can make great contributions to our Nation's progress if only they have the chance. This really is the point of our Government programs and policies—to help older Americans play a full, continuing role in the great adventures of America.

Thank you and good afternoon.

NOTE: The President spoke at 4:45 p.m. at Camp David, Md. The address was broadcast live on nationwide radio. Time for the broadcast was purchased by the Committee for the Re-election of the President.

For a statement by the President on signing H.R. 1, the Social Security Amendments of 1972, into law, see page 1602 of this issue.

## Legacy of Parks Program

*Statement by the President Announcing the Transfer of 18 Parcels of Land Under the Program.*
October 31, 1972

Today I am pleased to announce that under our rapidly expanding Legacy of Parks program, the Federal Government will soon transfer 18 parcels of land to State and local governments for park and recreational use.

These transfers mark a significant milestone in the Legacy of Parks program, for when they are completed,

we will have created new parklands in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

These 18 properties total just over 8,000 acres and are located in 14 States and the District of Columbia. They will bring the grand totals for the Legacy of Parks program to 218 transfers to local governments covering over 34,000 acres of land.

The Legacy of Parks program was inaugurated 19 months ago by my Executive Order 11508. In that order, I established a Property Review Board and directed it to identify property which was underutilized and could be converted to higher and better use.

The success of this program has been extremely gratifying to me. It proves that with sound and thoughtful programs, we can make major improvements in our natural environment. I am particularly pleased that many of the new parks and recreational areas created by this program are located near urban areas, for this means that just as we are bringing government closer to the people, we are also bringing a better quality of life closer to our people.

NOTE: For an announcement concerning the transfer of lands under the program, see the following item.

## Legacy of Parks Program

*Announcement of Transfer of 18 Parcels of Land for Park and Recreational Use Under the Program.*
October 31, 1972

The President today announced the transfer of an additional 18 parcels of land to State and local governments for park and recreation use under the Legacy of Parks program. This program was inaugurated March 1, 1971, with the first cost-free transfer of $1.1 million worth of Federal property to the County of Nassau, New York.

The 18 properties, located in 14 States and the District of Columbia, total 8,806 acres and have an estimated market value of $4,448,500. Today's announcement brings to 218 the number of properties turned over to local governments in 50 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia under the program since its inception. These 218 properties total 34,524 acres and have an estimated market value of $115,341,426.

Included in the 18 properties are tracts in Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina (two properties), South Dakota, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., marking the first such transfers in these States and the District of Columbia under the Legacy of Parks program. Other properties are located in Alaska, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon (two properties), Utah, and Washington (two properties).

The President's property management program is directed toward identifying underutilized Federal property and converting it to higher and better use. In addition to

1608

the Legacy of Parks conveyances, Government property is transferred without charge to State and local governments for development as public airports, historic sites, schools, and hospitals. A summary of these transfers since the program was initiated in February of 1970 is included below:

- 34 transfers have been made for public airports (13,063 acres);

- 6 properties have been converted to historic sites (51 acres);

- 216 properties have been conveyed to State and local communities for schools and hospitals (14,377 acres).

NOTE: The release also included a list and description of the lands to be transferred.

For a statement by the President on the program, see the preceding item.

## Montreal Sabotage Convention

*Statement by the President Upon Signing the Instrument of Ratification of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation. November 1, 1972*

In recent weeks I have emphasized the commitment of this Nation to taking every step necessary to end the vicious threat of terror both here and abroad, a trend not limited to any one area of the world or to any one complex of problems. On September 25, Secretary of State Rogers also expressed to the United Nations the profound concern of the American people over the growing menace of international terrorism. On that same day, I further emphasized our deep feelings about this matter by establishing a Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism.

I am particularly pleased therefore to be able to sign the instrument of ratification of an international convention today which will help combat the menace of terrorism around the world: the Montreal Sabotage Convention. This Convention requires the extradition or prosecution of any persons who perpetrate attacks of sabotage and violence against international civil aviation.

A civilized society cannot tolerate terrorism. Any action which makes a diplomat, a government official, or an innocent citizen a pawn in a politically motivated dispute undermines the safety of every other person. A peaceful, stable world requires that all nations vigorously join in condemning and prosecuting such acts and in preventing their further occurrence.

This Convention and the bill I signed last Tuesday, H.R. 15883, making it a federal crime for any person to harass, assault, kidnap, or murder a foreign official in the United States, are a part of our on-going efforts to combat terrorism.

In this connection the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism has already taken steps to insure that stricter controls are placed on visa applications and visa extensions of possible terrorists. It has suspended the regulations which allowed one to transit the United States without a visa. And it has set up a series of working groups to insure governmentwide cooperation in the sharing of intelligence and to provide for a coordinated response to any terrorist attack.

The United Nations and the International Civil Aviation Organization now have before them three additional proposals which, if adopted, would further strengthen the hands of all nations in dealing with the scourge of terrorism. In my view these measures should be acted upon promptly.

First, a draft convention providing for the prosecution or extradition of persons who attack or kidnap foreign officials.

Second, a convention providing for the suspension of air service to countries which fail to punish or extradite hijackers or saboteurs of civil aircraft.

Third, a new convention proposed by the United States which would require the prosecution or extradition of any person who seriously injures, kidnaps, or kills innocent civilians in a foreign state for the purpose of black-mailing any state or international organization.

The Montreal Sabotage Convention is an important step in the continuing battle against terrorism. But the other measures that we are supporting in the United Nations and in the International Civil Aviation Organization are also essential if we are to establish a world in which men and nations can deal with one another without fear of these irrational and despicable acts of terrorism.

## Urban Affairs

*The President's Address on Nationwide Radio. November 1, 1972*

*Good afternoon.*

Today I would like to talk with you about a challenge which many describe as the "urban crisis." I prefer to think of it, however, as the "urban opportunity."

When we talk about "the city," we are not talking about an impersonal abstraction, but about the needs of real people—who happen to live more closely together and in larger concentrations than elsewhere. Our goal must be to improve the quality of urban life for individual human beings—to make each city a vibrant and vital place for people to live in.

In the 1960's, Federal programs for the cities grew bigger and bigger, but the problems of the cities only grew worse. Government spending increased at a record pace,

[LC]

1609

but so did crime and pollution and unrest.

That is why, in addressing our urban needs, I have insisted that we concentrate not merely on how much we spend, but on how we spend it; that we measure our progress not merely by the money we put into urban programs, but by the results we get out of them; that we improve not only the quality of our resources but the quality of our thinking.

That is why we have developed an entirely new strategy for urban America in this Administration. This strategy is designed to do two things:

- First, to end the fragmented "bits and pieces" approach to urban problems, to recognize their interrelationships, to tackle them in a comprehensive, coordinated manner. This means focusing responsibility, so that public servants can do effective, long-range planning and pull together sufficient resources.

- Second, I was determined to end the logjam of power in an ever-centralizing Washington bureaucracy and to strengthen government at the grassroots.

As a result of our new strategy, our programs for the cities have not only grown in size in the last 4 years—they have also improved in effectiveness.

Let me cite a few examples.

Our average expenditures for community development and housing have been $1 billion a year higher in this Administration than in the previous 4 years. But in addition, we have worked to cut red tape and decentralize administration. We have worked to curb runaway housing costs, to find more efficient methods of finance and construction.

Now let's look at the result: Housing starts last year reached an all-time record high of 2.1 million units—and are now more than 65 percent above the 1960 to 1968 level. Federally-assisted housing for low- and moderate-income families has increased more than fourfold since 1969.

Let's take another example—crime. We have spent more than two and a half times as much on fighting crimes this year as 4 years ago, and 11 times as much on fighting drug abuse. But what makes life better for people is not larger numbers in the crime budget, but smaller numbers in the crime rates.

At last, those numbers have begun to get smaller. Nearly half of our major cities had fewer crimes in the first 6 months of this year than a year ago. Nationwide, the rate of increase in crime was only 1 percent in the first half of 1972, compared to 122 percent from 1960 through 1968. Riots no longer ravage our cities as they did in the 1960's. And we made this progress by arming our crime fighters not just with more money, but even more importantly, with better, stronger laws, by backing them up and by helping to restore respect for the law and for those who enforce it.

A third example is the environment. For every one dollar spent to fight pollution 4 years ago, we have budgeted

$3.50 this year. But in addition, we have completely overhauled the Federal machinery and the Federal strategy for making our peace with nature.

As a result, today, for the first time, the air in our cities is getting cleaner and not dirtier. We are beginning to win the battle to clean up our lakes and rivers. We have turned 34,000 acres of unused Federal property into local parks under our Legacy of Parks program—most of them near large population centers. That is why we describe our program as parks for the people.

In each of these areas I have mentioned, as in others, our primary goal and concern has been how well we spend—and not just how much we are spending. Our goal has been better government—not just bigger government.

One important way of getting better government is to place more emphasis on local control.

Just last month I signed into law the first phase of revenue sharing, allocating 30 billion Federal dollars over the next 5 years for the State and local governments to use as they see fit.

I signed this bill at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. That was a most appropriate site. For general revenue sharing is the first step in a comprehensive program which I have described as "a New American Revolution." It represents a new Declaration of Independence for State and local government. Now, instead of power moving from the people to Washington, power will flow back from Washington to the people again.

Revenue sharing can be used for a number of purposes. It can help, for example, to hold down property taxes. It can pay for more policemen to keep city streets safe. It can build new schools, new hospitals.

But whatever it does, it will be local officials responding to local conditions and to their own local citizens, who will decide what should be done, what should have priority, rather than having those decisions made by some impersonal Federal bureaucrat.

Let me use another example to illustrate the advantages of local control.

Nothing could do more to lift the face of our cities—and the spirit of our city dwellers—than truly adequate systems of modern transportation. The quality of urban life suffers incalculably when it takes longer to cross a city by horseless carriage today than to cross it by horse-drawn carriage a century ago. A nation that can move three persons across 240,000 miles of space to the moon should be able to move 240,000 persons across 3 miles of a city to get to work.

To improve transportation we needed, first, more money—and we provided it. Before we came into office, the most the Federal Government made available for mass transit in any one year was $175 million. We raised this figure to $400 million in 1971 and to a full $1 billion this year. We proposed, and the Congress enacted, the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970,

1610

[L]

which is a 12-year, $10 billion program. We have also
launched new programs for air and rail and water
transportation.

But our goal has not merely been more expensive pro-
grams. We have worked to design more effective pro-
grams. And that means more local decisionmaking.

Each city, after all, has its own unique transportation needs. The highest priority for one city might be a better subway, as it was in Washington, D.C.; for another, it may be buslines; for a third, a new airport; for a fourth, a new bridge or a better highway. Good transportation must be balanced transportation—and the balance must be struck differently in each local setting.

Now, who can strike this balance best? Not some Fed-
eral bureaucrat hundreds or thousands of miles away.
How can he know what each city needs? He has many
cities to worry about. Often he is hopelessly bogged down
in red tape. And there is really no way for local residents
to keep in touch with him or hold him accountable for
his decisions.

More than that, the Federal bureaucrat is likely to
specialize in a single program. His main worry may be
highways, for example; his main job may be to get more
highways built. And thus, he simply is often not in the best
position to plan a balanced approach.

But the local official is different. He is right there—at
the scene of the action. He has only one community to
worry about. It is his job to understand that community
inside out. If he doesn't, the local citizens can complain
to him directly, or they can vote him out of office. Best of
all, local officials can plan an overall transportation strat-
egy which takes into account a wide range of transporta-
tion needs—and fits in with other urban programs.

The key point about our urban strategy, then, is not
only that it gives our communities the dollars they need—
but also that it gives them the freedom and the responsi-
bility they need to use those dollars effectively.

It tells local officials to spend less time trying to please
grant reviewers in Washington—so that the money will
keep coming in—and spend more time pleasing the peo-
ple who live in their communities—so the money will do
more good.

General revenue sharing is only the first step in this
new strategy. I have already charted a number of addi-
tional steps: among those proposals that I have made that
were left unenacted by the Congress were six special rev-
ence sharing bills, including one in the transportation
field, a major program of welfare reform, and sweeping
plans for streamlining and decentralizing the Federal
bureaucracy.

The goal of all these proposals is to make government
responsive again to the voice of the average citizen.

Under this approach, people can feel that they are in
control again, that they can shape events, that they can
make things happen in their own lives and in their own
communities.

Under this approach, more decisions will be made at
the scene of the action—and this means that more people
can have a piece of the action.

Thomas Jefferson said he believed in local government
not only because it was a more effective government but
also because it could give the individual that feeling with-
out which life is incomplete—a sense of participation in
events that really count.

If this was true in Jefferson's time—when the average
Congressman represented only about 30,000 people—
how much more true it is in our time, when the average
Congressman represents nearly half a million people.

Several years ago a poll of the American public re-
vealed that only 27 percent of those who lived in our cities
said they did so by choice. One lesson of that poll was
that the urban crisis—so often regarded merely as a crisis
of money—has also been a crisis of morale.

This Administration has addressed both of these crises.
We have doubled Federal assistance to States and locali-
ties—to meet the crisis of money. But we have also
increased the sense of freedom and control in our com-
munities—to meet the crisis of the spirit.

The result, as we approach our Nation's 200th anniver-
sary, is a growing sense that the graph of urban history is
climbing again, and the pendulum is swinging in a new,
more hopeful direction.

This renewal of the spirit in the cities of our Nation
means that they have a chance again to become in reality
what they have always been in our dreams: shining cen-
ters of commerce and culture, providing a fuller, richer
life for all who share in them.

This is the urban challenge—and this is our urban
opportunity.

Thank you and good afternoon.

Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars

Announcement of Appointment of Three Members of
the Board of Trustees. November 2, 1972

The President today announced the appointment of
three persons to be members of the Board of Trustees of
the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
in the Smithsonian Institution for a term expiring Octo-
ber 23, 1978. The appointees are:

RAWLEIGH WARNER, JR., New Canaan, Conn., chairman of the
board, Mobil Oil Company, New Canaan, Conn. Mr. Warner
is being reappointed.

1611

WILLIAM M. BATTEN, of Mill Neck, N.Y., chairman of the board, J. C. Penney Company, New York, N.Y. He succeeds James Burns, whose term has expired.

ROBERT H. BORK, of New Haven, Conn., professor of law, Yale Law School, New Haven, Conn. He succeeds Charles Horsky, whose term has expired.

The 15-member Board of Trustees is comprised of eight private members appointed by the President, one person from within Government appointed by the President, and six ex officio members. The ex officio members are the Secretary of State, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Librarian of Congress, and the Archivist of the United States. Members appointed from private life serve 6-year terms, without compensation.

The Center and a Board of Trustees of the Center were established in the Smithsonian Institution by act of October 24, 1968. In addition to maintaining and administering the Center, the 15-man, mixed private-public Board, among other things, will appoint scholars, from the United States and abroad, and, where appropriate, provide stipends, grants, and fellowships to such scholars.

## United States Naval Academy

*Announcement of the Report of the Board of Visitors.*
*November 2, 1972*

The President has received the May 1972 report of the Board of Visitors to the United States Naval Academy. The Board, which met at Annapolis, Md., on May 11-12, 1972, is required by law to meet annually to inquire into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, financial affairs, academic methods and other matters relating to the Academy which the Board decides to consider and report its findings to the President.

The Board consists of six Presidential appointees, three Vice Presidential appointees, four appointed by the Speaker of the House, and a member designated by the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee from each Congressional body.

The Board reached the following conclusions:

1. The tour of Vice Adm. James Calvert as Superintendent of the Academy ended in June 1972. In every aspect of his administration at the Academy, he has been an outstanding leader.

2. All members of the Board were most favorably impressed by the appearance and the overall high quality of the Brigade of Midshipmen.

3. The Midshipmen exhibited confidence in the leadership of the Academy, considered the professional training and academic programs meaningful preparation for

an officer in today's Navy, were aware of the social and cultural challenges they will face after graduation and demonstrated a knowledge of the problems of society while maintaining a positive attitude and a willing ability to contribute constructive ideas. The genuine loyalty exhibited by the Midshipmen toward the Academy and to their country was most impressive.

4. The condition of the facilities and Academy grounds continues to improve. The appearance of the Academy is superb.

5. For the third consecutive year the number of nominations to the Academy set a new record, and allows a selection which will ensure the maintenance of high standards of academic and professional performance.

Of the 340 minority candidates to receive nominations to the Class of 1976, 87 offers of appointment were made to black candidates and 16 to other minorities.

6. The Academic Majors Program, adopted in 1969, is considered an important factor in increasing the attraction of the Academy for the college-age young men of today.

7. Liaison between the appointing congressmen and the Academy has been improved, to the benefit of both, through the move of the office in charge of nominations and appointments to the Academy.

8. Significant improvement has been made in the area of officer assignments to the Academy, in both academic and staff positions. A high proportion of the reporting officers have advanced education and are highly motivated toward careers as Naval officers. Care is being taken to ensure that reporting officers arrive in ample time to allow adequate preparation for the assumption of their duties.

The Board took the following positions:

1. That the enactment of legislation which would lower the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 65 for the civilian faculty members at the Academy is supported.

2. That the goal set by the Naval Academy Objectives Review Board to distribute the selection of major courses of study by Midshipmen to meet the projected demands of the Navy for a higher proportion of technically qualified officers is concurred in.

The Board was composed of the following members:

H. ROSS PEROT, chairman of the board and president, Electronic Data Systems, Dallas, Tex.—Chairman of the Board of Visitors.

SENATOR J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware

SENATOR WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington

SENATOR CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island

CONGRESSMAN DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania

CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM O. MILLS, Maryland

CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM E. MINSHALL, Ohio

CONGRESSMAN SAMUEL S. STRATTON, New York

DR. JOHN R. BERTRAND, president, Berry College, Mount Berry, Ga.

MARION A. CANCELLIERE, chairman of the board, Western Pennsylvania National Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa.

DONALD O. HEUMANN, owner, Rohms Flowers, New Orleans, La.

DR. JOHN J. MCMULLEN, chairman of the board, John J. McMullen Associates, Inc., New York, N.Y.

JOSEPH S. SINCLAIR, chairman and chief executive officer, The Outlet Company, Providence, R. I.

1612

“Look to the Future”

*The President's Address on Nationwide Radio and Television. November 2, 1972*

*Good evening.*

I am speaking to you tonight from the Library of the White House. This room, like all the rooms in this great house, is rich in history.

Often late at night I sit here thinking of the crises other Presidents have known—and of the trials that other generations of Americans have come through.

I think, too, of the Presidents who will be sitting here a generation from now, and how they will look back on these years. And I think of what I want to accomplish in these years. I would like to share some of those thoughts with you this evening.

Above all, I want to complete the foundations for a world at peace—so that the next generation can be the first in this century to live without war and without the fear of war.

Beyond this, I want Americans—all Americans—to see more clearly and to feel more deeply what it is that makes this Nation of ours unique in history, unique in the world, a nation in which the soul and spirit are free, in which each person is respected, in which the individual human being, each precious, each different, can dare to dream and can live his dreams.

I want progress toward a better life for all Americans— not only in terms of better schools, greater abundance, a cleaner environment, better homes, more attractive communities—but also in a spiritual sense, in terms of greater satisfaction, more kindness in our relations with each other, more fulfillment.

I want each American—all Americans—to find a new zest in the pursuit of excellence, in striving to do their best and to be their best, in learning the supreme satisfaction of setting a seemingly impossible goal, and meeting or surpassing that goal, of finding in themselves that extra reserve of energy or talent or creativity that they had not known was there.

These are goals of a free people, in a free nation, a nation that lives not by handout, not by dependence on others or in hostage to the whims of others, but proud and independent—a nation of individuals with self-respect and with the right and capacity to make their own choices, to chart their own lives.

That is why I want us to turn away from a demeaning, demoralizing dependence on someone else to make our decisions and to guide the course of our lives.

That is why I want us to turn toward a renaissance of the individual spirit—toward a new vitality of those governments closest to the people—toward a new pride of place for the family and the community—toward a new sense of responsibility in all that we do, responsibility for ourselves and to ourselves, for our communities and to our communities, knowing that each of us, in every act of his

daily life, determines what kind of community and what kind of a country we all will live in.

If, together, we can restore this spirit, then 4 years from now America can enter its third century buoyant and vital and young, with all the purpose that marked its beginning two centuries ago.

In these past 4 years, we have moved America significantly toward this goal. We have restored peace at home, and we are restoring peace abroad.

As you know, we have now made a major breakthrough toward achieving our goal of peace with honor in Vietnam. We have reached substantial agreement on most of the terms of a settlement. The settlement we are ready to conclude would accomplish the basic objectives that I laid down in my television speech to the Nation on May 8 of this year:

- the return of all of our prisoners of war, and an accounting for all of those missing in action;

- a cease-fire throughout Indochina; and

- for the 17 million people of South Vietnam, the right to determine their own future without having a Communist government or a coalition government imposed upon them against their will.

However, there are still some issues to be resolved. There are still some provisions of the agreement which must be clarified so that all ambiguities will be removed. I have insisted that these be settled before we sign the final agreement. That is why we refused to be stampeded into meeting the arbitrary deadline of October 31.

Now, there are some who say: "Why worry about the details? Just get the war over!"

Well, my answer is this: My study of history convinces me that the details can make the difference between an agreement that collapses and an agreement that lasts—and equally crucial is a clear understanding by all of the parties of what those details are.

We are not going to repeat the mistake of 1968, when the bombing halt agreement was rushed into just before an election without pinning down the details.

We want peace—peace with honor—a peace fair to all—and a peace that will last. That is why I am insisting that the central points be clearly settled, so that there will be no misunderstandings which could lead to a breakdown of the settlement and a resumption of the war.

I am confident that we will soon achieve that goal.

But we are not going to allow an election deadline or any other kind of deadline to force us into an agreement which would be only a temporary truce and not a lasting peace. We are going to sign the agreement when the agreement is right, not one day before. And when the agreement is right, we are going to sign, without one day's delay.

Not only in America, but all around the world, people will be watching the results of our election. The leaders in Hanoi will be watching. They will be watching for the answer of the American people—for your answer—to

[L]

1613

this question: Shall we have peace with honor or peace with surrender?

Always in the past you have answered "Peace with honor." By giving that same answer once again on November 7 you can help make certain that peace with honor can now be achieved.

In these past 4 years, we have also been moving toward lasting peace in the world at large.

We have signed more agreements with the Soviet Union than were negotiated in all the previous years since World War II. We have established the basis for a new relationship with the People's Republic of China, where one-fourth of all the people in this world live. Our vigorous diplomacy has advanced the prospects for a stable peace in the Middle East. All around the world, we are opening doors to peace, doors that were previously closed. We are developing areas of common interest where there have been previously only antagonisms. All this is a beginning. It can be the beginning of a generation of peace—of a world in which our children can be the first generation in this century to escape the scourge of war.

These next 4 years will set the course on which we begin our third century as a nation. What will that course be? Will it have us turning inward, retreating from the responsibilities not only of a great power but of a great people—of a nation that embodies the ideals man has dreamed of and fought for through the centuries?

We cannot retreat from those responsibilities. If we did, America would cease to be a great nation and peace and freedom would be in deadly jeopardy throughout the world.

Ours is a great and a free nation today because past generations of Americans met their responsibilities. And we shall meet ours.

We have made progress toward peace in the world, toward a new relationship with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, not through naive sentimental assumptions that good will is all that matters, or that we can reduce our military strength because we have no intention of making war and we therefore assume other nations would have no such intention. We have achieved progress through peace for precisely the opposite reasons: because we demonstrated that we would not let ourselves be surpassed in military strength and because we bargained with other nations on the basis of their national interest and ours.

As we look at the real world, it is clear that we will not in our lifetimes have a world free of danger. Anyone who reads history knows that danger has always been part of the common lot of mankind. Anyone who knows the world today knows that nations have not all been suddenly overtaken by some new and unprecedented wave of pure good will and benign intentions. But we can lessen the danger. We can obtain it. We can forge a network of relationships and of interdependencies that restrain aggression and that take the profit out of war.

We cannot make all nations the same, and it would be wrong to try. We cannot make all of the world's people love each other. But we can establish conditions in which they will be more likely to live in peace with one another. Tonight I ask for your support as we continue to work toward that great goal.

Here at home, as we look at the progress we have made, we find that we are reaching new levels of prosperity.

We have cut inflation almost in half. The average worker has scored his best gains in 8 years in real spendable earnings. We are creating record numbers of new jobs. We are well on the way to achieving what America has not had since President Eisenhower lived here in the White House: prosperity with full employment, without inflation and without war.

We have lowered the level of violence, and we are finally turning the tide against crime.

I could go on with what we have done—for the environment, for the consumer, for the aging, for the farmer, for the worker, for all Americans—but now we must not look backward to what we have done in the past, but forward to what we will do in the future.

It is traditional for a candidate for election to make all sorts of promises about bold new programs he intends to introduce if elected. This year's Presidential campaign has probably established an alltime record for promises of huge new spending programs for just about anything and everything for everybody imaginable. I have not made such promises in this campaign. I am not going to do so tonight. Let me tell you why.

In the first place, the sort of bold new programs traditionally promised by candidates are all programs that you—the taxpayer—pay for. The programs proposed by our opponents in this campaign would require a 50 percent increase in Federal taxes, in your taxes. I think your taxes are already too high. That is why I oppose any new program which would add to your tax burden.

In the second place, too many campaign promises are just that—campaign promises. I believe in keeping the promises I make, and making only those promises I am confident I can keep. I have promised that I will do all in my power to avoid the need for new taxes. I am not going to promise anything else in the way of new programs that would violate that pledge.

In the third place, my own philosophy of government is not one that looks to new Federal dollars—your dollars—as the solution of every social problem.

I have often said that America became great not because of what government did for people, but because of what people did for themselves. I believe government should free the energies of people to build for themselves and their communities. It should open opportunities, provide incentives, encourage initiative—not stifle initiative by trying to direct everything from Washington.

1614

This does not mean that the Federal Government will abdicate its responsibilities where only it can solve a problem.

It does mean that after 40 years of unprecedented expansion of the Federal Government, the time has come to redress the balance—to shift more people and more responsibility and power back to the States and localities and, most important, to the people, all across America.

In the past 40 years the size of the Federal budget has grown from $4.6 billion to $250 billion. In that same period, the number of civilian employees of the Federal Government has increased from 600,000 to 2,800,000. And in just the past 10 years the number of Federal grant-in-aid programs has increased from 160 to more than 1,000.

If this kind of growth were projected indefinitely into the future, the result would be catastrophic. We would have an America topheavy with bureaucratic meddling, weighted down by big government, suffocated by taxes, robbed of its soul.

We must not and we will not let this happen to America. That is why I oppose the unrestrained growth of big government in Washington. That is why one of my first priorities in the next 4 years will be to encourage a rebirth and renewal of State and local government. That is why I believe in giving the people in every community a greater say in those decisions that most directly affect the course of their daily lives.

Now, there will be those who will call this negative, who call it a retreat from Federal responsibilities.

I call it affirmative—an affirmation of faith in the people, faith in the individual, faith in each person's ability to choose wisely for himself and for his community.

I call it an affirmation of faith in those principles that made America great, that tamed a continent, that transformed a wilderness into the greatest and strongest and freest nation in the world.

We have not changed. The American people have not grown weak. What has grown weak is government's faith in people. I am determined to see that faith restored.

I am also determined to see another kind of faith restored and strengthened in America. I speak of the religious faith, the moral and spiritual values that have been so basically a part of our American experience. Man does not live for himself alone, and the strength of our character, the strength of our faith, and the strength of our ideals—these have been the strength of America.

When I think of what America means, I think of all the hope that lies in a vast continent—of great cities and small towns, of factories and farms, of a greater abundance, more widely shared, than the world has ever known, of a constant striving to set right the wrongs that still persist—and I think of 210 million people, of all ages, all persuasions, all races, all stations in life.

More particularly, I think of one person, one child—any child. That child may be black or brown or white, rich or poor, a boy whose family came here in steerage,

in 1920, or a girl whose ancestors came on the Mayflower in 1620. That one child is America, with a life still ahead, with his eyes filled with dreams, and with the birthright of every American child to a full and equal opportunity to pursue those dreams.

It is for that one child that I want a world of peace and a chance to achieve all that peace makes possible. It is for that one child that I want opportunity, and freedom, and abundance. It is for that one child that I want a land of justice, and order, and a decent respect for the rights and the feelings of others.

It is for that one child that I want it said, a generation from now, a century from now, that America in the 1970's had the courage and the vision to meet its responsibilities and to face up to its challenges—to build peace, not merely for our generation, but for the next generation; to restore the land, to marshal our resources, not merely for our generation but for the next generation; to guard our values and renew our spirit, not merely for our generation but for the next generation.

It is for that one child that I want these next 4 years to be the best 4 years in the whole history of America.

The glory of this time in our history is that we can do more than ever before—we have the means, we have the skills, we have an increasing understanding of how the great goals that we seek can be achieved.

These are not partisan goals. They are America's goals. That is why I ask you tonight, regardless of party, to join the New American Majority next Tuesday in voting for candidates who stand for these goals. That is why I ask for your support—after the election—in helping to move forward toward these goals over the next 4 years.

If we succeed in this task, then that one child—all of our children—can look forward to a life more full of hope, promise, than any generation, in any land, in the whole history of mankind.

Thank you and good evening.

NOTE: The President spoke in the Library at the White House. The address was taped for broadcast on nationwide radio and television at 7:30 p.m. in the eastern, mountain, and Pacific time zones and at 6:30 p.m. in the central time zone. Time for the broadcast was purchased by the Committee for the Re-election of the President.

## Health Policy

*The President's Address on Nationwide Radio.*
November 3, 1972

*Good afternoon.*

Whenever people start talking about how exciting life would have been a century or two ago, a friend of mine likes to respond, "But what if you had broken your leg?"

He has a good point. Nothing has done more to improve the quality of life in recent years than the progress of medical science.

1615

I believe the best way to continue this progress in the future is to build on the system that produced our progress in the past.

We have done a lot of building in the last 4 years.

We have increased Federal spending on health more than 50 percent, from $16 billion to $25 billion.

I proposed—and the Congress enacted—the most comprehensive program in history to train more doctors and nurses and dentists, to train them faster and more effectively, to attract them to small towns and inner cities and other places where they are now in short supply.

In the last 2 years we have more than doubled Federal support for cancer research. We have stripped away the red tape from our cancer programs. We have made them directly accountable to the President.

We have taken new steps to fight heart disease. We have launched a new campaign against sickle cell anemia, a cruel threat to black Americans. Our program to prevent occupational accidents and illnesses has been enacted.

We have taken major steps to expand Medicare and Medicaid, to improve veterans hospitals, nursing homes, and emergency medical services, to protect consumers against unsafe food and drugs and dangerous household products.

Our campaign against drug abuse is 11 times bigger than it was 4 years ago. We are spending more than three times as much to fight hunger and malnutrition. We have established a national goal to cut the incidence of mental retardation in half by the year 2000.

One of the greatest problems we faced in the 1960's was the skyrocketing cost of health care. In that 10 years, medical prices went up twice as fast as the cost of living.

Just last week I met with the Committee on the Health Services Industry of our Cost of Living Council. They reported that under our New Economic Policy we have cut the rise in medical care prices by more than two-thirds, from 6.4 percent a year ago to only 2.1 percent in the last year. The health care industry, once one of the most inflationary sectors of our economy, has become one of the least inflationary. Now to keep it that way we must balance the growing demand for health care with a growing supply of health services.

As I look back at the record of the past 4 years, I think of the comment which Dr. Jonas Salk made when he received a gold medal from President Eisenhower for developing the vaccine against polio. "I feel," he said, "that the greatest reward for doing is the opportunity to do more."

Well, I feel the same way today.

As we look to the future, one of our great goals is to make our health system more efficient—so that each doctor, each hospital, and each health dollar can do more good. The Federal Government is already taking the lead in demonstrating the effectiveness of medical assistants who help doctors with routine tasks. We also want to encourage programs which will help doctors organize their

services more conveniently and more efficiently, with greater emphasis on keeping people healthy rather than treating them only after they get sick.

No American family should be denied access to adequate medical care because of inability to pay. The most important health proposal not acted on by the 92d Congress was my program for helping people pay for care.

This program would fill the gaps in many current health insurance programs.

For example, most working poor families—who do not qualify for welfare—cannot afford adequate health insurance coverage. Our plan would make adequate insurance available at no cost—or at a very low cost—for these families, families who work rather than who go on welfare.

Second, present plans often fail to protect families in all income levels against the catastrophic cost of major illnesses and accidents. They often have very restrictive upper limits, which means that the insurance often runs out while the expenses are still running up. Our program would provide broad catastrophic coverage.

Third, present plans often fail to cover services in doctors' offices. As a result, many hospitals are crowded with people who are there because that's the only way their insurance will pay their expenses. Our plan would change that, too.

Under our programs, every employer would have to provide all of his workers with a health insurance policy, just as he helps pay for workmen's compensation and social security today. The employer would pay at least 65 percent of the premium cost for the first few years and 75 percent thereafter. And our proposal would see that every policy provided good, sound, adequate protection.

One of the clearest choices in the 1972 Presidential election is the choice between the comprehensive health insurance plan, which is a private health insurance plan that I have just described, and our opponents' plan for a medical system which is paid for by the taxpayers and controlled by the Federal Government.

Let's take a look at the opposition program. According to a report prepared for the House Ways and Means Committee, its total cost to the taxpayers each year would be a staggering $91 billion. This means that health alone would take up more than one-third of the entire Federal budget. Look at this figure. The average family's Federal tax bill for health would go from $457 a year today to $1,305 a year, nearly triple, under their program.

There is another point worth noting: our opponents' claim that all their new spending programs can be financed by sweeping cuts in defense and only a few new taxes. But somehow they managed to omit this $91 billion item from that painless version of their budget. A New York Times editorial was right 2 weeks ago when it described this as a "major omission." When that $91 billion is added in, their budget is nowhere near so painless. It would require a Federal tax increase of 50 percent.

1616

Our opponents' federalized, tax-supported system would be very costly in terms of dollars and cents. But it would also be very costly in terms of the quality of American medicine. Not only would our pocketbooks be much poorer, our health care would be much poorer, too.

If the Government pays all the medical bills, then only the Government has a stake in holding down medical costs. This means that Government officials would have to approve hospital budgets and set fee schedules and take other steps that would eventually lead to the complete Federal domination of American medicine. I think this is the wrong road for America. It is the road that has been taken by so many countries abroad to their regret.

Rather than freeing the doctor so that he can do more for his patients, our opponents' plan would burden him with the dead weight of more bureaucracy, more forms, more red tape.

Rather than expanding the range of choice for doctors and patients, it would severely narrow their range of choice. It would concentrate more responsibility in Washington. It would dull the incentive to experiment and innovate.

Some people automatically assume that the plan that costs the most will help the most. But we cannot simply buy our way to better medicine. In this case the plan that costs the most is the plan that would actually do the most to hurt the quality of our health care.

Our plan would build on the strengths of our present health insurance industry. Our opponents' plan would eliminate that industry entirely.

Our plan would reform and improve our present health care system. Our opponents' plan would tear that system apart. This is one of the clearest choices in this campaign.

Building on the strengths of our present system, we can make tremendous progress in the years ahead. One development which will speed our progress is a new spirit of international cooperation.

When I was in Moscow last May, I signed several historic agreements. Perhaps the one that most people think of first is the agreement to limit strategic weapons. But it may well be, 20 or 40 or 100 years from now, that another achievement in Moscow will be remembered with it, our agreement to cooperate in the field of medicine. Let me give one example.

Take cancer. More people died of cancer in the United States last year than were killed in action in all of World War II as far as the United States was concerned.

Disease is an international menace. We must fight it with an international alliance.

Who knows who will discover the cure for cancer? It may be a woman now studying at a university in Europe or a boy who now sits in a South American school. It could be an American or a Russian or a Chinese. Or there may be many partial cures from many sources. But

this we know: The cure for cancer—or any other disease—will come faster if we all work together to find it.

The barriers between nations may be great. But when it comes to improving health, our common interests are even greater.

Several weeks after the Moscow summit, the Russian Minister of Health came to the United States. One of the places he visited was Fort Detrick, Maryland. For years, Fort Detrick was one of the most secret places in our country, dedicated to research on biological warfare—perfecting the instruments of death. But last year we decided to convert it into a laboratory for research on cancer—dedicated to the preservation of life.

I visited Fort Detrick last year, on the day I announced its conversion. I directed that it now should be thrown open to scientists from all over the world. It was in that spirit that Fort Detrick welcomed the Russian Minister of Health almost one year later.

There he stood, in a place which once had been the symbol of a closed world, a world of suspicion and confrontation, a place where some of the best minds of our Nation had prepared for a possible war against this Nation.

Now this same place had become the symbol of an open world, a world of cooperation and trust. It had become a meeting ground where the best minds from every nation could work together to save life everywhere on earth.

We still have a long way to go—but our goal is clear. And for me its symbol is Fort Detrick, Maryland, welcoming the Soviet Minister of Health.

This is the kind of world we must leave for our children, a world in which the genius that split the atom and took us to the moon is turned not to conquering one another but to conquering pain and disease, making our world a healthier, happier place—for our people and for all people.

Thank you and good afternoon.

NOTE: The address was taped at the White House for broadcast at 12:07 p.m. on nationwide radio. Time for the broadcast was purchased by the Committee for the Re-election of the President.

## 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.

[LC]

1617

October 30

The President has received the report of Emergency Board No. 182, created to investigate a dispute between the Long Island Rail Road and certain employees represented by the Non-Operating Employees Conference Committee.

October 31

Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York met with the President at the White House.

The President directed the Secretary of the Treasury to implement a permanent exclusion order against imports of lightweight luggage which infringe on the patents of the Atlantic Products Corporation of Trenton, N.J.

November 1

The President today announced the following recess appointments:

ALFRED TOWSON MACFARLAND and RODOLFO MONTEJANO, as members of the Interstate Commerce Commission

LYLE S. GARLOCK, as a member and Chairman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

RUSSELL FIELD MERRIMAN, as Federal Cochairman of the New England Regional Commission

John Cardinal Krol, Archbishop of Philadelphia, met with the President at the White House to discuss his recent trip to Poland.

November 2

The President designated the Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, as a member of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities.

The President today accepted with regret the resignation of Carol M. Khosrovi as Assistant Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, effective October 31, 1972.

November 3

Dr. Mistislav V. Keldysh, president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, met with the President at the White House.

Members of the Council on Environmental Quality met with the President at the White House.

Mayor Louis Joseph Tullio of Erie, Pa., met with the President at the White House.

1619

ACTS APPROVED

BY THE PRESIDENT—Continued

Approved October 25, 1972—Continued

H.R. 16675.................. Public Law 92-554
An Act to amend the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 to extend for one year the program of grants for State and local prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation programs for alcohol abuse and alcoholism.

H.R. 16754.................. Public Law 92-547
Military Construction Appropriation Act, 1973.

S. 216...................... Public Law 92-562
An Act to permit suits to adjudicate certain real property quiet title actions.

S. 1462..................... Public Law 92-555
An Act to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay judgment in favor of the Mississippi Sioux Indians in Indian Claims Commission dockets numbered 142, 359, 360, 361, 362, and 363, and for other purposes.

S. 1928..................... Public Law 92-560
Lower Saint Croix River Act of 1972.

S. 2147..................... Private Law 92-153
An Act for the relief of Marie M. Ridgely.

S. 2270..................... Private Law 92-154
An act for the relief of Magnus David Forrester.

S. 2674..................... Private Law 92-155
An Act to remove a cloud on the title to certain lands located in the State of New Mexico.

S. 2741..................... Public Law 92-556
An Act to amend the Act of September 7, 1957, authorizing aircraft loan guarantees, in order to expand the program pursuant to such Act.

S. 3230..................... Public Law 92-557
An Act to provide for the division and for the disposition of the funds appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of the Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap Reservations, Montana.

S. 3240..................... Public Law 92-550
Transportation Payment Act of 1972.

S. 3310..................... Public Law 92-559
An Act to amend title 10, United States Code, to establish the authorized strength of the Naval Reserve in officers in the Judge Advocate General's Corps in the grade of rear admiral, and for other purposes.

S. 3822..................... Public Law 92-552
An Act authorizing the City of Clinton Bridge Commission to convey its bridge structures and other assets to the State of Iowa and to provide for the completion of a partially constructed bridge across the Mississippi River at or near Clinton, Iowa, by the State Highway Commission of the State of Iowa.

S.J. Res. 204.............. Public Law 92-564
Joint resolution to authorize the preparation of a history of public works in the United States.

S.J. Res. 221.............. Public Law 92-551
Joint resolution to designate Benjamin Franklin Memorial Hall at the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial.

S.J. Res. 247.............. Public Law 92-566
Joint resolution extending the duration of copyright protection in certain cases.

ACTS APPROVED

BY THE PRESIDENT—Continued

Approved October 26, 1972

H.J. Res. 1331.................. Public Law 92-571
Joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1973, and for other purposes.

H.R. 7117..................... Public Law 92-569
An Act to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to expedite the reimbursement of the United States vessel owners for charges paid by them for the release of vessels and crews illegally seized by foreign countries, to strengthen the provisions therein relating to the collection of claims against such foreign countries for amounts so reimbursed and for certain other amounts, and for other purposes.

H.R. 9554..................... Public Law 92-568
An Act to change the name of the Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial National Monument, to provide for the acquisition of certain lands, and for other purposes.

H.R. 16593................... Public Law 92-570
Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1973.

Approved October 27, 1972

H.J. Res. 912.................. Public Law 92-588
Joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to an agreement between the States of North Carolina and Virginia establishing their lateral seaward boundary.

H.R. 1467..................... Public Law 92-580
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to personal exemptions in the case of American Samoans, and for other purposes.

H.R. 3786..................... Private Law 92-156
An Act to provide for the free entry of a four octave carillon for the use of Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

H.R. 4676..................... Public Law 92-587
An Act to provide for the free entry of a carillon for the use of the University of California at Santa Barbara, and for other purposes.

H.R. 7093..................... Public Law 92-586
An Act to provide for the disposition of judgment funds of the Osage Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.

H.R. 8273..................... Public Law 92-584
An Act to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

H.R. 10751................... Public Law 92-578
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act of 1972.

H.R. 11021................... Public Law 92-574
Noise Control Act of 1972.

H.R. 12807................... Public Law 92-582
An Act to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 in order to establish Federal policy concerning the selection of firms and individuals to perform architectural, engineering, and related services for the Federal Government.

H.R. 13158................... Public Law 92-572
An Act to name a bridge across a portion of Oakland Harbor, California, the "George P. Miller-Leland W. Sweeney Bridge".

ACTS APPROVED

BY THE PRESIDENT—Continued

Approved October 27, 1972—Continued

H.R. 13396................... Public Law 92-575
An Act to authorize an increase in land acquisition funds for the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

H.R. 14911................... Public Law 92-596
An Act to amend titles 10 and 37, United States Code, to authorize members of the armed forces who are in missing status to accumulate leave without limitation, to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize an additional Deputy Secretary of Defense, and for other purposes.

H.R. 16444................... Public Law 92-589
An Act to establish the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the State of California, and for other purposes.

H.R. 16804................... Public Law 92-602
An Act to rename the Mineola Dam and Lake as the Carl L. Estes Dam and Lake.

H.R. 16810................... Public Law 92-599
An Act to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit and to place a limitation on expenditures and net lending for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.

H.R. 16925................... Public Law 92-581
An Act to amend title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority for special pay for nuclear-qualified naval submarine officers, authorize special pay for nuclear-qualified naval surface officers, and provide special pay to certain nuclear-trained and qualified enlisted members of the naval service who agree to reenlist, and for other purposes.

H.R. 17038................... Public Law 92-600
An Act designating the Oakley Reservoir on the Sangamon River at Decatur, Illinois, as the William L. Springer Lake.

S. 27......................... Public Law 92-593
An Act to establish the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Arizona and Utah.

S. 909......................... Private Law 92-157
An Act for the relief of John C. Rogers.

S. 1524....................... Public Law 92-579
An Act to amend title 12, District of Columbia Code, to provide a limitation of actions for actions arising out of death or injury caused by a defective or unsafe improvement to real property.

S. 1852....................... Public Law 92-592
An Act to establish the Gateway National Recreation Area in the States of New York and New Jersey, and for other purposes.

S. 2318....................... Public Law 92-576
Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act Amendments of 1972.

S. 2454....................... Public Law 92-597
An Act to amend the Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-378, 84 Stat. 794) to expand the Youth Conservation Corps pilot program and for other purposes.

S. 2714....................... Private Law 92-158
An Act for the relief of Master Sergeant William C. Harpold, United States Marine Corps (retired).

S. 2753....................... Private Law 92-159
An Act for the relief of John C. Mayoros.

S. 3257....................... Private Law 92-160
An Act for the relief of Gary Wentworth, of Staples, Minnesota.

1620

## ACTS APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT—Continued

S. 3326.................. Private Law 92-161
An Act for the relief of the Appalachian
Regional Hospitals, Incorporated.

S. 3337.................. Public Law 92-595
Small Business Investment Act Amend-
ments of 1972.

S. 3358.................. Public Law 92-601
An Act to prohibit the use of certain small
vessels in United States fisheries.

S. 3419.................. Public Law 92-573
Consumer Product Safety Act.

S. 3507.................. Public Law 92-583
An act to establish a national policy and
develop a national program for the man-
agement, beneficial use, protection, and
development of the land and water re-
sources of the Nation's coastal zones, and
for other purposes.

S. 3524.................. Public Law 92-590
An act to extend the provisions of the
Commercial Fisheries Research and De-
velopment Act of 1964, as amended.

S. 3545.................. Public Law 92-594
An act to amend section 7 of the Fisher-
men's Protective Act of 1967.

S. 3843.................. Public Law 92-591
Emergency Rail Facilities Restoration
Act.

S. 3858.................. Public Law 92-585
Emergency Health Personnel Act Amend-
ments of 1972.

S. 3959.................. Public Law 92-577
An act to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to engage in feasibility investi-
gations of certain potential water resource
developments.

S. 4022.................. Public Law 92-598
An act to provide for the participation of
the United States in the International Ex-
position on the Environment to be held in
Spokane, Washington, in 1974, and for
other purposes.

Approved October 30, 1972

H.R. 1.................. Public Law 92-603
Social Security Amendments of 1972.

Approved October 31, 1972

H.R. 14628.................. Public Law 92-606
An act to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954 with respect to the tax
laws applicable to Guam, and for other
purposes.

H.R. 16074.................. Public Law 92-604
An act to authorize appropriations to
carry out jellyfish control programs until
the close of fiscal year 1977.

H.R. 17034.................. Public Law 92-607
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1973.

S. 1971.................. Public Law 92-605
An act to declare a portion of the Dela-
ware River in Philadelphia County, Penn-
sylvania, nonnavigable.

## Editor's Note

### Note Concerning the Closing Date of This Issue

On Friday, November 3, the President went to Chicago, Tulsa, and Providence for campaign appearances. On Saturday, November 4, he stopped in North Carolina and New Mexico en route to the Western White House.

Releases issued subsequent to his departure from the White House on Friday will be published next week.

["NOVEMBER 6, 1972—FOURTH-QUARTER INDEX", "1625", "<table><tbody><tr><td>Satellites, international launch assist-<br>ance</td><td>1508</td></tr><tr><td>Sato, Prime Minister Eisaku</td><td>1449</td></tr><tr><td>Sayers, Gale</td><td>1531</td></tr><tr><td>School Lunch Week, 1972, National</td><td>1496</td></tr><tr><td>Schumann, Minister of Foreign Affairs<br>Maurice</td><td>1475</td></tr><tr><td>Science and technology, space program.<br>See Space program</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>School Aid Act, Emergency</td><td>1564</td></tr><tr><td>Scott, Sen. Hugh</td><td>1519</td></tr><tr><td>Seafarers International Union of North<br>America</td><td>1537</td></tr><tr><td>Sea-Land Service, Inc.</td><td>1537</td></tr><tr><td>Senate<br>Agriculture and Forestry Committee</td><td>1550</td></tr><tr><td>Commerce Committee</td><td>1550</td></tr><tr><td>Republican leaders, meeting with<br>President</td><td>1518, 1519</td></tr><tr><td>Seventh Fleet</td><td>1570</td></tr><tr><td>Shriver, Lucille</td><td>1537</td></tr><tr><td>Shultz, George P.</td><td>1450, 1489</td></tr><tr><td>Sierra Leone, Ambassador to U.S.</td><td>1499</td></tr><tr><td>Small Business Administration, dis-<br>aster assistance</td><td>1454, 1472, 1473, 1495, 1509</td></tr><tr><td>Smith, Joseph F.</td><td>1516</td></tr><tr><td>Smith, William Milton</td><td>1495</td></tr><tr><td>Sokol Day, National</td><td>1534</td></tr><tr><td>South Asian Relief Assistance, Advisory<br>Panel on</td><td>1493</td></tr><tr><td>Space program, international assistance,<br>peaceful satellites</td><td>1508, 1519</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish-speaking appointees, meeting<br>with President</td><td>1586</td></tr><tr><td>Spending, Federal<br>Appropriations</td><td>1584</td></tr><tr><td>Ceiling</td><td>1489, 1490, 1497, 1500, 1509, 1511, 1518, 1519, 1531, 1532, 1553, 1577</td></tr><tr><td>Control</td><td>1465, 1467, 1489, 1490</td></tr><tr><td>Defense</td><td>1440, 1463-1465</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>1563</td></tr><tr><td>Narcotics and dangerous drugs</td><td>1526, 1527</td></tr><tr><td>Transportation</td><td>1459</td></tr><tr><td>Squire, Jeanne</td><td>1537</td></tr><tr><td>State, Department of<br>Ambassadors, U.S. See Appointments<br>and Nominations; Resignations<br>and Retirements; country to which<br>assigned</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Assistant Secretary</td><td>1533</td></tr><tr><td>International Development, Agency<br>for</td><td>1494</td></tr><tr><td>Secretary</td><td>1452, 1459, 1482, 1483, 1518, 1533, 1538, 1568, 1586</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\"><strong>Statements by the President</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Amphibian Museum of Immigration,<br>dedication</td><td>1454</td></tr><tr><td>Black lung benefits program</td><td>1573</td></tr><tr><td>Designation of two New York coun-<br>ties as Standard Metropolitan Sta-<br>tistical Areas</td><td>1556</td></tr><tr><td>District of Columbia legislation, bill<br>signing</td><td>1548</td></tr><tr><td>Drug abuse law enforcement</td><td>1435</td></tr><tr><td>Economy</td><td>1442, 1471</td></tr><tr><td>Elections, 1972, campaign plans</td><td>1460</td></tr><tr><td>European Community</td><td>1581</td></tr><tr><td>Federal Environmental Pesticide Con-<br>trol Act of 1972, bill signing</td><td>1550</td></tr><tr><td>Federal spending</td><td>1465, 1509, 1511, 1553</td></tr><tr><td>Income redistribution</td><td>1465</td></tr><tr><td>Japanese prewar bank claimants, bill<br>signing</td><td>1485</td></tr><tr><td>Legacy of Parks program</td><td>1516</td></tr><tr><td>Motor Vehicle Information and Cost<br>Savings Act, bill signing</td><td>1548</td></tr><tr><td>National security</td><td>1460</td></tr><tr><td>Omnibus bill signing, 37 bills</td><td>1582</td></tr><tr><td>Revenue sharing, bill signing</td><td>1534</td></tr><tr><td>Robinson, Jackie, death</td><td>1560</td></tr><tr><td>San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Tran-<br>sit system</td><td>1560</td></tr><tr><td>Terrorism, actions to combat</td><td>1459</td></tr><tr><td>Veterans benefits legislation, bill<br>signing</td><td>1562</td></tr><tr><td>Statistics<br>Economic</td><td>1442</td></tr><tr><td>Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Stand-<br>ard</td><td>1556</td></tr></tbody></table>", "<table><tbody><tr><td>Statue of Liberty</td><td>1455, 1456</td></tr><tr><td>Stein, Herbert</td><td>1519</td></tr><tr><td>Stevens, Robert C</td><td>1563</td></tr><tr><td>Strategic arms limitation<br>Agreements with U.S.S.R.</td><td>1449, 1456, 1470, 1474, 1482, 1484, 1500</td></tr><tr><td>Talks with U.S.S.R., resumption</td><td>1534</td></tr><tr><td>Suffolk County, N.Y.</td><td>1556</td></tr><tr><td>Sullivan, John F</td><td>1472</td></tr><tr><td>Sullivan, Rev. Dr. Leon H</td><td>1495</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of the United States,<br>President's appointees, comments</td><td>1457</td></tr><tr><td>Survivor benefits, military retirees</td><td>1510</td></tr><tr><td>Sviridoff, Mitchell</td><td>1495</td></tr><tr><td>Tahoe Area Regional Planning Agency,<br>governing board, Federal representa-<br>tive</td><td>1499</td></tr><tr><td>Tanaka, Prime Minister Kakuel</td><td>1537</td></tr><tr><td>Tanzania, Ambassador to U.S.</td><td>1499</td></tr><tr><td>Taxation<br>Increase</td><td>1497</td></tr><tr><td>Property taxes</td><td>1489, 1498</td></tr><tr><td>Teachers Salary Act amendments of<br>1972, District of Columbia</td><td>1549</td></tr><tr><td>Terrorism<br>Cabinet Committee to Combat Ter-<br>rorism</td><td>1452, 1459</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign officials</td><td>1584</td></tr><tr><td>Texas, Republican leaders, meeting<br>with President</td><td>1475</td></tr><tr><td>Thai National Executive Council</td><td>1500</td></tr><tr><td>Thailand, Ambassador to U.S.</td><td>1499</td></tr><tr><td>Thieu, President Nguyen Van. See<br>Nguyen Van Thieu, President</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tho, Le Duc. See Le Duc Tho</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thompson, Llewellyn</td><td>1483</td></tr><tr><td>Thompson, Hon. William S</td><td>1495</td></tr><tr><td>Thomson, Bobby</td><td>1518</td></tr><tr><td>Thomson, Meldrin</td><td>1475</td></tr><tr><td>Tobin, Francis X</td><td>1454</td></tr><tr><td>Tonelli, Joseph</td><td>1475</td></tr><tr><td>Tonga, U.S. Ambassador to</td><td>1452, 1476</td></tr><tr><td>Tower, Sen. John</td><td>1435, 1441, 1519</td></tr><tr><td>Trade<br>Balance of payments</td><td>1488</td></tr><tr><td>Cooperation with U.S.S.R.</td><td>1533, 1538</td></tr><tr><td>Train, Russell E</td><td>1518, 1519</td></tr><tr><td>Trampczynski, Witold</td><td>1518</td></tr><tr><td>Transportation, mass transit systems</td><td>1549</td></tr><tr><td>Transportation, Department of<br>Secretary</td><td>1452, 1506, 1548</td></tr><tr><td>Urban Mass Transportation Admin-<br>istration</td><td>1459</td></tr><tr><td>Treasury, Department of the<br>Customs Bureau. See Customs, Bu-<br>reau of<br>Secretary</td><td>1450, 1452, 1489</td></tr><tr><td>Treaties and other international<br>agreements<br>Antibiotic missile systems, treaty<br>on the limitation of</td><td>1482, 1500</td></tr><tr><td>Interim agreement on the limitation<br>of strategic offensive arms</td><td>1474, 1482, 1484, 1500</td></tr><tr><td>Trerotola, Joseph</td><td>1515</td></tr><tr><td>Truman, Harry S</td><td>1457</td></tr><tr><td>Tuckahoe, N.Y.</td><td>1554</td></tr><tr><td>Turk, James C</td><td>1476</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployment</td><td>1472</td></tr><tr><td>Union of Soviet Socialist Republics<br>Assistance to North Vietnam</td><td>1570</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Commission, Joint U.S.-<br>U.S.S.R</td><td>1538</td></tr><tr><td>Cooperation with U.S.</td><td>1440, 1444, 1462, 1466, 1469, 1470, 1557, 1575</td></tr><tr><td>Environment, cooperation with U.S.</td><td>1518, 1519</td></tr><tr><td>General Secretary Leonid I. Brezhnev</td><td>1470, 1482, 1483, 1533</td></tr><tr><td>Health, cooperation with U.S.</td><td>1470</td></tr><tr><td>Lend-lease settlement</td><td>1533, 1538</td></tr><tr><td>Maritime, cooperation with U.S.</td><td>1518</td></tr><tr><td>Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei A.<br>Gromyko</td><td>1482, 1484, 1488, 1499</td></tr><tr><td>Minister of Health</td><td>1464, 1468, 1470</td></tr><tr><td>Minister of Merchant Marine Timofey<br>B. Guzenko</td><td>1518</td></tr><tr><td>Minister of Trade Nikolai Patolchev</td><td>1533</td></tr><tr><td>Premier Aleksei N. Kosygin</td><td>1470</td></tr><tr><td>President Nikolai V. Podgorny</td><td>1470, 1484</td></tr></tbody></table>", "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—Cont.", "<table><tbody><tr><td>Strategic arms limitation<br>Cooperation with U.S.</td><td>1449, 1456, 1466, 1470, 1474, 1482, 1484, 1500</td></tr><tr><td>Talks with U.S., resumption</td><td>1534</td></tr><tr><td>Trade, cooperation with U.S.</td><td>1533, 1538</td></tr><tr><td>Trip by Russell E. Train</td><td>1518, 1519</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. relations</td><td>1461-1464, 1466-1468, 1470</td></tr><tr><td>Wheat agreement with U.S.</td><td>1488</td></tr><tr><td>Uniondale, N.Y.</td><td>1556</td></tr></tbody></table>", "<table><tbody><tr><td>United Kingdom<br>Ambassador to U.S.</td><td>1475</td></tr><tr><td>Prime Minister Edward Heath</td><td>1449</td></tr><tr><td>United Nations<br>Relief assistance</td><td>1493</td></tr><tr><td>Terrorism</td><td>1584</td></tr><tr><td>UNESCO, General Conference, U.S.<br>Representatives and Alternates</td><td>1492, 1500</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Representative</td><td>1452</td></tr><tr><td>Upgrading deputy U.S. marshals, veto</td><td>1578</td></tr><tr><td>Upton, R. Miller</td><td>1492, 1500</td></tr><tr><td>Urban areas, mass transportation</td><td>1459, 1460</td></tr><tr><td>Utility Workers of America</td><td>1518</td></tr><tr><td>Vergari, Carl</td><td>1554</td></tr><tr><td>Vesper, Howard G</td><td>1493</td></tr><tr><td>Veterans<br>Employment</td><td>1492, 1552, 1561, 1562</td></tr><tr><td>Legislation</td><td>1561</td></tr><tr><td>Radio address to Nation</td><td>1551</td></tr><tr><td>Veterans' Administration Medical<br>School Assistance and Health Man-<br>power Training Act of 1972</td><td>1562</td></tr><tr><td>Veterans Day 1972</td><td>1451</td></tr><tr><td>Veterans Health care expansion act,<br>veto</td><td>1578</td></tr></tbody></table>", "### Veto Messages and Memorandums of Disapproval", "<table><tbody><tr><td>Federal Water Pollution Control Act<br>Amendments of 1972, message to<br>Senate</td><td>1531, 1538</td></tr><tr><td>National Environmental Data System<br>and Environmental Centers Act of<br>1972</td><td>1549</td></tr><tr><td>Nine bills exceeding Federal budget</td><td>1577</td></tr><tr><td>Railroad retirement benefits bill, veto<br>message to House</td><td>1485</td></tr></tbody></table>", "<table><tbody><tr><td>Victory '72 dinners<br>Los Angeles, Calif.</td><td>1465</td></tr><tr><td>New York, N.Y.</td><td>1456</td></tr><tr><td>San Francisco, Calif.</td><td>1460</td></tr><tr><td>Vietnam, Democratic Republic of<br>Assistance from U.S.S.R.</td><td>1570</td></tr><tr><td>Prime Minister Pham Van Dong</td><td>1568</td></tr><tr><td>Relations with U.S., future</td><td>1567</td></tr></tbody></table>", "<table><tbody><tr><td>Vietnam, North. See Vietnam, Demo-<br>cratic Republic of<br>Vietnam, South. See Vietnam, Republic<br>of</td></tr></tbody></table>", "<table><tbody><tr><td>Vietnam, Republic of<br>Government</td><td>1444, 1528, 1567, 1570</td></tr><tr><td>President Nguyen Van Thieu</td><td>1537, 1569, 1570</td></tr><tr><td>Trips<br>Halg, Maj. Gen. Alexander M., Jr.</td><td>1475, 1500</td></tr><tr><td>Kissinger, Dr. Henry A</td><td>1537, 1565, 1586</td></tr><tr><td>Vietnam conflict<br>Amnesty for draft evaders</td><td>1445, 1528, 1552</td></tr><tr><td>Bombing policy, U.S.</td><td>1439, 1443, 1487, 1488, 1529, 1568, 1570, 1571</td></tr><tr><td>Casualties</td><td>1439, 1444, 1461, 1462</td></tr><tr><td>Cease-fire</td><td>1566, 1567, 1570</td></tr><tr><td>Invasion of South by North Viet-<br>namese forces</td><td>1439, 1528</td></tr><tr><td>Military Commission, Joint</td><td>1571</td></tr><tr><td>Mining of North Vietnamese ports<br>by U.S.</td><td>1443, 1487, 1488, 1529</td></tr><tr><td>Missing in action</td><td>1528, 1566</td></tr><tr><td>News conference remarks</td><td>1487, 1488</td></tr><tr><td>Peace negotiations</td><td>1475, 1518, 1537, 1565, 1586</td></tr><tr><td>Political settlement</td><td>1565</td></tr><tr><td>

********U NCLASSIFIED D********S COPY

PRIORITY
FHB2418AA166
DE RUFHOM #0012/1 3151940
P 101920Z NOV 72
FM USIS/ROME

TO USINFO WASHDC PRIORITY
DOD WASHDC PRIORITY
WASHDC PRIORITY
SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
VOA MUNICH PRIORITY

UNCLAS SEC 1 OF 2

CURRENT REACTION, ATTENTION IWE, IBS, IOP/GM, IOP/FCC/NYC,
IPS, STATE/AIS, STATE/RUE, STATE/P.

ATTENTION CHARLES JOHNSON COUNTRY OFFICER, ITALY
PASS WHITE HOUSE

SUMMARY: INTERVIEW WITH DR. KISSINGER, CALLED "WORLD EXCLUSIVE" (ADVERTISED EVEN ON RADIO) PUBLISHED IN /L'EUROPEAN/ (LEFT-OFF-CENTER, CIRCULATION 245,000 COPIES.)

INTERVIEWS PRECEDED BY A PROLOGUE IN WHICH MISS FALLACI GIVES HER IMPRESSIONS OF KISSINGER'S PERSONALITY AND AN ACCOUNT OF THE INFORMAL CONVERSATION IN WHICH KISSINGER ASKED HER A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS TO DECIDE WHETHER HE WOULD GRANT HER THE INTERVIEW. DURING THIS MEETING DR. KISSINGER TOLD HER THAT HE HAD CON-TEMPLATED THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH AN INTERVIEW AFTER READING MISS FALLACI'S INTERVIEW WITH GENERAL GIAP. FALLACI MADE ALSO SOME REMARKS ON KISSINGER'S APPEARANCE, BACKGROUND ETC.

/TEXT OF INTERVIEW/ (IT TOOK PLACE ON NOVEMBER 4)

Q.: I WONDER HOW YOU FEEL THESE DAYS, DR. KISSINGER, ARE YOU JUST AS DISAPPOINTED AS WE ARE, AND MOST OF THE WORLD IS? ARE YOU DISAPPOINTED, DR KISSINGER? A.: DISAPPOINTED? WHY, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THESE DAYS TO DISAPPOINT ME? Q.: A NOT TOO HAPPY EVENT:

ALTHOUGH YOU SAID THAT PEACE "WAS AT HAND" AND THAT THE AGREEMENT WITH THE NVNAMESE HAD BEEN REACHED, PEACE HAS NOT COME.

WAR CONTINUES AS BEFORE AND WORSE THAN BEFORE. A.: THERE WILL BE PEACE. WE ARE DETERMINED TO HAVE IT. IT WILL COME IN A FEW WEEKS, AND EVEN SOONER, I.E. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RESUMPTIONS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE NVNAMESE FOR THE FINAL AGREEMENT.

THIS I SAID TEN DAYS AGO AND THIS I REPEAT. YES, PEACE WILL COME IN A REASONABLY SHORT TIME IF HANDS ACCEPTS ANOTHER SESSION BEFORE SIGNING THE AGREEMENT, A SESSION TO DEFINE THE DETAILS, AND IF IT ACCEPTS IT IN THE SAME SPIRIT IN WHICH IT RECEIVED IT IN

PSN:055002

RECALLED
PAGE 01

TOR:316/17:53Z

DTG:101920Z NOV 72

OCTOBER. THIS "IF" IS THE ONLY UNCERTAINTY OF THE LAST FEW DAYS. BUT IT IS AN UNCERTAINTY THAT I DO NOT EVEN WANT TO CONSIDER; YOU LET YOURSELF BE SEIZED BY PANIC AND ONE SHOULD NOT LET GET PANICKY IN THESE THINGS, NOR IMPATIENT...FOR MONTHS, WE HAVE CARRIED OUT THESE NEGOTIATIONS AND YOU JOURNALISTS HAVE NOT BELIEVED. IN IT. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THEY WOULD END NOWHERE. THEN, SUDDENLY, YOU HAVE CRIED THAT PEACE HAS BEEN MADE, AND NOW YOU SAY THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE FAILED. BY DOING THIS YOU TAKE OUR TEMPERATURE EVERY DAY, FOUR TIMES A DAY. BUT YOU TAKE IT FROM HANOI'S POINT OF VIEW. AND...MIND YOU, U UNDERSTAND HANOI'S POINT OF VIEW. THE NORTHVIETNAMESE WANTED US TO SIGN BEFORE OCTOBER 31. THIS WAS AT THE SAME TIME REASONABLE AND UNREASONABLE...BUT I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THIS. Q.: BUT YOU WERE COMMITTED TO SIGN ON OCTOBER 31. A.: I SAY AND REPEAT THAT IT WAS THEY WHO INSISTED ON THAT DATE AND THAT, IN ORDER TO AVOID AN ABSTRACT DEBATE ON DATES THAT AT THAT POINT SEEMED TO BE PURELY THEORETICAL, WE SAID THAT WE WOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO CONCLUDE THE NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE OCTOBER 31. BUT IT HAS ALWAYS CLEAR, AT LEAST TO US, THAT WE COULD NOT SIGN AN AGREEMENT WHERE THERE WERE DETAILS TO CLARIFY. WE COULD NOT HAVE OBSERVED A DATE JUST BECAUSE WE HAD PROMISED IN GOOD FAITH THAT WE WERE GOING TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO OBSERVE IT. THEN, WHERE ARE WE? WE ARE AT THE POINT THAT THESE DETAILS STILL REMAIN TO BE CLARIFIED AND A NEW MEETING AS INDISPENSIBLE. THEY SAY THAT IT IS NOT INDISPENSIBLE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY. I SAY IT IS INDISPENSIBLE AND THAT IT WILL TAKE PLACE, AS SOON AS THE NVNAMESE CALL ME TO PARIS. BUT TODAY IS ONLY NOVEMBER 4 AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE NVN MAY NOT WANT TO BEGIN NEGOTIATING AGAIN A FEW DAYS AFTER THE DATE WHICH THEY HAVE SET FOR THE SIGNING. I CAN UNDERSTAND THIS POSTPONEMENT. BUT IT IS INCONCEIVABLE, AT LEAST FOR ME, THAT THEY TURN DOWN ANOTHER SESSION, RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE HAVE WALKED 90 0/0 OF THE WAY AND WE ARE ABOUT TO REACH THE GOAL. NO, I AM NOT DISAPPOINTED, BUT I SHALL BE DISAPPOINTED IF HANOI WANTS TO BREAK THE AGREEMENT AND REFUSE TO DISCUSS ANY MODIFICATION. BUT THIS I CANNOT BELIEVE, I CANNOT EVEN SUSPECT THAT WE WOULD GONE SO FAR TO FAIL ON A MATTER OF PRESTIGE, PROCEDURE, DATES, NUANCES. Q.: AND STILL, THEY LOOK AS THOUGH THEY HAVE STIFFENED, DR. KISSINGER. THEY HAVE RESUMED THEIR HARSH WORDS, THEY HAVE EXPRESSED HEAVY, EVEN INSULTING CHARGES AGAINST YOU. A.: OH, THIS DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING. IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE AND WE NEVER PAID ATTENTION TO IT. I WOULD SAY THAT HARSH WORDS, HEAVY CHARGES, EVEN INSULTS, ARE NORMAL. I SUBSTANCE, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. AFTER TUESDAY OCTOBER 31, E.G. WHEN WE HAD QUIETED DOWN, YOU KEEP ASKING US WHETHER THE SICK MAN IS SICK. BUT I DO NOT SEE ANY DISEASE. I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THINGS WILL TAKE PLACE MORE OR LESS AS I SAY. I REPEAT, PEACE WILL COME IN A FEW WEEKS AFTER THE RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS. NOT IN MANY MONTHS, IN A FEW WEEKS. Q.: BUT WHEN WILL NEGOTIATIONS RESUME? THIS IS THE POINT. A.: AS SOON AS LE DUC THO IS WILLING TO SEE

PSN:055002

RECALLED
PAGE 02

TOR:316/17:53Z

DTG:101920Z NOV 72

["U N C L A S S I F I E D C O P Y", "ME. I AM HERE WAITING. BUT WITHOUT WORRYING BELIEVE ME. BEFORE,\nTHERE WERE TWO OR THREE WEEKS BETWEEN MEETINGS. I DON'T SEE\nWHY WE SHOULD START WORRYING IF DAYS GO BY. THE ONLY REASON FOR\nNERVOUSNESS IS THAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING: \"BUT WILL THESE NEGOTIATIONS\nRESUME?\" WHEN YOU WERE ALL CYNICAL AND YOU DID NOT BELIEVE THAT\nSOMETHING WAS HAPPENING, YOU DID NOT EVEN REALIZE THAT TIME WENT\nBY. YOU WERE TOO PESSIMISTIC AT THE BEGINNING, THEN TOO OPTI-\nMISTIC AFTER MY PRESS CONFERENCE, AND NOW YOU ARE AGAIN TOO\nPESSIMISTIC. YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS THAT\nEVERYTHING IS PROCEDING THE WAY I ALWAYS BELIEVED IT WAS GOING\nTO BE FROM THE MOMENT IN WHICH I SAID THAT PEACE WAS AT HAND.\nTHEN I ESTIMATED A COUPLE OF WEEKS, I BELIEVE. BUT EVEN IF THERE\nWERE TO BE MORE... ENOUGH, I DO NOT WANT TO TALK ANYMORE OF\nVIETNAM. I CANNOT PERMIT MYSELF TO DO IT, RIGHT NOW. EVERY WORD\nI SAY BECOMES A PIECE OF NEWS. AT THE END OF NOVEMBER PERHAPS...\nLISTEN, WHY DON'T WE MEET AT THE END OF NOVEMBER? Q.: BECAUSE\nIT IS MORE INTERESTING NOW, DR. KISSINGER. BECAUSE THIEU, FOR\nINSTANCE, HAS CHALLENGED YOU TO SPEAK. READ THIS CLIPPING\nFROM /THE NEW YORK TIMES/ QUOTING THIEU \"ASK KISSINGER WHICH\nPOINTS DIVIDE US, WHICH THE POINTS I DO NOT ACCEPT.\" A.: LET ME\nSEE... NO, I SHALL NOT ANSER HIM, I SHALL NOT TAKE NOTICE OF\nTHIS INVITATION. Q.: HE HAS ALREADY REPLIED, DR. KISSINGER, HE\nHAS ALREADY SAID THAT THE PAINFUL POINT COMES FROM THE FACT THAT,\nACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT YOU HAVE ACCEPTED, NVN TROOPS WILL\nREMAIN IN SVN. DR. KISSINGER, DO YOU THINK YOU WILL EVER SU-\nCCEED IN CONVINCING THIEU? DO YOU THINK AMERICA WILL HAVE TO\nSIGN A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH HANOI? A.: DO NOT ASK ME. I\nMUST HOLD TO WHAT I SAID PUBLICLY 10 DAYS AGO. I CANNOT, I\nMUST NOT CONSIDER A POSSIBILITY THAT I BELIEVE WILL NOT\nMATERIALIZE. A POSSIBILITY THAT MUST NOT MATERIALIZE. I CAN\nTELL ONLY THAT WE ARE DETERMINED TO MAKE THIS PEACE AND THAT WE\nSHALL MAKE IT IN THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIME AFTER MY NEW MEETING\nWITH LE DUC THO. THIEU MAY SAY WHAT HE WANTS. IT IS HIS BUSINESS.\nQ.: DR. KISSINGER, IF I SHOULD PUT A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND FORCE\nYOU TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A DINNER WITH THIEU AND ONE WITH LE DUC THO...\nWHOM WOULD YOU CHOOSE? A.: I CAN'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION.\nQ.: AND IF I WOULD SAY... I'D LIKE TO THINK YOU WOULD RATHER\nDINE WITH LE DUC THO? A.: I CAN'T... I CAN'T I DON'T WANT TO...\nANSWER THIS QUESTION. Q.: CAN YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION THEN...\nDID YOU LIKE LE DUC THO? A.: YES, I FOUND HE IS A DEDICATED\nMAN, VERY SERIOUS, VERY STRONG AND ALWAYS COURTEOUS AND POLITE.\nSOMETIMES VERY HARD, DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH, BUT THIS IS SOME-\nTHING FOR WHICH I HAVE ALWAYS RESPECTED HIM. I RESPECT LE\nDUC THO. NATURALLY OUR RELATIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY PROFESSI-\NONAL, BUT I THINK I SENSED MUCH KINDNESS WITHIN HIM.\nIT IS TRUE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT SOMETIMES WE EVEN SUCCEDED\nIN JOKING. WE USED TO SAY THAT ONE DAY I WOULD TEACH INTER-\nNATIONAL RELATIONS AT HANOI UNIVERSITY AND HE WOULD TEACH\nMARXISM-LENINISM AT HARVARD. I WOULD SAY THAT OUR RELATIONS", "PSN:055002", "RECALLED\nPAGE 03", "TOR:316/17:53Z", "DTG:101920Z NOV 72", "U N C L A S S I F I E D C O P Y"]

U NCLASSIFIED COPY

PRIORITY
SUP164R
022899 FHB245 CORRECTED COPY (TEXT)
DE RUFHOM #0012/2 3152000
P 101920Z NOV 72;!
FM USIS/ROME

UNCLAS SEC 2 OF 2

CORRECTED COPY (TEXT - 1ST SENTENCE OF ANSWER IN LINE 101)
CURRENT REACTION, ATTENTION IWE, IBS, IOP/GM, IOP/FCC/NYC, IPS, STATE/AIS, STATE/RUE, STATE/P.
ATTENTION CHARLES JOHNSON COUNTRY OFFICER, ITALY
PASS WHITE HOUSE

.....OUR RELATIONS WERE GOOD. Q.: WOULD YOU SAY THE SAME ABOUT THIEU? A.: ALSO WITH THIEU MY RELATIONS HAVE BEEN GOOD.....
BEFORE... Q.: YES, BEFORE, THE SVN SAID YOU DIDN'T PART THE BEST OF FRIENDS. A.: WHAT DID THEY SAY? Q.: YES. WOULD YOU SAY THE OPPOSITE, DR. KISSINGER? A.: WELL....OF COURSE WE HAD AND HAVE OUR OWN VIEWPOINTS, AND NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME VIEWPOINT.
LET'S SAY WE PARTED ALLIES, THIEU AND I. Q.: IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THIEU WAS A HARDER NUT TO CRACK..
THAN WAS THOUGHT. DO YOU FEEL THAT REGARDING THIEU YOU HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THERE WAS TO DO POSSIBLE OR DO YOU STILL HOPE TO DO SOMETHING? IN SHORT DO YOU FEEL OPTIMISTIC ON THE THIEU PROBLEM? A.: YES, I FEEL OPTIMISTIC! I STILL HAVE SOMETHING TO DO. I HAVE NOT FINISHED AT ALL, WE HAVE NOT FINISHED AT ALL. AND I DO NOT FEEL POWERLESS. I DON'T FEEL DISCOURAGED AT ALL. I FEEL READY CONFIDENT. OPTIMISTIC. IF I CANNOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIEU, IF I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE DOING AT THIS POINT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ABOUT TO LOSE MY CONFIDENCE IN THE POSSIBILITY OF SETTLING EVERYTHING WITHIN THE TIME I SAY. THIS IS WHY IT IS USELESS FOR THIEU TO ASK YOU OF THE PRESS TO MAKE ME DEFINE THE POINTS ON WHICH WE DO NOT AGREE. IT IS SO USELESS THAT I DON'T EVEN GET NERVOUS ABOUT IT. ON THE OTHER HAND I AM NOT THE TYPE THAT LETS HIMSELF BE PULLED BY EMOTIONS. EMOTIONS ARE USELESS. LEAST OF ALL

PSN:055018

RECALLED
PAGE 01

TOR:316/18:09Z

DTG:101920Z NOV 72

U NCLASSIFIED COPY

U NCLASSIFIED D** CopY

DO THEY HELP IN REACHING A PEACE SETTLEMENT. Q.: BUT THOSE WHO ARE DYING ARE IN A HURRY, DR. KISSINGER. TODAYS PAPERS CARRIED A TERRIFYING PICTURE: A YOUNG VIETCONG KILLED TWO DAYS AFTER OCT.31. AND A TRAGIC PIECE OF NEWS: 22 AMERICANS KILLED IN A HELICOPTER HIT BY A VC GRENADE, THREE DAYS AFTER OCT.31. AND WHILE YOU SPEAK AGAINST HASTE, THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SENDS MORE ARMS AND AMMUNITION TO THIEU. HANOI DOES THE SAME.
A.: THAT WAS INEVITABLE. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME BEFORE A CEASEFIRE. DON'T YOU REMEMBER THE MANEUVERS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AT THE MOMENT OF THE CEASEFIRE? THEY LASTED AT LEAST TWO YEARS.
...THE FACT THAT WE ARE SENDING MORE ARMS TO SAIGON AND THAT HANOI SENDS MORE ARMS TO THE NVNAMESE INSTALLED IN SOUTH VIETNAM MEANS NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. AND PLEASE, DON'T MAKE ME SPEAK AGAIN OF VIETNAM. D.: DON'T YOU EVEN WANT TO TALK OF THE FACT THAT, ACCORDING TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, THE AGREEMENT ACCEPTED BY YOU AND NIXON IS PRACTICALLY AN ACT OF SURRENDER TO HANOI? A.: THIS IS ABSURD. IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT PRESIDENT NIXON, A PRESIDENT THAT WITH THE SOVIET UNION AND COMMUNIST CHINA, AND IN VIEW OF HIS OWN ELECTIONS HAS TAKEN A POSITION OF ASSISTANCE AND DEFENCE OF SOUTH VIETNAM AGAINST WHAT HE CONSIDERED A NVNAMESE INVASION, IT IS ABSURD TO THINK THAT SUCH A PRESIDENT COULD SURRENDER TO HANOI. WHY WOULD HE SURRENDER JUST NOW? WHAT WE DID WAS NOT SURRENDER. WHAT WE DID WAS TO GIVE SOUTH VIETNAM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SURVIVE IN CONDITIONS THAT NOW ARE MORE POLITICAL THAN MILITARY. NOW IT IS UP TO THE SOUTHIETNAMESE TO WIN THE FORTHCOMING POLITICAL GAME. AS WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID. IF YOU COMPARE THE AGREEMENT WE HAVE ACCEPTED WITH OUR MAY 8 PROPOSALS, YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT THEY ARE ALMOST THE SAME. THERE ARE NO GREAT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT WE PROPOSED LAST MAY AND THE CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT. WE HAVE NOT SUGGESTED NEW CLAUSES, NOR HAVE WE MADE OTHER CONCESSIONS. I REJECT TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY THE JUDGMENT OF "SURRENDER". BUT NOW THAT'S REALLY ENOUGH OF VIETNAM. LET'S TALK OF MACHIAVELLI, CICERO, ANYTHING EXCEPT VIETNAM. Q.: LET'S TALK OF WAR, DR. KISSINGER. YOU ARE NOT A PACIFIST, ARE YOU? A.: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I AM. I RESPECT GENUINE PACIFISTS, BUT I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THEM, AND PARTICULARLY WITH HALF-PACIFISTS, THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST WAR ON ONE SIDE, AND FOR IT ON THE OTHER. THE ONLY PACIFISTS THAT I AM WILLING TO TALK TO ARE THOSE WHO BEAR (TO THE END) THE CONSEQUENCES OF NON VIOLENCE; BUT I TALK TO THEM GLADLY JUST TO TELL THEM THAT THEY WILL BE CRUSHED BY THE WILL OF PEOPLE STRONGER THAN THEY ARE, AND THAT THEIR PACIFISM CAN BRING THEM ONLY TERRIBLE SUFFERINGS. WAR IS NOT AN ABSTRACTION. IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOVERNED BY (ACTUAL) CONDITIONS. THE WAR AGAINST HITLER, FOR INSTANCE, WAS NECESSARY. I DO NOT WANT TO IMPLY THAT WAR IS NECESSARY PER SE, AND THAT NATIONS MUST WAGE WAR TO MAINTAIN THEIR VIRILITY. I WANT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH NATIONS MUST BE READY TO FIGHT.

PSN:055018

RECALLED
PAGE 02

TOR:316/18:09Z

DTG:101920Z NOV 72

U NCLASSIFIED D** COPY

FORM 8510-1
PRINTED IN U.S.A.

U NCLASSIFIED D**C**S COPY

Q.: AND ABOUT VIETNAM WAR, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY? YOU HAVE
NEVER BEEN AGAINST THE VIETNAM WAR, I BELIEVE. A.: HOW COULD
I? NOT EVEN BEFORE I HELD THE POSITION I HOLD NOW...NO, I HAVE
NEVER BEEN AGAINST THE VIETNAM WAR. Q.: BUT DON'T YOU THINK
THAT SCHLESINGER IS RIGHT WHEN HE SAYS THAT THE VIETNAM WAR
HAS SUCCEEDED ONLY IN PROVING THAT HALF A MILLION AMERICANS
WITH ALL THEIR TECHNOLOGY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DEFEAT BADLY
ARMED MEN DRESSED IN BLACK PAJAMAS. A.: THIS IS A DIFFERENT
PROBLEM. IF IT IS A PROBLEM THAT THE VIETNAM WAR HAS BEEN
NECESSARY, A JUST WAR, RATHER THAN...THIS TYPE OF JUDGMENT
DEPENDS ON THE POSITION THAT ONE TAKES WHEN THE COUNTRY IS
ALREADY INVOLVED IN THE WAR AND THE ONLY THING LEFT IS HOW TO
GET THE COUNTRY OUT OF THE WAR. AFTER ALL, MY ROLE, OUR ROLE
HAS BEEN FIRST TO REDUCE MORE AND MORE THE EXTENT TO WHICH
AMERICA WAS INVOLVED IN THE WAR, AND THEN TO END THE WAR.
AT THE END HISTORY WILL SAY WHO HAS DONE MORE, THOSE WHO
HAVE JUST OFFERED CRITICISM OR WE, WHO HAVE TRIED TO REDUCE
THE WAR AND THEN ENDED IT....YES, IT IS UP TO FUTURE GENER-
ATIONS TO DECIDE. WHEN A COUNTRY IS INVOLVED IN A WAR, ONE
CANNOT JUST SAY, WE MUST END IT. THE WAR MUST BE ENDED WITH
PRINCIPLE, WITH JUDICIOUSNESS. AND THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING
AS SAYING THAT IT WAS RIGHT TO ENTER THE WAR. Q.: BUT DON'T
YOU THINK, DR. KISSINGER, THAT THIS WAS A USELESS WAR?
A.: I MIGHT AGREE WITH THIS. BUT DO NOT FORGET THAT THE REASON
WE GOT INTO THAT WAR WAS TO PREVENT THE SOUTH FROM BEING
SWALLOWED BY THE NORTH, TO PERMIT THE SOUTH REMAIN THE SOUTH'S.
NATURALLY I DON'T MEAN THAT THIS WAS OUR ONLY OBJECTIVE. IT
WAS ALSO SOMETHING MORE. BUT TODAY I AM NOT IN THE POSITION
TO JUDGE WHETHER THE VIETNAM WAR HAS BEEN USEFUL OR USELESS.
BUT AREN'T WE STILL SPEAKING OF VIETNAM? Q.: YES. AND TALKING
OF VIETNAM, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THESE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN
AND ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ENTERPRISE OF YOUR CAREER, AND
EVEN OF YOUR LIFE? A.: THEY HAVE BEEN THE MOST DIFFICULT ONE.
AND OFTEN THE MOST PAINFUL ONE. BUT PERHAPS IT IS NOT EVEN
FAIR TO DEFINE THEM THE MOST DIFFICULT ENTERPRISE: IT IS MORE
CORRECT TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN THE MOST PAINFUL ONE, BE-
CAUSE I HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED. YOU SEE, THE RAPPROCH-
MENT WITH CHINA HAS BEEN AS DIFFICULT JOB INTELLECTUALLY BUT
NOT EMOTIONALLY. TO MAKE PEACE IN VIETNAM HAS HOWEVER BEEN
A JOB EMOTIONALLY DIFFICULT. AS FOR THESE NEGOTIATIONS BEING
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN MY LIFE...NO, WHAT I WANTED TO
REACH WAS NOT ONLY PEACE IN VIETNAM: THERE WERE THREE THINGS:
THIS AGREEMENT, THE RAPPROCHMENT WITH CHINA AND NEW RELATIONS
WITH THE SOVIET UNION. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN KEEN ON THE PROBLEM
OF A NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SOVIET UNION. I WOULD SAY NO
LESS THAN ON THAT OF RAPPROCHMENT WITH CHINA AND THE END OF
THE VIETNAM WAR. Q.: AND YOU MADE IT. YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED
WITH CHINA, WITH RUSSIA, AND ALMOST WITH VIETNAM. AND AT THIS
POINT I AM ASKING YOU, DR. KISSINGER, WHAT I ASKED THE

PSN:055018

RECALLED
PAGE 03

TOR:316/18:09Z

DTG:101920Z NOV 72

U NCLASSIFIED D**C**S COPY

ASTRONAUTS WHEN THEY WERE ABOUT TO GO TO THE MOON "WHAT AFTER
THAT? (IN ENGLISH) WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO AFTER THE MOON;
WHAT CAN YOU DO, BESIDES YOUR PROFESSION AS AN ASTRONAUT?"
A.: AND WHAT DID THE ASTRONAUTS REPLY? Q.: THEY WERE A BIT
BEWILDERED AND SAID "WE SHALL SEE, I DON'T KNOW..." THE REST OF
THE INTERVIEW CONTAINS A VAGUE ANSWER ON DR. KISSINGER'S FUTURE,
IN WHICH HE SAYS THAT WE ARE IN SUCH A REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
THAT TO PLAN ONE'S LIFE IS TO ASSUME A 19TH CENTURY ATTITUDE;
A DISCUSSION ON THE ATTRACTION OF POWER, KISSINGER'S FEELING
FOR THE PRESIDENT (I HAVE MUCH RESPECT FOR HIM); HIS RELATIONS
WITH PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS; HIS INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCE: EITHER
MACHIAVELLI, METTERNICH, OR SPINOZA AND KANT (KISSINGER PREFERS
THE LAST TWO); THE REASONS FOR HIS SUCCESS (AMERICANS LIKE
THE MAN WHO ACTS ALONE); ON WHETHER HE IS A PLAYBOY OR NOT;
KISSINGER'S LOVE FOR HIS CHILOREN, HIS OPINION ON MARRIAGE;
WHETHER HE IS SHY, MYSTERIOUS AND SO FORTH.

ENDIT, ALLEN

BT

PSN:055018

RECALLED
PAGE 04

OF 04

TOR:316/18:09Z

DTG:101920Z NOV 72

PART TWO KISSINGER INTERVIEW WITH L'EUROPEAN

7

A. I FELL THE SAME WAY. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM GOING TO DO NEXT. HOWEVER, UNLIKE THE ASTRONAUTS, I AM NOT BEWILDERED. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO FIND IN MY LIFE MANY THINGS TO DO AND I AM SURE THAT WHEN I QUIT THIS JOB I WILL NATURALLY NEED A PERIOD OF "RELAXATION"; A PERIOD OF DECOMPRESSION; ONE CANNOT STAY IN THE POSITION I AM HOLDING NOW, AND THEN QUIT IT AND IMMEDIATELY START OVER WITH SOMETHING ELSE. ONCE I AM FREED FROM PRESSURE, HOWEVER, I AM SURE I WILL FIND A WORTHWHILE OCCUPATION. I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT NOW: IT WOULD AFFECT MY THOUGHTS, MY WORK. WE ARE GOING THROUGH SUCH A CHAOTIC PERIOD NOWADAYS THAT, PLANNING FOR ONE'S FUTURE LIFE IS AN ATTITUDE PROPER OF A LITTLE NINETEEN CENTURY BOURGEOIS.

Q.: WOULD YOU GO BACK TO TEACHING AT HARVARD?

A. I MIGHT. IT IS VERY, VERY UNLIKELY, THOUGH. THERE ARE MUCH MORE INTERESTING THINGS TO DO; AND IF, WITH ALL THE EXPERIENCES I RAN THROUGH, I WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO CONTINUE WITH AN INTERESTING WAY OF LIVING, IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE MY FAULT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I HAVEN'T MADE ANY DECISIONS YET AS TO WHETHER I SHOULD QUIT THIS JOB. I LIKE IT VERY MUCH, DP3. YOU FROW THAT?

Q. POWER IS ALWAYS FASCINATING. TELL ME, DR. KISSINGER, IN WHAT WAY DOES POWER ATTRACT YOU MOST? PLEASE TRY AND BE FRANK ABOUT IT.

A. I WILL BE FRANK. YOU SEE, WHEN ONE HOLDS POWER IN ONE'S HAND, AND WHEN ONE HOLDS IT FIRMLY FOR QUITE A LONG TIME, YOU GET USED TO CONSIDERING IT AS SOMETHING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE. I AM QUITE CERTAIN THAT, WHEN I SHALL QUIT THIS JOB, I WILL ACTUALLY MISS THE POWER. HOWEVER, POWER AS A SELF-CONCEITED MEDIUM DOES NOT HAVE THE SLIGHTEST ATTRACTION TO ME. I DON'T WAKE UP EVERY MORNING WITH THE THOUGHT OF, BY THE WAY, ISN'T IT FANTASTIC TO HAVE AT MY DISPOSAL A PLANE, A CAR WITH A DRIVER WAITING FOR ME AT THE DOOR? WHO COULD EVER IMAGINE THIS COULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN. NO, I AM NOT A BIT INTERESTED IN THIS TYPE OF TALK. AND IF I EVER HAPPEN TO SAY SOMETHING OF THIS SORT, IT WOULD HAVE ANY RELEVANT MEANING. WHAT I AM INTERESTED IN, IS WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH POWER. YOU CAN MAKE MARVELOUS THINGS WITH IT, BELIEVE ME... PURSUING POWER, HOWEVER, WAS NOT WHAT LED ME TO THIS WORK. IF YOU SHOULD GO THROUGH MY PAST POLITICAL LIFE, YOU WOULDN'T IMAGINE THAT PRESIDENT NIXON COULD FIT IN WITH MY PLANS. I WAS ONE OF HIS OPPONENTS IN THREE ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN.

Q. I KNOW IT. ONCE YOU EVEN STATED THAT NIXON "WAS NOT SUITED FOR THE ROLE OF PRESIDENT." IN VIEW OF THIS, DR. KISSINGER, HAVE YOU EVER FELT SOMEWHAT EMBARRASSED WITH NIXON?

A. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDS; I MAY HAVE SAID SOMETHING