Relating Our National Idealism to International Realities

Address by Secretary Rogers ¹

Two years ago President Nixon remarked in a commencement address that "Skeptics do not build societies; the idealists are the builders." ² He might have added that the idealists who want to build societies must not be satisfied merely to proclaim their idealism. To be effective the idealist must work with other members of the society—each of whom believes that he, too, is an idealist. In somewhat the same fashion American foreign policy faces the challenge of relating our national idealism to international realities—especially to the reality that other societies have their own idealisms, often quite different from ours.

Throughout most of our history the essential character of our Nation has been reflected in our foreign policy aspirations. We have shown ourselves to be essentially idealistic and optimistic about the future.

Under the strain of the Viet-Nam experience, however, these enduring qualities of Americans have become obscured to the point where a segment of our population acts as if they do not exist—indeed, as if they never existed. To them, all that America stands for is consigned to the distant shore of memory, shrouded by a fog of invective and recrimination.

This, of course, must give us pause. However, I am convinced that most Americans do not share this sickness of spirit. Even among most

of those who vigorously oppose our policies in Viet-Nam, the principal theme, I believe, is not a denial or a rejection of what this country has stood for—but rather an effort to bring about a rededication to our traditional purposes as they see them.

For the past two and a half years, President Nixon and those who assist him on foreign affairs have sought to respond to this critical yet questing popular mood. We have listened; and we are proceeding, as the President declared earlier this year, on the premise that "we should not do more abroad than domestic opinion can sustain." ³ We have acted in the knowledge that there is a vital relationship between America's image of itself and its confidence in carrying out its policies overseas.

Above all, your Government is seeking to restore to America a sense of unity and purpose in our foreign policies. For unless we Americans are at peace with ourselves, committed to a shared vision of the future, we are unlikely to be successful in our search for peace in the world.

Our American heritage provides the basic principles and aspirations which help determine American foreign policy. A dedication to peace, democracy, and international well-being arises naturally from our idealism. It sparked our contribution to the defeat of the Axis Powers and our subsequent efforts to help rebuild Europe. It infused our substantial com-

¹ Made at commencement exercises at Colgate University, Hamilton, N.Y., on May 30 (press release 121).

² For President Nixon's commencement address at the Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo., on June 4, 1969, see BULLETIN of June 23, 1969, p. 525.

³ The complete text of President Nixon's foreign policy report to the Congress on Feb. 25 appears in the BULLETIN of Mar. 22, 1971.

June 21, 1971

795

mitment to the United Nations. This idealism
provided the moral underpinning for our com-
mitment to the decolonization of Asia and
Africa and to our massive economic assistance
programs in the developing world.

However, in many ways our idealism was too
grandiose. We presumed a degree of omnip-
otence for good which has led to considerable
disillusionment. We found that we lacked the
power to affect others as we thought we might.
We often approached political problems with
an excessively moralistic and self-righteous at-
titude. Our economic assistance occasionally
was paternalistic and overintrusive. And as the
Secretary General well knows, we overestimated
the peacekeeping capacity of the United
Nations.

Interdependence in a Polycentric World

In the fast-changing world of today our
idealism must constantly be augmented by real-
ism. You who are graduating today will soon
be taking over the responsibility for our Na-
tion's affairs—and you must begin from where
we are.

Well, you might ask—where are we? We are
in a polycentric world, a world of many lan-
guages, many religions, many ideologies. It is
a world filled with fear, hatred, injustice, and
intolerance—and with affection, courage,
decency, and genius. There is a universal long-
ing for peace, a universal recognition that war
does not solve problems or correct injustices—
and yet the threat of war constantly hangs over
the world. Despite the prediction of Communist
theoreticians, history is not making a long
march toward a single homogeneous political
and economic socialistic system—or for that
matter any other homogeneous system. Except
for certain nations which are not able to do so,
each country tends to shape its political insti-
tutions in terms of its own national identity
and drive, largely free from outside interfer-
ence or control. The resulting diversity, how-
ever, is not necessarily divisive.

More than ever before in history, our inter-
dependence unites us. The same destruction

threatens us, the same depletion of resources
affects us, and the same growth of population
brings human misery in its train for us all.
Pollution does not recognize national bound-
aries. We cannot, therefore, assume that Amer-
ica must involve itself less in the world. We
consume 40 percent of the world's resources;
we have treaties involving mutual security with
42 nations; we have invested abroad some $120
billion, and this amount is growing; we hold
such a central position in international trade
and economic matters that we must necessarily
be increasingly involved in the affairs of the
world.

We are constantly reminded that we have vast
problems at home, in the cities, and in our en-
vironment, in providing equal educational and
employment opportunities. But it is a fallacy
to conclude from this that our international
problems and our domestic ones should or could
be neatly separated. Without doubt they will be
increasingly more interrelated and interdepend-
ent during your lifetime. And it is a dangerous
fallacy to assume that the threat of war is less-
ened by our noninvolvement in the world. The
lessons of history belie that conclusion.

As the Nixon doctrine is implemented, our al-
tered role in the world will therefore be—must
be—an active and involved one. There must be
no room for neoisolationism in United States
foreign policy. We welcome the increased
strength of other nations but will insist that
they more equitably share the burden, responsi-
bilities, and cost of maintaining the peace—
which formerly, because of World War II, de-
volved primarily on the United States.

Our policy is not merely to scale down our
role; it is to expand the base of common en-
deavor. Thus we hope to strengthen the common
efforts, within the framework of our alliances,
to create a free and peaceful world community.

President Nixon said last year: "No goal
could be greater than to make the next genera-
tion the first in this century in which America
was at peace with every nation in the world."

⁴ For excerpts from President Nixon's state of the Union address on Jan. 22, 1970, see BULLETIN of Feb. 9, 1970, p. 145.

796

Department of State Bulletin

In this search for peace, our policy calls not for abdication of America's role, but for a more creative and realistic American participation.

## Creativity in Policy Development

The element of creativity has been important in the development of our policy in the Middle East. A year ago the area was plagued with daily hostilities which threatened to escalate into a major conflict. The United States embarked on a major initiative designed to bring about a cease-fire and start negotiations. Although major problems remain unsolved, progress has been made. The cease-fire was brought about and has been in effect for 10 months. Israel has committed itself to the principle of withdrawal, and Egypt and Jordan have expressed a willingness to make a peace agreement with Israel, consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Our relations with Israel remain good, and our relations with the Arab states have significantly improved. We are now in active consultations dealing with a possible interim agreement on the opening of the Suez Canal.

We are, of course, examining closely the implications of the treaty arrangements just announced between Egypt and the Soviet Union. The Soviets have been an important factor in the Middle East situation for some time, however, and it remains our judgment that we should persist in the policies we have been pursuing.

The United States will continue to make every possible effort and to play any responsible role to bring about a final peace agreement in the Middle East.

Creativity has also been a factor in pursuit of disarmament. Recognizing that nuclear war is the ultimate danger, we undertook to negotiate a limitation of both offensive and defensive strategic arms. And when the talks seemed stalemated, President Nixon undertook a new initiative which brought about the recent joint announcement from Moscow and Washington.⁵

We and the Soviets will now pursue negotiations to limit antiballistic missiles, together with certain measures to limit offensive systems. The issues under discussion are of vital importance in our relations with the Soviet Union. They are at the forefront of our concern for peace, and we earnestly hope they will succeed.

Just as we seek a generation of peace, so we are seeking to improve the quality of life on this planet in this generation. This is a new frontier of diplomacy where creative ideas can improve life for all of us.

We must protect the quality of life from those forms of destruction which we knowingly inflict on our cities, oceans, international rivers, atmosphere, and climate.

In a few months we will sign with Canada an agreement to eliminate and control pollution in the Great Lakes. Once one of the great natural treasures of North America, they are now defiled by man's carelessness.

Next week, on one front in this common effort, I will be discussing NATO projects to combat oil pollution in the seas. A few days thereafter, in the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], we will be discussing how we can together best allocate costs so that no nation unfairly gains economic advantages from failing to fight pollution.

## Dealing With Existing Realities

If creativity is important in our diplomacy, so is realism.

We undertook a new China policy in 1969 to deal with existing realities. One person in every four on earth today is an inhabitant of Communist China. Seven hundred million people cannot continue to live in virtual isolation from the world community.

To encourage a better relationship with the People's Republic of China, President Nixon took several unilateral steps in the fields of trade and of exchanges of people. To this end also I expressed our new policy attitudes toward China on two visits to Asia. These persistent efforts over 2 years finally produced the invitation to our ping-pong team this spring. While a small step, it was a significant one,

⁵ For background, see BULLETIN of June 7, 1971, p. 741.

June 21, 1971

426-927-71-2

797

and other Americans are now visiting the main-
land.

We hope opportunities for contact will be
increased by a further positive Chinese re-
sponse to our most recent decisions to expedite
visas, relax currency controls, and permit di-
rect trade. While we do not expect immediate
dramatic results, we are convinced that a realis-
tic and positive policy toward Peking offers the
best chance for additional progress and the
peaceful Asia we all want. That is why we have
altered previous American policy toward Com-
munist China.

The Nixon doctrine provides, in part, that we will remain a Pacific power but that our presence will be more in keeping with the realities as they presently exist. We are implementing this policy in many ways. We are withdrawing 20,000 troops from Korea, 16,000 from Thailand, 12,000 from Japan, and 9,000 from the Philippines. During the next few weeks we will sign a historic treaty with Japan providing for the reversion of Okinawa. The Nixon-Sato understanding ends the last significant issue pending from World War II.

In another part of the world, Eastern Europe, we also are pursuing policies that take account of new realities. Today in Eastern Europe, Communist governments are moving with varying degrees of caution toward more active relationships with the West. Their interest centers on closer commercial, technological, and cultural ties.

We welcome this desire of the countries of Eastern Europe for a more normal pattern of relations with Western Europe and with us. We will do what we prudently can to encourage it.

We understand, of course, the realities that may circumscribe the efforts of Eastern European countries to normalize relations with us. We intend, however, to deal with the countries of Eastern Europe as the distinct independent entities that they are—states with diverse national characters, needs, and aspirations.

The heart of the problem in Europe, of course, is still in Berlin. There we are seeking, together with the British, French, and Soviets,

a resolution of tensions which would permanently safeguard the freedom of Berliners and protect access to that city. With our support, the Federal Republic of Germany is also seeking to improve its relations with the Soviet Union, Poland, and other Eastern European states.

Next week, moreover, I will be consulting with colleagues in NATO on a new initiative to accelerate movement toward a mutual and balanced reduction of forces in Central Europe, now that the Soviet Union has finally responded affirmatively to NATO's longstanding proposals.

Prudently pursued and carefully negotiated, these broad stirrings in Europe could lead toward restoration of the more normal relations among European states. If so, they could contribute vitally toward our goal of a generation of peace.

At present the most troubled and controversial area in the world is Viet-Nam. There this administration has adopted and is carrying out a new and, I believe, realistic policy. I am quite convinced that because of 6 years of exhaustive debate no minds are changed on the subject of Viet-Nam by further argumentation. Future events will change minds. Today's discourse will not. Therefore, merely for the sake of the record, let me make two comments.

The direction and the certainty of our policy can no longer be seriously questioned—for President Nixon is getting the United States out of the war in Viet-Nam.

There will continue to be debate and public discussion on the pace and details of the withdrawals, but our course, which has been carefully charted by President Nixon, is irreversible.

In closing let me again thank you for your invitation. Thirty-seven years ago I had the great privilege of graduating from Colgate. Since that time we have been engaged in World War II, the Korean war, and the war in Viet-Nam. I took part in World War II and have served in the Cabinets of President Eisenhower and President Nixon as the other two wars were ending. Those experiences make me abhor war. But

798

Department of State Bulletin

an abhorrence of war does not bring peace. The search for peace requires active participation and dedication of all of our energies.

It is our hope—the aim of our foreign policy—that your generation will be a generation of peace. That objective can be achieved only if we are strong and united, if we respect each other, if we are proud of our Nation and our national heritage. It is my hope that you men of Colgate will look to the future with pride in the knowledge that on your shoulders and the shoulders of other Americans like you rests a responsibility for peace, security, and sanity in the years to come. That is a challenge that most young men in the world will never have the opportunity to meet. That is a challenge you should welcome.

## 115th Plenary Session on Viet-Nam Held at Paris

Following are remarks made by Ambassador David K. E. Bruce, head of the U.S. delegation, at the 115th plenary session of the meetings on Viet-Nam at Paris on June 3.

Press release 123 dated June 3

Ladies and gentlemen: It is clear from remarks today that you are still not prepared to negotiate seriously here. You continue to insist on your unacceptable preconditions and on your own demands as the only basis for discussion.

For our part, we set no preconditions and are

willing to discuss proposals made by both sides. We have put forward reasonable proposals designed to stop the fighting and lead to a fair and lasting settlement of the basic issues at stake here.

We have, for example, asked for immediate negotiations on a cease-fire-in-place throughout Indochina. We seek an end to the killing now, even before the other military and political issues are resolved. You insist that the fighting and killing go on unless and until the political and military issues are resolved entirely in your favor.

This is not a reasonable and responsible approach to negotiations. On the contrary, it serves only to show more clearly than ever your continuing designs of aggression against your neighbors.

Your attitude and approach are evident in regard to our other proposals as well. You continue to insist on the withdrawal of U.S. and other allied forces while refusing to indicate in any way what you plan to do about North Vietnamese forces in Laos, Cambodia, and South Viet-Nam. You turn a deaf ear to our side's proposals for a political settlement in South Viet-Nam and for an expanded Indochina peace conference. And you refuse to deal with the question of treatment and release of prisoners of war in any reasonable or humanitarian fashion.

Our proposals remain before you, and you will find us flexible and forthcoming in any serious negotiations here. It is up to you to remove the obstacles to such negotiations.

June 21, 1971

799

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JUNE 7, 1971

Public Statements [LC]

845

Donner, 69, was first appointed to the Board of Directors in 1964. He was reappointed to full 3-year terms in 1965 and 1968.

Donner is currently chairman of the board of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Previously, he was with the General Motors Corporation. He started with General Motors in 1926 and in 1958 was named chairman of the board and chief executive officer. He has served on the board of directors of General Motors since 1942. He retired from the company in 1967.

The Board of Directors of the Communications Satellite Corporation consists of a total of 15 members, as follows:

3 members appointed for terms of 3 years by the President of the United States

6 members elected annually by the stockholders who are communications common carriers

6 members elected annually by the other stockholders of the Corporation

The Corporation was established by Public Law 87–624 of August 31, 1962.

The other two members appointed by the President currently serving are Rudolph A. Peterson, of Piedmont, Calif., term expiring in 1973 (appointed by President Nixon); and George Meany, of Bethesda, Md., term expiring in 1972 (appointed by President Nixon).

## THE PRESIDENT'S NEWS CONFERENCE OF JUNE 1, 1971

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Risher has the first question tonight.

### TROOP WITHDRAWALS FROM EUROPE

Q. Mr. President, Chairman Brezhnev recently indicated a willingness to negotiate troop withdrawals from Europe. Do you plan to take him up on this?

THE PRESIDENT. We have completed within our own Government our study of the question of balanced mutual force reductions. Secretary Laird has had some consultations last week on this matter with the NATO defense chiefs and Secretary Rogers is conducting consultations at the present time with the Foreign Ministers of the various NATO countries. When those consultations have been completed, then the United States and our allies will move forward to discuss, negotiate, with the Soviet Union and other countries involved with regard to mutual, balanced force reductions.

### POSSIBILITY OF EUROPEAN MEETINGS

Q. Mr. President, we not only have the prospect—maybe distant in the future—of the mutual reduction of

force, but we have the Berlin question, the SALT talks, the dollar problem in Europe. Do you foresee meeting with the leaders of Europe on their own soil within the foreseeable future?

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Cormier, I plan no trip to Europe and no meetings with European leaders in the near future. If such plans do develop, of course, I will announce them. And if it becomes necessary, as a result of developments in the question of mutual force reductions or arms limitation that such meetings occur, I will, of course, go any place that I think would serve the interests of our goal of reducing the dangers to peace in the world, and, of course, reducing the burden of armaments.

### ✓ DRUG ADDICTION PROBLEMS

Q. Mr. President, what are you going to do about the tens of thousands of American soldiers who are coming back from Vietnam with an addiction to heroin?

THE PRESIDENT. I think it's well for us first to put the problem of drug addiction in Vietnam in perspective. It is not simply a problem of Vietnam veterans; it's a national problem. It's a national problem that primarily focuses on young people. When Mr. Finch and Mr. Rumsfeld came back from Europe they pointed out that it was an affliction not only of young people who were in the armed services but of young people who were tourists in Europe.

Consequently, what we need is a national offensive on this problem and one which, of course, will particularly take into account the immediate problem in Vietnam. The problem in Vietnam is aggravated by the fact that heroin can be purchased there at a much lower price than it can in the United States and, therefore, when men are exposed to it, or they are able to obtain it, the habit is one that they can afford to have.

What we are going to do, therefore, is to step up our national program on four fronts: First, the front of getting at the sources. This means working with foreign governments where the drugs come from, including the Government of South Vietnam, where they have, of course, a special responsibility.

It means also prosecuting those who are the pushers. It means, in addition to that, a program of treating the addicts, and that, incidentally, insofar as veterans are concerned, means treating them where they are addicted to heroin or hard drugs before releasing them, giving them the opportunity. And, finally, it requires a massive program of information for the American people with regard to how the drug habit begins and how we eventually end up with so many being addicted to heroin, the hard drug, which virtually is a point of no return for many.

And in that respect, that's one of the reasons I have taken such a strong position with regard to the question of marijuana. I realize this is controversial. But I can see no social or moral justification whatever for legalizing marijuana. I think it would be exactly the wrong step. It

847

recommendations that they possibly can that will bring qualified women into Government, because finding qualified people is very difficult and we don't want to rule out such a great source of qualified people as the women might provide.

## THE MIDDLE EAST

Q. Mr. President, what effect will the Soviet-Egyptian treaty have on your efforts to get a peaceful settlement in the Middle East?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, the Soviet-Egyptian treaty will have effect only in terms of how it might affect the arms balance. In the event that this will be followed by an introduction of more weapons into the Middle Eastern area, it can only mean a new arms race and could greatly jeopardize the chances for peace. We trust that that is not the case.

It is too early to appraise the treaty in terms of what it could mean, in terms of introducing arms into the area.

As far as we're concerned, we continue to support the truce which is now in its tenth month. We continue to work for an agreement, either an interim agreement if necessary; of course, a comprehensive one if possible.

And we are not going to allow this treaty to discourage us insofar as seeking that agreement is concerned. We seek normal relations with all the countries in the area, including the U.A.R. And we believe that the chances for an agreement are still there. Whether the Soviet follows up with large-scale arms shipments into the area will determine whether or not it increases the chances for peace or sharply increases the chances for war.

## CONGRESSMAN MCCLOSKEY

Q. Mr. President, a Republican Congressman who is a Marine Corps veteran from your own State, Paul McCloskey, has been going around the country talking against your Vietnam policies and has plans to run against you in the primaries next year. Do you welcome this as a challenge, or does it make you the least bit nervous?

THE PRESIDENT. I realize that there are probably many political questions in the minds of reporters, and, of course, many of our listening audience. I, however, have decided as a matter of policy that the presidential press conference is not a proper forum to comment on any partisan political matters or political questions.

Consequently, I will not comment on that and I will not comment on any other political questions.

Mr. Horner.

## PRISONERS OF WAR

Q. Mr. President, what does a refusal of all but a handful of the sick and disabled prisoners that South Vietnam had planned to return to the North do to the chances for exchange of such prisoners?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Horner, you will remember that we went through somewhat the same thing in

Korea many years ago when the Korean prisoners, many of them, refused to go back. As far as this is concerned, there are a few, less than 20, who've agreed to go back, and of course, they will be returned.

We hope that the refusal of the others to go back will not deter the North Vietnamese at least to consider some kind of action on their part with regard to sick and disabled prisoners.

Mr. Rather.

Q. Mr. President, thank you. And I especially appreciate it because it gives me an opportunity to follow up on Mr. Horner's question that some of the wives—by no means all—but some of the wives of prisoners of war held by North Vietnam are critical of you and your policies concerning their husbands, saying specifically, among other things, that you should set a date for withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Vietnam contingent upon release of all the prisoners; that, if North Vietnam doesn't respond, then you lose nothing by that.

The question is, first, generally, would you respond to that criticism, and then specifically, what is there to lose by setting a date contingent upon release of all prisoners?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Rather, I discussed this matter with Ambassador Bruce when he was here. And I asked him what success he had had in raising this question with the North Vietnamese, because as you note, they have even put out stories to the effect that if we would set a date certain way in the future, they would be willing to move on the prisoner issue. It always comes back to the same thing. If we end our involvement in Vietnam and set a date, they will agree to discuss prisoners, not release them.

Now, we've been around this track before. I should point out that when President Johnson agreed to the bombing halt in October of 1968, he did so with the understanding that there was going to be progress in the negotiations, that there was going to be discussions and for 2½ years we've had discussions in Paris and no progress.

Now, as far as we're concerned, we at this time are not going to make any kind of agreement with regard to prisoners that is not going to be followed by action or concurrent with action; and from the standpoint of the North Vietnamese we have yet no indication whatever that they would be willing to release prisoners in the event that we took certain steps.

Mr. Kaplow.

## POLICE ACTION DURING DEMONSTRATIONS

Q. Mr. President, it's been about a month now since the Mayday demonstrations, and in that period, several people have raised the question as to whether the police handled it properly, and also the charges against, I think, more than 2,000 people arrested on that Monday have been dropped.

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE #1053

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

12:45 P.M. EDT

JUNE 3, 1971

THURSDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The President was waiting, before going into the Roosevelt Room, for the briefing to be over. That is why I could not proceed with the briefing earlier.

The President's schedule has been posted.

At 5:00 o'clock, as the schedule shows, the President will have a reception in honor of the 80th Congressional Club and their wives.

Q: Is there any coverage on that?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, it is a private reception.

Q: Would you tell us who? There is a big difference between the number of people expected and the members of the 80th Congress. Club and their wives. Who are the other people who will be there?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think we will be able to post a list on that, Sarah.

Q: They said they will have 200 guests, and there are only a few people in the 80th Congress Club.

MR. ZIEGLER: There are a few additional people invited, and we will post the list for you.

Ted asked me about the energy message yesterday. We may have it tomorrow.

Q: Not today?

MR. ZIEGLER: Not today.

Q: How come we got definite calls to come here at 4:30 and come through a special door?

MR. ZIEGLER: Who from?

Q: I got a call from a woman who said I had to come through a special door, not this door.

MR. ZIEGLER: Sarah, you have just blown a private briefing you were invited to. (Laughter)

I have some announcements for you.

MORE

#1053

- 2 -

#1053

The President has approved H.R. 429, which authorizes the Attorney General to appoint additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Virgin Islands.

Also, as I mentioned yesterday, the President will attend the dedication of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Project on Saturday, June 5th. That is at the port of Catoosa, Oklahoma, near Tulsa.

The Arkansas River Navigation Project is a $1.2 billion Federal system which has been under construction for the last 10 years. We will provide you the details on this afternoon at Jerry Warren's briefing.

President Nixon will depart Andrews Air Force Base at approximately 10:00 a.m. this Saturday enroute to Tulsa International Airport. The dedication ceremony will be at 12:00 Noon at the port of Catoosa. The President will return to Washington at approximately 4:30 p.m. on Saturday.

The press plane will depart Andrews Air Force Base at 9:00 a.m. and will return to Washington at approximately 5:30 p.m.

The meeting this morning which Chuck asked me about was an interdepartmental breakfast meeting. It was one of a series of meetings that have been held to talk about the drug problem in our society.

As the President indicated the other night in his press conference, the problem of drugs in the United States has been a matter very much on the minds of the Administration. This morning the meeting was devoted, not totally, but to a great extent to a discussion of the drug problem in Southeast Asia and Europe as that relates to the drug problem in our society.

The Service Secretaries were present, and also the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including, of course, the Chairman, and other members of the Administration, specifically those departments and agencies that are involved in dealing with drugs and related problems. They are:

* The Secretary of HEW.

* Attorney General Mitchell.

Under Secretary Irwin, who represented the State Department because the Secretary of State is out of town.

Don Johnson, the Administrator of the Veterans Administration.

John Ingersoll, the Director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, was there and gave a report. He recently returned from South Vietnam, where he assessed the situation.

Don Rumsfeld, Counselor to the President, was there, along with Henry Kissinger, John Ehrlichman, Bud Krogh and myself.

The meeting was a working session devoted to a discussion of the problem.

As we have indicated previously, we will have an announcement of an initiative regarding the drug problem in our society in the very near future. So that was the purpose of the meeting this morning, further discussion on that matter.

MORE

#1053

- 3 -

#1053

Q Can't you tell us more about this meeting?
Did they come to any conclusion at this meeting today?

MR. ZIEGLER: Sarah, I cannot give you a report on the content of the meeting because it was a working meeting, called for the purpose of final development on the initiative that we will announce sometime here in the near future.

Q Did you have any status report on it? I wonder
why you didn't have that young Republican who is just back from
Vietnam with a report on drugs, that man Steele.

MR. ZIEGLER: This was a departmental meeting. There
were no representatives from Congress.

Q Were there any discussions of his report?

MR. ZIEGLER: Not at this meeting, but he has talked
to those in the White House and in the Administration who are
addressing themselves to this problem.

Q Was Mr. Ingersoll's report similar to the one
that the Congressman brought back, recognizing the same scope
and trouble with drugs that the Congressman reported?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, Mr. Ingersoll's report reflected
information which we had been compiling over a long period of
time -- Bud Krogh, for example, had been to South Vietnam a
long time ago -- which focused attention on the drug problem
in the military in South Vietnam, and other parts of this
country.

This is a part of the matter we are addressing our-
selves to, but it should be pointed out that we are looking
toward a comprehensive approach toward drugs in our society.
The returning veteran and the detection of drug use and the
assistance that the Government can provide in rehabilitation
was, of course, part of the overall discussion of the compre-
hensive initiative we will be putting forth.

Q Was there a discussion in the meeting of steps
that the Government of Southeast Asia might be asked to take
to help with the problem of drug smuggling?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have to be very general on this,
because I am not prepared this morning to announce what our
initiative will be. When you are addressing a comprehensive
program to deal with the drug problem, you have to talk about
the source of supply of these drugs.

Q How long will "the very near future" be?

MR. ZIEGLER: I would say within a month; probably
sooner.

Q To what extent was there agreement on the extent
of the drug problem on the troops in Southeast Asia? Was there
a discussion of turning over drug addicted GI's to the VA with-
out discharge from the armed forces?

MR. ZIEGLER: I can't get into the details of the
discussion. Don Johnson was there, however, and in recognizing

MORE

#1053

- 4 -

#1053

the problem and putting it into perspective as we approach
the problem, Mr. Johnson referred to what the Veterans
Administration was doing at this time, and what they could
do in the future.

Q To what extent was the drug problem agreed upon?
Was it 10, 15, 30 percent? What did the experts who have been
there agree upon?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't want to give you a percentage
figure now. There has been an increase, which has been re-
ferred to, over the last 12 to 15 months. Those figures were
discussed. I am not prepared to give them to you now, however.

Don Johnson indicated, in terms of overall statis-
tics, some 5,000,000 Vietnam era veterans -- his statistics
indicated that less than one percent were addicted to drugs.
There is a problem in this area which we are addressing our-
selves to.

Q You are talking about 50,000 people?

MR. ZIEGLER: 50,000 people who are Vietnam veterans,
out of 5,000,000. So it is a serious problem we are address-
ing ourselves to. But not of the scope that some have suggested.

There has been some increase in heroin use, but it
by no means has permeated the entire military. The percentage
is very low when you look at the overall number of U.S. forces
in Southeast Asia and Europe.

Q Ron, a national point on this. I am saying this
because I don't want anybody to think I am being localized.

There are two Public Health Service drug addiction
centers in the United States under HEW. Did the Secretary
bring up the point that one of these is being belittled in its
treatment of drug addiction and having its staff dispersed by
turning the staff over to the Bureau of Prisons?

MR. ZIEGLER: He did not bring it up.

Q Can we get into whether Mr. Murphy was invited,
and if not, why?

MR. ZIEGLER: Sure. The other day at the meeting,
when the President asked the Attorney General and Director
Hoover to come to the office and talk about it, after the
death of the two policemen in New York, they were talking
about the two days of discussion and training that would take
place at the Federal Bureau of Invest igation next Monday and
Tuesday.

In the course of the conversation, the President asked
that representatives of the International Association of Chiefs
of Police Officers and the National Sheriffs' Association and
major city chiefs of police be invited to the White House to
talk about the problem.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation extended those
invitations to the officers of those organizations. For
example, the gentleman who came out to give a report to you

MORE

#1053

- 5 -

#1051

on the meeting, Chief Shryock, is the president of the Inter-
national Association of Chiefs of Police. Sheriff Canlis,
who was here, is the president of the National Sheriffs'
Association.

During the course of the meeting -- and this is what
I think the Attorney General could not recall -- the Director,
when he welcomed everyone there, indicated that there had been
a report or story indicating that Commissioner Murphy was not
going to be here this morning, and he indicated in his remarks
at that time that he was in New York dealing with the recent
killing of the two policemen.

I think from that, the Attorney General drew the
impression that he had been invited. I understand that Com-
missioner Murphy was not invited. The head of the New York
State Police was invited.

I think in putting together the list of major cities
across the country, apparently there was a determination by
the Bureau to invite the officers, and a representative list.
So Mr. Murphy was not invited.

Q So the President would have liked to have had
Mr. Murphy?

MR. ZIEGLER: That did not come up. He accepted the
list.

Q Why wasn't Murphy invited?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know.

Q What was the context of Mr. Hoover bringing up
Mr. Murphy?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think he knew there was a question
about it, so he volunteered those remarks.

Let me say that the Superintendent (Chief Inspector) of
the police of New York will be represented in the two-day ses-
sion at the Bureau on Monday and Tuesday.

Q The Commissioner?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. The Superintendent (Chief Inspector) of police.

Q Mr. Murphy is apparently quite irritated. He
said he is disappointed and dismayed that he was not wanted,
and the explanation attributed to you in The Times today that
he was not a chief, but a commissioner, was incredible. Can
you respond to those statements?

MR. ZIEGLER: I really have no comment on that. There
was a representative group from major cities -- Chicago, Kansas
City, L.A. -- and other representatives, to talk about this.

Q Quinn Tamm, who is the Executive Director of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, and who is
doing research on this, a former Assistant FBI Director, said
that he and Mr. Murphy were not invited because of personal
animosity toward them by Mr. Hoover. Do you have any other
explanation why they were not invited?

MORE

#1053

- 6 -

#1053

I will add that Mr. Murphy is a member of the Executive Committee of the IACP.

MR. ZIEGLER: I really have no comment to give you.

Q The FBI made up the list; that is to say, Mr. Hoover did?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is right.

Q What does the Administration have against Murphy?

MR. ZIEGLER: Nothing, as far as I know.

Q Doesn't it seem incredible that the Chief of Police of the largest city in the country, with the greatest number of police assassinations, was not invited?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think the purpose of the meeting, as I stated, was to talk about the overall problem with the officers and the representatives of the group. The list was put together on that basis. I am really not in a position to comment on this beyond what I have said, because I don't know on what basis it was compiled, beyond the fact that it was a representative group.

Q Did you say that Mr. Hoover, during the course of the meeting, indicated that Murphy was in New York dealing with recent killings of two policemen?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q Is it your impression that this was his explanation as to why Mr. Murphy was not here?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am saying that is where the Attorney General drew the conclusion that he was invited.

Q Were you in the meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q Was it your impression that this is why Mr. Murphy was not here? Is this the impression?

MR. ZIEGLER: It was an impression that could have been drawn, but obviously it was not correct.

Q Did the White House know who was on the list when the FBI sent out the invitations?

MR. ZIEGLER: The list was submitted to us. They were here yesterday having a meeting at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Q Was the President satisfied that Mr. Hoover's list was sufficient?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think it was a representative list, yes.

Q You mean the President was not unhappy that Mr. Murphy was left off of it?

MORE

#1053

- 7 -

#1053

MR. ZIEGLER: It was not even discussed, as a matter of fact. The only place where there has been any focus of attention is apparently from Mr. Murphy, which no doubt led to your questions.

Q Was anybody here from New York City or State?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. The Superintendent of Police from the State of New York, Mr. William Kirwan, was here, and also the Chief of Police from a small city in New York State was present.

Q As far as you know, nobody in the White House said, "Why isn't the police head from the largest city in the country, which has had the most assassinations of policemen, here?" Nobody in the White House said "Why isn't that fellow invited?"

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know if somebody said that or not.

Q You are quoted as saying that the reason was that he was not a chief, but a commissioner.

MR. ZIEGLER: I talked to Mr. Semple last night about it. I got the list and I said apparently he is not an officer of the organization. That was incorrect on my part, to make that statement.

Q In view of the fact that Mr. Murphy is so upset by this, is there any indication that the Administration may seek to invite him to the two-day meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know what the FBI will do. As I said, the Superintendent of Police of New York City will be there Monday and Tuesday.

Q Was there really no discussion at all about the reasons for this wave of assassinations?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think, as was pointed out earlier, the meetings are due to continue. There was discussion on the problem, as was spelled out, about legislation which was referred to by the Attorney General, in providing a national standard to the survivors of those men who were killed, and there was discussion about making the killing of police officials a Federal crime. I think the attitude of the group was expressed to you.

Q There was no discussion of the possibility of whether these were independent acts or whether there was a conspiracy?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think the representatives of the various organizations expressed to you earlier what was discussed along that line.

Q Commissioner Murphy and Director Tamm have taken positions against the ban of the sale of all handguns for private use, which is a lot more drastic than the position taken by the Attorney General or the FBI Director.

MORE

#1053

- 8 -

#1053

Don't you think it would have been helpful for the
President to get all the views, including those, in a meeting
searching for solutions to the problem of police being killed?

MR. ZIEGLER: He is aware of those views. The discussion this morning did not focus on gun control legislation. We support, as the Attorney General pointed out earlier, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and also those provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act which relate now to gun control regarding the selling of long guns and handguns through interstate commerce, and registration for ammunition.

I think, as the Attorney General indicated, there is legislation on the books now to deal with that. There are various local and State ordinances which deal with the sale of handguns.

There is the matter now under discussion of the
"Saturday Night Special," as it is referred to. The Administra-
tion is examining certain steps that could be taken to deal
with that particular problem.

I think, as the Attorney General pointed out this
morning, the legislation which has now been passed dealing
with control on the sale of both long guns and handguns is
on the books. It is being enforced and we are seeing how
effective that is.

Q When the President suggested at that meeting two
weeks ago that the police chiefs of the major cities be invited,
didn't that indicate that he wanted or expected the top police
official of the largest city in the country to be in this session?

MR. ZIEGLER: Recognizing the interest in this, and
your questions, based on Mr. Murphy's statement, I think per-
haps it would be worthwhile to attempt to put the meeting of
this morning into perspective.

There is no question about the fact that two despicable
gillings took place in New York City this week. However, this
is also a national problem, and the discussion did not focus
specifically on New York. That was a part of the discussion,
but the focus of the discussion addressed itself to a national
problem, and the officers of the two organizations which I
referred to were invited, the chiefs of major cities were
invited, and I think it was a very productive session.

The fact that Mr. Murphy was not there, I don't think
inhibited the discussion about the national problem, nor the
recognition of the problem as it related to the death of the
two officers that were tragically killed in New York City.

MORE

#1053

- 9 -

#1053

Q Ron, why is this a national problem? Traditionally these matters have been left to local authorities. What now makes it a national problem?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think as the various representatives in the meeting this morning pointed out, they appreciated very much the support they have been receiving from the Administration in terms of recognition of this problem. I think they appreciated the intent of the Administration putting forth legislation calling for a national standard in terms of grants that would be provided to the survivors of those policemen who are killed.

There have been a number of policemen killed in the line of duty in major cities throughout the country. Sheriff Pitchess referred to the fact that in the last months two of his officers had been killed; one of them, as he pointed out in the meeting, with a family of ten. He pointed out that the family, in this case, because of his insurance, received only $90,000 for support of a family of ten.

So that, in itself, I think, shows that this is a problem that exists throughout the country. That is why, indeed, representatives from the major cities were invited.

Q Were there any totals given, total police officers killed given?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. Law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty totalled 100 in 1970. In 1969 there were 86 killed. The total thus far for 1971 is 51.

Q This legislation that the President is going to propose, would it be retroactive or simply affect police officers slain in the future? Can you give us any more details?

Q The Attorney General indicated that it would be a $50,000 grant. You were talking about stabilized national standards for grants. Is it simply going to be a $50,000 grant or are you going to pay the difference between the $50,000 and the insurance or what?

MR. ZIEGLER: The legislation is in the process of being formulated now. One of the things pointed out by the Chiefs and Sheriffs there was the variance in the country depending on the size of the city or county in terms of what the family of a slain officer received. That is why there was wide support for establishing an overall national grant level which is what the Attorney General referred to this morning.

Q Is this a national level or is this simply a grant that the Federal Government is going to make in each case?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe it would be a grant that the Federal Government would make through LEAA. That is the detail of the legislation that is being worked out now.

Q A policeman would be worth more dead than alive under that. I am serious about that. Have you worked this out very carefully. That is a pretty big amount to hand over to a family unless you decide they will have trustees or something like that.

MORE

#1053

- 10 -

#1053

Q In view of the fact that you insist that this
is a national problem and in view of the fact that these
policemen have been killed in New York City, wouldn't it be
logical for the White House to invite, no matter what list
was prepared by the FBI, to invite the leading official of
the City with the most killings?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think we have explored that enough.

Q Does the President hope or prefer that the
Republican National convention next year be held in San Diego?

MR. ZIEGLER: He has not expressed an opinion on
that to me. The National Committee Site Selection Committee
is in the process now of going through what they go through
to select a site. I haven't heard the President express an
opinion. I read the story that suggested he did, but I have
not heard him say that.

Q Is the Administration contemplating some sort
of wage control in the steel industry?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. I think the President's attitude
regarding wage and price controls has been often stated.

Q The reason I ask, the Secretary of Labor is
making a speech in New York this afternoon in which some sort
of action seems to be indicated.

MR. ZIEGLER: I have not read that speech, but the
President's view on wage and price controls has been stated.
We have mentioned before that we have on review a study relat-
ing to the various controls placed on the import into the
United States of foreign steel. The Council of Economic
Advisers has that under study. Perhaps that is what he refers
to in the speech, but I have not seen it.

Going back to your earlier question, Sarah, in terms
of the amount of money that is provided to the survivors of
a police official killed in the line of duty, various police
departments across the country have pension plans that do
exist, but if you take a young officer, say, with three
children, who is killed, $50,000, when it comes to education
of those children and maintaining a household, is really not
a lot of money, if you think of it in those terms.

Q But they will have to have some tie there to
see that this money is put in trust and apportioned out.

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not sure what the details of
the legislation will be.

Q How does that compare with the amount of
money that a soldier who is killed in Vietnam gets?

MR. ZIEGLER: I'm sorry, I don't know those figures.

Q The reading of yesterday's briefing transcript
reveals that there has been deleted a Ziegler reference to the
Westinghouse correspondent's alleged inability to comprehend
the Press Secretary's remarks from time to time. There has

MORE

#1053

- 11 -

#1053

been deleted the Ziegler claim that the U.P.I. audio correspondent had not covered the 1968 Presidential campaign, a remark which seemed to carry the implication that his inexperience made his question perhaps not well founded. After a request for putting the President's Tulsa trip on the record, there was deleted a statement by the CBS-TV correspondent who said that that Presidential trip had already been made public in Tulsa some two weeks ago.

All of these may not be major items, but they give rise to the question of what criteria is employed by the Press Office in altering the transcript.

MR. ZIEGLER: You have just put it back in the record now, so it will remain. We generally don't take things out of the transcript. I didn't proofread yesterday's briefing transcript. Apparently, Miss Sawyer felt that both comments were so innocuous that they indeed should not be left in, so you can talk to her about that after this briefing. You have now put it back in the transcript, so let's leave it there.

Q To follow up on that question, on the Presidential News Conference, having checked the transcript with the audio tape, there appear 61 deletions and errors. Are those checked out? Some of them are admittedly very minor, and the others are a matter of subjective judgment, to be fair. But are those transcripts indeed, in quotation marks, "edited"?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. If you are here just after a Presidential press conference and you hear the clamoring for the transcript, you will understand why we don't check them out against an audio tape. That is a stenographer's transcript of the news conference. She immediately takes it down and it goes right to the mimeograph machine. I think Jerry then later checks that against the tape and the transcript we provide to the Presidential Documents is checked against the tape. If we would check it against the tape that same night we would not be able to get it out for maybe two and one-half hours or so. The purpose of moving it out quickly is to provide you a quick reference to the transcript.

I think you will note, as you said, there is no change in context, but stenographers from time to time ---

Q There are several that are changes in context.

MR. ZIEGLER: There is an element of human error in that, but we do check with the tape after that.

Q This checked one appears in the publication "Presidential Documents"?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q Ron, did not Mr. Finch and Mr. Timmons get in touch with officials in San Diego and encourage them to make a bid for the Republican National Convention there? saying the President wanted it there?

MORE

#1053

- 12 -

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know. I know Mr. Timmons is the National Liaison regarding the selection of the site. I don't know that they said the President wanted it.

Q Do you know if they got in touch with the officials in San Diego?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't know.

Q Can you find out?

MR. ZIEGLER: I can, or you can call them.

Q Herb Klein is reported as saying last night that there is no doubt that President Nixon will run for re-election with Vice President Agnew on the ticket. Is that an official stance here now?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, the President has not announced his candidacy yet. Mr. Klein was expressing a view. That is a view that has been expressed previously by other Administration officials.

Q What about the energy study and when do you expect this important study by the Council of Economic Advisers on steel?

MR. ZIEGLER: I was referring before to an energy message which was a result of the study which I said perhaps would be made available tomorrow.

Q What is this "side door" thing going on at 4:30 this afternoon that Sarah was invited to?

MR. ZIEGLER: Sarah, you were invited to an Office of Science and Technology briefing for specialists in the trade press, a technical briefing on energy matters today at 4:30.

Q They didn't say all that. They just said "energy."

MR. ZIEGLER: That is what you were invited to. It is an embargoed briefing for the trade press and will not be used until after we brief tomorrow, if indeed we do.

Q Ron, who is the White House staffer who is assigned to work on narcotics and what is his background?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have referred to him about four times today; Bud Krogh and John Ehrlichman.

Q But I have been given another name by Capitol Hill people. Do you have somebody else working on it?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I don't.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

#1053

END

(AT 1:22 P.M. EDT)

FILE COPY

ANDERSON

BEHR

BERGSTEN

CHAPIN

HOLDRIDGE

KENNEDY

LEHMAN

NACHMANOFF

ROBINSON

RONDON

SAUNDERS

SMITH

SMYSER

SONNENFELDT

WRIGHT

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DPC 109

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS, RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS BRIEFING
MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1971, 12:41 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED)

MR. BRAY: I would like to welcome Dr. Dwight J. Neil of Sierra Leone, a newsman of some distinction who is with us today and you are welcome, sir.

We will have for you later this afternoon copies of the Secretary's opening remarks at the OECD Meeting in Paris, and we will have reading copies, but unfortunately at the moment not take-home copies, of Mr. Stevenson's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Convention for the Suppression of UNlawful Seizure of Aircraft. Those are available right now.

That's all I have.

Q Do you have also a communique --

A It's being typed out now, sorry, yes, we'll have that.

Q Mr. Bray, I understand that the U.S. Consul General in Dacca is returning to the States and he may not be replaced. Is that report correct?

A2

and if not, when does the next Consul General go back to Dacca?

A Let me begin with your first question.

When Mr. Blood went to Dacca he went on direct transfer from Athens in early 1970, after several years, and has been without home leave. He had planned to take home leave this summer for some time, and recently requested reassignment following his home leave.

The Department approved his request and he will be reassigned in Washington.

With respect to your second question, I am certain that we will have a successor as Consul General in Dacca as promptly as we possibly can. I don't know whether he has been named yet.

Q Is it more than a happy coincidence that the British Consul General and the U.S. Consul General are going out simultaneously, about the same time?

A Well, I can't speak for the British Government, but as far as this Government is concerned, it is a total coincidence.

Q When did he request that transfer? Was it before, or --

C-7

Q Is Ambassador Bergus coming back?

A Who?

Q Bergus.

A I thought you said Burgess. [Laughter.]
I was about to say I haven't run into him in the corridors.
Mr. Bergus flew to Paris yesterday to report to the
Secretary on the results of a number of recent discussions
he has had with senior Egyptian officials.

Q Can you tell us anything about his assessment, or the Department's assessment, of the prospects for renewed negotiations on the Suez Canal, reopening of the Suez Canal?

A No, I can't, Terrence, I'm sorry.

Q Well, can you tell us whether -- with
whom he spoke most recently before leaving Cairo? Was
it Sadat?

A I'm sorry, I am afraid I can't confirm any
of the reports.

Q Is he coming back to Washington?

A I don't honestly know at this point what
his travel plans are, whether they are onward to the
United States or back to Cairo, Bob.

C-9

on the anniversary of the U.S. initiative of last June.
We are also coming up somewhat in the future on the
12-month anniversary of the cease-fire. It was early
February when President Sadat began to talk about the
possibility of reopening the Suez Canal. And I think
it is useful to keep this historical perspective and
the length of time it takes to arrive at satisfactory solu-
tions to very complex problems in mind. They are not
going to happen overnight. There is not always going
to be forward movement every day. I understand the pressures
under which you work, but I think you are just going to
have to assume that we have come a long way since June
of 1967, indeed a long way since last summer, and some
way since February of this year.

If I cannot satisfy you every day on the question
of momentum, encouragement or its absence, I'm sorry.
I can't.

Q. But with respect -- I think at least my interest is directed to any repercussions from the Egyptian/Soviet Pact, and whether or not there has been any movement since then.

A. I am going to have to leave it, I am afraid,

C-10

Bob, that Mr. Bergus had a number of conversations last week on which he is reporting to the Secretary. I'm sorry. I know that is not terribly satisfactory.

Q Can you say if one of the subjects he discussed with the Secretary was the possibility of re-establishing diplomatic relations with Egypt?

A I can't, because I haven't seen a report of the conversations with the Secretary, Dick.

Q Is that an issue under active consideration now, on both sides?

A I don't want to mislead you in the positive direction when I say that you will recall, those of you who were on the trip, that the two governments agreed to increase the size of their respective missions. We have always taken the public position that we would be prepared to resume diplomatic relations at any time. But, again for your guidance, I don't think that you ought to speculate too heavily as a result of what I have just said.

Q Mr. Bray, would it be possible for you to let us talk to Mr. Blood when he comes back here to have firsthand knowledge of what is going on in East Pakistan?

A I will certainly look into that. I don't

C-11

know when he is due back.

Q Charles, can you confirm reports from Taipei that Ambassador Kennedy has reached agreement in principle with the Chinese Nationalist Government on textile restraints?

A Spencer, I'll have to take that question.

My attention was turned in another direction this morning, for the most part.

Q Well, I was just hopping across.

A I see I guessed correctly.

Q Has Ambassador Dobrynin requested a meeting with the Secretary to discuss troop reductions in Europe?

A I just don't know. Why don't you ask him?

Q Is a meeting scheduled between the Secretary and the Ambassador at the end of this week?

A Again, I don't know. I will have to look into that one, John, I'm sorry.

Q Can you give us any advice at this time about the trade list that is being prepared for June 10th?

A I'm afraid I can't.

Q Thank you, Charles.

[The briefing terminated at 1:29 P.M.]

This Copy For ______

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1059

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 11:22 A.M. EDT

JUNE 8, 1971

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The schedule for this morning I believe has been posted. There is one addition to the schedule: Mayor John Driggs of Phoenix, Arizona, will pay a brief courtesy call on the President to present the President with a commemorative medallion, Centennial Medallion. That will take place at about 12:15.

The Cabinet meeting this morning lasted an hour and a half. The discussion this morning in the Cabinet meeting involved domestic policies and initiatives. There was a full discussion of the programs that the Administration has put forth and that are standing in the Congress.

There was discussion about the recent energy program which the President announced and the other initiatives, such as health, pollution, housing, crime, revenue sharing, reorganization.

I think, again, in the Cabinet meeting this morning there was a sense of optimism expressed by those who have been out around the country talking about revenue sharing, the Vice President, Secretary Connally, other members of the Cabinet, that there is a good deal of support, a great amount of support, out in the country for revenue sharing.

And one of the things that has to be done in order to achieve revenue sharing is to break what was called the protective band around Congress, to further instill in them the attitude that there is substantial support in the country for revenue sharing.

I think everyone who has been out around the country, at least it was expressed by many members of the Cabinet that people at the local and State level are pretty well taxed out, and revenue sharing will provide an opportunity for States and local governments to meet the problems that many of them face.

Q Ron, I don't understand that protective band part of that statement. If you want to explain it later, fine.

MR. ZIEGLER: I will go back to that later. It is a pretty good explanation. (Laughter).

MORE

#1059

- 12 -

#1059

The International Red Cross interviewed the prisoners, the sick and wounded, and received the indication which you are aware of. But I have no evidence such as the type you refer to.

Q Do you expect to announce a new information policy on Laos one of these days, like you did one time, but this time giving still more information?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President's statement in March of 1970, as you know, outlined in very extensive detail not only the situation which the Administration inherited from previous Administrations, going back to 1962 when the North Vietnamese broke the Geneva Accords, but also spelled out quite clearly what the scope of our activities are in Laos at this time.

We will continue, as we have in the past, to discuss very frankly the scope of the U.S. assistance to Laos, consistent with national security, as the State Department pointed out.

Q Can you tell us how many Thai troops the United States is supporting?

MR. ZIEGLER: The State Department took those questions yesterday. I am not prepared to go beyond that.

Q Ron, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Rabin, had an interview in Tel Aviv the other day in which he said Israel would like a mutual defense treaty with the United States.

Has the Administration received such a request, and, if so, what is its attitude?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, we have not. I think Ambassador Rabin has indicated that since that report appeared he was not quoted accurately.

Q He was quoted accurately. We looked at the transcript. He did say they would like a mutual defense treaty.

MR. ZIEGLER: We have not received a request along that line.

Q Is the President pleased with the results of the latest Harris poll which shows him gaining substantial strength against Senator Muskie?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have no comment on polls along that line.

Q What about these reports from the Hill, I believe of the Joint Committee on Taxation, that the budget deficit, both this year and next, is up more than $20 billion each year? What is the Administration doing new, if anything, to try to reduce that budget deficit?

MR. ZIEGLER: George Shultz, I think in this room in April, referred to the fact that he anticipated the Fiscal

MORE

#1059

Department of State

June 8

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED 286

PAGE 01 GENEVA 02245 101140Z

52

ACTION NONE-00

INFO OCT-01 NEA-13 SPM-01 IO-16 SR-02 ORM-03 IGA-02 AID-28

CIAE-00 DODE-00 PM-05 HEW-08 INR-08 NSAE-00 P-03

PRS-01 RSC-01 SCA-01 SCSE-00 USIA-12 SS-20 NSC-10

SCI-06 RSR-01 /142 W

------------------ 079061

R 101125Z JUN 71

FM USMISSION GENEVA

TO USIA WASHDC

INFO SECSTATE WASHDC 9712

UNCLAS GENEVA 2245

USIAC

REF: STATE 102275: USIO PRESS MESSAGE 081615 SERIES

1. UNHCR PRESS RELEASE JUNE 8 STATED:

2. "OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES -- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONTRIBUTES A FURTHER $15 MILLION FOR EAST PAKISTANIS IN INDIA.

3. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WHICH HAS ALREADY CONTRIBUTED $2.5 MILLION TO THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES ACTING AS THE FOCAL POINT FOR ASSISTANCE BY THE UN SYSTEM TO EAST PAKISTANIS IN INDIA, TODAY ANNOUNCED A CONTRIBUTION OF A FURTHER $15 MILLION. OF THIS AMOUNT $10 MILLION IS IN THE FORM OF FOOD AND $5 MILLION IN CASH FOR SPECIFIC NEEDS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE FOCAL POINT, SUCH AS SHELTER, TRANSPORT, MEDICINES, MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND CLOTHING.

4. THE NEW US CONTRIBUTION BRINGS THE TOTAL PLEDGED TO DATE FOR EAST PAKISTANIS IN INDIA THROUGH MULTI-LATERAL CHANNELS IN RESPONSE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S APPEAL OF 19 MAY, TO OVER $32 MILLION".

5. REASON MOST WIRE SERVICES HERE DID NOT PICK UP THIS ANNOUNCE-

UNCLASSIFIED

65

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 GENEVA 02245 101140Z

MENT OR GAVE IT ONLY SUBSIDIARY PLAY FROM HERE IS THAT STORY WAS
RELEASED IN WASHINGTON AND CARRIED BY AGENCIES WITH WASHINGTON
DATELINE. PAKISTAN REFUGEE AID CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNHCR BY MOST
OTHER COUNTRIES ARE ANNOUNCED HERE FIRST. UNHCR AID ROUNDUPS
ALWAYS MAKE MENTION OF US CONTRIBUTION AND WE WILL OF COURSE BE
ALERT TO FACT THIS PRACTICE CONTINUES.WYNNE

UNCLASSIFIED

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DPC 111

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1971, 12:11 P.M.

MR. BRAY: Simone Poulain will be the Duty Officer for the coming week. Her home telephone number is 293-7840.

The Governments of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany have agreed to hold the next round of negotiations for a new offset agreement on June 28 and 29 in Bonn.

I was asked yesterday whether we had assisted or would assist Israel in projects located in the occupied territories. As a matter of policy, we do not provide assistance to the Israeli Government for projects in the occupied territories.

On the general question of constructing housing and other permanent civilian facilities in the occupied zone, including Jerusalem, our policy is to call for strict observance of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,

2

to which Israel is a party. This Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its own population into occupied territory. We interpret this to include undertaking construction of permanent facilities which have the intent of facilitating transfer of Israeli population into the occupied territories.

Q Charlie, could you repeat that sentence, please?

A We interpret this to include undertaking construction of permanent facilities which have the intent of facilitating transfer of Israeli population into the occupied territories.

On a broader policy basis, we continue to be opposed to actions by Israel in the occupied territories which could prejudice the prospects of a peace settlement.

Q Are you finished, Charles?

A No, ma'am.

I was asked, I think, about a CARE program in Sinai. We do provide food supplies to American volunteer agencies -- like CARE, Catholic Relief Services,

3

and the Lutheran World Federation and others -- under
Title II of Public Law 480. These agencies conduct
programs for the benefit of the population in the --
occupied territories -- in most cases, programs which
were being carried out in those same areas before the
1967 War.

I was asked a question about the nature of our
economic assistance to Israel. In FY 1970, our Public
Law 480 Title I commodity sales assistance totalled
$1 million. In the same year, Export-Import Bank
credits authorized to Israel totalled $10 million; and
U. S. voluntary relief agencies received about
$400,000 in PL 480 Title II commodity support for
social-welfare programs.

In FY 1971, Israel will receive substantial
PL 48 Title I sales assistance, under the terms of an
agreement reached in February of this year, totalling
$52.1 million for this calendar year.

Q The figure again, please?

A $52.1.

4

Thus far, in FY 1971, Ex-Im Bank loans totalling
$24 million have been authorized; and, again, small amounts
of Title II PL 480 assistance are being provided.

Q Charles on that, on those figures, what
I got for Fiscal '71 -- Israel will receive Title I,
$52.1 million, for the calendar year.

A Yes.

Q What is that? Fiscal year or calendar
year?

A It says calendar year here.

Let me check that out. It will be very
easy to do.

Yes, Miss Berger.

Q Charlie, are you saying that by building
apartments in the formerly Jordanian settlement of
Jerusalem Israel is violating the Geneva Convention
of 1949, which you cited?

A Marilyn, I think our position on that
subject is a matter of unequivocal public record. And
I think you can go back to some felicitous language
that Bob used here a month or so -- two months ago, I guess.

6

action by Israel now in occupied territories which
would prejudice people and so-and-so?

A This is a -- I'm sorry; I should have
had the wit to check that one. I got that just before
I came out.

Let me take that question, please. I'll
get an answer for you immediately after the briefing.

Q Charles, the Golan Heights -- did you
check on that?

A Yes. I was asked yesterday, I think,
about a factory that might be constructed in the Golan
Heights. And, obviously, in terms of what I've just
said, construction of factories in the Golan Heights
or other occupied areas would be inconsistent with
a Geneva Convention.

Q Charlie, I'm unclear about one thing.
Is any of this American money being used in any of
these projects?

A No, sir. As a matter of policy, we do not
provide assistance to the Israeli Government for projects
in the occupied territories.

7

Q Well, in other words --

A "No, sir" is my answer.

Q -- to my knowledge, none of the money
that you have provided in '70 or '71 has been used.

A That is correct.

Q What construction activity would you
regard as legitimate and consistent with the Fourth
Geneva Convention?

A I'm sorry; I can't speak to that. I'd
have to read the Convention and have a much better
briefing myself.

Q Charlie, is that a basis, is that a
requirement, that none of this money be used in any
of the occupied territories -- a basis for our providing
any of this assistance? Is that incorporated in any
of the agreements?

A I'll have to take that as a factual
matter, John.

Q Charles, what guarantees do we have that
this money is not being spent in these areas -- what
kind of checks?

8

A Well, I think that's related to John's question, Gary.

Q Charles, can I return to the first subject? When does the present offset agreement expire?

A June 30 of this year.

Q In other words then, we will probably be going through a period in which there will be no offset agreement.

A Yes. I gather -- well, that's a possibility, depending on the outcome of the discussions on the 28th and 29th. I gather that this is not without precedent in the history of negotiations on this kind of agreement with the Federal Republic.

Q Who will be negotiating for the United States?

A Nat Samuels -- Deputy Under Secretary Samuels -- has been conducting the negotiations in our behalf. There were, Murrey, two previous rounds, as you know -- one in early March in Bonn, and one in mid-April

9

in washington. And I said here -- I think when you
were gone -- that Mr. Samuels had had some informal
discussions late last month in Germany when he was
in Munich for the Bankers Convention.

Q Charlie, if I may go back to Israel
for a minute, you talked about here PL 480 funds and
so forth. We do also provide military assistance
to Israel, don't we?

A Yes, we do.

Q Does this policy apply to military funds
also? Could military funds be used? Could not, for
example, the road to Sharm el Sheikh be considered
a military project using military aid?

A I don't know that we provide any
military funds, Pete.

Q Is this just equipment?

A It would be equipment.

Q Charlie --

Q Could you tell us how much that would be?

A I think the answer is "No."

(Laughter.)

10

Q Charlie, Mrs. Meir today, in a speech to the Knesset, calls on the United States to come forward and supply equipment in response to various requests for military equipment which Israel has made -- particularly, following the conclusion of the Soviet-Egyptian friendship treaty. Could you outline for us what types of requests -- arms requests from Israel -- are still outstanding and are still under consideration?

A No, Nick, I'm afraid I can not.

Q Can you say why?

A We have never discussed publicly the details of our military-supply relationship with the Government of Israel.

Q Can you give us anything on the Rabin-Sisco meeting today?

A No. It was by mutual agreement -- yes; it was mutual agreement -- and is in the familiar context of continuing discussions with problems of the Middle East.

Q Can you say whether we continue to be not

11

discouraged following Sadat's recent speech?

A That is correct.

Q Can you go beyond it?

A No.

Q Can you say whether Mr. Sisco had
any papers to give to Mr. Rabin following the meeting
in Paris which followed the meetings in Egypt between
Bergus and a number of officials?

A I think the answer to that question is
that this was more in the nature of a discussion.

Q Can you say whether Mr. Sisco was able
to clarify for Ambassador Rabin any of the Egyptian
positions on an interim settlement?

A No. I'm not going to get any further
into the details of this discussion. The Secretary,
as you know, is coming back this afternoon; and it was
he who had discussions with Mr. Bergus.

Q Can you say when the Secretary is
coming back?

A At 3:20 this afternoon, Andrews Air Force Base; and you're all welcome.

B-7

A Nothing that I can confirm. I have some
hope that it will all be done in one place, however.
[Laughter.]

Q Do you have a meeting with Ambassador Dobrynin on the Secretary's schedule tomorrow?

A No, sir.

Q Has the Ambassador requested a meeting
with the Secretary?

A I don't know. Why don't you ask him, John. You asked me that last week, and I think it is more appropriate that he speak to that.

Q Charles, can you help us on Pakistan aid, where it stands right now, as to the airlift and the flying in of additional material?

A Yes. I understand that the advance plane arrived overnight, our time, in New Delhi in India. Mr. Kellogg said yesterday that he thought it would be a week to ten days before the advance plane could test out the feasibility of the operation envisaged and that the remaining three planes would then depart promptly. We have some hope that if the operation does prove to be feasible, the remaining three planes will be carrying

B-8

medical supplies in addition to their own support
equipment.

Q Could you go into the difficulty a little
bit more of the operation off that runway -- the plane
landed at Tripura, did it not?

A Has it landed? I don't know.

Q Yes. It did that yesterday.

A I'm afraid I can't.

Q Is it a question of getting clearances
from the East Pakistan Government?

A No, sir, it is not. It is a technical
problem of whether aircraft reasonably heavily laden
can use that field and the other fields to which the air-
craft will be taking people and picking up supplies.

Q Charlie, it was reported that the aircraft
that landed yesterday did not carry medical supplies
as was originally intended because of a lack of refriger-
ation equipment. Can you say whether the additional
three planes will be properly equipped?

A No, I don't think that is quite accurate.
The problem, as I understood it, with respect to cholera
vaccine, in particular, aboard the aircraft that left

B-9

Saturday was that we were simply unable to round up in time the supplies that it might take with it, and we decided that rather than wait and delay the departure of the plane, we would let it go, and airlift in some other way medical supplies and equipment.

Q Charles, have you come upon any flexibility in the Department's position on revealing the amount of money that the United States spends in Laos?

A I haven't stumbled on any.

Q Charlie, have you had a chance to read Senator Saxbe's amendment on Pakistan?

A No, I haven't.

Q Could you supply that for us, take that question and get a comment on it?

A Well, yes, I'll take the question, as to whether we have seen the text of the amendment.

Q As to what?

A Whether we have seen the text of the amendment.

Q I would appreciate it if you might go a little beyond that.

A I will attempt to go a little beyond that.

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1063

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 12:25 P.M. EDT

JUNE 10, 1971

THURSDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The President met with Ambassador to Moscow, Jacob Beam, this morning from 10:30 until about 11 o'clock.

The railroad meeting which we referred to yesterday lasted a little over an hour. It just ended. We will post the list of participants in that meeting.

You have a release announcing the President's intention to nominate Joseph O. Parker of Burlington, Virginia to be a member of the United States Tariff Commission. After confirmation, the President will designate Mr. Parker as Vice Chairman of the Commission. The position pays $36,000 a year. Mr. Parker is originally from Kansas and now works and resides in Washington, D. C.

Q This release says he will succeed Bruce C. Clubb, both as a member and as vice chairman.

Q The release also says he is from Northern Alexandria. Is that the same as Arlington?

MR. ZIEGLER: Let's ask Bruce Whelihan.

MR. WHELIHAN: I've never been over there. (Laughter)

MR. ZIEGLER: You'd better stick with what the release says. The release is right.

There will be a posting at 4 o'clock.

Q Can you tell us about the railroad meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have not had a chance to talk to the President about it. As I mentioned yesterday, the meeting was called with members of the railroad industry primarily to talk about their problems and discuss the future of railroads.

I am sure they talked about AMTRAK. You know, the President met with the Board of Directors of AMTRAK the other day. In meeting with leaders of various industries in the past, the President primarily uses those sessions to listen to their problems and get their thoughts and views. I am confident that was the course that this morning's meeting took. The President will be meeting with the leaders of railroad unions in the next ten days for the same purpose.

MORE

#1063

-2-

#1063

Q Is there some overall intent in all of this?

MR. ZIEGLER: For the President to be able to meet with business and industry leaders? He has done this frequently in the past two years. There is no specific problem they are addressing themselves to.

Q What about the housing statement?

MR. ZIEGLER: The housing statement will be released tomorrow. We will let you know what time at the 4 o'clock posting.

Q Has the President called Ambassador Bunker back?

MR. ZIEGLER: Ambassador Bunker will return to the United States. As I understand it, he asked to return some weeks ago so he could attend his 55th class reunion at Yale which is being held soon. He will take that opportunity to visit with the President and other officials. There is no time set for that yet.

Q What did Mr. Beam tell the President about the reason for Kosygin's attack on the United States?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have no comment on that. They met alone and I am not aware of what they talked about.

Q Will there be any comment from here on President Sadat's broadcast this morning?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Has the White House asked the Advertising Council to conduct a campaign concerning prisoners of war?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think the story in the paper this morning by Mr. Oberdorfer was quite accurate. I think you should check with Mr. Klein on that. As Mr. Oberdorfer's story pointed out, the Prisoner of War Committee encouraged the Advertising Council to undertake such a campaign and I think Herb Klein, in his regular contacts with the Council, gave his encouragement for this.

Q Was Penn Central discussed at the railroad meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: I was not in the meeting. I can't say.

Q Will you have comment later on the Beam-President meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Shifting gears a little bit, is there anything you can tell us about the father of the bride?

MORE

#1063

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE #1069

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

AT 4:15 PM EDT

JUNE 14, 1971

MONDAY

MR. WARREN: I have a schedule for you:

The President will meet with the Republican Congressional leadership tomorrow at 8:00 a.m. in the Cabinet Room, the regularly scheduled meeting.

At 10:a.m. the President will meet with officers of the National Association of Real Estate Boards in his office. Secretary Romney also will attend that meeting.

The meeting with Chancellor Willie Brandt will be at 11:00 a.m. rather than 11:30 a.m. That will be in the President's office.

Q No ceremonial greeting?

MR. WARREN: No. This is an unofficial visit. He is in the country on private business.

At 3:00 p.m. the President will participate in the presentation of Medals of Honor to seven members of the Armed Services. This will be in the East Room of the Residence. The awards will go to six Army men and one Marine. We will have press kits available in the Press Office following posting with all of the details. There will be no coverage.

Q Why is that?

MR. WARREN: It is not unusual, Gene. There wasn't coverage of the last Medal of Honor ceremony.

Q These are not posthumous, are they?

MR. WARREN: No.

Q Isn't it unusual to give the highest decoration in the Nation and have it closed?

MR. WARREN: As I said, this has been done before.

Q I thought it was only when they were awarded posthumously.

MR. WARREN: No. It has been done before.

At 4:30 p.m. the President will meet with Ambassador Kenneth B. Keating, who is home on leave for consultation from India. He will be returning to his post. I don't have

MORE

#1069

possibility. Finally, the Soviet Union has responded and said they are willing to talk about it, and we are prepared to talk about it.

Now, our NATO communique, I think, provides the maximum flexibility to do exactly that.³ I am going to talk to Ambassador Dobrynin [Anatoliy F. Dobrynin, Soviet Ambassador to the United States] in the next day or so to find out if they are prepared to have discussions on mutual and balanced force reductions and find out what they are prepared to talk about, what they are thinking about in terms of time and place, etcetera.

We are perfectly prepared to have negotiations. We want them. The suggestion on the part of Mr. Brezhnev [Leonid I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party] that maybe we are not sincere is difficult to follow, because it is our proposal. We have a little question about their sincerity, because they seem to make all these pronouncements in political speeches. But I will find out, and the other nations are going to find out in their discussions, what the Soviet Union is prepared to do.

Now, we are going to have a Deputy Foreign Ministers meeting in the fall, and at that time we will coordinate with our allies and determine our positions; and we are prepared to negotiate.

Q. Mr. Secretary, recent statements by the Department here, both in press briefings and by Mr. Sisco [Joseph J. Sisco, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs] on Saturday, seem to equate both India and Pakistan for the events that have occurred in East Bengal in equal responsibility.³ Is this what the administration means to convey?

A. I didn't reach that conclusion at all from what was said. I read the press statement very carefully, and I read the news accounts. We haven't even given any thought to that. What we are trying to do is to provide the maximum amount of humanitarian assistance that we can.

Q. Mr. Secretary, I wonder if we can go to the Middle East. There seems to be some feeling that the expectations that attended your return from your trip have kind of petered out following the attempted coup and the Soviet treaty. Can you analyze the treaty's implications, both in larger terms and in terms of an interim settlement?

## Prospects for Interim Middle East Settlement

A. I think that, as President Nixon said in his press conference, it is a little early to form a conclusive judgment on the treaty. It depends on what happens. We would hope very much that the Soviet Union does not escalate the arms race. This would be most unfortunate.

On the other hand, we do not think that the treaty makes it impossible that an interim settlement might be reached. We are still in communication with both Israel and with Egypt. Mr. Bergus [Donald C. Bergus, Minister in Charge of U.S. Interests Section, Embassy of Spain, Cairo] is here now, and we are going to have additional discussions with him before he returns to Cairo.

We think that there still is the possibility that an interim settlement could be worked out. We think that the way to do that is to engage in quiet diplomacy. There are a number of areas of agreement, and there are some areas of disagreement. Those areas will require some accommodation on the part of both Israel and Egypt. But I think it is encouraging to notice that these strictly fundamental facts are still agreed to:

> First, everyone—and when I say “everyone,” I am speaking about Egypt and Israel and the Soviet Union, the United States and others, England and France—would like to have the Suez Canal open.

Secondly, there is agreement that if it is open, it has to be operated by the Egyptians.

Three, we all agree that it would only be a step toward full implementation of the Security Council Resolution 242.⁴ In other words, the objective is a final peace agreement, and this would not be an end in itself.

Four, that during *x* number of months or

³ For text of a communique issued at the conclusion of the North Atlantic Council ministerial meeting at Lisbon on June 4, see BULLETIN of June 28, 1971, p. 819.

⁴ For background, see BULLETIN of June 28, 1971, p. 823.

⁵ For text of the resolution, see BULLETIN of Dec. 18, 1967, p. 843.

6

Department of State Bulletin

years the cease-fire would have to continue, because it would make no sense to have an interim agreement if the fighting should start.

Five, there is agreement that if there has to be withdrawal on the part of Israel from the canal, and there would have to be an agreement that the evacuated territory probably would involve some kind of an observer force or international force—someone to separate, in other words, to move into the evacuated territory.

Now, there are large areas of disagreement. What kind of evacuation? To where? Who would cross the canal? What kind of an observer force would be involved? These questions are complex. But we would hope very much that based on these common factors—common in the sense that all parties want them—something could be worked out certainly this year, and we would hope considerable progress could be made before the meeting of the General Assembly this fall.

Q. Mr. Secretary, the Soviet Union has been critical of our role in the Middle East recently in public statements. Can you give us your interpretation of the meaning behind that criticism? And, secondly, can you tell us whether you envisage the Soviet Union being brought into the negotiations on the interim settlement at any point?

A. I can't, Mr. Smith [Terence Smith, New York Times], answer the first part of your question. I don't know what it is that irritates them. We obviously welcome anybody's assistance. Just the fact that we are taking these initiatives doesn't mean that it is exclusive. A lot of other nations are discussing it, working on the same subject.

In answer to the second part of your question, we would expect that if an interim agreement is reached, the Soviet Union would have to be involved in it, of course. So, we would have some discussions with them at the right time.

Q. Mr. Secretary, there has been a good deal of optimism out of Germany in the last week or so on the closeness of a settlement or agreement over Berlin. I wonder if you could tell us what your view is on that, and if you could, in fact, go down the schedule the way you have

just done on the interim solution for the Middle East and the Suez Canal, in the same way.

A. Mr. Sherman [George Sherman, Washington Evening Star], as you know, in our NATO meeting we did point to the fact that the discussions have taken on a very active character and that some progress had occurred recently in those discussions. We are hopeful that an agreement can be reached, but there are still many differences. I would not want to go into the discussion of the areas of agreement and disagreement at this time.

Q. May we go to Embassy Row for a moment, Mr. Secretary?

A. I'd be happy to. [Laughter.]

Q. There is a report that the State Department plans to screen and recommend reporters who will cover Embassy functions. I wonder if you are aware of this. If it is true, did you approve it, and is this an attempt to muzzle the press?

A. Well, if I start making an attempt to muzzle the press, this is not where I will start. [Laughter.]

Secondly, Mr. McCloskey just called it to my attention that there was a story to this effect, and I want you to know if there is any such order in existence in the Department, I hereby rescind it.

Three, I would urge those of you who have the task of reporting on embassies to take into consideration that they are very helpful, many of them, in charitable causes and many of the things they do are of great benefit to our country. So, if you could be as charitable as you can, we would appreciate it. We will try to get you invitations, though. [Laughter.]

## Use of POW's for Political Purposes

Q. Mr. Secretary, if I may go back to Vietnam for a minute, in the absence of any progress in the negotiations and under the policy of Vietnamization, how do you now envision securing the release of American prisoners of war?

A. Well, I don't have to tell you that it is an extremely difficult proposition, because the

July 5, 1971

7

the Japanese Government and with Mr. Aichi. We'll have further comments on that on Thursday when we sign the treaty.

Q. Mr. Secretary, if I may return to the Middle East, in the aftermath of the attack on the ship headed for Israel, Mrs. Meir called on international maritime powers to also say something about freedom of the seas. Now, in answer to an earlier question, you spoke about an international force along the Suez Canal, and Israel has expressed grave reservations about such forces. And then the international maritime powers have not said very much following that. Can you say anything about it now?

A. Yes. Miss Berger [Marilyn Berger, Washington Post], we haven't gotten all the facts on this. You know, this occurred just in the entrance to the Red Sea, and we don't know all the facts, but we know that an attack was made on the Coral Sea—which is, I believe, a tanker under Israeli charter.

We consider the attack a very serious matter. We think that any interference of this kind with maritime traffic deserves the condemnation of all responsible nations, and we very much deplore this act.

Q. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to follow up on Dick Valerian's [NBC News] question about the POW's. I'm sure you're a better student of history than I am, but can you cite for us some instances when POW's have been returned before a conflict has come to an end?

A. I've been asked this question before. I think there have been some, but the principal issue at the moment, in terms of POW's, is failure to live up to international law. North Viet-Nam has refused to have any inspection of prison camps. Many of the wives and families of those who are missing are not sure that their loved ones are alive or not; there's no inspection of the prison camps; and so forth. So we would hope that in the first instance that at least North Viet-Nam could live up to the international law.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

A. Thank you very much.

## Vietnamese Election Campaign

Following is an instruction from Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker to U.S. personnel in Viet-Nam which was issued on June 15.

The Republic of Viet-Nam will be holding a presidential election on October 3 and an election for the Lower House of the National Assembly some weeks prior to that time, probably on August 29. The fact that these elections are being held in the midst of the present war reflects great credit upon the institutions and the people of the Republic of Viet-Nam.

In his recent report to the Congress on foreign policy, President Nixon reaffirmed our objective in Viet-Nam as being to "seek the opportunity for the South Vietnamese people to determine their own political future without outside interference."¹ This statement of U.S. policy requires absolute respect for the free and genuine expression of the Vietnamese people's will. Because of that, we consider it of the greatest importance that the coming elections be conducted honestly and fairly.

U.S. military and civilian personnel must not offer or give support to any candidate or group of candidates, political party or organization. They must avoid implying by word, deed, or acts of presence that the United States supports any individual candidate or group of candidates or political party for elective office. No American-controlled equipment, supplies, transportation, or other facilities may be used in behalf of such candidates or in connection with the campaigns and the elections.

Support for Government of Viet-Nam programs will continue through election campaign periods, but this support must be carefully administered so it will not be misconstrued as U.S. Government support for, or opposition to, any individual's bid for election to office. The activities receiving U.S. Government support must be clearly government functions as differentiated from political campaign or election activities.

¹The complete text of President Nixon's foreign policy report to the Congress on Feb. 25 appears in the BULLETIN of Mar. 22, 1971.

July 5, 1971

9

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1071

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN
DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY

AT 4:25 P.M. EDT

JUNE 15, 1971

TUESDAY

MR. WARREN: We have one addition to the schedule this afternoon. Ambassador Arthur Watson, United States Ambassador to France, met with the President. He has been in the United States, as you know, this week. He returned from Paris for the President's meeting Monday with senior State Department officials on the problems of drug abuse and drug trafficking.

He will return to Paris this evening. The President met with him prior to his return.

This afternoon, the President will meet with Ambassador Kenneth Keating, as previously announced.

Tomorrow morning, there will be a regularly scheduled meeting of the National Security Council at 9:30.

At 11:15, the President will meet with Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker.

Ambassador Bunker returned to the United States, as you know, for his 55th reunion at Yale and he also attended the conference on drugs which the President held on Monday.

So the President will be discussing with him the current situation in Southeast Asia and in Vietnam.

At noon the President will greet those young persons attending the Teenage Republican Leadership Conference which is being held this week at Mt. Vernon Junior College. The group will receive a tour of the White House and the President will greet them briefly in the State Dining Room.

At 12:15, the President will meet with Ambassador and Mrs. Ross Adair. Ambassador Adair is leaving this week for his post in Ethiopia.

At 3 p.m. tomorrow, the President will meet with Indian Foreign Minister Swaran Singh. Mr. Singh is visiting a number of countries. He has just left western Europe where he visited a number of countries to explain the Indian view of the situation in South Asia and will be discussing that with the President.

MORE

#1071

-2- #1071

Q Do you mean the Pakistan refugees?

MR. WARREN: I am sure that will be discussed as a part of his view of that area, yes.

You have one release which announces the appointment of Bonn H. Clayton and Robert P. McCulloch as members of the Low-Emission Vehicle Certification Board. I believe that is self-explanatory.

Ron is in a meeting. Those are all the announcements we have this afternoon.

Q Jerry, why weren't governmental officials invited to this meeting in Rochester? When the President had it scheduled in the winter, I think local, city and county officials of upstate New York were invited.

MR. WARREN: I think in the interim the planning for the trip evolved to the extent that it would just be a media briefing this time. I don't know the considerations that went into it.

Previously, Gene, if my memory serves, and I think it does, Governor Rockefeller had called the meeting, which the President was to address and speak to, involving a number of local officials in upstate New York.

But the planning for this particular trip resulted in this particular type of a media briefing.

Q Jerry, there will be no city and county officials involved in this. Is that correct?

MR. WARREN: In the media briefing, it will just be news executives, as far as I know.

Q Ron said editors and publishers this morning. Does he mean radio and television?

MR. WARREN: I think there will be broadcast executives, as is the usual case, yes.

Q Jerry, can we safely assume that Mr. Bunker is going to return to his post in Saigon and, if so, when?

MR. WARREN: Yes, indeed. He will return to his post. I don't have an itinerary for that. But he will be returning to his post.

Q Is there any agenda for the National Security Council?

MR. WARREN: None to announce.

Q Jerry, does the White House have any comment on the passage of the $5.5 billion Public Works Bill and is the President going to sign it?

MORE #1071

-3- #1071

MR. WARREN: First, let me say our view on this
particular piece of legislation is well known.

We have indicated our reservations about the public
works section of the bill. And we have supported and
stressed the importance of the aid to Appalachia, the
Appalachia Regional Commission and other economic development
portions of the bill.

I would not forecast at this time what action the
President would take. The bill will be enrolled and
sent to the White House where it will be analyzed by the
White House staff. When the President makes his decision,
Ron will announce it here.

Q Jerry, has the President at any time attempted
to use his good offices with President Yahya Khan of
Pakistan in connection with this disruption out there
other than providing relief for the starving people?

MR. WARREN: The United States role in that has
been spelled out by the State Department. I would have
no comment beyond what they have said on that.

Q He has had no direct communication that you
know of? I ask this because he has had personal meetings
with him out there.

MR. WARREN: Yes.

As far as I know, there have been none between
the President and Yahya Khan beyond the normal diplomatic
communications.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. Warren.

END

(AT 4:34 P.M. EDT)

This Copy For ______

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1072

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 11:53 A.M. EDT

JUNE 16, 1971

WEDNESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The President's schedule for today has been posted.

At close to 11:15, the President began his meeting with Ambassador Bunker. As you know, Ambassador Bunker returned to the United States for his 55th reunion at Yale and also he attended the conference on drugs the other day, which the President held with Ambassadors and senior State Department officials.

As the schedule points out, the President will meet briefly and greet those attending the Teenage Republican Leadership Conference currently being held in Washington. The group will receive a tour of the White House and the President will greet them briefly in the State Dining Room.

This Conference is being held the 13th through the 19th at the Mt. Vernon Junior College. It is the second annual conference.

At 12:15, the President will receive Ambassador and Mrs. Ross Adair. Ambassador Adair, former Congressman from Indiana is succeeding Ambassador Hall as the United States Ambassador to Ethiopia. He will be leaving for his post next week.

Finally, at three o'clock today, the President will meet with the Indian Foreign Minister Singh. He is visiting a number of countries in Western Europe in addition to the United States.

Also one addition to the schedule: Shortly after 12:30 today, President Nixon will receive a presentation from the officers and members of the White House News Photographers Association.

Today is the 50th anniversary of the Association.

On Tuesday, June 22nd, President Nixon will address the House of Delegates meeting of the 120th Annual American Medical Association Convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The President is expected to arrive there sometime between 11:00 and 11:30. We will have details on that later.

MORE #1072

-2- #1072

Q Where will he be coming from, Ron.

MR. ZIEGLER: The present plan is for the President to return to Washington after his trip to Rochester on Friday. If there is any change in that, we will let you know.

Q How about Chadds Ford?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. I saw that little blurb in the paper somewhere. The President does not plan to go there.

Q Will he go to Atlantic City by helicopter?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will have the details for you on that later.

The President today is announcing his intention to nominate Selma George to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for the remainder of the term expiring March 26, 1972. She will succeed Carl Sanders, who has resigned.

The compensation is $100 per day when involved in activities relating to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Q What are her politics?

MR. ZIEGLER: She is a Republican.

Q How many directors are there on that Board?

MR. ZIEGLER: There are 15.

Those are all the announcements we have.

Q When does the Drug Message come out?

MR. ZIEGLER: The Drug Message will be released sometime tomorrow. Jerry will let you know at four o'clock what time that will be.

Q What did the President and Ambassador Bunker talk about?

MR. ZIEGLER: I can't give you a report on that meeting. They are still in conference. They are obviously discussing matters relating to the Ambassador's post, matters relating to South Vietnam and Indochina. But there will be no report on the meeting.

Q Why was the NSC meeting postponed until tomorrow?

MR. ZIEGLER: Totally because of the President's schedule for today, no other reason.

Q What did he do in that time?

MORE #1072

-3- #1072

Q Can you tell us what they will discuss, Ron?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Has the President been in contact with President Johnson?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, he has not.

Q Have any other White House aides been in touch with him?

MR. ZIEGLER: Not to my knowledge.

Q Ron, is the President tomorrow going to go over to the State Department to sign the Okinawa Treaty?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, Secretary of State Rogers will preside over the signing of the treaty. Secretary Rogers will read a statement from the President at the ceremony.

Q At least one newspaper indicated the President was going to make an address tomorrow on this drug program. Is that correct?

MR. ZIEGLER: Also a very distinguished television correspondent indicated that. We will know sometime this afternoon whether or not they are right. We have not decided yet how the Message will be presented. But I can't wait until the decision is made. (Laughter).

If it is contrary to the report, I will be here at four o'clock. (Laughter).

Q There is a report in the Times that Peter Flanigan blocked permission to the El Paso Natural Gas Company to import liquified natural gas from Algeria. Is that correct? Is he delaying it or blocking it?

MR. ZIEGLER: This is a matter that is still under review in the Administration. I wouldn't have a comment on that story.

As I have stated before, I have a policy of not discussing or commenting on internal administration deliberations and considerations on various issues.

MORE #1072

-4- #1072

Q Ron, if you have already dealt with this while I was not here, then don't repeat. But has there been any clear up of the mystery as to why no token representative of Congress was invited to the wedding and is the President finding this a hazard or a hardship in his dealing with Congress?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, not at all. I think, as Mrs. Stuart has said, an invitation list to a wedding, of course, is a personal list put together by the two families. I have no comment on that.

Q It wasn't just quite that way. There was a representative of the Diplomatic Corps, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and of the Supreme Court.

MR. ZIEGLER: I have no comment on the list of those invited to the wedding.

Q Can you say when the review of this natural gas matter is likely to be completed?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I can't. But when the decision is made on the subject, of course, it will be announced.

Q Are there going to be any briefings here in Washington on Friday?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, there won't be, because we will be in Rochester. There will be no briefings here at the White House.

Q What time do you leave for Rochester?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will have a schedule out for you probably later today or first thing in the morning. We will leave around ten o'clock or 10:30.

Q Will there be a transcript available later on his conversation?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, we always make a transcript available the next day.

Q But it is not for open coverage?

MR. ZIEGLER: It will be handled the same way as in the past, with a pool.

Q When do you figure he will be finished in Rochester?

MR. ZIEGLER: Early afternoon.

MORE #1072

030

HHS, Secret

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JUNE 21, 1971

Public Statements [L]G

to the reversion of Okinawa to Japan in 1972. The Agreement signed today marks the conclusion of those negotiations. Because of the importance of this Agreement, it will be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. I will urge the Senate to give its advice and consent.

The friendship and mutual respect which enabled our negotiators to resolve the many difficult issues will, I am sure, enable us to work together in peace for the continued progress of our own two countries, and for that of the entire world.

My best wishes to the people of Japan, and to their leaders. We both have much to be proud of this day.

NOTE: Secretary of State Rogers read the statement at the signing ceremony in the Thomas Jefferson Room at the Department of State.

As printed above, this item follows the text made available by the White House Press Office. It was not issued in the form of a White House press release.

## Drug Abuse Prevention and Control

*The President's Remarks Following a Bipartisan Leadership Meeting To Discuss the Omnibus Drug Control Message. June 17, 1971*

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had with the bipartisan leaders which began at 8:00 o'clock and was completed two hours later.

I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think needs to be made to the Nation:

America's public enemy number 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.

I have asked the Congress to provide the legislative authority and the funds to fuel this kind of an offensive. This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources of supply as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they are in the world. It will be government-wide, pulling together the nine different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.

With regard to this offensive, it is necessary first to have a new organization, and the new organization will be within the White House. Dr. Jaffe, who will be one of the briefers here today, will be the man directly responsible. He will report directly to me, and he will have the responsibilities to take all of the Government agencies, nine,

that deal with the problems of rehabilitation, in which his primary responsibility will be research and education, and see that they work not at cross-purposes, but work together in dealing with the problem.

If we're going to have a successful offensive, we need more money. Consequently, I'm asking the Congress for $155 million in new funds, which will bring the total amount this year in the budget for drug abuse, both in enforcement and treatment, to over $350 million.

As far as the new money is concerned, incidentally, I have made it clear to the leaders that if this is not enough, if more can be used, if Dr. Jaffe, after studying this problem, finds that we can use more, more will be provided. In order to defeat this enemy which is causing such great concern, and correctly so, to so many American families, money will be provided to the extent that it is necessary and to the extent that it will be useful.

And finally, in order for this program to be effective, it is necessary that it be conducted on a basis in which the American people all join in it. That's why the meeting was a bipartisan; bipartisan because we needed the support of the Congress, but bipartisan because we needed the leadership of the Members of the Congress in this field.

Fundamentally, it is essential for the American people to be alerted to this danger, to recognize that it is a danger that will not pass with the passing of the war in Vietnam which has brought to our attention the fact that a number of young Americans have become addicts as they serve abroad, whether in Vietnam, or Europe, or other places. Because the problem existed before we became involved in Vietnam, it will continue to exist afterwards, and that is why this offensive deals with the problem there, in Europe, but will then go on to deal with the problem throughout America.

One final word with regard to Presidential responsibility in this respect. I very much hesitate always to bring some new responsibility into the White House, because there are so many here, and I believe in delegating those responsibilities to the departments. But I consider this problem so urgent—I also found that it was scattered so much throughout the Government, with so much conflict, without coordination—that it had to be brought into the White House. And consequently, I have brought Dr. Jaffe into the White House, directly reporting to me, so that we have not only the responsibility, but the authority to see that we wage this offensive effectively and in a coordinated way.

The briefing team will now be ready to answer any questions on the technical details of the program.

NOTE: The President spoke at 11:05 a.m., in the Briefing Room at the White House.

For the President's message to the Congress on drug abuse prevention and control, see the following item.

931

# DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

The President's Message to the Congress. June 17, 1971

To the Congress of the United States:

In New York City more people between the ages of fifteen and thirty-five years die as a result of narcotics than from any other single cause.

In 1960, less than 200 narcotic deaths were recorded in New York City. In 1970, the figure had risen to over 1,000. These statistics do not reflect a problem indigenous to New York City. Although New York is the one major city in the Nation which has kept good statistics on drug addiction, the problem is national and international. We are moving to deal with it on both levels.

As part of this administration's ongoing efforts to stem the tide of drug abuse which has swept America in the last decade, we submitted legislation in July of 1969 for a comprehensive reform of Federal drug enforcement laws. Fifteen months later, in October, 1970, the Congress passed this vitally needed legislation, and it is now producing excellent results. Nevertheless, in the fifteen months between the submission of that legislation and its passage, much valuable time was lost.

We must now candidly recognize that the deliberate procedures embodied in present efforts to control drug abuse are not sufficient in themselves. The problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency. I intend to take every step necessary to deal with this emergency, including asking the Congress for an amendment to my 1972 budget to provide an additional $155 million to carry out these steps. This will provide a total of $371 million for programs to control drug abuse in America.

## A NEW APPROACH TO REHABILITATION

While experience thus far indicates that the enforcement provisions of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 are effective, they are not sufficient in themselves to eliminate drug abuse. Enforcement must be coupled with a rational approach to the reclamation of the drug user himself. The laws of supply and demand function in the illegal drug business as in any other. We are taking steps under the Comprehensive Drug Act to deal with the supply side of the equation and I am recommending additional steps to be taken now. But we must also deal with demand. We must rehabilitate the drug user if we are to eliminate drug abuse and all the anti-social activities that flow from drug abuse.

Narcotic addiction is a major contributor to crime. The cost of supplying a narcotic habit can run from $30 a day to $100 a day. This is $210 to $700 a week, or $10,000 a year to over $36,000 a year. Untreated narcotic addicts do not ordinarily hold jobs. Instead, they often turn to shoplifting, mugging, burglary, armed robbery, and so on. They also support themselves by starting other people—young people—on drugs. The financial costs of addiction are more than $2 billion every year, but these costs can at least be measured. The human costs cannot. American society should not be required to bear either cost.

Despite the fact that drug addiction destroys lives, destroys families, and destroys communities, we are still not moving fast enough to meet

932

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS
JUNE 21, 1971

the problem in an effective way. Our efforts are strained through the Federal bureaucracy. Of those we can reach at all under the present Federal system—and the number is relatively small—of those we try to help and who want help, we cure only a tragically small percentage.

Despite the magnitude of the problem, despite our very limited success in meeting it, and despite the common recognition of both circumstances, we nevertheless have thus far failed to develop a concerted effort to find a better solution to this increasingly grave threat. At present, there are nine Federal agencies involved in one fashion or another with the problem of drug addiction. There are anti-drug abuse efforts in Federal programs ranging from vocational rehabilitation to highway safety. In this manner our efforts have been fragmented through competing priorities, lack of communication, multiple authority, and limited and dispersed resources. The magnitude and the severity of the present threat will no longer permit this piecemeal and bureaucracically-dispersed effort at drug control. If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely in time destroy us. I am not prepared to accept this alternative.

Therefore, I am transmitting legislation to the Congress to consolidate at the highest level a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America. I am proposing the appropriation of additional funds to meet the cost of rehabilitating drug users, and I will ask for additional funds to increase our enforcement efforts to further tighten the noose around the necks of drug peddlers, and thereby loosen the noose around the necks of drug users.

At the same time I am proposing additional steps to strike at the "supply" side of the drug equation—to halt the drug traffic by striking at the illegal producers of drugs, the growing of those plants from which drugs are derived, and trafficking in these drugs beyond our borders.

America has the largest number of heroin addicts of any nation in the world. And yet, America does not grow opium—of which heroin is a derivative—nor does it manufacture heroin, which is a laboratory process carried out abroad. This deadly poison in the American lifestream is, in other words, a foreign import. In the last year, heroin seizures by Federal agencies surpassed the total seized in the previous ten years. Nevertheless, it is estimated that we are stopping less than 20 percent of the drugs aimed at this Nation. No serious attack on our national drug problem can ignore the international implications of such an effort, nor can the domestic effort succeed without attacking the problem on an international plane. I intend to do that.

## A COORDINATED FEDERAL RESPONSE

Not very long ago, it was possible for Americans to persuade themselves, with some justification, that narcotic addiction was a class problem. Whether or not this was an accurate picture is irrelevant today, because now the problem is universal. But despite the increasing dimensions of the problem, and despite increasing consciousness of the problem, we have made little headway in understanding what is involved in drug abuse or how to deal with it.

The very nature of the drug abuse problem has meant that its extent and seriousness have been shrouded in secrecy, not only by the criminal elements who profit from drug use, but by the drug users themselves—the people whom society is attempting to reach and help. This fact has

932

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, MAY 21, 1971

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JUNE 2, 1971

933

added immeasurably to the difficulties of medical assistance, rehabilita-
tion, and government action to counter drug abuse, and to find basic
and permanent methods to stop it. Even now, there are no precise na-
tional statistics as to the number of drug-dependent citizens in the United
States, the rate at which drug abuse is increasing, or where and how this
increase is taking place. Most of what we think we know is extrapolated
from those few States and cities where the dimensions of the problem have
forced closer attention, including the maintenance of statistics.

A large number of Federal Government agencies are involved in
efforts to fight the drug problem either with new programs or by expand-
ing existing programs. Many of these programs are still experimental in
nature. This is appropriate. The problems of drug abuse must be faced
on many fronts at the same time, and we do not yet know which efforts
will be most successful. But we must recognize that piecemeal efforts,
even where individually successful, cannot have a major impact on the
drug abuse problem unless and until they are forged together into a
broader and more integrated program involving all levels of govern-
ment and private effort. We need a coordinated effort if we are to move
effectively against drug abuse.

The magnitude of the problem, the national and international impli-
cations of the problem, and the limited capacities of States and cities
to deal with the problem all reinforce the conclusion that coordination
of this effort must take place at the highest levels of the Federal Govern-
ment.

Therefore, I propose the establishment of a central authority with
overall responsibility for all major Federal drug abuse prevention, edu-
cation, treatment, rehabilitation, training, and research programs in
all Federal agencies. This authority would be known as the Special Action
Office of Drug Abuse Prevention. It would be located within the Execu-
tive Office of the President and would be headed by a Director account-
able to the President. Because this is an emergency response to a national
problem which we intend to bring under control, the Office would be
established to operate only for a period of three years from its date of
enactment, and the President would have the option of extending its life
for an additional two years if desirable.

This Office would provide strengthened Federal leadership in
finding solutions to drug abuse problems. It would establish priorities
and instill a sense of urgency in Federal and federally-supported drug
abuse programs, and it would increase coordination between Federal,
State, and local rehabilitation efforts.

More specifically, the Special-Action Office would develop overall
Federal strategy for drug abuse prevention programs, set program goals,
objectives and priorities, carry out programs through other Federal
agencies, develop guidance and standards for operating agencies, and
evaluate performance of all programs to determine where success is
being achieved. It would extend its efforts into research, prevention,
training, education, treatment, rehabilitation, and the development of
necessary reports, statistics, and social indicators for use by all public
and private groups. It would not be directly concerned with the prob-
lems of reducing drug supply, or with the law enforcement aspects of
drug abuse control.

It would concentrate on the "demand" side of the drug equation—
the use and the user of drugs.

934

DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, 21, 1971

The program authority of the Director would be exercised through working agreements with other Federal agencies. In this fashion, full advantage would be taken of the skills and resources these agencies can bring to bear on solving drug abuse problems by linking them with a highly goal-oriented authority capable of functioning across departmental lines. By eliminating bureaucratic red tape, and jurisdictional disputes between agencies, the Special Action Office would do what cannot be done presently: it would mount a wholly coordinated national attack on a national problem. It would use all available resources of the Federal Government to identify the problems precisely, and it would allocate resources to attack those problems. In practice, implementing departments and agencies would be bound to meet specific terms and standards for performance. These terms and standards would be set forth under inter-agency agreement through a Program Plan defining objectives, costs, schedule, performance requirements, technical limits, and other factors essential to program success.

With the authority of the Program Plan, the Director of the Special Action Office could demand performance instead of hoping for it. Agencies would receive money based on performance and their retention of funding and program authority would depend upon periodic appraisal of their performance.

In order to meet the need for realistic central program appraisal, the Office would develop special program monitoring and evaluation capabilities so that it could realistically determine which activities and techniques were producing results. This evaluation would be tied to the planning process so that knowledge about success/failure results could guide the selection of future plans and priorities.

In addition to the inter-agency agreement and Program Plan approach described above, the Office would have direct authority to let grants or make contracts with industrial, commercial, or non-profit organizations. This authority would be used in specific instances where there is no appropriate Federal agency prepared to undertake a program, or where for some other reason it would be faster, cheaper, or more effective to grant or contract directly.

Within the broad mission of the Special Action Office, the Director would set specific objectives for accomplishment during the first three years of Office activity. These objectives would target such areas as reduction in the overall national rate of drug addiction, reduction in drug-related deaths, reduction of drug use in schools, impact on the number of men rejected for military duty because of drug abuse, and so forth. A primary objective of the Office would be the development of a reliable set of social indicators which accurately show the nature, extent, and trends in the drug abuse problem.

These specific targets for accomplishment would act to focus the efforts of the drug abuse prevention program, not on intermediate achievements such as numbers of treatments given or educational programs conducted, but rather on ultimate "payoff" accomplishments in the reduction of the human and social costs of drug abuse. Our programs cannot be judged on the fulfillment of quotas and other bureaucratic indexes of accomplishment. They must be judged by the number of human beings who are brought out of the hell of addiction, and by the number of human beings who are dissuaded from entering that hell.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JUNE 1971

935

I urge the Congress to give this proposal the highest priority, and I trust it will do so. Nevertheless, due to the need for immediate action, I am issuing today, June 17, an Executive Order establishing within the Executive Office of the President a Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Until the Congress passes the legislation giving full authority to this Office, a Special Consultant to the President for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs will institute to the extent legally possible the functions of the Special Action Office.

Rehabilitation: A New Priority

When traffic in narcotics is no longer profitable, then that traffic will cease. Increased enforcement and vigorous application of the fullest penalties provided by law are two of the steps in rendering narcotics trade unprofitable. But as long as there is a demand, there will be those willing to take the risks of meeting the demand. So we must also act to destroy the market for drugs, and this means the prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted.

To do this, I am asking the Congress for a total of $105 million in addition to funds already contained in my 1972 budget to be used solely for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug-addicted individuals.

I will also ask the Congress to provide an additional $10 million in funds to increase and improve education and training in the field of dangerous drugs. This will increase the money available for education and training to more than $24 million. It has become fashionable to suppose that no drugs are as dangerous as they are commonly thought to be, and that the use of some drugs entails no risk at all. These are misconceptions, and every day we reap the tragic results of these misconceptions when young people are "turned on" to drugs believing that narcotics addiction is something that happens to other people. We need an expanded effort to show that addiction is all too often a one-way street beginning with "innocent" experimentation and ending in death. Between these extremes is the degradation that addiction inflicts on those who believed that it could not happen to them.

While by no means a major part of the American narcotics problem, an especially disheartening aspect of that problem involves those of our men in Vietnam who have used drugs. Peer pressures combine with easy availability to foster drug use. We are taking steps to end the availability of drugs in South Vietnam but, in addition, the nature of drug addiction, and the peculiar aspects of the present problem as it involves veterans, make it imperative that rehabilitation procedures be undertaken immediately. In Vietnam, for example, heroin is cheap and 95 percent pure, and its effects are commonly achieved through smoking or "snorting" the drug. In the United States, the drug is impure, consisting of only about 5 percent heroin, and it must be "mainlined" or injected into the bloodstream to achieve an effect comparable to that which may have been experienced in Vietnam. Further, a habit which costs $5 a day to maintain in Vietnam can cost $100 a day to maintain in the United States, and those who continue to use heroin slip into the twilight world of crime, bad drugs, and all too often a premature death.

In order to expedite the rehabilitation process of Vietnam veterans, I have ordered the immediate establishment of testing procedures and initial rehabilitation efforts to be taken in Vietnam. This procedure is

936

W COMPILED OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, JUL 1, 1971

under way and testing will commence in a matter of days. The Department of Defense will provide rehabilitation programs to all servicemen being returned for discharge who want this help, and we will be requesting legislation to permit the military services to retain for treatment any individual due for discharge who is a narcotic addict. All of our servicemen must be accorded the right to rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation procedures, which are required subsequent to discharge, will be effected under the aegis of the Director of the Special Action Office who will have the authority to refer patients to private hospitals as well as VA hospitals as circumstances require.

The Veterans Administration medical facilities are a great national resource which can be of immeasurable assistance in the effort against this grave national problem. Restrictive and exclusionary use of these facilities under present statutes means that we are wasting a critically needed national resource. We are commonly closing the doors to those who need help the most. This is a luxury we cannot afford. Authority will be sought by the new Office to make the facilities of the Veterans Administration available to all former servicemen in need of drug rehabilitation, regardless of the nature of their discharge from the service.

I am asking the Congress to increase the present budget of the Veterans Administration by $14 million to permit the immediate initiation of this program. This money would be used to assist in the immediate development and emplacement of VA rehabilitation centers which will permit both inpatient and outpatient care of addicts in a community setting.

I am also asking that the Congress amend the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 to broaden the authority under this Act for the use of methadone maintenance programs. These programs would be carried out under the most rigid standards and would be subjected to constant and painstaking reevaluation of their effectiveness. At this time, the evidence indicates that methadone is a useful tool in the work of rehabilitating heroin addicts, and that tool ought to be available to those who must do this work.

Finally, I will instruct the Special Consultant for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs to review immediately all Federal laws pertaining to rehabilitation and I will submit any legislation needed to expedite the Federal rehabilitative role, and to correct overlapping authorities and other shortcomings.

## Additional Enforcement Needs

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 provides a sound base for the attack on the problem of the availability of narcotics in America. In addition to tighter and more enforceable regulatory controls, the measure provides law enforcement with stronger and better tools. Equally important, the Act contains credible and proper penalties against violators of the drug law. Severe punishments are invoked against the drug pushers and peddlers while more lenient and flexible sanctions are provided for the users. A seller can receive fifteen years for a first offense involving hard narcotics, thirty years if the sale is to a minor, and up to life in prison if the transaction is part of a continuing criminal enterprise.