This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1808

THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

12:44 P.M. EDT

SEPTEMBER 6, 1973

THURSDAY

MR. WARREN: The President was in the office at 7:30 this morning and had a series of meetings with staff members prior to and following the Leadership Meeting. He met with Bill Timmons prior to the Leadership Meeting, met with Ron Ziegler, met with Bryce Harlow and Mel Laird separately. I was in for a short time, and you have had a report on the Leadership Meeting, which lasted more than two hours. We will post, or have posted, I hope, by now, a list of the participants.

Shortly after the Leadership Meeting, the President met with Congressman Robert Baumann, a Republican of Maryland, who was elected to office on August 21st in a special election to fill the vacancy created by the death of Congressman William O. Mills. Congressman Baumann was sworn into office yesterday by the Speaker and the President met with the new Congressman to congratulate him and his family. Mrs. Baumann and their four children were also in that meeting.

This afternoon at 3:30, the President will meet with the Troika, Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz; Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors Herbert Stein; Director of the Office of Management and Budget Roy Ash; and, also, Counsellors Mel Laird and Bryce Harlow.

The President requested this meeting to review the current economic situation with his advisers and to discuss the prospects for the future. This is one in a series of regular meetings that the President has with the Troika, as you know. We may have a picture of that for you if the camermen are still here.

Tomorrow at 10 a.m., the President will meet with the Cabinet in the Cabinet Room to discuss the domestic priorities, some of which you discussed with the leaders this morning.

Q What time?

MR. WARREN: Ten o'clock tomorrow.

As the President announced yesterday in his press conference, he will meet with Governor John Love and a group of top advisers at 10 a.m. on Saturday -- that 10 a.m. is a new time -- that is a tentative time, to discuss the entire energy issue in addition to the seven pieces of legislation which are pending on the Hill.

MORE

#1808

- 4 - #1808

The President today is transmitting to the
Congress the annual report for 1972 on U.S. participation
in the United Nations. The President's letter of trans-
mittal is printed in the report, and we have copies
available, for those of you who are interested, in the
Press Office.

Also today, as you know, the President is
sending to the House of Representatives a veto message
on the Minimum Wage Bill. The President discussed this
yesterday in his press conference, and cited some of
the reasons that he was forced to veto this bill. The
message you have before you spells out those reasons in
detail.

Those are all the announcements we have this
morning.

Q Jerry, did you indicate there would be a
picture opportunity this afternoon with the Troika?
Is that what you were saying?

MR. WARREN: Yes, I think we will be able to
work that out. It will be 3:30.

There was one over here.

Q Jerry, does the President agree with Congress-
man Ford that controls will end in three or four months?

MR. WARREN: The President addressed the matter of inflation yesterday in his press conference, Fred. Congressman Ford, I think, made it very clear that he was giving you a visceral reaction.

Q He said also it was based on conversations
he had with experts, as he put it?

MR. WARREN: Yes, that is the way he put it,
but, I know, I was standing over here and he made it
very clear it was his opinion.

Q Two questions about the Troika meeting.
It is my impression, subject to correction, that Dr.
Burns has not been attending as many of these meetings as
the other three members, and I am wondering what the
significance of that is.

The second question is that yesterday in his
press conference the President seemed to have some rather
mildly critical, shall we say, comments about his economic
advisers where he said, "We have been guessing wrong
about inflation."

Is he dissatisfied with his economic advisers?
Does he plan any changes?

MR. WARREN: I want to take the first part of the
question first because that is more intriguing to me.
Obviously, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve does not
attend Troika meetings. Now, were it a Quadriad, he
would be there.

MORE

#1808

- 5 -

#1808

Q Let me rephrase it. There seems to be more
Troika meetings than quadrad meetings. Let's put it that
way. (Laughter)

MR. WARREN: Were it a quadrad, he would be
there. The President referred to his discussions with
Arthur Burns yesterday and there is no problem with the
Chairman.

Now, the second part of your question, I think
you have heard from Chairman Stein and Secretary Shultz
their own views on the unreliability of some predictions
in the past. The President was not giving you anything
new. They have pointed this out to you themselves, and it
was in no way criticism of his economic advisers, and he
does have faith in them.

Yes?

Q Jerry, is Dr. Kisinger planning to visit
the Middle East after he is confirmed as Secretary of
State?

MR. WARREN: I think you are probably referring
to a report by Reuters News Agency out of Cairo. That
report is merely speculative. Dr. Kissinger has no
plans to travel to the Middle East.

Q Jerry?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q Did the President order the wiretapping
of his brother and, if so, why?

MR. WARREN: The story you referred --

Q His brother Donald?

MR. WARREN: The story you referred to, which
appeared in the Washington Post this morning, is one
that contains -- well, let me put it this way: We
are not going to comment on the specific charges in that
story, but I am certain, in the checking that I have done
last night and this morning, that any monitoring of the
President's immediate family by the Secret Service
would have related to the protective function of the
Service and the Service has "no commented" that story.
We do not discuss from here the protective function of
the Secret Service. And so that is all I have to say on
that matter.

Q Jerry, you mean physical protection?

Q Jerry, are you saying, if it was done,
it was done for protective reasons?

MR. WARREN: I am saying just exactly what I
said Marty, and that is as far as I am going to go today.

MORE

#1808

- 9 -

#1808

Q Jerry, can you tell us when the last time was that the President saw or talked to his brother?

MR. WARREN: No, I have not checked that.

Q Jerry, that same story this morning said that there were two -- several other persons, I believe is the way they put it, who had been under Secret Service wiretap. Could you expand what you said to the degree that if there were taps on additional people by the Secret Service it was under their protective function?

MR. WARREN: Dan, I have said initially that I would not address nor comment on those types of specifics that were mentioned in the story, and by that I don't want to lend any credence to them whatsoever.

Q Jerry, when are we going to get that report which Senator Scott promised us in May, which will show the number, not the individuals, of wiretaps conducted by other agencies than the FBI?

MR. WARREN: As soon as I get it, Adam, I guarantee you you will get it, I will not keep it from you.

Q Jerry, the President yesterday made a reference to Mr. Mossadegh.--

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q Who was custodied in a coup. Was there behind this any kind of veiled threat against some of these militant Arab leaders?

MR. WARREN: Bob, you should read what the President said yesterday in the context of the past statements he has made and the policy of this Government toward a settlement in the Middle East. You should not stretch it beyond that.

Q Well, the President in his past statements on U.S. policy in the Middle East has never, to my recollection, mentioned Mr. Mossadegh. He seemed to single him out, or at least he mentioned him yesterday, and not only was Mr. Mossadegh deposed, but there were reports and charges at the time that he was deposed with the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency.

What assurances are you going to be able to give to leaders of Arab nations that the President wasn't, as was just said, uttering a veiled threat here?

MR. WARREN: The President was responding to questions about oil and the impact of oil in the Middle East. That was the reason that the focus of attention in the press conference moved to oil.

MORE

#1808.

- 10 -

#1808

Q Why did he mention Mr. Mossadegh?

MR. WARREN: I think it is very clear, if you
read his press conference again, that he was talking about
the markets for oil.

Q Jerry, can you state categorically that
this was not a veiled threat?

MR. WARREN: Of course.

Q Jerry, if you could follow up for a moment
on Adam's question, I know you are going to give us that
report if you get it --

MR. WARREN: When I get it.

Q -- when you get it. Well, I don't
remember Senator Scott's precise language, but he was
indicating that there was going to be a report and the
clear implication was that the report was going to be
forthcoming fairly soon. I mean, is this something
that is just going to drag on?

MR. WARREN: No.

Q Why couldn't you respond to it a little
bit more than you have?

MR. WARREN: Because I can't give you a precise
date, that is the only reason.

Q Will it be this year or this month?

MR. WARREN: I will get it for you and as soon
as I do, I will not keep it from you.

Q Was the President in any way advised
by his congressional leaders this morning that his remarks
yesterday, relative to the performance of Congress, were
counter-productive and that the edge had best be taken
off in any way, or muted?

MR. WARREN: No, not at all. I think Senator
Scott and Congressman Ford made that very clear this
morning and I think in the comments that the President
had at the leadership meeting and if you reread his
press conference, he was talking about the disappointment
in the lack of action on the President's programs.

Now, there are a number of programs up there,
some of which were spelled out for you by the leaders
this morning, but the President said in the leadership
meeting this morning that -- and along the same lines of
what he said in the press conference yesterday -- he
is looking forward to working with the Congress on
his programs. His intention is to see that these programs
be acted on. He mentioned Mr. O'Neill, his desire here is
to confront the issues, not to confront one another.

MORE

#1808

FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY

September 7, 1973

STATEMENT BY
HENRY A. KISSINGER
BEFORE
THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 7, 1973

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee;

After talking to the Chairman and most members of the Committee, I have the impression that your purposes would best be served if we moved quickly to your questions. Therefore, I shall confine my opening remarks to a statement outlining the attitude I propose to bring to the Office of Secretary of State if the Committee and Senate should confirm my nomination. I take this approach, moreover, because the close and cooperative relationship that we shall seek between the Executive and the Legislative branches in foreign affairs depends ultimately on the spirit with which it is implemented.

My first thought is of the past and the great Americans who have held the office to which the President has nominated me. I derive both inspiration and a sense of gravity from that impressive roster, whether at the dawn of this nation's history -- Jefferson, Marshall, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Clay -- or just since World War II -- Byrnes, Marshall, Acheson, Dulles, Herter, Rusk, Rogers. These men, however different their styles and personalities, epitomized one fundamental reality: that the foreign policy of the United States transcends parties and Administrations. It expresses our ideals, our purposes and our hopes for the world. It must fulfill the best in America.

If confirmed, I shall always be conscious that I hold in trust the legacy of some of our greatest and noblest men.

Let me pay tribute to my predecessor who performed his duties with such dignity and decency for four and a half years. Secretary Rogers headed the Department of State during one of the most difficult periods in our history, when we had to adjust policies to new realities amid major domestic contention. His calm judgment and his humanity helped steer us through this passage and win the respect even of those who disagreed with Administration policies. The President and I will continue to look to him for counsel and support.

more

2

Mr. Chairman, we have come to experience in recent years that peace at home and peace abroad are closely related. How well we perform in foreign policy depends importantly on how purposeful we are at home. America has passed through a decade of domestic turbulence which has deepened divisions and even shaken our national self-confidence in some measure. At the same time, profound changes have occurred in the world around us, a generation after World War II. Our era is marked by both the anxieties of a transitional period and the opportunities of fresh creation.

These challenges, though they appear as practical issues, cannot be solved in technical terms; they closely reflect our view of ourselves. They require a sense of identity and purpose as much as a sense of policy. Throughout our history we have thought of what we did as growing out of deeper moral values. America was not true to itself unless it had a meaning beyond itself. In this spiritual sense, America was never isolationist.

This must remain our attitude.

This is why our international policies must enlist the contributions of our best people regardless of political persuasion. Our task is to define -- together -- the contours of a new world, and to shape America's contribution to it. Our foreign policy cannot be effective if it reflects only the sporadic and esoteric initiatives of a small group of specialists. It must rest on a broad national base and reflect a shared community of values.

With good will on all sides, I deeply believe we can reach this goal. There is no dispute about many of the fundamental objectives of national policy. We are at a crucial point of transition in the international order, with major changes in the global structure promising a more peaceful world:

- Successful post-war policies have helped our friends to new strength and responsibilities. We shall work constructively and openly with our partners in Europe and Japan to give new impetus to associations based on shared purposes and ideals. We shall always remember that the vitality of our friendships is the necessary condition for the lowering of tensions with our opponents.

- We have developed fresh relationships with adversaries that can ease us away from confrontation toward cooperation. Tensions have been reduced in many areas. For the first

more

3

[LC]

time since the end of World War II, all great nations have
become full participants in the international system. There
is the hope that the arms race can be arrested and the burden
of armaments reduced.

-- Our most anguishing and divisive problem, the Vietnam war,
is behind us. We achieved a negotiated settlement last
January. The Congress has since expressed its
view on how to terminate our military participation in the last
area of conflict -- Cambodia. As you gentlemen know, the
Administration differs with that view. But it will not attempt
to circumvent it.

-- We face unprecedented issues which transcend borders and ideologies and beckon global cooperation. Many traditional assumptions need adjustment. We have viewed ourselves as blessed with unlimited agricultural surpluses; today we must contemplate scarcity in relation to world needs. We have assumed self-sufficiency in energy; now we face increasing needs for external supply at least for an interim period. Environmental problems used to be considered national issues, if they were considered at all; now many must be met internationally if they are going to be met at all. We need to explore new conceptual frontiers to reflect the new reality produced by both technology and human aspirations: that our planet has become a truly global society.

This Administration will continue to adapt America's role to these
new conditions. But we cannot take for granted what has been begun.
We cannot let irretrievable opportunities slip from our grasp. Just as
we have benefitted from the efforts of our predecessors, so must we
build for our successors. What matters to other countries -- and to
the world -- is not so much the work of one Administration as the
steadiness of America. So the nation is challenged to render our
purposes durable and our performance reliable. This we achieved
during most of a generation after the Second World War. We need to
continue to do so.

This will require mutual effort and mutual understanding. We will
do our part. The President has charged me with helping him to shape
a foreign policy that can endure because it is carried in the hearts as
well as the minds of Americans.

more

4

The first necessity is a broader-based participation within the Executive Branch. During the last four years, there were many delicate initiatives that required a high degree of secrecy and concentration of effort. Crucial foundations were laid. Now we need to build on these foundations a more permanent structure that we can pass on to succeeding Administrations. Durability in foreign policy is achieved in the final analysis through the deep and continuing involvement of the dedicated professionals of the State Department and Foreign Service, who will manage our foreign affairs long after this Administration has ended. Thus one of my principal responsibilities as Secretary of State will be to infuse the Department of State with a sense of participation, intellectual excitement and mission.

As you know, the President has asked me to retain my position as Assistant to the President if I am confirmed as Secretary of State. I believe this will benefit the coherence and effectiveness of our foreign policy. The Secretary of State will be clearly the principal foreign policy advisor to the President. The locus of authority and the chain of authority will be unambiguous. Bureaucratic friction will be minimized. As the President said in announcing my appointment, the unity of position will underline the traditional principal role of the Department of State in the policy-making process.

There must be, as well, a closer relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches. It is the President's objective to make policy more accessible to the scrutiny and the views of the Congress. This is the fundamental answer to the question of executive privilege. As you gentlemen know, over an extended period of time when I was fully covered by this principle, I met regularly with the members of this Committee, both individually and as a group, and most frequently with the Chairman. I did so partly because I valued this association on personal grounds, but also because of my conviction that this nation faced no more urgent requirement than to promote mutual respect where a consensus was unattainable.

In my new capacity, I shall be prepared to testify formally on all my activities. In other words, I shall testify with respect to all matters traditionally covered by Secretaries of State and on my duties as Assistant to the President concerning interdepartmental issues. I will not claim executive privilege in either capacity except for the one area customarily invoked by Cabinet officers, that is, direct communications with the President or the actual deliberations of the National Security Council.

We will, of course, need to determine together which subjects should be treated in public and which in executive session.

more

5

In short, as a result of my combined position, the Committee should receive substantially more information than it has in the past. We will have acted positively on one of your most central concerns.

This process of greater cooperation will not be confined to formal testimony. If confirmed, I will propose to meet immediately with the Chairman and the ranking member to work out procedures for enabling the Committee to share more fully in the design of our foreign policy.

I will follow a similar approach with the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the leaders of both branches of Congress as well as with other Congressional groupings of proper jurisdiction.

This prompts the question, what do we mean by bipartisanship? We do not ask for rubber stamping and we cannot expect unanimity. Serious people obviously will continue to have differences. Where profound disagreements exist, it would be self-defeating to paper them over with empty formulae. We in turn cannot give up basic principles, nor can we promise to act only when there is bipartisan agreement, though this will be our preference. But we shall work to shape a broad consensus on our national goals and to confine differences to tactical issues. When our views differ, we shall strive not to press the debate to a point that tears the overall fabric of the national consensus. We will seek to maintain a climate of mutual trust so that arguments can center on methods, not motives. We hope that this restraint will be mutual. In this manner, our foreign policy debate can avoid the extremes of civil war and sterile accord for its own sake.

If our foreign policy is to be truly national, we must deepen our partnership with the American people. This means an open articulation of our philosophy, our purposes, and our actions. We have sought to do this in the President's Annual Reports to the Congress on foreign policy. Equally, we must listen to the hopes and aspirations of our fellow countrymen. I plan, therefore, on a regular basis, to elicit the views of America's opinion leaders and to share our perspectives freely.

Mr. Chairman, I have sketched an agenda for seeking a more durable peace abroad and a cooperative climate at home. Both objectives point to the urgent need for reconciliation. Americans have recently endured the turmoil of assassinations and riots, racial and generational confrontations, and a bitter, costly war. Just as we were emerging from that conflict, we were plunged into still another ordeal.

more

another order. We were emerging from that conflict, we were plunged into still and generational confrontations, and a bitter, costly war. But as have recently endorsed the turn of assassinations andplane, facial objectives point to the urgent need for reconciliation. Americans have to face a broad and a negative climate at home. But

treatise.

the views of American opinion leaders and to share our perspectives

fellow countrymen. I plan, therefore, on a regular basis, to offer

policy. Identically, we must listen to the hopes and aspirations of our

die this in the President's Annual Report to the Congress on foreign

civil war and sterner record for its own sake.

e methods not motives. We hope that this restraint will be much

retain a climate of mutual trust so that arguments are less

our views later, we shall strive not to pass the debate to a point that

on our national goals and to continue differences to tactical issues. When

we promise to act only when there is bipartisan agreement, through this

empty formula. We in turn cannot give us basic principles, nor can we

disagreements exist, it would be self-denoting to bar them over with

people optionally will continue to have differences. Where possible

do not seek for rubber stamping and we cannot expect unanimity. Serious

This tempts the question, what do we mean by bipartisanship? We

with other Congressional groups of proper importation.

policy,

Churchman and the ranking member to work out procedures for

testimony. It confirmed, I will propose to meet immediately with the

We will have acted positively on one of your most central concerns,

should receive sensitivity more information than it has in the past.

In short, as a result of my continued position, the Committee

6

These traumatic events have cast lengthening shadows on our
traditional optimism and self-esteem. A loss of confidence in our
own country would inevitably be mirrored in our international relations.
Where once we ran the risk of thinking we were too good for the world,
we might now swing to believing we are not good enough. Where once
a soaring optimism tempted us to dare too much, a shrinking spirit
could lead us to attempt too little. Such an attitude -- and the foreign
policy it would produce -- would deal a savage blow to global stability.

But I am hopeful about our prospects. America is resilient. The
dynamism of this country is irrepressible. Whatever our divisions,
we can rally to the prospects of building a world at peace and responsive
to humane aspirations. In so doing, we can replenish our reservoir of
faith.

This is our common challenge:

- To distinguish the fundamental from the ephemeral.

- To seek out what unites us, without stifling the healthy debate
that is the lifeblood of democracy.

- To promote the positive trends that are the achievements not
just of this Administration but also of those who came before.

- To shape new initiatives that will serve not just the next forty
months but also the decades to follow.

A few years before he died, one of our most distinguished Secretaries
of State, Dean Acheson, entitled his memoirs "Present at the Creation."
He chose that title because he was one of the leading participants in the
creation of the post-war international system. The challenge before our
country now is whether our generation has the vision -- as Dean Acheson's
did more than two decades ago -- to turn into dynamic reality the hopeful
beginnings we have made toward a more durable peace and a more
benevolent planet.

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, I am confident that
working together we can speed the day when all of us will be able to
say that we were "present at the creation" of a new era of peace, justice
and humanity.

Thank you.

# # # #

DR. KISSINGER - TESTIMONY ON MIDDLE EAST SEPT 7, 1973

**Question:** Now, does the statement of the President at his press conference on September 3 represent any change in this policy of the United States toward Israel or the Arab states?

**Answer:** Mr. Kissinger. No.

Senator, the position of the United States with respect to the Middle East conflict has been that we cannot substitute for some form of negotiation between the parties, but that we, on the other hand, would be prepared to be helpful if the two parties began some movement towards accommodation.

And, as the President pointed out in another part of the press conference, it is the view of this Administration that both sides have to make some movement in order to achieve a settlement.

Now, it is true that we attach importance and considerable importance, to a peaceful resolution of the Middle East issue. But it is also true that we must not attempt to do things that are not in our power to do. What we shall do is to use our good offices energetically where we see any prospect of progress. But American policy cannot of itself substitute for the actions of the parties most immediately concerned.

If I am confirmed, I plan to spend several days in each week at the General Assembly, and I will plan to meet there with Arab leaders who are attending as well as with Israeli diplomats, and that will give me a better possibility to judge what concrete steps we can take. But it does not represent a basic change in our position.

DR. KISSINGER - TESTIMONY ON SOUTH ASIA - SEPT. 11, 1973

[Lc]

Q: Senator Percy. ...It has been widely understood, or reported at least, the Administration in the past has tilted toward Pakistan. That has ruptured our relationships to a degree with India.

A: Mr. Kissinger. Senator Percy, during the India-Pakistan war of 1971 we opposed the methods that India used, although we favored the objective of self-determination. Indeed one of the reasons we opposed India was because we believed they should have understood that we were working towards the same objective -- the self-determination of what was at that time East Bengal and is now Bangladesh -- and because we believed that military action was unnecessary.

I do not think it will do much good to rehearse all the arguments of that time, which, as far we were concerned, had to do with international standards of conduct, and with the impact of acquiescence in the use of force to settle disputes on the Middle East and on other relationships.

The fact is that, now that Bangladesh exists, our objectives and those of India with respect to it, are quite parallel. We want a Bangladesh that is prospering, that is stable, that is democratic, and that is not a source of unrest for the whole area. And that we believe is what India wants.

Secondly, with respect to India, one of the perhaps beneficial long-term consequences of the difficulties that arose in 1971 is that it has

-2-

enabled both sides to move toward a more mature relationship.

On the American side, especially in our intellectual community, there was a perhaps romantic conception of India. And on the Indian side there were also excessive expectations towards the United States.

We recognize India as one of the major forces in the developing world, and as a country whose growth and stability are absolutely essential to the peace and stability of South Asia. And during the last year, and especially during the last six months, relations with India have developed in an undramatic but very steady manner.

Ambassador Moynihan has of course played a very major role in this.

Our effort with India right now is to remove many of the irritating legacies of the 1971 period, as well as some of the concrete difficulties that have arisen independently of the 1971 misunderstandings -- to solve, for example, the problem of the accumulation of Public Law 480 funds in India, so that they can be disposed of in a manner acceptable to both sides. We are very close to reaching an agreement on this.

We will then turn to the question of the long-term economic relationship between India and the United States.

-3-

We will then turn to the question of our long-term economic relation-
ships. We both want to get away from the traditional aid pattern and
ask ourselves what, over a longer period of time, makes some sense,
so that the aid pattern can be liquidated and at the same time we can
be helpful to the development process in India.

What we want from India in return -- and what India ought to want also --
is some contribution to stability in the area, so that there is not the
sense on the part of some of its neighbors that they are in danger of
attack. And we have every reason to suppose that India is prepared
to do this.

We have engaged in many talks with Indian officials. The Indian Am-
bassador tells me that when he was in Minneapolis a few weeks ago
he went on television to endorse my appointment and to indicate that
relations between our two countries were improving. The former
I do not think is central to the deliberations of this Committee, but
the improvement in our relations is real, and it is going on on a very
serious basis.

At the same time, we are trying to help Pakistan to find its new role,
it having lost half of its country, and to adjust to its new reality. We

-4-

have not judged it wise to resume a permanent military supply relation-
ship with Pakistan.

So I believe, actually, that our relations with the subcontinent are
on a more mature basis, and for the long term are more hopeful, than
they have been at any period since this Administration came into office.

Q: Senator Percy. Dr. Kissinger, what will our arms policy be with respect to South Asia?

A: Mr. Kissinger. We believe we should not be a principal arms supplier in that area.

Our present arms policy is that we will give spare parts for equipment
that we have already sold to Pakistan, but that we do not engage in
new deliveries of any lethal equipment, and we have not engaged in mili-
tary deliveries to India at all. There may be some minor modifications
of this because both sides want some very specialized technical equip-
ment. But with respect to the central issue, if another war breaks out
in that area, it will not be fought with American weapons.

Q: Senator Percy. Lastly, in that area there is some concern expressed in Afghanistan and India about our large-scale arms sales to Iran. What assurances can we provide that those sales are for the self-defense of Iran and would not be ever engaged or used in any of the internal problems and affairs involving the sub-continent?

DR. KISSINGER - TESTIMONY ON MIDDLE EAST SEPT 8, 1973

Senator, the position of the United States with respect to the Middle East conflict has been that we cannot substitute for some form of negotiation between the parties; that we, on the other hand, would be prepared to be helpful if the two parties began some movement towards accommodation, and, as the President pointed out in another part of the press conference, it is the view of this Administration that both sides have to make some movement in order to achieve a settlement.

Now, it is true that we attach importance and considerable importance to a peaceful resolution of the Middle East issue. But it is also true that we must not attempt to do things that are not in our power to do, and what we shall do is to use our good offices energetically, where we see any prospect of progress, but American policy cannot of itself substitute for the actions of the parties most immediately concerned.

If I am confirmed, I plan to spend several weeks or several days in each week anyway at the General Assembly, and I will plan to meet there with Arab leaders who are attempting as well as Israel diplomats, and that will give me a better possibility to judge what concrete steps we can take. But it does not represent a basic exchange in our position.

-3-

-4-

have not judged it wise to resume a permanent military supply relationship with Pakistan.

Our present arms policy is that we will give spare parts for equipment that we have already sold to Pakistan, but that we do not engage in new deliveries of any lethal equipment, and we have not engaged in military deliveries to India at all. There may be some minor modifications of this because both sides want some very specialized technical equipment. But with respect to the central issue, if another war breaks out in that area, it will not be fought with American weapons.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 8, 1973

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

THE WHITE HOUSE

REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
ON THE NATION'S ENERGY POLICY

BRIEFING ROOM

AT 11:08 A.M. EDT

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

As you know, we have just completed a two hour meeting in the Cabinet Room of the major Administration officials having responsibilities in the field of energy. Governor Love presided over the meeting at my direction and gave a report with regard to the programs that he has initiated and that had been initiated prior to his taking over this assignment.

I would like to summarize for the members of the press, before having the Governor answer your specific questions in this field, the problem as I see it at this time.

We have heard a lot about a crisis. I do not use that term because we do not face a crisis in that sense of the word. I would simply say that in the short-term we face a problem, a problem with regard to energy, heating, for example, this winter, just as we thought we faced a problem of gasoline this summer, and the possibility of brown-outs.

We are not Pollyannish about solving that problem, but insofar as the short-term problem is concerned, Governor Love has a program which he is working on and one which is designed to meet the problem and to deal with it.

So I would summarize by saying that short-term we face a problem. But long-term, and this is the important thing for us to remember, the prospects for adequate energy for the United States are excellent. I would say the prospects for adequate energy for the United States are as good as they are for any industrial nation in the world and perhaps better, better because of our enormous research capabilities.

This morning we addressed both the short-term problem and the long-term problem and the legislative problem and the administrative problem.

In my press conference a couple of days ago, I mentioned seven pieces of legislation. Today we have moved down to four pieces of legislation that we consider to be of the highest urgency and that must be acted upon before the end of the year. These pieces of legislation deal with both the short-term problem and address themselves particularly, however, to the long-term problem.

MORE

Now, there are many old wives' tales and horror stories that are told about nuclear plants and all the rest. Russell Train was there, I asked him about the effect on the environment, to separate out the fears from what actually the facts were. He came down on the side of going forward with the program, the development of nuclear power, not only having in mind our present technology, but also research which would allow us to develop nuclear energy in much more exciting ways, looking to the future, for peaceful purposes.

And in this field, I will be meeting myself next week with members of the Atomic Energy Commission, along with the Governor and with Russell Train so that we can give new impetus to that program of the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

We were the first to make the breakthrough in nuclear power for military purposes. We have lagged behind in peaceful uses. Some nations abroad, while they certainly do not have our technology, at least have more thrust here, they have more drive here in this area than we have. But the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes is to be a major Administration initiative from now on through the balance of our term here.

In the field of research also -- this relates clearly back to the strip mining a moment ago -- is the area of research with regard to the use of coal. Secretary Morton pointed out in our meeting this morning that when we think of the energy sources for the United States, that four percent, only four percent presently in the ground come from oil, three percent potentially from natural gas and 91 percent from coal.

The United States, at the present time, has almost half of the coal reserves of the world. And the problem only is to get the coal out in a way that is not too destructive to the environment, but also to find the uses for coal, liquification programs, other programs which the Governor is quite familiar with and I am not, but which he will be glad to fill you in on.

I would simply summarize in this way. The other day in our press conference -- the Governor and I did discuss this and I have asked him, once he does have the time, to perhaps travel abroad and have an opportunity to survey the situation in some of these countries himself -- I was asked about the developments in the Mideast and what that meant to us.

The United States would prefer to continue to import oil, petroleum products from the Mideast, from Venezuela, from Canada, from other countries, but also we are keenly aware of the fact that no nation, and particularly no industrial nation, must be in the position of being at the mercy of any other nation by having its energy supplies suddenly cut off.

We are going to do the very best we can to work out problems with the Mideastern countries or any other countries that may develop, so that we can continue to have a flow of imports into the United States of oil products particularly.

MORE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 8, 1973

THE WHITE HOUSE

PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
JOHN A. LOVE, DIRECTOR, ENERGY POLICY OFFICE
AND
CHARLES J. DiBONA
SPECIAL CONSULTANT TO THE PRESIDENT

BRIEFING ROOM

AT 11:20 A.M. EDT

GOVERNOR LOVE: Thank you, Mr. President.

With that offer, which I am not sure I will be able to live up to -- knowing all the technology that you might want to know about -- why I am pleased to accept your questions.

Q Governor Love, what are the uses of nuclear energy that the President is referring to? Is it something other than breeder reactors?

GOVERNOR LOVE: Basically we are looking, of course, at nuclear power generation, electrical generation, and we have moved a little bit in that field but not nearly swiftly enough.

The breeder reactor situation, of course, is a situation in which we can stretch out and increase the basic fuel, the uranium, so on, that is a part of the program. But we do need to get more nuclear electrical generating plants on the line.

Q How would you go about doing that, Governor? It is a licensing procedure. They are proposed by the individual utilities. How can the government speed up the process?

GOVERNOR LOVE: We have got basically two problems it seems to me, the licensing, the entire -- well, it is more than red tape -- but the kind of governmental regulation, the siting kind of problem and we have had in the past, it is my belief, some problem in technology too. We have an interagency study going to see what we can do to speed up the procedure. You know it has taken about 10 years to put one of these plants on line. We have had some and we have got, as a part of our very great research and development program, some programs that will direct themselves to the technology.

Q Governor Love, for many years now the industries, particularly the petroleum, mining and power plant industries have employed the defense in delays of pollution controls, that the technology for pollution control equipment is not available or the equipment itself is not available and therefore they repeatedly asked for relaxations and delays in emission standards. How much longer do you think they can use that excuse?

MORE

GOVERNOR LOVE: Well, it is going to be a part of
again our research situation. The area that I think that you
primarily refer to has been the stack technology, which will
take the metallic oxides, particularly sulfur and the
particulates and so on out of the stacks of generators
primarily, the power generators.

There has been a very great dispute whether indeed
that technology is there or not. The claim has been made
that Japan has such a technology and a great many people have
gone to take a look at it. There are technologies that
theoretically work, but have not been tested for a sufficient
length of time.

I believe if we don't have it we are very close to
having that technology and it is a very vital technology for
a near-term solution to some of the problems.

Q Would you go back and tell us how the relaxation
of these controls on sulfur oil and all, how that would affect
the refining and production industry?

GOVERNOR LOVE: Well, the controls, the regulations,
the restraints on the quantity or the percentage of sulfur
in fuels primarily are oil, are set at the State level. In
order to come within those levels, for example, blending
goes on. They mix low sulfur No. 2 oil with a higher sulfur
resid or in operating a refinery they have to use the lower
sulfur.

Worldwide there is a shortage -- we are going to have
to depend this winter on increased imports -- there is a
shortage, a very tight market on low sulfur heating oils.
If we can, as we intend to do through the Governors and with
the cooperation of EPA, relax temporarily the sulfur standards,
we believe that it will free up major quantities of the heating
oil that may be vitally needed this winter.

Q Does this mean you are going to go back to specific
States and ask them to increase their production of high
sulfur oil?

GOVERNOR LOVE: Not their production, no. It is the
regulation that prohibits the burning of high sulfur oil and
if they agree, will be asking for a variance which EPA can
grant through the winter.

Q This is an important issue that has been simmering
for sometime and I would appreciate a precise clarification.
The question is, whether because of the fuel emergency -- the
broad question -- the Administration is going to seek a breech
in the primary standards that are intended to protect human
health, and as I have understood the policy until now, the
primary standards would remain intact and the States would
put off enforcement of the secondary standards, but I understand
that there has been an additional request that EPA grant
variances in advance from the primary standard. Is that what
you are referring to? Is EPA going to take the lid off sulfur
entirely in advance, as you propose?

MORE

GOVERNOR LOVE: No, not entirely. You are absolutely right that there are two levels of this thing. One, EPA a long time ago recommended that the States not go ahead with the implementation of the secondary standards, as you remember, at the present time, to delay those implementations.

As they have in the past, on a specific case basis, there is provided within the Act itself a provision for variances. We believe in some of the States most intimately involved in this problem, that variances can be given which will not endanger the health of the people, even though it may be that technically in looking at a blanket regulation that says you can't burn oil that has more than two-tenths of one percent of sulfur, that this does not necessarily reflect indeed the entire ambience and that it can be done and needs to be done this winter without violating the health.

Q Would you tell us, please, which Governors you will be inviting to come in and see you at this meeting and also, are not some of the sulfur content standards set by cities rather than States?

GOVERNOR LOVE: Yes, you are right. I don't have a list as yet, but I obviously will. The two areas of greatest concern at the present time to me, as far as the heating oil situation, are the eastern seaboard, primarily, New York, New Jersey, New England, and then the upper middle western States, so I am sure we will be talking to some Mayors too.

Q Governor, did the meeting get into the subjects of standby systems of rationing or mandatory allocation for fuel oils this winter?

GOVERNOR LOVE: As far as rationing, no discussion other than my report that obviously as we must in any kind of reasonable approach, are working on contingency planning, because there are various possibilities of change.

As far as controls, mandatory allocations, I think most of you know that we have published, and had a hearing yesterday, on propane regulation. We had an amazing attendance. The number of people who have indicated either support or in most instances a problem with that program, I think, will necessitate perhaps another hearing, certainly a close examination of the proposed program before implementation.

On the overall program on mandatory allocation, comments are due by the tenth, and we are going to look at those before arriving at a conclusion.

Q Governor, in regard to the strip mining legislation, there has been considerable criticism of it and other measures on the Hill that they go no further than the State regulatory laws, which have been frequently proven totally inadequate for the job of regulation and control of the loopholes. How can you accept that level of inadequate regulation?

MORE

- 4 -

GOVERNOR LOVE: I can't speak to it specifically. I can say though that conceptually the Administration's position is that it is going to be necessary that we use this source of energy, coal, in the near term and in large quantities. We believe that in order to make it economic and feasible that quantities of it are going to have to be mined by the surface mining method.

We further believe that there are rules and regulations that can make it possible that this be done without unacceptable damage to our land and it is in this area that we hope that the Congress will act.

Q To get back to mandatory allocations, I didn't understand the answer on whether the meeting discussed mandatory allocation plans for home heating oil?

GOVERNOR LOVE: We discussed the various problems including that. As I say, we are going to weigh the response both on propane and on the publication of a program for --

Q What was your conclusion? You discussed it, but what happened?

GOVERNOR LOVE: We are going to wait until we get the comments.

Q The thrust of the Administration's line, particularly with the Middle Eastern oil producing state seems to be that we have, over the long haul, sufficient reserves in this country to make dependence on the Middle East unnecessary.

First, am I reading that properly? Two, if that is the case, do we specifically have sufficient reserves, known reserves here to make us self-sufficient and independent of the Middle East; three, for how long and four, when will they be on the line, as you figure?

GOVERNOR LOVE: That is a very broad question, but it depends on what you mean by reserves. If we have sufficient conventional petroleum reserves, I think the answer is probably no, almost certainly no, but as far as whether we do have sufficient reserves of energy, it is true that we do have. That is the program which we are launching in the research and development, not only the stimulation of conventional exploration and production, but also the coal technologies, the nuclear technologies, geothermal, solar, the entire range, are all designed to make this nation self-sufficient as far as energy is concerned, and I have every confidence that we can do that.

Q What were the spirited disagreements that the President referred to? On what subjects and who participated?

GOVERNOR LOVE: I don't know how I can be very helpful or responsive to that. One thing that did elicit some comment and so on is, on the Cost of Living Council we have been most interested, in order to maximize imports, that the regulations be so provided that there can be a pass-through in order to make sure we can maximize imports and we have had some discussion on that.

MORE

Q Of what?

GOVERNOR LOVE: Of heating oil.

Q You mean pass-through right through to the retail price? Is that the problem?

GOVERNOR LOVE: It is designed to make sure that the importer -- the heating oil in the foreign market is much above the domestic market -- will not be losing money but gets the money back he pays for the increased price of the heating oil.

Q Is the problem now that the retailers cannot raise their prices to cover the cost of imports?

GOVERNOR LOVE: Well, yes, it is held at the retail and the distribution level and so on and we have to have the pass-through on down the line to make sure we will get the incentive to import.

Q How will you do that? Say oil is $6 a barrel now and you have got to let them pass through, but you can't let retailers increase prices?

GOVERNOR LOVE: Here is the expert on pass-through.
Charles DiBona.

MR. DiBONA: Right now the domestic price of heating oil in large lots is between 12 and 14 cents a gallon and the imported prices are 25 cents a gallon or higher. One of the problems is how do you bring in heating oil and sell it in the United States without losing money. Obviously there would be a strong disincentive if you had to buy heating oil for 25 cents and sell it for 14 cents.

So one of the complicated problems has been how to figure a way of bringing that oil in, then averaging it across all the oil that is produced in the United States and getting a sales price that permits people to pass through these increased costs of importing.

We believe now we have worked that out with the Cost of Living Council and there will be some announcements made early next week on that.

Q Are they opposed to it?

MR. DiBONA: The Cost of Living Council, or Mr. Dunlop, is in agreement with these principles. There have been a lot of technical questions, not questions of principle and that will be done early next week. It has been the case that heating oil could be passed through at retail and that was in the original plan. It is unlike gasoline, that is, that once a month the retailer calculates his cost of heating oil from all sources, reports that to the Internal Revenue Service and charges that price with his normal markup. I think the markup is seven cents a gallon.

MORE

So there has always been pass through on heating oil unlike gasoline and that is because there is a very severe and special problem here and because a significant portion of the heating oil that will be used this winter will be imported heating oil.

Q Does this mean we will pay more for the heating oil in our homes and hospitals?

MR. DiBONA: It is true that the cost of heating oil will go up this winter.

Q How much?

MR. DiBONA: I can't be sure, but my guess is it would be about two cents a gallon.

Q Were there any other points of disagreement?

MR. DiBONA: I will let the Governor now take over.

GOVERNOR LOVE: Certainly not at the end there weren't, no.

Q Governor, on the point of the variances and the primary standards, didn't somebody disagree with that or was that unanimous?

GOVERNOR LOVE: No, I think in regard to Russell Train's attitude, if that is what you are asking, that certainly we will monitor it very closely, but he certainly does not disagree with the general objective.

Q Are the only emission standards you want to change those relating to sulfur content of heating oil or are there others?

GOVERNOR LOVE: This is the only thing we are looking at. This has the most direct relationship to the heating oil problem this winter.

Q Can you tell us how much that will increase the production of oil in this country?

GOVERNOR LOVE: It is a difficult number to arrive at, that is, not the domestic production, but how much it will increase supplies and we think maybe it would free up maybe 200,000 barrels a day out of the Caribbean, I believe.

MR. DiBONA: Yes, we estimate between 200,000 and 400,000 barrels a day of additional fuel. That compares with our estimated needs, if the weather is normal, of about 500,000 barrels a day of imports, which is out of, for a normal winter, a consumption of about 3.5 million barrels a day. But if it is a cold winter, we could easily need another 300,000 or 400,000 barrels of imports over that. That is the estimate of 500,000 or 600,000 of imports for a normal winter could go up to 900,000 or a million barrels a day.

MORE