Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
23812643
label
Defense Department - General (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
23812643
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Defense Department - General (2)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Panama Canal (Panama)
Department of Defense. (09/18/1947 - )
National security
Military education
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
23812643
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-11-01
month
11
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-10-01
month
10
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1d558525baf1cd83
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 9, folder "Defense Department - General (2)" of
the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 9 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON D.C. 20301
Refeare
FEB 24 1976
Honorable Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Phil:
After the presentation on the FY 1977 Defense Budget
at the Cabinet meeting on February 19th, there were
several requests for unclassified copies of the charts.
Attached is a set of charts, with explanatory notes.
As I said in the briefing, no single chart or group of
charts can be expected to tell such a complex story
completely. However, they do indicate the weight of
effort and the momentum of Soviet activity. The trends
these charts depict--upward movement over the past
decade for the Soviets relative to the U. S. --are what
President Ford's FY 1977 Defense Budget is designed
to arrest.
If you would like a more detailed explanation of any
point, please call.
Regards,
D
FORDO is LIBRARY
I
FY 77 DEFENSE BUDGET
PERSPECTIVES
DONALD RUMSFELD
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
20 FEBRUARY 1976
( / yes FORD LIBRARY
BERALD
INTRODUCTION
By MAY 15, 1976, THE CONGRESS WILL HAVE MADE TWO OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS IT WILL MAKE ALL YEAR
...
THE
LEVEL OF TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING, AND THE AMOUNT OF THAT
TOTAL WHICH WILL GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
THERE IS CONSENSUS THAT U.S. MILITARY CAPABILITY AND
STRENGTH CAN TODAY BE DESCRIBED AS SUFFICIENT ... THAT IS,
WE HAVE "ROUGH EQUIVALENCE" TO THE SOVIET UNION, WHICH IS
OUR POLICY.
HOWEVER, THE TRENDS OF THE PAST 5-10 YEARS ARE ADVERSE
AS FAR AS THE MILITARY BALANCE IS CONCERNED. No SINGLE CHART
OR STATISTIC TELLS THE STORY -- BUT A SWEEPING LOOK AT
RESOURCES, PROCUREMENT AND R&D EFFORTS, EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION
RATES, FORCE LEVEL CHANGES, AND SHIFTS IN RELATIVE CAPABILITY
MAKES IT CLEAR. A COLLECTION OF SUCH GRAPHICS IS PRESENTED
HERE, ALONG WITH APPROPRIATE EXPLANATIONS AND CAVEATS.
THE CLEAR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE U.S. MUST ACT NOW TO
ARREST THE ADVERSE TRENDS BY PROVIDING REAL INCREASES FOR
DEFENSE UNLESS WE ARE WILLING TO ALTER OUR POLICY OF MAIN-
TAINING ROUGH EQUIVALENCE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT
LIKELY TO ACCEPT A POLICY OF INFERIORITY,
LIBRARY GERALD GERALDR. FORD
DEFENSE FORCES BUDGET TRENDS (TOA)
Billions $
160
160
TOTAL CONSTANT FY 1977$
SHADED
140
AREA
140
REPRESENTS
PROJECTIONS
120
120
100
100
BASELINE CONSTANT FY 1977$
80
80
60
TOTAL CURRENT$
60
40
40
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976 1977
FISCAL YEARS
5162
U.S. DEFENSE BUDGET TRENDS
THE U.S. DEFENSE BUDGET HAS DECREASED IN REAL TERMS BY MORE THAN
ONE-THIRD FROM THE 1968 WARTIME PEAK. TODAY, IN REAL TERMS (CORRECTED
FOR INFLATION), IT IS 14% BELOW THE LEVELS OF THE PREWAR, EARLY 1960's.
TRENDS ARE SHOWN HERE IN TERMS OF TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
(TOA). THE BROKEN LINE SHOWS TOTAL TOA (IN CONSTANT FY 77 DOLLARS);
THE THICK LINE LABELED "BASELINE" SHOWS THE TREND OF RESOURCES DEVOTED
TO MILITARY CAPABILITY (SEASIA WAR COSTS, RETIRED PAY, AND FOREIGN MILITARY
SALES HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED); AND THE LOWER CURVE SHOWS THE PROGRESSION OF
DEFENSE BUDGETS AS THEY APPEARED IN CURRENT DOLLARS,
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Shares of the U.S. Budget
Percent of Total Outlays
Percent
60%
60%
50%
U.S. National Defense
50%
40%
Benefit Payments to
40%
Individuals and Grants
30%
30%
SHADED
20%
AREA
20%
REPRESENTS
PROJECTIONS
10%
10%
0
0
1964
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Fiscal Years
Estimate
4961
SHARES OF THE U.S. BUDGET
U.S. DEFENSE SPENDING TODAY IS ABOUT 25% OF THE TOTAL FEDERAL BUDGET --
THE LOWEST SHARE SINCE FY 1940, SHORTLY BEFORE PEARL HARBOR -- HAVING
DROPPED FROM 43% IN PREWAR 1964.
As SHOWN, BENEFIT PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS AND GRANTS HAVE INCREASED
FROM A 30% SHARE OF THE DOD BUDGET TO MORE THAN 55% DURING THE SAME PERIOD.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
US / USSR DEFENSE PROGRAM TRENDS
(US EXPENDITURES AND ESTIMATED DOLLAR COSTS OF SOVIET PROGRAMS)
(CONSTANT 1977 DOLLARS)
BILLIONS $
BILLIONS $
160
160
SHADED
AREA
REPRESENTS
140
PROJECTIONS
140
US
120
120
USSR
-
,
,
,
I
s
,
of
100
100
US (Less SEA military functions)
80
80
0
0
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1977
YEAR
Source: Based upon intelligence estimates of the constant-dollar cost of Soviet
4961
military activities, and of US expenditures on a comparable basis.
Transformed by DoD from constant 1974 dollars to constant FY1977
dollars. SEA adjustment based on DoD data only.
SOVIET PROGRAM DEFENSE TRENDS
WHILE THESE REDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN GOING ON IN THE U.S., THE SOVIET UNION
HAS BEEN MOVING STEADILY IN THE OTHER DIRECTION,
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS WORKED AT THE DIFFICULT TASK OF ESTIMATING
THE MAGNITUDE OF SOVIET EFFORT. THERE REMAINS SOME DISAGREEMENT AMONG ANALYSTS
AS TO THE ABSOLUTE VALUE OF MILITARY EFFORTS IN A CONTROLLED ECONOMY, BUT THE
CONSTANT 1977 DOLLAR VALUE OF THE RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO SOVIET NATIONAL DEFENSE
APPEARS TO HAVE GROWN FROM 102 BILLION IN 1965 TO 135 BILLION IN 1975, AN AVERAGE
ANNUAL INCREASE OF AT LEAST 3%.
THE SOLID CURVE SUPERIMPOSES AN ESTIMATE OF SOVIET PROGRAM COSTS ON COMP ARABLE
CURVES OF U.S. EXPENDITURES.
THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE OF THE WEIGHT OF EFFORT AND THE MOMENTUM IN SOVIET QURALO
LIBRARY
MILITARY MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THESE ESTIMATES OF
EXPENDITURES.
MILITARY MANPOWER
MILLIONS
SOVIET 1/
4
3
U.S.
2
1964
1970
1975
1977
1 EXCLUDES MILITARY SECURITY FORCES.
8210
COMPARATIVE MILITARY MANPOWER
CONSIDERING MANPOWER RESOURCES, THE SOVIETS HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER
OF MEN UNDER ARMS (NOT INCLUDING SOME 500,000 MILITARY SECURITY FORCE
MEMBERS) FROM 3.4 TO 4.4 MILLION SINCE 1964.
DURING THE SAME PERIOD, U.S. UNIFORMED MILITARY STRENGTH INCREASED
FROM A PREWAR 1964 LEVEL OF 2.7 MILLION TO A PEAK OF 3.5 MILLION DURING
THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA, THEN DECLINED TO 2.1 MILLION TODAY, THERE ARE
FEWER AMERICANS IN UNIFORM NOW THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE THE FALL OF 1950.
FORD it LIBRARY AERALD
COMPARATIVE US AND SOVIET INVESTMENT*
(PROC'JREMENT, FACILITIES, RDTSE)
60
BILLIONS OF FY 1977 DOLLARS
50
SOVIET
-
40
US
30
1964
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
COMPARATIVE US AND SOVIET PROCUREMENT*
COMPARATIVE US AND SOVIET*
AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
MILITARY RDT&E
40
20
SOVIET
BILLIONS OF FY 1977 DOLLARS
SOVIET
30
BILLIONS OF FY 1977 DOLLARS
US
10
US
20
1964
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
1964
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
BASED ON INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATES IN CONSTANT 1973 DOLLARS; CONVERTED TO CONSTANT FY 1977 DOLLARS BY DOD.
4961
COMPARATIVE INVESTMENT
IN
PROCUREMENT, FACILITIES, RDT&E
OVER THE PAST 10-12 YEARS, SOVIET INVESTMENT IN REAL TERMS IN DEVELOPMENT
AND PROCUREMENT OF NEW SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES FOR PRODUCTION HAS CLEARLY
EXCEEDED THAT OF THE U.S.
THE UPPER CHART DISPLAYS AGGREGATED DATA; THE ONE IN THE LOWER LEFT-HAND
CORNER SEPARATES PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION TRENDS FROM RDT&E (LOWER
RIGHT-HAND CORNER).
FORD i LIBRARY 03RALD
THE SOVIETS HAVE DEVELOPED AN INDUSTRIAL BASE WHICH HAS QUANTITATIVEL
OUTPRODUCED THE U.S. IN MOST CATEGORIES OF MILITARY HARDWARE, THE WEIGHT OF
SOVIET EFFORT AND THE MOMENTUM THEY HAVE DEVELOPED ARE OF SERIOUS CONCERN,
U.S.S.R./U.S.
NAVAL SHIP CONSTRUCTION
1965-1975
800
MAJOR
(205)
COMBATANTS
MINOR
(455)
COMBATANTS
300
MAJOR
COMBATANTS
(165)
MINOR
(140)
SUBS
COMBATANTS
(80)
SUBS
(55)
U.S.S.R.
U.S.
6210
COMPARATIVE NAVAL SHIP CONSTRUCTION
SINCE 1962, WHEN THE SOVIETS BEGAN EXPANDING MARITIME POWER IN EARNEST,
THEY HAVE BUILT MORE THAN FOUR TIMES AS MANY SHIPS FOR THEIR NAVY AS HAS THE
U.S.
THE TWO COLUMNS ON THIS CHART COMPARE QUANTITATIVELY USSR AND U.S.
SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS -- MAJOR COMBATANTS, MINOR COMBATANTS (1000 TONS OR
LESS), AND SUBMARINES -- FOR THE 1965-1975 PERIOD.
FORD : LIBRARY 03RALD
CHANGES IN NAVAL FORCE LEVELS
(1965- 1975)
ATTACK SUBMARINES
MAJOR SURFACE COMBATANTS
408
400
USSR
300
300
U.S.
NUMBER
NUMBER
Of
200
OF
200
SUBMARINES
SHIPS
USSR
US
100
100
0
8
65
66
87
68
69
10
"
"
13
14
15
65
66
67
"
69
70
VEAH
"
72
73
74
15
VEAR
STANDOFF WEAPON DELIVERY PLATFORMS
250
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
200
USSR
200
NUMBER
U.S.
or
PLATFORMS
150
150
NUMBER
OF
100
SHIPS
U.S.S.R.
100
50
50
US
0
0
65
66
67
"
69
70
71
72
73
74
65
75
56
61
68
69
TO
"
12
13
14
75
YEAR
YEAR
CHANGES IN NAVAL FORCE LEVELS
THE SOVIET FORCE HAS BECOME SMALLER WITH THE RETIREMENT OF LARGE NUMBERS
OF DIESEL SUBMARINES. HOWEVER, THE SOVIETS STILL HAVE A 2.5-To-1 ADVANTAGE
IN ATTACK SUBMARINES.
THE SOVIETS HAVE 20% GREATER NUMBERS OF MAJOR SURFACE COMBATANTS --
AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, CRUISERS, DESTROYERS, AND FRIGATES ALTHOUGH THE U.S.
HAS AN UNQUESTIONED LEAD IN SEA-BASED AVIATION,
THERE IS A MARKED ASYMMETRY IN THE WAY THE TWO NAVIES HAVE DISPERSED
OFFENSIVE, STANDOFF WEAPONS CAPABILITY ... THE U.S. STANDOFF, OFFENSIVE
FORD
STRENGTH LIES ALMOST ENTIRELY IN 14 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, WHERE THE SOVIETS
HAVE 240-ODD SHIPS WITH STANDOFF WEAPONS CAPABILITY.
GERALD
LIBRARY
THE SOVIETS HAVE BUILT A FORCE OF AMPHIBIOUS LIFT SHIPS WHICH NUMERICALLY
EXCEEDS OURS, HOWEVER, U.S. ASSAULT CAPABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY VASTLY EXCEEDS
THEIRS.
NUMBER AND TONNAGE OF MAJOR U.S. AND USSR SHIPS
TONNAGE
5000
TOTAL SHIPS
1500
1000
3000
500
1000
US SOVIET
US SOVIET
1975
5081
COMPARATIVE NUMBERS AND TONNAGE
OF U.S./USSR NAVAL SHIPS
A 1975 COMPARISON OF THE NUMBERS OF SHIPS AND TOTAL TONNAGE OF THE TWO
NAVIES SHOWS TWO ASYMMETRIES. FIRST, THE SOVIETS HAVE MORE SHIPS (MANY OF
WHICH ARE SMALLER THAN 1000 TONS), CONSISTENT WITH THE OLD VIEW THAT THEIR
NAVY IS THE SEAWARD EXTENSION OF THE RED ARMY, LARGELY COASTAL IN ORIENTATION.
SECOND, THE U.S. LEADS IN DISPLACEMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE BUILT SHIPS FOR
ROUTINE OPERATION ON DISTANT DEPLOYMENT. (ABOUT 60% OF THE U.S. ADVANTAGE
IN TONNAGE RELATES TO OUR 14 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.)
is
FORD
THE MIX OF SHIPS IN THE SOVIET NAVY IS CHANGING STEADILY AS THEY BUILD®
BIGGER, MORE CAPABLE SHIPS AND ADD HELICOPTER AND VSTOL AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
07V839
LIBRARY
WHEN THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PRINCIPAL ALLIES ON BOTH SIDES ARE INCLUDED,
THE NUMBERS AND TONNAGES TEND TO EQUATE.
U.S./U.S.S.R. COMBATANT SHIP-DAYS
ON DISTANT DEPLOYMENT
80
70
60
50
U.S.
SHIP-DAYS IN THOUSANDS
40
30
20
U.S.S.R.
10
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
CALENDAR YEAR
INCLUDES AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, MAJOR SURFACE COMBATANTS, GENERAL
PURPOSE SUBMARINES, MINOR SURFACE COMBATANTS, AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS,
AND MINE WARFARE SHIPS.
4961
U.S./USSR COMBATANT SHIP-DAYS
ON DISTANT DEPLOYMENT
As INTERESTING AS THE GROWTH OF THE SOVIET NAVY IS THE DEPLOYMENT OF
THEIR SHIPS ON A ROUTINE BASIS WORLDWIDE - -- BEGINNING IN THE EARLY 1960's.
TODAY, THE SOVIETS MAINTAIN A STEADY-STATE NAVAL PRESENCE AT A LEVEL
ABOUT TWO-THIRDS THAT OF THE U.S.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
US/USSR COMBATANT DEPLOYMENTS*
(AVERAGE CY 65 AND 75)
U.S.
U.S.
USSR
21
13
USSR
2
10
U.S.
1965
1975
U.S.
ATLANTIC
U.S.
U.S.
D
132
USSR
44
USSR
34
31
U.S.
U.S.
9
28
3
4
1965
1975
USSR
USSR
USSR
INDIAN OCEAN
2
3:33
4
1965
1975
1965
1975
PACIFIC
MEDITERRANEAN
*
INCLUDES AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, GENERAL PURPOSE SUBMARINES, MAJOR SURFACE COM-
FEBRUARY 1976
BATANTS, MINOR SURFACE COMBATANTS, AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS, AND MINE WARFARE SHIPS.
312'
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF
U.S./USSR COMBATANT DEPLOYMENTS
THE SOVIET UNION HAS ADOPTED A NAVAL DEPLOYMENT PATTERN QUITE DISSIMILAR
TO THAT OF THE U.S.
THIS CHART SHOWS 1965 COMPARISONS TO THE LEFT AND 1975 COMPARISONS TO THE
RIGHT, BY MAJOR OCEAN AREA. NOTE THAT THE NAVAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NATIONS
ALLIED WITH THE U.S. AND THE USSR ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THESE COMPARISONS,
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
U.S./USSR RELATIVE PRODUCTION
RATE ESTIMATES
USSR
U.S.
USSR/U.S.
1973-75
1973-75
AVG
AVG
1973-75
2,600
450
5.8:1
3,900
1,410
2.8:1
1,400
156
9:1
in
950
572
1.7:1
1564
RELATIVE PRODUCTION RATES
FOR
GROUND FORCE EQUIPMENT
AVERAGE SOVIET PRODUCTION OF MAJOR ITEMS OF GROUND WARFARE EQUIPMENT --
TANKS, ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIERS, ARTILLERY PIECES, AND TACTICAL AIRCRAFT --
DURING THE PERIOD 1973-1975 IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE EXCEEDED QUANTITATIVELY THAT
OF THE U.S. BY THE MARGINS INDICATED.
FORD is LIBRARY QERALD
CHANGES IN QUANTITIES OF MILITARY EQUIPMENTS
(1965-1975)
TANKS
ARTILLERY
50000
25000
40000
20000
U.S.S.R.
U.S.S.R.
30000
15000
20000
10000
U.S.
U.S.
10000
5000
65
67
69
71
73
75
65
67
69
71
73
75
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
HELICOPTERS
7000
10000
U.S.
6000
8000
U.S.
5000
6000
4000
4000
U.S.S.R.
3000
2000
U.S.S.R.
65
67
69
71
73
75
65
67
69
71
73
75
GROUND FORCE MILITARY EQUIPMENT
SOVIET TANK INVENTORIES EXCEED THOSE OF THE U.S. BY ROUGHLY 4-To-1,
A MARGIN WHICH IS INCREASING.
THE SOVIETS HAVE 2.5 TIMES AS MUCH ARTILLERY,
THEY HAVE BUILT A MODERN, CAPABLE TACTICAL AIRCRAFT FORCE WHICH IN
NUMBERS, BUT NOT QUALITY, EXCEEDS OURS BY 30%.
IN HELICOPTERS THE U.S. MAINTAINS SUPERIORITY, BUT THE SOVIETS ARE
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
BEGINNING TO BUILD HELICOPTERS IN QUANTITY.
CHANGES IN STRATEGIC FORCE LEVELS
ICBMs
SLBMs
BOMBERS
USSR
1500
900
900
USSR
US
US
1000
FORCE LEVELS
600
600
+ FB-111A
US
500
300
300
+ BACKFIRE
USSR
1965
1970
1975
1965
1970
1975
1965
1970
1975
END FISCAL YEAR
4758
CHANGES IN STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES
THE SOVIETS HAVE INCREASED FROM ABOUT 225 ICBMs IN 1965 TO SOME 1600
TODAY, HAVING OVERTAKEN THE U.S. IN THE EARLY 1970's.
THE SOVIET SUBMARINE-LAUNCHED BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEM HAS GROWN FROM
29 TO MORE THAN 700, WHILE THE U.S. HAS BEEN LEVEL AT 656.
IN THE BOMBER FORCE THE U.S. STILL MAINTAINS A LEAD.
THESE COMPARISONS DO NOT ADDRESS QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO
GERALD LIBRARY R. FORD
FORCES.
COMPARISON OF US AND USSR ICBMs
US
USSR
TITAN II
MM II
MM III
TYPE
SS-7
SS-8
SS-9
SS-11
SS-13
SS-X-16
SS-17
SS-18
SS-19
1
1
1/3
WARHEADS
1
1
1/3
1/3
1
1
4
1/8
6
1963
1965
1970
IOC
1962-3
1963
1967-71
1966-73
1969
?
1975
1974-75
1974
4961
COMPARISON OF US/USSR ICBMs
&
FORD
THE SOVIETS HAVE DEVELOPED FOUR NEW ICBMs IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, TWO
Creizo
OF WHICH ARE CURRENTLY BEING DEPLOYED WITH MULTIPLE INDEPENDENTLY TARGETABLE
LIBRARY
REENTRY VEHICLES (MIRVs). FOLLOW-ON MISSILES ARE IN R&D.
THIS CHART SHOWS THE THREE ICBMs WHICH MAKE UP THE U.S. INVENTORY --
BY NAME, NUMBER OF WARHEADS, AND YEAR OF INITIAL OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY --
AND THE NINE SOVIET COUNTERPARTS. WHERE THE NUMBER OF WARHEADS IS DEPICTED
WITH A DIAGONAL, IT INDICATES THAT THE LATER VERSIONS OF A GIVEN MISSILE
FORD i GERALD LISKARY
HAVE MULTIPLE WARHEAD CAPABILITY.
U.S./U.S.S.R. STRATEGIC MISSILE ADVANTAGE
8:1
7:1
SHADED AREA
REPRESENTS
FUTURE PROJECTIONS
6:1
WHICH ARE BASED ON
NIE "BEST ESTIMATE"
5:1
U.S.
ADVANTAGE
4:1
3:1
1 I ! TOTAL II TOTAL J RUS
7
/
0
2:1
/
E
/
RVs
ES
/
I
a
1:1
TOTAL THE
MISSILES
0
2:1
0
#
!
/
TW
ADVANTAGE
3:1
SOVIET
TOTAL THE
4:1
MT
5:1
6:1
1064
1968
1972
1976
1980 1981
1295
US/USSR STRATEGIC MISSILE ADVANTAGE
THIS CHART -- WHICH EXCLUDES STRATEGIC BOMBER FORCES, AN AREA IN WHICH
THE U.S. HAS A MARKED ADVANTAGE -- SHOWS HOW THE STRATEGIC MISSILE ADVANTAGE
HAS SHIFTED OVER TIME.
TAKING SOVIET IMPROVEMENTS AND U.S. DEVELOPMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION,
WE CAN EXPECT A CONTINUED SOVIET ADVANTAGE IN THROWWEIGHT AND MEGATONS,
ALTHOUGH THE U.S. SHOULD RETAIN THE LEAD IN NUMBERS OF WARHEADS. ABOVE THE
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
HORIZONTAL LINE WHICH DIVIDES THE CHART; THE ADVANTAGE RESIDES WITH THE U.S.
BELOW THE LINE, IT FALLS TO THE USSR.
THESE TRENDS MEAN THAT, BY THESE INDICES, THE SOVIET ADVANTAGE COULD
INCREASE OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
PROJECTED INVENTORY (2400 SNDV/1320 MIRV LEVEL)
MEGATONS
WARHEADS
U.S.S.R. TOTAL
U.S. TOTAL
WARHEADS
MEGATONS
U.S. TOTAL
U.S.S.R. TOTAL
75
80
85
75
80
85
END FY
END FY
THROWWEIGHT
U.S.S.R. TOTAL -
-
-
THROW WEIGHT
U.S. TOTAL
75
80
85
END FY
PROJECTED NUCLEAR INVENTORIES
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE TOTAL STRATEGIC NUCLEAR INVENTORY --
WHICH INCLUDES MISSILES AND BOMBERS -- PROJECTED TRENDS INDICATE A U.S.
LEAD IN NUMBERS OF WARHEADS, WITH THE USSR MAINTAINING THE ADVANTAGE IN
MEGATONS AND THROWWEIGHT.
THESE PROJECTIONS ASSUME THAT THE VLADIVOSTOK ACCORD LIMITS OF 2400
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY VEHICLES (SNDV) AND 1320 MULTIPLE INDEPENDENTLY
TARGETED REENTRY VEHICLES (MIRV) WILL BE FINALLY AGREED UPON BY BOTH SIDES.
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BALANCE
(NON-MOBILIZED 1975)
NATO
PACT
727,000
GROUND FORCES 1/
925,000
6,000
TANKS 1/
15,000
NATO LEADS
PACT LEADS
ARMORED PERSON-
GROUND
ARTILLERY
NEL CARRIERS
WEAPONS
ANTI-TANK GUIDED
MULTIPLE ROCKET
MISSILES
LAUNCHERS
MORTARS
GROUND ATTACK
AIRCRAFT
AIR DEFENSE
RECONNAISSANCE
HELICOPTERS
1/ 1974 MBFR DATA
5210
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BALANCE
CENTRAL EUROPEAN FORCE POSTURES AND DEVELOPMENTS SUGGEST THAT, UNLESS
COUNTERBALANCED, INCREASING SOVIET FIREPOWER AND MOBILITY COULD BEGIN TO
GIVE THE WARSAW PACT FORCES AN UNACCEPTABLE ADVANTAGE,
ASYMMETRIES THAT INFLUENCE THE ASSESSMENT INCLUDE:
NATO HAS SEVERAL ADVANTAGES:
IT HAS A DEFENSIVE MISSION WITH ADVANTAGES
OF INTERIOR LINES AND FAMILIAR TERRAIN,
ITS TACTICAL AIRPOWER IS SUPERIOR.
IT HAS MORE ANTI-TANK WEAPONS, HELICOPTERS, AND
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIERS,
THE WARSAW PACT HAS:
THE INITIATIVE IN CHOOSING THE TIME
AND NATURE OF ATTACK.
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
MORE TANKS AND ARTILLERY PIECES, AND MODERN SOPHISTICATED
BATTLEFIELD AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS,
SOVIET WEAPON ADVANCES
1965-1975
WEAPON
ADVANCES
FORCE IMPLICATIONS
TANKS
- IMPROVED ARMOR
IMPROVED PROTECTION FOR
ARMORED PERSONNEL
- NEW GUN SYSTEM
MEN AND EQUIPMENT
CARRIERS
- IMPROVED ARMOR
INCREASED FIREPOWER
ARTILLERY
- SELF-PROPELLED
- ARMORED
INCREASED MOBILITY
ANTI-AIRCRAFT
- RADAR CONTROLLED GUN
- FIVE NEW MISSILES
MOBILE GROUND BASED
AIR DEFENSE
- TRACK MOBILITY
AIRCRAFT
- IMPROVED AVIONICS,
GROUND ATTACK CAPABILITY
AIRFRAMES AND
PAYLOAD - RANGE INCREASES
MUNITIONS
4961
SOVIET WEAPON ADVANCES
THE SOVIETS FOR A LONG TIME HAVE STRESSED AN OFFENSIVE DOCTRINE FOR A
BLITZKRIEG-TYPE WAR. IN THE PAST DECADE THEY HAVE MADE PROGRESS TOWARD
BUILDING A FORCE WHICH COULD IMPLEMENT THAT DOCTRINE. SINCE THE MID-1960's,
THEY HAVE INTRODUCED FIVE NEW TYPES OF AIRCRAFT AND PROVIDED THEIR GROUND
FORCES WITH A NEW GENERATION OF WEAPONS IN MOST MAJOR CATEGORIES.
THESE WEAPONS HAVE BEEN, IN MOST CASES, NEW DESIGNS - AND SOPHISTICATED
ONES, FOR EXAMPLE, SOVIET DIVISIONS HAVE BEEN EQUIPPED WITH AS MANY AS FOUR
DIFFERENT SURFACE-TO-AIR GUN AND MISSILE SYSTEMS, EACH WITH OVERLAPPING AIR
DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND USING DIFFERENT METHODS TO ACQUIRE, TRACK AND ENGAGE
AIRCRAFT. THEIR ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIER CARRIES AND ENABLES THEM TO FIGHT
FROM WITHIN THE VEHICLE, AND MOUNTS ANTI-TANK WEAPONS.
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
MAJOR IMPROVEMENT IN GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE HAS FREED THE SOVIET AIR FORCE
FOR AN AIR SUPPORT ROLE, AND IT HAS CAUSED NATO AIR FORCES TO ALTER THEIR
MISSION EMPHASIS SOMEWHAT TO FOCUS MORE ON DEFENSE SUPPRESSION.
GROWTH OF SOVIET OWER
STRATEGIC
NAVAL
CENTRAL FRONT
1940
UNSOPHISTICATED
COASTAL DEFENSE
CONVENTIONAL
SEA DENIAL
CAPABILITY
BERLIN
LIMITED NUCLEAR
1950
ATTACK CAPABILITIES
KOREA
DEVELOPING NUCLEAR
CAPABILITY
HUNGARY
BOMBER - MISSILE
1960
COUNTER CITY
NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
CAPABILITIES
ANTI CARRIER
CAPABILITIES
SOPHISTICATED
CZECH
CONVENTIONAL AND
NUCLEAR FORCES
SEA CONTROL
1970
PARITY AND
M.E.
FLEXIBLE RESPONSE
WORLDWIDE
PRESENCE
POWER PROJECTION
1980
4981
EVOLUTION OF SOVIET POWER
WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE STRATEGIC NUCLEAR, NAVAL, AND CENTRAL FRONT
BALANCES TOGETHER, IT IS APPARENT THAT DRAMATIC CHANGES IN SOVIET
CAPABILITIES HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST 15 YEARS, THE SOVIETS HAVE COME
FROM THE UNSOPHISTICATED, CONTINENTALLY CONFINED, ARMED FORCES OF THE
POST WORLD WAR II DAYS TO CLEAR MILITARY SUPERPOWER STATUS IN THE 1970's.
SIGNIFICANTLY, THERE IS A POWERFUL MOMENTUM IN SOVIET MILITARY
PROGRAMS AND IN THE EMERGING PATTERN OF EXTERNAL PROJECTION OF SOVIET
GERALD FORD
POWER.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET
DEFENSE BUDGET TOTALS
($ IN BILLIONS)
FY 1964
FY 1974
FY 1975
FY 1976
FY 1977
INCREASE
CURRENT DOLLARS
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
FY 1976-77
Total Obligational Authority (TOA)
50.7
85.1
87.9
98.3
112.7
14.4
Budget Authority (BA)
50.7
88.9
91.5
100.7
113.8
13.1
Outlays
50.8
78.4
36.0
91.2
100.1
8.9
CONSTANT FY 1977 DOLLARS
Total Obligational Authority (TOA)
115.4
107.3
100.7
105.3
112.7
7.4
Budget Authority (BA)
115.5
112.6
104.°
108.0
113.8
5.8
Outlays
113.8
101.7
99.1
98.2
100.1
1.9
5077
DEFENSE BUDGET TOTALS
IT IS CLEAR TO THOSE WHO LOOK AT THE MILITARY BALANCE WHICH RESULTS
FROM THESE TRENDS THAT, IF WE ARE TO MAINTAIN SUFFICIENCY AND, THEREFORE,
WORLD STABILITY, THESE TRENDS MUST BE ARRESTED NOW,
THIS CHART SHOWS WHERE THE FY 77 BUDGET -- WITH WHICH WE ARE ATTEMPTING
TO CHECK THESE RELATIVE TRENDS BY STOPPING THE DOWNTREND (IN REAL TERMS
FORD
U.S. DEFENSE SPENDING -- STANDS WITH RESPECT TO BUDGETS OVER THE PAST FOUR
YEARS. THE TOP THREE LINES DISPLAY DATA, WITH PREWAR FY 64 FOR REFERENCE,
LIBRARY
IN TERMS OF CURRENT OR "THEN YEAR" DOLLARS, THE BOTTOM PART OF THE CHART
PRESENTS THE SAME DATA IN REAL TERMS CONSTANT FY 77 DOLLARS.
ECONOMIES AND RESTRAINTS
IN FY 1977 DEFENSE BUDGET
($ in Billions)
CUTBACKS IN EMPLOYMENT AND PERSONNEL
$ .9
COSTS, FY 1976-77
PAY RAISE ASSUMPTIONS
.8/2.6
GS/MILITARY PAY RAISE CAP, NEW/EXISTING
GS GUIDELINES
COMMISSARIES AND RETIRED PAY "KICKER"
.2
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY
.9
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
SUBTOTAL
2.8/4.6
STOCKPILE ITEMS
.7/.8
TOTAL
3.5/5.4
4961
ECONOMIES AND RESTRAINTS
WHILE THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET SEEKS TO IMPROVE FORCE MODERNIZATION AND
READINESS, IT ALSO PROPOSES TO TIGHTEN THE BUDGET IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:
RESTRAINING PERSONNEL COSTS WHILE WORKING TO MAINTAIN
THE QUALITY AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS OF THE
ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE.
INSTITUTING FURTHER EFFICIENCIES INCLUDING BASE
REALIGNMENTS, HEADQUARTERS REDUCTIONS, REDUCED TRAINING
GERALD
OF
COSTS, STOCKPILE LEVEL ADJUSTMENTS, AND CIVILIAN MANPOWER
REDUCTIONS.
LISSANY
THESE RESTRAINTS ADD UP TO $2.8 TO $4.6 BILLION,
DEPENDING ON THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PAY CAP ACHIEVED.
IF CONGRESS FAILS TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED BELT-TIGHTENING MEASURES,
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS WILL BE REQUIRED TO AVOID UNACCEPTABLE FORCE LEVEL
REDUCTIONS.
FEDERAL OUTLAYS - CONSTANT 1977 DOLLARS
$ Billions
$ Billions
400
400
Total
300
Payments to Individuals
300
and Grants
200
200
Interest and Other
Nondefense
100
100
National Defense
0
0
1950
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
08
70
72
74
7677
Fiscal Years
1949
TOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAY PATTERN
OUR NATION'S NON-DEFENSE SPENDING CAN NO LONGER BE FUNDED OUT OF THE
DEFENSE BUDGET. TODAY, NON-DEFENSE EXPENDITURES ARE NEARLY THREE TIMES
THOSE OF DEFENSE.
IN THE EXTREME:
A 10% INCREASE IN NON-DEFENSE SPENDING WOULD
MEAN A CRIPPLING 30% CUT IN DEFENSE.
A 33% INCREASE IN NON-DEFENSE SPENDING WOULD
FORD & LIBRARY
WIPE OUT THE DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENT ALTOGETHER,
CONCLUSION
CONTINUING THE TRENDS OF PAST YEARS MUST BE
CONSIDERED TO BE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO ABANDON
THE POLICY OF MAINTAINING ROUGH EQUIVALENCE WITH
OUR PRINCIPAL ADVERSARY. THIS WOULD BE UNACCEPT-
ABLE,
WHEN, AS WOULD BE INEVITABLE, THE FACT THAT
THE UNITED STATES HAD MADE A DECISION TO SLIP TO
AN INFERIOR STATUS WAS APPRECIATED BY THE WORLD,
WE WOULD BEGIN LIVING IN A WORLD FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE HAVE KNOWN DURING OUR
LIFETIMES.
FORD : CERALD LIBRARY
JEWISH CHAPEL FOR POINT - Army Secretary
Martin R. Hoffmann has authorized construction of a
Jewish chapel at the United States Military Academy at
West Point, N.Y., capping a 20-year campaign by
Jewish cadets and alumni. The chapel, which will cost
an estimated $5 million, of which $400,000 has already
been raised, will be situated between the Protestant and
Catholic chapels, overlooking the parade grounds and
the Hudson River.
/ told
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 19, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BARRY ROTH
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.
SUBJECT:
Jewish Chapel at West Point
I last talked to Marty Hoffmann on March 8 concerning
this matter and the interest of Congressman Jack
Murphy in this matter.
I believe the President is being asked to support
the efforts to raise money for this purpose. I
suggested to Marty that he prepare a letter to
us indicating the worthiness of the project and
also dealing with the question of whether this
effort for West Point might, in turn, lead to
further efforts in the same direction for Annapolis
and the Air Force Academy.
FORD : GERALD LIBRARY
Monday 3/1/76
2:00 Barry suggests -- since we have not had a paper
from Marty Hoffmann -- perhaps you would want to
call Marty and see if they can come up with something.
Keep calling Wishart
/
3/2/76 1:20 I called Hoffmans
office - they well have HERALD R.
FORD
Col. Wishart ase
Hoffmann,
Monday 3/1/76
2:00 Barry suggests -- since we have not had a paper
marty
from Marty Hoffmann -- perhaps you would want to
call Marty and see if they can come up with something.
FORD i LIBRARY 01V839
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
2/3/76
calledCol. Wishart.
Barry then
called stalked
with hun
FORD is OFRALD LIBRAR,
Thursday 1/29/76
9:00 Col. Wishart in Marty Hoffmann's office called re
the Jewish chapel, They're waiting for the paper to
arrive in the office. Expect no problem. The paper
should be there today.
GERALD LIBRANT ? FORD
1/28/26
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
at Barry's
request, I called
/Loffinann's office
to check
they will call
back GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
1151d
WASHINGTON
January 12, 1976
Presidential
endorsements
MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Honorable Martin R. Hoffmann
Secretary of the Army
I would appreciate any information you have on the project
discussed in the attached correspondence, as well as your
personal thoughts or whether the President should endorse
this project.
Thank you for your assistance.
P.W.B
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
ABRAMS INDUSTRIES, INC.
P.O. BOX 1969
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30301
BERNARD W. ABRAMS
Chief Executive Officer
December 26, 1975
The Honorable Howard H. Callaway
Campaign Chairman for the
Re-Elect Gerald Ford Campaign
Executive Office Building
White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Bo:
I am sure that you are aware that there is a campaign
under way to build a cadet Jewish chapel at West Point.
I am enclosing the membership of the National Advisory
Committee as of December 3. This represents a good cross
section of elected officials, military, religious and
secular organizations.
It would be a wonderful thing for President Ford to
endorse the campaign. Number one, it would help us in
our fund raising; number two, it would be helpful poli-
tically to the President in the Jewish community.
I recommend the President's endorsement to you, Bo, and
I shall be happy to provide any necessary information.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Clame
Bernard W. Abrams
Chairman of the Board
BWA:as
Enc.
cc: Milton Goldin
SERALD FORD LIBRARY
Na ional Advisory Committee/Page 2
Officers and Executives of National Secular
and Religious Organizations Continued
Herbert Millman, Executive Director, The National Jewish
Welfare Board
Bishop Paul J. Moore, Episcopal Bishop of New York
Bayard Rustin, President, A. Philip Randolph Institute
Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, President, Union of American
Hebrew Congregations
Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld, President, The Rabbinical Council
of America
Rabbi Mordecai Waxman, President, The Rabbinical Assembly
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
President Ford Committee
1828 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 250, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400
hasacy
December 31, 1975
7.
MEMORANDUM FOR: PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
BO CALLAWAY
B.
Phil:
I talked to Dick Cheney today about the inclosed letter
from Bernie Abrams. He suggested that I send this
directly to you.
Let me just add that Bernie Abrams is absolutely
first-class in every way.
As you can note from the National Advisory Committee,
there are some very prominent people connected with
this project.
If it fits within your policies, I think it would be
great for the President to endorse the Jewish chapel
at West Point. Please let me know what you think.
Attachment
FORD
The President Ford Committee, Howard H. Callaway, Chairman, David Packard, National Finance Chairman, Robert C. Moot, Treasurer. A copy of
our Report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C. 20463.
ABRAMS INDUSTRIES, INC.
P.O. BOX 1969
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30301
BERNARD W. ABRAMS
Chief Executive Officer
December 26, 1975
The Honorable Howard H. Callaway
Campaign Chairman for the
Re-Elect Gerald Ford Campaign
Executive Office Building
White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Bo:
I am sure that you are aware that there is a campaign
under way to build a cadet Jewish chapel at West Point.
I am enclosing the membership of the National Advisory
Committee as of December 3. This represents a good cross
section of elected officials, military, religious and
secular organizations.
It would be a wonderful thing for President Ford to
endorse the campaign. Number one, it would help us in
our fund raising; number two, it would be helpful poli-
tically to the President in the Jewish community.
I recommend the President's endorsement to you, Bo, and
I shall be happy to provide any necessary information.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Cerme
Bernard W. Abrams
Chairman of the Board
BWA:as
Enc.
cc: Milton Goldin
FORD
Founded 1925
West Point Jewish Chapel
December 3, 1975
MEMBERSHIP TO DATE OF NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(Committee still in formation)
Senators and Congressmen
Senator James L. Buckley (New York)
Senator Barry Goldwater (Arizona)
Senator Henry M. Jackson (Washington)
Senator Jacob K. Javits (New York)
Representative Hamilton Fish, Jr. (New York)
Representative Elwood H. Hillis (Indiana)
Representative Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Texas)
Representative Donald J. Mitchell (New York)
Representative Richard L. Ottinger (New York)
Representative Peter A. Peyser (New York)
Representative Samuel S. Stratton (New York)
Representative Charles H. Wilson (California)
Military Officers
General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., United States Army
Lieutenant General Sam S. Walker, United States Army
Major General Lincoln D. Faurer, United States Air Force
Major General Bennett L. Lewis, United States Army
General Donald V. Bennett, USA, Retired
General Mark W. Clark, USA, Retired
General Michael S. Davison, USA, Retired
General Andrew J. Goodpaster, USA, Retired
Major General Robert H. Schellman, USA, Retired
Captain Joshua L. Goldberg, Chaplains Corps, United
States Navy, Retired
FORD
Officers and Executives of National Secular
and Religious Organizations
LIBRARY
David M. Blumberg, President, B'nai B'rith
Benjamin R. Epstein, Executive Director, Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith
Father Edward H. Flannery, Director, Secretariat For
Catholic-Jewish Relations
Rabbi Harold H. Gordon, Executive Vice-President, The New
York Board of Rabbis, Incorporated
Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, President, American Jewish Congress
Arthur J. Levine, President, United Synagogue of America
Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein, President, Synagogue Council
of America
National Advisory Committee/Page 2
Officers and Executives of National Secular
and Religious Organizations Continued
Herbert Millman, Executive Director, The National Jewish
Welfare Board
Bishop Paul J. Moore, Episcopal Bishop of New York
Bayard Rustin, President, A. Philip Randolph Institute
Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, President, Union of American
Hebrew Congregations
Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld, President, The Rabbinical Council
of America
Rabbi Mordecai Waxman, President, The Rabbinical Assembly
Defense
March 13, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
The Honorable Richard Wiley
General Counsel
Department of Defense
Attached are copies of the form I mentioned to
you on Friday.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Attachment (Financial Data Statement)
PWB:11
FORD i LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Defense
WASHINGTON
March 19, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BARRY ROTH
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.
SUBJECT:
Jewish Chapel at West Point
I last talked to Marty Hoffmann on March 8 concerning
this matter and the interest of Congressman Jack
Murphy in this matter.
I believe the President is being asked to support
the efforts to raise money for this purpose. I
suggested to Marty that he prepare a letter to
us indicating the worthiness of the project and
also dealing with the question of whether this
effort for West Point might, in turn, lead to
further efforts in the same direction for Annapolis
and the Air Force Academy.
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
All
June 7, 1976
Clementy
MEMORANDUM FOR;
KEN LAZARUS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
P.
Please review the attached file from Ted Marrs.
I agree that the letter drafted by the Department
of Defense ought to be revised. I suggest that
the last sentence of the third paragraph be
dropped and I question whether the second
sentence of the third paragraph is correct
because I find nothing to that effect in the
Department of Justice rules unless you can
imply it from the fact that there has been no
conviction and therefore no lapse of the
essential waiting period.
I think you could redraft the letter and send
it out with a copy to Ted Marrs.
Attachments
FORD
DOD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 9, 1976
Dear Mr. Mezvinsky:
This is in further response to your letter of June 2 regarding
your investigation of an allegation that a military promotion
list sent to the Senate was improperly altered. A member of
my staff has checked the appropriate White House logs for the
time period in question. These logs clearly indicate that the
President signed two promotion lists and that only the second
list was submitted to the Senate for confirmation.
On January 13, 1975, the President signed a promotion list con-
taining the names of 405 persons including that of USAR
Lt. Colonel Wilfred Ebel. Subsequent to the President's signature
and prior to the submission of the promotion list to the Senate,
DOD requested that the list be returned to DOD for amendment.
It is my understanding that such requests are infrequent but are
not unusual. The President's signature was then destroyed and
the list returned to DOD on January 15. On January 16, DOD
submitted a new promotion list to the White House with a cover
memorandum stating that Lt. Colonel Ebel's name had been
withdrawn from the list of those recommended for promotion to
Colonel because of allegations which may be the basis for his
permanent removal from the list. This memorandum also stated
that this action did not preclude the resubmission of the
recommendation for promotion of Lt. Colonel Ebel should the
allegations prove to be unfounded. The revised list, containing
404 names, was signed by the President on January 17 and sent
to the Senate on January 21, 1975.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
-2-
The transmission to the Senate on January 21, 1975, was made by
a White House employee, as is customary for all communications
from the President to the Congress. Contrary to what the
Department of Defense may have advised you, no promotion list
was signed by the President on January 14, 1975, or sent to the
Senate on January 15, 1975; and the only one transmitted to the
Senate was the second list signed by the President on January 17,
1975, which, when it was signed, did not contain the name of
Lieutenant Colonel Ebel.
I trust this information will provide the answers to the inquiries
which you have made of the President.
Sincerely,
Phily Bucken
Philip
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Edward Mezvinsky
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
GRAME 1040 LIBRARY
June 3, 1976
Dear Ed:
This will acknowledge receipt of your June 2
letter regarding your investigation of allegations
that a promotion list sent to the Senate on
January 15, 1975 was improperly altered.
Please be assured your letter will be called
to the President's attention at the earliest
opportunity.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
Charles Leppert, Jr.
Deputy Assistant
to the President
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
The Honorable Edward Mezvinsky
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
w/incoming to Philip Buchen for DIRECT REPLY as
appropriate.
CL:JEB: VO:vo
6-3
Congress of the United States
house of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
June 2, 1976
Gerald R. Ford, President
United States of America
The White House
me
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
For the past several months, I've been investigating allegations
that past Secretary of the Army, Howard Callaway improperly removed
I
the name of LTC Wilfred Ebel from a promotion list signed by you
and sent to the Senate for approval.
Much of the factual background of the matter remains unclear, although
Pentagon logs indicate that you signed the promotion list on January
14, 1975, and the list was then sent to the Senate on January 15th. In
order to clarify varying accounts on the succeeding sequence of events,
it would be very helpful if you would clarify your own role in this
process. Was LTC Ebel's name removed with your permission, and, if so,
was the second list signed by you? Was the Senate officially notified
of the change?
As you can well appreciate, there are numerous legal and constitutional
issues yet to be resolved in this matter. The possibility that a Secre-
tary of the Army illegally removed a name from a promotion list for
reasons totally unrelated to that officer's military record are alarming
indeed. Whatever information you can provide will be extremely helpful.
Sincerely,
Edward Mezvinský
Member of Congress
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
EM:jkr
Delense
THE WHITE HOUSE
me
WASHINGTON
Rawlens)
Ran
June 23, 1976
Dear Mac:
This is to thank you for your recent note supporting the
promotion of Commander Rawlins to the grade of Captain
in accordance with S. Res. 5.
As you may know, my office recently requested a report
on this subject from the Defense Department. Upon receipt
and review of their report, I shall advise you further on
any developments in this regard.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Thil
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Charles McC. Mathias, Jr.
United States Senate
Washington, D C.
FORD is 078830 LIBRARY
Defense
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
(see
Rowling)
)
June 23, 1976
Dear Senator Beall:
This is to thank you for your recent note supporting the
promotion of Commander Rawlins to the grade of Captain
in accordance with S. Res. 5.
As you may know, my office recently requested a report
on this subject from the Defense Department. Upon receipt
and review of their report, I shall advise you further on
any developments in this regard.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Thily Buehen Philip N. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable J. Glenn Beall, Jr.
United States Senate
Washington, Dr C.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
LOG NO.: Defense
WASHINGION
Date:
October 20, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
Phil Buchen
Bob Hartmann
Jim Cannon
Jim Lynn
Max Friedersdorf
Bill Seidman
Dave Gergen
Brent Scowcroft
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Friday, October 22
Time: 10 A. M.
SUBJECT:
Letter from Secretary of the Army re:
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Panama Canal Company increasing rates ot tolls
for use of the Panama Canal.
ACTION REQUESTED:
X
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
For your information, we are also attaching a copy of
letter from the President of the American Institute of
Merchant Shipping dated October 12, 1976 on the above
subject.
No objection.
P.W.B.
FORD & LIBRARY
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Jim Connor
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 22, 1976
MEMO FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
Bobbi
FROM:
BOBBIE KILBERG
SUBJECT:
Letter from Secretary of the
Army re: Resolution of the Board
of Directors of the Panama Canal
Company increasing rates of tolls
for use of the Panama Canal
Suggested response:
No objection.
FORD i CERALD LIBRARY
DEFENSE
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON
/
to
8 OCT 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
In my capacity as "stockholder" of the Panama Canal Company
RH
under authority delegated to me by Executive Order 11305 of
September 12, 1966, I am forwarding for your approval a Resolu-
tion of the Board of Directors of the Panama Canal Company
increasing rates of tolls for use of the Panama Canal by 19.5%.
The action by the Board of Directors is based on Sections
411 and 412 of Title 2 of the Canal Zone Code under which the
Panama Canal Company is required to establish tolls at rates
sufficient to cover the costs of operation and maintenance of
the Panama Canal together with the facilities and appurtenances
related thereto. Section 412 provides that changes in the
rates of tolls shall be subject to and take effect upon the
approval of the President of the United States. Section 411
requires six months' notice of the change in tolls. This notice
was published in the Federal Register on May 14, 1976, SO that
the earliest date on which the new rates could become effective
is. November 15, 1976.
Following publication of the notice in the Federal Register,
the Panama Canal Company invited written comments from the
public and held a public hearing in accordance with applicable
regulations. After consideration of all relevant matter pre-
sented in the written comments received and presented at the
hearing, the Board of Directors found that the rates of tolls
should be changed and adopted the Resolution making the change,
subject to your approval.
The inclosures to this letter set out in detail the back-
ground of the requirements for the increase in rates of tolls
including the pertinent fiscal data, the comments received
CERALO FORD LIBRARY
from interested parties, and the proceedings by the Board of
Directors leading up to the adoption of the Resolution making
the change in rates of tolls.
Your approval of the proposed increase in rates of tolls
for the use of the Panama Canal is recommended, effective
November 15, 1976.
Respectfully yours
Inclosures
Martin R. Hoffmann
FORD : GERALD LIBRARY
2
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of Section 411 of Title 2 of the
Canal Zone Code, at a special meeting on May 6, 1976, the Board of
Directors adopted a Resolution proposing changes in the rates of tolls
for the use of the Panama Canal.
WHEREAS, at the special meeting of the Board of Directors on
May 6, 1976, pursuant to the provisions of the applicable regulations
of the Panama Canal Company, four members of the Board of Directors
were designated as a panel to conduct a public hearing on the proposed
changes in rates of tolls; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed change was published in the
Federal Register on May 14, 1976; and
WHEREAS, the notice of the proposed change in rates of tolls invited
interested parties to participate in the rulemaking through submission of
written data, views or arguments not later than July 16, 1976, and sup-
plementary data, views or arguments at a public hearing to be held in
New York, N.Y. on August 23, 1976; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the notice and the provisions of the
Company's rules establishing procedures for rulemaking, interested parties
did submit written data, views and arguments in reference to the proposed
change in rates of tolls; and
WHEREAS, the panel designated by the Board of Directors to conduct
the hearing has submitted its report including the written data submitted
by interested parties and a full transcript of the hearing, with copies of
documents submitted at the hearing and the recommendations of the panel
with respect to the proposed change in rates of tolls; and
WHEREAS, all relevant matters presented including an assessment
of the environmental impact of the proposed Panama Canal tolls increase
have been considered by the Board of Directors; and
WHEREAS, the Board having given careful consideration to the assess-
ment of the environmental impact of the proposed Panama Canal tolls increase
has determined that the proposed increase in rates of tolls would not signif-
icantly affect the quality of the human environment;
read
LIBRARY
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That, in accordance with Sections
411 and 412 of Title 2 of the Canal Zone Code, the rates of tolls for use of
the Panama Canal be changed, upon approval by the President, but not
earlier than six months from May 14, 1976, by amendment of Section 133.1
of Title 35 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
§ 133.1 Rates of toll.
The following rates of toll shall be paid by vessels
using the Panama Canal:
(a) On merchant vessels, yachts, army and navy
transports, colliers, hospital ships, and supply ships,
when carrying passengers or cargo, $1.29 per net vessel
ton of 100 cubic feet each of actual earning capacity --
that is, the net tonnage determined in accordance with
Part 135 of this chapter.
(b) On vessels in ballast without passengers or
cargo, $1.03 per net vessel ton.
(c) On other floating craft including warships,
other than transports, colliers, hospital ships, and
supply ships, $.72 per ton of displacement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Panama Canal
Company cause notice of the proposed change in rates of tolls to be
published in the Federal Register in the form prescribed by applicable
laws and regulations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon. publication of the said notice
of change in the rates of tolls in the Federal Register, the Stockholder of
the Panama Canal Company transmit the change in said rates of tolls to
the President for his approval.
APPROVED:
FORD
G78335
2
a
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MERCHANT SHIPPING
I
1625 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: 202/783-6440
S
October 12, 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
My dear Mr. President:
I am writing on behalf of the American steamship industry to
urge that you decline to approve a toll increase proposal recently
submitted to you by the Panama Canal Company.
This is the third increase proposed by the Company since 1974,
and is as unjustified and harmful as were the two which preceded it.
After 60 years of uninterrupted profitable operations, the Company
obtained a 19. 7% toll increase in 1974 and sought your approval of
certain tonnage measurement rule changes in 1975 which would have
resulted in increases ranging to 50% on certain types of vessels,
particularly U.S. -flag containerships. Your disapproval of a substantial
portion of those rule changes was greatly welcomed, although Canal
users were still left with a 5% increase. The proposal presently before
you would add an additional 19. 5% to the Canal tolls.
Various spokesmen for our industry, as well as shippers, other
governments, port associations, foreign shipowners associations, and
organized labor have submitted detailed oral and written testimony to
the Company since 1974, pointing out the harm caused by these increases
and suggesting ways by which they could be avoided or lessened. A
report (94-1342) issued on July 14, 1976 by the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries following the preparation of detailed studies and
the completion of lengthy hearings, strongly and clearly recommends a
series of non-legislative changes to the Company's financial and accounting
structure which are needed if that once-strong entity is to be returned to
FORD
an even keel.
LIBRATA
I will not attempt to reiterate these materials here, although I
have enclosed a copy of the House Committee's Report and a paper which
we presented to the Company on August 23, 1976. I will merely state that
the Company has totally ignored all of this, and has arbitrarily and
wrongly determined to continue seeking even higher tolls. Indeed, in
The President - 2.
order to justify this present proposal, the Company underestimated toll
revenues, overinflated expenses, and projected a loss for fiscal year 1976
of $12. 1 million. Only after the proposal was sent to you did the Company
reveal that their actual loss was 40% less.
The imposition of this additional 19. 5% increase would result in
shipowners paying an additional $29 million for transiting the Canal, a
burden eventually to be passed on to shippers and consumers. It is worth
noting here that about 65% of the goods which transit the Canal are destined
for or originate from an American port.
This increase would be a major blow to an already strained American
intercoastal shipping industry which has for 100 years provided excellent,
low-cost service for shippers and a very healthy measure of competition
for other transcontinental transportation modes. It would adversely impact
the economies of lesser developed nations which depend heavily on the
Canal, particularly those in the Caribbean and Latin America. It would
lessen the commercial attractiveness of the Canal and encourage companies
to utilize other trade routes, particularly the Suez Canal.
In 1975, I know that you and your staff reviewed the Company's
proposal and the recommendations made by ourselves and other groups,
and based on the merits, you made a fair decision. I am confident that
a similar review of this proposal will lead to the same conclusion. The
Company's proposal should not be approved.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
James J. Reynolds
President
Enclosures
LIBRARY GERALD : FORD
STATEMENT OF
JAMES J. REYNOLDS, PRESIDENT
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MERCHANT SHIPPING
at the hearing held by the
PANAMA CANAL COMPANY
on
Proposed Toll Rate Increase
in
New York City
August 23, 1976
My name is James J. Reynolds and I am President of the American
Institute of Merchant Shipping, an organization commonly referred to as
AIMS. AIMS is the national trade association of the American steamship
industry, is composed of 36 member companies who own and operate 340
U.S. -flag vessels constituting about two-thirds of the active U.S. ocean-
going merchant fleet.
I am appearing today in response to the Panama Canal Company's
notice of proposed rule making entitled, "Tolls for Use of the Panama Canal"
which appeared in the Federal Register on May 14, 1976. Preliminary
comments were submitted by AIMS on July 16, 1976. My statement today
is intended to amplify those preliminary comments.
LIBRARY
The proposed rule making, if ultimately approved by the President,
would result in a 19. 5% toll rate increase, the third major adjustment to
tolls since 1974. And, like the two which preceded it, this proposed increase
is totally unnecessary and would place a serious additional financial burden
on users.
- 2 -
I intend to be quite brief today. The record on the issue before us
has been well established, and I do not intend to waste your time and mine
by starting to invent the wheel all over again. But I do want to clarify a
few points of ours which I think have been misunderstood by the Company.
First, AIMS and others who have appeared in many forums during
the past three years to oppose certain measures taken by the Company
have been accused of seeking a subsidy, or a free ride. This is simply
not so. We, and I am certain the others would agree, are simply trying
to insure that carriers transiting the Canal are not being required to pay
more than their fair share.
Secondly, it is also said that U.S. carriers represent only 8%
of the traffic and toll payers, hence any "concession" made by the Company
primarily benefits foreign maritime interests. This is, of course, sheer
nonsense. We are in this forum primarily to protect our own interests.
But the real burden of toll rate increases is ultimately borne in very
substantial measure by the American exporter and importer whose goods
FORD
represent about two-thirds of your traffic. Much of this is carried in
container vessels over 50% of which transiting the Canal fly the U.S. flag.
Third, we appreciate that the Company has been hard hit by the
forces of inflation and recession during these past several years. Your
fixed costs go up and up, led by fuel and personnel expenses. Your volumes
- 3 -
I believe, and I think the Company shares this view, that we have
already reached the end of this severe, short-run, downward cycle. We
may not be entering a boom period, but at least things are returning to an
even keel.
You have several tools at your disposal to remedy the balance sheet
problems which the economy has inflicted upon you. A toll rate increase is
one such tool, but in our view it is a most drastic and counter-productive
measure, and should only be taken after all others have been tried and found
wanting.
Regrettably for we users, it is also the easiest step for the Company
to take. You have your studies which show that increases up to 75% can be
swallowed by cargo shippers. Hiking tolls avoids having to make certain
difficult decisions and, worst of all, reversing a few which have already
been made. Hence, we find ourselves again in what appears to be well on
SEAL
its way to becoming an annual tradition.
LISARAT
In our view this proposed toll rate increase is entirely unnecessary.
Let's look at a few specifics. You have estimated a deficiency for Fiscal
Year 1977 of $36. 45 million, which includes a $16. 4 million charge for the
unearned costs of Fiscal Year 1976 and the transition quarter. The House
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries has recommended the pay back
of these unearned costs over a five-year period. Adoption of this recom-
mendation, which we strongly support, would reduce the Fiscal Year 1977
- 4 -
The prompt enactment of H. R. 14311 by the Senate, and approval
by the President, would almost halve the remaining deficit. This measure
has already been passed with strong bipartisan support by the House of
Representatives, despite the vigorous, ill-advised efforts of the Company
and the Department of the Army to kill it.
Section 1 of H.R. 14311 would allow the Company to receive interest
credit for the very substantial cash deposits it is required to maintain on
deposit with the U.S. Treasury as well as for tolls computed for government
vessels which transit the Canal. This credit would then be applied to
reduce the Company's annual interest payment to the U.S. Treasury for
the net direct investment of the U.S. Government in the Company. This
Section would reduce Company expenses and its deficit by about $2. 0 million
annually.
Section 2 would require the Company to revise the accounting policy
adopted in 1973 under which depreciation is taken on certain lands, titles,
treaty rights and excavation, all of which were considered to be non-
depreciable assets for 60 years. We have been fighting this policy change
since the day we first became aware of it. We said at the beginning, and
will reiterate with even more certainty now; that the taking of depreciation
on these fixed assets was a nice little accounting gimmick designed to
increase cash flow by $8.5 million per year and thus allow the undertaking
of projects for which the monies would not otherwise be available.
- 5 -
into a drain.
There is nothing I could say which would sum up this issue better
than the following paragraphs taken from pages 13 - 15 of House Report
94-1342 which accompanies H.R. 14311:
"Thus, it is undeniable that the initiation of depreciation
by the Canal Company in fiscal year 1974 of titles, treaty rights,
excavations represented a complete turnabout in Company
intention and application. Instead of depreciating only part
of the original value of the assets at one per cent per year
over 100 years as repeatedly proposed, the Company began
to depreciate the total value of the assets at two and one-half
per cent per year over forty years ! Instead of using the
depreciation to systematically repay the investment of the
U.S. Government in the Canal, or holding it for capital
projects or other internal uses only with Congressional consent,
the Company has used all the funds accruing to it from this
source for capital projects without seeking anyone's consent !
Instead of having the effect of ultimately reducing toll rates
for Canal users, the Company's use of the depreciation has
actually raised toll rates !
"Through its intensive investigation of the subject of
lands, titles, treaty rights, and excavations, including the
interrogation of officials who made the decisions on depreciation,
the Committee concluded there were three major reasons why,
after 60 years of not depreciating these assets, depreciation
was initiated: (1) Treaty negotiations were continuing and seemed
to be heading toward a yielding of U.S. control of the Canal over
some period of time; (2) there was acceptance of the concept of
a limited life for the present Canal; and (3) the Canal Company
desired money for the continuation of its capital program but
was unable to obtain it through tolls and was unwilling to ask
ADVRESS
for appropriations or use its borrowing authority."
The Report concludes its discussion of this matter with the following
language:
"The Panama Canal Company, until recent years, has had
sufficient cash generated through tolls to provide for its capital
program. In the past three years, the capital program has been
- 6 -
a fact which is continually pointed out by the Panama Canal
Company. The Canal organization was established as one which
was to be self-sustaining, except for funding for capital improve-
ments. Explicit provision was made in the Reorganization Act
for such types of improvements. The Committee reaffirms the
basic soundness of the law which governs the Canal's financial
mechanism, including the provisions regarding capital improve-
ments.
"The Committee commends the Company's past financial
successes, but does not approve its failure to utilize, during
a period of losses, these provisions set by Congress. The
law pointed the course to be taken, and it was not that followed
by the Company when it undertook to depreciate what had
traditionally been considered by all to be non-depreciable."
The thrust of these paragraphs, and those which supplement them
in the Report, is most clear and specific. But hell still hath no fury like
a bureaucracy challenged, and the Company is no exception to this
Washington axiom.
The time has come for a change. You were wrong when the policy
was adopted and you are wrong to keep it in effect today. It has resulted
in an $8. 5 million annual burden being imposed upon users, and $8. 5 million
being added to the bottom red line.
The enactment of H.R. 14311 would result in a savings of about
$10. 5 million annually and would reduce the FY 1977 projected deficit to
$12. 9 million. The Company should make every effort to secure prompt and
favorable Senate consideration of the measure, rather than acting to have it
pigeonholed as you are now doing.
- 7 -
The establishment of an account for the debts owed by the Republic
of Panama, and the subsequent imposition of this burden upon carriers
transiting the Canal is another inequity with which we are faced. There
may be many good reasons why bills for water, sewer and other services
rendered to Panama are allowed to remain unpaid for years on end, but
there is certainly no reason in the world why carriers, whose fees must
always be paid in advance, should be charged $1. 6 million annually as a
result.
The total debt owed by the Republic of Panama is currently nearing
$8 million. The Company should revise its accounting policy and return
this burden to the U.S. Government where it belongs. This would reduce
the projected Fiscal Year 1977 deficit to $11.3 million.
User charges for non-transit services, particularly in the areas of
retail and food store sales, are still inadequate. Over $1.1 million will
be lost, apparently because the Company feels it must subsidize employee
purchases. If such a subsidy is needed, it should be taken up as a separate
JUN
item during the budget authorization and appropriation process, and thus
be measured as a part of overall employee costs. Failing this, a decision
should be made promptly to make all services fully reimbursable by users,
and thus reduce the Fiscal Year 1977 deficit by $1. 1 million to $10. 2 million.
Similarly, carriers are required to assume the net cost of the Canal
Zone Government which in Fiscal Year 1977 is projected to be $22. 5 million.
- 8 -
Many of the services provided by the Government, such as Postal, Customs
and Immigration, Education, and Health and Sanitation, are neither self-
sustaining nor transit related, yet carriers are required to pay for them
in toto. We have pointed out during hearings conducted earlier this year
by the House Panama Canal Subcommittee that over $10. 5 million could be
saved if the Canal Government were to increase user charges and if the
Company were to develop an appropriate formula for apportioning the net
cost of the Government so that carriers would only be required to pay
their fair share. We reiterate this recommendation. Its adoption would
reduce the projected Fiscal Year 1977 deficit to $800, 000.
Finally, we come to the SS CRISTOBAL. What a fitting gesture
for the Bicentennial it would be to retire this venerable but costly 37-year
old lady to the Smithsonian or some other appropriate facility. There is
a certain humor about the CRISTOBAL I suppose, but there is nothing
funny about the losses which she incurs each year being passed on to
carriers. Not only do we lose the cargo, but we have to underwrite the
competition.
I was delighted when the Company agreed this spring during a
19817 STATE
hearing of the House Panama Canal Subcommittee to do a study of the
CRISTOBAL's costs and operations, and I trust the results of this study
will be available shortly.
- 9 -
Canal. They operate container, barge-carrying, and break-bulk ships.
They can provide fast, regular service from all U.S. ports, and I am
certain will be able to extend this service at a lower cost than the true
cost of the CRISTOBAL. The savings should more than exceed the remaining
$800, 000 deficit.
I said at the beginning that there is no need for a toll increase,
and I reiterate it here. If the several steps which we have recommended
are taken promptly, the Company will not have a deficit but rather a modest
surplus in Fiscal Year 1977. These steps are realistic and reasonable.
They will aid in restoring the Company's complete financial integrity.
But time is of the essence.
I thank you for your attention and interest, and urge that you
promptly cancel the May 14 notice of proposed rule making which is
before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might
have.
GRD
LIBRARY
Wednesday 11/10/76 Brockway, Capt.David
Rose, Michael F.
Rothblatt, Henry B.
Defense -- West Point
Cadets
1:25 The file concerning the Honor Code proceedings
at West Point has been sent to Central Files.
8/10/76 Letter to the President from Michael
Rose -- with attachments.
Letter to Philip Buchen
8/12/76 Memo for Richard Wiley, General Counsel,
Department of Defense, forwarding materials
for preparation of reply.
8/31/76 Letter to Michael Rose from R. L. Adcock
Acting Director of Military Personnel Management
9/3/76 Letter to President Ford from Rev. Thomas J.
Curley, Catholic Chapel of the Most Holy Trinity,
United States Military Academy, West Point, New York,
enclosing affidavits
9/9/76 Letter from Mr. Buchen to Rev. Curley returning
the affidavits [by registered mail] and advising
that the Secretary of the Army is monitoring the
situation at West Point.
9/15/76 Memo from Philip Buchen to Les Janka re authority
of the Secretary of the Army to dismiss cadets
from the U.S. Military Academy.
10/21/76 Letter from Philip Buchen to Henry B. Rothblatt,
replying to his letter signed by eleven cadets at
U.S. Military Academy, as well as by Michael F. Rose,
Henry Rothblatt and Capt. David E. Brockway, JAGC,
as counsel for the cadets, requesting intervention an
redress of wrongs (backup material previously
sent to Central Files).
FORD is 07V830 LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 22, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE HONORABLE JACK L. STEMPLER
GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Attached is a copy of a telegram to me from
Mr. J. R. Sebastian, Chairman, Rapistan Incorporated
in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
I would appreciate your handling this matter and
keeping my office informed.
Philip T.W.B. W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Attachment
FORD LIBRARY