1969 – Packard Speeches

Box 1, Folder 36 – Department of Defense – Speeches, includes correspondence relating to speeches


March 15, 1969, National Alliance of Business


3/15/69, Typewritten text of speech.


Packard says he is “delighted to be here today…to participate in discussions of one of the most crucial issues facing our country – our great country must provide a better life for the millions of disadvantaged persons among us.”


He says that he has “been working hard for the past two months on another very critical issue which faces us. How can we assure this generation and future generations that they will not suffer the horrors of a nuclear war.


“The President’s decisions on the ABM yesterday will not eliminate the debate on this issue. By and large the opponents are only trying to find excuses for what underlies their real opposition to the ABM. The system is technically sound. It will do the job we are asking it to do. The system is needed to help safeguard our strategic forces. It will help preserve a very strong deterence through the next decade.


“The real issue which troubles the opponents is whether the six to seven billion dollars we plan to spend on this safeguard deployment over the next six to seven years might better be spent to help solve the kinds of problems we are discussing here today.”


Packard agrees that money is needed to solve these problems, but he feels that the real solution lies with people. “This problem will be solved only by the dedicated leadership of concerned people at all levels of our society.” And he adds that “The National Alliance of Businessmen can make a very real and important impact on the task of providing more and better jobs for disadvantaged people.”


Saying that he had assured the President that the National Alliance of Businessmen could be counted on to get the job done, Packard passes along some suggestions based on his experience the previous year.


“1. The chief executive of the company, or the head of the union, must be committed to the program.” And he adds that “every employee must know that the chief executive expects every one to do his part.”


“2.  The chief executives of the major companies, and chief labor leaders, have a key role enlisting the support of smaller organizations in their communities.”


“3.  You must go out in the community to get to these disadvantaged people – they will not come to you.”


“4. And he gives a word about young people. “They need and deserve special attention. They are the good citizens, or the trouble-makers, of the future. I recommend very strongly that those boys and girls from improvished (sic) homes – but who have done their work well in school,  deserve first priority in jobs. If we do not reward success in this program we will not encourage success.”



Box 1, Folder 37 – Department of Defense


March 16, 1969, Issues and Answers, ABC radio interview.


3/16/69 Typewritten copy of recorded interview of Deputy Director of Defense Packard, conducted by John Scalli and Bill Downs.


The interviewers ask Packard about the antiballistic missile program (ABM) bringing up various objections that opponents of the program have put forth. Packard is asked how we can be sure that the program will not expand to a “fantastically expensive” program. Packard responds  that “…it is appropriate that we deploy these ABM defenses to protect our second strike capability….and we provide in this plan no base on which a large defense against a sophisticated Soviet attack could possible be built.”


Packard is asked how we can be sure the system will work once it is built. Packard says he is convinced it “will work for the purposes that we are proposing to use it.” He says that time will not permit building the whole system and then testing it. The plan is to start with building two sites.


Packard is asked if building up the present POLARIS submarine force as an alternative was considered. Packard says this was considered, but was felt to be too provocative to the Soviets.


Packard is asked if a military space platform was considered; to which he replies that “I haven’t seen any proposal that would involve a military space platform that would encourage me to change our decision on this.”


Packard is asked about the time permitted to decide on the release of a missile if we detected a Soviet missile coming our way, and the fear of a retaliatory decision being made by a low level military person. Packard points out that the President must approve the release of any nuclear weapon, and that he can be located within the 20-30 minute time span estimated as available.


Packard is asked about the dangers of an expanding military budget. Packard says “I look upon priorities in this order: The defense of the country has to have the highest priority. The solutions to our social problems have to have a high priority. Almost as high perhaps.” He says he feels the “country has the money to provide for a strong defense and also the money to do these other things. One of the things I think it is important for us to realize is that social problems cannot be solved with money alone. They are people problems. They have to be solved by people.”


Packard is asked how efficient he believes the Soviet anti-ballistic missile system is. Packard says that their continuing deployment [of large missile weapons] “could very well be a serious problem in a threat against our second strike capability, and this was one of the factors that encouraged me to move toward this defensive, or retaliatory capability posture.”


One interviewer asks about “the Chinese threat, vis-a-vis, the Russians.” Packard says there have been many speculations as to the capability of the Chinese missile weapons system, “I can tell you what we do know. The Chinese have proceeded with their development of large thermonuclear warheads. They have developed them and tested them.”


Packard is asked how serious the Vietnam situation is. Packard says the Vietnamese are continuing to infiltrate troops and build up their forces “…but we don’t know whether they will attack or not.”


Packard is asked if he thinks, considering “the temper” of the country whether anyone in the U.S. Government “could really order full-scale bombing of North Vietnam again.” Packard says “the President has taken a very wise course to be a little cautious about how far he would move ahead on this.”


When asked if a lottery draft would not be more just in calling people to service, Packard says “I don’t know whether a lottery is the right argument or not, but certainly the present system is not very good.”


As to the possibility of an all-volunteer force, Packard responds that “An all-volunteer force would be feasible if you want to pay enough for it. Whether it is desirable or not is another question.”



Box 1, Folder 38 – Department of Defense


May 9, 1969, The Business Council, Hot Springs, VA


3/9/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


At this point Packard has been on the job as Deputy Secretary of Defense for about four months. His main thrust is justification of the anti-ballistic system known as Safeguard. Before explaining his position on Safeguard he does talk about other activities in which he has been involved over the past four months: the military budget, what he refers to as “this reconnaisance (sic) matter” [the Pueblo ship which was held hostage], Spanish bases, the “waves of student unrest over the country.”


Turning to the subject of ABMs Packard says “One of the interesting assignments that I have had has been to consider the strategic nuclear problems in relation to the Soviet Union.” While saying that he doesn’t “relish the idea of studying the results of so-called war games in which tens or hundreds of millions of people are killed,” Packard says “…there is no more important matter for the future of mankind than the avoidance of a nuclear war. The only practical course open,…for the world, is for both the United States and the Soviet Union to be in such a position that neither could afford to start a nuclear war with the other….”
Packard reviews the development of strategic nuclear weapons over the past two decades. In the first phase of the nuclear area(sic), we had only a few long-range nuclear weapons while the Soviet Union had none.”


“By the late 1950s and early 1960s both sides had strategic nuclear forces…The United States had a clear superiority ….”


“By 1966 this country had built its long-range nuclear forces to a level which was considered to be adequate.”


“Today we are approaching a rough balance in this nuclear situation.”


Packard sees some “significant implications in the strategic nuclear balance….”


“Both the United States and the Soviet Union have sufficient long-range nuclear weapons provided – and this is an important question, an important qualification – that both are responsible in their policies about nuclear war. A country with a responsible policy on general nuclear war need have only enough secure weapons to guarantee enough damage in retaliation to deter any potential aggressor.”


Packard says the U.S. has this kind of force today, and this kind of policy. “The Soviets also have this kind of a force today….We do not know, however, that they have this kind of a policy.”


“So while we hope that the Soviets see this nuclear problem as we do and see the benefits to both sides of a rational approach we do have to hedge against the possibility that the Soviets may see it differently.”


“Our objective, then, is to take the precautions to protect our deterrent capability in any way that will be consistent with arms control talks, whether they are successful or whether they fail.”


“These are the considerations that led this Administration to modify the Sentinel ballistic missile defense of the Johnson Administration into the Safeguard System. Safeguard is planned and configured not only to do a particular job if needed, but to do it in a way that helps maintain balance and introduce stability into strategic nuclear equations.”


Referring to critics who argue that the system may be needed at some time, but not now, Packard says “The fact is that we do not need it now. If we do need it by 1976 we just have to start now. If we could be assured that we would not need this protection before 1978 we could indeed fall back to an R&D position. But I cannot recommend that we take that kind of a chance with the security of our country.”


In answer to critics who say there are better ways to protect our deterrent forces, Packard says the time scale will not allow it: “Five years for the first two sites; seven years at the earliest for the full system.”


Cost has been another factor of contention. In response Packard says “Some of the $2.1 billion for Phase I has already been spent and the balance will be spent over the next five years.”


“The Phase I program then that we are recommending will cost the country about $500 million a year over the next five years. The question then is can we afford to spend one-half of one percent of this nation’s budget on a defense which might, and it just might, determine the survival of America?”


“Many of the opponents base the opposition to Safeguard on their belief, or their feeling, that the domestic problems of America are more important than the problems of defense. I have no quarrel with the proposition that domestic problems of the country are important. And I might even go so far as to say that if we do not solve these troublesome domestic problems, we’ll not need to defend America because there won’t be much worthwhile to defend.


“But I hasten to assure you that I am really not that pessimistic. I believe and am sure that our domestic problems can and will be solved. This country has ample resources in people and knowledge and understanding and the money to provide for defense that will keep the peace and also to resolve these social problems.”


Packard says the President recommended Safeguard because he thought it was right. He recommended Safeguard because he wanted to enter Arms Control talks with the Russians from a position of strength. He recommended Safeguard because he believes America must be strong in the future as it has been strong in the past. He deserves your support and my support in this decision.



Box 1, Folder 39 – Department of Defense


May 14, 1969, Department of Defense Seminar, Leadership of Non-Government Organizations [NGOs]

Packard appears to be giving some introductory comments to a group gathered for the day. Not clear who the group might be, but appears to be non-governmental.


5/14/69, Handwritten notes by Packard outlining points he wished to bring out in speech. Notes are fragmented and brief.


Packard says he has been here for four months and is just beginning to learn.

He speaks of a “Report on DOD to stakeholders,” service to people – nearly 80 billion, nearly 9% GNP, about half to support personnel, half goes to equipment and services.


Probably 20-25% of people in U.S. dependent on DOD.


Money from taxes


DOD is here to do the job people of America want it to do. We are responsible to President as Commander in Chief. President through the political process is responsible to you.”


Viet Nam first priority


What we are asked to do determines spending.


Strategy – Russia


Safeguard System designed to [be] deterrent.


Pleased to have you here. Better indicate how DOD can serve your needs.




Box 1, Folder 40 – Department of Defense


May 16, 1969, Acquisition of Major Weapons Systems, Etc. The audience appears to be managers from within the DOD.


5/16/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Packard tells the managers that on May 3rd and 4th Secretary Laird and he held “an informal weekend meeting” to discuss problems facing the Department of Defense. Packard explained that the idea was not to arrive at solutions so much as to define the problems so that all had a clear idea with what needed to be done and could work together on common objectives. [example of HP management practice, MBO]


Packard says he expects, as a result of this weekend discussion, they will be able to “move ahead to the clarification of some of our Department policies, because everyone with a management responsibility can do his job well only if he knows what is expected of him.” He adds “that it is desirable for every manager to have clear understanding of his objectives, and then be free as possible to use his knowledge, initiative and understanding to implement those policies as effectively as possible in his own way. I believe from this approach it is easy to get good motivation and enthusiasm, which, of course, are important elements in any organization.”


Packard says that the objectives towards which they are trying to move are contained in written policies, guidelines and directives; and are further “communicated by listening to people in the organization discussing their problems and their approaches to the solution of those problems.”


Toward that end Packard introduces three speakers: Dr. John Foster, Director of Research and Engineering, Secretary Moot, comptroller, and Secretary Shillito, Installations and Logistics.  Packard says each will give a short presentation on their role as related to major weapons systems acquisition. He reminds the people that they will continue to direct their attention to problems in this area and in develop some Department-wide policies for future guidance in acquiring weapons systems in the future.


Packard’s text does not include information on the remarks of the three speakers.


In closing, Packard says he hopes “that we will find time to discuss some of these matters directly with you.” And he says he would like to have their reaction “as to the benefit of a film like this in helping you understand our common objectives of better management in the Defense Department.”



Box 1, Folder 41 – Department of Defense


May 17, 1969, Armed Forces Day, World Affairs Council, Los Angeles.


5/17/69, Copy of transcript of Packard’s speech as prepared by the DOD Public Affairs Office.


Packard speaks of some of the troubled areas of the world – war in Vietnam, Mideast crisis unresolved, Czechoslovakia, North Korea belligerence, unrest at home. He feels we have slipped into a mood of confusion and uncertainty which has generated militancy among minorities, radicalism among students and which has affected the faculties and leadership of our universities and churches.


“Those very institutions which should be the stabilizing influences in our society, centers of rational thought and moral strength, are in danger of becoming emotional instead of rational, demoralizing instead of stabilizing.”


Packard is concerned that much of the vitriol is directed at the military establishment and the men and women in uniform who we are honoring here today.” He spends considerable time explaining that the military does the job that is asked of it by the people. He points out it is not the proper purpose of the Defense Department to make policy for America, and says “The armed services role is to carry out the orders of their Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States, and in the final analysis the President is responsible to the will of the people.”


He moves on to a discussion of strategic problems – the first being our relationship with the Soviet Union. He says we have worked out a balance of destruction capability, but Russia seems to be going beyond this with the development and deployment of  their strategic forces. “But,” he says, “we must also take such action to make sure there can be no advantage for either side in starting a nuclear war….”


Packard describes the Safeguard Missile system which is being considered by Congress and which he recommends.


5/17/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.



Box 1, Folder 42 – Department of Defense


May 22, 1969, Aerospace Industries Association, Williamsburg, VA


5/22/69. Copy of typewritten speech


Packard lists three problems facing the Department of Defense. “The first problem is to determine the tasks that are to be performed by the Department of Defense. The second problem is to determine the forces that are required to accomplish

these tasks. The third problem is to procure and operate these forces in the most efficient manner.”


Concerning the first problem – defining the DOD tasks, Packard says there are two questions involved: Do we have the military force structure adequate to support United States commitments around the world? And, secondly, what military budget level will the people of the United States support over the next few years?


Packard says the National Security Council will make decisions on the military tasks which must be performed to support United States interests in the world – taking into account costs for various alternatives. He says they are working within the DOD to develop better procedures on which to build budgets for the future.


On the second major problem – the determination of forces necessary to meet the national objectives – Packard says they will be encouraging the services to “apply system analysis and cost effective procedures, realizing that all problems are not solved by analytical procedures alone.”


The third problem area concerned the need to procure and operate Defense resources in the most efficient manner possible. He says they will be “taking a very hard look at whether we need all this gadgetry when we go into a new development…” He questions the reliability of complex systems and says that “A tank with its gun out of order is not a tank at all.”


Packard says they do not have all plans worked out but he can tell the direction they are going. “We expect to have all future contracts for weapons systems include realistic achievement milestones which must be met before production is started.” And on another point he says “Neither the DOD or the Congress will continue to tolerate cost overruns which relate to unrealistic pricing at the time of award, or to inadequate management of the job during the contract.”


He closes with “I hope you will agree with me that we should not and can not settle for less.”


5/22/69, Press release issued by the DOD Public Affairs Office describing speech.



Box 1, Folder 43 – Department of Defense


June 9, 1969, The Advertising Council, Washington D. C.


6/9/69,  Copy of typewritten speech with some notations written by Packard


Packard’s talk is a request for support of the Safeguard ballistic missile system. He says the general public supports the Safeguard by a large margin. This will be “an important factor in the congressional vote, but the issue certainly is not settled. The issue is becoming somewhat obscured, in fact, by an unfortunate emotionalism which is found in one segment of the public. The emotion is not related to the Safeguard issue; it apparently is just a dislike on the part of some persons of things military.”


Packard says he would like to “separate the Safeguard from this emotionalism and examine the basic issues reasonable and simply and then suggest that you people make up your own minds.”


When Packard joined the Nixon Administration he says he “…helped review and resolve a number of pending defense problems, among them the problem of our strategic nuclear weapons and policies and their relation to the weapons and policies of the Soviet Union. Nuclear planning is not pleasant, but I can think of no more important matter for the future of mankind than the avoidance of nuclear war – and avoidance of nuclear war is the heart of the Safeguard issue.”


Packard describes the situation where both the Soviets and the U.S. have sufficient deterrent forces – either one could respond to an attack with such force that the attacker would be destroyed. However, the Soviets are continuing to install big, accurate missiles, well suited for an attack on our Minuteman ICBMs, but ill-suited for a policy of deterrence only.


“Since we cannot tolerate any significant doubt of the ability of our weapons to deter, we must find some way to give our weapons more protection.” After considering and discarding several options, which  Packard explores, he says President Nixon recommended the Safeguard system to Congress. The plan is to install the system at two locations over the next five years, work out the bugs and then decide if further expansion seems necessary.


“The defense of bombers and missiles will show the Soviets that they cannot reduce the survivability of our deterrent weapons and thereby raise the risk of thermonuclear war. It should induce them to abandon any hopes they may have of achieving a low-risk, first-strike capability.”


“America’s long-range nuclear retaliatory weapons are truly vital to us. If their effectiveness were ever to be questioned seriously by a potential enemy, the lives of most of us could be in jeopardy. This is why a decision to offer extra protection to our deterrent should be made calmly and rationally. This is the way that President Nixon made his decision. I hope that the public will address the issues in the same way. And I hope that the final vote by the Congress will be made only on the merits of this issue, the issue of deterrence of nuclear war, of control of nuclear weapons – of the avoidance of nuclear holocaust.


“Sober examination will show, I am confident, that what the President is asking is simply that we use the best technology available in the most effective and economic way to meet a real and most serious challenge.


“We must be able to deploy Safeguard as, and if, it is needed. Safeguard is an essential response to a risk which our country and our people cannot and need not accept.


“I have outlined the problem and the available solutions. I have given you my views. I urge you to make up your own minds. If I can help by answering any questions here this morning, I will be pleased to do so now.”


6/9/69, Press release issued by the DOD Public Affairs Office covering Packard’s speech.


5/28/69, Letter to Packard from Robert Keim, President of The Advertising Council, inviting him to attend and speak at the June 9 affair. A copy of the program is attached.



Box 1, Folder 44 – Department of Defense


July 25, 1969, Vietnam and the Nixon Administration, The Bohemian Grove.


7/25/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with handwritten notations by him.


Packard says he is pleased to have “the opportunity to report to you today on some of the problems I have been wrestling with since the first of the year….”

He says that some people may be concerned that he may leave the private sector permanently. He assures everyone that this will not be true, adding that “These past six months in Washington have only served to reinforce the convictions of my prior experience – that the strength of America resides in the private sector. If there is any hope for this country it resides in the private sector.”


Packard says he wants to talk mainly about Vietnam, but first wants to make a few comments about the ABM. “The ABM issue is not just a simple issue of what should be done for the defense of our country. It has become a symbol – a symbol of the times. It is a measure of the attitudes and the emotions of the whole American society.”


Packard tells how one of his first assignments upon coming to Washington was to write a Department of Defense position on the ABM issue so a recommendation could be made to the President….After evaluating the matter as objectively as he could, Packard says he came to the conclusion that “…an ABM system is both technically feasible and necessary for the defense of our country.”


He says he is amazed at the level of controversy created by the ABM program, and is “most troubled by the attitude of some in our scientific community.” Saying that he has had, and still has, much respect for scientists – “this respect is shaken when I see some of our respected scientists take positions on the ABM issue that seem to be guided by their emotions or based on political judgements [sic] which lie outside their expertise rather than on objective scientific analysis.”


After “listening carefully to all that has been said on the ABM issue,” and after “having had the benefit of all of the information that has come through our intelligence channels during the last six months,” Packard says “I am even more convinced now than I was four months ago that the President’s decision on the SAFEGUARD system is precisely the right decision for the security of our country.”


That said, Packard moves on to the “troublesome question of Vietnam.”



Packard describes the high cost of  this war –the “tragic loss…of more than 37,000 fine young Americans killed in action  and of tens of thousands of others who have suffered serious injury….”


“In dollars, the price is approaching $100 billion.”


And Packard points out how the Vietnam War contributes to pressing domestic problems – inflation, lack of money for schools, hospitals, housing.


“We also pay a price for Vietnam in the profound and bitter division of our people about the war. The conflict is a serious obstacle to the national unity President Nixon called for in his Inaugural Address.”


“Then, too, Vietnam has had an effect on the strategic balance between the United States and the Soviet Union. Diverting nearly one-third of our defense dollars to Vietnam is one cause of the current situation in which the Soviet Union is now outspending us in strategic offensive programs by a factor of 3 to 2 and in strategic defensive programs by a factor of 3 to 1….”


Packard says President Nixon wants to end the war – but “High as the costs of Vietnam are, they are not nearly as heavy a price as we would pay if we were to cut and run as some advocate.”




“One option for solving the Vietnam problem is through negotiations….Unfortunately, however, the Paris talks remain unproductive.”


Consequently, Packard explains, “the Nixon Administration felt it necessary to consider alternative courses.”


Packard says some have asked why a military war should not be an alternative. He says this alternative would “certainly require fighting the war on the territory of North Vietnam as well as in Laos and Cambodia. It would probably require defeating the main forces of the enemy in their territory, on the ground, carrying out the slow process of stifling guerilla warfare. And it could require occupation of conquered territory by American forces for many years.”


“The alternative which the President has chosen in case the Peace talks fail is a change in the role of the United States in the war, a change that has been given the name of “Vietnamization.”



 Packard explains that “Vietnamization” means “shifting responsibility for military operations from American to south Vietnamese forces as the latter increase their capability to defend their country.”


But Packard says “The United States is not going to leave south Vietnam in the lurch.” He says the reduction in American personnel is a process of replacement, not withdrawal. “The reduction in American troop strength contemplates that south Vietnam can be defended against the Communists.”


“The President laid down three conditions which govern decisions on reductions of U. S. troop levels in Vietnam —


“The ability of the south Vietnamese to defend themselves in areas where we are now defending them.


“the progress of the talks in Paris,


“the level of enemy activity.”



Packard sees that we face these facts as of mid-1969:


“1. General Abrams has done an outstanding job in dealing with communist main force efforts and in exacting from them a high price in casualties and captured supplies and weapons for their continuing harassment, terror, and sabotage.


“2.  South Vietnamese forces continue to improve their combat effectiveness, but problems with their leadership and morale persist in many areas. Desertions especially continue to be a serious problem.


“3. Urban areas are generally secure though not immune from sporadic mortar attacks and sappers.


“4. Government control of rural areas is improving, but many villages are still under Viet Cong control, and many more are still subject to attacks which are often directed at assassination of village leaders.


“5. Communist losses in manpower and materiel are severe, and are increasing

on a relative basis, but do not appear to be at a decisive level.


“6. President Thieu’s government in Saigon appears to be in satisfactory control, but it presently lacks the desired broad base of political and popular support.


“7. The war is costing Russia and China in the range of two billion dollars a year.



Packard says “I reveal no state secret when I say that there has been no visible progress in Paris despite 26 official meetings and a series of efforts by the United States to move the talks off dead center.”



Packard summarizes the policy of the Nixon Administration. “We hold firmly to one objective: permitting the people of south Vietnam freely to determine their own destiny. We want peace as speedily as possible, but we cannot acquiesce in a peace which denies this opportunity to the South Vietnamese.”


“At the same time we are striving to lower the level of hostilities and to raise the level of the combat capabilities of the south Vietnamese. …We shall continue our efforts to reduce the size of American forces in Vietnam by shifting to the South Vietnamese a greater share of responsibility for the fighting.”



“Will our objectives be attained?“ Packard asks. “It takes two sides to make peace, and, given the intractable attitude of the other side at Paris, I cannot be confident that progress there will soon be forthcoming. We can, I am confident, continue to reduce the American combat role in the war.”


“No policy that we might adopt toward Vietnam is free of risk. The plan we are following has risks but they are fewer in our judgment than those involved in any other course we might pursue at this time.”


“I know how leaders in Hanoi think the war in Vietnam will end. They expect the same outcome as that of their war with the French – victory by default because the other side became weary of going on when no end was in sight.


“The outcome of the war has become a matter of will – The will of the South Vietnamese to assume full responsibility for their country, to fight through a dwindling war, and to build their nation on a strong base of social and political justice.


“Though attainment of our objective depends primarily on the will of the south Vietnamese, it depends, too, on the will of the American people, We must not falter or grow weary as Hanoi hopes and expects before our job is done.”


7/25/69, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech without notations.




Box 1, Folder 45 – Department of Defense


July 29, 1969, Defense Supply Agency, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA


7/29/69,  Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, written in outline format. He is speaking to a group of about 300 military and civilian personnel from the Agency. Dress uniform and black tie were in order.


Packard congratulates the audience on their achievements over the past 8½ years, and he enumerates a list of these – millions of items in the military “catalogue,”  billions of dollars of sales, on time deliveries, Vietnam buildup.


Packard talks about the need for good management, particularly with some 58,000 employees – and he recommends “management by objective.” [reference to HP management by objective, MBO,  practices.]


On the subject of major weapons systems he says the process of development needs to be more complete before production is begun. Check points need to be established, cost vs. performance trade-offs analyzed, more emphasis on reliability.


For the future he sees:


No more year to year budget increases

Must be an efficient, well planned program to meet needs of future.


He closes saying they have his full support and he offers to be of help at any time.


7/29/69, Notes of speech handwritten by Packard.

7/11/69, Letter to Packard from Lt. General Earl Hedlund giving details on the dinner meeting.




Box 1. Folder 46 – Department of Defense


September 17, 1969, Criticism, Dissent – and the Defense of Our Nation

Loyola University, Los Angeles, CA  The event was in commemoration of Citizenship Day and Constitution Week


9/17/69, Typewritten text of speech, with some handwritten notes by Packard.


Packard talks about the many things that the dissatisfied and impatient youth of the day want – rid society of evil and injustice, establish peace, eliminate slums, end poverty, end ethnic and racial discrimination, cure disease, and “strike down hundreds of other wrongs.”


Packard says their “impulses are generally noble, and the commitment to the well-being of their fellow man is admirable. Though they will not achieve all they hope to do, they will remove many of the blemishes of the social and political order which have been tolerated for too long. Some are over zealous, but there is nothing wrong with this that living a little longer will not solve.”


“The young people that I know best,” Packard says, “…are those in our armed forces. I cannot praise them too highly. And he adds that “No one, whatever his feelings about why or how we are fighting in Southeast Asia, should feel anything but pride and gratitude toward the gallant young Americans there. And it may not be amiss to note that there, white and black Americans set an example for the home front by living and working and fighting together in harmony, in mutual respect and trust.”


Packard says the nation’s young people such as these people in uniform receive too little notice. “There is, on the other hand, a surfeit of publicity for the nihilistic minority whose aim is destruction and whose tactics are threats, violence, and disorder. These tactics have no place in the United States where the constitution guarantees orderly procedures for peaceful change. Above all, they have no place on the university campus where reason – not violence – ought to dwell.”


While he is less disturbed by the “antics” of some disruptive youths, Packard says he is concerned “about certain currents of public opinion that in the long term could have more serious consequences for the nation. There is a danger that national defense will be neglected in the future, and this danger is heightened by irresponsible attacks on the nation’s military forces.”


“The campaign against the military has had repercussions on the campus – notable in protest against the ROTC. At Loyola, which boasts one of the best ROTC units in the Air Force, the relationship between the university and the military has been exemplary. At some other universities, our experience has been far different. In a few, the climate has become so inhospitable that we have had to terminate ROTC programs.”


Packard says he views such developments with dismay. “The ROTC furnishes about half of the new officers commissioned each year. Without it, we would be deprived of the leavening influence that these young men fresh from civilian educational institutions bring to the armed forces. And without it, an important link between the military and the schools of the nation would be broken.”


Reading the newspapers and periodicals of the day Packard says it would be easy to get the impression that the military does nothing right. He admits that mistakes have been made, but says that “with 3.5 million military people and over a million civilians, there will always be cases where people make mistakes. Unfortunately, it is only the mistakes that make the headlines, and mistakes are fair game for Congressional hearings. The Pentagon has also done a lot of things right, and, in order to give some balance to the discussion, these are the things I would like to talk to you about.


“I submit that the Department of Defense should be judged in terms of its essential function – providing the armed strength to keep the nation and its citizens secure against all external threats – to protect our citizens and vital interests – and to meet our obligations to support our friends throughout the world.”


Packard notes that “Our critics…have complained about an excess amount of strength. I submit to you it is infinitely better to have a little too much than not quite enough.”


In response to criticism  of the military that its “strength is being used for the wrong purposes  (as in Vietnam some would say),“ he points out that “the use to which our military strength is put is not determined by the Department of Defense, but rather by the White House and on Capitol Hill.”


Saying that his purpose tonight “is not to refute the critics. Rather, I want to point out a few of the positive things about the Defense Department that the critics seem to miss. I limit myself to five things that we’re doing right.


“First, we are progressing in our efforts to train and equip the forces of South Vietnam to assume greater combat responsibility, which permit reduction of American forces in southeast Asia….As a result, the replacement of American troops is under way.


“This is a break from the policy of the past that dictated a constant increase in American forces in the theater of combat and assumption by the United States of the major responsibility for the conduct of the war.”


“Second we are progressing in our effort to bring the Defense budget under better control. As a result of painstaking review of that budget, Secretary Laird has announced preparations for cuts during the current fiscal year which will reduce spending by more than $4 billion below the level recommended by President Johnson.”


“Third, we are doing a number of things to improve the procurement system for major weapons….We are proceeding to make sure that we have eliminated as many technical uncertainties as possible before full-scale development is begun, and that development is complete before production is started.”


“Fourth, we are progressing in reforming the management of manpower in the Department of Defense. We are keenly aware of the fact that people are our most important asset.


“We have given particular attention to the problems of ROTC an have worked closely with the universities and colleges of the nation to rectify any shortcomings in the present program.”


“Fifth, we are progressing in using the resources of the Defense Department in a vigorous campaign against such evils as poverty, ignorance, and discrimination. Secretary Laird has given direction and emphasis to such activities by creating within the Department of Defense the Domestic Action Council which stimulates and guides this aspect of our work….We have done much to eliminate discrimination in housing. We run one of the nation’s largest school systems in non military subjects and probably the biggest occupational skill training program in the world. In securing the goods we need, we give special attention to procurement from small business firms and minority enterprise. In addition, we have begun to make our facilities available to disadvantaged youth of nearby communities for learning and recreation.”


“Our Constitution, the signing of which we are gathered here to commemorate, reflected the cautious attitude of eighteenth-century America toward military power. It established civilian control over the military forces and sought thereby to guarantee that the military would always be the servants of the American people.


“No military leader of our country would want it any other way. The subordination of military to civilian authority is fully recognized and wholeheartedly supported by those who wear the uniform.


“On the other hand, those who framed the Constitution recognized that the system of government which it established required military power if it was to endure. They selected, after all, as their presiding officer at the Constitutional Convention, the man who had been commander in chief of the armed forces in the Revolutionary War.”


“The proudest responsibility of the armed forces is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They will continue to discharge this responsibility with fidelity. And this vast country shall remain one nation under this Constitution as long as our armed forces discharge this responsibility with the trust and confidence of the people whose freedom they guard.”


9/17/69, Copy of a News Release issued by the Department of Defense Public Affairs Office, covering the speech.

9/17/69, Copy of the program for the dinner event.

9/17/69, Copy of the invitation to the dinner.

4/30/69, Letter to Packard from John C. Cosgrove expressing delight that Packard has accepted the invitation to speak at the Citizenship Day Dinner.

9/30/69, Letter to Packard from George E. Lacy S. J., Vice-President-University Relations, thanking Packard for participating in their event.

10/1/69, Letter to Packard from Donald P. Merrifield, S. J., expressing appreciation for his talk.



Box 1. Folder 47 – Department of Defense


September 23, 1969, 10th Annual Joint Communications-Electronics Conference.

9/23/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech. He is apparently speaking to a group of people responsible for the Command, Control and Communications system used by DOD among others.


Packard emphasizes the importance of the command control and communications functions to the capability of the military forces. “…in the last two decades they have become critical elements – when we face warning times measured in minutes in a world-wide theater, the survival of the nation can depend on how well you have done your job.


“With the advance of technology and the demanding requirements which are derived from our world-wide strategic situation, our command control-communications systems are forced to larger and more complex configurations. This in turn adds a new demanding requirement on the management, the planning, the procurement, and the operation of these systems. It is therefore appropriate that we review today some of the things we can do to achieve better management.”


Packard starts with planning – “…we have to know what we want to do….The answer to this question, of course, depends on our world-wide strategy – what do we need to be prepared to do around the world. “


To “come to closer grips” with this problem Packard says they have embarked on “an agency-wide study which is now nearing completion.”


“Good planning is the first step in good management. We must plan for systems that will be adequate to support our future force deployment and strategy. The studies I have outlined should help toward that end. We must also plan for systems which can be built and operated within the resources we will have available. We must design systems which meet the expected requirements but at the same time are not too complex and therefore too expensive to procure, operate and maintain.”


Packard says he feels we have done a good job developing the capabilities of our systems, but he is not so sure that “we have placed as much emphasis on cost and financial controls of this widely interspersed activity, and accordingly we plan to make some changes which we hope will bring this aspect of management into better focus.”


Packard outlines some steps they are taking to improve this situation. “First we plan to place more emphasis on the all important question of the design concept before we implement actual development. Is the proposed system adequate for the job but not too complex. Have we resolved the technical uncertainties, have we properly assessed the needs of the user. Above all, have we made realistic cost estimates before we make the decision to go ahead.


“… when we decide to go ahead with full-scale development and production have we laid out a plan under which we have development complete – or at least far enough along that the major problems are known and uncertainties eliminated before we begin production.”


“The second step in management is organization to get the job done. Organization with divided responsibility is a sure deterrent to success. Over-organization is often worse than under-organization. I have seen much more of the former than of the latter since I have been here.


“The third step in good management is motivation, and this is affected by the way a program is organized. Clear delegation of responsibility allows personal identification with success – and personal recognition for good performance – one of the strongest motivating actions available to management.


“The fourth step in good management is evaluation – evaluation of performance – did we in fact do what we set out to do – are we meeting our targets and do we know where we stand on a program in time to do something about it.”


In closing Packard urges each person present to follow the precepts of good management: “…if you are working together (good organization) toward a common objective (good planning) with a high level of enthusiasm (motivation), I am sure the evaluation of your performance by your superiors as well as the Congress and the public at large will come out with a high mark.”



Box 1, Folder 48 – Department of Defense


September 25, 1969, Secretary’s briefing, Pentagon


9/25/69, Typewritten copy of speech.


Packard gives a basic lecture on management: Planning, Organization, Motivation and Evaluation.


After going through each of these, which he calls “management by the book,”

he talks about a book titled “The Peter Principle” by Dr. Lawrence J. Peter. “In this book Dr. Peter defines a hierarchy as ‘an organization whose members or employees are arranged in order of rank, grade, or class’ Packard says “This seems to have something to do with the DOD.”


Packard quotes “The Peter Principle” which states: ‘In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his highest level of incompetence.’ And Peter’s corollary which is: ‘In time, every post in a hierarchy tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties.’  Packard says “I don’t believe the DOD yet approaches the point of no return in this matter, but there are some symptoms which trouble me. Dr. Peter calls these symptoms ‘non-medical indices of Final Placement.’


“For instance, I have noticed a trend toward ‘Rigor Cartis’ – which is ‘an abnormal interest in charts with dwindling concern for realities that the charts represent.’


“There is a serious infection of ‘Codophilia, initial and digital – speaking in letters and numbers instead of words.’


“Then I have observed considerable of the ‘John Q. Diversion’\– undue reliance on public opinion.’


“And an excessive amount of ‘Papyromania– compulsive accumulation of papers.’


“There is a certain amount of ‘Professional Automatism – obsessive concern with rituals and a disregard of results.’


“I find some evidence also of  ‘Computerized Incompetence – incompetent application of computer techniques, or the inherent incompetence of a computer.’


“On the third floor E Ring, and in certain other areas, one can find evidence of ‘Tabulatory Gigantism’– obsession with large size desks.


“But despite the evidence of a limited intrusion of these various symptoms, I am glad to report to you that we have not yet achieved Success – either individually or collectively – Success is “final placement at the level of incompetence.”


“The challenge we all face, working together in the world’s largest hierarchy is to prove that The Peter Principle is not the inevitable result of people working in a hierarchy. That is our plan, our objective, and in the final analysis we will all be evaluated individually and collectively on our accomplishments against this objective.”




Box 1, Folder 49 – Department of Defense


October 15, 1969, Defense Supply Association, Washington D. C.


10/15/69, Typewritten text of speech


Commenting on the current  anti-war demonstrations Packard says he is “skeptical about the usefulness of today’s demonstrations. I think they are more likely to retard than to advance the day when Americans are no longer in combat. For, in my opinion, they encourage the enemy to hang on in the hope that we will pull out of Vietnam so abruptly that we will leave chaos in our wake.


“…Our country is now well along the road toward transferring to the south Vietnamese the heavy responsibility in military and other fields which we have been carrying.


“As fast as the South Vietnamese can be readied to assume the burdens which Americans have carried in their country, Americans will be phased out. And this replacement is being carried out at the fastest, practicable rate.”


“The main forces of the enemy have been weakened. The Viet Cong infrastructure has been badly shattered and demoralized. Steady progress has been made in pacifying the countryside, in establishing stable local government, and in equipping the forces needed for local security.”


“Of all the policies which the United States might pursue, Vietnamization offers the best prospect of rapid reduction of the burden which the United States has assumed in Vietnam without sacrificing what we have been fighting for.


“Concerned as we in the Defense Department are about Vietnam, we are also looking beyond it. In the most thorough, searching, and comprehensive assessment ever undertaken, the national Security Council is considering our defense needs for the future to support our foreign policy objectives.


“Some of the main lines of post-Vietnam policy have been sketched by the President. We shall continue, in collaboration with our NATO allies, to provide a military shield for the areas of Europe included in this Alliance. We shall maintain a strong interest in the development of free, stable, and prosperous nations in Asia by doing more to encourage Asian nations to develop the capacity to defend themselves without reliance on American troops. We shall maintain a strong offensive and defensive posture in order to provide deterrence to nuclear war.”


Packard turns to the budget and describes the ways they are reducing the cost of national defense. “We are planning reductions of more than $8 billion in obligations and $4 million in outlays in the Defense budget of the current fiscal year.” He describes the actions they are taking to achieve these savings: “…we are cancelling (sic) work on projects that are not of the greatest urgency;…laying up many aging vessels;…cutting manpower;… looking hard at our bases,…with a view to closing out some of them. And we have introduced tighter control over the development and production of new weapons systems.


“In short, we are tightening our belt in all areas where reduction will not adversely affect the military capability needed for the future.”


“…we are striving to ask no greater part of the taxpayers’ dollar than we really need. For these reasons, we are striving for more effective utilization of the resources available to us.”


To this end Packard stresses the need for “the efficient management of logistics” which is “of prime importance in the effective utilization of our resources. The Defense Supply Agency has a major responsibility in this field….As of June 1969, DSA was managing nearly 2 million of the 4 million Defense-used items.


“Still another important phase of integrated management has been the establishment of the Defense Coordinated Procurement program, under which one Defense component performs the Defense-wide consolidated purchase function for an assigned common-use commodity.”


“Taken together, over the past several years, these integrated management and procurement programs have saved literally hundreds of millions of dollars in decreased operating and procurement cost.”


Packard says he is “…impressed with the scope of the job being done by the Defense Contract Administration Services.  DCAS now administers over 65% of all DoD contracts over $10,000 and is represented in almost all major U.S. cities.”


“Secretary Laird and I do feel…that responsibilities for managing programs should be decentralized to the greatest extent practicable. The majority of our program managers have the tools necessary to do their job well, and qualified people are available to get the job done.“


“In connection with our efforts to improve controls over Defense spending, we have been concerned about cost overruns.” He describes the various reasons for cost overruns, says they are difficult to avoid in some programs,…“But we must do better than we have done in the past.”


To improve the “cost-estimating and decision-making processes, in connection with new systems in particular, and to improve the efficiency of the logistics function, in general…we have established a Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council at the Assistant Secretary level….” He says this function will advise “the Secretary of the current status of each major system and its readiness to proceed to the next phase of effort in its life cycle.”


In addition, Packard says “Secretary Laird has also appointed a Blue Ribbon Defense Panel, headed by Mr. Gilbert W. Fitzhugh, Chairman of the Board of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The Panel is studying organization and management on DoD, research and development, procurement, and related matters. We expect from this Panel valuable counsel that will result in better organization and more efficient operation.”


Packard says “We will continue the DoD  Cost Reduction program which has been producing over $1 billion in audited savings annually.”


“Since the beginning of the present Administration, the DoD has been critically reviewing the rationale and the progress of all major programs. Several cancellations have resulted, such as the Manned Orbiting Laboratory and production of the Cheyenne helicopter; and other programs, such as ammunition purchases, have been reduced.”


“Along with the above actions, we established the Joint Logistics Review Board. This Board is charged with reviewing worldwide logistic support to our armed forces during the Vietnam era to identify strengths and weaknesses and to make appropriated recommendations for improvement. We are looking to the findings and recommendations of this Board to assist in the long-term improvement of our logistics systems in the light of the lessons Vietnam has taught us.”


Packard refers to the area of logistical support of forces in Vietnam, and quotes General Westmoreland on the subject:


“Never before in the history of warfare have men created such a responsive logistical system….Not once have the fighting troops been restricted in their operations against the enemy for want of essential supplies.”


Packard talks about the most difficult period being during the first year of buildup “when 200,000 men were deployed concurrently with the construction of the logistical base.”…He describes the shipping and construction challenges that had to be met, the storage facilities that had to be built; and on top of  this “ Our forces have…enjoyed the highest quality of personnel supplies such as food, clothing, and medical equipment ever provided during wartime.”


“As we carry out the reverse process of reducing our presence in Vietnam, we face a new and very complex set of logistical problems. One type of problem is that of removing substantial quantities of materiel and equipment which we shall not be leaving behind. The other type of problem is that of helping the South Vietnamese to build up their own logistical capacity so that in this field, as in combat activities, they will no longer rely so heavily on the United States.”


“I have mentioned in the course of these remarks several reasons which the Department of Defense has for pride in its accomplishments. One of the reasons for doing so is my conviction that the public is often given an unbalanced account of Defense activities – an account that emphasizes shortcomings and underplays or ignores accomplishments.


“Accomplishments are produced by people. Sometimes those at the pinnacle of large organizations seem to forget this obvious truth to the detriment of morale throughout the organization.


“Secretary Laird and I have set as one of our top priority objectives for the Defense Department a recognition of the importance of people. The work of the Department will be well done only if those in it, military and civilian, feel pride in themselves and their jobs. The Defense Department will be effective in the performance of its mission only if the public has faith in the competence and integrity of the Department’s personnel.


“We are proud of the people in Defense, and we do not intend to let their reputations be sullied. Any type of wrongdoing on the part of any Defense personnel will not be tolerated or ignored. In justice to the people of this nation and to the overwhelming majority of our military and civilian employees, we shall see to it that appropriate measures are taken to deal promptly with the few whose conduct violates the law or the standards of performance that the public has a right to expect.


“The present management of the Defense Department has been in office for only nine months. It has, I think, made some improvements. It will be a long time before I expect to find my “in basket” cleaned out of problems that beset this mammoth and complex organization. But we have made a start on a course that will provide benefits in terms of increased security in terms of increased security at minimum cost in the years ahead.”


10/15/69, Press release issued by the DOD Public Affairs office giving text of Packard’s speech.

10/13/69, Program for the 22nd Annual Convention, Defense Supply Association, Oct. 13, 14, 15,1969.

Undated news release announcing the forthcoming convention.

8/11/69, Copy of letter to Packard from Lt. Gen. A. T. McNamara inviting Packard to be the Principal Speaker at the Annual Banquet on Oct. 15, 1969.8/26/69, Copy of letter from Packard to Lt. Gen. A. T. McNamara, accepting offer to speak at the convention.

10/6/69, Letter to Packard from Lt. Gen. A. T. McNamara giving details on banquet.

10/7/69, Memorandum to Colonel Ray B. Furlong, Military Assistant to the Deputy Secretary giving details on the banquet.

Undated, chart of head table assignments.




Box 1, Folder 50 – Department of Defense


October 17, 1969, DoD Seminar for Leadership of National Organizations, Fort Myer, VA


10/17/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.


Packard refers to “the activities of the so-called moratorium on the 15th of October,” and in this speech he gives his reaction to these events. He does not describe the events of Oct. 15, presuming that his audience is familiar with them; but it is clear they reflected dissent of the Vietnam War.


“Let me say first that the democratic system provides and guarantees the opportunity for such an expression of opinion. It is the function of our Government to assure that our critics as well as our supporters retain this right. At the same time, the democratic process can only be served by a legal and responsible expression of opinion. The activities of the 15th of October were largely legal; however, responsibility implies both the obligation to be informed and also a recognition of the consequences of this public expression of dissent.”


Packard says “Participation in the activities of October 15 has been interpreted as a vote of non-support for the President’s program for Vietnam. However, it is clear to me that many of those who participated would be active supporters of the President if they had the opportunity to be adequately informed.”


To do this Packard summarizes the situation, covering “the situation presented to the President in January, the plans developed since then, and our prospects for the future.


“When the Nixon Administration assumed office in January, the Paris talks had made little headway. They remain stalemated today. At Paris, the North Vietnamese can endlessly block our efforts to end the war through negotiation by deflecting all proposals. For this reason, the President decided at an early point in his Administration that we could not leave all our eggs in the negotiation basket.


“Today, there is an alternative course of action that at the same time complements our efforts at Paris. This program is Vietnamization.”


Packard describes Vietnamization as “Not merely modernizing the South Vietnam’s armed forces, but the positive goal of Vietnamizing the war, of increasing Vietnamese responsibility for all aspects of the war and handling of their own affairs.”


“We must stay with this job until the people in South Vietnam can provide for themselves conditions of reasonable security in which to farm their fields, raise and educate their children, elect their local leaders, live their lives in their own way under their own traditions – that is what we mean when we say determine freely their own destiny.”


Looking at  the progress of Vietnamization, Packard points to achievements in the economy: “…in the past three years, South Vietnam has trebled its funding of imports,  while the amount spent by the Agency for International Development  for this purpose has dropped by a third, …and [South Vietnam] is moving toward restoration of self-sufficiency in rice production.”


“In the field of local security, the police force has been expanded and its training strengthened. Partly for this reason, the Viet Cong infrastructure is being weakened and rooted out in many areas.


“In the political field, self-government has been brought this year to more than 700 villages and hamlets in recently pacified areas, bringing the total with self-government to about 8 out of every 10. There has been a notable increase in the number of citizens willing to seek local office and hence to face the threat of Viet Cong terrorism which has taken such a toll of local officials in past years.”


“The troop redeployments [of U.S. forces] so far announced have not been made possible by any progress in Paris or by any convincing evidence that Hanoi wants to reduce the level of combat. They have been made possible principally by the improved capability of South Vietnamese military forces.”


“The President has set a simple objective in Vietnam – permitting the people of South Vietnam to determine freely their own destiny. I cannot imagine how those who participated in the so-called moratorium activities on October 15 can take exception to that objective. It is incomprehensible to me that a group can exercise its right of self-determination to state that this very same right is unworthy of our interest and determination in South Vietnam.


“As I mentioned at the outset, our citizens must not only be informed of the policies of their government – they must have an appreciation for the effects of their expressions of dissent on the likelihood that these policies will be successful.


“The negotiations in Paris offer the best chance for the most rapid conclusion of the war. It is already clear that the demonstrations of October 15 have been interpreted by the enemy as a refutation of the President’s policies to achieve peace. Clearly any expression of dissent which has this result places a grave responsibility on the shoulders of those who are identified with it.


“The events of October 15 raise some very serious questions for this nation that in fact go far beyond the question of Vietnam. Two in particular should be pondered by those who did not participate and also by the vast majority of those who did participate. This vast majority were good American citizens, I am sure, trying to be helpful.


“Is the street demonstration the best method to use to influence foreign policy decisions of the Government? Will this method really contribute toward the common goal of a speedy attainment of peace in Vietnam? These are troublesome questions that remain to be answered.”


Packard states that “There is no person in the nation who is working harder for peace than the President of the United States. He bears the ultimate responsibility for establishing a policy to achieve this goal. This policy carries weight to the extent that it is undergirded by the will of a nation united in its commitment to the values given expression through this policy. Our society in the United States, with all its defects – and any institution devised by man must have its defects – is nonetheless the exemplar among nations offering man his best hope of fulfilling his great promise.”


Packard says the “Critics must recognize the responsibility that goes with the right to criticize. They must weigh the effects of their words both at home and in countries around the world. They must ask themselves if street demonstrations really contribute to the common goal of a speedy attainment of peace in Vietnam.


“I believe that the events of October 15 have given the North Vietnamese the incentive to continue to stall in Paris. If this is true, the cause of peace has not been advanced, and this would be a great tragedy.


“America is at the cross-roads in this fall of 1969. It is time for every man, woman and child in America who believes in our tradition of freedom, of democracy, of honor, to stand up and be counted – to stand up so President Nixon can see them – so their fellow Americans can see them – so the world can see them.”


10/16/69, Memorandum for Packard from Daniel Z. Henkin giving details on the luncheon arrangements.

5/14/69, Program and list of attendees at United States Armed Forces Day Report to the Leaders of the Non-Governmental National Organizations held on May 14. Packard is listed as making Opening Remarks.