To the Congress of the United States:

It was just 3 years ago today that I took the oath of office as President. I opened my address that day by suggesting that some moments in history stand out "as moments of beginning," when "courses are set that shape decades or centuries." I went on to say that "this can be such a moment." Looking back 3 years later, I would suggest that it was such a moment -- a time in which new courses were set on which we now are traveling.

Just how profoundly these new courses will shape our decade or our century is still an unanswered question, however, as we enter the fourth year of this administration. For moments of beginning will mean very little in history unless we also have the determination to follow up on those beginnings. Setting the course is not enough.

Staying the course is an equally important challenge. Good government involves both the responsibility for making fresh starts and the responsibility for perseverance. The responsibility for perseverance is one that is shared by the President, the public, and the Congress.

-- We have come a long way, for example, on the road to ending the Vietnam war and to improving relations with our adversaries. But these initiatives will depend for their lasting meaning on our persistence in seeing them through.

-- The magnificent cooperation of the American people has enabled us to make substantial progress in curbing inflation and in reinvigorating our economy. But the new prosperity we seek can be completed only if the public continues in its commitment to economic responsibility and discipline.

-- Encouraging new starts have also been made over the last 3 years in treating our domestic ills. But continued progress now requires the Congress to act on its large and growing backlog of pending legislation.

America's agenda for action is already well established as we enter 1972. It will grow in the weeks ahead as we present still more initiatives. But we dare not let the emergence of new business obscure the urgency of old business. Our new agenda will be little more than an empty gesture if we abandon -- or even de-emphasize-that part of the old agenda which is yet unfinished.

GETTING OURSELVES TOGETHER

One measure of the Nation's progress in these first years of the seventies is the improvement in our national morale. While the 1960'S were a time of great accomplishment, they were also a time of growing confusion. Our recovery from that condition is not complete, but we have made a strong beginning. Then we were a shaken and uncertain people, but now we are recovering our confidence.

Then we were divided and suspicious, but now we are renewing our sense of common purpose. Then we were surrounded by shouting and posturing, but we have been learning once again to lower our voices. And we have also been learning to listen. A history of the 1960's was recently published under the title, Coming Apart.

But today we can say with confidence that we are coming apart no longer. The "center" of American life has held, and once again we are getting ourselves together.

THE SPIRIT OF REASON AND REALISM

Under the pressures of an election year, it would be easy to look upon the legislative program merely as a political device and not as a serious agenda. We must resist this temptation. The year ahead of us holds precious time in which to accomplish good for this Nation and we must not, we dare not, waste it.

Our progress depends on a continuing spirit of partnership between the President and the Congress, between the House and the Senate, between Republicans and Democrats. That spirit does not require us always to agree with one another but it does require us to approach our tasks, together, in a spirit of reason and realism.

Clear words are the great servant of reason. Intemperate words are the great enemy of reason. The cute slogan, the glib headline, the clever retort, the appeal to passion -- these are not the way to truth or to good public policy. To be dedicated to clear thinking, to place the interests of all above the interests of the few, to hold to ultimate values and to curb momentary passions, to think more about the next generation and less about the next election -- these are now our special challenges.

ENDING THE WAR

The condition of a nation's spirit cannot be measured with precision, but some of the factors which influence that spirit can. I believe the most dramatic single measurement of the distance we have traveled in the last 36 months is found in the statistics concerning our involvement in the war in Vietnam.

On January 20, 1969 our authorized troop ceiling in Vietnam was 549,500. And there was no withdrawal plan to bring these men home. On seven occasions since that time, I have announced withdrawal decisions -- involving a total of 480,500 troops. As a result, our troop ceiling will be only 69,000 by May 1. This means that in 3 years we will have cut our troop strength in Vietnam by 87 percent.

As we proceed toward our goal of a South Vietnam fully able to defend itself, we will reduce that level still further. In this same period, expenditures connected with the war have been cut drastically. There has been a drop of well over 50 percent in American air activity in all of Southeast Asia. Our ground combat role has been ended.

Most importantly, there has been a reduction of 95 percent in combat deaths. Our aim is to cut the death and casualty toll by 100 percent, to obtain the release of those who are prisoners of war, and to end the fighting altogether. It is my hope that we can end this tragic conflict through negotiation. If we cannot, then we will end it through Vietnamization.

But end it we shall in a way which fulfills our commitment to the people of South Vietnam and which gives them the chance for which they have already sacrificed so much -- the chance to choose their own future.

THE LESSONS OF CHANGE

The American people have learned many lessons in the wake of Vietnam-some helpful and some dangerous. One important lesson is that we can best serve our own interests in the world by setting realistic limits on what we try to accomplish unilaterally. For the peace of the world will be more secure, and its progress more rapid, as more nations come to share more fully in the responsibilities for peace and for progress.

At the same time, to conclude that the United States should now withdraw from all or most of its international responsibilities would be to make a dangerous error. There has been a tendency among some to swing from one extreme to the other in the wake of Vietnam, from wanting to do too much in the world to wanting to do too little.

We must resist this temptation to over-react. We must stop the swinging pendulum before it moves to an opposite position, and forge instead an attitude toward the world which is balanced and sensible and realistic. America has an important role to play in international affairs, a great influence to exert for good.

As we have throughout this century, we must continue our profound concern for advancing peace and freedom, by the most effective means possible, even as we shift somewhat our view of what means are most effective. This is our policy:

-- We will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or of our allies.

-- We will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves.

-- We will faithfully honor all of our treaty commitments.

-- We will act to defend our interests whenever and wherever they are threatened any place in the world.

-- But where our interests or our treaty commitments are not involved our role will be limited.

-- We will not intervene militarily.

-- But we will use our influence to prevent war.

-- If war comes we will use our influence to try to stop it.

-- Once war is over we will do our share in helping to bind up the wounds of those who have participated in it.

OPENING NEW LINES OF COMMUNICATION

Even as we seek to deal more realistically with our partners, so we must also deal more realistically with those who have been our adversaries. In the last year we have made a number of notable advances toward this goal. In our dealings with the Soviet Union, for example, we have been able, together with our allies, to reach an historic agreement concerning Berlin.

We have advanced the prospects for limiting strategic armaments. We have moved toward greater cooperation in space research and toward improving our economic relationships. There have been disappointments such as South Asia and uncertainties such as the Middle East. But there has also been progress we can build on.

It is to build on the progress of the past and to lay the foundations for greater progress in the future that I will soon be visiting the capitals of both the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union. These visits will help to fulfill the promise I made in my Inaugural address when I said "that during this administration our lines of communication will be open," so that we can help create "an open world-open to ideas, open to the exchange of goods and people, a world in which no people, great or small, will live in angry isolation." It is in this spirit that I will undertake these journeys.

We must also be realistic, however, about the scope of our differences with these governments. My visits will mean. not that our differences have disappeared or will disappear in the near future. But peace depends on the ability of great powers to live together on the same planet despite their differences.

The important thing is that we talk about these differences rather than fight about them. It would be a serious mistake to say that nothing can come of our expanded communications with Peking and Moscow. But it would also be a mistake to expect too much too quickly. It would also be wrong to focus so much attention on these new opportunities that we neglect our old friends.

That is why I have met in the last few weeks with the leaders of two of our hemisphere neighbors, Canada and Brazil, with the leaders of three great European nations, and with the Prime Minister of Japan. I believe these meetings were extremely successful in cementing our understandings with these governments as we move forward together in a fast changing period.

Our consultations with our allies may not receive as much attention as our talks with potential adversaries. But this makes them no less important. The cornerstone of our foreign policy remains -- and will remain -- our close bonds with our friends around the world.

A STRONG DEFENSE: THE GUARDIAN OF PEACE

There are two additional elements which are critical to our efforts to strengthen the structure of peace. The first of these is the military strength of the United States. In the last 3 years we have been moving from a wartime to a peacetime footing, from a period of continued confrontation and arms competition to a period of negotiation and potential arms limitation, from a period when America often acted as policeman for the world to a period when other nations are assuming greater responsibility for their own defense.

I was recently encouraged, for example, by the decision of our European allies to increase their share of the NATO defense budget by some $1 billion. As a part of this process, we have ended the production of chemical and biological weaponry and have converted two of our largest facilities for such production to humanitarian research.

We have been able to reduce and in some periods even to eliminate draft calls. In 1971, draft calls -- which were as high as 382,000 at the peak of the Vietnam war -- fell below 100,000, the lowest level since 1962. In the coming year they will be significantly lower. I am confident that by the middle of next year we can achieve our goal of reducing draft calls to zero.

As a result of all these developments, our defense spending has fallen to 7 percent of our gross national product in the current fiscal year, compared with 8.3 percent in 1964 and 9.5 percent in 1968. That figure will be down to 6.4 percent in fiscal year 1973. Without sacrificing any of our security interests, we have been able to bring defense spending below the level of human resource spending for the first time in 20 years.

This condition is maintained in my new budget -- which also, for the first time, allocates more money to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare than to the Department of Defense. But just as we avoid extreme reactions in our political attitudes toward the world, so we must avoid over-reacting as we plan for our defense.