Conversation 123-003

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Thank you.

We're gonna make it!

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah?

We have a subject today, as we know, that has no constituency except with statesmen for a day.

And so that's why I'm here.

I feel like we're going to try to present it in an orderly way and then have some discussion.

Jerry, how are you?

The first is actually .

It covers a number of committees, that's why we have .

But I guess by administration, I remember the very Eisenhower administration, who was sort of trying to sell foreign aid to a Democratic Congress.

And it wasn't easy.

And now this administration, we've got a solid deal.

I just say, John, you and I have talked, John, I just say tonight I've talked about 487.

I know that.

I don't care.

But what you present is not in terms of something that we think is going to give you a lot of .

But presented in three parcels.

Mr. Kerr will be just going into the main security aspects of it.

Bill Rogers then will cover the aspects of it that have to do with our foreign policy mentality.

And then we'll finally wind up with John Hanna, who will talk about those parts of Ornate that

Well, today it's 0.5, so, I don't know, 0.6 or 0.7 or whatever it is.

So, Henry is here, Henry Rock.

Henry is in here to fill out.

Henry is late as usual.

He probably got some stock in the last minute or so.

I hope.

He's actually doing a nice job.

Mr. President, I don't want to take too much time.

I know this is a complicated subject and we've all been through it many times.

I think it might be better, Mr. President, to go to the ground and talk to Senator Henry.

If you want to start, we were going to have a meeting.

Why don't you schedule to say a few words first?

I want you to start out on the national security part.

I want you to stand up here and everybody can all see.

I was part of the

I'd like to make a few observations about the relationship of what we're proposing to the next doctrine.

Ever since this administration came to office last year, our policy says that the security assistance field has been transferred to the countries concerned.

to get on that.

We've been discussing partnership, indigenous strength, and negotiations.

tried to increase our friends to their own security and not have to rely on the United States.

For the time we were all in, uh, in Memphis.

And as a result the, uh,

The grounds have decreased consistently.

They're now at one-third of the level that they were very, very good at, and half of that appeared in the 1960s.

In 1966, the largest grants we made were for Korea, South Vietnam, East Turkey, the Republic of China, and Iran.

Today, in 1974, Iran has cash for all of its military items.

We're giving them a lot of cash.

And Turkey and Turkey are using more and more credit, although we still have a lot of

the size of a grand ghetto's country.

Also during this administration, as you know, there's around 20,000 troops from Korea, and they have produced, of course, in addition to Vietnam, in every other area except Europe, for instance.

I like that one of yours.

We expect the security system to finish as we are reducing our own forces of growth, as we are reducing our global commitments, as we are trying to bring into line the American commitments with the American interests.

And as we are asking other countries to assume a larger share of the burden of their .

It is imperative that these countries be given the opportunity to stand on their own feet in the security system.

The thrust of the next doctorate is to take the United States out of the

front line of the confrontations, except in the areas of the most vital immediate concern, to shift the responsibility to the countries concerned, but to give them the assistance that is necessary to enable them to defend themselves, particularly when they are faced by opponents.

that received considerable assistance, assistance themselves, and therefore what we are attempting to do in this area is to implement an exit doctrine, implement a doctrine of gender responsibility,

It's a shorter speech, Henry, with me.

Mr. President, I think what I'm trying to say is that there are other people who do this many times, and you all have your own views on different aspects of it.

I'd like to first say that the request for maintenance is considerably smaller than we have made in the past, particularly in the foreign assistance field, if you will.

I'm talking about John Hannis, part of the request.

I'd like to make just a few comments about the, what we call, security assistance.

because it so directly relates to our point of contact.

And I'd like first to talk about the area in the Pacific.

We have a good deal of money in here for 600 and some odd million for reconstruction and rehabilitation in South Vietnam.

We have some kind of obligation to each.

Whether the amount is correct or not, I don't know, but certainly we've got to help reconstruct and rehabilitate and assist in the humanitarian needs of that area as a result of the actions that we've taken since 1965.

And it's essential, I think, we made it clear that we would help them once there was a ceasefire.

We have a ceasefire.

And I think we have an obligation to assist reasonably to help them make transitions on the border of peace.

So I said yesterday in the testimony before Senator Fulbright's committee, the situation looks somewhat better in Vietnam.

I'm confident that we're going to have a ceasefire there.

And so the way we're reflecting is for that purpose.

It really is an important assistance, in the true sense of the word, assistance that we, I think, should provide in view of our relationship with people in that area since 1965 or earlier.

We also, in that area of the world, as Henry said, reduced our troop strength in Korea by 20,000, and we told the greats at the time, and I think everyone was advised that we would try to

assist them to modernize their forces so we could continue the withdrawal of our troops.

Gradually, in an ostensible way, not to repeat what happened before the Korean War, but to continue to have a stable situation in Korea.

And there's something like $260 million in this request for South Korea.

We have some money for the Philippines.

We reduced our presence in the Philippines.

that we have some money in there for Thailand because Thailand has been involved with the United States in the war.

So those matters are really not assistance in the usual sense of the word, just giveaways.

They're quite a lot more policy that we think importantly

the security arrangements that exist in the Pacific.

And we think we should continue now, although the amount is right, and obviously something we'll have to discuss when we testify.

We'll be very happy to go over all aspects of this with the members of Congress.

The same thing is true of the Middle East.

It's a difficult, it's a difficult problem in the Middle East and Cold War.

We want to continue to have good relations with the Arab world and also to have excellent relations with Israel.

We want to try to maintain the ceasefire, which the United States wrote about.

And in order to do that, we have to make some contributions.

a considerable amount of money that he requested for Israel.

And without it, I think there would be a very unpleasant and unfortunate situation that might develop in the Middle East because Israel depends on this assistance for its security and

We have some money in here for Lebanon, which they need.

Very difficult situation for Lebanon.

It's easy to criticize them, but they don't have the ability to maintain their own security internally, and we've been providing them, to some extent, to violate their picture secretly, but giving them assistance to maintain some internal security, because they're threatened with the Fedayeen.

The government's very split.

We have a substantial amount of money for Jordan in here.

Fortunately, the king is strong, his government is strong, and he's put down the threat of the Fed in Jordan, and that stabilized the whole area.

So the fact is that our program, at least, I think is working.

It's not working as well as we would like it to.

We would hope very much that we could do more for this highly emotional and difficult situation.

We've been able to maintain pretty friendly relations with the world.

They all know that we're helping Jordan, and they know we help Lebanon to some extent.

We have pretty good relations with Algeria and so forth, so it's a tough policy to pursue.

I was recently happy to support Israel to the extent that we can maintain the ceasefire.

But when it gets down to it, it says we have to understand this around this table.

Virtually every member of the House and Senate is for aid to Israel with virtually a blank check.

The other part is that, on the other hand, when you've got Israel as a client,

It raises hell with the 100 million people who are Israel's neighbors.

And so you give a little to Jordan, you pass out a little to Lebanon and all the rest.

And so the point is, why do we talk Israel then?

Why do we talk Israel?

Because putting it now in foreign policy terms and not in terms of simply the domestic considerations where

85 members of the Senate will come out for aid to Israel beyond what they've even advocated.

And the fight is very clear that Israel there is in a situation where it's surrounded by neighbors who in many instances are supported by

powers that are not particularly friendly to Europe and to the United States.

We could go into the reasons why or the rest, but as long as the United States gets a plan checked to Israel, we have a very difficult time in establishing any kind of relationship with Egypt.

With Algeria, with, needless to say, Syria, who are a little bit on the nutty side, as are most of the people in that area, on the break, except for the Israelis and the Iraqis.

Now, that's probably never been said around this table, because I know the usual thing is to say, well, Israel is obviously,

Different situations, of course it's different.

They're by far the English people, not only in that area, they're over.

At the end of the day, ask for no assistance from us in terms of fighting their wars.

They, like all of their neighbors, in three or four days, right today, they did a six-day war.

It's probably, we hold the ring against the Russians.

Mr. President, I think it's important to keep in mind that we're really not playing it.

It's not double-dealing because Israel knows what we're doing with Jordan and they know what we're doing with Lebanon and they want us to do it.

In other words, the assistance we get to Jordan and to Lebanon and the relationship we have with Saudi Arabia is not anti-Israel.

But these Arab countries have a problem with Fatim and they really don't want to have a war with Israel, but they don't want to appear to fail to support the Palestinians.

And the result is that in order to assist King Hussein,

which we have to do in order to work well with Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

We have to do it in a way that makes it clear to Israel that's not anti-Israeli, and in our dealings with other Arab countries, they have to understand that what we're trying to do is maintain stability in the area.

So the contributions that we make to Jordan are very central.

And the relationship you have with Israel is unobtrusive, almost.

No, not at all.

In fact, they favor it.

In other words, the contributions we make to Jordan are in favor of Israel.

We don't say it publicly, and they don't say it publicly.

It would be harmful to the king.

But that is a fact.

Israel works reasonably closely with Lebanon, which is not apparent in the press, but they do.

Well, when you come, what I mean is, when you come to the bar,

the Saudis, when you come to the other neighborhoods, the Egyptians and so forth, they have a very different kind of deal.

You have a situation where there's simply no rationality.

And the reason I say all this is because of my experience.

Why did you get all these people to sit down?

You can't get people to sit down.

Each of them wants to, you know, have the order.

So that's what it is.

I think this spreads the thought that sometimes when we read the standpoint, it appears that we're providing both sides with military supplies, for example, in the Middle East.

And that seems logical, but that's not what we're doing at all.

We're trying to maintain the stability of the area, and it's working.

We haven't had any fighting between Israel and Egypt for three years now.

And the policy is successful.

And yet, if you analyzed it in college classroom, you would say, well, the United States is supplying arms to both sides, and that is not what we're doing.

And that's not why we're doing it.

We have to also understand that one of the reasons we have to have fighting

And Syria will not and cannot fight.

Plus, and until they know, the Soviet will back them.

So the key to this policy committee, the real key, is whether or not our relations with the Soviet remain on some sort of

on a sanitary basis.

Because without some kind of, I'm not referring to Soviet arms, people aren't going to learn to use them.

They will take them 20 years.

I'm just referring to the fact that if Soviet backing ever gets into that situation, Israel is headed

And that's why we come later to the whole situation about NATO.

People can say, look, help Israel, that's fine.

I mean, and, because Israel can defend itself and so forth.

Israel, without the sixth fleet, would have been down to two a few years ago.

And that's what we've got to realize.

Mr. President, I failed to mention Indonesia.

We're continuing to give assistance to Indonesia on a modest basis, and I think that policy's worked very well.

I think the country's stable.

They depend very much on a small amount of military assistance they get from us.

It's here again, it's not to

have controversy with their neighbors, it's merely to maintain the general security of that country for a good job.

Surprisingly so, when you think of the problems they had there.

Although they are listed as a neutral nation, they certainly are very friendly with the United States, and their investors are going to Indonesia, and this program's working pretty well.

I was there in December, and I met with Adrian Dixon, and it seems to me we're getting a lot for very little money.

I think those are some of the things we're getting.

We're getting a lot for very little money.

We have to realize it.

and also lay names on the table if you'd like to do it as far as you can.

He's a good friend of mine who was in the office a couple of days.

Corruption, apparently, is a way of life in Asia in particular.

And we're getting a lot for very little money.

They're getting, let me say, a much smaller amount than we think.

I think, Mr. President, I don't have much else to say about answering questions.

In Latin America, we've asked for the authority to make a slight increase in the sales to Latin American countries.

And I know this is something that some of you don't agree with, but the amount is very small.

And what we face in Latin America is that nations, regardless of how small they are, regardless of their domestic situation,

want a defense establishment of some kind within the nation, and I know of one that's so good, if only it wasn't, that doesn't want some kind of military establishment.

And they'll get one.

And they can buy military equipment somewhere.

In Latin America over the years we have been a source of military supplies.

And they are now, some of them are more successful.

They want to modernize their forces and they want to buy airplanes.

And we find that we're in competition with our European friends.

and in some cases with Soviet Union.

And if we don't sell them planes, they'll get planes from France or somewhere else.

So we would like to have the authority to increase that slightly, not very much.

But I think it is important for us to maintain not a large amount to provide, I'm speaking about sales, to sell them large amounts, since maybe you have to be

We have to be moderate in what we do, but it seems to me we should maintain a relationship with Latin American countries and admit us to selling a reasonable amount of planes and other equipment that they will buy anyway.

And that's the reason for the request.

So I think that the- Put it another way, Bill, I think the state of Latin America, for this rather modest amount that we have, you know, Frank Church disagrees with this, and many others do too.

The question is, if you don't put everybody who's been in Latin America, they're going to get it.

And the question is, who's influence best serves the cause of stability in the Western Hemisphere?

Is it better to have them influenced by the branch where it works, the Russians, or by the United States?

We have a situation in Peru, for example, we have another situation where the Peruians want to buy

uh and because of the restrictions we can't sell them the planes and they are now i guess going to buy russian planes but they're negotiating now with the russians and i think they'll probably end up buying russian planes i don't think that's a disaster but i think it's

It's questionable policy whether we should say we want 30 planes, go ahead and buy planes for the Soviet Union.

I agree with those who have some reservations about that we should limit the amount and we shouldn't assist them in buying more than they need or more than they can stand domestically or give it some

and they go to buy the plane somewhere else, it seems to me that it's sensible to get those mathematicians to not to cut off their ability to buy planes.

Buying a plane is not the hard way.

The problem is that the instructors that go with it,

training of the personnel and the Soviet Union is the influence that the military has in so many of these Latin American countries.

So then, what in itself may be a rather minor transaction can have a very significant political consequence in terms of the orientation of the officers.

And that's particularly the case in Peru.

The officers come to us from Peru and say, please don't force us to do this.

We don't want Russian advisors.

We don't want Russian technicians.

We don't want Russian repairmen here.

We'd like to buy a plane from you.

We say, well, there's a restriction.

You can't buy a plane.

Bill, how many players do you want to buy?

Well, it's a modest buy.

Not 12 or something like that.

It's a good deal.

The king must have some clothes.

The one thing we can't do, Les, is we can't make them not buy planes.

No.

Oh, we can do that.

Young people, they sort of ask, why don't you, why don't you make it clear to the Marines they shouldn't do this?

Don't let them buy the planes.

Oh, they're gonna buy the planes.

They're gonna buy them from somewhere.

And this is true, as I say, it's true even in Latin America, I mean, even in Africa.

Go to Africa, the first thing they do is have you review the troops at the airport.

You know, no matter what the country is.

So they're all going to have a military establishment sometime.

And they have to get the equipment somewhere.

And we shouldn't be carried away with this thought.

We shouldn't be the main supplier, but we shouldn't be out of the business entirely.

I mean, that's the reason for the .

What is the reason we catch them?

Is there a legal reason?

Well, in the case of Peru, we have this restriction because they have arrested some of our fishing folks

We say that under those circumstances, we're going to cut off all foreign sales, all foreign military sales.

We have been trying to, I don't think that policy works.

It seems to work if you, if you could, you know, if you just write a paper about it.

It doesn't work in practice.

And what we would hope in the case of crew, in the case of

and these other countries.

And in this convention that we're going to have on the law of the sea, if we could work out some sensible rules of the sea, the law of the sea.

But for the moment, we have this problem with Peru.

I hope to get on there soon, and I hope to work out some kind of a system that will permit us to have a little more sensible policy toward Peru in the meantime.

But anyway, Mr. President, I talked too much, but let me just conclude by saying I realize how controversial this subject is.

From the standpoint of foreign policy, in every one of these cases, we think it's important, not because we think this contributes to instability in the world, but because we were convinced that it creates stability, and when we testify,

for the committees, I would hope that we can have a discussion on a country by country basis of what we're doing and why we're doing it.

We've changed the requests we're making.

They're smaller than they have been in the past.

And we think that they are essential to the conduct of the foreign policy that we pursued, I think, successfully, Mr. President.

I have to give a point.

In 1962,

I remember Bobby Kennedy had gone to Indonesia several times.

I, this is just after, I think it was in 2003, and I was very critical of the then administration for providing military assistance in Indonesia at the time.

And Sakarno was kicking us around.

I remember he was pretty rough.

had we not provided that assistance.

And it wasn't the assistance so much because it was, frankly, but it was the fact that the

military were trained in the United States or trained by U.S. people there and all the rest.

And if not for that, in the Navy, with 140 million people, far more important than all of the time put together, because it's 1,000 miles of islands flying across the whole area of the world, and it's 14 miles from the Philippines, the gateway to Australia.

In the Navy today, with the companies,

culture.

What happened?

Does this mean that Suharto is, uh, the, the, the, the, the, called the Indonesian, uh, uh, military leader?

Is, uh, is thereby, uh, the, uh, very great, uh, uh, man creative in the United States?

No, I mean, he's a very decent fellow.

I don't know about corruption.

I'm essentially quite a dentist in that part of the world.

And there's a reluctant man, Mellie, who is, as you know, a fellow human, though I'm also an enormously evil man who leans more than he can on his side.

But the point that I made is that in Indonesia, looking back at that little bit of history,

Frankly, the Kennedy administration was right, and those of us who criticized it were wrong.

It was important to the United States to continue a program of military assistance in the Navy at that time, or in the Navy it would be gone like that.

Mr. President, I just want to make one more comment about South Korea.

The fact is that when we were doing 20,000 in South Korea, we told them that we'd have to modernize their courses.

But at the same time, we encouraged them to have discussions with the North Koreans.

That program is succeeding.

And if we continue to give reasonable and reasonably modest support, I think, to South Korea, I think we'll have more influence in getting them to negotiate a successful inclusion with the North Koreans.

They were very fearful of even having talks with them.

I think those talks are going to succeed.

It's going to take a long time.

And the fact that they know that they are getting support from us who are not going to move out all of our troops quickly gives them reasonable confidence so they can negotiate with us.

And I think that's very, very important.

So again, it's not a matter of

of providing just military equipment.

It's a matter of providing enough assurance to them by which military equipment modernization so that they can work some of these things out with their neighbors and that we can withdraw from there gradually.

and not repeat the mistakes that we made in the past.

And I think, there again, it's where, Mr. President, I thought maybe, is that, you see, I just want to ask a question, you know, that, Mr. President, does this proposal involve money, like $3 billion?

incorporate all of the discussion systems that you've attended.

This was said before, and you can attend it back in Congress, and ask for additional money for these discussions.

Please, sir.

Yes, this is going on.

There's nothing in the area further.

I don't know why.

The reason there's nothing in addition to it is that Northgate and East Dillard, that means that there's a big division for each of the cities.

And my commitment for even considering or ever presenting to the leaders any proposals for a reconstruction for North Vietnam is that they comply with the peace agreement.

They are violating the three areas.

Others as well.

One, they have not withdrawn their forces from Cambodia.

Two, they have not withdrawn their forces from Laos.

And third, in addition to that, they have not,

apply with the provisions with regard to the cooperation, the meetings that have been set up for our MIAs.

A lot of you get questions on that and wonder about it.

Believe me, until they comply, I will never ask the Congress for one hand for an argument.

If they comply with the agreement, or there'll be no

This does give our great, great construction assistance when we can't build the alive sands out of it.

that allows Cambodia and South Vietnam, that's right.

That's it.

So the only supplemental that we'd be inclined to request is the one aggressive person for North Vietnam.

But at the moment, it's just that we're going to have to face that problem.

Mr. President, prior to the recent Indo-China trip, I took on this very question.

I would see the Secretary General behind the vastness of Japan

to ascertain their attitudes and systems, and start to pull forward and start to assist them.

And each country was not only willing, but rather eager to contribute substantially, I should say.

Great Britain said it couldn't contribute substantially, but it contributed to the good of other countries, particularly Japan.

And I believe it's so, it's an honor.

and all of them wanted to contribute.

I'm just wondering how much have we done to ascertain what these other countries could do so that we could get on with multilaterally systems and the American government has to be put into .

Senator, we have talked to every nation

that have shown any interest at all in this.

And it is true that there is a willingness to contribute.

I think that the willingness may be overstated sometimes in private conversations, but there is a willingness to contribute.

For example, a community talks about making contributions and so forth.

When it gets down to talking about knowledge, they're all pretty careful.

Well, anyway, to answer your question, it's only $30 million.

Now, Warnheim, he had $200 million he had at the present time committed.

Japan, it was much more than $30 million at the time.

They said they were actually ready to give on a non-explanatory basis.

Well, let me say, we are doing everything we can to encourage them to actually be prepared to make the most possible contributions.

And we've talked to all of them.

We've talked to the Japanese.

Of course, we've talked to the community.

We've talked to Canada and others.

So we've had discussions throughout the world on this subject.

The question, of course, is how much

that North, South, and East will accept from these countries.

For example, Japan is very reluctant to be part of North, South, and East.

And also, there's a great reluctance on the part of North, South, and East.

Maybe it's more than reluctance.

The refusal so far to accept anything to the United Nations South Pacific.

Do the West Country's bill predicate their willingness to make these contributions based on living up to the agreement by the North Vietnamese or not?

Well, we've been talking to them on that basis, so I'm not sure.

I think in some cases, they'd be willing to contribute in any event, but we've been talking to them on the basis of living up to the agreement.

Gentlemen, my question was, I'm taking into consideration when your estimates have the right response

And that is your answer that we did get substantial money.

The Joint Economic Commission is studying the requirements of North Vietnam and motivating the student who is the chief chairman of our delegation.

is one of the most experienced, many of the most experienced that we have in the reconstruction field, at least taking into account the total, the total requirements.

We had the right, because we have now suspended talks due to, due to the violation of the agreement.

But the way the Joint Economic Commission has proceeded is for the North Korean nation to state their needs in various fields on a five-year basis.

so that we could then design a one-year-at-a-time program taking into account the availability of all other sources, but we've never reached a point yet where we could put it all together because we've suspended the negotiations, but the intention would be to take all other contributions.

Senator, before we made any requests to the Congress,

We were certainly taking into account all the other possible contributors and we would advise the Congress about what the extent of those contributions might be.

And we would put before the Congress the whole study that this Joint Economic Commission does so that the Congress can judge by itself in Canada both the requirement and the contributions of others.

Bill, may I ask how soon will the whole package come up, including, of course, the North Vietnamese?

Is it coming up today or tomorrow?

Tomorrow.

Mr. President, we haven't asked John Hannifin to say a few words about this.

Before we leave, I want to ask a point.

Let me say again, John, a point.

You've heard me say many times, including here in the state of Massachusetts, many times, that the United States, for too long, has carried a major share of

finishing not only the weapons, but the lives and the money to keep easing the world.

And now that the nations that we have helped rebuild life in Japan and life in Europe are now able to help, try to get on their sails and start helping.

And believe me, in the conversations I had with Braun, and the conversations I had with Tanaka, and all these people, it's going to be a lot of cold, dirty talk.

You're absolutely right.

He can't deliver many times, but what you have to do here is that we have to, on a bilateral basis, talk to these countries and say, look here, we're doing this, you ought to do this, or otherwise we can't do certain things you want.

And that's what we're gonna do.

But I couldn't agree more that the burden, it isn't just there, you see.

It's all over the world, right?

The burden, specifically, is so-called underdeveloped countries.

The burden is a matter of fact in some of these areas that are potential explosives.

The burden should not be that borne solely by, or, shall we say, almost solely by the United States.

Now, what we have to bear in mind, of course, is another point.

We do not want to get that burden

moved in a way that will bring, shall we say, interests into an area that might serve not the cause of peace, but the cause of war.

But somebody suggests, well, now, in terms of the rebuilding of South Vietnam, why don't the Russians come in and help?

South Vietnamese don't want to leave.

That would not be in our records, or it wouldn't be in theirs.

As a matter of fact, the Romans are too keen on assaulting the North King.

So in other words, there is a foreign policy point here, too.

But with regard to your point with regard to multilateral, multilateral, I'll put it in another way, multinational participation in this is a major goal of this foreign policy.

It's a fundamental thing that we've got to do.

We'll help countries to help themselves, in fact, and we expect other nations with capabilities that we have helped them develop to do their share.

And they aren't doing it today.

You're absolutely right.

And that's what we're here for.

That gets to the heart of the question, doesn't it?

Because I just don't think that'll encourage people who see us doing it alone.

You bet you're lying.

You did lie.

Well, John, would you like to take off your giveaway programs?

What else is there?

Mr. President, gentlemen, I want to talk about development assistance.

This is a very complicated subject.

We're here this morning because the Senate and the President sent me a form written very long.

The authorization has been approved for our assistance.

Foreign assistance has ended, whereas military assistance and military signals have not yet been supported.

You all remember that the government of foreign assistance was missed at the end of World War II, but it was clearly an hour or less to help the people of Western Europe restore their economic, social, political systems.

The Marshall Plan was a great success, and a lot of people said, well, it was time, a lot of money, a great many very able people were at it, and it was expanded to Japan before it was finished in Western Europe.

After the Marshall Plan was a success, it was clear that the colonial powers were going to have to release their colonies and make them independent if they wanted to become independent.

Mr. Truman looked at the world and, sir, two-thirds of all the people in the world at that time.

They are in what he called the underdeveloped countries.

He proposed in the inaugural address for the term which he's elected, the fourth point in the address of the suggestion the Congress made it possible for him to make available

to the poor countries, the underdeveloped countries, a minority of expertise and know-how and technical assistance, to help them help themselves if they wanted to, but to be on the best basis, it was a very simple piece of people operation.

All of you will remember who attended that conference, everybody who bought a new top hat for Dewey's and Iger.

We all sat there, and Colonel Cook was on point four.

The, uh, his time went on, and the time of this, the guy was Billy Manning, you know.

Well, the communists began to take over the countries of Eastern Europe and the People's Republic, whose only aspirations were to control Asia.

It was natural that once Saturday August 24th, in all regions, we began to be concerned with military assistance helping the countries surrounding the communist world help themselves, resist communism if they would.

That's how mad military assistance is.

Foreign military sales, government foreign assistance, eh?

In the county administration, when the decision was made to reorganize, whether to point forward or reorganize Ambulance of Kinds, and what is now AID, and I don't know this, but I suspect, reading everything that's available to read, that when the decision was made to testify in the fight to war, they looked around the federal government and found that in what had been AID, the point forward successor agency, which was then taken for operation restrictions.

had a substantial number of people and had a good deal of experience in operation courses.

So the decision was made that everything in Vietnam that wasn't military would be handled by SE.

But it wasn't going to be called AID, it would be called Supporting Assistance.

And the definition for Supporting Assistance was those programs

prosecuted in the interest of the United States that had military or short-range political objectives.

But it wouldn't be mixed up in the so-called .4 amount of assistance that we accelerated to send into the Congress on that basis.

Now, in the new bill, as in the old bills in recent years, there is military assistance employing those very sales and supporting assistance, which is intended to now transform into re-instruction and re-organization and humanitarian assistance for South Vietnam while it's getting loaded in, maybe North Vietnam in a day or two.

Well, this thing now that we talk about is development assistance, people assistance.

It's complicated.

It's technical assistance, it's development loans, it's disaster relief, it's PL4A, it's carried in the budget of agriculture, but it's actually handled in the countries by AID, More on Hunger and Food for Peace.

It's the harnessing of voluntary agencies, of church groups and care, and all the other agencies that are involved in the needs of distressed people or poor people.

It's got it all in the works.

The financing of the UN agencies that are not in the assessment categories, UNDP and WHO and FAO and UNFPA and so on, they're a section of this bill.

The way I suspected it, we got to talk about it all because there wouldn't be many minutes left, and that's where we are.

So instead of spending a lot of time rambling over the number of shots in the State Department, remember that I left out what I wanted to say.

I think you get the job done better, you know, on a schedule of about six or eight minutes that I have here, trying to come up with what I would like to put before you this morning.

Boris is the 4A Legislative Council of Rocky Road in Congress.

The 4A Legislative Council of Rocky Road in Congress last year was again caught up in issues and controversies not directly related to the Warren April.

He faces the beginning of a new fiscal year just two short months away, and there has to be an authorization for all of his foreign assistance, development, military supporting assistance, or whatever.

The fact that nearly three-fourths of the world's total population, in Truman's day it was two-thirds, now it's about three-quarters of all the people on this earth live in the less developed countries.

And gentlemen, they will continue to be a determinant

of the world's political and economic conditioning.

We in the United States cannot achieve our aspirations for a peaceful world community and an exciting economy in isolation from them.

And despite substantial economic progress in many of the poor countries during the past decade, their common condition is poverty.

The gains that have been made have been unevenly distributed or too often overwhelmed by population growth.

I can add one thing.

John, being a defined, decent, humanitarian man that you are, you have mentioned, of course, all these humanitarian considerations.

Not only do two-thirds of the people of the world live there, but

In terms of the world's raw materials, in terms of the world's energy, in terms of the things that we need, two-thirds of it is also there.

In terms of the world's markets, to the point of where are we going to be able to trade balance?

Not much they can buy, but a lot we can buy from them.

But you know, we should realize that our interests are not simply

all that way, and it doesn't make points particularly with that, but pretty realistic.

I want to say a country like Indonesia.

Sure, Indonesia is poor, and Indonesia gets more out of the A's and G's, but on the other hand, Indonesia is an enormously rich country.

It's the Vice President's requirement to return to the district.

Enormously rich, since that's one of its natural sources of potentially

The conditions of poverty and the gains that have been made have been unevenly distributed or too often overwhelmed by unshed population growth.

Too generally, the gaps have grown between the political and economic elites, which have abandoned the modernization of a much larger group of rural peasants and urban laborers that may remain trapped in conditions of severe deprivation.

Half the people of all the countries in the poor world are really in poverty stricken.

by a measure of poverty that we don't think about in this country.

Trade, investment, and critical resource needs as mentioned by the President.

Through those items, the welfare of the United States and the other industrialized nations are linked to the welfare of the people of the LDC.

We share with them a common interest in an open international economic system in which all nations benefit from an increased flow of goods and services.

The solutions to world problems and environmental pollution, including archive control, the security of travel, requires broad international cooperation, including participation of the developing countries.

The development of a satisfactory international monetary exchange system requires their participation and cooperation.

For all of these moral, economic, and political reasons, a continuing U.S. response to the challenge of development is as much in our own interest as it is in that of the fellow nations.

The appropriate response to the challenge is a system of tactical institutional economic relationships between the industrialized countries and the poor countries.

And much of the machinery for this joint systematic approach is in place and includes agencies of the U.N. and the international lending institutions and the U.S. bilateral programs and the bilateral assistance programs of the other 16 major aid-giving countries.

LAID is a key element in this system.

Our bilateral aid program is a flexible, innovative tool which can meet unique U.S. purposes more directly, more quickly, and more effectively than can other modes of assistance.

And more importantly, it seems to meet the basic human needs of masses of poor people in the poor countries.

It provides a channel for U.S. leadership, a clear identification of U.S. participation, and a visible demonstration of U.S. constancy and dependability.

The International Health Assistance System, now in place, both bilateral and multilateral, is functioning more effectively each year.

The Publicity Committee Reform Plan, recommended by the administration in 1971, was not approved by the Congress.

In late 1971, AID undertook a major internal review to develop a program based on current realities, and the resulting changes were put into effect beginning in 1972, and they are a part of the fiscal 74 program.

The plan provides for a tighter, more responsive AID program characterized by a more collaborative style of assistance, concentration on a few key human problems, food production and nutrition, population planning and health, education and human resource development, and public administration.

Increased emphasis on innovative research, increased attention to the growing problems of unemployment, increased participation of U.S. private organizations in project planning, evaluation, and implementation,

better integration of technical capital and food assistance, and a reduced U.S. governmental presence and profile overseas.

AID has made substantial progress in implementing these reforms, and the fiscal 74 program builds upon and accelerates the pace of that progress.

At the height of the infrastructure development in 1968, the total direct hire of AID worldwide staff reached a high of almost 18,000 persons.

This level has been reduced to $14,400 at the end of fiscal 70, $13,400 at the end of 71, $11,700 at the end of 72, $10,800 now, and is scheduled to decrease to $9,900 at fiscal 74.

An overall reduction of almost 50%.

Substantial additional reductions can be accomplished through the approval of the recommendations in today's legislation to include AID career foreign service employees under the terms of the Foreign Service Retirement Permissions that now cover state and AID personnel.

This would encourage AID employees who are eligible to retire to do so and remove the mandatory retirement age from the present 70 years

With 15 years of service, if the man is 70 years old but hasn't been on the job 50 years and wants to stay, he can.

The changes to the normal retirement age is 60, with possible extensions at the age of 65, unimbursable pension.

The authorization act, according to the House last year, included a similar provision.

The standard did not finally add in the authorization bill.

One of the Secretary Rogers made that this is a very modest program that's going forward today.

It represents a reduction of over 20% from our request for current year funding.

The relevant request is almost a third below that of last year, talking about my possibility of poverty.

It's $50 million below what we've actually received under the terms of the continuing resolution.

We do not believe that this federal bilateral funding responds adequately to the needs of the West developed world, but it represents a judgment as to what we should provide in light of the federal government's overriding need to economize its operations.

The only thrust of the program in fiscal 74 concerns the 25 least developed countries and 25 poorest countries.

All the multinational and bilateral aid programs have agreed to increase their emphasis on assistance and encouragement to the world's poorest 25 members of the UN, and all the bilateral aid programs and the lending agencies are all part of this program.

The NID intends to increase its emphasis, first in those poorest countries where we already have substantial programs, to be in Afghanistan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Sudan, Tanzania, and Yemen.

and regional programs covering the other African countries.

The second change is the one that's been mentioned by Secretary Rodgers in the present.

A continuation of economic assistance is proposed for South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to permit a sound beginning in the process of rehabilitation, reconstruction, and humanitarian assistance.

Assistance to the thousands of refugees is a high priority, as well as the restoration of essential community services in the region.

I'd like to conclude by just citing some simple statistics that illustrate other topics.

These are the best statistics that we can get on the population of the world and the production of the world.

73.9%, roughly 74%,

All the people in the world live in the poor countries, the developed countries.

If you want a broken-down free world versus the communist world, it's 49.5% in the free world and 24.4% in the communist world.

26.1% of the people on Earth live in the developed countries.

Western Europe, the United States, and China.

Let me ask you this, let me ask you this.

Does that include China?

China has put in the developing, Russia, Eastern Europe, of course, but I mean so you get your 29% that's not such a high figure because you include 850 people.

What I'm getting at is that you look at, we do not consider Russia and Eastern Europe, like Romania, et cetera, et cetera, as developing countries, but we do consider China.

China, that's 25% of all people, and the other 4%.

Because I was sure I had this chance to say it, and I've done colleagues in this.

26% that live in other countries, 9.2% are continents, that's Russia and Eastern Europe.

5.5% in the United States, and 11.4% in the other developed countries, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, et cetera.

Now that's the population.

Now what about the world's production?

The world's production is divided, I was talking about the poor countries first, 20.4% in the developing countries, of which 4.4% is communists.

by 74% of the world's people, responsible for 20.4% of the world's total production, industrial, agricultural, and everything else.

79.6% of the world's production is in the developed countries.

And if you want to break it down, it's 27.6% in the United States, 33.3% in the other developed countries in the free world, and 18.7% in the communist countries, Russia and Eastern Europe.

Meaning that only people are important.

After now better than four years, I've been your Aid Administrator longer than any man since the beginning of 2014.

All that demonstrates is that I have a fit tie in the top spirit.

But I am satisfied that only people are important in your hometown, in your county, in your state, or in our country.

or in any of the communities of the country's honor.

Everything else is only a means of providing better lives for people, poor lives.

Human problems do not stay bottled up behind national borders.

Uncontrolled human reproduction vitally affects the well-being of all nations.

Diseases ignore national boundaries.

polluted air and polluted water flows freely between countries.

And when I talk to people around the country and they begin to talk about a throwaway program and why should we spend anything overseas when we have city problems and all kinds of problems to go,

I find that when you get down to town, what are you interested in?

The average person in this country is more interested in what life's gonna be like in my hometown, in my county, in my state, in my country.

For my children, or if he's an older person like I am, and talking about your grandchildren, that's interesting.

What's it gonna be like?

My children, grandchildren, and yours must live in the same world where the children and grandchildren

of all the peoples of all the continents, all colors, and all religions.

I'm just a certain scientist, and he taught me this one.

And what life in the United States will be like for my grandchildren and yours depends very largely on what the world will be like in the day to day.

The United States has got to be a part of the world, and there isn't any way you can separate yourself from it.

And if your only interest is a selfish interest,

Satisfactory level of economic growth for the United States in the U.N. markets.

As the President mentioned, the U.N. has raw material.

And as our experts tell us, if in 1985 we're allowed to deny 30-plus billions of dollars in petroleum from the countries, largely the Arab countries or any of the other places where they can find it in the world,

Our interests are clearly tied in having available to us what we need to maintain a decent life back home.

Well, gentlemen, that's why I believe with a deep conviction that we owe it to our own interests and the future of our country to begin to look seriously at the role our country is going to play in determining the kind of world this is going to be.

And that is what development assistance in USAID is all about.

And after four years, I appreciate the opportunity to make this pitch tonight.

John, John, thank you for your very articulate presentation.

I just had a little poster.

I guess all of us around this table have to think not only of our children and grandchildren, but let's take a place that none of you really mention much today, Africa.

Let's just look at Africa, take a map of the world and look at Africa.

Compare it with the size of South America.

Compare it with the size of Asia.

Look at the number of people that are there.

not 15 years from now, not 25 years from now, perhaps not even 50 years from now, will Africa, in terms of its production, in terms of its number of people, will be a very significant force on the world stage, but 100 years from now.

It's just because it's there, it's big, that people are going to be strong and they're going to be vigorous.

It's going to be an enormous, enormous success.

And for the United States not to have some kind of a policy beginning now with Africa, even though we say, well, that's Europe's problem, et cetera, et cetera, you know what I mean?

The French have this interest, the Belgians have this interest, and so forth, Soviet.

Believe me, when you look at Akron, the number of people, the resources there that nobody's even thought of exploring yet.

I mean, we've got to think of that now.

I mean, I remember, Ed, when you and I were riding that plane back in 1967 when we talked about China.

And I guess you must have thought I'd been smoking opiates.

That would be more pot than charcoal.

But anyway, we talked about it.

That China was there, and we knew there was a great civilization and important people in the world.

We had to eventually work out a policy for China.

And I agree.

And you've spoken about that.

We don't need to think of it in those, shall we say, melodramatic terms at this moment.

But looking way to the future, here is a huge body of land, a potentially great number of people, enormous resources.

And therefore, policies that at least keep the United States involved are terribly important in that part of the world.

People say, why do you have to move to over here?

Why do you have to be in the presence of, you know, of, you know, Uncle Chad, or all these places, and so forth and so on.

And the answer is, not because of what's going on, it's going to affect us right now, but because there is the fusion.

to 100 years from now, peace is obvious.

One, there's another reason why we don't understand Africa.

The other is that most of the, generally the Africans, not in Africa, are in the United States.

And let us, our black people, learn more about the history of their own people, cultural backgrounds and so on, which are pretty distinguished.

They're going to have an increasing interest in, I'm talking about black Africa, from the Sahara to South Africa, leaving those blue tracks there.

And I want to put one more piece, one of the problems is disaster relief.

Now we've got a great flood in Bangladesh, or we have an earthquake in Madagascar, or one in Peru, or something else.

Of course, there's a great interest in disaster relief and interest in funding on power funding for the Congress to be generously provided.

You mentioned those black African countries.

There are six of those countries, starting with part of Senegal and part of Mauritania, and upper Moldova, and Bichère, and around Chad, and I've left out one or two, but I've got a little issue there on that.

It's a very substantial area.

That's going desert.

The Sahara is moving south substantially every year.

It's almost a desert now.

There are only 120 million people there.

They're going to starve to death.

Their only economic input has been livestock, and there is no feed left for them.

And now the problem is the livestock are going to go to those people.

They're practically the total population for six countries.

Well, you know, no one has any great interest in this, but we ought to have a real interest.

I just put that in because we not only have the interest in the future, I'm sure, but what are we going to do with this very large part of geography that unless history reverses itself and the desert begins to recede, somebody's got to be concerned with it.

We ought to be concerned.

Let me say, I do receive the customer problems.

I'd like to hear if you have some thoughts.

Let's be quite candid.

We know this is a real tough problem.

We know that, well,

We've never received your bill, Mr. President.

I thought we ought to get on with the business.

Well, we hope we will beat you to the wire.

How much of this job that we started out doing under point four is now being done by international lending organizations and so forth?

Success is part of it.

And on the bilateral programs, about 40% of them are in the United States and about 60% here in the Gulf countries.

In the beginning, we were all in the boat.

We talked about the international lending ones too, but that's for everything.

I mean, you know, that's why, that's when our friend, you know, talks about all this international stuff.

That's all right.

You know, something like that.

Well, it's close enough, yeah.

But I...

The other thing I would like to say is this.

I'm aware that the auto-cats believe that everything should be loans.

Now, I like to, I'll listen here, and I just made a little note to Carl, I want to talk to him about it.

I want to say to you that it won't work.

I mean, we can move in that direction, but there's got to be instances where loans to countries would be so patently unpaid that it just feeds itself on us.

I mean, so Cambodia's going to pay back a loan.

So, some of these other countries that we're talking about, no way.

That is why, let me say, we support the importance, we support the goal, but you can't just, we've come totally from brands to loans.

Second point is the multilateral versus the bilateral.

The point is incidences.

Bilateral is very much in the interest, the security interest, of the United States because of the influence we've been having.

Remember that if it's small to lateral, we're going to pick up almost a third of the chip, sometimes 40% of the chip.

And we pick it up.

We've made up 5% of the influence.

And influence has a lot to do with this, too.

It isn't just, John would be the first to agree to these humanitarian concerns.

Of course, touch our hearts, and believe me, when it's an earthquake or whatever it is, let's, God, let's help.

You know, you mentioned Peru, and you mentioned

I've been to Sweden.

We've helped Romania.

We've helped Yugoslavia.

I mean, this is a generous country.

We're a good country.

We're a decent country.

Thank God.

And I hope we always are, and I hope we can afford to be.

But then you come down to the problems that all of you are aware of.

I was speaking at the end.

I know the deep concern in the Congress about the burden America carries in the world.

I know my dear concern about our NATO burden.

Twenty-five years ago, you remember, when President Eisenhower said he was tempered for, remember when he briefed us all over in the Library of Congress, and we were all there.

I was the President, the Congressman, you were the Leader Senior, I don't know, but anyway, we were there.

On that occasion, we were thinking in those terms, and yet the investment in Europe was a good investment.

If it had not been for that investment and its success, there would be no negotiations with the Soviets today.

They would be telling us, rather than we're each of them trying to work out the most historic limitation of arms ever between major powers in the history of the world, and they only think they can avoid it in the clear.

I want to say a word, too, about the NATO thing.

I know it's going to come up.

I know the vote's going to be tough.

It's going to be tight and so forth and so on.

And I say what I said before, and many of you honestly disagree with this.

I respect the disagreement.

Maybe you're wrong.

But I can only tell you this, that this fall, we are negotiating for the first time

with the Warsaw Pact countries, and that includes the Soviet Union, for a balanced force production.

Where we go down, and they go down.

Now, put it in terms of the threat to the peace of the world.

A strong United States is not going to be a peace of the world.

But a Soviet Union that is stronger than the United States could be.

I'm not suggesting they want to be, will be so, but could be.

Because basically, their philosophy is one of expansion.

Ours is one of basically the Nixon Doctrine is we'll help those that help themselves.

And I'm simply saying this.

We want a reduction of American forces in Europe.

I want it definitely.

I want this money available so we can have it here at home.

Believe me, don't put us in the position where before we go into those negotiations,

and I realize that the bills will not pass, Mike was talking to me the other day before we get there, don't put us in the position before we go into negotiations that it appears to the people on the other side that regardless of whether they go down, we're gonna go down.

If we do, you,

All of us who participate in that will enormously increase the risk of war in the world.

And that's it.

Let's take the whole matter of the military budget.

I don't know where it can't be done at this point.

But I do know this, we're going to have negotiations with the Russians we crossed sometime this summer, which will be more important than the ones we had last year.

And most of you applauded what happened last year, you know.

After all, we did have a total limitation on nuclear defense arms, and we have a temporary limitation on offensive weapons.

Let me say,

This is going to be a very, very tough negotiation.

We're in the preliminary talks now.

Those talks are going to go forward and all of us are going to participate.

The decision will be made at the time that they're here.

When I say the decision, the decision on their part, of course the decision on our part is always going to be submitted back to you.

But I can assure you this, I sat across the table from these people.

They don't give you a thing.

And they can get it without giving something up.

In other words, they don't give you a thing unless you've got something that they want to get from you.

That's what it gets down to.

Now, what do I mean by that?

Am I saying that we should huff and puff, build all sorts of huge, you know, we're ourselves and so forth, and as a result we started a higher plateau and this freezes up there?

I'm not suggesting that at all.

We're at a low plateau at the present time.

But we're at a stirring moment in the history of the country, believe me.

In 1972, and let's leave the politics on, because let me say, I am very grateful for the fact that Mike, Carl, and many of the rest of you, along with Terry, and Bob, and others who are no longer here, strongly supported what we did.

But look how the world has changed.

There was no communication at all with one fourth of the people in the world for a quarter of a century.

If we allowed that to continue, it would have affected us in five years, not 10 years, not 20 years, but 20 years, 25 years from now.

The People's Republic of China, not because they're communist, but because they're Chinese, would be an enormous threat to the peace of the world.

And it's much better for us to be on the inside, talking to them, negotiating, rather than the outside, isolated and confronted.

And we've made that breakthrough.

Let's look at the Soviet Union.

When President Eisenhower sat at this desk, Bill Rocker, who's here then, is a member of the cabinet, last cabinet meeting I ever mentioned.

The United States had a 15-to-1 advantage over the Soviet Union in nuclear arms, at least, at least.

At the time of the Cuban Conquering in 1952, it was tough.

It was a risk.

But the advantage of the United States was 12-to-1, it now appears.

There was no missile gap.

The gap was the other way.

And McNamara was honest enough to admit it.

after the campaign was over.

I don't complain that there was one, because the point was they were building and we weren't.

But now, at the present time, they're ahead of us and we go away.

We are equal otherwise, roughly speaking.

The advantage we have is in our technology,

And therefore, we're not afraid.

But I do say this.

This is, if I will not be melodramatic, just one minute to midnight in terms of the chance

to have really not only a limitation of armament, but eventually a reduction of armament.

To have a situation where the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, sit down, and for a variety of reasons.

For example, they may eat us.

They may eat our wheat.

They may eat us in other ways.

But also, basically, they are still communists, they still have their hawks as well as their guns.

And this is the chance that we have to sit down and say, look here, the President of the United States and some of our hawks have said, block them out, Mr. President.

Tell them to push the button.

Sure, I can push the button.

It's right here under this button.

Boy, that'll really scare them to kill 70 million Russians.

Scare me, too, to kill 70 million Americans.

All right.

And if it was distracted, maybe it's 40.

It's enough, huh?

But for them, it's not much of an option.

For us, it's not much of an option.

But who knows what a bad man might be in one place or the other.

That is why we cannot allow this to go forward.

But I'm simply saying to you, the United States unilaterally, before we make a deal with them, tells them, look fellows, we're going to reduce, regardless of what you do.

There will be no reduction on their part, because they want an advantage.

And they will use that advantage.

Well, maybe not for war, but maybe in terms of disintegrating the European alliance, or what have you.

The same is true as far as Europe is concerned.

Here's NATO, this gang of countries, rich, strong, all in business for themselves today, you know?

Alliances are kept together, MacMillan once said to me, not by love, but by fear.

And the fear has kind of gone out a little bit now.

You know the fear?

The Russians have changed and all that sort of thing.

Maybe they have.

I hope that they will change.

I think they have to an extent.

I think they may change more.

Only if we're talking to them.

Only if we're negotiating with them.

Only if they see that.

If they do not change, they can run a strong, resourceful, powerful United States that will not unilaterally say, okay, we throw in the sponge, you be stronger, and we accept it.

What I should be saying to you gentlemen here is that whether it's in four days, or all these humanitarian considerations you're concerned, or whether it's anything else, I have prayed about this, as many of you have,

I think of all the things that I'd love to do in the domestic field, you know, and also in, I was very interested to know, you know, the closest bases of Massachusetts, you know, where I go.

When you close bases, people that want to cut defenses say, no, not that.

But nevertheless, I understand, too.

You wouldn't want to do what you cannot do, but you wouldn't want to use our national defense for the purpose of defending it.

What?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Let me tell you, fellows, at this time in our history, the year 1970 will determine whether we do have a permanent limitation of nuclear arms with a chance to go further and reduce, or whether that chance goes forever.

And whoever occupies this chair after I leave faces a situation where he is a nation in which

There is another, stronger than America, that has different designs from the world in the end.

Second, this is the year that will determine whether in terms of NATO, after all this great agony we've gone through, the divisions we've poured into Europe, the divisions we've had with America, whether or not we reduce our forces without increasing

the risk of war without increasing the chances of disintegration of the alliance, the alliance which is the only deterrent to the possible Soviet movement.

The reason I say this, and I will conclude my speech, the length of my speech proves that I should have been in the Senate, but I wasn't, I was in the House, but I just want to say that this conclusion

If there were any way that I could advocate a key model for an agreement, which is smaller than this, but we can.

But right in the present time,

And I think that those who have sat in conference with me, apart from my public statements, know that here's where my favorite passage is.

There is nothing, nothing that I want more than peace.

Nothing that I want more than for these terrible parcels to be built up, this horrible waste to go to the needs of the people rather than to build the underground.

But also, I'm a realist, and we live in a dangerous world.

And I simply say,

Many thought that our country's China was mistaken.

Many thought that the organization of Russia was mistaken.

As a matter of fact, George, do you remember when we talked to Scoot Jackson on his book?

He said, do you remember the war party?

Well, that's not true.

Scoot is for peace, too.

We all are.

I hope that President Eisenhower always said, no, no, President Eisenhower always said, the great thing about America is that our debate is

We're not about war, we're really about peace.

And it really is.

We all do that.

And let's give ourselves all that credit.

I mean, some of you say, those who want to disarm, prepare for war, they'll bring on war.

And some will say, those who want to build arms want peace.

That isn't true.

I haven't said that about John Stennis or any of you there.

And we shouldn't say it about people like Mark Canfield and others.

I mean, God knows we're all for the right thing.

But let me say, 1972 was a good year for peace in the world.

It could not have happened if America had not been strong.

And I gently ask of you today, give us a chance in 1973 to build on that.

And if we bump it, I'll take the blame.

I'll let you say, I made a different road in peace than I had in jail.

It was getting up on the wrong road.

Thank you very much.

I just wanted to know that we all carry a great burden in terms of, you know, political burdens and all the rest of it.

But let's just remember this meeting

All the meetings that we have, remember, I think it was John who had to put this file on the plate.

It's not just us.

It's the kids.

It's the grandchildren.

It's the great grandchildren.

And frankly, the whole school.

We're going to use the world right here.

If we don't do the job, there are others ready to move in and preempt it.

And God does not let them do it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

You've got to go the wrong way.

I don't know.

All right, gentlemen.

What do you want to do?

Give it to California?

I'm not talking about the program.

I'm just saying.

I know, of course, Bill's fine.

I don't trust him.

I think that's true of all the parties.

I don't trust him.

I don't live where I left off.

This is necessary.