Page:Ford, Kissinger, Senators Jackson, Javits, and Ribicoff - August 15, 1974(Gerald Ford Library)(1552751).pdf/3

 Not necessarily. The subtle forms are the toughest. They are out to avoid quotas. The scheme is the letter, the response, and the interpretation. Our letter would say emigration would rise promptly from what they were.

That we can live with.

This avoids your being associated with a quota. We must have the 1973 figures because this year is lower.

If you relate that to the number of applicants, and if there is no harassment, it should work if they keep their word.

They are moving on security clearances. A cable I have here says they could leave after three years. There is general movement, Mr. President, which shows that the Soviet Union is in economic trouble. We don't want to push them into a corner.

MFN is a source of pride to them. The credits are a touchy area because they don't have anything to sell that doesn't require US capital. Oil, aluminum. They have hydroelectric power and Kaiser is putting up a plant. Forty percent of producing an ingot is power. But it is Kaiser capital.

If good authority for MFN is given, with Presidential authority to cut it off for violations with the assurances they and I have given, we have a club to insure performance.

Yes, what we would do is leave it hang but with waiver authority. [He reads from the draft]. This is enough language. This is also your club with the Soviet Union.

Is the House bill a denial of authority?

The House language is onerous.

Let me propose. The general authority would cover all. Then a denial could apply to any one country who denied emigration.

That's not good either. You don't want to force you or us to break with the Soviet Union. We shouldn't be put in a place where it has to be proved that there are violations. The renewal obligation makes it an affirmative action, not a cut-off.