Page:Ford, Kissinger, Senators Jackson, Javits, and Ribicoff - August 15, 1974(Gerald Ford Library)(1552751).pdf/4

 By this method we would share the burden.

Let's see, I make a 12-month report and ask for an extension.

Congress approves by a majority vote. How do we avoid a bottle-up?

We could write in a must vote within so many days. We would grant it--this is a big concession--immediately. The Soviet Union wants MFN immediately and we make this big concession.

It applies to credits also.

Everything.

What worries me is this: If Congress has to renew your authority every year, we can have this kind of debate every year.

We could write a line that the President has the right to waive and then say this will continue for one year.

It's a cumbersome procedure which is like the one on chrome. If we go this route we would have to have prompt resolution.

We would have provisions to insure prompt action.

We can just get by with the letter. The interpretative statements overload the circuit. We have shown them this letter. There was no disagreement, on what the performance must be, but just on how to write it.

The interpretive letter is best.

But Dr. Kissinger has to show it to the Soviet Union.

We have to distinguish between the objective and what we write down.

Take the non-proliferation treaty. We issued an interpretation about the French and British nuclear forces and the Soviet Union issued just exactly the opposite. Let the Soviet Union say what it wants.

How will the one-year affect business contracts?

Even if we cut it off, contracts made will continue.

What worries me is that you identify a particular country by this.