Washington Straight Talk; Kennedy

Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. Tonight, on Washington Strait Talk, Senator Edward Kennedy just returned from visits to Europe and the Soviet Union. Current leader in the polls for the Democratic presidential nomination for 1976. Senator Kennedy answers questions from NPAC correspondent Paul Duke. Senator, when you were in Moscow, you talked to Soviet party leader Brezhnev for four hours on the basis of what you learned. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of US-Russian relations? Really very hopeful. I think there's been exceedingly important progress made in recent times. I'd like to believe that progress that goes back to the signing of the partial test band treaty under President Kennedy. I think there can be the signing of a comprehensive test band treaty in the next very few months. I would expect that would be the number one item on the agenda in June where the President to go to Moscow and I would support his going to Moscow to sign such an agreement. I think there'll be progress made

in the strategic arms limitations. Perhaps not this year, but I think that there is a basis for accommodation and adjustment. I come back convinced that where the Soviet brought in in a meaningful way to the discussions and negotiations in the Middle East, that their intentions should be tested. They've indicated the top leaders that they want to play a role, that they believe Israel should be secure, that the borders should be secure, and that there can be security for the peoples of the area. And I think those of you should be tested. I'm not willing to just say what they said to me is necessarily the straight story, but I'm convinced from my conversations, both with the top leaders there, and with Tito and Chesko and Brant, that these are the same views that are being expressed to them, and I think Soviet intentions should be tested. Tested how, Senator? Well, tested by the Secretary of State in his conversations with Grameco last Sunday in Geneva,

and tested to try and work with the Soviet Union to have them exert what influence they can. But are we doing that now? I believe that that has been the track record to date, and the Soviet leaders are quite clear that they don't believe that they've had a role, that it's been more of a one-man show, so to speak. Now, I've supported the efforts that have been made by Mr. Kissinger. I think it's been, as we recognize, the most difficult, complex foreign policy issue that we're facing now, and I think we've made some meaningful progress, but I don't think that the Soviet Union has been brought in in the kind of important way that it will be necessary to see a solution to that area. The United States can perhaps work out with Sadat, a ceasefire on the Egyptian front, and perhaps we can help to work out some adjustments with Jordan,

but with regards to Syria and general peace in that area, I think the Soviet with their influence and that they've exerted over the recent times, they have to be brought in, or otherwise, I don't think we'll achieve it. Well, do you feel the Soviets really want peace in the Middle East? I wouldn't be able to just based on my discussions to give an answer which would declare it clearly, but what I do bring back is at least what they've told one member of the Senate, and they have told other leaders in Eastern Europe, and I think those intentions should be tested, and I do not believe that they have sufficiently in the past. I believe that the actions which are being taken by Kissinger now indicate that we are. So this is really what I think should be the case. We should test those intentions. Maybe they're not. Maybe they weren't representing the straight talk, but I think that we ought to test it.

I don't think it has been done in the past. I think Mr. Kissinger is attempting to do it now, and I think those efforts should be supported. Senator, did the Russian leaders give you any indication that they intend to liberalize their policies on permitting Jews to emigrate? No. They took the strongest stand on this issue. They feel it's a domestic issue. It's an internal matter. At a lower echelon, you'd hear. I wonder if we tied an arms limitation to the United States permitting people to go to Cuba. We, the United States, doesn't permit people to travel outside to go to Cuba. And this is an internal matter that we respect the United States. Why doesn't the United States stay out of internal matters in the Soviet Union? They point out that they've increased the numbers from the early 70s, from 1,000 to approximately 32,000, and that the people that have remained in there have been principally security cases. I oppressed the top Soviet leaders to the fact that the United States is basically a country of immigrants.

That human rights and human liberties are something which are extremely important to the people of the United States. That we, the people of this United States, in a highly mobile society, moving from place to place in our own nation, and the value that we place on human rights, that we cannot understand, or why there isn't a greater respect for this, and that as we have made some progress in our negotiations with the Soviet Union, in terms of eventually settling the Vietnam War in the salt ones and our conversations now on salt and other areas, that we're going to perhaps be more perceptive and perhaps even more critical of some of the things that are going on in there. But I don't think that it's going to be an easily resolved issue with question. I tried my conversations to communicate the sense and the intensity of the feeling of the Americans on this issue, and I met with some of the Jews themselves,

which was a very moving experience, a very tragic experience, when you see the kind of harassment that they've been subject to. Senator, what was your impression of Mr. Brezhnev and the Russian leaders, and do you feel that they have a realistic view of American policy and American life? Well, first of all, I found Mr. Brezhnev, I hadn't met him before, I found him a warm individual, highly intelligent, highly aware sense of humor, completely at ease very informal. I think he'd be at home as easily in a plant, in a factory, in Massachusetts talking with workers as he is, and presiding over the second most powerful nation in the world. You gain, he talks about war with great feeling and with great passion. He reminds one when you talk about strategic weapons that he slogged all the way through the second world war.

He shows you a picture how he led the Victoria Soviet armies at the end of the war. He says he's felt it, he's lost as close as friends, and he is completely committed to peace. And one of the impressions that you gather from visiting the Soviet Union is the extraordinary sense of loss that they felt about in the second world war. 20 million people were lost. There isn't a family that hasn't lost a brother or son or a father. You visit Lenin Groud of four million people, one million were killed during the siege. Hoffa them star to death. And of course the history has written the stories of the battles of Stalin Groud and the siege at Moscow. So they don't want, they've been invaded time and again, and they want a defense, and they got the capacity to build it. And we have to understand this. And once we begin to understand that the United States is dealing with a power that in terms of military power is essentially equal to the United States.

Perhaps we have, and we do have advantages in terms of nerve missiles and some of the other strategic areas, but we're dealing with a quality and they have to be treated as equals. Then we're going to really be able to make some progress. But I come back and convinced that this is a man that was frank and open in his conversations with me. It was devoid of the rhetoric of a communist propaganda that a member of Congress has sent it here when he talks to maybe a second echelon, a third echelon people in any part of the world. And that here was a man who believes that important progress has been made with Mr. Kissinger and President Nixon in the area of reduction of tensions, particularly in the areas of strategic arms, and wants that continued. And I believe that it should be continued. And I have every intention of supporting those efforts of Mr. Kissinger and President Nixon to see that those efforts are continued. Senator, the Russians treated you like a king or a presidential candidate when you were over there.

How do you account for that? Well, I think they're looking down the road some way. To 1976, perhaps. And I'm sure there'll be others who will visit there. And I'm sure they'll be well received. I think they feel that they wanted, I think, some feeling about the sense of continuity in American foreign policy. They had been working and negotiating with President Nixon and Kissinger. And I think that what they were really interested in is there are sense of continuity among Democrats and those that are active in the Democratic Party. And the assurance, the one point that I think it was useful and helpful and being able to talk with the Soviet leaders is to give them some assurance that the kind of progress that's been taken in these recent years really represents

the mainstream of both the Democrat and the Republican Party. I think Americans want the reduction of tensions. They want their leaders to be, to try and obviously protect their national security. But to recognize that it doesn't really make much sense if we can each destroy ourselves 14 times or 15 times to say, well, because they can destroy us 15 times, we have to have weapons that can destroy them 16 times. And hopefully I was able to give them some assurance that this was the case. In spite of the fact, we have some voices in our party that would beat the drums of the past. Senator, did Watergate come up in your conversation with Mr. Brezhnev? To the extent he said he had views on them, but he wasn't going to express them and I didn't ask him to. Did he seem at all concerned about Watergate affecting Russian relations with the United States? Well, I wouldn't really want to generalize with Brezhnev, although in my conversations with other Eastern European and Western European,

this appeared to be a matter of some concern. Again, the sense of what is going to happen in the United States, to some extent, although they don't all didn't ask about it. But there is a sense of concern about what will be the future foreign policy in the United States. Senator, do the presidential transcripts of Mr. Nixon's Watergate conversations, do they lead you to believe that the president was engaged in a cover-up of Watergate? I don't think it's really useful or very helpful for any member of the Senate that may very well be sitting in the role of a juror to characterize the sense of guilt or innocence of the president. I've reviewed some of the material. What are your impressions? Well, I think, first of all, there was a great deal of information that was supplied by the president to the American people. And we have to accept that.

Number one, secondly, there were a number of gaps of information that came through in the course of these revelations. And therefore, I support the efforts of the Judiciary Committee to have access to the tapes themselves. I think it's important that they verify either the accuracy of the transcripts. That's important. And then, I think, in close questions of fact, it's extremely useful to be able to listen to the voices, to try and gather the kind of atmosphere and climate in which these words were used. And this may very well shed some important light on really the degree of culpability that's involved here. So I support the Judiciary Committee and its efforts to obtain this. I think it's perhaps... It really doesn't make sense. There are judicial systems to permit the really the defendant decide what information is going to be made available to the investigating group. And I think that House Judiciary Committee has been fair.

I think it's been really devoid of any kind of partisanship effectively. And I think their efforts should be supported. But, Senator, the White House is now indicating that it may not provide the Judiciary Committee with any more tapes or documents. Now, if the White House persists in this refusal, would you regard that as an impeachable offense? Well, again, I think we have to go with see how the House Judiciary Committee. We in the Senate haven't defined what we consider to be impeachable items. And there is... We're going to have to, on our own, in the Senate decide what we believe to be impeachable items. As you'd understand under the Constitution, these are left to the separate houses. What's important now is what the House says is an impeachable item. And whether they find it is, and the reasons and the justifications for that. And I'm willing to certainly consider if they do make that decisions and the reasons and the justifications

that they come up with for that. And then we can examine it when and if it should come over to the Senate. Senator, the transcripts indicate that there was some obsession on the part of some people at the White House that you were behind the Senate's Watergate. I saw those references. Well, it's part of the paranoia, I suppose, of the White House and this to sort of see, I think, see the Kennedy underneath, causing their problems. Perhaps it goes back to the time when President Kennedy did cause him some problems back in 1960. But these are administrative practice committee. At the time of the Watergate, it a limited investigation. I had talked to Senator Irvin. No one really had an idea at that time of the magnitude of it. We went ahead with the information and procured a good deal of information, both from Sugetti and had subpoenaed some of the comments. Some of the column back, both phone records and bank records.

But our jurisdiction was so limited on that particular committee. It was going to be the full investigation was either going to be done by a special committee, which eventually was set up. We made available all of our information to it. But this reference was obviously inaccurate. Did you ever have any suspicion that the White House had planted a spy on you during the Chapacitic episode? No. No. I read that subsequently Hunt was up there. But I understand that to be the case. But I think it was limited to that. Senator, some people suggest that all of the things which are now coming out are not really that new that there were similar episodes of wrongdoing during the Kennedy administration, during the Johnson administration. How do you answer this? Well, they're just not accurate and just not right. I remember when the ITTKs first came up, and there were still a number of people in the Justice Department that had been there at the time at Robert Kennedy had served at the Justice Department. Well, Mitchell and Kleindeans turned that Justice Department up upside down to try and find some kind of similar action that Robert Kennedy had been involved in.

Over the period of the time that he had spent as Attorney General, some four years as Attorney General of the United States, they couldn't find an instance. And I'd hear from people that were in the Justice Department, they're keeping us down. They're working this 18 hours a day, making us follow every kind of lead to try and find it. Because it just didn't happen. It just wasn't so. Now, this doesn't say that they didn't make mistakes during that period of time and mistakes in judgment. But this type of, I think, whole sale, violation and corruption of public trust and confidence has never been leveled at any of my brothers and never will be justified. Because they felt and believed strongly in the inviolability of that public confidence and trust. Many people believe, Senator, that Watergate means that all the more attention would be focused on chapacritic, should you be the Democratic presidential nominee raising questions about your character and fitness to be president? Does this concern you?

Well, I would expect that the discussion, probably those, if I were to be a candidate that would raise it, but people finally and ultimately are going to have to make judgments about my views, my record in the Senate, the degrees that I've been able to effectiveness, that I've been able to represent the people, Massachusetts in the Senate, what kind of performance I've had there. So, I recognize that this would be a factor that would be raised. But I would, I mean, I've understood that, and if I run, that will be something that, you know, that will have to be faced. When you have to deal with chapacritic in a major way, for example, in 1960, your brother had to deal with a Catholic issue in a detailed explanation, confronting the ministers in Houston, Texas, for example. Now, wouldn't you have to explain certain things, for example, why it took you seven days to offer an explanation for what had happened to chapacritic? Well, the record, of course, which some have failed to recognize has been really laid out.

But would you have to go beyond the record, though? Those, I suppose, are kind of issues or questions you'd have to see in a particular campaign. There's not going to be any more facts that are going to come out. They've been out there and they documented in that record. Trying to sort of give rehash in terms of attitudes or views. People would feel that that would be necessary. I think it would be questionable, but in any event, would have to deal with it when it came. Polls do show, Senator, that a substantial number of Americans do not really trust you or they don't have a very high regard for your character or your integrity. Now, that raises a fundamental question. Do you feel that you could provide the country with moral leadership in the wake of Watergate? Well, I wouldn't run if I didn't, but I completely satisfied that if I decided to run, I think I could, yes. In times past, Senator, some people have questioned your conduct, suggesting that you were something of a playboy, that you were immature, that you weren't qualified to be Senator.

How do you see yourself today? Well, you've been reading for a moment, seeing as human events or yourself. But how do you see yourself today? Do you think that you matured, do you think that you've grown in your job? Just how do you see yourself? Well, served in the Senate, I think, over the last 12 years. Obviously, the kinds of personal tragedies, which have surrounded my family, have left a deep and a mark on myself. I think you can't go through those types of situations without having being able to sift through the relevant and the important from the less relevant and the less important. And this has been, obviously, a growing and developing experience. It's a hard and difficult one, but I think during that period of time, we've been able to be effective in the Senate.

We're very much involved, I think, in the principle issues that are facing the country at the present time. I intend to remain very much involved in the thick of things. And I realize that there's a good deal of emotion about the Kennedys. I mean, let's face it, many of the things that you quote are people that are writing things that were adverse about President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. And we've seen that. They felt very people have felt very strongly about my family. I mean, people forget now the kinds of viciousness and attacks on President Kennedy, and they were all forgotten after 1963. And they forget the kinds of articles that were written about Robert Kennedy, and they forgot those off to 68. So I know people feel strongly about the family, and they feel strongly about me. And I'd say that we have to face those particular questions. But I don't think that you're really doing your job, unless you're taking strong positions, and the clear positions on issues, and expressing yourselves.

And then any of the issues which we're facing today, they are powerful in terms of emotion, and a lot of people are going to be mad. If you come up for a comprehensive health program, you're going to have the doctors mad as the devil at you. And you're going to have the insurance companies. And if you're strong on gun control, all the gun nuts are going to be after you. So I mean, these are things which I mean, I understand, and perhaps they reflect their position on gun control some other way. Senator, I'm confused as to exactly where you stand today on your possible candidacy for president. For example, some of your friends are saying that you will not run. Others interpret your visit to Russia as meaning you will run. And then just a few days ago. Well, then just a few days ago, there was a story out of New York quoting you as saying, absolutely, you will not run.

Just in the interest of your own credibility, where do we stand on it today? The stand that sometime by late 75, possibly earlier, that I'll make a definitive kind of decision about my plans. I think that that is the back bench mark in which I have to make some kind of a statement in terms of responsibilities to the party. And at the present time, I have no other intention of doing anything other than running for re-election. Now, obviously, I'm giving some consideration to running. I think I have that degree of time in order to make any kind of a decision on it. Which way are you leaning at this moment? No, if I was asked today, I'd just run for re-election for the Senate. Would you deep down like to be president? Yes. You would. Why? Would you tell us some of the real reasons? I think there's the capacity and the ability to bring about the kinds of changes that I think are important for the country.

I think can be most effectively done there. I've seen it in terms of President Kennedy, and I saw its possibilities and the relationship to Robert Kennedy. But I don't, it isn't something, I mean, I think in terms of my own kind of a situation that my first responsibilities are quite clearly to my family, my son and my sisters and the children and my brothers. And I enjoy the work that I have in the Senate. I've been there now for 12 years, increasing responsibility, increasing opportunity to have some impact. So I enjoy that work, it isn't that I'm, and that's, I know of some puzzlement, they say, well, you have to be spending all your time worrying about this. I don't, I enjoy the work that I'm, that I'm involved in them that I'm doing. You mentioned your responsibility, and you do that repeatedly. I understand that your mother, your sisters, almost all members of your family are opposed to your running for president.

Will they have veto authority, Senator? No. No, they, they won't, and they indicated where I'd make a judgment to run that they would support. I, as I think people could understand, I think, someone like my mother's been through a great, great deal on it, but I think she'd understand and respect any kind of a judgment. What do you see as the principal need for the country today, Senator? Well, I think there has to be really a restoration in the American people of a feeling that they can deal with the problems that we're facing with here at home. I think that, that this was something that, that took place in the early part of the 1960s, that people felt that the problems that we were facing here at home, whether it's the problems of the cities, or dealing with the questions of the economy, or even in the, in the areas of foreign policy, that these were issues and, and problems that could be resolved.

And I don't think that necessarily you're going to end up in having the answers to these, but you're, you're going to have approaches which are going to, to lessen the, the impact of these problems, and on the lives of, of people. And I don't, I think generally there's a feeling of frustration that, that, that government is not responsive, and, and this sense of restoration has to be reestablished. Thank you very much for coming here tonight, Senator. I appreciate it. From Washington, Enpacked has brought you Washington Strait Talk, with Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, and Enpacked Correspondent Paul Duke. This program has been made possible by a grant from the Ford Foundation. This has been a production of Enpacked, a division of GWETA. Thank you very much.