This latter agreement—­the nonproliferation treaty—­is now pending in the Senate and it has been pending there since last July.  In my opinion, delay in ratifying it is not going to be helpful to the cause of peace.  America took the lead in negotiating this treaty and America should now take steps to have it approved at the earliest possible date.

Until a way can be found to scale down the level of arms among the superpowers, mankind cannot view the future without fear and great apprehension.  So, I believe that we should resume the talks with the Soviet Union about limiting offensive and defensive missile systems.  I think they would already have been resumed except for Czechoslovakia and our election this year.

It was more than 20 years ago that we embarked on a program of trying to aid the developing nations.  We knew then that we could not live in good conscience as a rich enclave on an earth that was seething in misery.

During these years there have been great advances made under our program, particularly against want and hunger, although we are disappointed at the appropriations last year.  We thought they were woefully inadequate.  This year I am asking for adequate funds for economic assistance in the hope that we can further peace throughout the world.

I think we must continue to support efforts in regional cooperation.  Among those efforts, that of Western Europe has a very special place in America’s concern.

The only course that is going to permit Europe to play the great world role that its resources permit is to go forward to unity.  I think America remains ready to work with a united Europe, to work as a partner on the basis of equality.

For the future, the quest for peace, I believe, requires: 

—­that we maintain the liberal trade policies that have helped us become the leading nation in world trade,

—­that we strengthen the international monetary system as an instrument of world prosperity, and

—­that we seek areas of agreement with the Soviet Union where the interests of both nations and the interests of world peace are properly served.

The strained relationship between us and the world’s leading Communist power has not ended—­especially in the light of the brutal invasion of Czechoslovakia.  But totalitarianism is no less odious to us because we are able to reach some accommodation that reduces the danger of world catastrophe.

What we do, we do in the interest of peace in the world.  We earnestly hope that time will bring a Russia that is less afraid of diversity and individual freedom.

The quest for peace tonight continues in Vietnam, and in the Paris talks.

I regret more than any of you know that it has not been possible to restore peace to South Vietnam.

The prospects, I think, for peace are better today than at any time since North Vietnam began its invasion with its regular forces more than 4 years ago.