|
|
The
First Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate:
September 26, 1960
HOWARD K. SMITH, MODERATOR: Good
evening. The television and radio
stations of the United States and their
affiliated stations are proud to provide
facilities for a discussion of issues in
the current political campaign by the
two major candidates for the presidency.
The candidates need no introduction. The
Republican candidate, Vice President
Richard M. Nixon, and the Democratic
candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy.
According to rules set by the candidates
themselves, each man shall make an
opening statement of approximately eight
minutes' duration and a closing
statement of approximately three
minutes' duration. In between the
candidates will answer, or comment upon
answers to questions put by a panel of
correspondents. In this, the first
discussion in a series of four uh -
joint appearances, the subject-matter
has been agreed, will be restricted to
internal or domestic American matters.
And now for the first opening statement
by Senator John F. Kennedy.
SENATOR
KENNEDY: Mr. Smith, Mr. Nixon. In the
election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln said
the question was whether this nation
could exist half-slave or half-free. In
the election of 1960, and with the world
around us, the question is whether the
world will exist half-slave or
half-free, whether it will move in the
direction of freedom, in the direction
of the road that we are taking, or
whether it will move in the direction of
slavery. I think it will depend in great
measure upon what we do here in the
United States, on the kind of society
that we build, on the kind of strength
that we maintain. We discuss tonight
domestic issues, but I would not want
that to be any implication to be given
that this does not involve directly our
struggle with Mr. Khrushchev for
survival. Mr. Khrushchev is in New York,
and he maintains the Communist offensive
throughout the world because of the
productive power of the Soviet Union
itself. The Chinese Communists have
always had a large population. But they
are important and dangerous now because
they are mounting a major effort within
their own country. The kind of country
we have here, the kind of society we
have, the kind of strength we build in
the United States will be the defense of
freedom. If we do well here, if we meet
our obligations, if we're moving ahead,
then I think freedom will be secure
around the world. If we fail, then
freedom fails. Therefore, I think the
question before the American people is:
Are we doing as much as we can do? Are
we as strong as we should be? Are we as
strong as we must be if we're going to
maintain our independence, and if we're
going to maintain and hold out the hand
of friendship to those who look to us
for assistance, to those who look to us
for survival? I should make it very
clear that I do not think we're doing
enough, that I am not satisfied as an
American with the progress that we're
making. This is a great country, but I
think it could be a greater country; and
this is a powerful country, but I think
it could be a more powerful country. I'm
not satisfied to have fifty percent of
our steel-mill capacity unused. I'm not
satisfied when the United States had
last year the lowest rate of economic
growth of any major industrialized
society in the world. Because economic
growth means strength and vitality; it
means we're able to sustain our
defenses; it means we're able to meet
our commitments abroad. I'm not
satisfied when we have over nine billion
dollars worth of food - some of it
rotting - even though there is a hungry
world, and even though four million
Americans wait every month for a food
package from the government, which
averages five cents a day per
individual. I saw cases in West
Virginia, here in the United States,
where children took home part of their
school lunch in order to feed their
families because I don't think we're
meeting our obligations toward these
Americans. I'm not satisfied when the
Soviet Union is turning out twice as
many scientists and engineers as we are.
I'm not satisfied when many of our
teachers are inadequately paid, or when
our children go to school part-time
shifts. I think we should have an
educational system second to none. I'm
not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy
Hoffa - in charge of the largest union
in the United States - still free. I'm
not satisfied when we are failing to
develop the natural resources of the
United States to the fullest. Here in
the United States, which developed the
Tennessee Valley and which built the
Grand Coulee and the other dams in the
Northwest United States at the present
rate of hydropower production - and that
is the hallmark of an industrialized
society - the Soviet Union by 1975 will
be producing more power than we are.
These are all the things, I think, in
this country that can make our society
strong, or can mean that it stands
still. I'm not satisfied until every
American enjoys his full constitutional
rights. If a Negro baby is born - and
this is true also of Puerto Ricans and
Mexicans in some of our cities - he has
about one-half as much chance to get
through high school as a white baby. He
has one-third as much chance to get
through college as a white student. He
has about a third as much chance to be a
professional man, about half as much
chance to own a house. He has about uh -
four times as much chance that he'll be
out of work in his life as the white
baby. I think we can do better. I don't
want the talents of any American to go
to waste. I know that there are those
who want to turn everything over to the
government. I don't at all. I want the
individuals to meet their
responsibilities. And I want the states
to meet their responsibilities. But I
think there is also a national
responsibility. The argument has been
used against every piece of social
legislation in the last twenty-five
years. The people of the United States
individually could not have developed
the Tennessee Valley; collectively they
could have. A cotton farmer in Georgia
or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in
Wisconsin and Minnesota, he cannot
protect himself against the forces of
supply and demand in the market place;
but working together in effective
governmental programs he can do so.
Seventeen million Americans, who live
over sixty-five on an average Social
Security check of about seventy-eight
dollars a month, they're not able to
sustain themselves individually, but
they can sustain themselves through the
social security system. I don't believe
in big government, but I believe in
effective governmental action. And I
think that's the only way that the
United States is going to maintain its
freedom. It's the only way that we're
going to move ahead. I think we can do a
better job. I think we're going to have
to do a better job if we are going to
meet the responsibilities which time and
events have placed upon us. We cannot
turn the job over to anyone else. If the
United States fails, then the whole
cause of freedom fails. And I think it
depends in great measure on what we do
here in this country. The reason
Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor
in Latin America was because he was a
good neighbor in the United States.
Because they felt that the American
society was moving again. I want us to
recapture that image. I want people in
Latin America and Africa and Asia to
start to look to America; to see how
we're doing things; to wonder what the
resident of the United States is doing;
and not to look at Khrushchev, or look
at the Chinese Communists. That is the
obligation upon our generation. In 1933,
Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural
that this generation of Americans has a
rendezvous with destiny. I think our
generation of Americans has the same
rendezvous. The question now is: Can
freedom be maintained under the most
severe tack - attack it has ever known?
I think it can be. And I think in the
final analysis it depends upon what we
do here. I think it's time America
started moving again.
MR.
SMITH: And now the opening statement by
Vice President Richard M. Nixon.
MR.
NIXON: Mr. Smith, Senator Kennedy. The
things that Senator Kennedy has said
many of us can agree with. There is no
question but that we cannot discuss our
internal affairs in the United States
without recognizing that they have a
tremendous bearing on our international
position. There is no question but that
this nation cannot stand still; because
we are in a deadly competition, a
competition not only with the men in the
Kremlin, but the men in Peking. We're
ahead in this competition, as Senator
Kennedy, I think, has implied. But when
you're in a race, the only way to stay
ahead is to move ahead. And I subscribe
completely to the spirit that Senator
Kennedy has expressed tonight, the
spirit that the United States should
move ahead. Where, then, do we disagree?
I think we disagree on the implication
of his remarks tonight and on the
statements that he has made on many
occasions during his campaign to the
effect that the United States has been
standing still. We heard tonight, for
example, the statement made that our
growth in national product last year was
the lowest of any industrial nation in
the world. Now last year, of course, was
1958. That happened to be a recession
year. But when we look at the growth of
G.N.P. this year, a year of recovery, we
find that it's six and nine-tenths per
cent and one of the highest in the world
today. More about that later. Looking
then to this problem of how the United
States should move ahead and where the
United States is moving, I think it is
well that we take the advice of a very
famous campaigner: Let's look at the
record. Is the United States standing
still? Is it true that this
Administration, as Senator Kennedy has
charged, has been an Administration of
retreat, of defeat, of stagnation? Is it
true that, as far as this country is
concerned, in the field of electric
power, in all of the fields that he has
mentioned, we have not been moving
ahead. Well, we have a comparison that
we can make. We have the record of the
Truman Administration of seven and a
half years and the seven and a half
years of the Eisenhower Administration.
When we compare these two records in the
areas that Senator Kennedy has - has
discussed tonight, I think we find that
America has been moving ahead. Let's
take schools. We have built more schools
in these last seven and a half years
than we built in the previous seven and
a half, for that matter in the previous
twenty years. Let's take hydroelectric
power. We have developed more
hydroelectric power in these seven and a
half years than was developed in any
previous administration in history. Let
us take hospitals. We find that more
have been built in this Administration
than in the previous Administration. The
same is true of highways. Let's put it
in terms that all of us can understand.
We often hear gross national product
discussed and in that respect may I say
that when we compare the growth in this
Administration with that of the previous
Administration that then there was a
total growth of eleven percent over
seven years; in this Administration
there has been a total growth of
nineteen per cent over seven years. That
shows that there's been more growth in
this Administration than in its
predecessor. But let's not put it there;
let's put it in terms of the average
family. What has happened to you? We
find that your wages have gone up five
times as much in the Eisenhower
Administration as they did in the Truman
Administration. What about the prices
you pay? We find that the prices you pay
went up five times as much in the Truman
Administration as they did in the
Eisenhower Administration. What's the
net result of this? This means that the
average family income went up fifteen
per cent in the Eisenhower years as
against two per cent in the Truman
years. Now, this is not standing still.
But, good as this record is, may I
emphasize it isn't enough. A record is
never something to stand on. It's
something to build on. And in building
on this record, I believe that we have
the secret for progress, we know the way
to progress. And I think, first of all,
our own record proves that we know the
way. Senator Kennedy has suggested that
he believes he knows the way. I respect
the sincerity which he m- which he makes
that suggestion. But on the other hand,
when we look at the various programs
that he offers, they do not seem to be
new. They seem to be simply retreads of
the programs of the Truman
Administration which preceded it. And I
would suggest that during the course of
the evening he might indicate those
areas in which his programs are new,
where they will mean more progress than
we had then. What kind of programs are
we for? We are for programs that will
expand educational opportunities, that
will give to all Americans their equal
chance for education, for all of the
things which are necessary and dear to
the hearts of our people. We are for
programs, in addition, which will see
that our medical care for the aged are -
is - are much - is much better handled
than it is at the present time. Here
again, may I indicate that Senator
Kennedy and I are not in disagreement as
to the aims. We both want to help the
old people. We want to see that they do
have adequate medical care. The question
is the means. I think that the means
that I advocate will reach that goal
better than the means that he advocates.
I could give better examples, but for -
for whatever it is, whether it's in the
field of housing, or health, or medical
care, or schools, or the eh- development
of electric power, we have programs
which we believe will move America, move
her forward and build on the wonderful
record that we have made over these past
seven and a half years. Now, when we
look at these programs, might I suggest
that in evaluating them we often have a
tendency to say that the test of a
program is how much you're spending. I
will concede that in all the areas to
which I have referred Senator Kennedy
would have the spe- federal government
spend more than I would have it spend. I
costed out the cost of the Democratic
platform. It runs a minimum of thirteen
and two-tenths billions dollars a year
more than we are presently spending to a
maximum of eighteen billion dollars a
year more than we're presently spending.
Now the Republican platform will cost
more too. It will cost a minimum of four
billion dollars a year more, a maximum
of four and nine-tenths billion dollar a
year more than we're presently spending.
Now, does this mean that his program is
better than ours? Not at all. Because it
isn't a question of how much the federal
government spends; it isn't a question
of which government does the most. It is
a question of which administration does
the right thing. And in our case, I do
believe that our programs will stimulate
the creative energies of a hundred and
eighty million free Americans. I believe
the programs that Senator Kennedy
advocates will have a tendency to stifle
those creative energies, I believe in
other words, that his program would lead
to the stagnation of the motive power
that we need in this country to get
progress. The final point that I would
like to make is this: Senator Kennedy
has suggested in his speeches that we
lack compassion for the poor, for the
old, and for others that are
unfortunate. Let us understand
throughout this campaign that his
motives and mine are sincere. I know
what it means to be poor. I know what it
means to see people who are unemployed.
I know Senator Kennedy feels as deeply
about these problems as I do, but our
disagreement is not about the goals for
America but only about the means to
reach those goals.
MR.
SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Nixon. That
completes the opening statements, and
now the candidates will answer questions
or comment upon one another's answers to
questions, put by correspondents of the
networks. The correspondents:
[introducing themselves: "I'm
Sander Vanocur, NBC News;"
"I'm Charles Warren, Mutual
News;" "I'm Stuart Novins, CBS
News;" "Bob Fleming, ABC
News."] The first question to
Senator Kennedy from Mr. Fleming.
MR.
FLEMING: Senator, the Vice President in
his campaign has said that you were
naive and at times immature. He has
raised the question of leadership. On
this issue, why do you think people
should vote for you rather than the Vice
President?
MR.
KENNEDY: Well, the Vice President and I
came to the Congress together 1946; we
both served in the Labor Committee. I've
been there now for fourteen years, the
same period of time that he has, so that
our experience in uh - government is
comparable. Secondly, I think the
question is uh - what are the programs
that we advocate, what is the party
record that we lead? I come out of the
Democratic party, which in this century
has produced Woodrow Wilson and Franklin
Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and which
supported and sustained these programs
which I've discussed tonight. Mr. Nixon
comes out of the Republican party. He
was nominated by it. And it is a fact
that through most of these last
twenty-five years the Republican
leadership has opposed federal aid for
education, medical care for the aged,
development of the Tennessee Valley,
development of our natural resources. I
think Mr. Nixon is an effective leader
of his party. I hope he would grant me
the same. The question before us is:
which point of view and which party do
we want to lead the United States?
MR.
SMITH: Mr. Nixon, would you like to
comment on that statement?
Mr.
NIXON: I have no comment.
Mr.
SMITH: The next question: Mr. Novins.
MR.
NOVINS: Mr. Vice President, your
campaign stresses the value of your
eight year experience, and the question
arises as to whether that experience was
as an observer or as a participant or as
an initiator of policy-making. Would you
tell us please specifically what major
proposals you have made in the last
eight years that have been adopted by
the Administration?
MR.
NIXON: It would be rather difficult to
cover them in eight and- in two and a
half minutes. I would suggest that these
proposals could be mentioned. First,
after each of my foreign trips I have
made recommendations that have been
adopted. For example, after my first
trip abroad - abroad, I strongly
recommended that we increase our
exchange programs particularly as they
related to exchange of persons of
leaders in the labor field and in the
information field. After my trip to
South America, I made recommendations
that a separate inter-American lending
agency be set up which the South
American nations would like much better
than a lend- than to participate in the
lending agencies which treated all the
countries of the world the same. Uh - I
have made other recommendations after
each of the other trips; for example,
after my trip abroad to Hungary I made
some recommendations with regard to the
Hungarian refugee situation which were
adopted, not only by the President but
some of them were enacted into law by
the Congress. Within the Administration,
as a chairman of the President's
Committee on Price Stability and
Economic Growth, I have had the
opportunity to make recommendations
which have been adopted within the
Administration and which I think have
been reasonably effective. I know
Senator Kennedy suggested in his speech
at Cleveland yesterday that that
committee had not been particularly
effective. I would only suggest that
while we do not take the credit for it -
I would not presume to - that since that
committee has been formed the price line
has been held very well within the
United States.
MR.
KENNEDY: Well, I would say in the latter
that the - and that's what I found uh -
somewhat unsatisfactory about the
figures uh - Mr. Nixon, that you used in
your previous speech, when you talked
about the Truman Administration. You -
Mr. Truman came to office in nineteen uh
- forty-four and at the end of the war,
and uh - difficulties that were facing
the United States during that period of
transition - 1946 when price controls
were lifted - so it's rather difficult
to use an overall figure taking those
seven and a half years and comparing
them to the last eight years. I prefer
to take the overall percentage record of
the last twenty years of the Democrats
and the eight years of the Republicans
to show an overall period of growth. In
regard to uh - price stability uh - I'm
not aware that that committee did
produce recommendations that ever were
certainly before the Congress from the
point of view of legislation in regard
to controlling prices. In regard to the
exchange of students and labor unions, I
am chairman of the subcommittee on
Africa and I think that one of the most
unfortunate phases of our policy towards
that country was the very minute number
of exchanges that we had. I think it's
true of Latin America also. We did come
forward with a program of students for
the Congo of over three hundred which
was more than the federal government had
for all of Africa the previous year, so
that I don't think that uh - we have
moved at least in those two areas with
sufficient vigor.
MR.
SMITH: The next question to Senator
Kennedy from Mr. Warren.
MR.
WARREN: Uh - Senator Kennedy, during
your brief speech a few minutes ago you
mentioned farm surpluses.
MR.
KENNEDY: That's correct.
MR.
WARREN: I'd like to ask this: It's a
fact, I think, that presidential
candidates traditionally make promises
to farmers. Lots of people, I think,
don't understand why the government pays
farmers for not producing certain crops
or paying farmers if they overproduce
for that matter. Now, let me ask, sir,
why can't the farmer operate like the
business man who operates a factory? If
an auto company overproduces a certain
model car Uncle Sam doesn't step in and
buy up the surplus. Why this constant
courting of the farmer?
MR.
KENNEDY: Well, because I think that if
the federal government moved out of the
program and withdrew its supports uh -
then I think you would have complete uh
- economic chaos. The farmer plants in
the spring and harvests in the fall.
There are hundreds of thousands of them.
They really don't - they're not able to
control their market very well. They
bring their crops in or their livestock
in, many of them about the same time.
They have only a few purchasers that buy
their milk or their hogs - a few large
companies in many cases - and therefore
the farmer is not in a position to
bargain very effectively in the market
place. I think the experience of the
twenties has shown what a free market
could do to agriculture. And if the
agricultural economy collapses, then the
economy of the rest of the United States
sooner or later will collapse. The
farmers are the number one market for
the automobile industry of the United
States. The automobile industry is the
number one market for steel. So if the
farmers' economy continues to decline as
sharply as it has in recent years, then
I think you would have a recession in
the rest of the country. So I think the
case for the government intervention is
a good one. Secondly, my objection to
present farm policy is that there are no
effective controls to bring supply and
demand into better balance. The dropping
of the support price in order to limit
production does not work, and we now
have the highest uh - surpluses - nine
billion dollars worth. We've had a uh -
higher tax load from the Treasury for
the farmer in the last few years with
the lowest farm income in many years. I
think that this farm policy has failed.
In my judgment the only policy that will
work will be for effective supply and
demand to be in balance. And that can
only be done through governmental
action. I therefore suggest that in
those basic commodities which are
supported, that the federal government,
after endorsement by the farmers in that
commodity, attempt to bring supply and
demand into balance - attempt effective
production controls - so that we won't
have that five or six per cent surplus
which breaks the price fifteen or twenty
per cent. I think Mr. Benson's program
has failed. And I must say, after
reading the Vice President's speech
before the farmers, as he read mine, I
don't believe that it's very much
different from Mr. Benson's. I don't
think it provides effective governmental
controls. I think the support prices are
tied to the average market price of the
last three years, which was Mr. Benson's
theory. I therefore do not believe that
this is a sharp enough breach with the
past to give us any hope of success for
the future.
MR.
SMITH: Mr. Nixon, comment?
MR.
NIXON; I of course disagree with Senator
Kennedy insofar as his suggestions as to
what should be done uh - with re- on the
farm program. He has made the suggestion
that what we need is to move in the
direction of more government controls, a
suggestion that would also mean raising
prices uh - that the consumers pay for
products and im- and imposing upon the
farmers uh - controls on acreage even
far more than they have today. I think
this is the wrong direction. I don't
think this has worked in the past; I do
not think it will work in the future.
The program that I have advocated is one
which departs from the present program
that we have in this respect. It
recognizes that the government has a
responsibility to get the farmer out of
the trouble he presently is in because
the government got him into it. And
that's the fundamental reason why we
can't let the farmer go by himself at
the present time. The farmer produced
these surpluses because the government
asked him to through legislation during
the war. Now that we have these
surpluses, it's our responsibility to
indemnify the farmer during that period
that we get rid of the farmer uh - the
surpluses. Until we get the surpluses
off the farmer's back, however, we
should have a program such as I
announced, which will see that farm
income holds up. But I would propose
holding that income up not through a
type of program that Senator Kennedy has
suggested that would raise prices, but
one that would indemnify the farmer, pay
the farmer in kind uh - from the
products which are in surplus.
Mr.
SMITH: The next question to Vice
President Nixon from Mr. Vanocur.
MR.
VANOCUR: Uh - Mr. Vice President, since
the question of executive leadership is
a very important campaign issue, I'd
like to follow Mr. Novins' question.
Now, Republican campaign slogans -
you'll see them on signs around the
country as you did last week - say it's
experience that counts - that's over a
picture of yourself; sir uh - implying
that you've had more governmental
executive decision-making uh -
experience than uh - your opponent. Now,
in his news conference on August
twenty-fourth, President Eisenhower was
asked to give one example of a major
idea of yours that he adopted. His reply
was, and I'm quoting; "If you give
me a week I might think of one. I don't
remember." Now that was a month
ago, sir, and the President hasn't
brought it up since, and I'm wondering,
sir, if you can clarify which version is
correct - the one put out by Republican
campaign leaders or the one put out by
President Eisenhower?
MR.
NIXON: Well, I would suggest, Mr.
Vanocur, that uh - if you know the
President, that was probably a facetious
remark. Uh - I would also suggest that
insofar as his statement is concerned,
that I think it would be improper for
the President of the United States to
disclose uh - the instances in which
members of his official family had made
recommendations, as I have made them
through the years to him, which he has
accepted or rejected. The President has
always maintained and very properly so
that he is entitled to get what advice
he wants from his cabinet and from his
other advisers without disclosing that
to anybody - including as a matter of
fact the Congress. Now, I can only say
this. Through the years I have sat in
the National Security Council. I have
been in the cabinet. I have met with the
legislative leaders. I have met with the
President when he made the great
decisions with regard to Lebanon, Quemoy
and Matsu, other matters. The President
has asked for my advice. I have given
it. Sometimes my advice has been taken.
Sometimes it has not. I do not say that
I have made the decisions. And I would
say that no president should ever allow
anybody else to make the major
decisions, The president only makes the
decisions. All that his advisers do is
to give counsel when he asks for it. As
far as what experience counts and
whether that is experience that counts,
that isn't for me to say. Uh - I can
only say that my experience is there for
the people to consider; Senator
Kennedy's is there for the people to
consider. As he pointed out, we came to
the Congress in the same year. His
experience has been different from mine.
Mine has been in the executive branch.
His has been in the legislative branch.
I would say that the people now have the
opportunity to evaluate his as against
mine and I think both he and I are going
to abide by whatever the people decide.
MR.
SMITH: Senator Kennedy.
Mr.
KENNEDY: Well, I'll just say that the
question is of experience and the
question also is uh - what our judgment
is of the future, and what our goals are
for the United States, and what ability
we have to implement those goals.
Abraham Lincoln came to the presidency
in 1860 after a rather little known uh -
session in the House of Representatives
and after being defeated for the Senate
in fifty-eight and was a distinguished
president. There's no certain road to
the presidency. There are no guarantees
that uh - if you take uh - one road or
another that you will be a successful
president. I have been in the Congress
for fourteen years. I have voted in the
last uh - eight years uh - and the Vice
President was uh - presiding over the
Senate and meeting his other
responsibilities. I have met met uh -
decisions over eight hundred times on
matters which affect not only the
domestic security of the United States,
but as a member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. The question really
is: which candidate and which party can
meet the problems that the United States
is going to face in the sixties?
MR.
SMITH: The next question to Senator
Kennedy from Mr. Novins.
MR.
NOVINS: Senator Kennedy, in connection
with these problems of the future that
you speak of, and the program that you
enunciated earlier in your direct talk,
you call for expanding some of the
welfare programs for schools, for
teacher salaries, medical care, and so
forth; but you also call for reducing
the federal debt. And I'm wondering how
you, if you're president in January,
would go about paying the bill for all
this. Does this mean that you?
MR.
KENNEDY: I didn't indicate. I did not
advocate reducing the federal debt
because I don't believe that you're
going to be able to reduce the federal
debt very much in nineteen sixty-one,
two, or three. I think you have heavy
obligations which affect our security,
which we're going to have to meet. And
therefore I've never suggested we should
uh - be able to retire the debt
substantially, or even at all in
nineteen sixty-one or two.
MR.
NOVINS: Senator, I believe in - in one
of your speeches -
MR.
KENNEDY: No, never.
MR.
NOVINS: - you suggested that reducing
the interest rate would help toward -
MR.
KENNEDY: No. No. Not reducing the
interest -
MR.
NOVINS: - a reduction of the Federal
debt.
MR.
KENNEDY: - reducing the interest rate.
In my judgment, the hard money, tight
money policy, fiscal policy of this
Administration has contributed to the
slow-down in our economy, which helped
bring the recession of fifty-four; which
made the recession of fifty-eight rather
intense, and which has slowed, somewhat,
our economic activity in 1960. What I
have talked about, however, the kind of
programs that I've talked about, in my
judgment, are uh - fiscally sound.
Medical care for the aged, I would put
under social security. The Vice
President and I disagree on this. The
program - the Javits-Nixon or the Nixon-Javits
program - would have cost, if fully used
uh - six hundred million dollars by the
government per year, and six hundred
million dollars by the state. The
program which I advocated, which failed
by five votes in the United States
Senate, would have put medical care for
the aged in Social Security, and would
have been paid for through the Social
Security System and the Social Security
tax. Secondly, I support federal aid to
education and federal aid for teachers'
salaries. I think that's a good
investment. I think we're going to have
to do it. And I think to heap the burden
further on the property tax, which is
already strained in many of our
communities, will provide, will make sh-
insure, in my opinion, that many of our
children will not be adequately
educated, and many of our teachers not
adequately compensated. There is no
greater return to an economy or to a
society than an educational system
second to none. On the question of the
development of natural resources, I
would pay as you go in the sense that
they would be balanced and the power
revenues would bring back sufficient
money to finance the projects, in the
same way as the Tennessee Valley. I
believe in the balanced budget. And the
only conditions under which I would
unbalance the budget would be if there
was a grave national emergency or a
serious recession. Otherwise, with a
steady rate of economic growth - and Mr.
Nixon and Mr. Rockefeller, in their
meeting, said a five per cent economic
growth would bring by 1962 ten billion
dollars extra in tax revenues. Whatever
is brought in, I think that we can
finance essential programs within a
balanced budget, if business remains
orderly.
MR.
SMITH: Mr. Nixon, your comment?
MR.
NIXON: Yes. I think what Mr. Novins was
referring to was not one of Senator
Kennedy's speeches, but the Democratic
platform, which did mention cutting the
national debt. I think, too, that it
should be pointed out that of course it
is not possible, particularly under the
proposals that Senator Kennedy has
advocated, either to cut the national
debt or to reduce taxes. As a matter of
fact it will be necessary to raise
taxes. As Senator Kennedy points out
that as far as his one proposal is
concerned - the one for medical care for
the aged - that that would be financed
out of Social Security. That, however,
is raising taxes for those who pay
Social Security. He points out that he
would make pay-as-you-go be the basis
for our natural resources development.
Where our natural resources development
- which I also support, incidentally,
however - whenever you uh - uh - in - in
- uh - appropriates money for one of
these projects, you have to pay now and
appropriate the money and the eh- while
they eventually do pay out, it doesn't
mean that you - the government doesn't
have to put out the money this year. And
so I would say that in all of these
proposals Senator Kennedy has made, they
will result in one of two things: either
he has to raise taxes or he has to
unbalance the budget. If he unbalances
the budget, that means you have
inflation, and that will be, of course,
a very cruel blow to the very people -
the older people - that we've been
talking about. As far as aid for school
construction is concerned, I favor that,
as Senator Kennedy did, in January of
this year, when he said he favored that
rather than aid to s- teacher salaries.
I favor that because I believe that's
the best way to aid our schools without
running any risk whatever of the federal
government telling our teachers what to
teach.
MR.
SMITH: The next question to Vice
President Nixon from Mr. Warren.
MR.
WARREN: Mr. Vice President you mentioned
schools and it was just yesterday I
think you asked for a crash program to
raise education standards, and this
evening you talked about advances in
education. Mr. Vice President, you said
- it was back in 1957 - that salaries
paid to school teachers were nothing
short of a national disgrace. Higher
salaries for teachers, you added, were
important and if the situation wasn't
corrected it could lead to a national
disaster. And yet, you refused to vote
in the Senate in order to break a tie
vote when that single vote, if it had
been yes, would have granted salary
increases to teachers. I wonder if you
could explain that, sir.
MR.
NIXON: I'm awfully glad you ge- got that
question because as you know I got into
it at the last of my other question and
wasn't able to complete the argument. Uh
- I think that the reason that I voted
against having the federal government uh
- pay teachers' salaries was probably
the very reason that concerned Senator
Kennedy when in January of this year, in
his kick-off press conference, he said
that he favored aid for school
construction, but at that time did not
feel that there should be aid for
teachers' salaries - at least that's the
way I read his remarks. Now, why should
there be any question about the federal
government aiding s- teachers' salaries?
Why did Senator Kennedy take that
position then? Why do I take it now? We
both took it then, and I take it now,
for this reason: we want higher
teachers' salaries. We need higher
teachers' salaries. But we also want our
education to be free of federal control.
When the federal government gets the
power to pay teachers, inevitably in my
opinion, it will acquire the power to
set standards and to tell the teachers
what to teach. I think this would be bad
for the country; I think it would be bad
for the teaching profession. There is
another point that should be made. I
favor higher salaries for teachers. But,
as Senator Kennedy said in January of
this year in this same press conference,
the way that you get higher salaries for
teachers is to support school
construction, which means that all of
the local school districts in the
various states then have money which is
freed to raise the standards for
teachers' salaries. I should also point
out this; once you put the
responsibility on the federal government
for paying a portion of teachers'
salaries, your local communities and
your states are not going to meet the
responsibility as much as they should. I
believe, in other words, that we have
seen the local communities and the state
assuming more of that responsibility.
Teachers' salaries very fortunately have
gone up fifty percent in the last eight
years as against only a thirty-four
percent rise for other salaries. This is
not enough; it should be more. But I do
not believe that the way to get more
salaries for teachers is to have the
federal government get in with a massive
program. My objection here is not the
cost in dollars. My objection here is
the potential cost in controls and
eventual freedom for the American people
by giving the federal government power
over education, and that is the greatest
power a government can have.
MR.
SMITH: Senator Kennedy's comment?
MR.
KENNEDY: When uh - the Vice President
quotes me in January, sixty, I do not
believe the federal government should
pay directly teachers' salaries, but
that was not the issue before the Senate
in February. The issue before the Senate
was that the money would be given to the
state. The state then could determine
whether the money would be spent for
school construction or teacher salaries.
On that question the Vice President and
I disagreed. I voted in favor of that
proposal and supported it strongly,
because I think that that provided
assistance to our teachers for their
salaries without any chance of federal
control and it is on that vote that th-
Mr. Nixon and I disagreed, and his tie
vote uh - defeated his breaking the tie
defeated the proposal. I don't want the
federal government paying teachers'
salaries directly. But if the money will
go to the states and the states can then
determine whether it shall go for school
construction or for teachers' salaries,
in my opinion you protect the local
authority over the school board and the
school committee. And therefore I think
that was a sound proposal and that is
why I supported it and I regret that it
did not pass. Secondly, there have been
statements made that uh - the Democratic
platform would cost a good deal of money
and that I am in favor of unbalancing
the budget. That is wholly wrong, wholly
in error, and it is a fact that in the
last eight years the Democratic Congress
has reduced the appropri- the requests
for the appropriations by over ten
billion dollars. That is not my view and
I think it ought to be stated very
clearly on the record. My view is that
you can do these programs - and they
should be carefully drawn - within a
balanced budget if our economy is moving
ahead.
MR.
SMITH: The next question to Senator
Kennedy from Mr. Vanocur.
MR.
VANOCUR: Senator, you've been promising
the voters that if you are elected
president you'll try and push through
Congress bills on medical aid to the
aged, a comprehensive minimum hourly
wage bill, federal aid to education.
Now, in the August post-convention
session of the Congress, when you at
least held up the possibility you could
one day be president and when you had
overwhelming majorities, especially in
the Senate, you could not get action on
these bills. Now how do you feel that
you'll be able to get them in January -
MR.
KENNEDY: Well as you take the bills -
MR.
VANOCUR: - if you weren't able to get
them in August?
MR.
KENNEDY: If I may take the bills, we did
pass in the Senate a bill uh - to
provide a dollar twenty-five cent
minimum wage. It failed because the
House did not pass it and the House
failed by eleven votes. And I might say
that two-thirds of the Republicans in
the House voted against a dollar
twenty-five cent minimum wage and a
majority of the Democrats sustained it -
nearly two-thirds of them voted for the
dollar twenty-five. We were threatened
by a veto if we passed a dollar and a
quarter - it's extremely difficult with
the great power that the president does
to pass any bill when the president is
opposed to it. All the president needs
to sustain his veto of any bill is
one-third plus one in either the House
or the Senate. Secondly, we passed a
federal aid to education bill in the
Senate. It failed to came to the floor
of the House of Representatives. It was
killed in the Rules Committee. And it is
a fact in the August session that the
four members of the Rules Committee who
were Republicans joining with two
Democrats voted against sending the aid
to education bill to the floor of the
House. Four Democrats voted for it.
Every Republican on the Rules Committee
voted against sending that bill to be
considered by the members of the House
of Representatives. Thirdly, on medical
care for the aged, this is the same
fight that's been going on for
twenty-five years in Social Security. We
wanted to tie it to Social Security. We
offered an amendment to do so.
Forty-four Democrats voted for it, one
Republican voted for it. And we were
informed at the time it came to a vote
that if it was adopted the President of
the United States would veto it. In my
judgment, a vigorous Democratic
president supported by a Democratic
majority in the House and Senate can win
the support for these programs. But if
you send a Republican president and a
Democratic majority and the threat of a
veto hangs over the Congress, in my
judgment you will continue what happened
in the August session, which is a clash
of parties and inaction.
MR.
SMITH: Mr. Nixon, comment?
MR.
NIXON: Well obviously my views are a
little different. First of all, I don't
see how it's possible for a one-third of
a body, such as the Republicans have in
the House and the Senate to stop
two-thirds, if the two-thirds are
adequately led. I would say, too, that
when Senator Kennedy refers to the
action of the House Rules Committee,
there are eight Democrats on that
committee and four Republicans. It would
seem to me again that it is very
difficult to blame the four Republicans
for the eight Democrats' not getting a
something through that particular
committee. I would say further that to
blame the President in his veto power
for the inability of the Senator and his
colleagues to get action in this special
session uh - misses the mark. When the
president exercises his veto power, he
has to have the people upo- behind him,
not just a third of the Congress.
Because let's consider it. If the
majority of the members of the Congress
felt that these particular proposals
were good issues - the majority of those
who were Democrats - why didn't they
pass them and send to the President and
get a veto and have an issue? The reason
why these particular bills in these
various fields that have been mentioned
were not passed was not because the
President was against them; it was
because the people were against them. It
was because they were too extreme. And I
am convinced that the alternate
proposals that I have, that the
Republicans have in the field of health,
in the field of education, in the field
of welfare, because they are not
extreme, because they will accomplish
the end uh - without too great cost in
dollars or in freedom, that they could
get through the next Congress.
MR.
SMITH: The next question to Vice
President Nixon fa- from Mr. Fleming.
MR.
FLEMING: Mr. Vice President, do I take
it then you believe that you can work
better with Democratic majorities in the
House and Senate than Senator Kennedy
could work with Democratic majorities in
the House and Senate?
MR.
NIXON; I would say this: that we, of
course, expect to pick up some seats in
both in the House and the Senate. Uh -
We would hope to control the House, to
get a majority in the House uh - in this
election. We cannot, of course, control
the Senate. I would say that a president
will be able to lead - a president will
be able to get his program through - to
the effect that he has the support of
the country, the support of the people.
Sometimes we - we get the opinion that
in getting programs through the House or
the Senate it's purely a question of
legislative finagling and all that sort
of thing. It isn't really that. Whenever
a majority of the people are for a
program, the House and the Senate
responds to it. And whether this House
and Senate, in the next session is
Democratic or Republican, if the country
will have voted for the candidate for
the presidency and for the proposals
that he has made, I believe that you
will find that the president, if it were
a Republican, as it would be in my case,
would be able to get his program through
that Congress. Now, I also say that as
far as Senator Kennedy's proposals are
concerned, that, again, the question is
not simply one of uh - a presidential
veto stopping programs. You must always
remember that a president can't stop
anything unless he has the people behind
him. And the reason President
Eisenhower's vetoes have been sustained
- the reason the Congress does not send
up bills to him which they think will be
vetoed - is because the people and the
Congress, the majority of them, know the
country is behind the President.
MR.
SMITH: Senator Kennedy.
MR.
KENNEDY: Well, now let's look at these
bills that the Vice President suggests
were too extreme. One was a bill for a
dollar twenty-five cents an hour for
anyone who works in a store or company
that has a million dollars a year
business. I don't think that's extreme
at all; and yet nearly two-thirds to
three-fourths of the Republicans in the
House of Representatives voted against
that proposal. Secondly was the federal
aid to education bill. It - it was a
very uh - because of the defeat of
teacher salaries, it was not a bill that
uh - met in my opinion the need. The
fact of the matter is it was a bill that
was less than you recommended, Mr.
Nixon, this morning in your proposal. It
was not an extreme bill and yet we could
not get one Republican to join, at least
I think four of the eight Democrats
voted to send it to the floor of the
House - not one Republican - and they
joined with those Democrats who were
opposed to it. I don't say the Democrats
are united in their support of the
program. But I do say a majority are.
And I say a majority of the Republicans
are opposed to it. The third is medical
care for the aged which is tied to
Social Security, which is financed out
of Social Security funds. It does not
put a deficit on the Treasury. The
proposal advanced by you and by Mr.
Javits would have cost six hundred
millions of dollars - Mr. Rockefeller
rejected it in New York, said he didn't
agree with the financing at all, said it
ought to be on Social Security. So these
are three programs which are quite
moderate. I think it shows the
difference between the two parties. One
party is ready to move in these
programs. The other party gives them lip
service.
MR.
SMITH: Mr. Warren's question for Senator
Kennedy.
MR.
WARREN: Senator Kennedy, on another
subject, Communism is so often described
as an ideology or a belief that exists
somewhere other than in the United
States. Let me ask you, sir: just how
serious a threat to our national
security are these Communist subversive
activities in the United States today?
MR.
KENNEDY: Well, I think they're serious.
I think it's a matter that we should
continue to uh - give uh - great care
and attention to. We should support uh -
the laws which the United States has
passed in order to protect us from uh -
those who would destroy us from within.
We should sustain uh - the Department of
Justice in its efforts and the F.B.I.,
and we should be continually alert. I
think if the United States is
maintaining a strong society here in the
United States, I think that we can meet
any internal threat. The major threat is
external and will continue.
MR.
SMITH: Mr. Nixon, comment?
MR.
NIXON: I agree with Senator Kennedy's
appraisal generally in this respect. The
question of Communism within the United
States has been one that has worried us
in the past. It is one that will
continue to be a problem for years to
come. We have to remember that the cold
war that Mr. Khrushchev is waging and
his colleagues are waging, is waged all
over the world and it's waged right here
in the United States. That's why we have
to continue to be alert. It is also
essential in being alert that we be
fair; fair because by being fair we
uphold the very freedoms that the
Communists would destroy. We uphold the
standards of conduct which they would
never follow. And, in this connection, I
think that uh - we must look to the
future having in mind the fact that we
fight Communism at home not only by our
laws to deal with Communists uh - the
few who do become Communists and the few
who do become tra- fellow travelers, but
we also fight Communism at home by
moving against those various injustices
which exist in our society which the
Communists feed upon. And in that
connection I again would say that while
Senator Kennedy says we are for the
status quo, I do believe that he uh -
would agree that I am just as sincere in
believing that my proposals for federal
aid to education, my proposals for
health care are just as sincerely held
as his. The question again is not one of
goals - we're for those goals - it's one
of means.
MR.
SMITH: Mr. Vanocur's question for Vice
President Nixon.
MR.
VANOCUR: Mr. Vice President uh - in one
of your earlier statements you said
we've moved ahead, we've built more
schools, we've built more hospitals.
Now, sir, isn't it true that the
building of more schools is a local
matter for financing? Uh - Were you
claiming that the Eisenhower
Administration was responsible for the
building of these schools, or is it the
local school districts that provide for
it?
MR.
NIXON: Not at all. As a matter of fact
your question brings out a point that I
am very glad to make. Too often in
appraising whether we are moving ahead
or not we think only of what the federal
government is doing. Now that isn't the
test of whether America moves. The test
of whether America moves is whether the
federal government, plus the state
government, plus the local government,
plus the biggest segment of all -
individual enterprise - moves. We have
for example a gross national product of
approximately five hundred billion
dollars. Roughly a hundred billion to a
hundred and a quarter billion of that is
the result of government activity. Four
hundred billion, approximately, is a
result of what individuals do. Now, the
reason the Eisenhower Administration has
moved, the reason that we've had the
funds, for example, locally to build the
schools, and the hospitals, and the
highways, to make the progress that we
have, is because this Administration has
encouraged individual enterprise; and it
has resulted in the greatest expansion
of the private sector of the economy
that has ever been witnessed in an
eight-year period. And that is growth.
That is the growth that we are looking
for; it is the growth that this
Administration has supported and that
its policies have stimulated.
MR.
SMITH: Senator Kennedy.
MR.
KENNEDY: Well, I must say that the
reason that the schools have been
constructed is because the local school
districts were willing to increase the
property taxes to a tremendously high
figure - in my opinion, almost to the
point of diminishing returns in order to
sustain these schools. Secondly, I think
we have a rich uh - country. And I think
we have a powerful country. I think what
we have to do, however, is have the
president and the leadership set before
our country exactly what we must do in
the next decade, if we're going to
maintain our security in education, in
economic growth, in development of
natural resources. The Soviet Union is
making great gains. It isn't enough to
compare what might have been done eight
years ago, or ten years ago, or fifteen
years ago, or twenty years ago. I want
to compare what we're doing with what
our adversaries are doing, so that by
the year 1970 the United States is ahead
in education, in health, in building, in
homes, in economic strength. I think
that's the big assignment, the big task,
the big function of the federal
government.
MR.
SMITH: Can I have the summation time
please? We've completed our questions
and our comments, and in just a moment,
we'll have the summation time.
VOICE:
This will allow three minutes and twenty
seconds for the summation by each
candidate.
MR.
SM1TH: Three minutes and twenty seconds
for each candidate. Vice President
Nixon, will you make the first
summation?
MR.
NIXON: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Senator
Kennedy. First of all, I think it is
well to put in perspective where we
really do stand with regard to the
Soviet Union in this whole matter of
growth. The Soviet Union has been moving
faster than we have. But the reason for
that is obvious. They start from a much
lower base. Although they have been
moving faster in growth than we have, we
find, for example, today that their
total gross national product is only
forty-four per cent of our total gross
national product. That's the same
percentage that it was twenty years ago.
And as far as the absolute gap is
concerned, we find that the United
States is even further ahead than it was
twenty years ago. Is this any reason for
complacency? Not at all Because these
are determined men. They are fanatical
men. And we have to get the very most of
uh - out uh - out of our economy. I
agree with Senator Kennedy completely on
that score. Where we disagree is in the
means that we would use to get the most
out of our economy. I respectfully
submit that Senator Kennedy too often
would rely too much on the federal
government, on what it would do to solve
our problems, to stimulate growth. I
believe that when we examine the
Democratic platform, when we examine the
proposals that he has discussed tonight,
when we compare them with the proposals
that I have made, that these proposals
that he makes would not result in
greater growth for this country than
would be the case if we followed the
programs that I have advocated. There
are many of the points that he has made
that I would like to comment upon. The
one in the field of health is worth
mentioning. Our health program - the one
that Senator Javits and other Republican
Senators, as well as I supported - is
one that provides for all people over
sixty-five who want health insurance,
the opportunity to have it if they want
it. It provides a choice of having
either government insurance or private
insurance. But it compels nobody to have
insurance who does not want it. His
program under Social Security, would
require everybody who had Social
Security to take government health
insurance whether he wanted it or not.
And it would not cover several million
people who are not covered by Social
Security at all. Here is one place where
I think that our program does a better
job than his. The other point that I
would make is this: this downgrading of
how much things cost I think many of our
people will understand better when they
look at what happened when - during the
Truman Administration when the
government was spending more than it
took in - we found savings over a
lifetime eaten up by inflation. We found
the people who could least afford it -
people on retired incomes uh - people on
fixed incomes - we found them unable to
meet their bills at the end of the
month. It is essential that a man who's
president of this country certainly
stand for every program that will mean
for growth. And I stand for programs
that will mean growth and progress. But
it is also essential that he not allow a
dollar spent that could be better spent
by the people themselves.
MR.
SMITH: Senator Kennedy, your conclusion.
MR.
KENNEDY: The point was made by Mr. Nixon
that the Soviet production is only
forty-four percent of ours. I must say
that forty-four percent and that Soviet
country is causing us a good deal of
trouble tonight. I want to make sure
that it stays in that relationship. I
don't want to see the day when it's
sixty percent of ours, and seventy and
| | | | |