First Kennedy-Nixon DebateSeptember 26, 1960
This is the full text of the first joint radio-television debate between Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice-President Richard M. Nixon. The debate took place in a CBS studio in Chicago, Illinois. The moderator was Howard K. Smith.
Mr. Smith 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 8
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 joint appearances, the subject matter, it has been agreed, will
be restricted to internal or domestic American matters.
And now, for the first opening statement
by Senator John F. Kennedy.
Mr. 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 are 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 are 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 are 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 50 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 $9
billion dollars worth of food, some of it rotting even though there is a
hungry world and even though 4 million Americans wait every month for a
food package from the Government, which averages 5 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,
and about half as much chance to own a house. He has about 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 25 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 marketplace, but
working together in effective governmental programs he can do so.
Seventeen million Americans, who live over
65 on an average social security check of about $78 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 President 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 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 and 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 GNP
this year--a year of recovery--we find that it's 6 9/10 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, and 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 7 years, and
the 7 years of the Eisenhower administration.
When we compare these two records in the
areas that Senator Kennedy has discussed tonight, I think we find that
America has been moving ahead.
Let's take schools. We have built more
schools in these 7 years than we built in the previous 7, for that
matter in the previous 20 years.
Let's take hydroelectric power. We have
developed more hydroelectric power in these 7 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 11 percent over 7 years; in this
administration there has been a total growth of 19 percent over 7 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 15 percent in the Eisenhower years as against 2 percent 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 with he--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 him 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 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 aim. 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
whatever it is, whether it's in the field of housing or health or
medical care or schools, or the 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 7 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 Federal Government spend more than I would have it spend.
I costed out the cost of the Democratic
platform. It runs a minimum of $13.2 billion a year more than we are
presently spending to a maximum of $18 billion a year more than we're
presently spending.
Now the Republican platform will cost more
too. It will cost a minimum of $4 billion a year more, a maximum of $4.9
billion 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's a question of which administration does
the right things, and in our case, I do believe that our programs will
stimulate the creative energies of 180 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
programs 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:
Mr. Vanocur I'm Sander Vanocur,
NBC News.
Mr. Warren I'm Charles Warren,
Mutual News.
Mr. Novins I'm Stuart Novins, CBS
News.
Mr. Fleming Bob Fleming, ABC News
Mr. Smith The first question to
Senator Kennedy from Mr. Fleming.
Mr.
Fleming Senator, the Vice President in his campaign has said that
you are 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 in 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 government is comparable.
Secondly, I think the question is
"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 25 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
8-year experience, and the question arises as to whether that experience
was as an observer or as a participant or as an initiator of
policymaking.
Would you tell us, please, specifically
what major proposals you have made in the last 8 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, 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.
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 somewhat unsatisfactory about the figures, Mr. Nixon, that you
used in your previous speech. When you talked about the Truman
administration, you--Mr. Truman came to office in 1944, and at the end
of the war, and the 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 7 years
and comparing them to the last 8 years. I prefer to take the overall
percentage record of the last 20 years of the Democrats and the 8 years
of the Republicans to show an overall period of growth.
In regard to price stability, 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 300, which was more than the Federal
Government had for all of Africa the previous year
So that I don't think that 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. 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
businessman 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 support, then I think you would have
complete economic chaos. The farmer plants in the spring and harvests in
the fall. There are hundreds of thousands of them. They really
don't--are 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 marketplace.
I think the experience of the 20's 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 No. 1 market for the
automobile industry of the United States. The automobile industry is the
No. 1 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 has not worked, and we now have the highest
surpluses, $9 billion worth, we've had a higher taxload 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 5 or 6 percent surplus which breaks the price 15 or
20 percent.
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 3 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 suggestion as
to what should be done 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 that the consumers pay
for products and imposing upon the farmers 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--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 from the products which are in surplus.
Mr. Smith
The next question to Vice President Nixon from Mr. Vanocur.
Mr. Vanocur Mr. Vice President, since the question of executive
leadership is a very important campaign issue, I would like to follow
Mr. Novins' question.
Now, Republican campaign slogans--you'll
see them on signs around the country as we did last week--say it's
experience that counts (that's over a picture of yourself; sir),
implying that you've had more governmental, executive decisionmaking
experience than your opponent.
Now, in his news conference on August 24,
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 am 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 if you know the President, that
that was probably a facetious remark. 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 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, 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.
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 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 session in the House of Representatives
and after being defeated for the Senate in '58, and was a distinguished
President. There is no certain road to the Presidency. There are no
guarantees that if you take one road or another that you will be a
successful President.
I have been in the Congress for 14 years.
I have voted in the last 8 years, and the Vice President was presiding
over the Senate and meeting his other responsibilities; I have met
decisions over 800 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 '60's?
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 are President in January, would go about paying the bill for all
this. Does this mean--
Mr. Kennedy I didn't advocate--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 1961, 2, or 3.
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 be able to retire the debt substantially,
or even at all in 1961 or 2--
MR.
NOVINS. Senator, I believe in one of your speeches--
Mr. Kennedy No, never.
MR.
NOVINS. (Continuing) . . . you suggested that reducing the interest
rate would help toward a reduction of the Federal debt--
Mr. Kennedy No, no. Not reducing the interest-- reducing the interest
rate.
In my judgment, the hard money--tight
money policy, fiscal policy of this administration has contributed to
the slowdown in our economy, which helped bring the recession of '54
which made the recession of '58 rather intense, and which has slowed,
somewhat, our economic activity in 1960.
What I have talked about, however, the
kind of programs that I talk about, in my judgment, are 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, $600 million by
the Government per year, and $600 million by the States.
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--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 5-percent economic growth would
bring by 1962 $10 billion 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.
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 appropriate money for one of these projects, you
have to pay now and appropriate the money and the--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 teachers' 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. 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 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. [Laughter].
I think that the reason that I voted
against having the Federal government pay teachers' salaries was
probably the very reason that concerned Senator Kennedy when, in January
of this year, in his kickoff 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 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 States assuming
more of that responsibility. Teachers' salaries, very fortunately, have
gone up 50 percent in the last 8 years, as against only a 34-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 the Vice President quotes me in January, '60, 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 Mr. Nixon and I disagreed, and his tie vote 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 committees. 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 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 8 years the Democratic Congress has
reduced the appropria-- the request of the appropriation by over $10
billion.
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 postconvention 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 Let's take the bills--
Mr.
Vanocur (continuing) . . . 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 to
provide $1.25 minimum wage. It failed because the House did not pass it
and the House failed by 11 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.
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 are 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 25 years in social
security.
We wanted to tie it to social security. We
offered an amendment to do so; 44 Democrats voted for it; 1 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 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 misses the mark.
When the President exercises his veto
power, he has to have the people 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, and the field of
welfare, because they are not extreme, because they will accomplish the
end 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 from Mr. Fleming.
Mr.
Fleming Mr. Vice President, do I take it, then, you believe that
you could 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.
We would hope to control the House, to get
a majority in the House 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 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--because of the defeat of teacher salaries, it
was not a bill that met, in my opinion, the needs. 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, does not put a deficit on the Treasury.
The proposal advanced by you and by Mr.
Javits would have cost $600 millions. Mr. Rockefeller rejected it in New
York; he 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 lipservice.
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 which 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 give great care and attention to.
We should support 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 the Department of
Justice in its efforts and the FBI 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 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, the few who do become
Communists and the few who do become 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 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
are for those goals. It's one of means.
Mr. Smith
Mr. Vanocur's question for Vice President Nixon.
Mr. Vanocur Mr. Vice President, in one of your earlier statements you
said we have moved ahead, we have built more schools, we have built more
hospitals.
Now, sir, isn't it true that the building
of more schools is a local matter for financing?
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 them?
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 $500 billion. Roughly $100 to $125 billion of
that is the result of Government activity. Four hundred billion,
approximately, is the 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 8-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 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 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 8 years ago or 10
years ago or 15 years ago or 20 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, in just a moment, we'll have the summation time.
A Voice
This will allow 3 minutes and 20 seconds for the summation by each
candidate.
Mr. Smith
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 44 percent of our total gross national product.
That's the same percentage that it was 20 years ago; and as far as the
absolute gap is concerned, we find that the United States is even
further ahead than it was20 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 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 65 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, 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 is
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 44 percent of ours. I must say that 44 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 60 percent of ours and 70 and 75 and 80 and 90 percent of
ours, with all the force and power that it could bring to bear in order
to cause our destruction.
Secondly, the Vice President mentioned
medical care for the aged. Our program was an amendment to the Kerr
bill. The Kerr bill provided assistance to all those who were not on
social security. I think it's a very clear contrast.
In 1935, when the Social Security Act was
written, 94 out of 95 Republicans voted against it. Mr. Landon ran in
1936 to repeal it.
In August of 1960, when we tried to get it
again, but this time for medical care, we received the support of one
Republican in the Senate on this occasion.
Thirdly, I think the question before the
American people is as they look at this country, and as they look at the
world around them, the goals are the same for all Americans; the means
are at question; the means are at issue.
If you feel that everything that is being
done now is satisfactory, that the relative power and prestige and
strength of the United States is increasing in relation to that of the
Communists, that we are gaining more security, that we are achieving
everything as a nation that we should achieve, that we are achieving a
better life for our citizens and greater strength, then I agree. I think
you should vote for Mr. Nixon.
But if you feel that we have to move again
in the sixties, that the function of the President is to set before the
people the unfinished business of our society, as Franklin Roosevelt did
in the thirties, the agenda for our people, what we must do as a society
to meet our needs in this country and protect our security and help the
cause of freedom--as I said at the beginning, the question before us all
that faces all Republicans and all Democrats, is: Can freedom in the
next generation conquer, or are the Communists going to be successful?
That's the great issue.
And if we meet our responsibilities, I
think freedom will conquer. If we fail--if we fail to move ahead, if we
fail to develop sufficient military and economic and social strength
here in this country, then I think that the tide could begin to run
against us, and I don't want historians 10 years from now, to say, these
were the years when the tide ran out for the United States. I want them
to say, these were the years when the tide came in, these were the years
when the United States started to move again. That's the question before
the American people, and only you can decide what you want, what you
want this country to be, what you want to do with the future.
I think we're ready to move. And it is to
that great task, if we are successful, that we will address ourselves.
Mr. Smith
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
This hour has gone by all too quickly.
Thank you very much for permitting us to present the next President of
the United States on this unique program.
I've been asked by the candidates to thank
the American networks and the affiliated stations for providing time and
facilities for this joint appearance.
Other debates in this series will be
announced later and will be on different subjects. This is Howard K.
Smith. Good night from Chicago.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 
