have grave doubts about many of the policies of this administration and I think ultimately the people are going to judge the next president of the United States on the basis of his record his experience his ability his credibility and I'm confident that under those terms I can win the nomination and I can win the presidency well I have no doubt that President Nixon can be defeated I think the American people are looking for a new type of leadership when I was a boy growing up in South Dakota I remember at that time that every American every person I knew loved this country and was proud of it it wasn't that we thought our leadership was perfect but we thought our government was essentially worthy of our trust that it was a good and decent land and it's that kind of a leadership and that kind of an America that I want to restore again I think the people are sick and tired of a war that never ends President Nixon that has not ended I think they're tired of a tax system that favors the powerful and penalizes the rest of us I think they're tired of a leadership that tells us one thing in public while following a different course in private and I believe the people of this country will respond to the kind of leadership that appeals to what is best in us in Lincoln's phrase to the better angels of our nature and if we build that kind of a leadership in that kind of a country then I'm confident future generations in this country will love America not simply because they were born here but because of the kind of a great and good country we've made it that's why I want to be president of the United States that's why I think I'm going to be nominated and elected from CBS television city in Hollywood Face the Nation a one-hour spontaneous and unrehearsed news interview with the two leading contenders in California's June 6 Democratic presidential primary senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Senator George McGovern of South Dakota in their first joint television and radio appearance of the campaign senators McGovern and Humphrey will be questioned by CBS News correspondent David Schuman David Broder national political correspondent of the Washington Post and CBS News correspondent George Herman we shall resume the interview after these messages my mother used to make scrumptious cream potatoes wasn't easy but it was worth it now look what Betty Crocker just brought up cream potatoes cooks in minutes you got tender russet potato slices in a smooth and creamy white sauce a wonderful old-fashioned flavor Betty Crocker creamed potatoes they may be new but it's a little like going home again only from Betty Crocker I wonder if it's I've always watched my weight and while you're watching your weight total watches your vitamins both original and corn total have more vitamins than any other cereals plus iron to help you feel as good as you walk honey in 40 total watches your vitamins why do you watch your weight this is a totally different kind of razor blade it makes shaving easy and I wouldn't dare do this with an ordinary blade the wilkinson has reinvented the razor blade the bonded blade bonded permanently the precise shaving angle and exposure but don't do it this way use the handle that comes with it it's even easier safer to the wilkinson bonded shaving system it makes shaving easy deep in a bug infested jungle these men came to prove the effectiveness of a backyard insect father raid yard guard it kills flying insects up to 20 feet away yard guard clears bugs out in minutes keeps them away for hours it worked in this backyard it'll work in yours clears bugs out in minutes keeps them away for hours Grady yard guard its jungle tested it senator Humphrey and your drive for it's the presidential nomination in Miami Beach is California that a determining factor is it crucial to your struggle of course California is a very important state it has 271 delegate votes that makes it very important and whomever wins here I think has a very good head start but it is not the beginning or the end I intend to carry right on and I intend to win here and I intend to win here because I believe I have the issues I have the experience as a mayor as a senator as a vice president I have the experience in the Congress of accomplishment that record everything from Medicare to student loans to a nuclear test-ban treaty to an arms control agency and I believe that Senator McGovern while having a very catchy phrase where he says right from the start with McGovern or McGovern right from the start that there are many times that you will find that it was not right from the start but wrong from the start we were both wrong on Vietnam senator governor is wrong on Israel senator government has been wrong on unemployment compensation senator McGovern has been wrong on labor law and on the three great issues here in California on his massive unrealistic and I think rather outside welfare program he's wrong on taxation he's contradictory and inconsistent he's wrong and on defense cuts IV they cut into the muscle in the very fiber of our national security so I mean that when people have a chance to weigh the issues they'll find out that there are differences and that those differences will add up into a nomination today did I comment on on the sender's analysis since my record was very heavily involved in this opening statement I find it almost impossible to believe that the senator from Minnesota would attack my record on Vietnam here is a as a senator George McGovern who has spoken out against that war more consistently and over a longer period of time than any other person in the United States Senate I think it's fair to say that Senator Humphrey during all the time that he was vice president of this country and was making statements on Vietnam and even when he became the standard bearer of our party in 1968 no one could have been any more enthusiastic for the course that we were following in Vietnam let me just cite one quote and I'm not going to belabor the record but as late as October 1967 several years after I had referred to Vietnam as the worst moral and political disaster in our history senator Humphrey was saying beat Vietnam is our greatest adventure and a wonderful one it is now this is not a record that encourages me to believe that the Senators during that period as vice president is one that commends him to take us out of Vietnam and to prevent future catastrophes of that of that kind as per my position on Israel I see no essential difference between the views that I've held and the view that Senator Humphrey holds I believe we have to do whatever is necessary to secure the defense of Israel to provide the arms to provide the aircraft that they've requested and there's never been any hesitancy on my part about that as we move along I'll comment on welfare and taxation and defense but let me say for my part I'm not satisfied with what we're doing in any of those fields now I think we can do better I don't like this welfare mess that we're operating under today I don't like a tax structure that favors the rich and the powerful and penalizes the working man and I don't like an 80 billion dollar military budget with all this overkill and waste and fat that adds nothing to the security of our country but as President Eisenhower warns this actually weakens the country by depriving us of resources that we need elsewhere in our national life well senator let's stay on just this one point of Vietnam for just one moment you've heard senator McGovern challenger credentials as an advocate now of withdrawal from Vietnam why should you ask the voters Democratic voters of California take you on that issue rather than senator McGovern what I said was that Senator McGovern says McGovern right from the start now the fact is that Senator McGovern wasn't right from the start any more than I was we both voted the same way in the United States Senate that's where we start and the fact is that all during his Senate career he voted for the appropriations for the war in Vietnam there's no doubt that he spoke out against it but he voted for it and that's the record and when it comes to unemployment compensation he did not vote to support its improvement he voted against it when it comes to labor legislation he voted against it when it comes to certain other aspects such as in welfare legislation he calls a horrible mess let me say that a 72 billion dollar welfare proposal senator McGovern makes today is not only a horrible mess it would be an unbelievable burden upon the taxpayer and when you come to a tax program that on the one hand he with the senator will say to the public look we've got to get the money from the rich and on the other hand he'll run an ad in The Wall Street Journal that says well don't believe it don't believe it here's a letter in the Wall Street Journal right here a letter through a brokerage firm that says now don't don't worry I'm not proposing I have not suggested the elimination of tax exemption for bonds I've not suggested the elimination of capital gains limitations now you can't have it both ways senator I'm sure in the course of the are we're going to get into many of these other topics let me just try on the specific that you mentioned of Vietnam why do you feel that your record on that specific issue commend you to the voters of California more than Senator McGovern right I don't say it commends me more but I say that on every single vote since I've returned to the Senate we have voted alike on Vietnam secondly I say that in 1968 when I was a candidate for the presidency I was the only man that recommended their systematic troop withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam I say that both of us were wrong in the beginning and I don't think we ought to have a slogan that says right from the start when both of us voted exactly the same way unless you want to say we were both right from the start senator McGovern you've been critical of senator Humphrey as a vice president for not speaking out can leave from that assume that if you should be elected president that you're going to permit your vice president to disagree with you on the on all issues or even I asked him to resign if he doesn't agree with you well I certainly would not expect him to speak out but the kind of exuberance about a policy that he thought was wrong that was demonstrated in this quote I just read I cannot conceive of a vice president who had any doubts at all about our military course in Vietnam as late as 1967 describing it as a wonderful adventure one of our greatest adventures and a wonderful one it is that is not the language of a man who had the kind of deep-seated opposition to our involvement in Vietnam that I have had for many years I want to say to my friend senator Humphrey that heard him stayed on many many a platform that George McGovern was the one senator who was right on Vietnam all during these years when he and others that were wrong and I'm somewhat amazed to come into the final days of this California campaign I realized the pressures were under we're under and have the Senators say that our records have been parallel hold on said it all I said right from the start and let's get it straight right from the start we voted alike and may I point out there's no doubt that the Senators spoken against Vietnam but with equal candor I must say that the speech is one thing but the vote is another and as late as 1969 senator McGovern did vote for supplementary appropriations to conduct the war in Vietnam he voted against the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution now those are just the facts not to prolong this one point but I think what voters are probably more interested in senator McGovern is do you see any difference in the policy that you and senator Humphrey would carry out on Vietnam if either of you was elected president well what I see is is one senator who has been in opposition to this war ever since 1963 and another senator who says bartended on that question senator McGovern because it's something that the Republicans have raised and I'm sure they can raise again and that is the interview that you had with the New York Times in 1965 when you said you support President John but Johnson's conduct of the war you said you support the strafing of North Vietnam that's carrying out yes the point that that is that President Johnson at that time was being urged to undertake the massive bombardment of North Vietnam and what I was trying to do is to support the president's refusal to enter into that type of bombardment at that stage and the war he was limiting the attacks to a single retaliation each time there was a major attack on an American installation but let's let's say when our forces are attacked if I may quote you I agree that when ours was a protect this was after the bombing of the Pleiku barracks and the president responded with a lemon response but there was no indication of the kind of sustained and heavy bombardment that was later to begin but there's something that has to be clarified here in the in the records and I think that it's under Humphrey with his sense of fairness will agree that there's a difference when a senator speaks out against Vietnam as I did all during the 1960's but is confronted with a situation where he has to vote for the military budget of the United States in which Vietnam appropriations are included he does not have the option of saying I'm against the Vietnam portion so I'm going to vote no on that and vote YES on the rest of the defense budget you have the choice of either saying I'm against the entire defense budget of the United States and I vote for zero appropriations or you get up and speak against the war you try to change the policy and then you do as I did on the floor of the United States Senate and explain that your vote for the defense budget is not entitled to be interpreted as a vote for the Vietnam War I wonder if we can bother senator McGovern when it came on the vote to aid to Israel he voted against the foreign aid appropriation because he didn't like what was in a devout Laos yes he had voted earlier to put some money in for Israel but on the end he votes no he just can't have it both ways that's what I'm trying to say and in 1969 there was a supplemental appropriation that was related directly to funds for Southeast Asia and I asked the senator in all honesty between two compatriots in the Senate did he or did he not vote for it and the answer is he good bulldog but explaining very carefully but even that appropriation included food for our soldiers included medical care for our soldiers included housing for our soldiers there was no there was no way those things could be singled out if the senator will check the record he will see it precisely the time that I was supporting that overall appropriation I said it was wrong to have American soldiers in Vietnam that they ought to be taken out but as long as they were there I was going to see that they were supplied with the equipment that they needed if that's vastly different for a senator to be warning against the Altmann of American forces calling it a disaster calling for an end and the position that my friend Senator Humphrey took all during that period when he said this is a glorious adventure that isn't what was said at all do you think we could we go on to another area now here and one of the things that you brought up senator Humphrey which was the govern proposals on defense spending you've indicated that you believe that his fifty five fifty eight billion dollar defense budget is playing games with national security and yet as you know you did write a column at one time in a Washington newspaper saying that you thought quote we can cut the Pentagon budget to as low as 50 billion a year and still have real security for the United States why was your fifty billion dollars not jeopardizing security and his fifty eight billion dollars is because in 1970 when I wrote that I had predicated it on as the column will reveal on the are being out of the UNAM looking to the future being out of Vietnam which at that time would have been a saving of 16 billion dollars of cutting waste and the Senate in that Congress cut out six billion dollars so that was a twenty two billion dollar cut out of a seventy two billion dollar request getting it down to a fifty billion dollar figure may I say that I think that that was a pretty good estimate of what we could do but there's a lot of difference between the numbers there then getting into cutting your fleet in half which is exactly what Senator McGovern recommends cutting your Air Force by two-thirds cutting your Marine Corps down to two token divisions cutting down your naval squadrons by 80% and building no new ships or no new modernization I submit that the McGovern defense proposal cuts into the very muscle of our defense it isn't just cutting into the waist it isn't just cutting into manpower it's cutting into the very security of this country without any regard as to what kind of negotiations you can make with the Soviet Union what specific cuts you've said you were in favor of cutting fat what specific cuts and how many dollars would you save today on a defense budget it is estimated by the Brookings Institution itself in the most recent report that we could take approximately ten billion dollars out of the defense budget in manpower and in what they calling procurement improvement and still maintain the kind of defense that we really need and that doesn't mean that you cut your carrier forces from 15 to 6 the senator McGovern is proposing I think there is a chance to reduce the defense budget we did it last year in the Congress we did it the year before and that defense and the defense analysis made by the Brookings Institution says about ten billion dollars senator McGovern Senator Humphrey on this topic has said that if you're unilateral cuts had gone into effect there would have been no incentive for the Russians to enter into a salt agreement as they did this week no such agreement would have occurred how would you respond to that well if the first place I disagree with the Senators analysis that if we had reduced military spending we would not have been able to negotiate an arm's reduction with the Soviet Union and I would think that he would agree with that when you consider the full context in which he was recommending substantial cuts in military spending in this country as late as February 9th 1970 now I want to read the full text of what the ascender said because I have the economy before me and it's not some hastily devised statement it was a syndicated column that the senator wrote appearing in the Washington Daily News On February 9 1970 but you attracted for us it's oh yeah I'm not going to read the whole column I'm going to read the two sentences from it but to give the gist of it it says I senators senator Humphrey is speaking now I do not think we can continue to spend 70 to 80 billion dollars a year on weapons systems and a huge defense establishment while paying only lip service to the real needs of this nation and then he says we can cut the Pentagon budget as low as 50 billion dollars a year and still have real security for the United States now that's a five billion dollar greater cut than I have proposed and I think the McGovern budget in McGovern alternative budget which comes out to just under 55 billion dollars will give this country all the military power we need it would still leave us the capacity to destroy every city and the Soviet Union at least 20 times over I think that's just about enough it actually increases our submarine fleet it improves the mobility of our forces but can we now increase our submarine fleet on the basis of the agreement signed in Moscow we are limited to the numbers we can increase the attack submarines we can if we cannot increase the in Valeris and Poseidon system under the Moscow agreement but where we're falling behind is on the attack submarine that is our answer to the increase in the Soviet surface go back to something that you said that's very good guide on this just one minute call my figure is in 1970 prices and price the inflation and military weaponry has gone up fantastically since and everybody knows it they don't even argue the point that's number one secondly that was a part of the series of articles in which I was recommending no ABM and the total cost of the projected ABM system in that 72 billion dollar budget was 12 billion dollars now that was not needed because even the ABM today with two ABM sites is the freeze with the Soviet Union thirdly the Vietnam War was in the series of articles I was calling for its end and the end of the appropriations and fourthly I was calling for a sharp reduction in the waste and cutting out the waste in the defense budget now that's a fact now what Senator McGovern has proposed are specifics he says halt the Minuteman procurement halt the Poseidon procurement halt the b1 prototype phase out 230 of our 530 strategic bombers reduce aircraft carrier force from 15 to 6 reduce our naval air squadrons by 80% halt all naval surface shipbuilding reduce the number of cruisers from 230 to 130 reduce the number of submarines by 11 now when you get down to that and reduce the total number of forces 66,000 below what we had Priya Priya Pearl Harbor you are not talking about just removing waste or just doing something that seems to be kind of comfort for the country you were cutting into the very fiber and the muscle of the defense establishment energy no doubt about it senator what's the military threat the to see that we have to spend seventy or eighty billion dollars on I didn't say we had to spend seventy or eighty billion dollars everything has to be relative and I believe in negotiated arms control and negotiated disarmament I do not believe in a unilateral troop reduction for example in Western Europe of a hundred and fifty thousand which is what the Senator McGovern is proposed I believe that we ought to negotiate that out with the Russians just like we've negotiated out an ABM freeze and just like we've negotiated an interim agreement on offensive on offensive weapons you cannot you cannot negotiate with the Russians from a position of weakness but I think we haven't learned basically learn nothing senator I think the basis of what mr. Broder was asking you is do you think that the Russians still today are seeking to dominate the world and would like to knock out the United States is that the threat with which we have to on which we have to base all our policy not a bit but I think we have to recognize that the Soviet Union is perfectly capable of engaging in gunboat to play diplomacy I wonder what you would think if we had about a fleet half the size in the Mediterranean I think that was a remarkable statement you you do not think that the Soviet Union is now seeking to dominate I didn't say that what I heard you say they're perfectly capable of engaging in gunboat diplomacy where they will use their power as a fact and say this is the way it is for example in the Mediterranean the only protection that we have the southern flank of NATO in the Mediterranean today as the sixth fleet now if you start cutting the sixth fleet with the Soviet buildup in its fleet in the Mediterranean one of these days the Soviet Union is going to present you with a fact accomplished so to speak Fiat accompli in which it says listen we are in North Africa we're going to stay in North Africa we have our bases in North Africa they can overrun Israel in the Middle East the only protection which Israel has in that part of the world right now is the presence of the American Sixth Fleet as a counterbalance to the power of the Soviet Union I think Americans are sensible enough to know that while the Russians may not want to precipitate World War 3 they surely know what they all the pressure game in politics the gunboat diplomacy of the 20th century i'ma not about ready to let the Russians make America into a second-class power nor am I going to let senator McGovern's defense proposals make America into a second-class power I don't think this would be right you address yourself also to my question which is how do you estimate the Soviet intention at this point well may I comment on the on what the senator has said here after all I I've known something about war firsthand I know where we were at the beginning of World War two I know that it's a mistake to ever again permit this country to become as weak as we were in the late 1930s I saw a good many of my friends die right in front of my eyes because we weren't adequately defended but a 55 billion dollar budget of the kind I have proposed here is a budget fully adequate to the defense needs of this country it doesn't leave us defenseless before the Union into the Soviet Union it still gives us a bigger and better bomber fleet than they have it gives us better and more accurate missiles than they have it gives us a better submarine fleet both the Polaris and Poseidon than they have well we're reducing forces in Western Europe there's nothing to prevent the European economies from making up any difference that they think might be needed in Western Europe why should the American taxpayer 27 years after the end of World War two maintain 500,000 Americans on the ground in Western Europe but when the European can't economies are perfectly capable of providing more of their own military manpower I don't think it's just an accident that some of the top defense experts in this country have issued a statement saying that this military budget of mine is sound that it's reasonable and they're asking for some reasonable alternative from Senator Humphrey that we haven't yet heard may I suggest we'll come back but gentlemen let me interrupt here we'll return shortly with the second half of this special edition of face there's the designer who is making headlines all over the world here's halston the first to design our Hercule on to collection changes the life of fashion I have designed the herculean to close to reflect the way women like to look and feel bright contemporary in the media's find out how fashion it should feel find out about herculean - clothes look for the Herculean - hang tag on break clothes close closer closest this is the new norelco VIP with a shave so close we dare to match shaves with a blade the VIP with super microgroove heads rotary blades and 9 closeness comfort settings set it for your beard your skin closeness comfort and no adjustability all in the norelco VIP it lets you shave close or closer or closer or closer face the nation will resume after station identification this is CBS Ralph's people wouldn't believe that you and I were in the same Austen lead Savoy why not AJ well you're kind of tall and I'm kind of showing well AJ that's the way we buy clothes that Lyrids fit everybody well we're living proof friends if you think you're hard to fit come to Levy's sixth Avenue downtown river gate 100 oaks now you can have a complete wardrobe of frames for the cost of one pair come by and let us frame you in fashion WLAC TV Nashville's most-watched television station in a minute imagine a spaceship that goes more than 17,000 miles an hour lands like a plane and flies up to 100 missions this is not the year 2000 this is 1978 the year the Space Shuttle begins its work in space and if the future is like the present tang will be in its galley the orange flavored instant breakfast drink with more vitamin C than orange juice tang for spacemen and earth families if you thought nothing new could ever happen to hamburger watch you are now looking at French's new sizzle burger but crispiest juiciest tastiest hamburger ever and so easy to make pan broiled your burgers in 1 tablespoon of French's Worcestershire sauce and 1 of butter sizzle burger try it with regular and new Hickory flavor to Senator Humphrey in almost the opening seconds of this program you made a reference as you have a number of times to the 72 billion dollar cost of general governor senator went to get it right there senator McGovern's welfare proposals how do you arrive at that 72 billion dollar figure by a Senate Finance Committee staff study of the United States Senate it's an estimated 72 billion dollar cost and will put a hundred and four million Americans on welfare can i clarify that point the senator Humphrey knows there's an old practice in the Senate of introducing bills on request even when a senator may not himself support that legislation in order to get the matter before the Senate for debate now the bill that he's talking about is the national welfare rights organization bill sponsored by that organization it was a bill which was introduced on request for the first time two years ago by Senator McCarthy of Minnesota who was then a member of the Finance Committee the organization came to me after senator Humphrey after Senator McCarthy left the Senate said there was no one that they could get to introduce the bill I told him there was no chance to get a measure through the Senate that would require a payment of $6,500 to a family of four but I would introduce the bill so that at least it would have a hearing I did that I explained it on the Senate floor at the time that it was not my proposal it was very clear that this was a proposal simply to get it before the Senate for debate the proposals that I have made have nothing to do with that specific proposal welfare rights organization as you know reporters covering you have been trying for quite some time to get a price tag on your welfare bill yesterday there was even a special session for us and we heard numbers from twenty to thirty to sixty billion dollars can you tell us today how much it'll cost there's no way mr. Shue made sure that you can make an exact estimate on this proposal because what I have said number one is that I want to get rid of the present program entirely I want to scrap the existing welfare mess but you're asking us to accept a program that you two can't tell us how much it's going to cause that accepts exactly right there's no way to estimate the the cost of this program other than to say that there's no net cost to the Treasury at all it's an effort to require a higher tax bracket for the very rich and the powerful and to provide greater support for those at the low end of the income scale but let me put it to you this way every American who is earning $12,000 a year or less would profit from the proposal that I've suggested above that figure up to an income of 20,000 it might cost him another twenty one dollars a year in taxes to support this program after you get above $25,000 the the tax bite would be somewhat higher but you'd be financing a minimum income program that would work rather than this mess that we have now that won't what you're saying it won't cost the Treasury anything it may cost those of us on this panel and the people at home something it might cost the people on this panel 25 or 30 dollars a year in additional income to the average American it represents a net gain everybody up to $12,000 would be better off under the proposal that I've suggested above that level there would be a small in recent taxes but nothing that would work a hardship on anyone but gentleman let me put it this way it's impossible to devise a welfare system that's worse than the one we got now it's not working I'm still stuck on this figure this amount I want to go back to senator Humphrey and say now is it true senator that you are using freely in every speech a seventy two billion dollars a year which does not apply to the program which is what Senator McGovern is currently advocating and he says I'm be very careful there's a bill that the senator introduced which does not say at request which is what a bill does when you put it at request in the Senate it's s to 372 and that bill according to the Senate Finance Committee study and I read from it persons eligible in fiscal 1973 would be a hundred and four million at the cost of seventy two billion dollars increasing for the fiscal year 1977 to one hundred and fourteen million persons and a cost of 80 billions of dollars now that's what they you talk about a welfare mass gentleman that's not only a welfare mess that is a compounded mess and when you start to talk about 72 billions of dollars somebody's got to pay that bill senator specifically what changes would you make in today is welfare let me I come to it let me go to the next one now the senator has an optional bill and that is a kind of an income redistribution proposal where everybody gets $1,000 everybody rich or poor whether it's Howard Hughes or whether it's Joel so Joel Smith he gets $1,000 and it's on that one where he says that the that the tax white really hits that the person at $12,000 a year or more I took a look at it right here in California as secretary working in San Francisco making $8,000 a single person and there are thousands millions of single people in this country would have an increase in his or her taxes under senator McGovern's welfare proposal a 567 obviously is not true it is true and a family that has $12,000 a year a family of four would have a 409 dollar increase and that is not now the reason the senator can say it's not true he doesn't even know what the price tag do his bill is well what where did you get the figures if he doesn't know what his program cost how do you know what it's probably fun may I say I know what the tax rate is what is proposed tax rate is because he has a surcharge tax rate I think they're insane is that if you take $1,000 per person and there are 210 million people in this country it's a two hundred and ten billion dollar Treasury transaction gentlemen I think these numbers are going to be impossible to resolve did you tell you specifically you're going to propose to to change this well thurman yes I have some specifics number one raise social security pensions 25 percent that's where we start number two have a minim minimum income for a family of four of $3,000 not $6,500 well I'm proposing for now may I suggest also that besides that that you take those that are persons that are what we call an old-age Assistance the blind the Deaf the handicapped and those be transferred to the federal welfare system and that will relieve state and local governments considerably and then you take the Family Assistance Program and over a period of four years you make a slow transaction from in the four-year period from the states to the federal government this will relieve this will cost approximately eleven and a half billions of dollars as compared to whatever figure Senator McGovern wants to put on his illusi program one of the things senator to billions senator Humphrey one of the things that bothers people is the whole bureaucratic red tape that surrounds this I don't see anything in there that will essentially change the nature of the welfare system yes first of all you'll have work requirements mr. senator McGovern's program is a share of the wealth program but not share the work there are no work requirements in his program at all I think that you ought to have training for people I think you ought to have public service employment for people I think you ought to try to provide jobs for people I think you ought to have standards I think those that are in need should have adequate income and those that are capable of work that want to work that can work they should be trained for jobs and there should be jobs available to them if not in the private sector in the public sector the minute that a person is on a job he starts to pay taxes he starts to pay his the bill your value have a program here that with a hundred and four million people covered under the program that he introduced by request which says there's no work requirement you have a program on the second program that everybody gets $1,000 per person and no work requirement I just don't think it makes very much sense I don't think that Congress would pass it I don't think the American people will buy it senator you are champing at the bit to answer we're having at the bit to change the subject so that I just want to say the senator is making the very case against the bill that I made when I introduced it and said I was doing it on request that it was not a piece of legislation that I thought would have been approved by the Senate but I did think this group had a right to have a hearing now the sender talks about the present program being in a mess but I don't see anything in the proposals he suggested here that's going to straighten it out what I want to make clear is that even if we were to take the suggestion I've made of a minimum income supplement of $1,000 a person that would mean for a family of four an income of $4,000 now we've provided that you don't lose that when you go to work there's no penalty for working under the present welfare system if you get above a certain level you're knocked off welfare and it's a discouragement to people to go to work the program that I have suggested here today and that I've suggested repeatedly all across this country would give the major benefits to working people most of this income transfer would go to people in an income between four thousand and twelve thousand dollars a year let me ask you both the question which I think fascinates everybody who like the three of us here at the panel everybody who covers the political scene the man who has won the most primaries the man who has the biggest popular vote at this moment is George Wallace what does it mean what is the message he is sending the country start mcgovern whom i interrupt well i think one of the concerns that the governor Wallace has touched is the same one that I have and I think it's one of the reasons that it's being reported that many people who respond to governor Wallace have also looked kindly on some of the things that I've been saying and that is he speaks to the issue of tax injustice in this country he properly points out is that the whole thing I think that's part of it I think there are other aspects in the in the Wallace appeal but his attitude towards the war for example well his attitude on the war is directly opposite from mine and yet it's gotten an enormous vote or he has gotten an enormous he's gotten he's gotten an enormous vote in my judgment to a great extent because he's come across as the champion of the little man he said the time has come for the ordinary people of this country to get a better break and I believe that I disagree with governor Wallace's solution I've proposed a fundamental tax reform program that will be fair to the little person and will be fair to everybody let me get the senator Humphreys reaction to the Wallace phenomenon which is so big a thing in our country at the moment one thing for sure is it isn't a phenomenon based upon putting everybody on welfare you can start with that it surely isn't that he's spoken out against it and another thing for sure is it isn't a phenomenon that is based upon having the government in everything and that's exactly what Senator McGovern's proposal doesn't welfare senator phenomenon that you call hate and racism let me just let me just continue here I want to go back to this welfare proposal because we're talking about the fiscal responsibility of this country I like to explore the Wallace phenomenon this isn't it this is an important part of the entire debate in this country today do the American people want to have a welfare program that does not put an emphasis on jobs but put it puts an emphasis on a handout that cost seventy two billion dollars or do they want one that cost two hundred and ten million dollars that's what Senator McGovern is proposing and I submit that he has no evidence that he can finance either one and I submit that the middle-income taxpayer will pay the lion's share of the bill the Senate Finance Committee study says that even under the best of circumstances if you took all of the corporate profits if you closed all of the tax loopholes as Senator McGovern talks about and by the way I have the specific tax loophole closing program that you would still be 51 billion dollars short how are you going to do Westin about the Wallis phenomenon you told us a couple of things that it's not do you know what it is what it stands yes I think that it represents a kind of protest as to the insensitivity of government to people's needs the remoteness of government from the actual realities of the life the working people of this country I think it's an effort on the part of people or a reaction on the part of people of a protest towards many things as they are and many of the things that Governor Wallace has been talking about are the very things that I've been leading on for years tax reform I was in the tax loophole closing business before governor Wallace or Senator McGovern talked about it much less did anything about it I have been in the battle for the working families of this country on minimum wages and fair labor standards on Medicare for example I led the fight on Medicare when they medical lobby of this country was fighting against me like it was a plague but I think I know that there are people in this country that want government to be a little more sensitive to their needs the last places where you ran head-on with governor Wallace was Maryland in Michigan and of course he talked about busing there are you prepared to do anything to satisfy the obvious demand of his constituents to stop busing in this country I have a position on busing which i think is sound and sensible I do not support massive compulsory busing that has as its primary and sole objective racial balance on a quota basis I do feel that busing is one of the tools and only one that can be helpful in promoting better education offering an opportunity for a child to go from a poor school to a good school to get a good education and to promote integrated education do you do anything to delay or prevent court-ordered school desegregation plans involving busing I would permit appeals but I would surely have the good sense to support the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and not try to interfere with what I call the separation of powers are you saying you would permit Appeals for me appeals are permitted and go under our system so all the answers that you would do next I would like to stop those appeals but I will do nothing to interfere with the courts and course of action on on decisions involving busing would you know I would not would you senator McGovern well I can only say this I have been consistent in my support of the Supreme Court decision and at no point have I read into that decision any order for massive busing in order to cheat achieve racial balance that was not the purpose of the decision you said at one point you thought busing was about 90 second and importance as an issue do you still think that I think that's where it where it should be in terms of the real that needs of this country I said it with tongue-in-cheek at the time as you know mr. Broder what I was trying to get across to the people is that it's an issue that's been emotionalized the President and others have blowin it out of all proportion to its real significance when you look at what the Supreme Court said it said that busing is one tool that we can use to achieve a greater quality of education in the schools now in all due respects did my friend senator Humphrey when President Nixon called for a moratorium on busing in effect for a moratorium on the Supreme Court decision the senator said he was glad that the president had finally gotten his finger high enough in the air to see where the currents were blowing and to come over to the position that he had held all along I think that actually was a departure from any real respect for the Supreme Court or support for this decision can I ask you a question of both of you gentlemen you've gone through California through the campaign promising programs that if you believe each other's estimates come to between 200 and 300 billion dollars more openings on the cabinet in the Supreme Court then there will be in several administrations do you really think that that's the way you get elected today mr. shoemaker I have proposed nothing in the way of welfare reform or defense reform or full employment or anything else without providing a method for financing it as a matter of fact if you total up all the things that I have recommended in the course of this campaign they come to about 4 billion dollars less than the additional revenues that I've proposed the reason it's difficult to answer the question about the cost of the welfare reform proposal I suggest is that it depends on the Congress approving fundamental tax reform I would never press for any program on welfare reform or any other place where I did not also have a tax reform proposal and able to cover it that's why I think the National Taxpayers League a year ago said that Senator Proxmire of Wisconsin and Senator McGovern of South Dakota had the two best records on fiscal integrity of anyone in the Senate my I suggest Senator Proxmire just recently said that he considered senator McGovern's tax proposals his Achilles heel and also that they would drive away any possible incentive for the American enterprise system that's in his in his interview recently with the Milwaukee Journal and furthermore isn't it strange senator the senator Proxmire endorsed my candidacy for the presidents and he also said he'd have a very difficult time explaining to people why he did it in light of your tax program now I'm just talking about the tax ball and that's a fair and accurate statement senator Humphrey will you still be able to support senator McGovern if he gets the nomination over mr. Nixon of course I will in the meantime I'll talk to Senator McGovern and get him off from some of these kick cities off welfare program can you win do you think and I'm gonna ask you both the same question can you win senator McGovern's particular constituency the young people the anti-war people can you win them over a great many of them as you know don't like you because of some past history do you think you can win them I think I can win a great number of the young people every young person is not in college only two out of seven are I have a mobile number of the young working people of America that don't really have time just to run around and even to knock on doors there are young men or women that are working in the supermarket's the filling station but you're both Democrats can you win the McGovern whole life well the strength I think a Democrat myself included will have the majority of the young people on his side man I'll have the Working Families that's the background that's the backbone of the Democratic Party fewer working families of America if you were the nominee senator Humphrey you would not accept help from local or not accept help from a while expected as Senator McGovern would expect from me let me turn it over to Senator McGovern can you win the people in the Democratic Party who are devoted and convinced Hubert Humphrey followers and who have not rallied to your side who avoid a good deal of opposition I I have no doubt about it and I think the more my positions become known to the people of this country the more support they're going to get the senator has talked here today a great deal about his friendship for the working people of this country the fact remains that I'm the candidate that has outlined a program to provide a job for every worker in this country and I've said where the money is going to come from I've pointed out where we're going to get additional revenues by closing some of the tax loopholes I pointed out where waste can be reduced in the military establishment and then that money invested in job-creating enterprises I think that's what the rank-and-file working people of this country want gentlemen you've both expressed an interest in having a little time to summary I propose that you give your final summary now since we started with senator Humphrey I'd like to hear a final summary first consent of McGovern mr. Herman I saw it in in recent months as best I could to point the direction in which I think the Democratic Party and this nation ought to be moving I think the overwhelming majority of the American people are dissatisfied with the leadership of both parties as a matter of fact it's a leadership that is no longer listening to the American people leadership that has consistently told us one thing in public while advocating a different course in private and I think the people are tired of these backroom deals I think they're tired of politics as usual it's my conviction that they don't want another rerun in 1972 of 1968 I think there's a tide running in this country that provides the motive force of the McGovern campaign and it's a tide that above all else would restore some measure of truthfulness and openness in the council's of government it is a tide that would not only end the folly of Vietnam but would resolve that never again will we commit American forces trying to prop up a corrupt and unrepresentative military dictator abroad I want to be able to proclaim some day soon that peace has come I want to be able to proclaim that there's a decent job for every American I want to be able to lead this country back to the reverence for life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness with which we began I want to preside over the kind of a country where we have what is most important of all and that is the assurance that we care very deeply about each other senator Humphrey you have the same amount of time well I want to be your president because I believe in this country I've said quite honestly that I have a love affair with America I know it's people I know it's heritage I know it's problems and I think I understand its hopes in its dreams and I want above all to lift the spirit of this country I come to this quest for the presidency with a record a record that I am willing to lay on the table before the American jury and to be judged by it I have experience as a mayor of a great city and this is an urbanized society and I think that is a difference between myself and Senator McGovern I've been a United States Senator and leader in the Senate and I have a record of accomplishment from Medicare to student loans to pollution control to the Peace Corps to the Job Corps for the needy people to the National Defense Education Act to the arms control major a host of measures that are there in public law more than that I say that the measure of a man's vision and leadership is not so much what he says but what he does and what he does even when it's not popular I don't believe that the American people are going to respond to who gives the most promises I think they're going to look and see who gave the best performance now I've heard today Senator McGovern talk about his proposals for jobs I submit most candidly that most of it includes unemployment compensation I've heard his proposals for tax reform and yet quite frankly he has put the tax revenues that he's going to save in three or four different places at the same time I think that people want credibility I think they want a sense of integrity and above all I think they want a sense of vision for this country and they want a president who not only understands what people say but what's in their hearts who suffered with him who is grown with it I believe I can offer that kind of a record and that kind of leadership thank you very much senator Humphrey Thank You senator McGovern I'm sorry gentlemen our time is now up thank you both very much for being here today to face the nation back in Dave Lennox's day escape from summers heat was a hunk of ice a patch of shade Dave's furnace was a flying machine but offered no relief he oh it's hot around here today days name is found on total Indoor Comfort systems nifty weather machines and warm cool even clean the air and control moisture in homes and buildings feels great Dave look in the yellow pages for Dave 50 Weather Machine [Music] we've made improvement after improvement after improvement in our car and now we've got an improvement that keeps the other improvements working right every 72 volkswagen has a built in service system that attaches to a computer that writes out on paper 60 test results that tell you how your car is doing the computers will be ready starting later this year every 72 volkswagen is ready now [Music] and Chiquita banana and I'm back to say [Music] if it doesn't say Jim when you were completely great you did look older I can't believe how much better you look with just a touch of gray announcing Grecian formulas 16 is practically clear as easy to use as hair tonic no mess use it every day until you slowly gradually get rid of just as much gray as you want some of it or all of it then once a week or so to keep it that way I use it too and he doesn't even know it Grecian formula 16 today on this special edition of Face the Nation two of the leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Senator George McGovern of South Dakota were interviewed by CBS News correspondent David Schuman David Broder national political correspondent of The Washington Post and CBS News correspondent George Herman next week in our regular time period another prominent figure in the news will face the nation CBS News will bring you a wrap-up of the California and New Mexico primaries one week from Tuesday night Face the Nation originated at CBS television city in Hollywood 60 minutes we'll return next Sunday of 6-5 Central Time on most of these stations CBS News will present a special report featuring highlights of President Nixon's summit trip to the Soviet Union tomorrow night at 10:00 9:00 central time on CBS tires sears tires tomorrow only save 25% on every tire in stock except radials in the tire and auto center tomorrow only at Sears do you know what the price of parenthood is how expensive it is to have one child well by the time your child has reached 18 and will have spent for food clothing shelter medical care education transportation and other costs
