TNC:172 Kennedy-Nixon First Presidential Debate, 1960

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 and the current political campaign by the two major candidates for the presidency the candidates need no introduction the Republican candidate Vice President Richard M Nixon and the Democratic candidate Senator John F Kennedy according to rules set by the candidates themselves each man shall make an opening statement of approximately eight minutes duration and a closing statement of approximately three minutes duration in between the candidates will answer or comment upon answers to questions put by a panel of correspondents in this the first discussion in a series of four joint appearances the subject matter has been agreed will be restricted to internal or domestic American matters and now for the first opening statement by Senator John F Kennedy 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 today 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. crucial for survival mr. Khrushchev is in New York and he maintains the Communist offensive throughout the world because of the productive power of the Soviet Union itself the Chinese Communists have always had a large population but they are important and dangerous now because they are mounting a major effort within their own country the kind of country we have here the kind of society we have the kind of strength we build in the United States will be the defense of freedom if we do well here if we meet our obligations if we're moving ahead then I think freedom will be secure around the world if we fail then freedom failure therefore I think the question before the American people is are we doing as much as we can do are we as strong as we should be are we as strong as we must be if we're going to maintain our independence and if we're going to maintain and hold out the hand of friendship to those who look to us for assistance to those who look to us for survival I should make it very clear that I do not think we're doing enough that I am not satisfied as an American with the progress that we're making this is a great country but I think it could be a greater country and this is a powerful country but I think it could be a more powerful country I'm not satisfied to have 50% 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 world because economic growth means strength and vitality it means we're able to sustain our defenses it means we're able to meet our commitments abroad I'm not satisfied when we have over nine billion dollars worth of food some of it rotting even though there is a hungry world and even though four million Americans wait every month for a food package from the government which averages five cents a day per individual I saw cases in West Virginia here in the United States where children took home part of their school lunch in order to feed their families because I don't think we're meeting our obligation towards 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 on 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 Mexican 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 1/3 as much chance to be a professional man about half as much chance to own a house he has about the four times as much chance but he'll be out of work in his law 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 say that we 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 peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin of Minnesota he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the marketplace but working together an effective governmental program he can do so 17 million Americans who live over 65 on an average Social Security check of about 78 dollars a month they're not able to sustain themselves individually but they can sustain themselves through the Social Security system I don't believe in big government but I believe in effective governmental action and I think that's the only way that the United States is going to maintain its freedom it's the only way 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 failed 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 crucial or look at the Chinese Communist that is the obligation upon our generation 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 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 and now the opening statement by Vice President Richard M Nixon 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 is 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 the night 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 the night for example the statement made that our growth in national product last year was the lowest of any industrial nation in the world now last year of course was 1958 that happened to be a recession year but when we look at the growth of GNP this year a year of recovery we find that is 6 and 9/10 percent 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 a senator Kennedy has charged has been in an administration of retreat of defeat of stagnation is it true that as far as this country is concerned in the field of electric power in all of the field that he has mentioned we have not been moving ahead well we have a comparison that we can make we have the record of the Truman administration of seven and a half years and the seven and a half years of the Eisenhower administration when we compare these two records in the areas that Senator Kennedy has has discussed tonight I think we find that America has been moving ahead let's take school we have built more schools in these last seven and a half years than we build in the previous seven and a half for that matter in the previous twenty years let's take hydroelectric power we have developed more hydroelectric power in these seven and a half years than was developed in any previous administration in history let us take hospitals we find that more have been built in this administration than in the previous administration the same is true of highway 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 seven years in this administration there has been a total growth of 19 percent over seven years that shows that there's been more growth in this administration than in its predecessor but let's not put it there let's put it in terms of the average family what has happened to you we find that your wages have gone up five times as much in the Eisenhower administration as they did in the Truman 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% in the Eisenhower years as against 2% 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 up 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 him 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 retread of the programs of the Truman administration which proceeded 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 been 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 our much is much better handled than it is at the present time here again may I indicate that senator Kennedy and I are not in disagreement as to the aim we both want to help the old people we want to see that they do have adequate medical care the question is the mean I think that the means that I advocate will reach that goal better than the means that he advocated I could give better example but for whatever it is whether it's in the field of housing or health or medical care or school or the development of electric power we have programs which we believe will move America mover forward and build on the wonderful record that we have made over these past seven and a half years now when we look at these programs might I suggest that in evaluating them we often have a tendency to say that the test of a program is how much you're spending I will concede that in all the areas to which I have referred senator Kennedy would have the federal government spend more than I would have a spent I cost it out the cost to the Democratic platform it runs a minimum of 13 and two-tenths billion dollars a year more and we are presently spending to a maximum of 18 billion dollars a year more than the president's thing now the Republican platform will cost more too it will cost a minimum of 4 billion dollars a year more a maximum of 4 and 9/10 billion dollar-a-year more than were present in 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 spend it isn't a question of which government does the most it's a question of which administration does the right thing and in our case I do believe that our programs will stimulate the creative energies of a hundred and eighty million free Americans I believe the program that Senator Kennedy advocates will have a tendency to stifle those creative energies I believe in other words that his program would lead to the stagnation of the motive power that we need in this country to get projects the final point that I would like to make as a 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 is deeply about these problem desire but our disagreement is not about the goals for America but only about the means to reach those goals Thank You mr. Dixon that completes the opening statements and now the candidates will answer questions or comment upon one another's answers to questions put by correspondence of the networks the correspondence I'm centered on ocher NBC News I'm Charles Warren Mutual news of Stuart Knowlton's CBS News Bob Fleming ABC News the first question to Senator Kennedy from mr. Fleming senator the vice president his campaign has said that you are naive and at time immaturity has raised the question of leadership on this issue why do you think people should vote for you rather than a vice president the vice president and I came to the Congress together 1946 we both served in the labor committee I've been there now for 14 years the same period of time as you have 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 the 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 leave the United States mr. Nixon would you like to comment on that second I don't know the next question mr. nubbins 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 what major proposals you have made in the last eight years that have been adopted by the administration would be rather difficult to cover them in Asian 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 a 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 they lent then 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 a 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 Priceline has been held very well within the United States well I would say in the latter that the and that's what I found that somewhat unsatisfactory about the figures there mr. Nixon in your previous speech when you talk about the Truman administration you mr. Truman came to office in 1944 and at the end of the war and difficulties that were facing the United States during that period of transition 1946 when price controls were lifted so it's rather difficult to use an overall figure taking those seven and a half years and comparing them to the last eight years I prefer to take the overall percentage record of the last twenty years of the Democrats and the eight years of the Republicans to show an overall period of growth in regard to 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 of 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 a very Manute number of exchanges that we had and 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 in least in those two areas with sufficient vigor the next question to Senator Kennedy from mr. Warren senator Kennedy during your brief speech a few minutes ago you mentioned farm surpluses I'd like to ask this it's a fact I think the presidential candidates traditionally make promises for farmers lots of people I think don't understand why the government pays farmers for not producing certain crops or paying farmers if they over produce for that matter let me ask sir why can't the farmer operate like the businessman who operates a factory if an auto company over produces a certain model car Uncle Sam doesn't step in and buy up the surplus why this constant courting of the farmer well because I think that if the federal government moved out of the program and withdrew which support then I think you would have complete the economic chaos the farmer plants in the spring and harvest in the fall there are hundreds of thousands of them they really don't 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 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 20s has shown what a free market could do to agriculture and if the agricultural economy collapses then the economy of the rest of the United States sooner or later will collapse the farmers are the number one market for the automobile industry of the United States the automobile industry is the number one market for steel so if the farmer's 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 President farm policy is that there are no effective controls to bring supply and demand in the better balance the dropping of the support price in order to limit production has not worked and we now have the highest surfaces nine billion dollars worth we've had a higher tax load from the Treasury for the farmer in the last few years with the lowest farm income in many years I think that this farm policy has failed and my judgment the only policy that will work will be for effective supply and demand of the invalid and that can only be done through governmental action I therefore suggest that in those basic commodities which are supported at the federal government after endorsement by the farmers in that commodity attempt to bring supply and demand into balance attempt effective production controls so we won't have that five or six percent surplus which breaks the price fifteen or twenty 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 I don't think it provides effective governmental controls I think the support prices are tied to the average market price of the last three years which was mr. Benson's theory I therefore do not believe that this is a sharp enough breach with the path give us any hope of success for the future mr. Nixon come in I of course disagree with Senator Kennedy and so far as his suggestion as to what should be done with Rhian 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 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 farm the surplus until we get the surpluses off the farmers back home 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 it would raise prices but one that would indemnify the farmer pay the farmer in kind from the products which are encircling the next question to Vice President Nixon from mr. von ocher mr. vice president says the question of executive leadership is a very important campaign issue I'd like to follow mr. Novak's question now Republican campaign slogans you see them on signs around the countries who 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 decision-making experience in your opponent nynas news conference on August 24th President Eisenhower was asked to give one example of a major idea of yours that he adopted his reply was and I'm quoting if you give me a week I might think of one I don't remember now that was a month ago sir and the president hasn't brought it up since and I'm wondering sir if you can clarify which version is correct the one put out by Republican campaign leaders or the one put out by President Assad well I would suggest mr. Vanover that you know the president 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 had 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 advisors without disclosing that to anybody including as a matter of fact to Congress now I can only say this through the years ayuh 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 ki-moon Matsu other matters the president has asked for my advice I have given it sometimes my advice has been taken sometimes it is not I do not say that I have made the decision and I would say that no president should ever allow anybody else to make the major decision the president only makes the decision all that his advisors do is to give councils when he asked for it as far as what experience counts and whether that is experience that count that isn't for me to say I can only say that my experience is there for the people to consider senator Kennedy was 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 senator Kennedy just say that the question is of experience and the question also is what our judgment is in the future and what car goes off the United States and what ability we have to implement those goals Abraham Lincoln came to the presidency in 1860 after a father little known a session in the House of Representatives and after being defeated for the Senate to 58 and was a distinguished president there is no certain road to the presidency there are no guarantees that if you take the 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 eight years a 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 or as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the question really is which candidate in which party can meet the problems that the United States is going to face in the 60 the next question to Senator Kennedy from mr. Novak's 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 expending some of the welfare programs for schools for teacher salaries medical care and so forth but you also called for reducing the federal debt and I'm wondering how you if you're president in January would go about paying the bill for all this this may not indicate I did not advocate reducing the federal debt because I don't believe that you're going to be able to reduce the federal debt very much in 1961 2 or 3 I think you have heavy obligations which affect our security which we're going to have to meet and therefore never suggested you should be able to retire the debt substantially or even at all in 1961 I believe and one of your experience you have attested that reducing the interest rate would help toward no no not reducing 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 is slow somewhat our economic activity in 1960 what I have talked about however the kind of programs that I talked about in my judgment our fiscally sound medical care for the Aged I would put under Social Security vice-president and I disagree on this the program the Javits Nixon or the Nixon Javits program would have cost you've fully used a six hundred million dollars by the government per year and six hundred million dollars by the state the program which I advocated which failed by five votes in the United States Senate would have put medical care for the Aged from Social Security and would have been paid for through the Social Security system in the Social Security tax secondly I support federal aid to education and federal aid for teacher salaries I think that's a good investment I think we're going to have to do it and I think to keep the burden further on the property tax which is already strained in many of our community 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 in an educational system second to none and the question of the development of natural resources I would pay as you go in the sense that they would be balanced and the power revenues would bring back sufficient money to finance the projects in the same way as the Tennessee Valley I believe in the balanced budget and the only conditions under which I would unbalance the budget would be if there was a grave national emergency or a serious recession otherwise with a steady rate of economic growth and mr. Nixon and mr. Rockefeller in their meeting said a five percent economic growth would bring by 1960 to ten billion dollars extra in tax revenue whatever is brought in I think that we can finance essential program within a balanced budget if business remains part of it I think what mr. nova referring to was not one of Senator Kennedy's speeches with 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 proposal that Senator Kennedy has advocated either to cut the national debt or to reduce taxes as a matter of fact it will be necessary to raise taxes as Senator Kennedy who points out that as far as his one proposal is concerned one for medical care for the Aged that that would be financed out of Social Security that however is raised in 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 supported certainly however whenever you and propriate 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 should 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 pays its teacher salaries I favor that because I believe that's the best way to aid our schools without running any risk whatever of the federal government telling our teachers what to teach the next question to Vice President Nixon from the stir water 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 but 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 would lead to a national disaster 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 so awfully glad you get got that question because as you know I got into it if the last of my other question wasn't able to complete the argument I think that the reason that I voted against having the federal government pay teacher 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 eight for teacher salaries that means that's why I read his remarks now why should there be any question about the federal government aiding teacher 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 teacher self we need higher teacher self 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 a senator Kennedy said in January of this year in the same press conference the way that you get higher salaries for teachers is to support school construction which means that all the local school districts in the various states then have money which is freed to raise the standards for teacher size I should also point out this once you put the responsibility on the federal government for paying a portion of teacher salary your local communities and your state are not going to meet the responsibilities as much as they should I believe in other words that we have seen the local communities in the state assuming more of that responsibility teacher salaries very fortunately have gone up 50 percent in the last eight 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 canal 7/3 Kenneth who's come in when the vice-president coached me in January 60 I do not believe the federal government should pay directly teacher salary 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 salary 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's me mr. Mixon and I disagreed and his tie vote defeated because 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 teacher salaries in my opinion you protect the local authority over the school board in the School Committee and therefore I think that was a sound proposal and that is why I supported it and I regret that it did not pass secondly there have been statements made that the Democratic platform would cost a good deal of money and that I'm in favor of unbalancing the budget that is wholly raw wholly in error and it is a fact in the last eight years the Democratic Congress has reduced the appropriately request of the appropriation by over ten billion dollars that is not my view and I think it ought to be stated very clearly on the record my view is that you can do these programs and they should be carefully drawn within a balanced budget if our economy is moving within the next question to Senator Kennedy from mr. Gunn ocher the senator you've been promising the voters that if you are elected president you'll try and push through Congress bills on medical aid to the aged a comprehensive minimum hourly wage bill federal aid to education now in the August post-convention session of the Congress when you at least held up a 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 well it wasn't in August if I may take we did pass in the scent of the bill to provide a dollar 25 cent minimum wage it failed because the house did not pass it in the house failed by 11 votes and I might say the two thirds of the Republicans in the House voted against a dollar 25 cent minimum wage and a majority of the Democrats sustained at nearly 2/3 of them voted for the dollar 25 we were threatened by a veto if we passed the 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 1/3 plus 1 and either the house or the Senate second we passed a federal aid to education bill in the Senate it failed to come to the floor of the House of Representatives it was killed in the Rules Committee and it is a fact in the August session if the four members of the Rules Committee who were Republican joining with two Democrats voted against sending the H education bill to the floor of the house or 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 Representative thirdly on medical care for the ages 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 one Republican voted for it and we were informed at the time it came to a vote that if it was adopted the President of the United States would veto it in my judgment a vigorous Democratic president supported by a Democratic majority in the House and Senate can win the support for these programs but if you send a Republican president and a Democratic majority and the threat of a veto hangs over the Congress in my judgment you will continue what happened in the August session which is a clash of party and inaction mr. Nixon comment 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 which is the Republican type in the House and the Senate to stop two thirds if the two thirds are adequately left I would say to that when Senator Kennedy refers to the action the House Rules Committee there are eight Democrats on that committee and four Republicans it would seem to me again that it is very difficult to blame the four Republicans for the eight Democrats not getting a something through that particular committee I would say further that to blame the president and his veto power for the inability of the senator and his colleague to get action in this special session misses the mark when the president exercises his veto power he has to have the people who fight behind him not just the 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 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 and the various fields have been mentioned were not passed was not because the president was against it was because the people were against 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 and 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 harness the next question to Vice President Nixon but from 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 and Senator Kennedy could work four Democratic majorities in the House and Senate 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 get the opinion that in getting programs through the house of the Senate is purely a question of legislative finagling and all that sir 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 said that as far as Senator Kennedy's proposals are concerned that again the question is not simply one of my presidential vetoes stopping programs you must always remember that a president can't stop anything unless he has the people behind it 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 a majority of them know the country is behind the president senator Kennedy well now let's look at these bills that the vice president suggests were too extreme one was a bill for dollar twenty five cents an hour for anyone who works in a store or company it has a million dollars a year of business I don't think that's extreme at all and yet nearly 2/3 to 3/4 of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against a proposal secondly with the federal aid to education bill it was a very because of the defeat of teacher salaries it was not a bill that DeMint in my opinion the need the fact of the matter is it was a bill that was less than you recommended mr. Nixon this morning in your proposal it was not an extreme bill and yet we could not get one Republican to join at least I think four of the eight Democrats voted to send it to the floor of the house not one republican and they join with those Democrats who are opposed to it I don't say the democrats are united in their support of the program but i do say a majority of and i say a majority the Republicans are opposed the third is medical care for the Aged which is tied to social security which is financed out of social security fund does not put a deficit on the tray the proposal advanced by you and by mr. Javits would have cost 600 millions of dollars mr. Rockefeller rejected it in New York said he didn't agree with the financing at all said it ought to be on Social Security so these are three programs which are quite moderate I think it shows the difference between the two parties one party is ready to move in these programs the other party gives them lip service mr. Warren's question for Senator Kennedy senator Kennedy on another subject communism is so often described as an ideology or a belief that exists somewhere other than in the United States let me ask you sir just how serious a threat to our national security are these communist subversive activities in the United States today well I think they're serious I think it's a matter that we should continue to give great care and attention to you should support the laws which the United States has passed in order to protect us from those who would destroy us from within you should sustain the Department of Justice and its efforts in 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. Nixon comment 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 was waging and his colleagues are waging his wage 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 if you do become fellow travelers but we also fight communism isn't at home by moving against those various in justices which exist in our society which the Communists feed upon and that connection I again would say 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 proposes for federal aid to education my proposals for health care are just as sincerely held as his the question again is not one of gold we're for those goals it's one of means mr. Vanover is question for Vice President Nixon mr. vice president in one of your earlier statements you said we've moved ahead we've built more schools we built more hospitals no 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 it not at all as a matter of fact your question brings out a point that I'm 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 approximately 500 billion dollars roughly a hundred billion to one hundred and a quarter billion of that is the result of government activity 400 billion approximately is a result of what individuals do now the reason the Eisenhower administration has moved the reason that we've had the funds for example locally to build the schools and the hospitals and the highways to make the progress that we have is because this administration has encouraged individual enterprise and it is resulted in the greatest expansion of the private sector of the economy that has ever been witnessed in an eight-year period and that is growth that is the growth that we are looking for it is the growth that this administration has supported and that its policy mr. Miller senator Kennedy well I must say I think the reason that the screws have been constructed is because the local school districts were willing to increase the property taxes to a tremendously high figure and in my opinion almost a point of diminishing returns in order to sustain the school secondly I think we have a richer 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 and economic growth and development of natural resources the Soviet Union is making great games it isn't enough to compare what might have been done eight 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 that's the big assignment the big task the big function of the federal government can I have the summation time please we've completed our questions and our comments in just a moment without the summation that this will allow three minutes and 20 seconds each candidate three minutes and 20 seconds for each candidate Vice President Nixon when you make the first summation thank you Miss 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% 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 has even further ahead than it was 20 years ago is this any reason for complacency not at all because these are determined men they are fanatical men and we have to get the very most of our out of our economy I agree with Senator Kennedy completely on netskope 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 problem 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 that 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 had 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 mentions 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 we want health insurance the opportunity to have it if they wanted it provides a choice of having either government insurance or private insurance but it compels nobody to have insurance who does not want 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 hit 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's president of this country certainly stand for every program that will mean for growth and I stand for programs that will mean growth in progress but it is also essential that he not allow a dollar spent that could be better spent by the people themselves senator Kennedy your conclusion the point was made by mr. Nixon that the Soviet production is only forty four 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's stayed in that relationship I don't want to see the day when it's 60 percent of hours and 70 and 75 and 80 and 90 percent of hours 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 agency our program was an amendment to the curb bill the curb bill provided assistance to all those who were not on Social Security I think it's a very clear contract 1935 when the Social Security Act was written 94 out of 95 Republicans voted against it mr. Landon ran in 1936 to reveal 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 on this occasion thirdly I think the question before the American people is as they look at this country and as they look the world around them the goals are the same for all America the means are a question the means are issue if you feel that everything that is being done now is satisfactory with the relative power and prestige and strength of the United States is increasing in relation to that of the Communists that we have gaining more securities that we are achieving everything as a nation that we should achieve that we're 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 sixty that the function of the president is to set before the people the unfinished business of our societies as Franklin Roosevelt did in the 30 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 faces all Republicans and all Democrats is and freedom in the next generation conquer or the Communists going to be successful that's the great issue and if we meet our responsibilities I think freedom will caucus 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 ten 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're successful that we will address ourselves 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 you

Channel: JFK Library

Views: 3,538,549

Rating: 4.857389 out of 5

Keywords: Kennedy, Nixon, Debate, 1960, Presidential, Campaign

Id: gbrcRKqLSRw

Length: 58min 34sec (3514 seconds)

Published: Tue Sep 21 2010