Question No. 1: Do you have any new ideas or plans for dealing with the Russians and the Communist menace throughout the world?

     The challenges confronting America and the free world demand that we break through existing thought patterns and enhance as our objective nothing short of victory in the struggle for peace and freedom throughout the world.
     In order to unify our strategy in such a way as to seize the initiative in key areas of the world I would assign to the Vice President the task of directing and coordinating all governmental activities dealing with the nonmilitary aspects of the world struggle. I believe the best man qualified to direct our efforts to meet this great challenge is the Republican vice presidential nominee, Henry Cabot Lodge, American Ambassador to the United Nations for the last 7½ years.
     We must expand our concepts to deal more effectively with the developing Communist tactics of indirect aggression. In that interest, we must continue our mutual defense pacts with other nations and strengthen them with programs for economic aid. And we must correct any misunderstanding about the real purpose of our aid to other nations. Our fundamental aim is to enable other countries to become economically strong and politically stable so that they can resist infiltration and subversion. In order to banish ill-founded fears on the part of any nation that our assistance will lead to domination, we should place an increasing reliance on multilateral aid programs.
     I believe that our own interest requires us to encourage national forces of freedom in all nations. For that reason I favor economic assistance to countries such as Poland to help stimulate those forces.
     Above all, we must talk more about the promise for mankind of the American Revolution - which continues to inspire men everywhere - and less about the menace of the Communist social revolution. The Communists at times have done a better job than we have in identifying themselves with the hopes and aspirations of the unfortunate millions of the world. We must get across to all peoples - through the Voice of America and all other channels of information - that ours is the true social revolution, that freedom, and not communism, is the real wave of the future.

     We should recognize that our foreign policy during the years when we must struggle with international communism is a complex operation, requiring new administrative machinery, new systems of coordination, new kinds of training, and a new quality of leadership. The following proposals would help strengthen the free world in its dealings with the Russians and the Communist menace in other countries:
     We must have wider use of the Development Loan Fund.
     The Battle Act is no longer a suitable restriction upon the power of the President to assist any nation seeking to break through the Iron Curtain.
     We must build international and regional institutions for cooperative action.
     We must lend greater encouragement to educational institutions in the emergent nations of the world.
     We must foster the exchange of students, technicians, and leaders between the United States and other nations.
     We must build our defenses so that there can be no doubt concerning our military strength.
     We must, in collaboration with Western Europe and Japan, greatly increase the flow of capital to underdeveloped nations of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, thus frustrating the Communist hopes for chaos in these nations. In this connection, it is vital that we aid India to make a success of her new 5-year plan so that she can compete with Red China for economic leadership of all Asia.
     Agricultural experts must be sent into underdeveloped areas, where modern methods of agriculture are unknown, to insure adequate supplies of food, and while this is being done we must use our own food surpluses to prevent hunger.
     We must provide greater American initiative, aid, trade, tourism, and information services to advance the standard of living of the people in countries like Poland to demonstrate a creative interest by the Nation that represents their one great hope for freedom.
     We must build the stronger America on which our ultimate ability to defend ourselves and the free world depends.

     Question No. 2: In what circumstances would you recognize Red China?

     Recognition of Communist China and support for her membership in the United Nations must wait for a basic change in her foreign policy. As long as the Chinese Communists continue their present hostile and aggressive policies toward the free world and refuse to live in peace with the family of nations there can be no question of our recognizing them.
     At the present time, Chinese Communist policies are the opposite of what we would find acceptable as a basis for establishing diplomatic relations. The Red armies are seeking every opportunity to stir up world tensions for the purpose of advancing their aggressive ambitions. For example, there is the Chinese Communist aggression against the United Nations in Korea, the brutal suppression of the revolt in Tibet, the attacks along the Indian border, Peiping's cry that she will expel the United States from the Western Pacific by force, and the continued insistence that Red China has the "right" to seize Taiwan (Formosa) by force.
     Some ask why we by not recognize Communist China so that we can begin talking with her and perhaps settle our differences.
     It is not necessary for us to recognize Red China or support her admission to the United Nations in order to communicate with her. We can do this through channels which already exist. Even now we are negotiating at Warsaw with the Red Chinese diplomats for the release of Americans the Communist Chinese hold prisoner.
     Others say we should change our attitude toward Communist China. Perhaps, they say, if we extended recognition the Chinese Communists would be mollified and would abandon their aggressive foreign policies. Such thinking is based on a serious misconception of the Communist character and intentions.

     I don't see any evidence that Red China desires to live in comity with us. In fact, she is moving in the opposite direction. Therefore, I do not advocate recognition of Red China.
     The recognition is not really the crux of our foreign policy. The real question is what should be done about the harsh fact that China is a powerful and aggressive nation. The dangerous situation now existing can be remedied only by a strong and successful India, a strong and successful Japan, and some kind of regional group over southeast Asia which gives these smaller countries the feeling that, in spite of their distaste for a military alliance, they will not be left to be picked off one by one at the whim of the Peiping regime.

     Question No. 3: Do you favor a permanent United Nations military force to protect the peace?

     To maintain peace in the world, and to help the United Nations discharge its objective, that of maintaining peace in the world, I support the establishment of a permanent military force under the United Nations.
     As a forum for the speedy presentation and consideration of international differences the United Nations has made valuable contributions to peace. I believe its usefulness can be increased by placing forces at its disposal for policing its decisions.
 The United States, under President Eisenhower, has consistently supported efforts to implement the provisions of the United Nations Charter which make forces available to the Security Council for maintaining international peace. On several occasions we have supported such measures against Soviet resistance.
     Our disarmament proposals also call for the establishment of a United Nations international police force when and if general and complete disarmament under effective international control becomes a reality. I support these proposals.
     The record shows that the United Nations has assembled temporary forces several times and has dealt successfully with specific threats to world peace. The United Nations sponsored our collective military effort in Korea. For 4 years the United Nations emergency force has been helping to maintain tranquillity in the Middle East. The United Nations force is engaged in restoring order in the Congo.
     In all, this is a promising record. I believe it deserves our continued and expanded support.

     United Nations military forces have already demonstrated their usefulness in such trouble spots as the Middle East and Africa. Keeping such a force instantly available would enable it to move swiftly to insulate conflicts before they spread. Whether the military force is formally established, or whether it exists subject to the call of the Security Council, its function is the same and the considerations are the same. Certainly there is a clearly demonstrable need for protective armed services of this kind.

     Question No. 4: How would you meet the Cuban problem?

     I believe that the United States should continue to work within the framework of the Organization of American States regarding the Cuban problem, or any other which threatens the security of this hemisphere.
     We must recognize that there is no quick or easy solution to the threat raised by Castro in carrying out his extremist revolutionary policies and in his apparent desire to aline Cuba with the Communist bloc.
     There is no doubt that at the start the majority of the Cuban people supported the overthrow of the oppressive Batista regime and applauded the announced aims of the Castro revolution. But the methods now used by Castro to carry out his revolution in complete disregard of international law - or even Cuban law - have alarmed many of his own countrymen.
     In a nutshell, however, our policy toward Cuba should be governed by two basic guidelines. For one thing, we should undertake to meet the problem in concert with our sister Republics of Latin America. For another, we must now put the world on notice that under no circumstances will we tolerate Communist intervention in the Western Hemisphere. We must realize that the use of force toward Cuba or any other sister Republic is bound to reawaken Latin American fears of this Nation as an aggressive colonial power. This would inevitably damage our own prestige and work to the advantage of the Communists and other anti-American forces in the Americas.
     Historically, the Cuban people and the American people have enjoyed a close, personal relationship which the present Cuban regime seems determined to destroy. Recognizing the depth of this traditional friendship between our two nations, our Government, under the leadership of President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Herter, has followed what I believe to be a wise policy of restraint and forbearance in dealing with Premier Castro.
     There are grounds for hoping that if given the opportunity and the time, the people of Cuba will find their own way back to freedom and the democratic institutions which Castro has denied them.
     We must give them that opportunity. We must increase our efforts to mobilize hemispheric unity against those policies which threaten a foreign takeover in our own backyard. We must step up our efforts so as to get across to the millions of people throughout Latin America the idea that we share their hopes and aspirations for a better life. The new aid program offered by this administration to help less fortunate American nations raise their standards of living is a sound step in the right direction.
    Already there are signs that perhaps the tide is beginning to turn against Castro's influence throughout Latin America. The American foreign ministers meeting in Costa Rica last month soundly condemned the Cuban regime's acceptance of intervention in the event of a mythical attack on Cuba by the United States.
     Inevitably, I believe, a program of patience combined with firmness will restore the firm bonds of friendship between the Cuban people and the United States.

     I would have treated Cuba very differently during the last year of the Batista regime - when the new serious errors of judgment and omission were made. Our relationship to Cuba is only one aspect of the much larger problem of our relationship to all the nations of Latin America. The anti-American riots in Venezuela, the anti-American actions of Panama, and the anti-American Communist takeover of Cuba are vivid warnings that unless something is done immediately to improve our relations with our sister American Republics, the cause of freedom through the entire Southern Hemisphere is in grave danger.
     If we can help create the conditions in Latin America under which freedom can flourish, then Castro and his government will soon be isolated from the rest of the Americas - and the desire of the Cuban people for freedom will ultimately bring Communist rule to an end. If we fail to create these conditions then Cuba will become a base for the spreading of Communist influence throughout Latin America.
     We can only advance the cause of freedom in Latin America by helping to eliminate the poverty and hunger which is the breeding ground of communism - by increasing understanding between the United States and the other American nations through expanded information, educational and cultural exchange programs - and by treating the countries of Southern America as our full partners in the development of the Western Hemisphere. It is a somber fact that until recently we had given as much aid to Yugoslavia as all of Latin America.
     If we do this - if we demonstrate that the road of progress is freedom's road - then democracy will triumph in Latin America, Castro will be frustrated in his efforts to spread communism, and the Cuban people will free themselves from dictators and regain their liberty.
     Meanwhile we must use the full powers of the Organization of American States to prevent Castro from interfering with other Latin American governments, and to return freedom to Cuba. We must make clear our intention not to let the Soviet Union turn Cuba into its base in the Caribbean, and our intention to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.
     We must make Premier Castro understand that we intend to defend our rights to the naval base at Guantanamo. And we must let the Cuban people know that we are sympathetic with their legitimate economic aspirations, that we are aware of their love for freedom, and that we will never be content until democracy is returned to Cuba. The forces fighting for freedom in exile and in the mountains of Cuba should be sustained and assisted, and communism in other countries of Latin America must be confined and not permitted to expand.

     Question No. 5: Would you attempt to influence the policies of the Federal Reserve Board in an effort to reduce interest rates?  Or for any other reason?

     I deeply believe the Federal Reserve Board should continue to be free of political pressures in discharging its statutory role of exercising control over the Nation's money, within its broad congressional mandate, and to use its soundest judgment in combating inflation and deflation - twin economic evils which retard economic growth and jeopardize the savings and earnings of every American.
     This is such a difficult and delicate task that it should be in the hands of professionals and not political people.
     The suggestion that the executive branch should try to influence Federal reserve policy for purposes other than - and perhaps inconsistent with - the maintenance of reasonable price stability points up one of the most important campaign issues regarding economic policy.
     I believe a reasonably stable price level is essential for economic health and rapid economic progress. Moreover, it is vital to preserving the dollar's position as the world's leading currency. An independent Federal Reserve Board now is helping achieve the goal of stable growth by following a wise policy of adjusting the money supply to the needs of the economy and of permitting interest rates to move in response to changing balance of financial needs and reserves.
     We know opposition spokesmen are threatening to turn back the wheels of progress. They sound as if they plan to divert the Federal Reserve from its proper function to one of pumping up the money supply so as to peg interest rates at artificially low levels.
      Such a policy, which was favored by the last Democratic administration until it was forced by informed public opinion to abandon it in 1951, contributed tragically to the sharp inflation during the postwar years and inevitably would promote more inflation if again put into effect.

     Although I believe it would be folly to rely solely upon monetary policies as a safeguard against either creeping inflation or a recession, I believe it would be equally foolish to forswear the use of monetary controls.
     These controls affect consumer spending, home building, business judgments, and other matters important to our economic health. The board of governors of the Federal Reserve System is given a degree of independence by the Federal Reserve Act, but it cannot be considered a fourth branch of the Government.
     It must bear in mind the economic objectives of the administration, and I am confident that it would respond to leadership by the administration.
     In some instances, this will mean a reduction in interest rates; at all times the Board and the President should work together to achieve national economic goals.

     Question No. 6: Would you propose reduction of the oil-gas percentage depletion allowance? If so, by how much?

     The depletion allowances, which affect over 100 items, should be considered primarily as a matter of resources policy and only secondarily as a tag issue. Its purpose and its value are first of all to provide a rate of exploration, development, and production adequate to our national security and the requirements of our economy. This is true not only with regard to oil, but with regard to natural resources generally.
     The oil depletion allowance has served us well by this test. At the present time, with exploration and development declining, it is essential that there be a careful review of this entire problem to insure that the policy regarding depletion is adequate to safeguard our future energy needs. Such a review must be based on the categorical proposition that a healthy domestic oil industry is essential to national security.
     For this reason, I believe we must have a new and comprehensive study of U.S. materials requirements, and policies for the decade ahead, as called for in the Democratic platform. The last such study, the Paley Commission report of 1950, is long out of date and it is vitally important that we conduct a new inventory for the new conditions of the 1960's and the critical problems we face in this decade.
     Any reassessment of depletion policy, whether it involves maintaining, increasing, or lowering any of the present percentage allowances on raw materials, should wait on and be decided on the basis of our resource requirements as determined by this materials policy study. As President, I would initiate such a study as a first order of national business.

     I firmly support the oil and gas depletion allowance as an effective and proved method of stimulating the production of resources which are essential to our economy.
     In some quarters it is more popular politically to favor the reduction, or even the elimination, of this allowance. But to take such a position is to overlook the purpose of the original legislation.
     It helps to guarantee a strong, healthy domestic industry which would be able to supply our needs in the event of national emergency, or if a situation should develop in which we were to be cut off from our normal foreign sources of oil.
     We cannot run the risk of taking steps that would deplete, rather than replenish, our domestic oil reserves and production. For that reason, I consistently supported the depletion allowances when I was in Congress, and I support it today.

     Question No. 7: Would you favor withholding Federal taxes from interest and dividend payments?

     I favor extending Federal income tag withholding, now applicable to wages and salaries, to dividend and interest payments.
     Under existing law dividend and interest receipts are, of course, taxable income to be reported on Federal income tax returns. Statistics show, however, that $1.5 billion (14 percent) of all dividends and $5.5 billion (57 percent) of all interest payments were not reported in a recent tax year.
     Nonreporting of dividends and interest results in an approximate annual revenue loss to the Treasury of $1 billion. It is completely unfair to the vast majority of taxpayers who do pay their full share of Federal taxes to permit this revenue loss to continue.
     Many banks and corporations have undertaken, at considerable expense, to advise their account owners and stockholders of their tax liability - a burden which would no longer be necessary under an extended withholding system - but nonreporting remains widespread.
     Dividend and interest withholding would involve, just as withholding on paychecks does involve, certain inconveniences, but no one would be obliged to pay more taxes than are already owed, and I am confident that exemptions and speedy refunding procedures would be devised to reduce or eliminate most difficulties.

     While a number of individuals in high income brackets receive considerable interest and dividend income, much of it is received by individuals whose incomes are so low that they do not owe any Federal income tax. Some of it is received by tax-exempt institutions. Withholding would undoubtedly work a hardship on many of those in these last two categories.
     The Treasury Department has given this overall matter careful study. It has found that there would be serious technical difficulties in withholding on this type of income. This is particularly true in the case of interest income, where the biggest gap between receipts and reporting occurs. The Treasury Department has also found that individuals in low-income groups and tax-exempt institutions would be inconvenienced. They would have to apply for refunds and would experience some delay in receiving this full income.
     At present, the Treasury Department is conducting a vigorous educational program to enlist the voluntary support of those who pay dividends and interest throughout the Nation. In addition, the Treasury has stepped up its enforcement campaign to get better reporting.
     All of the available evidence indicates that the education and enforcement campaign is proving very effective. Therefore, I prefer to have these efforts continued rather than to attempt to impose a withholding system with its technical difficulties and its probable hardship on many of our dividend and interest earners.

 Question No. 8: How, specifically, would you protect domestic industry and jobs against foreign imports?

     The long-range policy of the United States must be based on efforts to stimulate, rather than to impede, the exchange of goods among nations. Such a policy, I believe, will produce the greatest benefits for our country because, first, it brings people of the world closer together, thereby helping to reduce international tensions and impede the Communist economic offensive. Further, it enables us to improve our own living standards in the long run.
     We should continue efforts to reduce unjustifiable trade barriers among free nations on a gradual, step-by-step, truly reciprocal basis. Let us remember that in order to sell abroad, we must buy abroad. And we are, in fact, selling a great deal more than we are buying.
     In pursuing this policy, we must be alert to the impact of foreign trade developments on domestic workers and producers. We must have effective administration of those provisions of the Trade Agreements Act - the escape clause and the peril point - which safeguard American jobs and industries against serious injuries by imports. We should also protect specific industries which are demonstrably vital to our national security.
     Another approach is to negotiate with nations which export to the American market, and consider it an important part of their economy, to protect their long-range interests by imposing voluntary quotas. This has been done in the past and can be done more effectively in the future.
     The far better approach to the general problem of imports, however, is a positive, rather than a negative one. That is, instead of erecting barriers against other nations' goods, we should try to reduce their barriers against our own exports.
     The Government can help meet this objective by continuing its negotiations with other countries to open new markets for our products abroad and to eliminate remaining discrimination against the United States exports. It must be especially alert to American trade interests in the common markets that are developing abroad.
     I am convinced that by holding costs and prices at reasonably stable levels here at home, by encouraging more efficient production methods in our domestic industry, and by launching an alert and imaginative selling job in other nations, we can both expand American exports and hold our own in domestic markets.
     This policy, in the final analysis, reaps the greatest rewards for America. It supports our global strategy of victory for peace and freedom throughout the world.

     The best protection for domestic industry and jobs is a prosperous and growing economy. Where an industry continues to suffer from imports, additional steps would be necessary. For instance, a critical import situation confronts the Nation's textile industry. The past few years have been particularly difficult. There seems to have been a basic unwillingness to meet and deal constructively with them.
     I supported the establishment of a special Senate subcommittee for the textile industry to develop suggestions to improve its competitive position, both in the United States and in world markets. Unfortunately, with only minor exceptions, the administration failed to implement the recommendations of that committee.
     We are pledged in the Democratic platform to combat substandard wages abroad through the development of international fair labor standards. Efforts along this line would be helpful.
     In addition:

     The office of President carries with it the authority and influence to explore and work out the solution within the framework of our foreign trade policies. This should be a high-priority objective.
     We should make vigorous use of protective provisions by Congress, such as section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and the escape clause of the Trade Agreements Act in the intention and accordance of Congress in enacting these laws.
     Where the Trade Agreements Act has resulted in negotiation of tariffs that injure domestic industry, and our foreign interests prevent us from renegotiating these tariffs, we have an obligation to the industries affected to assist them in some manner, such as that which is suggested by the Trade Adjustments Act, which I sponsored, or the Minerals Stabilization Act, which the Republican administration vetoed.
     Eliminate restrictions abroad against the United States so our exports can be increased.
     Finally, should any further authority be necessary to enable the President to carry out the basic objective of a strong and prosperous economy, he should request such authority from the Congress.

     Question No. 9: Would you ask Congress to shorten the standard workweek to deal with automation's effects on employment?

     I do not believe that we would serve the national interest at this time by taking arbitrary action to shorten the standard workweek.
    Our ability to meet the commitments of world leadership and to maintain economic health and well-being at home in the months and years ahead will require the continuing expansion of our capacity to produce. Whether or not we achieve this goal may well be affected by the number of hours worked per week as well as the actual number of people working.
     Historically, during more than a century of industrialization in this in this country, the productivity or our workers has increased as they have been provided better tools.  This trend has increased earning power, but has not reduced the total number of jobs available throughout the economy, nor will it do so in the future.
     There are more than 68 million Americans employed today, more than ever before in our history. Their wages have climbed on the average, from less than $70 a week only 8 years ago to more than $90 a week today.
     And these are real wages, thanks in good measure to sound fiscal policies adopted in 1953 which brought under control an inflationary spiral that has cheapened the dollar and, if allowed to continue, would virtually have wiped out any real gain in wages during this period.
     This is the kind of economy which welcomes, rather than fears, change. I am confident that if automated processes are introduced in an orderly, intelligent manner, to cushion the impact upon the workers affected, they will prove to be a tremendous asset rather than a liability for our workers.
     The exercise of leadership and responsibility by both management and labor will play a vital role in achieving that objective. In this task Government has a role to assist in training and retraining programs that are required.
     We cannot on the one hand foster in our economy a higher rate of growth, and on the other reduce the amount of effort we put into our productive system by arbitrarily shortening the workweek in the foreseeable future.

     No; the effect of automation can be to increase our national product and to increase our economic strength.

     Question No. 10: Would you strive to channel more of the Nation's wealth away from private spending into public spending?

     I reject the idea that governmental spending should increase just to keep pace with total spending.
     The Nation's needs cannot be determined on the basis of such a blind and arbitrary formula. We have to base our decisions about governmental expenditures on the merits of specific programs, on the relationship of Federal spending to private creativity and vigor, and to State and local responsibility, and on the overall state of the economy at any given time.
     Our guidelines should be these: First, that we should do through government what people cannot do for themselves or what they cannot do as well as government can do. Second, that we should avoid unnecessary and wasteful expenditures. And third, that having once judged programs on their merits, we should strive for a broad balance between outlays and receipts - not year by year necessarily, but over periods of 2 or 3 years.
     If the application of these guidelines results in our spending an increasing proportion of our national income for public services rather than for private services, then I would see nothing wrong with this.
     What I do object to is the proposition that services provided publicly are, in and by themselves, better than those which the American consumer chooses himself, and that the purpose of government is to increase this type of spending. This philosophy, at best, may lead to a temporary, artificial expansion of our economy. At worst, it could wreck our economy. At all events, it is an expression of lack of confidence evident in some quarters in the essential good sense and capabilities of our people and the continuation of progress in America through our free system.
     Another thing I object to is the erroneous implication or assumption in discussions of public and private spending that the public sector has been neglected. Take any public service you want to - education, defense, research, health, highways, art museums, churches, recreational facilities - and you will find that in the past 8 years they have been expanded tremendously. That doesn't mean we may not need more, but it does mean that our record is excellent.
     There is one sure and sound way of increasing the pace of our economic growth. That is by taking action to stimulate and release the creative genius of individual Americans. That is the real key to dynamic economic progress.

     No, private enterprise under our system of government must remain the basis of our economic and political strength. It is the alternative we offer to communism. Government must do only those things which private enterprise cannot do.

     Question No. 11: Would you order nuclear tests resumed in any form?

     Today, at the Geneva test ban conference, we are trying to get the Communists to agree to a permanent moratorium on nuclear testing guaranteed by a foolproof system of inspection and controls.
     If it becomes clear that an agreement on adequate controls cannot be reached because the Soviets intend to continue their present policy of obstructing every possible approach, then I would resume underground testing.
     It is generally accepted that tests in the atmosphere are not likely to be resumed by either side. We cannot indefinitely tolerate their cynical attempt to use the world's aspirations for agreement on their fateful subject to give themselves a possibly decisive atomic advantage.

     Certainly as long as the Russians suspend atmospheric tests we should suspend ours. Underground testing depends upon the likelihood of a comprehensive agreement. If we can have serious negotiations for a permanent test ban treaty, continued in good faith and providing for enforceable inspection, nuclear tests should not be resumed.

     Question No. 12: Have you considered any plan to amortize the national debt? Will you place high priority on a budget annually in balance?

     It ought to be obvious that it is essential that a determined and consistent effort be made to balance Federal revenues and expenditures over a reasonable period of time in order to help assure a sound national economy.
     This does not necessarily mean that it is imperative to balance the budget at all costs each and every year. At times, overriding national and international requirements may have to be placed above this overall objective. But our aim should continue to be to match outlays with receipts as a basic ground rule of fiscal responsibility in government.
     We most certainly should try to reduce our massive national debt even though the highest Federal priority must be the national security.
     We must provide those essential public services which cannot be met by the States, local government, or private action, but we only defeat our very purpose in the long run if we do so by continued deficit financing which fuels inflation and ultimately would bring bankruptcy.

     It is extremely important that the United States maintain, to the extent that it is possible, a balanced budget. The only true reasons justifying an unbalanced budget would be:

     A great national emergency requiring unusual expenditures by the Federal Government to maintain its security, and
     Serious unemployment.

     Question No. 13: The Democratic platform promises to create "food banks." The Republican platform promises a "strategic food reserve." How large do you think the food stores should be, what included, where located, how warehoused, and how financed?

     The Democratic platform states that "we will establish and maintain. food reserves for national defense purposes in our important population centers in order to preserve lives in event of national disaster." Determining the optimum size, composition, and location for the stockpile of food would be dependent upon the judgment of the civil defense authorities, the National Security Council, and other agencies concerned with national defense. A thorough study of the Nation's emergency food needs is long overdue.
     The food security reserve should be financed under our civil defense budget.

     A strategic food reserve for America, which I have included among my proposals for a new farm program, would serve two purposes. First, it would reduce substantially the price-depressing influence of surplus commodities in Government storage. Second, it would provide a stockpile of food, properly dispersed throughout the country, against grave national emergencies - such as an enemy attack or sudden international requirements.
     It follows that such a reserve must be large enough to meet our emergency needs, and that the food must be stored in forms in which it can be preserved for long periods of time. Stocks should be replaced periodically with fresh supplies.
     These strategic foods should be distributed in suitable storage facilities outside target areas, and yet sufficiently close to the populations which would require them.
     Our present huge wheat surpluses, particularly, could be turned from a national burden into an asset under this proposal. A substantial part of these surpluses would be moved into the strategic food reserve.
     Wheat can, in an emergency, be eaten in its natural state but it is even better to prepare it in ways that can protect it against contamination, preserve it over long periods, and still keep it immediately available in palatable forms for human consumption.
     Ways should be found, too, for converting other grains into the most easily storable forms at the least cost. Additionally, through the protein program I outlined in my first farm speech, we should convert a considerable portion of the grain now stored into canned meat products which could be used in relief and aid programs at home and abroad and stored for long periods of time and made available at once when the need arises.
     As in the case of other strategic stockpiles now in existence, the strategic food reserve, necessarily, would be financed by the Federal Government. Since we would be using existing stocks which now cost a fortune to store, the cost of these reserve storage facilities and the conversion of grain into safe, preservable forms would be a wise investment in our own safety, and in the long run actually save us great sums of money.

     Question No. 14:  Do you believe the long-range interests of farmers are best served by more freedom from Government controls, or by Government controls with guarantees of farm prices?

     In mapping new programs to meet the farm problem, we must recognize that the interests of the Nation's farmers, in the long run, will be served best by giving them greater freedom from Government controls.
     The program I have offered to break the politically inspired deadlock over farm policy would do just that. I believe that it would allow us to achieve a healthy, growing farm economy within the framework of individual freedom.
     But first, we must make constructive use of the huge surpluses which overhang the market and depress prices and I would do this through what I call Operation Consume.
     During this transition period, a special effort would be made to bring current production and consumption into better balance and this involves the second part of my farm program, Operation Safeguard.
     We would act to protect both farm income and markets during this period by a favorable payment-in-kind program which would avoid harmful adjustments in support levels while preventing acreage reductions from harming farmer income. Then, once markets reflect a better supply-demand balance, we would move to a longterm price support system, based on immediately previous market price averages, and thus the farmer's freedom to operate would be restored.
     I know that farm people look forward to the time when they can once more make their own decisions as to what to plant and when to sell their crops profitably in normal trade channels - and not have the Government accumulate huge and ever-growing price-depressing surpluses in storage bins.
     We must reject the alternative and outdated programs offered which would hurt markets, apply the theory of scarcity in an effort to shore up income, inflict much higher prices on consumers, and put the farmer in a Government straitjacket.
     I earnestly believe that the twin proposals, Operation Consume and Operation Safeguard, I offered, provide our farm families the best chance to regain both their freedom of action and their rightful share of our prosperity.

     I believe the question oversimplifies the issue. I doubt that any substantial body of opinion favors the imposition of controls unless a clear need is demonstrated. The problem is whether it is possible to reverse the current trend toward lower farm prices by Government regulations or "controls."
     In the past decade the farms of Americans have experienced a technological revolution. More and more food is being produced by fewer and fewer people on less and less land.
     We must learn to manage our abundance and to bring the great productive capacity of American agriculture into balance with total needs at home and abroad, at prices that will yield to our farmers a fair return on their capital and labor.
     This requires a positive policy of supply management. It will require a sympathetic Secretary of Agriculture using a whole arsenal of tools (marketing quotas, land retirement, soil conservation, commodity purchases and loans, marketing orders and agreements, and many others).
     Under present conditions such controls are necessary to guarantee farm prices.

     Question No. 15: Since the Supreme Court ruled out the AAA processing tax in 1936, farm programs have been financed from the general revenues of the U.S. Treasury. Have you given any thought to the possibility of a self-financing farm program?

     For some commodities, like corn, a system of production payments may be necessary and these payments would come from the Federal Treasury, but a well-defined supply management program would be relatively inexpensive.
     At the same time it would yield to the farmers a fair price, it would be designed to place on the market an amount of the commodity that would permit the commodity to sell at a fair price. Such a program would use the marketplace as its means of financing.

     I think that we should expand the use of marketing agreements and orders and other marketing devices which help meet some of the problems faced by farmers at little cost to the taxpayer.
     These devices are, in a sense, self-financing in that they do not involve price-support expenditures by the Federal Treasury.
     At the same time, they have proved their value in strengthening farmers' bargaining power - notably in the case of milk, fruits and vegetables - while retaining this essential feature: The producers themselves must approve agreements and orders before they can go into effect.
     Other Government programs, such as those for tobacco and soybeans, also have come close to being self-financing operations.
     I do not feel that any proposal based on the use of a processing tag, such as that in effect under the Agricultural Adjustment Act until 1936, offers the farmers the promise of a satisfactory long-term solution to their problems.
     We must be willing to face up to short-term increased costs so we can achieve long-term savings and achieve our priority goal of a sound, prosperous, and growing agriculture.

     Question No. 16: How would you administer a large-scale land retirement program without either (1) damaging the economies of local farm communities or (2) encouraging farmers to put only their least desirable cropland into the program?

     In carrying out the voluntary land retirement program which I have proposed as a part of my program to help meet the agricultural surplus problem, the impact on rural communities must continuously receive close attention. We are not out to create ghost towns. For the land retirement effort to avoid this result, it must be spread as widely as possible, and, if necessary, maximums would be set by suitable areas as to the amount and proportion of land that could be retired under this program. In addition, the expanded rural development program will be helpful in connection with these problems.
     With respect to the second part of this question, the problem posed by farmers putting only their least desirable land into the program can best be handled by offering them rentals geared to the productivity of the acreage.
     There is experience available on this approach, and it has proved to be fair to the farmer and practical to administer. From the standpoint of administration, the decrease in output, if 1 acre of productive land is retired, will be closely comparable to that of retiring 2 acres of land half as productive. The cost of putting the reduction into effect should be approximately the same.

     The two chief problems associated with land retirement are the temptation to place the poorest cropland in the program and the encouragement it offers the farmers to intensify production on their remaining acres, thus contributing to the need for still further land retirement.
     This, in turn, concentrates the land retirement program on marginal cropland or whole farm retirement, which has an adverse effect on the entire local community.
     It is for such reasons that the Democrats have never talked about "massive" land retirement, nor stressed land retirement as the only solution to the farm surplus problem. It would seem that land retirement offers same hope for farms devoted to feed grains, but every farm in every area should share in the program.

     Question No. 17: Do you favor repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act's provision which authorizes State right-to-work laws?

     I believe that each State has the power to enact or repeal a right-to-work law as its people desire.
     It would be just as wrong for the Federal Government to interfere with that power as it would be for the Federal Government to force all States to accept right-to-work legislation.
     For that reason, I oppose repeal of that section of the Taft-Hartley Act which recognizes the power of the States to adopt such laws, and, similarly, I oppose the enactment of a Federal right-to-work law.
     My own feeling regarding the effectiveness of these State laws is that they seldom fully achieve the objective at which they are aimed. Nevertheless, each State must continue to make its own decision as to whether or not legislation in the field should be adopted without interference from Washington.

     Since 1935, we have been developing a uniform national labor policy applicable to employers and employees whose activities substantially affect interstate commerce. Section 14(B) is a somewhat arbitrary exception, permitting the States to deviate from the uniform Federal policy.
     It permits State laws to operate when they are more unfavorable to labor union activities than Federal laws, but it does not permit State laws to operate when they are more favorable to labor unions.
     In judging the wisdom of State right-to-work laws, it should always be remembered that the Federal statute would protect the liberty of the individual worker, even though he chooses not to become a member of a union. He cannot be subjected to union discipline. He cannot be required to attend union meetings or to conform to the union ritual. He can be required to pay the union dues.
     At this point, I join with the late Senator Taft in thinking that where the union is the collective-bargaining representative of all employees in an establishment, the payment of dues is justifiable as a fair means of sharing the expenses of collective bargaining among those who receive its benefits.

     Question No. 18: Do you favor compulsory arbitration of labor disputes to prevent crippling nationwide strikes?

     I am opposed to compulsory arbitration as a means of settling disputes between labor and management.
     The dangers inherent in compulsory arbitration far outweigh any temporary advantage it might have in curbing the abuse by management or labor of power which may jeopardize the public interest.
     Compulsory arbitration means that the Federal Government would step into disputes and take on the job of determining wage levels and other issues which clearly should be agreed upon by means of collective bargaining between the parties to the dispute.
     Let us also recognize clearly that once the Government gets into the business of fixing wages, or working conditions, it inevitably begins fixing prices. This would create a vicious circle that could destroy true collective bargaining - and, along with it, our productive free enterprise system as we know it.
     I do feel that there is room for improvement in our existing procedures for resolving those labor disputes which cause crippling nationwide strikes. This is a subject which I have had under study and on which I will have more to say in this campaign.
     But any steps we may take in this field should strengthen, and not weaken, free collective bargaining. Our objective must be simply this: To provide better protection for the public interest in the settlement of industrial disputes without undermining that basic strength of our private enterprise economy.

     I am opposed to compulsory arbitration of labor disputes. Compulsory arbitration cannot be reconciled with a free enterprise economy. A government which undertook to regulate wages and conditions of employment by compulsory arbitration would soon be compelled to regulate prices and other elements of our economic system.
     I also believe it is time to reexamine the applicable provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act and substitute fairer, more workable provisions for dealing with national emergency disputes.
     Such a law might contain two stages of remedies. It should place initial responsibility on employees and unions in specified critical industries to establish their own procedure for settlement when they are not able to agree on the terms established by collective bargaining.
     In the event both sides fail to set a satisfactory, non-Government procedure, then the President should have not merely the power to intervene but first choice of all possible measures to be selected or combined, according to the needs of the particular situation. These measures might include mediation, factfinding, recommendations, temporary Government operations, injunctions with or without retroactive pay, and the right not to interfere at all.
     The risks of some strikes cannot be wholly eliminated if collective bargaining is to be given priority over governmental regimentation. But we can give the President discretion as to when and how to intervene with a wide choice of weapons which aren't wholly pleasing to either side.
     Their use is to be dependent, in art, on the more stubborn party. That kind of law, I am convince would create pressures not now present in the Taft-Hartley emergency section.

     Question No. 19: Should the Government be empowered to proceed against union monopolies as it does against business monopolies?

     The two problems, to my mind, are quite complex and very different. Antitrust laws do apply presently, of course, to unions which combine with employers in restraint of trade. Our traditional remedy for such abuses of power as may occur in the labor movement, however, has been labor-management relations legislation dealing specifically with the problem.
     The Landrum-Griffin Act, for example, strikes at the particular problems of jurisdictional strikes, unscrupulous activities which harm rank-and-file members and other matters on a direct, point-by-point basis. I believe that this is the correct approach and should be continued.
     My judgment is that the monopoly problem mentioned specifically here must be examined together with other areas of improvement in labor-management laws, and I would have this intensively studied by a nonpartisan, widely representative grouping, this study to be undertaken promptly in the interest of labor, management and the public.

     The Government has the power to proceed against business monopolies which fix prices, divide marketing territories or impair the quality of goods to the detriment of consumers. The Government has the power today to proceed against any labor union which joins with businessmen against interstate trade or commerce.
     Even if labor unions should, acting alone, impose this kind of restriction upon competition in the sale of goods their activities would seem to be against the policies of the antitrust laws.
     It is quite a different matter when a labor union concerns itself with wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. In these activities, its actions are not comparable to business and the antitrust laws are not applicable. Questions affecting the public interest in this area should be dealt with by the Government as problems of industrial relations.

     Question No. 20: How would you use the implied or specific powers of the Presidency to hasten the end of racial segregation an public schools and other public facilities?

     The President must be prepared to move forward on three broad fronts - as a legislative leader, as Chief Executive, and as a moral leader.
     As a legislative leader, he cannot wait for others to act or for problems to solve themselves. I am sorry that the Republican leadership last spring opposed legislation granting the Attorney General power to bring court actions to protect all constitutional rights - including the right of nondiscriminatory public education.
     I will support such action and work for legislation to provide technical assistance to schools facing special problems in the process of transition to desegregation. We must thus continually strengthen the legal framework which will allow us to move toward economic, educational, and political equality.
     As Chief Executive, the next President must be prepared to put an end to racial and religious discrimination in every field of Federal activity. He must issue Executive orders which will do so. He must be willing to use the full resources of the executive agencies - from the Commission on Civil Rights to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare - to explore every means of progress in this field, by conference, consultation, and technical assistance.
     Finally, as a moral leader, the next President must play an active creative role in interpreting the great human and moral issues involved. He cannot stand above the battle. He must exert the great moral and educational force of his office to create an affirmative new atmosphere in which further steps forward can be taken. The President, the representative of all interests and all sections, can promote the understanding and tolerance which is necessary if we are to complete the transition to a completely free society.

     During the coming years continued vigorous Executive leadership will be needed to help end racial segregation in the schools and other public facilities. I consider this leadership an essential part of our efforts for sustained progress in the whole field of human rights. We must carry this progress forward in order to realize the American dream of equality of opportunity for all.
     The enactment of civil rights legislation is one step toward this objective. Legislative programs to strengthen voting rights, to end the discriminatory membership practices of some labor union locals, to give a statutory basis to the President's Committee on Government Contracts, to held States with school desegregation where the help is desired, and to eliminate discrimination relating to public transportation and other Government-authorized services are the kinds of civil rights measures that would have my support.
     There are, however, no quick or easy solutions in this area. Ultimately, the problem of racial prejudice has to be solved in our minds and hearts. We cannot look for full solutions from new laws, new court decisions, or new commissions. Nor can we make the mistake of believing that any one group or region in our country has a monopoly of all these problems. Civil rights need attention in every part of our country. We should avoid a tendency to posture and to prejudge anyone or any group or any region.
     I believe, therefore, that the President has an important obligation to continue any progress toward equality of opportunity. He must help encourage the acceptance of this basic principle, attempt to instill in all citizens a disposition to abide by both the letter and spirit of civil rights laws, and encourage political, business and educational leaders at the State and local level who have made substantial headway in the area through the use of persuasion and example.

     Question No. 21: Do you favor a Federal Fair Employment Practice Commission?

     Yes. Equality of opportunity in employment is necessary if the American dream is to become a living reality. I have supported and voted for fair employment legislation in the Congress. The Democratic platform calls for its enactment now.
     The wartime Committee on Fair Employment Practices, set up by President Roosevelt, pointed the way. President Truman's action to end discrimination in employment on Government contracts was another important step.
     Little has been done in the last 8 years. It is time to move forward again. To take action against discrimination on Government contracts, affecting millions of workers, there needs to be no new legislation and no delay; there just needs to be effective Presidential leadership.

     I wholeheartedly support vigorous efforts to eliminate discrimination in employment. Because I want really effective means of bringing discrimination to an end, I do not favor a Federal Fair Employment Practices Commission. I specifically do not favor the proposal supported by Senator Kennedy and included in his platform for setting up a Federal Fair Employment Practices Commission with the power of enforcing its decrees by compulsion.
     We should, rather, establish by law a permanent commission on equal job opportunity to carry on and accelerate the work now being done by the President's Committee on Government Contracts.
     My experience in both the legislative and executive branches of the Government in dealing with discrimination has proved conclusively to me that this approach brings real progress instead of the harmful and useless controversy that would result from the Federal Fair Employment Practices Commission that my opponent proposes.
     Having had the privilege of serving as Chairman of the President's Committee on Government Contracts since its creation several years ago by President Eisenhower, I can testify that it has been effective in promoting equality of opportunity in the job market.
     Through the Committee, the Government can and does make nondiscrimination hiring a condition of contracts placed with companies handling Federal projects. This creates a strong economic basis for compliance utterly beyond the reach of an FEPC.
     Because a substantial number of employers throughout the country either hold or seek Federal contracts, compliance by this large group goes a long way toward fighting discrimination in employment in virtually every community.
     I will continue efforts to get a strengthened permanent commission to carry out this effort and end discrimination, because I know from firsthand experience that it is the sound way, and the right way, to promote job opportunities regardless of race or creed.

     Question No. 22: What would you recommend to Congress about curbing filibusters?

     I support the 1960 Republican platform which pledges "our best efforts to change present Rule 22 of the Senate and other appropriate congressional procedures that often make unattainable proper legislative implemention of constitutional guarantees."
     However, I would couple with this pledge a warning that any change in Senate rules relating to the termination of debate must avoid any destruction of the right of the minority adequately to present its views.
     That is why I oppose amending the Senate rules so that a simple majority of those present could cut off debate. I do not believe such a plan would give adequate protection to the minority. I believe that at least a constitutional majority - a majority of the total membership of the Senate - should be the smallest number which could cut off debate.

     I agree with the Democratic platform that congressional procedures should be improved "so that the majority rule prevails and decisions can be made after reasonable debate without being blocked by a minority in either House."
     When the 86th Congress opened, I favored such action to curb the filibuster - as I had favored such action in the past and will favor it in the future. I supported the Douglas amendment changing Rule 22 to provide for a majority vote to invoke cloture. In addition, during the 1960 session I joined with those petitioning for - and then voting for - cloture in the civil rights debate.

     Question No. 23: Should the Federal Government determine the voting qualifications of citizens?

     The determination of qualifications for voting is a traditional prerogative of the States, not of the Federal Government. It should remain a State prerogative.
     The Federal Government, however, has a proper role in preventing abuses of voting qualifications. A case in point is the literacy test. It can be used solely to deny the right to vote to certain citizens by applying different literacy standards to different voter groups.
     The opposition party professes that it would meet this problem by eliminating the literacy test altogether. I disagree with this. That requirement has been a valid and reasonable one since this Nation was founded. It should be retained.
     What I do favor is a new Federal law which would guarantee that the qualification cannot be used as a weapon against any of our citizens. I believe, for instance, that we ought to accept the completion of six primary grades in an accredited school as prima facie evidence of literacy for voting purposes.
     Congress should pass a law to this effect. I think it would do a great deal of good in strengthening the voting rights of all Americans.

     No. The U.S. Constitution provides - as it has provided since the beginning of our Nation - that the qualifications for voting shall be determined by the laws of "the several States." It is fundamental to our democratic system that the process of voting should be conducted at a State level - that it is the State which determines the qualifications which its citizens need to vote.
     However, the Federal Government has a duty to see that the States exercise their authority over the process of voting in conformity with the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution provides that no American shall be denied the right to vote because of his race or his color.
     Therefore, the Federal Government must be alert to insure that the States do not adopt qualifications which are intended - directly or indirectly - to keep an otherwise qualified citizen from voting simply because of his race or color. Both poll taxes and literacy tests have frequently been used in order to effect such a denial.
     Therefore, I have supported, and do support, legislation to eliminate the poll tag. And I also support the Democratic platform pledge to end those literacy tests which are used for the purpose of discrimination.

     Question No. 24: What specific powers, in addition to those given by the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, would you ask Congress to give the Attorney General?

     The great need is for the Attorney General to be directed to bring civil injunction suits to protect all constitutional rights, not just the right to vote.
     This is the title 3 which was eliminated from the 1957 bill and voted down, with the help of the Republican leadership, this year. I have supported such legislation.

     I would ask Congress to authorize the Attorney General to bring actions relating to school desegregation in appropriate cases. For example, the Federal Government should have the power to keep economic coercion or the threat of physical harm from restraining persons from going to court to establish their rights.
     The original legislation leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 contained a so-called part III. This would have given the Attorney General power to institute actions to protect citizens against any infringements of their civil rights.
     That provision was eliminated by the opposition-controlled Congress. In fact, it generated such widespread opposition that President Eisenhower concluded that its enactment would have far-reaching harmful results.
     Accordingly, in his recommendations that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1960 he requested authority only to act in school desegregation cases.
     In my opinion, this was a realistic view. We must keep our aims high in this vital field, but we should also be guided by what will make a practical and effective contribution to progress right now.
     I believe that working for increased powers for the Justice Department in protecting individual rights in school desegregation cases will advance that purpose, and this is what I would do.

     Question No. 25: What qualities will you look for in those you appoint to your Cabinet and other high Government offices?

     I would list four major qualities

     Sense of and dedication to public service.
     Complete honesty and integrity.
     Experience, and
     Administrative ability.

     Administrative ability, judgment, a demonstrated competence in the area of the appointee's responsibility and a genuine responsiveness to public service would necessarily rank high among the qualities which a President should look for in his chief assistants. In short, I would seek out the best qualified persons available in this country.
     In addition to these qualifications, I would put a high priority on a capacity for original thinking and a "feel" for global as well as domestic problems. The challenges confronting this Nation in its role of free world leadership affect virtually every Government activity, directly or indirectly, and require that the President's top advisers be informed on international affairs.
     I would bring such persons into Cabinet discussions in order that we might have a unified, teamwork effort in keeping the initiative in the world struggle for peace and freedom.

     Question No. 26: What specific recommendations would you make to assure continued executive control of the Government if you, as President, were to become mentally or physically incapacitated?

     The most effective guarantee for the orderly conduct of Government in the event the President is incapacitated is for the Vice President to be thoroughly prepared to handle the job.
     This necessarily includes the background which qualified him to be Vice President in the first place. It must also include the experience he gains as an active, working member of the administration, participating fully in the policy direction of Government through his membership in the Cabinet, the National Security Council, and the legislative leader's meetings.
     Finally, an essential element in his preparation is for the Vice President to a kept continuously informed on significant problems facing the Nation - virtually on a day-to-day basis - so that he is ready to deal with them should it become necessary.
     From the beginning of his administration, President Eisenhower has held such a concept of the Vice Presidency. Having myself experienced this, I am particularly conscious of the value of this preparation, not only to the holder of the Vice Presidential Office, but to the Nation as well.
     In addition, the President and I reached an understanding which covered the responsibilities which the Vice President should undertake under circumstances not specifically covered by law. This supplementary understanding is extremely important, and I would make similar arrangements with Ambassador Lodge.

     Although the present administration has advocated the passage of a constitutional amendment to clarify this question, many legal authorities believe that the Constitution already contains ample authority for Congress to act.
     I share this view. Article II, section 1, clause 6 of the Constitution specifically states that "Congress may by law provide for the case of a disabled President.' "
     I would, therefore, ask Congress to pass appropriate legislation. ;

     Question No. 27: As President, would you hold regular press conferences?

 The Presidential news conference has proved to be a very effective means of keeping the American public informed on the broad range of issues which confront the Nation. This is certainly among the important activities of the President. I would expect to make full use of these conferences for this purpose.

     Yes.

     Question, No. 28: What legislation would you recommend to Congress dealing with nepotism?

     Nepotism now poses no problem in the executive branch.
     I see no necessity, at present, from the standpoint of the executive branch, of recommending specific legislation on this subject.
     If your question relates to other areas of government, then I believe that Congress itself should initiate any action to deal with it. I believe nepotism is a problem requiring constant vigilance. This has been well illustrated by the Scripps-Howard newspapers' stories.

     Nepotism is dangerous to the public interest and to our national morality. The appointment of the best qualified people to public office regardless of their relationships, their creed, or their color is a cardinal principle of good government. The remedy is not legislation but the full light of publicity on all appointments.

     Question No. 29: How would you avoid conflicts of interest in, your nominees for Federal offices?

     I would require the highest standards of personal integrity in any person appointed to Federal office. I would require the members of my administration to meet not only the letter but also the spirit of the laws governing, conflicts of interest.
     To these ends I would require a complete advance disclosure to me by all prospective Presidential appointees of any private holdings or interests which might in any way relate to their official responsibilities. I would require whatever action would be needed to remove any potential conflicts and I would insist upon full advance consultation respecting individual situations with the Senate leaders most directly concerned with the confirmation of the particular nominee.
     A new conflict-of-interest law is needed, in my opinion. It would include provisions to deal forthrightly with the difficult problems of gifts to governmental officials and employees - the employment of former officials and service personnel - and I feel strongly that it should be made applicable to all governmental officials, not executive branch personnel alone.
     Additionally, it should more realistically handle the sensitive problems of private pension plans and similar arrangements which assure a family's economic security so that individuals will no longer be expected to forgo the fruits of a lifetime of effort before qualifying for responsible Government service.
     The special problem of consultants and advisers to the Government who may serve only once a week or once a month also needs up-to-date attention in statute.

     I would make it clear, from the outset of my administration, that conflict of interest among members of the executive branch could not, and would not, be tolerated.
     An official in the Government of the United States must have one allegiance, and one allegiance only - a complete dedication to the interests of our National Government. He must never be allowed to have other interests which might conflict with that overriding principle.
     In order to carry out this policy the next President must exercise great judgment in selecting men who will be faithful to these principles. He also must make clear, through appropriate regulations, the exact points at which public interests and private interests conflict.
     And he must act immediately to remove from his administration any who violate the principles and regulations he has laid down.

     Question No. 30: If faced with a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, would you require your appointee to have Judicial experience?

     No.
     History shows that it would be a mistake to make prior judicial experience an absolute requirement for Supreme Court nominees. Some of the greatest Supreme Court Justices had never been judges before their appointment to the Court - among them John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Louis D. Brandeis, and Charles Evans Hughes. Judges Marshall and Taney had been Cabinet officers, Judge Brandeis an eminent lawyer in private practice, Judge Hughes the Governor of New York.
     The qualities needed on our Highest Court are too numerous and too broad to make possible any simple formula for appointments. Service on the bench, experience elsewhere in public life, a notable record of scholarship - any of these might be an appropriate background for a Supreme Court Justice.
     I can only pledge that I shall seek, with advice from the legal profession itself, men of the greatest wisdom to fill any vacancies that may occur on the most important of all courts.

     Prior judicial experience is a highly important consideration and I would give great weight to such experience in considering any appointee to the Supreme Court.
     However, some of our outstanding Justices have had no previous experience on the bench. The Supreme Court is of such importance and deals with such vital questions that I consider it unwise to set standards which are too rigid in selecting its members.
     I feel, therefore, that while prior judicial experience is an important factor it should not arbitrarily be made a flat requirement.

     Question No. 31: What role in Government will you assign to the Vice President

     The American Vice Presidency was described by Theodore Roosevelt as: "Not an office in which I could do anything and not an office in which a man still vigorous and not past middle life has much chance of doing anything * * *."
     With the increasing complexity of government I believe there is a place for a Vice President who wishes to participate in the Executive process. As candidate for Vice President this year, the Democratic Party has chosen a man of unprecedented experience and skill in both legislation and other fields.
     He has served in Congress since 1937 and has been widely acclaimed majority leader of the Senate since 1955. In a Democratic administration, he will provide unparalleled coordination between Congress and the executive branch.
     In addition, Senator Johnson has played a particularly significant role on the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. Senate and as chairman of both the Senate Subcommittee on Preparedness and the Senate Space Committee.
     I believe he can be especially useful in reorganization of the Pentagon and in space research and development, and I intend to take advantage of his abilities by requesting that he play an active part in the executive department.

     The next Vice President, if I am elected President, will have many important duties, but by far his most important role will be to assist the President in extending freedom throughout the world.
     Dealing with the Communist challenge and rapidly changing world conditions will continue to be the greatest problem facing America's leadership. There has been no change in the Communist objective of world domination. But due mainly to the massive deterrent power of our Armed Forces, the Communists have been forced to concentrate their efforts increasingly in nonmilitary areas.
     All aspects of this struggle - political, economic, ideological, cultural and educational - call for flexibility in planning and very close coordination. The task of directing the many activities in this field is one of the most difficult in Government. It must be handled by a person fully qualified by experience and proven ability.
     Ambassador Lodge is ideally suited to this assignment. His outstanding service to our country in the United Nations for the past 8 years is well known to our own people and to the world as well. As Vice President, he would carry out this new and challenging responsibility with equal success.

     Question No. 32: After having signed an appropriation bill containing money for projects you did not specifically recommend, would you spend the money as Congress directs? Or impound it?

     Under normal circumstances I would respect the judgment of Congress and carry out the program it had devised. However, if there were important reasons for impounding the funds, I would not hesitate to consult with the appropriate congressional leaders and, if the objections were sufficiently great, postpone the expenditure until it could receive additional consideration.
     In addition, of course, a national emergency might require that the funds be impounded. This was done in several instances by President Roosevelt, President Truman, and President Eisenhower.
     One possibility not contemplated by the question would be the deliberate effort to slow down less essential expenditures when severe inflationary pressures dictated this action.

     One of the Presidential duties is to see that the executive branch of the Government carries out programs authorized by Congress and approved by the President. This means, of course, that executive agencies must expend such appropriated funds as are really needed to implement these programs.
     Appropriations, however, are only authorized; the Congress traditionally has not directed expenditures of funds. The President, under the terms of appropriation acts, is not required - and is not expected by the people - to spend any more than must be spent to do the job. This is so even though Congress may appropriate more than the required amount. As President, I would faithfully execute the laws, and in the process I would do all that I could to avoid wasting of any public funds. My rule would be, first to live up to both the letter and the spirit of the laws appropriating money for running the Government, and second, to do this without squandering the taxpayers' dollars.

     Question No. 33: Do you favor complete integration of the Armed Forces, serving in one uniform?

     I see no necessity for eliminating separate services at this time, but it may very well come in the 1960's, as new weapon technology affects the missions of the armed services. We must develop greater flexibility and coordination among the various services so that they can organize their activities along the lines of the military missions to be performed rather than along traditional lines.
     To achieve this I have appointed a committee headed by Senator Stuart Symington which will make recommendations as to how to enhance true unification of the services along the lines of legislation passed by recent Congresses.

     The goal sought by this question is obviously the improved efficiency of our Defense Establishment. When we consider that half the Federal budget is spent by the Pentagon, it is clear how vital this purpose is. Good progress has been made in recent years, but this immense task will never be finally done. I am not satisfied that all duplications and overlappings in the Pentagon. and elsewhere have been eliminated.
     In every possible way we need to drive for improved efficiency in the Department of Defense, and this I would do vigorously and unremittingly. But in the process we must guard against any tendency to unify merely for its own sake, without regard to the effects upon the organization and readiness of our forces.
     Each of our great armed services - the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps - has a proud tradition, in the older services going back to colonial times. There is tremendous defense value in the morale, esprit de corps and pride of service that exist in these separate organizations. If they were lumped together in one huge mass, I am sure there would be loss for America.
     Interservice competition, kept within bounds, is good for national defense, not something to be discouraged. It is bitter rivalry, not healthy competition, that should be opposed.
     To me, the "one uniform" idea is an effort at unity for its own sake; I am against it on the ground that it would be harmful, not helpful, to our Nation's defenses.