Produced by Lawrence E. Spivak.
     Guest: Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat, Texas.
     Panel: Robert Abernethy, NBC News; Jack Steele, Scripps-Howard Newspapers; William S. White, United-Features Syndicate; Lawrence E. Spivak, regular panel member.
     Moderator: Ned Brooks.

     Mr. BROOKS. Our guest today is Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, the Democratic nominee for Vice President.
     Senator Johnson has spent nearly 30 years in public life. For 24 years he has been a Member of Congress, first elected at the age of 29. Since 1953 he has been the Democratic leader of the Senate. He has been called one of the most effective leaders of our time. Through his committee assignments he has come into close contact with the program for national defense and the development of outer space.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Senator Johnson, as you know, many political observers are saying that the Democrats may lose Texas. What do you think the issues are in Texas which may decide this election as far as the State is concerned ?
     Senator JOHNSON. First, I don't think the Democrats are going to lose Texas. I think we have a fight in Texas; we usually do, but the most recent polls show that the Kennedy-Johnson ticket is running ahead in Texas. The opposition is resorting to the same type of argument that the Republicans have used since I have been in public life, a kind of a fear campaign. First, they take the Democratic platform and evaluate it and point out that we are going down the road to socialism. The same argument they used against Woodrow Wilson; the same argument they used against Franklin Roosevelt; the same argument they have used against Harry Truman. They have also brought the religious question in, but I think it has somewhat boomeranged on them, and I anticipate you will hear very little from them in that regard from here on out.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Senator, what do you consider the major issues as far as the State of Texas is concerned?
     Senator JOHNSON. I think Texas is not unlike the rest of the Nation. The major issue is who can best direct the destiny of this country and who can best preserve peace in the world. That is the principal issue, and since we have a Democratic Congress and are going to have one anyway, I think the people of Texas are going to be sensible enough and intelligent enough to give that Democratic Congress a Democratic leader that can work with it and lead it instead of a Republican leader that will fight with it and question it and produce stalemate government.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Is right-to-work an issue in the State of Texas?
     Senator JOHNSON. Yes, it is with some individuals, although the right-to-work provision of the Taft-Hartley Act has been affected by every Democratic platform that has been written since Taft-Hartley was passed. In 1948 the platform called for repeal of Taft-Hartley. In 1952, it called for repeal. In 1956 it called for repeal. The platform is somewhat more moderate this year than it has been in other years in that regard from their standpoint.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Are you personally for repeal of section 14(b) ?
     Senator JOHNSON. I am committed to the platform, and the platform commits that action.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Vice President Nixon the other night in his debate said you oppose most of the civil rights proposals of the Democratic platform. Because this is an audience that is both North and South and East and West, will you tell us in answer to Vice President Nixon where you stand on some of these civil rights issues? On the issue, for example, of desegregating lunchroom counters.
     Senator JOHNSON. I stand in the North just like I stand in the South. I will go into some details on that. Unlike Mr. Nixon - Mr. Nixon has a Dixie speech, and he has a northern speech - I have made the same speech in all the places that I have been. I think that we have a real duty as public servants to protect the constitutional rights of every American citizen regardless of race or religion or region. I have tried to do that by implementing the constitutional rights guaranteed every citizen with two civil rights bills during the three Congresses that I have been leader. During the Congress when Mr. Nixon was elected Vice President, the first Congress, his party did absolutely nothing, in 1953 and 1954. They not only didn't report a bill, they didn't get one to calendar; they didn't pass one. Yet he goes down to Richmond, the other day, makes his Dixie speech there and then returns to New York City to the garment workers and tells the garment workers they ought to vote against Kennedy because he has a southerner on the ticket. I submit that in this day of television and newspapers, he ought to realize that we do have Western Union and telephones, and that will catch up with you.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Senator, the national Democratic platform is for the establishment of a national FEPC. I take it since you stand on the platform, that you also stand on that?
     Senator JOHNSON. We have a contracts agency of that kind. The only difference is it is set up by Executive order now. Mr. Nixon is the head of it. I don't think it has done much good or much conciliation under Mr. Nixon because he has been active in other fields. But we have an agency of that type now, created by Executive order, and our platform contemplates that the Congress will take some control of it both in the way of setting the standards and providing the necessary funds.
     Mr. WHITE. Senator, on the question of civil rights again, you yourself have always preached moderation in this field, and on the whole in the legislative sense you have achieved that. The question is, can this approach - that is, the moderate approach, as you call it - survive on the basis of the present Democratic platform, assuming the election of the Kennedy-Johnson ticket?
     Senator JOHNSON. Yes, I think so. I think that is what the platform contemplates. I think that we will make progress in this field. I think with the help of the leaders of all the races and all the States that we will continue to go forward as the Democratic Congress has gone forward, first in the 1957 bill and again in the 1960 bill. I think that the Negro is going to be able to do much more for himself than anyone else can do for him, and he can do that under the 1957 and 1960 bills by participating in the elections. In some instances that participation has been denied him, but I think this November you will see a record vote of Negroes in the South, and I think it will represent a great step forward. I don't mean that voting will be the only step, but I mean that through the franchise they can obtain for themselves things that no one else can guarantee them.
     Mr. WHITE. But does not the Democratic convention platform contemplate action in this field a great deal beyond what has been passed or what has actually been to this point seriously brought forward in the Senate?
     Senator JOHNSON. Yes, it does, and I think next week Senator Kennedy has called a conference to meet in New York, not only to consider the details of the platform, but consider any other effective approaches to bringing about the complete and adequate protection of every American's constitutional rights.
     Mr. STEELE. Senator, before we leave the subject of civil rights, I recall, I think last week, that you accused President Eisenhower of refusing to use the moral force of his office to back up the Supreme Court decision on desegregation of schools, and I think Senator Kennedy has said much the same thing.
     Senator JOHNSON. I didn't make any such statement as that. I replied affirmatively to the question of what a President couldn't do, but I don't want the reporter to get me in a personal battle with President Eisenhower or any other military heroes right now.
     Mr. STEELE. Wasn't that the effect of your answer to the question?
     Senator JOHNSON. I do not think so. I didn't accuse Mr. Eisenhower of anything, period.
     Mr. STEELE. Do you think he did use his office to put the desegregation decision into effect as best he could?
     Senator JOHNSON. I think he has handled his office as he thought he could best handle it. I think he has to be the judge of what he should do. You asked me what I thought a President could do, and I said that in the broadcast last night, but I have not gotten personal with Mr. Eisenhower or anyone else and don't plan to.
     Mr. STEELE. In that same line, I note last April, as I recall, when the civil rights bill was up in the Senate, there was an amendment proposed to have Congress endorse the Supreme Court decision and also to provide aid for schools which did desegregate. I believe you were recorded as voting against that amendment. Does that represent your position now, that you don't believe Congress has a responsibility, too, to try to support this decision?
     Senator JOHNSON. No, that represented my position when I cast that vote, and here is the situation as I see it: You have to seek the best and do the possible. There are a number of proposals that are coming up. We voted on every conceivable proposal that could be voted on in the Senate, and I think we obtained the maximum that could be obtained from that Senate at that time. Some people like to keep issues going, and they would much rather create them than resolve them. It happens to be my job to try to resolve some of those issues, so I have obtained the best obtainable, so to speak. There have only been two civil rights bills in 80 years, and neither of those was passed by Republican Congresses. Neither was passed by Mr. Nixon or with Mr. Nixon's assistance. I think you have to get what you can get, and that is what we did.
     Mr. STEELE. Changing the subject a little bit, Mr. White mentioned that your position was one of moderation on civil rights in the Senate.
     Senator JOHNSON. Mine is one of moderation on everything. I don't want to be an extremist in any regard.
     Mr. STEELE. I was going to suggest that, and yet campaigning, traveling with you last week, I noticed, it seemed to me, that whereas you had acted as a moderate in the Senate on economic and social issues and as trying to compromise the extreme views within the Democratic Party, now you seemed to be going all the way with the liberals on such issues as Federal aid for education and housing, social security and the minimum wage, and I wondered if this represented some shift of position by you?
     Senator JOHNSON. Not in the slightest. A glance at my record will show that I have been for educating our young ever since I have been in Congress. I came here 24 years ago, and I have always voted to improve the education of our young people and last February passed an education bill in the Senate that would now be law if we could have gotten one Republican vote from the Rules Committee of the House - assuming the President would sign the bill. I have voted for housing since the days of Senator Wagner, when Mr. Straus was the administrator of the housing program. The first slum-clearance project in the United States, President Roosevelt allocated to my district, Austin, Tex. It was not only the first one, but it had the lowest cost and the lowest rental, so this is not any new venture for me.
     Mr. ABERNETHY. Senator, in almost every speech of your campaign so far, which I have heard, you have tried to attack the experience and consistency of Vice President Nixon. I would like to ask you about this, about one of your charges specifically
     Senator JOHNSON. I wouldn't say I have attacked or charged. I have pointed out the unfairness and perhaps the unjustness of Mr. Nixon's claim that he is a very mature person in these fields by trying to show that he has had very little experience in it and the experience he has had has been somewhat unfortunate.
     Mr. ABERNETHY. May I ask you about one specific story that you tell? You tell your audiences that the Republican platform Mr. Nixon wanted was changed at the insistence of Governor Rockefeller of New York.
     Senator JOHNSON. That is true, isn't it?
     Mr. ABERNETHY. Then you go on to say, as you charge, that if Mr. Rockefeller can turn the Vice President around, as you said it, in one midnight conference, you then ask, "What could Mr. Khrushchev do if he got Mr. Nixon in a room all day?" What I would like to know is exactly what you mean to imply by that question? Are you trying to imply that Mr. Nixon lacks convictions or that he can be persuaded easily by Mr. Khrushchev ?
     Senator JOHNSON. I am not trying to imply anything. I am just stating what I believe to be a fact, and what I understand the Vice President states as a fact. Namely, that after a conference with [Governor Rockefeller]* he made some adjustments in his convictions. If an inexperienced Governor of New York can turn a mature and experienced Vice President around 180 degrees in one midnight conference in the Waldorf-Astoria, I just want the people to contemplate what might happen if a fellow like Khrushchev got him out all day.
     Mr. ABERNETHY. But what do you mean to say about Mr. Nixon's convictions when you ask that question?
     Senator JOHNSON. I have said it; I have just repeated it to you. I have said if an inexperienced Governor could cause him to rewrite his platform and change his convictions and come out to the public and say, "As a result of this conference we have changed our complete approach, and we want a different platform from the one we anticipated," if he can do that in a midnight conference, what would happen in a conference where he spent all day with Mr. Khrushchev?
     I would be glad to have your opinion on that, Mr. Abernethy.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Senator, the Democratic Party has hammered hard at the "budget first" policy of this administration, isn't that true?
     Senator JOHNSON. That is your statement.
     Mr. SPIVAK. It is a question. I am asking the question. I mean, you have criticized, I believe, and the Democratic Party has criticized, the administration for overemphasizing "budget first." I am not attempting to get---
     Senator JOHNSON. I prefer you to make your own statement and let me make mine. I am not making that statement. I have always said about the President's budget - if you want my statement
     Mr. SPIVAK. I will be glad to give you the statement of the Democratic National Committee, which said, "Under the 'budget first' policies of the Eisenhower-Nixon administration the previous preponderance of U.S. military strength over that of the Soviet Union has been reduced," and the Democratic Party has made many, many statements on the "budget first" policy of this administration.
     Senator JOHNSON. I am not familiar with that statement that you have. I haven't analyzed it; I don't know what is in it. My own position on the budget has always been this: that we ought to get a dollar's worth of value out of every dollar spent. We ought to prudently and thoroughly examine each request the President makes and reduce them wherever we can, if they need reduction. If not, leave them as they are, or if they need increasing, to increase them. We have done that during President Eisenhower's administration, and he has asked for about $12½ billion more in appropriations than we have allowed.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Senator, may I ask you this question, then: Do you think that the administration has been too budget conscious? Have you at no time criticized the administration for worrying too much about the budget and not enough about defense?
     Senator JOHNSON. No, I don't criticize people for worrying about the budget. I think that we all have to be concerned with it. I think it is very important that we take in more money than we spend. That is always my position. That is our platform now. We take the position in our platform that we are going to balance the budget; we are going to operate with a balanced budget, and under no circumstances are we going to spend more money than we take in unless we have a calamity or some national emergency.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Has the Democratic Party not criticized this administration for overemphasizing its budget?
     Senator JOHNSON. I have taken each appropriation bill that has come before the Senate and instituted a new procedure, required a rollcall on it, and over a period of years out of about 17 appropriation bills the President sends up we reduced about 15 of them. We have cut them.
     Mr. SPIVAK. You have cut them by about $12 billion.
     Senator JOHNSON. We have cut them by $12½ billion, but there are two or three each year that we increase. Health, Education, and Welfare, we usually make some increase. Defense, we usually make some increase. Generally the others, just like the Agriculture Department or Commerce Department, where they are just adding a lot of fat and additional employees, we usually make some reductions.
     Mr. SPIVAK. But Senator, what I am getting at is that the Democrats have criticized the administration for not spending enough in one voice, and you and others have said that they have spent too much and that you have cut their budgets.
     Senator JOHNSON. No, I am not taking that position. I am taking the position that every request of the President's is entitled to consideration. We give it consideration, and then we do what we think is best for our country. Out of 17 bills we increased 2 of them. We reduced 15 of them. The net of the whole period is that the President has increased the debt by $19 billion during the Eisenhower administration, and we have cut from his appropriations requests $12½ billion. If we hadn't cut it, he would have increased the debt by $31½ billion. That is a prudent Democratic policy, and I predict, if I know anything about Senator Kennedy, that he will continue that policy. All you have to do is go to a drugstore with him and buy a sandwich and see how long he shuffles trying to get the money to pick up the check to find out that if he handles the Government's money like he handles his own, we are going to have a pretty good fiscal policy.
     Mr. WHITE. Senator, returning to foreign policy - and everybody seems to be in agreement that this is a big thing in the campaign - this preliminary question, please: The other day the United Press reported that the Republican national chairman, Senator Morton, had called Senator Kennedy an "apostle of appeasement." I'd like to ask you first to comment on what you think about that, and second, to try to give us as best you can an analysis of what really is permissible in foreign policy in one of these election years, on either side, or both sides, without really injuring the country's interest?
     Senator JOHNSON. Every party has to have a national chairman. He has his job of directing the campaign, and he has got to be pretty political and both chairmen have that responsibility, and they live up to it. I do not agree with the charge that Senator Kennedy is an "apostle of appeasement" any more than I am sure Mr. Morton would agree with the charge that this administration are apostles of apathy. I think that you don't have to get into these personal questions of a man's patriotism in order to make your viewpoint known to the people. I think that Senator Kennedy is very sincere in his views on foreign policy, and I grant Vice President Nixon the same.
     I am sorry that the Republicans are inclined to get personal on foreign policy. I remember that back in the 1952 campaign Mr. Nixon questioned the patriotism of some members of our party and said that the administration was sheltering some traitors, and I remember as late as 1958, in the last election, they called us Socialists, and now they call us "apostles of appeasement." I don't think that meets the question. I think we have a sincere difference in how to run foreign policy. We ought to express it. The administration had no objection to the United Nations meeting this year although normally in election year you would call off the sessions. They did in 1952, and they did in 1956.
     Mr. WHITE. May I interrupt: Do you think that should have been called off, the United Nations meeting?
     Senator JOHNSON. I think in the light of the position they had taken in 1952 and 1956 that it might have been well to see if it couldn't be postponed, because I see no difference in 1960 and 1952 and 1956. They decided they wouldn't do that, and then in the next breath Mr. Nixon says Senator Kennedy can't talk about foreign policy.
     What kind of reasoning do you follow if you say, "We are going to have Mr. Khrushchev over here talking about foreign policy every day and questioning our policy, and you are going to have Mr. Castro over here and Mr. Tito, but if Senator Kennedy says something, it is unpatriotic." I just don't get that kind of reasoning.
     Mr. STEELE. Senator, you said the other day that the Republican Party reminded you of a three-headed monster run by Nixon, Goldwater, and Rockefeller. You are running on three platforms this year: the Democratic national platform, the Democratic State platform in Texas, which is quite a bit to the right of that, and the Liberal Party Platform in New York, which is quite a bit to the left of it.
     Without suggesting in a political sense that maybe this makes you a three-headed monster, don't you find this a little inconsistent?
     Senator JOHNSON. No, not a bit. I am running on the national platform, and I haven't given the attention to the Liberal platform that you have. I have told them what I believe in, and they have accepted me on the basis of my views and on the basis of the platform of my party. The State platform is made for our State officers. We have what we call a Governor's Convention each 2 years, and the Governor has his platform, and it will be carried out by the State officials.
     We have a national platform, and we have a national convention in Teas when we select our delegates in May. That is called the national convention.
     The Governor's Convention is in September, and he has his own platform, so there are always differences; there always have been. We don't go in the mode of the Republicans where one man is boss, and he mashes a button and everything falls in line and goosesteps. The Democrats are pretty individualistic - Harry Byrd and Hubert Humphrey, they have their own views, and while we all belong to the Democratic Party, there is room for difference of opinion.
     Mr. ABERNETHY. Senator, you called Vice President Nixon's estimate of what the Democratic platform would cost to put into law a phony. What is your estimate of what the Democratic platform would cost if all of it were enacted into law?
     Senator JOHNSON. I haven't made any calculations, and I haven't seen any that Mr. Nixon made that were respectable or responsible. I would like for him to give the names of the economists who made the estimates. I would like for him to compare them with the cost of the Republican platform. I would like to be able to evaluate, not only the integrity of the men who make the estimates, but I would like to see the comparison of the two platforms. I haven't done that.
     Mr. BROOKS. Gentlemen, I am sorry but at this point I am going to interrupt. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson, for being with us.

*Corrected.