QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, you have said that if you win, Ambassador Lodge will be put in charge of nonmilitary aspects of the cold war, I believe. It will be something new in American political history. What would the Secretary of State have left to do? He wouldn't have a job left, would he?
     Vice President NIXON. Oh yes he would. The Secretary of State has the major responsibility in the field of foreign policy. Now that means that he supervises our Ambassadors around the world. It means also that he advises the President on foreign policy matters, on the day-to-day decisions that must be made with regard to our policies in individual countries, and also with regard to the United Nations and the other organizations to which we belong.
     What I was referring to with regard to Ambassador Lodge was this: There are a number of areas in which the Secretary of State does not have complete jurisdiction. Let me put it this way: The battle that we are fighting in the world today in the nonmilitary area not only covers diplomacy over which the Secretary of State has authority, but it also covers military matters. It covers economic policy, which the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Treasury have something to do with. It covers the disposal of surplus foods, which the Secretary of Agriculture has primary responsibility in. It also covers information, U.S. information, which to an extent, as you know, has been in the State Department, then out, then back in.
     I have sat in the National Security Council for the last 7½ years. I also have traveled abroad to 50 countries, most of these countries in Asia, Africa and South America, where the battle for the world will be decided. One thing I am convinced of is that we have not mobilized adequately and directed and coordinated adequately all of these nonmilitary activities, information, economic assistance, loans, and I think that we need a top direction for that.
     Now if the President had the time, he should do it, but I think the Vice President, who is above the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury and all the rest who have jurisdiction over this, that he can take the responsibility here and do a more effective job than is presently being done.
     QUESTION. Isn't that the job that the National Security Council is supposed to do?
     Vice President NIXON. The National Security Council is supposed to do it, and it will make - I want to emphasize this - the recommendations to the President. Let's understand this. The National Security Council does not make decisions. It only advises the President. But I sat at National Security Council meetings, and they only can deal with general policy. They lay down the guidelines for policy. What I am talking about is the day-to-day implementation of policy. Let me use a specific example.
     Let's take the Congo. Now in the Congo, we have a number of problems. We have a diplomatic problem, for example. Which particular government are we going to recognize and deal with? We also have an economic problem. What kind of economic assistance are we going to make? Export-Import Bank loans? That's under the Secretary of the Treasury and under his direction primarily. Are we going to furnish them surplus foods? What kind, if any, of military assistance are we going to give? Probably none, may I say. But this is an example of what I mean.
     Now in the National Security Council we will develop a paper with regard to the Congo. The point then comes, how do you carry out the directions that the National Security Council and the President - and he, of course, gives the direction on the National Security Council's consultation - how do you carry out those policies?
     In my opinion, you need a man directly under the President, and I believe. that should be the Vice President, who will coordinate and direct the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and all of the other instruments of Government, to see that we have one concentrated activity. And may I say this: That is what the Communists do. This doesn't mean that makes it right. It doesn't mean we always follow them. But you cannot match a massive, totally mobilized activity, where this struggle is going on, which the Communists are able to concentrate in. an area, with a diffused uncoordinated activity.
     I don't mean it's all been bad. I do mean, though, that America is doing a great deal in a number of fields. It needs to be organized and directed on a day-to-day basis, and the Secretary of State doesn't have the time, for example, to take that assignment, and also there is another disadvantage he has. This means that you put him over the other Department officers. The Vice President is over them by reason of the fact that he is an elected official.
     QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, it's become a kind of tradition, I guess, in interviewing political leaders that we try to annoy them with possible inconsistencies in his record, in his public statements, or whatnot. So let me attempt to annoy you, if I may---
     Vice President NIXON. Let me interrupt you. I have been annoyed by experts, so go right ahead.
     QUESTION. On this matter of the rate of economic growth, my records or research say that in 1954, when Stevenson warned that the Soviet economy was growing at a rate faster than ours, you used a phrase "spreading pro-Communist propaganda, as he attacked with violent fury the economic system of the United States."
     Then before the Newspaper Publishers' Association, you called upon the members to ponder the sobering fact that the Soviet economy is growing faster than ours. Now it would seem that your position today is somewhat different. Would you straighten me out?
     Vice President NIXON. I certainly would. First of all, I think we should understand that as far as the Soviet economy is concerned, that its rate of growth is faster than ours. Now that does not mean that the Soviet is going to catch us. For example, its rate of growth has been faster than ours for the last 20 years, if you were to take an average. Now why is it faster? Because it is a very primitive economy compared to ours. They start from a lower base. They, for example, are building transportation systems, railroads, steel mills that we already have, and that we don't need.
     Now as they get to be a more mature economy, their rate of growth will slow down. At the present time, in other words, when we look at the absolute gap, as we describe it, between the American economy and the Soviet economy, they have made no gain. As a matter of fact, we have widened that gap, and we are continuing to.
     Now let me go to the second point. Why did I criticize Mr. Stevenson? Because Mr. Stevenson took the Soviet rate of growth and took that as a reason for criticizing the American system, the American economic system. He said, in effect, that we had to change our approach, our economic principles, or we were going to fall behind the Soviet Union. I think he's wrong.
     I believe the greatest mistake we could make would be to lose faith in the basic principles of our economic system. I think that where Mr. Stevenson makes a mistake, I think where Senator Kennedy falls into the same error, is to assume that the way to increase economic growth in this country is frankly to change our approach by massively increasing Government participation in the economy, Government controls, Government spending, just for the stated sake of getting growth.
     Now we do need Government action. I, for example, have advocated a Government program in the field of science, which will greatly increase the amount of activity in that area, so that we can exploit the scientific revolution, the scientific breakthrough.
     I believe the Federal Government must do more in the field of education, particularly in secondary education, and in primary education, in school construction, which will release funds for teachers' salaries, which desperately need to be raised, and in higher education, to see to it that none of our young people's talents are wasted. .
     But where I quarrel with Senator Kennedy, where I quarrel with Mr. Stevenson is in this: I put my faith, as far as economic growth is concerned, not in expanding the public sector of the economy, what government does as such; but I put my faith in having the Government do those things that will stimulate the private sector of the economy, stimulate what individuals will do.
     This is where we have an advantage over the Soviet Union. They are past masters at doing it the government bureaucratic way. If we fall into the error of doing it their way, we will lose this race in which we are engaged.
     Now going on to the whole problem of the statements that I have, made, I think it is well for us to recognize that the Soviet Union is traveling certainly at a fast rate. We are in a race. We cannot be satisfied with our present rate of economic growth, as great as it is, and it has been great. We cannot be satisfied that the Soviet Union has not closed the absolute gap between our economies. And the reason we cannot be satisfied is that Mr. Khrushchev is driving millions of people at an unmerciful rate.
     So when we are in this kind of a race, that is why I am advocating in this campaign break-throughs in science, in education, and also as I will develop later in the campaign, I believe we have to have tax reform, which will stimulate new investment in the American economy, so that we can increase our rate of growth to the maximum.
     And so my quarrel, if I may summarize it, is this: It is not with the fact that we ought to do more, because we should do more. My point is, what should we do? And I put my faith in private and individual enterprise as the major engine of progress. I do not have confidence in turning to huge, massive government programs simply for the sake of stimulating economic growth.
     QUESTION. I don't think I annoyed you at all.
     Vice President NIXON. I am afraid I talked too long on that subject.
     QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, I would like to hear in some detail your view of the Presidency, of the leadership, the aggressiveness with which the powers of the Office are used, not in terms of any specific policies, but in general your view of how the Presidency should be conducted. In those terms, is your view of it about the same as President Eisenhower's?
     Vice President NIXON. Let me say first, David, if I may call you that, since we have traveled so much around the world, including the Soviet Union and such places - if I may say this: I think there has been a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to President Eisenhower's conduct of the Presidency and his view of the Presidency. We have heard a lot of talk about the fact that we have strong Presidents and weak Presidents, ones who believe in strong leadership, and ones who believe, as some say of President Eisenhower, not in ruling, but in simply reigning over the various Government departments.
     Now I can say this: President Eisenhower has been a strong President, but he doesn't do it in the flamboyant way that some of his predecessors do. He doesn't stomp his feet; he doesn't use vulgar language, as Mr. Truman does; but he does lead. He makes the decisions, and the very fact that he is not spectacular is not the test of whether he is a great leader. The test is what he accomplished, and he's done pretty well.
     In foreign policy, he got us out of one war. He has kept us out of others. He has made the tough decisions on Lebanon, Quemoy, and Matsu. Yet he has done it quietly. He hasn't done it spectacularly. He hasn't made a fool of himself and made a lot of news, but that doesn't mean he hasn't been a strong President. When you compare him with Truman and say Truman was a strong President and Eisenhower isn't, it doesn't make sense to me. I don't mean that, in all fairness, Mr. Truman, too, hasn't in some instances exerted strong leadership. As I pointed out, his decision on the atomic bomb, his decision on going into Korea, not the policies which led up to it which were wrong, but the final decision to go in were courageous decisions. They had to be made.
     But what I am indicating is this: I think history will record that Eisenhower was a stronger President than Truman, because he led in a more effective way, by persuasion, and that is, incidentally, my appraisal of him.
     Now obviously, every man is different. I, as far as I am concerned, believe the President has to run the show. Let's take, for example, national defense. I do not share the views of those who, as Senator Symington has indicated - and I assume this is Senator's Kennedy's view - that we should set up one single superservice. I will tell you why I don't share it.
     I don't share it because, well, this competition between the services can be destructive. It can also be constructive. Let's take the Polaris. In my view, the Polaris might not have been discovered - and it is our absolute deterrent, because it is invulnerable - if we had not had the Navy, because the Air Force, if it had been dominant in running all the services might have insisted on some other approach. But by the same token, America cannot afford this petty, inner-service rivalry, and as far as I am concerned, any time we find in the next administration, if I have anything to do with it, that inner-service rivalry is putting the service first and the country second, I can assure you that some heads will roll, and I think the President has to make it absolutely clear that. the country comes first, and he will not tolerate under any circumstances duplication or anything of that nature.
     Now as far as the general concept of the Presidency is concerned then, I believe the President must lead. He must set the moral tone of the country. Take the issue of civil rights. He must indicate in everything that he does, in everything that he says, that this is not simply a question of law, but it is a question of justice. And therefore, by his leadership, he can bring the country along.
     QUESTION. Well, on that - may I interrupt. On that point, do you think President Eisenhower has done all he might have done to support and uphold the Supreme Court decision on the schools?
     Vice President NIXON. I think he has made some very painful decisions, and done it very courageously. Let's take, for example, the Little Rock decision. I think perhaps that was the most difficult decision President Eisenhower has made, more difficult than the one regarding Lebanon and the others that are more famous, difficult because here was a man that spent his life in the service. Here is a man who simply abhors the use of force, unless it is absolutely necessary. And so he had to make the decision to send troops in, because there was no other way to uphold the law of the land.
     That indicates to me that he has done courageous things.
     Now as far as the attitude as to what should be done in the future, each of us has a different approach. I, for example, had some ideas in this field that perhaps would be different from those that President Eisenhower would have as to what the Executive could do. For example, let's take the sit-in strikes. I think there has been too much emphasis on the sit-in strikes in terms of the legality of these strikes, the right, for example, of an innkeeper to deny an individual the right to come in and have services.
     Now that legal question will eventually be solved by the Supreme Court of the United States, maybe 2 years, maybe 3 years from now, but we shouldn't wait until then to solve the problem. When it is solved, it will be a great victory for one side or the other, but we shouldn't wait until then.
     What ought to be done? Well, one thing that has been done, and I have been instrumental in doing this, the Attorney General brought in the owners of the chainstores in the South. He got them voluntarily to break down these barriers. Now, I think there are many areas of that type where the President and Cabinet officers under his direction can get voluntary action to bring progress in this field. And this is the kind of leadership that I expect to exert not only in this field, but in others as well.
     QUESTION. Well, I would gather - just one short question. I would gather, then, that we might expect, if you are elected, 4 more years of the kind of leadership we have had in the last 8, roughly the same, in terms of vigor, aggressiveness, tone, and character of the Presidency.
     Vice President NIXON. No; certainly not, because every man is different. President Eisenhower had an entirely different background from mine. I am a man who will, of course, reflect in my leadership my whole life, and if you will look at my whole life, I am a man who is aggressive. I am a man who will not tolerate, as I indicated, any inefficiency. I am one who will insist on driving forward in every area. It is very likely, for example, that in some areas I will be more aggressive than President Eisenhower will be. The point that I want to make is this
     I don't indicate that I am going to be more successful, because I simply don't buy this idea that President Eisenhower's type of leadership has not been successful. I do think, however, that in all of these areas that I have referred to, whether it is civil rights, national defense, our battle with the uncommitted nations - I do believe that I can bring some leadership qualities to the Presidency that we need in this time, and if I could just hit that last point particularly that goes back to your first question, I have a burning conviction that we simply have to do a better job in the battle for the uncommitted nations than we are doing That is why I am going to direct the Vice President on a day-to-day basis in information, economics, diplomacy, in all of these areas, to see to it that we simply don't hold the line for freedom, but that we extend it, that we beat the Communists to the punch.
     Now, that kind of an attitude is one that I bring to this office. It is one that I have always held, and I think the people can expect that I will work that way as the President of the United States.
     QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, I think you will agree that some of Governor Rockefeller's criticism of the present administration last spring sounded rather sharp, and after all, you did challenge him to a series of debates, as I recall.
     Now, in that meeting with him on the eve of the Republican Convention, by a sort of deductive reasoning, it seems to me someone had to yield. Who did?
     Vice President NIXON. Well, I would say that when you have a meeting between two men, both of whom have deep convictions - and, incidentally, he is a man of very deep convictions with whom I had worked in the administration, as you know, before he became Governor - both parties arrive at an understanding, and in some instances, my view would prevail; in other instances, his view would prevail. But the net result was that we got from that meeting a common ground which would join together not only a majority of the people in our party, but also would attract to us a great number of people among the independent and Democratic voters as well.
     And so I don't say that Governor Rockefeller yielded more than I did, or that I yielded more than he. I do believe that the agreement we had was a splendid one from the standpoint of the party. I think it also gives a broad base which will attract and very properly deserve the support of a majority of the people in the country.
     QUESTION. Now, the day before yesterday, the Governor was quoted as saying that he would not make so flat a statement as to say our prestige is at an alltime high. Would you comment on that?
     Vice President NIXON. I certainly will. When I made that statement, I made it in the context of the United Nations debates that presently are going on.
     Senator Kennedy, as you know, has been saying, just as Adlai Stevenson said in 1956, that United States prestige is at an alltime low. Adlai Stevenson was wrong then, and Senator Kennedy is doubly wrong at the present time, particularly in view of the United Nations developments.
     Now, when I say that American prestige was at an alltime high, I said it in the context of those United Nations discussions, and I pointed out that where the Soviet Union was on one side in the Congo and we were on the other, we got 70 votes, our position, and the Soviet Union got none. I pointed out that Mr. Khrushchev made a speech at the United Nations, and that that speech was his usual flamboyant speech, but it did not result in great prestige for the Soviet Union. It resulted in contempt for the Soviet Union by the neutrals, because they knew that he wasn't really standing for disarmament. He wasn't really trying to reduce tensions.
     President Eisenhower, on the other hand, made a speech, a speech that was universally acclaimed as one that represented not only the best thinking of the people of the United States, but that it was the best thinking of the people of all the free world.
     My point is that in the world forum where prestige is tested, American prestige is, in my opinion,, at an alltime high, when you compare President Eisenhower's reception and Mr. Khrushchev's reception.
     Now, if I can qualify it to one extent, I certainly wouldn't say that American prestige was not in difficulty in some parts of the world. We have a problem in Cuba. We had problems in Japan a few months ago. We have problems in Caracas, with which I was very familiar when I was there.
     What does this prove? Every time we have trouble in the world, every time we find that our positions are not supported, it doesn't mean that our prestige has fallen to a new low. It simply means that we are living in a troubled world. We are going to have trouble, may I say, not only in this period, but I believe for 25, 50, who knows, a hundred years. And the question is not whether you have trouble. The Communists are going to stir it up, because they are trying to conquer the world. They are not trying to do what we are. We are simply trying to keep our own freedom and extend it to others by peaceful means. But we are going to have trouble, and the question is not whether you have it; it is whether you handle it with dignity, with decency.
     We have tried, both of us, Democrats and Republicans in this country over these last 8 years under President Eisenhower, to represent America at its best. We have poured out billions of dollars in our agricultural surpluses, and also of our money generally, to help people abroad. We have done it without asking for an acre of territory, without asking for a concession.
     Now, we have made some mistakes, too, but all in all, I simply don't buy the idea that America now--- that its prestige is at an alltime low, that we are weak, that we are becoming second rate in this field, in that field, or the other. I don't mean that we are ahead every place, but where we are not ahead, we are going to move ahead. Incidentally, that will be the major responsibility of the new President, to see that America does move ahead and stay ahead in every area, militarily, scientific, and economic.
     QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, we were talking about Governor Rockefeller. During this April - shall I say - exchange of views, he said that you, in helping to settle the steel strike, had done it in an inflationary way, and that the bill for this would come after the election. What is your response to that? I have never heard it.
     Vice President NIXON. My response is the record, and the record is that all the predictions that have been made about the settlement of the steel strike have proved to be wrong, because we find that inflation has been held in check. We find that the period since the steel strike has been a period in which we have not had a significant rise of any consequence in the price index, and in which we have not had any significant rises in the price of steel.
     Now, I know that suggestions have been made. Incidentally I welcome the opportunity to comment on this program, which has such a big listening audience, that what happened in the steel strike is that I made a deal with Mr. Roger Blough and the United States Steel, and other people to the effect that they would keep prices down until after the election, and then they would raise it and make the public pay the bill.
     QUESTION. That was the implication of Governor Rockefeller.
     Vice President NIXON. I don't think it was the implication of his statement; it was the implication of some. But let me say this: People who would say that don't know me and they don't know Mr. Blough and the heads of our steel companies. None of us are perfect. But to think that we would sit down and make a cynical deal to the effect that we will settle this steel strike for political reasons, and then you raise prices later - that's an insult certainly to the men in the steel business; it's an insult also to the people who - in my case Jim Mitchell and I - who worked on it.
     One other point I would like to make. You talked about leadership a moment ago. I want to tell you what I think about leadership in this period where management and labor is concerned. Senator Kennedy has come out for a change in our labor legislation in many respects. He would reduce the effectiveness of the Taft-Hartley law, and also of the Landrum-Griffin bill, I think very unwisely, to deal with some of the excesses of some union leaders. But he also has come out for something else; for these great, massive strikes which occur in the country. He says that while he now is against compulsory arbitration, which he supported, incidentally, just a few months ago, that he does support Government operation, in effect, or the right of the President to move in and have Government operation of an industry.
     Let me say that I am against compulsory arbitration and Government operation. I will tell you why: The moment you have that as a possibility, that's the way every strike will end, because either labor or management will assume that if they can go to the ultimate conclusion, that they are going to get a more favorable settlement than they could at the negotiating table. I believe that we have to give more choices to the President, but not compulsion.
     Now what can the President do? Well, I will tell you what he can do. He can do what I did on the settling of this strike. He can use the tremendous power of his office to bring in the head of the union, the head of the management people at the right time. He's got to let them fight it out and see if it can be settled, if possible. At the right time, he brings them in, he sits them down, and then he knocks their heads together and says, in effect, "this thing has to be settled." He doesn't dictate a settlement, but he does point out the consequences involved to the country, and he indicates that he will use the tremendous power that he has over public opinion to force a settlement.
     Now, the last point I would like to make is this: You cannot make a settlement of this kind if you belong to either side. That's one of the reasons that I have refused to go before labor unions and say that I can support 100 percent their policies. That's why I do not have, as a matter of fact, a 100-percent voting record, since I came to Congress, as Senator Kennedy has, which Mr. Reuther and Mr. Meany approve. I don't mean that. Mr. Meany and Mr. Reuther are 100 percent wrong. I just say that the President of the United States cannot belong, he cannot be 100 percent for Meany and Reuther, or Blough, or anybody else. He's got to be in a position that he's 100 percent for the people of his country. That way he can go into this situation and he can settle it.
     And then, if I could close this, I will simply say this: I could not have settled this steel strike unless I had been able to say to both Mr. Blough and David McDonald, "Look, you can't have what you want. The country has to come first." Neither one of them got what he wanted. McDonald wanted more than he got, and it would have been inflationary if he had gotten it; he'd have liked me better and even supported me, but he didn't get it. Roger Blough wanted to pay less than he paid. Under the circumstances, he couldn't settle it. My recommendation was that it be settled on this basis. And what happened? We have a settlement which neither Blough nor McDonald liked, although publicly, of course, they had to indicate that they were willing. But we have a settlement that was good for the country, and it has not been inflationary.
     QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, in 1952, the so-called fund, the Nixon fund, became a pretty rugged issue for a few days. Let me ask you this: If you had it to do over again, would there be a Nixon fund?
     Vice President NIXON. Yes; I think so. I would say that not only would that be the case in my case, if I were a Senator or a Congressman, but it is the case at the present time of Senators and Congressmen throughout the country.
     Let me point out what that fund was about. Many people may have seen that broadcast to which you referred. I, of course, was a participant in it.
     Congressmen and Senators have to campaign all the time. Now, in order to take care of those campaign expenses, radio broadcasts (not free ones like this, which of course are public service), television broadcasts, direct mail to their constituents, reporting to their constituents - in order to do that, they have to get support from the people in their districts who do support them. That is what that fund was about.
     A number of people in my district who supported me wanted to be sure that I could get across to the people of my district on a week-by-week and a month-by-month basis a report to the people, and so they financed my radio broadcast, my television broadcast, and my direct mail to the people of my district. And, incidentally, that's done now, at the present time, by Senators and Congressmen, Democrat or Republican - incidentally, almost all of them, except those who are independently wealthy - and it should be. It is only proper that a man have the right and the opportunity to present his case to the people.
     The difference in my fund, incidentally, and many of the others, is that mine was publicly known. The funds were accounted for publicly. There was never anything secret about it, and I believe all of them should be publicly known.
     QUESTION. Your speech, to which you have referred, pretty well ended the issue. It died immediately afterward. Have you ever wished, by any chance, that you would like to do that speech over again, to resay it?
     Vice President NIXON. I have never yet made a speech that I have been satisfied with, and I was not satisfied with that one. But it does no good really to think back and say "Well, I wish I could do this over again," because as you know - take this broadcast. I will say "Why didn't I think of this, that, and the other thing?" Let me say this with regard to funds. Mr. Stevenson, you know, had the same problem. He had even gone so far, as a matter of fact, to tap contractors with the State government. They contributed to a fund, so that Mr. Stevenson would be able to carry on his political activities.
     Now, incidentally, let's make it clear. I think that what is right for one is also right for another. If we do not want to have our public officials have the opportunity to carry on their campaigns, to report to the people, then we are going to have to do it through free television and radio time, and I don't think the networks would particularly like that.
     QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, there is a little joke around that the people in Whittier, Calif., are so confident that they are already building the log cabin you were born in. I suppose you heard that. I wonder, are you that confident?
     Vice President NIXON. I am never confident in an election. That's one of the reasons I have never lost one. I would say that in this instance I think this will be one of the closest elections in history. I think Senator Kennedy is a very able campaigner. I believe this election will be decided, actually, in the last 3 weeks of the campaign. So that is my view.
     QUESTION. We have just 1 minute, and I don't want to throw you a curve at the last minute. I wonder how do you think you would get along with Lyndon Johnson as majority leader and you as President? Do you think it would work?
     Vice President NIXON. All that I can say is this: After what Lyndon Johnson said about Senator Kennedy in his primary campaign, and in view of the fact that he is able to get along with him now, I am sure that I can get along with Lyndon Johnson after the election,
     QUESTION. You think it would work ?
     Vice President NIXON. I think it would work. I think Lyndon is a man who will put his country first as he has with President Eisenhower, and will work with whoever is President.
     QUESTION. Well, Mr. Vice President, thank you very much for coming and visiting with us today.
     Vice President NIXON. I have enjoyed being with you. I am just sorry that we didn't have more time.
     QUESTION. So are we.

     Mr. HENRY. Mrs. Nixon, it's very nice of you to let us come into your home and talk to you and Patricia, and Julie. It's very nice to see you and Checkers, of course. Bv the way, how old is Checkers?
     Mrs. NIXON. Patricia is the expert on Checkers.
     PATRICIA NIXON. I would say she's about 8 years old. Her birthday is in May.
     Mr. HENRY. Well good for you, Checkers. You're doing fine.
     Well, girls, I think I want to talk to your mother first, and I'll talk to you afterward.
     Mrs. Nixon, there has been, of course, an awful lot written about you and said about you, but I don't really believe that people are too familiar with your history. How about giving us just a thumbnail life history right from the beginning?
     Mrs. NIXON. I was born in Nevada a long, long time ago. Then my parents moved to California when I was an infant, so I grew up, of course, in California. We had a small farm there, and like most farm families, all of us pitched in and did the work. Of course, we didn't have much as far as material values were concerned, but we did leave a lot of love and affection from our parents.
     We had much fun, too. It wasn't the commercialized type, because this consisted of things that we planned to do, such as playing hide-and-go-seek after dusk when all the chores were done, or maybe going for a horseback ride in the moonlight. So we had a wonderful time growing up.
     Mr. HENRY. And you had all your schooling in California?
     Mrs. NIXON. Yes, I did. I lost my mother when I was young, so I became the homemaker for my brothers and my father. And then when I was still in my teens, I lost my father, too. So it wasn't possible for me to go right straight through college. I went 1 year, and then I worked 2 years, and then I went back 3 years. But I was determined to finish because I thought everything started with an education.
     Mr. HENRY. Well, I think that has been proven in everybody's life. As I understand it, you had to support yourself as far as your college was concerned, and work your way through school. I suppose you did what everybody else does, a lot of odd jobs and chores around the campus, that kind of thing.
     Mrs. NIXON. Yes; that's true. I also worked for a professor 20 hours a week. In addition to that, I did these other chores, such as extra in the movies when I could get a job, typing papers at night, clerking in a department store, and many other things; anything just so that I could get through school.
     Mr. HENRY. You weren't trying to become an actress or a salesgirl. You were trying to get your education.
     Mrs. NIXON. That's true.
     Mr. HENRY. Well now, when did you meet your husband-to-be?
     Mrs. NIXON. Actually, I took merchandising in school and thought I would go into the fashion field. However, because I had had so much experience in business, I was awarded a special credential to teach. I had a chance to get a position at Whittier, Calif., which was Dick's hometown, and I often laugh now, because I think it was just fate that I decided to teach and went to his hometown.
     There, where I was a young teacher, I took part in community activities, which is true of most young teachers. A mutual friend told Dick that there was a new teacher in town, and he had better come down to the community theater, where I had taken a part in this play.
     Dick came down, took a look, and took a part in the play, and so then from then on, we knew each other, and 2½ years later, we were married.
     Mr. HENRY. Now what did you teach in school?
     Mrs. NIXON. I taught commercial subjects.
     Mr. HENRY. This all is just before World War II?
     Mrs. NIXON. That's right, and then I taught 1 year after we were married, because Dick was a struggling young attorney, and every cent counted.
     After he went into service, I moved with him to the various places in the United States and took a position in each place.
     Mr. HENRY. A typical Navy wife.
     Mrs. NIXON. That's right. And then when he was overseas, I worked in San Francisco for the Government as an economist.
     Mr. HENRY. And when he came back from overseas, did he settle down in Whittier again? Did you settle down there at that time?
     Mrs. NIXON. No. Actually, at that time, he was asked to run for Congress, and so our political life began then.
     Mr. HENRY. Where did his education at Duke University come in? His law---
     Mrs. NIXON. He graduated from Duke University in 1937 the same year I graduated from U.S.C.
     Mr. HENRY. Now then, the girls were born shortly after the war; is that right?
     Mrs. NIXON. That's right. In fact, we were in our first campaign when Patricia arrived, and she was a mighty welcome little bundle, I can tell you. Then Julie was actually born in Washington, because we have been here for almost 14 years now.
     Mr. HENRY. Well, girls, where do you go to school now?
     JULIE NIXON. Friends School.
     Mr. HENRY. You both go to the same school?
     JULIE NIXON. Mm.
     Mr. HENRY. What sort of subjects - what is your favorite subject, Patricia ?
     PATRICIA NIXON. I enjoy all my subjects, but I think my favorite is Spanish.
     Mr. HENRY. How about you, Julie?
     JULIE NIXON. I like most of mine, too, but also English and history, I find are fun to learn.
     Mr. HENRY. I am so fascinated with that little kitten that you have here. Does the kitten have a name?
     JULIE NIXON. Yes; its name is Bitsy Blue Eyes.
     Mr. HENRY. Have you had cats around the house along with Checkers, a happy family between the cats and dogs?
     JULIE NIXON. Oh, yes; one time we had four cats, and now we have three, and this kitten's mother had six kittens. We have given five away, and this is the last one.
     Mr. HENRY. That's the last survivor. That's a mighty cute little kitten. Somebody said that you're thinking of taking it to school or putting it in a show, or something.
     JULIE NIXON. Down at Woodward & Lothrop today, after we are through with this, I'm going to take it down, and Patricia and me are going to enter it in the little pet show.
     Mr. HENRY. Just the way it is? Are you going to make a costume for it, or what are you going to do?
     JULIE NIXON. We're going to put it in a christening dress costume and it's going to look like a little baby. We have a basket for it.
     Mr. HENRY. Have you girls learned something about exhibiting pets before, or have you done it before, Julie?
     JULIE NIXON. Year before last, we took our other two large cats down to the same place, Woodward & Lothrop's cat show, and they won second prize.
     Mr. HENRY. That's mighty fine.
     Mrs. NIXON. A sister team.
     Mr. HENRY. The cats were sisters, too.
     Patricia, what about school? Do you study current events and things like that at school?
     PATRICIA NIXON. Yes.
     Mr. HENRY. Does anybody ever talk politics to you at all in school?
     PATRICIA NIXON. Well, not really. We're pretty good about that.
     Mr. HENRY. Do you wear buttons at all, or anything of that kind?
     PATRICIA NIXON. No; but other students do.
     Mr. HENRY. Well how about your interests in life? I know you used to be a tremendous rooter for Roy Sievers when he was playing for the Washington Senators. Are you still interested in him?
     PATRICIA NIXON. Yes.
     Mr. HENRY. What have you done since he has moved over to the White Sox?
     PATRICIA NIXON. Well, I have gone to the games at Griffith Stadium, and I am a member of his fan club.
     Mr. HENRY. Do you like Jim Lemon and Harmon Killebrew, that have sort of taken Sievers' place there as heavy hitters?
     PATRICIA NIXON. Yes.
     Mr. HENRY. It's a great thing to have an interest in life like that. How old are you now, Patricia?
     PATRICIA NIXON. Fourteen.
     Mr. HENRY. And you're in a state where you wear high heels nowadays?
     PATRICIA NIKON. Almost; quarter heels.
     Mr. HENRY. Do you have any rules about that at school?
     PATRICIA NIXON. No.
     Mr. HENRY. Do you like to wear quarter heels or high heels?
     PATRICIA NIXON. Not at school, just at the dances.
     Mr. HENRY. Do you like to dance?
     PATRICIA NIXON. Yes, very much.
     Mr. HENRY. And how about music? Do you like rock and roll, or all kinds of music?
     PATRICIA NIXON. All kinds.
     Mr. HENRY. How about concert music? Do you like that?
     PATRICIA NIXON. Yes, some types I do.
     Mr. HENRY. You prefer popular music?
     PATRICIA NIXON. Yes.
     Mr. HENRY. I think a good many people do.
     Well, Mrs. Nixon, I think that anybody who has been following this campaign feels that a great many new things have entered into it. I was going to ask how long have you been working with your husband, as long as he has been in political life?
     Mrs. NIXON. Ever since the first campaign in 1946, Dick and I have been a political team.
     Mr. HENRY. That's when he ran for Congress?
     Mrs. NIXON. That's right. We feel that it's very important, because after election, no matter what the office is, you certainly have to be a team. There are many duties for the wives, including being an official hostess.
     Mr. HENRY. Well now, have you had very much of that particular activity in the last few years since your husband became Vice President? Have you had to participate in social events that have something to do with his governmental activities?
     Mrs. NIXON. Yes, indeed. We have had a great deal of entertaining to do. So many foreign visitors come to our shores, and naturally it is part of the duty of the Vice President and his wife to entertain for them.
     We have done that, and then I have had a great many people that I have either met abroad, or friends of those who I have met. And it is really quite cute. They say "Look Pat Nixon up when you go to America." So they look me up, and they come here for tea, and I feel this is very important for our country, because in this way we are showing them what Americans are really like, and that we are interested in them. It's spreading good will. It's letting them know that we are a country who wants peace not only for ourselves, but for other people, too.
     Mr. HENRY. Mrs. Nixon, the activity that you had with your husband has been very interesting, and it has been something new in politics, because I don't know of any presidential campaign previously in which a wife has taken such an active part.
     You know, I am quite sure, that while I presume a great many people think it is a wonderful thing, there has been some criticism of it; and, as a matter of fact, just this week a book came out written by Professor Schlesinger, who is an adviser to the opposition candidate, and was admittedly on that side. He was very critical of the fact that your husband so frequently refers to "Pat and I" In fact, he used the word "degrading." I wonder how you feel about that?
     Mrs. NIXON. I feel that he has a right to his opinion. I have not read the book. However, I think that women all over America are taking a very active part not only in political life, but in all activities in our entire life.
     There was a day, of course, way back when, when women stayed in the home and lived a life of leisure. But now I feel that women not only take care of the families, but that they have the interest and the time for many other jobs which are very important to the progress of our country, and I am immensely proud of the volunteers all over this country who are interested and working for the candidate of their choice.
     This, to me, is a good thing, and I am just happy that I am a volunteer for the cause in which I believe.
     Mr. HENRY. Well, you really are a volunteer. There is no question about that; and I want to than you very much, Mrs. Nixon.
     Mrs. NIXON. We enjoyed having you here with us very much, and I think you have petted Checkers more than she's been petted in many a day.