Mr. SMITH. Good evening.
     The television and radio stations of the United States and their affiliated stations are proud to provide facilities for a discussion of issues in the current political campaign by the two major candidates for the Presidency.
     The candidates need no introduction. The Republican candidate, Vice President Richard M. Nixon, and the Democratic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy.
     According to rules set by the candidates themselves, each man shall make an opening statement of approximately 8 minutes' duration and a closing statement of approximately 3 minutes' duration.
     In between the candidates will answer or comment upon answers to questions put by a panel of correspondents.
     In this, the first discussion in a series of four joint appearances, the subject matter, it has been agreed, will be restricted to internal or domestic American matters.
     And now, for the first opening statement by Senator John F. Kennedy.
     Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Smith, Mr. Nixon.
     In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln said the question was whether this Nation could exist half slave or half free.
     In the election of 1960, and with the world around us, the question is whether the world will exist half slave or half free, whether it will move in the direction of freedom, in the direction of the road that we are taking or whether it will move in the direction of slavery.
     I think it will depend in great measure upon what we do here in the United States, on the kind of society that we build, on the kind of strength that we maintain.
     We discuss tonight domestic issues, but I would not want that to be - any implication to be given that this does not involve directly our struggle with Mr. Khrushchev for survival.
     Mr. Khrushchev is in New York and he maintains the Communist offensive throughout the world because of the productive power of the Soviet Union, itself.
     The Chinese Communists have always had a large population but they are important and dangerous now because they are mounting a major effort within their own country; the kind of country we have here, the kind of society we have, the kind of strength we build in the United States will be the defense of freedom.
     If we do well here, if we meet our obligations, if we are moving ahead, then I think freedom will be secure around the world. If we fail, then freedom fails.
     Therefore, I think the question before the American people is: Are we doing as much as we can do? Are we as strong as we should be? Are we as strong as we must be if we are going to maintain our independence, and if we're going to maintain and hold out the hand of friendship to those who look to us for assistance, to those who look to us for survival. I should make it very clear that I do not think we're doing enough, that I am not satisfied as an American with the progress that we are making.
     This is a great country, but I think it could be a greater country, and this is a powerful country but I think it could be a more powerful country.
     I'm not satisfied to have 50 percent of our steel mill capacity unused.
     I'm not satisfied when the United States had last year the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized society in the world - because economic growth means strength and vitality. It means we're able to sustain our defenses. It means we're able to meet our commitments abroad.
     I'm not satisfied, when we have over $9 billion worth of food, some of it rotting even though there is a hungry world and even though 4 million Americans wait every month for a food package from the Government which averages 5 cents a day per individual.
     I saw cases in West Virginia, here in the United States, where children took home part of their school lunch in order to feed their families, because I don't think we are meeting our obligations toward these Americans.
     I'm not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are.
     I'm not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid or when our children go to school part-time shifts. I think we should have an educational system second to none.
     I'm not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy Hoffa, in charge of the largest union in the United States, still free.
     I'm not satisfied when we are failing to develop the natural resources of the United States to the fullest. Here in the United States, which developed the Tennessee Valley and which built the Grand Coulee and the other dams in the Northwest United States, at the present rate of hydropower production - and that is the hallmark of an industrialized society - the Soviet Union by 1975 will be producing more power than we are.
     These are all the things I think in this country that can make our society strong or can mean that it stands still.
     I'm not satisfied until every American enjoys his full constitutional rights. If a Negro baby is born, and this is true also of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in some of our cities, he has about one-half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. He has one-third as much chance to get through college as a white student. He has about a third as much chance to be a professional man, and about half as much chance to own a house. He has about four times as much chance that he'll be out of work in his life as the white baby. I think we can do better. I don't want the talents of any American to go to waste.
     I know that there are those who say that we want to turn everything over to the Government. I don't at all. I want the individuals to meet their responsibilities and I want the States to meet their responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility.
     The argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last 25 years. The people of the United States individually could not have developed the Tennessee Valley. Collectively, they could have.
     A cotton farmer in Georgia or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin or Minnesota - he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the marketplace, but working together in effective governmental programs, he can do so.
     Seventeen million Americans who live over 65 on an average social security check of about $78 a month - they're not able to sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the social security system.
     I don't believe in big government, but I believe in effective governmental action, and I think that's the only way that the United States is going to maintain its freedom; it's the only way that we're going to move ahead. I think we can do a better job. I think we're going to have to do a better job if we are going to meet the responsibilities which time and events have placed upon us.
     We cannot turn the job over to anyone else. If the United States fails, then the whole cause of freedom fails, and I think it depends in great measure on what we do here in this country.
     The reason Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin America was because he was a good neighbor in the United States, because they felt that the American society was moving again. I want us to recapture that image. I want people in Latin America and Africa and Asia to start to look to America to see how we're doing things, to wonder what the President of the United States is doing, and not to look at Khrushchev or look at the Chinese Communists. That is the obligation upon our generation.
     In 1933 Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural that this generation of Americans has a "rendezvous with destiny." I think our generation of Americans has the same "rendezvous." The question now is: Can freedom be maintained under the most severe attack it has ever known? I think it can be, and I think in the final analysis it depends upon what we do here. I think it's time America started moving again.
     Mr. SMITH. And now the opening statement by Vice President Richard M. Nixon.
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Smith, Senator Kennedy, the things that Senator Kennedy has said, many of us can agree with. There is no question but that we cannot discuss our internal affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our international position. There is no question but that this Nation cannot stand still, because we are in a deadly competition, a competition not only with the men in the Kremlin but the men in Peking. We're ahead in this competition, as Senator Kennedy, I think, has implied. But when you're in a race, the only way to stay ahead is to move ahead, and I subscribe completely to the spirit that Senator Kennedy has expressed tonight, the spirit that the United States should move ahead.
     Where then do we disagree?
     I think we disagree on the implication of his remarks tonight and on the statements that he has made on many occasions during his campaign to the effect that the United States has been standing still.
     We heard tonight, for example, the statement made that our growth and national product last year was the lowest of any industrial nation in the world.
     Now, last year, of course, was 1958. That happened to be a recession year, but when we look at the growth of GNP this year - a year of recovery - we find that it is 6 9/10 percent and one of the highest in the world today. More about that later.
     Looking then to this problem of how the United States should move ahead and where the United States is moving, I think it is well that we take the advice of a very famous campaigner, "Let's look at the record."
     Is the United States standing still?
     Is it true that this administration, as Senator Kennedy has charged, has been an administration of retreat, of defeat, of stagnation?
     Is it true that as far as this country is concerned in the field of electric power, and all of the fields that he has mentioned, we have not been moving ahead?
     Well, we have a comparison that we can make. We have the record of the Truman administration of 7½ years, and the 7½ years of the Eisenhower administration.
     When we compare these two records in the areas that Senator Kennedy has discussed tonight, I think we find that America has been moving ahead.
     Let's take schools. We have built more schools in these last 7½ years than we built in the previous 7½, for that matter in the previous 20 years.
     Let's take hydroelectric power. We have developed more hydroelectric power in these 7½ years than was developed in any previous administration in history.
     Let us take hospitals. We find that more have been built in this administration than in the previous administration. The same is true of highways.
     Let s put it in terms that all of us can understand.
     We often hear gross national product discussed, and in that respect may I say that when we compare the growth in this administration with that of the previous administration, that then there was a total growth of 11 percent over 7 years; in this administration there has been a total growth of 19 percent over 7 years.
     That shows that there has been more growth in this administration than in its predecessor. But let's not put it there; let's put it in terms of the average family.
     What has happened to you?
     We find that your wages have gone up five times as much in the Eisenhower administration as they did in the Truman administration.
     What about the prices you pay?
     We find that the prices you pay went up five times as much in the Truman administration as they did in the Eisenhower administration.
     What's the net result of this?
     This means that the average family income went up 15 percent in the Eisenhower years as against 2 percent in the Truman years.
     Now, this is not standing still, but good as this record is, may I emphasize it isn't enough.
     A record is never something to stand on, it's something to build on and in building on this record I believe that we have the secret for progress.
     We know the way to progress and I think first of all our own record proves that we know the way.
     Senator Kennedy has suggested that he believes he knows the way.
     I respect the sincerity with he - which he makes that suggestion, but on the other hand when we look at the various programs, that he offers, they do not seem to be new. They seem to be simply retreads of the programs of the Truman administration which preceded him and I would suggest that during the course of the evening he might indicate those areas in which his programs are new, where they will mean more progress than we had then.
     What kind of programs are we for?
     We are for programs that will expand educational opportunities, that will give to all Americans their equal chance for education, for all of the things which are necessary and dear to the hearts of our people.
     We are for programs in addition which will see that our medical care for the aged is much better handled than it is at the present time.
     Here again may I indicate that Senator Kennedy and I are not in disagreement as to the aim. We both want to help the old people. We want to see that they do have adequate medical care. The question is the means.
     I think that the means that I advocate will reach that goal better than the means that he advocates.
     I could give better examples but for whatever it is, whether it's in the field of housing or health or medical care or schools or the development of electric power, we have programs which we believe will move America, move her forward and build on the wonderful record that we have made over these past 7½ years.
     Now, when we look at these programs might I suggest that in evaluating them we often have a tendency to say that the test of a program is how much you are spending. I will concede that in all of the areas to which I have referred, Senator Kennedy would have the Federal Government spend more than I would have it spend.
     I costed out the cost of the Democratic platform. It runs a minimum of $13.2 billion a year more than we are presently spending to a maximum of $18 billion a year more than we are presently spending.
     Now, the Republican platform will cost more, too. It will cost a minimum of $4 billion a year more, a maximum of $4.9 billion a year more than we are presently sending.
     Now, does this mean that his program is better than ours?
     Not at all, because it isn't a question of how much the Federal Government spends. It isn't a question of which government does the most. It's a question of which administration does the right things, and in our case I do believe that our programs will stimulate the creative energies of 180 million free Americans.
     I believe the programs that Senator Kennedy advocates will have a tendency to stifle those creative energies.
     I believe, in other words, that his programs would lead to the stagnation of the motive power that we need in this country to get progress.
     The final point that I would like to make is this: Senator Kennedy has suggested in his speeches that we lack compassion for the poor, for the old, and for others that are unfortunate.
     Let us understand throughout this campaign that his motives and mine are sincere. I know what it means to be poor. I know what it means to see people who are unemployed.
     I know Senator Kennedy feels as deeply about these problems as I do, but our disagreement is not about the goals for America but only about the means to reach those goals.
     Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Nixon.
     That completes the opening statements, and now the candidates will answer questions or comment upon one another's answers to questions put by correspondents of the networks.
     The correspondents:
     Mr. VANOCUR. I'm Sander Vanocur, NBC News.
     Mr. WARREN. I'm Charles Warren, Mutual News.
     Mr. NOVINS. I'm Stuart Novins, CBS News.
     Mr. FLEMING. Bob Fleming, ABC News.
     Mr. SMITH. The first question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Fleming.
     Mr. FLEMING. Senator, the Vice President in his campaign has said that you are naive and at times immature. He has raised the question of leadership.
     On this issue, why do you think people should vote for you rather than the Vice President?
     Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Vice President and I came to the Congress together in 1946.
     We both served on the Labor Committee. I've been there now for 14 years, the same period of time that he has, so that our experience in government is comparable.
     Secondly, I think the question is, "What are the programs that we advocate ?"
     What is the party record that we lead?
     I come out of the Democratic Party which in this century has produced Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman and which supported and sustained these programs which I've discussed tonight.
     Mr. Nixon comes out of the Republican Party. He was nominated by it, and it is a fact that through most of these last 25 years the Republican leadership has opposed Federal aid for education, medical care for the aged, development of the Tennessee Valley, development of our national resources.
     I think Mr. Nixon is an effective leader of his party. I hope he would grant me the same.
     The question before us is: Which point of view and which party do we want to lead the United States?
     Mr. SMITH. Mr. Nixon, would you like to comment on that statement?
     Mr. NIXON. I have no comment.
     Mr. SMITH. The next question - Mr. Novins.
     Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Vice President, your campaign stresses the value of your 8-year experience and the question arises as to whether that experience was as an observer or as a participant or as an initiator of policymaking.
     Would you tell us, please, specifically what major proposals you have made in the last 8 years that have been adopted by the administration.
     Mr. NIXON. It would be rather difficult to cover them in eight and two and a half minutes.
     I would suggest that these proposals could be mentioned
     First, after each of my foreign trips, I have made recommendations that have been adopted.
     For example, after my first trip abroad, I strongly recommended that we increase our exchange programs particularly as they related to exchange of persons, of leaders in the labor field and in the information field.
     After my trip to South America, I made recommendations that a separate inter-American lending agency be set up which the South American nations would like much better than a lend - than to participate in the lending agencies which treated all the countries of the world the same.
     I have made other recommendations after each of the other trips.
     For example, after my trip abroad to Hungary, I made some recommendations with regard to the Hungarian refugee situation which were adopted not only by the President but some of them were enacted into law by the Congress.
     Within the administration as a Chairman of the President's Committee on Price Stability and Economic Growth, I have had the opportunity to make recommendations which have been adopted within the Administration and which I think have been reasonably effective.
     I know Senator Kennedy suggested in his speech at Cleveland yesterday that that committee had not been particularly effective. I would only suggest that while we do not take the credit for it, I would not presume to, that since that committee has been formed, the price line has been held very well within the United States.
     Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I would say in the latter, that the - and that's what I found somewhat unsatisfactory about the figures, Mr. Nixon, that you used in your previous speech. When you talk about the Truman administration, you - Mr. Truman came to office in 1944, and at the end of the war, and the difficulties that were facing the United States during that period of transition, 1946, when price controls were lifted, so it's rather difficult to use an overall figure of taking those 7½ years and comparing them to the last 8 years. I prefer to take the overall percentage record of the last 20 years of the Democrats and the 8 years of the Republicans, to show an overall period of growth.
     In regard to price stability, I'm not aware that that committee did produce recommendations that ever were, certainly, before the Congress from the point of view of legislation in regard to controlling prices. In regard to the exchange of students of labor unions, I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, and I think that one of the most unfortunate phases of our policy towards that country was the very minute number of exchanges that we had. I think it's true of Latin America also. We did come forward with a program of students for the Congo of over 300, which was more than the Federal Government had for all of Africa the previous year.
     So that I don't think that we have moved, at least in those two areas, with sufficient vigor.
     Mr. Smith. The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Warren.
     Mr. WARREN. Senator Kennedy, during your brief speech a few minutes ago, you mentioned farm surpluses.
     Mr. KENNEDY. That's correct.
     Mr. WARREN. I'd like to ask this: It's a fact, I think, that presidential candidates traditionally make promises to farmers. Lots of people, I think, don't understand why the Government pays farmers for not producing certain crops or paying farmers, if they overproduce, for that matter. Now, let me ask, sir:
     Why can't the farmer operate like the businessman who operates a factory? If an auto company overproduces a certain model car, Uncle Sam doesn't step in and buy up the surplus. Why this constant courting of the farmer?
     Mr. KENNEDY. Well, because I think that if the Federal Government moved out of the program and withdrew its support, then I think you'd have complete economic chaos. The farmer plants in the spring and harvests in the fall. There are hundreds of thousands of them. They really don't - are not able to control their market very well. They bring their crops in or their livestock in, many of them, about the same time. They have only a few purchasers that buy their milk or their hogs, a few large companies, in many cases, and, therefore, the farmer is not in a position to bargain very effectively in the marketplace.
     I think the experience of the 20's has shown what a free market could do to agriculture, and if the agricultural economy collapses, then the economy of the rest of the United States sooner or later will collapse.
     The farmers are the No. 1 market for the automobile industry of the United States, the automobile industry is the No. 1 market for steel. So, if the farmers' economy continues to decline as sharply as it has in recent years, then I would think you would have a recession in the rest of the country.
     So, I think the case for the Government intervention is a good one.
     Secondly, my objection to present farm policy is that there are no effective controls to bring supply and demand into better balance. The dropping of the support price in order to limit production has not worked, and we now have the highest surpluses, $9 billion worth, we've had a higher taxload from the Treasury for the farmer in the last few years with the lowest farm income in many years. I think that this farm policy has failed. In my judgment, the only policy that will work will be for effective supply and demand to be in balance, and that can only be done through governmental action.
     I, therefore, suggest that in those basic commodities which are supported, that the Federal Government, after endorsement by the farmers in that commodity, attempt to bring supply and demand into balance, attempt effective production controls so that we won't have that 5 or 6 percent surplus which breaks the price 15 or 20 percent.
     I think Mr. Benson's program has failed, and I must say, after reading the Vice President's speech before the farmers, as he read mine, I don't believe that it's very much different from Mr. Benson. I don't think it provides effective governmental controls. I think the support prices are tied to the average market prices of the last 3 years, which was Mr. Benson's theory. I, therefore, do not believe that this is a sharp enough breach with the past to give us any hope of success for the future.
     Mr. SMITH. Mr. Nixon. comment?
     Mr. NIXON. I, of course, disagree with Senator Kennedy insofar as his suggestion as to what should be done with re - on the farm program.
     He has made the suggestion that what we need is to move in the direction of more government controls, a suggestion that would also mean raising prices that the consumers pay for products and imposing upon the farmers controls on acreage even far more than they have today.
     I think this is the wrong direction. I don't think this has worked in the past. I do not think it will work in the future.
     The program that I have advocated is one which departs from the present program that we have in this respect.
     It recognizes that the Government has a responsibility to get the farmer out of the trouble he presently is in because the Government got him into it, and that's the fundamental reason why we can't let the farmer go by himself at the present time. The farmer produced these surpluses because the Government asked him to, through legislation, during the war.
     Now that we have these surpluses, it's our responsibility to indemnify the farmer during that period that we get rid of the farmer - the surpluses. Until we get the surpluses off the farmer's back, however, we should have a program, such as I announced, which will see that farm income holds up. But I would propose holding that income up, not through a type of program that Senator Kennedy has suggested that would raise prices, but one that would indemnify the farmer, pay the farmer, in kind, from the products which are in surplus.
     Mr. SMITH. The next question to Vice President Nixon, from Mr. Vanocur.
     Mr. VANOCUR. Mr. Vice President, since the question of executive leadership is a very important campaign issue, I would like to follow Mr. Novins' question.
     Now, Republican campaign slogans - you'll see them on signs around the country, as we did last week - say that it's experience that counts (that's over a picture of yourself, sir), implying that you've had more governmental, executive decision-making experience than your opponent.
     Now, in his news conference on August 24, President Eisenhower was asked to give one example of a major idea of yours that he adopted. His reply was, and I am quoting:

 If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don't remember.