Guest: The Honorable John F. Kennedy, U.S. Senate (Democrat of Massachusetts).
     Reporters: Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News; Howard K. Smith, CBS News; and Philip Potter, Baltimore Sun.
     Moderator : Stuart Novins.
     Producer: Michael J. Marlow.

     ANNOUNCER. Senator Kennedy - "Face the Nation." [Music.]
     From Philadelphia, you are about to see the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy, face the Nation in a spontaneous and unrehearsed interview with veteran correspondents from the Nation's press: Philip Potter, from the Washington bureau of the Baltimore Sun; Howard K. Smith, of CBS News; and Peter Lisagor, chief of the national bureau of the Chicago Daily News.
     And now here is the moderator of "Face the Nation," CBS News Correspondent Stuart Novins.
     Mr. NOVINS. Prior to the beginning of this month, "Face the Nation" invited the four major party nominees to appear on this program during the month of October. We have already presented the views of the two vice presidential candidates, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Lodge. Vice President Nixon did not accept the invitation. Senator John Kennedy did accept, and he is here now to face the Nation.
     Senator Kennedy, you may have noticed that there are only 9 days left before election day, and I would not be at all surprised if we wanted to talk about politics.
     So, if you are ready, we will start with this first question from Mr. Lisagor.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator, President Eisenhower, apparently referring to your campaign, this week or the past week, said that the image of America had been cruelly distorted and he talked about Pravda, the Soviet Communist paper, quoting some of the statements that you had made.
     Do you think that Pravda's comments obliges you to exercise restraint in your criticism of administration policies?
     Senator KENNEDY. No. I didn't see what Pravda said but that's - that isn't really the significant matter. I think the - it's my responsibility as the standard bearer for the Democratic Party to give the truth as I see it. I don't think our position in the world is as satisfactory as it should be and could be. Now, the truth of the matter is that this administration has taken polls in regard to our prestige, in regard to the opinion of the world about our military strength, our scientific strength, our economic growth, our leadership, where we are going in relation to that, in relation to the Soviet Union. These polls, some of them were made public some months ago, but the ones that were taken this summer have never been released by the USIA, except the New York Times and some other papers carried two of them this week, and they show very clearly that we have taken a great loss in the regard that these countries have had for the scientific and military power of the United States and our leadership.
     I'm only saying what is the truth. Anybody who runs for office this year and says that our prestige is the highest that it's ever been is either rather uninformed or misleads, because the polls are only one evidence. There are many other evidences. The United Nations vote on the admission of Red China, not one of the 16 new countries admitted at the United Nations this summer, not one of them voted with us on that question. I don't think there is any doubt, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, that the influence and prestige of the United States is not as high as it has been.
     Now, isn't it - if I believe that, I'm compelled to state the truth. Then the American people can make their judgment.. But to attempt to gloss over it, it's bad enough if one side glosses over the facts, but for the candidate whose responsibility it is to present the issues so the American people have a clear alternative, if I attempted to fool the people, I wouldn't, even if I lost the - won or lost the election. I had a good deal of experience because I was in England somewhat before the war. I recall the 1935 election in which Stanley Baldwin ran, telling the people that Winston Churchill was wrong about German rearmament. He won that election and the British lost 2 years in their armament program. We're not going to do that this year. The American people can make their judgment after - on November 8, whether Mr. Nixon is right or whether I'm right, but at least I'm telling it as I see it.
     Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Smith.
     Mr. SMITH. Senator, you and Mr. Nixon disagree diametrically on our prestige now and what it has been up till now; but in regard to what to do about our prestige in the future, many people find it hard to find a real basic difference between what you intend to do in foreign policy.
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, Mr. Smith, if two candidates approach the world, which is in turmoil and revolution, and come to diametrically opposite conclusions about where we now are, it seems to me that they are going to end up in a different place in the future. I campaign for the Presidency with a good deal of urgency and a good deal of concern. Mr. Nixon runs on a program that we never had it so good, and our prestige is at the highest. It seems to me that this very judgment we are each rendering on the world around us and on American position indicates a very sharp difference for the future, as well as for the present. Now, Mr. Nixon has been part of this administration. In my judgment, this administration has failed to recognize the revolution which is taking place in Africa, it has permitted our relations with Latin America to deteriorate, it has not identified itself closely enough, in my opinion, with the economic struggles of the underdeveloped world. It has failed to give leadership on the whole question of disarmament. I've said before that there were less than 100 people working on this subject in the Government. We've brought in people, whenever we have a conference we bring in someone new, and they represent us, even with about 4 or 5 weeks of experience, in some cases. I don't think on disarmament, nuclear testing, arms, our military strength, the underdeveloped world, economic growth here in the United States, which affects our position in the world, I don't see any note of urgency by Mr. Nixon. And I don't think this administration has met its responsibilities in these areas.
     Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Philip Potter, please.
     Mr. POTTER. Senator, I'd like to get into a different issue. A week ago your brother, Robert Kennedy, said that the religious issue had come alive again, and he implied that Republican headquarters in San Diego and other places were openly issuing anti-Catholic literature. Now, Herbert Klein, the Vice President's press secretary, told newsmen that if this type of smear continues the Vice President may have no choice but to discuss the tactics of our opponents. Do you have any evidence to document Robert Kennedy's claim that there has been distribution of---
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, let me make it clear, it's my understanding that there was some material at San Diego, but I have not seen the material. Hugo Fisher, I think, the Senator from that area, confirmed that fact. I've said from the beginning that I didn't think that, in fact. I was sure that Mr. Nixon had no connection with the matter, that the Republican Party officially had no connection with the matter. It may be that on both sides that mistakes are made in these areas. It's hard to police every area. But as far as I am concerned, and I want to make it very clear, this matter of the so-called religious issue is not - been stimulated, has not been in any way, is not in any way the responsibility of Mr. Nixon and the Republican leadership - to the best of my knowledge.
     Mr. POTTER. You expounded your views very completely and clearly in a meeting with the Houston ministers about a month ago. Do you feel that that has effectively dealt with the issue as far as you are concerned, or that you may have to make some further exposition of it before the election ?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, I would hope that it would not be necessary to discuss it again. I do, in reading the papers I notice that there is still a good deal of argument about it, a good deal of concern, a good deal of the concern is very legitimate, and - so that I have been reluctant to take the matter up again. There are so many issues which affect us, and there is really nothing which can be done about my religion. I am what I am, and I'm going to be what I am, and I'm not sure that - and I've answered every question, not only at Houston but in my acceptance speech and many, many occasions before that. Now, I don't think that there is any reason for any American to say today, after all my statements and after my record has been carefully scanned for 14 years, that there should be any doubt in anyone's mind that I am as wholeheartedly committed to the separation of church and state, to the Constitution of the United States, as any other American. Now, that is my position. I take an oath, which is taken by the President, it's taken by the Senate and the House and it's taken to God, which is the supreme oath you can take which, that you defend the Constitution and uphold it, the Constitution provides a separation of church and state. That's where I stand. Now, I may or may not be elected President. If I am not, I will continue in the Senate. I will still continue a strong, my commitment to the Constitution, and that is the view of my coreligionists in this country.
     Now, I think that it seems to me we should accept that and then decide that maybe people should vote for Mr. Nixon or myself for all the other reasons that divide us not on this question.
     Mr. SMITH. Senator, unfortunately, this issue does keep cropping up and it's been heard a lot from in the pulpits this week. And one question that I continually hear, and I think it's only fair to put it to you, is - You have said at one time that if your duties as a President came into conflict with your faith, you would---
     Senator KENNEDY. No, no; my conscience.
     Mr. SMITH. With your conscience?
     Senator KENNEDY. Yes. If I ever thought - I could never fill any office, if my conscience - I mean, after all, that was our particular argument with the Nazis. We all have a conscience, but not - I have stated in my judgment that there is no conflict, there is no conflict between my responsibilities as a public official, to carry out my duties and obligations, and my faith. I am sworn to carry out, and to serve the public interest, and that's what I am going to do. That's what I do in the Senate. That's what I'll do if I am President. And there is nothing that can prevent me from doing that. The Constitution and my conscience happen to be in very close harmony because I happen to believe it's the ideal arrangement for a society. I want to see the people free to practice all their various religions. We are quite unique in this regard. I mean, many of the countries in Europe have a close union between church and state. We don't. Now, merely because we haven't had experience historically where there has been a close union between same countries which were Catholic and the state, or between, as there now is, the Church of England, the Queen is the head of the Church of England as well as head of the state, or in some of the Scandinavian countries where the Lutheran Church is the official state church, but here in the United States, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, Jews, Presbyterians, Methodists, all of us happen to believe that we do not want an official state church. I would be opposed to it. If there were 99 percent of the population were Catholics, I would still be opposed to it. I do not want civil power combined with religious power. Now, that's my view, and I don't some other person holds a different view, or if some other Catholic in another country holds a different view, that's their right, but I want to make it clear that I am committed, as a matter of personal deep conviction, to this separation. Now, what is there left to say? What could I say?
     Mr. NOVINS. Senator---
     Senator KENNEDY. Why is it that - we have 35 million Catholics, what is there in their record that makes anyone think that they are not as devoted to this idea of the separation of church and state? I don't recall in this campaign that there is any member of my faith that has ever come out and indicated pro or con - maybe he happens to be in the clergy, I think that we are committed to this, and even if I'm not elected President, which is possible I won't be, that is where I stand. In my judgment, that is where the great majority of my coreligionists in this country stand, and I think we should be accepted on that basis. I think there's---
     Mr. NOVINS. Senator, without - without reference to your personal position, which I think you have certainly expressed yourself on, Mr. Potter suggested or mentioned the meeting that you participated in in Houston with the Ministerial Association. You made a film of that. And question has been raised as to why you continue to show that film in predominantly Catholic area
     Senator KENNEDY. No, Mr. Novins. To the best of my knowledge, there has only been one case, which was accidental, where it was shown a in an area where this matter had not been brought up as a major discussion point. The film answers this question, and every poll has shown that there are substantial percentage of the population, today's paper indicates that in some States that some candidates are having difficulty because of my religion. This film represents my stand on this question of the separation of church and state, is that - it's the most effective way that at least I can give assurance on this question. And I strongly believe that this question should be removed from the decision. It seems to me in the most critical time in the life of our
country for us to be talking about an issue that was admirably settled when this country was founded, in the Constitution, anything that I can do to contribute to removing that, on either side as an issue, and getting down to the issues which face our survival, I think is in the public interest. Now, I can't make speeches about it every day, or otherwise I would be talking about noting else, but at least those who want to watch on television in those areas which are concerned, at least they know my stand. Now, if they want to accept it, I hope they will. If they don't, at least they've heard me. And that's all that seems to be---
     Mr. NOVINS. And your position is that you are only using the film to answer this kind of criticism in those areas which are not predominantly Catholic? [Several voices.]
     Senator KENNEDY. That's correct, Mr. Novins.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator Kennedy, I wonder if I could get to---
     Senator KENNEDY. That's correct, Mr. Novins. What is the use in putting it on television in those other areas?
     Mr. LISAGOR. I wonder if we could get to the economic issue? Now, Mr. Nixon has been quoting from newspapers, saying that you have predicted a recession and he's described this, I think, quoting him, as despicable and ignorant---
     Senator KENNEDY. As well as naive and rude and uninformed, too.
     Mr. LISAGOR. And he's also quoted the newspapers as saying automobile sales have reached a new high. I wonder if you could tell us how you view the economy now and just what your position on it is
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, in the first place, Mr. Lisagor, to the best of my knowledge, I've never said that we were in a recession. I said that there is danger of recession. I've said the winter of 1961 could be difficult. I quoted the Wall Street Journal, which has said we have been in a recession. I don't - use that term, because I do believe we are hanging in a balance, and I don't think that it would be appropriate yet to give it the official title of recession.
     I don't know what's going to happen in the winter of 1961, but that's my first point, so Mr. Nixon, I believe, is uninformed in that matter, or at least inaccurate.
     Secondly, on automobile sales, the fact is, I believe, that there are probably going to be more cars unsold by the middle of November than we have ever had in our history. I would be prepared to ask Mr. Nixon or anyone else if that isn't true. They are turning out cars greater than we've turned them out in 5 years, and yet the sales would not indicate that we are going to - we're selling them as fast as we are going to produce them. Anybody can go in, any car dealer who is listening here can tell you, can answer the question of whether he thinks that car sales are at a record high this year. They are going to have more cars unsold by the middle of November than we've ever had. Steel capacity is 50 percent. We are building 30 percent less homes than we built a year ago. The third quarter reports in the papers this week of the various companies shows that most of them are down. So that I would say that business is shaky. I hope we are not going to have a recession.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Now, Senator, this suggests that the next President is going to have to---
     Senator KENNEDY. That's right.
     Mr. LISAGOR (continuing). To have to take action.
     Senator KENNEDY. There is no doubt that if we are in a recession in the winter of 1961, or we have mass high unemployment, in fact even with the present conditions, we are going to have to.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Now could I ask you specifically what actions you would have in mind if you are elected ?
     Senator KENNEDY. If we have a recession?
     Mr. LISAGOR. Yes.
     Senator KENNEDY. If we slid into a recession?
     Mr. LISAGOR. Yes.
     Senator KENNEDY. Of course, we are going to have to attempt to stimulate the economy. The Federal Reserve Board has been attempting that this year, I think belatedly. They just took a step this week in order to put more money into circulation. I believe that we'd have to, of course, attempt to put more money into the circulation in the winter of 1961 if we have high unemployment. There are several ways it can be done and I would make an economic judgment on that in January and February, one would be a tax cut for a period of 4 or 5 months. That was suggested for a while in 1958. There are other programs which would be useful. The only thing is, they take a little longer to get started - aid to education, for example.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Now, in view of this time lag, Senator---
     Senator KENNEDY. And also the bill on medical care for the aged.
     Mr. LISAGOR. If you are the President - elect after November 8 would you take any steps to meet with the present Eisenhower administration in order to avoid this lag you are talking about and to avoid sliding into a deeper recession or into a recession at all?
     Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Saulnier, who is the Chairman of the President's Board of Economic Advisers, spoke rather optimistically in the last few days about the economy. They believe evidently that it's going to move up. I assume that represents his economic judgment.
     But in answer to your question, I would be delighted to meet with the President if I'm successful, not only on this subject but any others. The responsibility is his, of course, and it would depend on his judgment. But if I felt, and if he felt that it would be useful, I would certainly do it.
     Mr. SMITH. Senator, even if there is not a depression, you are committed to programs that will require quite a bit of expenditure.
     Could you tell me how, I know the argument that when the economy begins to grow our normal and present taxes will bring in greater income to pay for it, but how will you stimulate it in the years before the growth begins.
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, now, in the first place, when we are talking about greater expenditures, you have to, I've committed myself to a balanced budget, and I've been in Congress for 14 years. The largest peacetime deficit in this history of the United States was 2 years ago, 1958.
     No. 2, the Democratic Congress in the last 16 years, or 6 years, cut $10 billion off President Eisenhower's budget requests. There would have been a $10 billion larger deficit if his budget requests had gone through.
     So this idea that the Democrats are committed to fiscal irresponsibility just isn't on the record. I'm chairman of the subcommittee - I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Reorganization, which dealt with the Hoover Commission recommendations, so I have some experience in the field.
     Mr. SMITH. I'm not suggesting that---
     Senator KENNEDY. I understand that, but I do, Mr. Smith, it has been suggested, and therefore I felt it would be appropriate to at least answer that part of it.
     But your question was: How do we hope to stimulate economic growth.
     Mr. SMITH. Yes.
     Senator KENNEDY. I would feel that by pursuing a - monetary policies which are more flexible than the present Federal Reserve Board has pursued them, using a fiscal policy as the best guard against inflation, that both of those policies would be useful. I think, for example, the bills-only policy which the Federal Reserve Board has followed has contributed not only to some of the difficulties in the gold market but also to some of our difficulties in financing our debt. I think the Federal Reserve Board has supported the administration's economic policies, which I believe have been restrictive. In addition, I think the area redevelopment bill would assist those communities which are hard hit, increasing in minimum wage, education, and all the rest do increase productivity. I do believe also that there is some change in our tax laws to stimulate economic growth. I have spoken earlier about a change in our depreciation laws, providing it isn't, doesn't become a loophole, would also be useful in providing for newer equipment to come into the market. The big need, really, is to stimulate the capital expansion in the investment market, if we are going to provide employment. And I would think that some change in our tax laws, including depreciation, would be useful.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator, that brings us to a charge made this past week by both President Eisenhower and Mr. Nixon that the speculation in gold in the London market is due in part to your, what they call a cheap money policy in the Democratic platform adopted in Los Angeles. What is your comment to that?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, in the first place, the gold speculation was on a very thin market and it was due in part to difficulties in France, in part to a new tax in Switzerland, it really has - in my opinion, to blame it on me, when I haven't had any responsibility for the loss of gold which has taken place in the last 3 years, we had $25 billion worth of gold a decade ago, now we've got down to 18, and we've lost several billions of dollars in the last 3 years. There has been a steady drain on our gold. In fact, the demands on our gold now are greater than the gold supply and the central banks of Europe have been moving gold out of here, partly because the Germans have built up a great supply of gold, they've been the beneficiary of this change, they have almost $6 billion worth of gold now. But also partly because we have heavy commitments abroad and because our exports have not balanced with our commitments abroad. But that's, of course, a wholly untrue story and it fails to take into account that we have been concerned about the flow of gold for the last 3 years. In fact, Mr. Anderson spoke about it, there had been many meetings, the International Monetary Fund and all the rest have been discussing what we can do to prevent the flow of gold. Now, in pursuing any monetary policy on interest rates we have to take into account this problem, we don't want to lose gold.
     Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Potter.
     Mr. POTTER. Senator, you suggested in a statement on Cuba that we ought to give more support to the non-Batista, anti-Castro forces in - both in exile and at home. How would you implement this program if you were President?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, one of the suggestions was - we don't have any radio or TV programs, Voice of America programs, to Cuba to tell our side of the story, and that's No. 1. No. 2, anything that we do, and any actions that we take, of course, have to be taken in concert with the OAS. We are committed by treaty and just good judgment, there is no sense in attempting to take actions in regard to Cuba that alienate the rest of Latin America. That's where the great struggle is now taking place. So I would say that one of the things we could do would be to broadcast steadily into Cuba, telling them our side, that we are committed to freedom, that we are committed to economic development in these countries, and I would also give encouragement to those who have fled Cuba. We - after all, we cannot permit Mr. Castro, who is carrying on a struggle against us, who is completely opposed to freedom, to sell the story to the Cuban people and the people of Latin America that the United States is uninterested in the cause of democracy in Cuba or any place else.
     Mr. POTTER. Well, then, the plans that you have to give support, I gather would not be done in violation of treaties we have---
      Senator KENNEDY. That's correct.
     Mr. POTTER. Which provide that we shall not interfere in their internal affairs. It's been charged, you know, that what you said would be a patent violation
     Senator KENNEDY. What I said was what - you quoted me accurately, that we should give encouragement, I believe, or assistance, to the democratic forces in and out of Cuba. I never suggested that we should do anything - in fact, I talked in Pennsylvania at the time and said afterwards that it should be done in accordance with our treaties. Why should Mr. Castro be regarded as the - why should we not identify ourselves, whether it's in Eastern Europe or in Cuba or wherever there is a dictatorship, whether it's a dictatorship of the right or the left, in Latin America, one of our great criticisms that we've made against this administration is that it has failed to identify itself with the wave of freedom sweeping Latin America. Castro is against that wave. So are the dictators of the right. I think we should identify ourselves with the cause of freedom within all of those countries, even though we have to meet our obligation to the charter.
     Mr. NOVINS. Senator, would you be equally active on the same level with the Dominican Republic
     Senator KENNEDY. I think we should commit ourselves to freedom in this hemisphere. That's the great wave, and I've been - strongly believed - Indochina, of course Algeria, and Latin America, people desire freedom, they don't want dictators, right or left. In addition, they want economic - a better standard of living for the people. Those are the causes to which we should be associated. One of my criticisms of this administration is that we are no longer associated with the cause of freedom and that's the biggest asset we have in our struggle against the Communists. The whole Africa experience shows that.
     Mr. SMITH. Senator, can we stay with Algeria just a moment? One of the cruel dilemmas any American Government faces is this Algerian dilemma where we either have to side with our great ally, France, or with these peoples, as you say, the new peoples. What kind of a decision would you make in that case?
     Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Smith, I said several years ago that time was running out in Algeria, as it did in Indochina, and there's been a good deal of criticism, even including recently. The problem now is that the Algerian rebels are turning to Moscow and to Peiping for assistance against the French. How long would it be before the Communists become - seize control of the nationalist movement in Algeria. That's why I had hoped that a solution would be worked out which would recognize the desire of these people for self-determination in association, I would hope, with France. Now, I think that - I'm hopeful that General de Gaulle and the French people will work out a solution which will permit peace in Algeria, but it's going to be a very difficult problem.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator, I suppose the question most people want to know now is, Who is going to win this election. And the Nixon headquarters have released polls showing that the Vice President has an edge in such States as Pennsylvania.
     Senator KENNEDY. Really?
     Mr. LISAGOR. Ohio, Illinois, California, and Texas, which are key and crucial States. Do you agree with these estimates?
     Senator KENNEDY. No; I don't give him all those States, Mr. Lisagor.
     Mr. LISAGOR. How do you see it yourself, now
     Senator KENNEDY. I think it's very close, in this election, and in fact it's going to go right down to the wire and it will be close in every one of those States that you have named, they are key States, and I would say it's---
     Mr. LISAGOR. Well, could I ask you just one: Do you think the election is still to be---
     Senator KENNEDY. I don't think the Vice President has won it yet, though.
     Mr. LISAGOR. I was just going to ask whether you thought the election is still to be decided by the undecided voter.
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, I don't think probably the undecided voter - it's hard to believe there are many people who are undecided now. It's just like somebody saying at the sixth game of the Pirates and the Yankee game, "I don't care who wins." I mean, you're pretty - pretty soon everybody decides these questions, and I would think most people have finally decided whether they are going to support the Republicans or the Democrats. But, I don't know what they've decided, and we won't know until November 8. Mr. Nixon's polls nor my polls nor Dr. Gallup's polls, in my judgment, can give us any assurances that either he or I are going to win. I would say it's close. I'm hopeful, but I suppose he is, too.
     Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Potter.
     Mr. POTTER. Senator, I followed your convertible through a great part of America and I've observed a great number of teenagers who come close up to your car and show a very high and often shrill enthusiasm for you.
     Is this translatable into votes, in your judgment?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, I guess it is in, maybe in Kentucky and Georgia where you can vote at 18. But I think it's, I'm all for teenagers and everyone else coming out and listening to the candidates. I think that's a healthy sign. And I don't, know whether we are going to get their mothers and fathers, but at least we've made - it's made a more interesting fall.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator, Mr. Nixon has set a February 1 deadline, he says if he's elected he will set a February 1 deadline on the nuclear test negotiations, and after that if no agreement is reached, he'll proceed to resume underground testing for peaceful purposes, and that he would go to a summit with Mr. Khrushchev on nuclear tests if they can see an agreement at a summit.
     First, do you think it's a good idea to have a deadline of that kind; and secondly, could you tell us what your conditions for going to a summit in the early months of your Presidency, if you are elected?
     Senator KENNEDY. Well, I have said that I thought that we should try once again a new administration. If I'm successful, that wouldn't be until January, with our own, with negotiators representing a new administration, to try once more to get an agreement. It's so important to try to get an agreement. Therefore, I'd make one more effort.
     Now, until the negotiators have met, I don't think its probably wise to give an ultimatum, to say that unless they have an agreement by February 1 or March 1, but I do think they should be making progress. We should know after 3 weeks or so, 4 weeks, whether we're making any progress. It may be appropriate then to set the time limit.
     Secondly, as far as going to the summit, I think we should make progress on the questions of disarmament, outer space, or nuclear testing, before we go to a summit.
     In addition, I would like to see the United States moving again forward on a more affirmative course in foreign policy before we go to the summit. I think to say we'll go to the summit if we do at this stage seems to me somewhat premature. We got into that difficulty last winter when the President said he would not go to the summit unless there was an agreement - unless there was progress in nuclear testing, and on Berlin. Well, there was no progress in either, and pretty soon the wave of pressure brought him to the summit. I think we should - let's start on nuclear testing and then if we begin to make progress, then we can talk about higher negotiations.
     Mr. NOVINS. Senator Kennedy, thank you very much indeed for coming here to face the Nation.
     Thanks also to today's news correspondents: To Mr. Philip Potter of the Baltimore Sun; Howard K. Smith of CBS News; and Peter Lisagor of the Chicago Daily News.
     This is Stuart Novins. We invite you to join us next week at this same time when our guests will be the two chairmen of the Republican and Democratic National Committees, Senator Thruston Morton and Senator Henry Jackson.
     Our program today originated in the studios of WCAU-TV, Philadelphia.
     ANNOUNCER. "Face the Nation" was produced by Michael J. Marlow. Associated in production, Ben Flynn. Directed by Bill Linden.
     Today you saw the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy, face the Nation.
     Herb Clark speaking.
     "Face the Nation," which will be seen Monday evenings beginning November 14, has been a public affairs presentation of CBS News.