Now, to meet the panel of correspondence. Nbc news. Charles, cbs news. Douglas, reporter magazine. New york herald tribune. Noted, the four reporters include a newspaperman and a magazine report. These two selected by the press secretary of the candidates from among the reporters traveling with the candidates. Representatives were chosen. The rules for this evening have been agreed upon by the representative of both candidates and the radio and television networks. There will be no Opening Statement by the candidates nor any closing summations. Will be devoted to answering questions from the reporters. Incandidate to be questions turn with opportunities for comment by the other. Toh answer will be limited two and one half minutes, each comment in one and a half minutes. The reporters are free to ask any question they choose on any subject. Neither candidate knows what questions will be asked. Time alone will determine who will be asked the final question. The first question is from mr. Mcgee and is for senator kennedy. Senator kennedy, yesterday you used the words triggerhappy report to Vice PresidentRichard Nixons stand on defending the islands. Last week on a program like this one, you said the next president would come facetoface with a serious crisis in berlin. Is, would youn take military actions to defend berlin . Mcgee, we have a contractual right to be in berlin coming out of the conversation the flotsam and world war ii that has been reinforced by the president of the United States and reinforced by a number of other nations under nato. Occasionsd on many that the United States must meet its commitment on berlin. It is a commitment that we have to meet if we are going to protect the security of western europe and therefore, on this question, i dont think that there is any doubt in the mind of any american, i hope there is not any doubt in the mind of any member of the community of west linn, im sure there isnt any doubt in the mind of the russians. We will me a commitment to maintain the freedom and independence of west berlin. Mr. Vice president , do you wish to comment . As a matter of fact, the statement that senator kennedy made was that to the effect that there were triggerhappy ofublicans was an indication triggerhappy republicans. I resent that comment, i resented because there is an implication that republicans have been triggerhappy and therefore would lead this nation into war. I would remind senator kennedy of the past 50 years. I would ask him to name one republican president who lead this nation into war. There were three democratic president s who let us into war. That onemean by that party is a war party and the other is a piece party, but i do say that a statement to the effects of the Republican Party is triggerhappy is belied by the record. We had a war when we came into power in 1953. We got rid of that and certainly that does not indicate that we are triggerhappy. Weve been strong, but we have not been triggerhappy. Concerned,erlin is there isnt any question about the necessity of defending berlin, the rights of people to be free, and there isnt any question about what the united american people, republicans and democrats alike, will do in the event there were an attempt by the communist to take over in berlin. Question is for Vice President nixon. Mr. Vice president , a twopart question concerning the offshore islands of the straits. If you were president and the Chinese Communist began an launch theould you United States into a war by sending the seventh fleet and other military forces, and secondly, if the regular conventional forces failed such an invasion, would you authorize the use of Nuclear Weapons . It would be completely responsible for a candidate for the presidency or for a president himself to indicate the course of action and the weapons he would use in the event of such an attack. I will say this. In the event that such an attack occurs, and in the event the attack was a prelude to an attack which would be the indication today because the Chinese Communists, they say over and over again that their objective is not to take the islands, they consider them only steppingstones. In the event that their attack ,r a prelude to another attack there is not any question that the United States would then again, as in the case of berlin, on our tree oppositions obligations and stand by our allies. But to indicate in advance how we would respond, to indicate the nature of the response would be incorrect and would certainly be inappropriate, it would not be in the best interest of the United States. I will only say this in addition. To do what senator kennedy has suggested, to suggest that we will surrender these islands or force are Chinese Nationalist allies to surrender is not something that would lead to peace. It is something that would lead, in my opinion, to war. This is the history of dealing with dictators. This is something that senator kennedy and all americans must know. We tried this with hitler. It didnt work. He wanted austria, and then he time it waseach thought this was all that he wanted. What did the Chinese Communists want . They want the world. If you question is, surrender or indicate in advance that you are not willing to send any part of the free world and you figure that is going to satisfy them, you didnt satisfy them, you only whet their appetite. And then the question becomes, when do you stop . President ard eisenhower discussing this question and make the statement that if we once start the process of indicating that this point for that point is not the place to stop those who threaten the peace and freedom of the world, where do we stop them . Whoi say that those of us would stand against surrender of territory, this or any other in the face of blackmail, are standing for the course that will lead to peace. Senator kennedy, do you wish to comment . The United States now has a treaty which i voted for 1955 to defend for most of and the islands. Milesles are five or four off because of china. When the senator wrote to the president he received back on the second of october, 1958, neither you nor any other american need feel the u. S. Will be involved in military hostilities. That is the issue. I believe we must meet our commitment. I support it. That is the present american position. The treaty is not include these two islands. Mr. Nixon suggests the United States should go to war if these two islands are attacked. That if there is any military action in any area which indicates an attack, then of course, the United States can defend itself. He wants us to be committed to the defense of these islands merely as a defense of these islands, not as part of the defense. The commander of the idiotically has said that these islands are not worth the bones of a single american. The president of United States has indicated they are not within the treaty area, they were not within a treaty area when the tree was passed. We have intended to persuade shanghai in january of 1959. Issue and weious also understand completely if we disagree and if so, where . The next question is for senator kennedy. Senator kennedy, last week he said that before we should hold another summit conference, but it was important that the United States feel its strength. Modern weapons take quite a long time to build. What sort of long area do you envisage before there can be a summit conference, and do you think that there can be any new grounds of on the nuclear disarmament, nuclear control, or weapons control during this . Widgets strengthen our conventional forces, and we should attend in january, fedora february, and march of next year to increase the capacity of our conventional forces. Then i believe that we should move fulltime on our missile production, particularly on minutemen. It may be a long time, but we must get started immediately. Disarmament,on of i must say that i feel that another effort should be made by a new administration in january of 1961 to renew negotiations with the soviet union and see whether it is possible to come to some conclusion which will lessen the chances of contamination of the atmosphere and also lessen the chances that other powers will begin to present a Nuclear Capacity. That 10, 50,ations or 20 nations will have a Nuclear Capacity including red china by the end of the president ial office in 1964. This is extremely serious. There have been many wars in history of mankind. To take a chance now a not make every effort that we could make to provide for some control over these weapons i think would be a great his favor. What my disagreements with the present administration is that i dont feel a real ever has been made on this very sensitive subject, not only of nuclear control, but also a general disarmament. Less than one people have worked on the subject and i believe it has been reflected in our substantial failures at geneva. We may not succeed, the soviet union may not agree, it may not be able to get satisfactory assurances, it may be necessary for us to begin testing again, but i hope the next administration and if i have anything to do with it, the next administration will make one provideat effort to Strong Nuclear testing, control testing, and also to begin again the subject of general disarmament levels. Succeed, i think the fate of our own civilization and the fate of worlds and the future of the human race is involved preventing a nuclear war. Mr. Vice president , your comment . Yes, im going to make a major speech on this whole subject before the next debate and i will have an opportunity than to answer any other questions that may arise. There isnt any question but that we must move forward in every possible way to reduce the pests,of war, to control but also, lets keep in mind this when senator kennedy suggests that we have not been making an effort, he simply doesnt know what he is talking about. It is it a question of the number of people working in the administration, it is the question of who they are. This has been one of the highest level operations of the whole state department. We have gone certainly the extra mile and then some in making offers to the soviet union on disarmament and in every other way and i just want to make something very clear. Yes, we should make a great effort. But under no circumstances must be United States ever make an agreement taste on trust. There must be an absolute guarantee. Just a comment on senator kennedys last piece, he forgets that in the same debate which he said he voted for, that he voted for an an amendment in i should say, which passed the senate overwhelmingly, 7012. That amendment puts the senate of the United States on record with the majority of the senators own party moving , put them on record against the very position that the senator takes now of indicating in advance if the United States will not defend the offshore islands. The next question is by mr. Drummond for Vice President nixon. Tomr. Nixon, i would like ask one more aspect, another aspect of this same question. It is my understanding that president eisenhower never they should be defended under all circumstances as a matter of principle. Sayard secretary dulles that he taught it was a mistake to deploy troops to these islands. I would like to ask what has led you to take what appears to be a different position on the subject. Of all,on first referring to that press conference, i think if you read it all, and i know that you have, you will find that the secretary also indicated in that press conference that when the troops were withdrawn, that the implication was certainly that everything that he said, that he could better be defended. There were too many infantrymen, not enough heavy artillery, and certainly i dont think there was any implication in his statement that they should not be defended in the event that they were attacked. As far as president eisenhower the president has always indicated that we must not make the mistake in dealing with a dictator of indicating that we are going to make a concession at the point of a gun. Whatever you do that, inevitably, the dictator is encouraged to try again. Next, what do we do then . My point is this. Once you follow this course of action of indicating that you are not going to defend a particular area, the inevitable result is that it encourages a man who is determined to conquer theworld to press you to point of no return, and that means war. We went through this crisis experience leading to world war ii. We learned our lesson again in korea. We must not do it again. Summit why i think the was right including a majority of the democrats, a majority of the republicans, when they rejected senator kennedys position in 1955. Incidentally, senator johnson was among those who rejected the decision. Because was right i will trust that senator kennedy will change his position on this because as long as he is a major president ial candidate and continues to suggest that we are going to turn over these islands, he is only encouraging the aggressors, the Chinese Communists and the soviet aggressors to press the United States to the point where war would be inevitable. The road to war is always paved with good intentions and in this instance, the good intentions are a desire for peace. But we are not going to have peace by getting in and indicating in advance that we are not going to defend what has become a symbol of freedom. Senator kennedy . Sen. Kennedy i dont think its possible for mr. Nixon to state the record with more precision than he just did. In 1955 at a press conference, the tree that we have with the republic of china excludes from the tree areas. That was done with much thought and liberation. Therefore, that treaty does not commit the United States to defend anything except the pescadores and those tree areas. I completely sustain the treaty. I voted for it. I would take any action necessary to defend the treaty and the pescadores islands, but we are now talking about the Vice President s determination and fivetee , four miles off the coast and not within the treaty area. The president in 1955 of mr. Saidson and the general they were still doing it in 1959. He said for his chief of staff to go to war, it would seem an unwarranted and tragic course to take. To me, that concept is completely repugnant. I stand with him, i stand with the secretary of state who said these are indefensible. I believe that we should meet our commitments and if the Chinese Communists attack, they know that it will mean war. I would not hand over these islands under any pointed gun, i merely say that the treaty is precise, and i sustain the tree. Mr. Nixon would add a guarantee cubathe communists seizing 90 miles off the coast of the United States. A question for senator kennedy. Senator kennedy, i would like to shift the conversation to a domestic political argument. The chairman of the Republican National committee declared earlier this week that you will Vice President you owed nixon and were public and party an apology for some strong charges laid by harry truman who suggested where they could go. Do you feel that you will the Vice President and apology . Mr. Ell, i must say that truman has his message of expressing things, he has been in politics for 50 years and president of the United States. I really do think there is anything i can say to president truman at the age of 76 to changes particular speaking manner. Perhaps this is truman kent, but i dont think i can. Perhaps misses truman can. Any comment, mr. Vice president . V. P. Nixon of course, both senator kennedy and i have felt ire, andns consequently i think he can speak with some feeling on the subject. I just was a one thing. We all have tempers, i have one, im sure senator kennedy has one. What the president of the United States has an obligation not to lose his temper in public. One thing i have noticed as i travel around the country, are the tremendous number of children who come out to see the president ial candidates. I see Mothers Holding their babies so that they can see a man who might be president of the United States. I know senator kennedy season, too. It makes you realize that whoever is president is going to be a man that all the children of america will either look up to or will look down to and i can only say that im very proud that president eisenhower restored dignity and decency and, frankly, good language to the conduct of the presidency of the United States. I only hope that, should i win this election, but i could approach president eisenhower in maintaining the dignity of the office, whatever any mother or child, heks to his can look at the man in the white house and whatever he may think of his politics, he will say, there is a man who maintain the kind of standards personally that i would want my child to follow. This question is for Vice President nixon. Vice president , i would like to return just once more if i made to this area dealing with the communists. On at least three occasions in recent years, on the sending of american troops to china in 1954, on the matter of may,nuing the flight in and then on this definition of our commitment to the offshore islands, that you have overstated the administrations position, that you have taken a more bellicose position than president eisenhower. Ago, you said that you called on senator kennedy to serve a notice to congress aggressors around the world that we are not going to receipt recede one inch more. Would you say this was a valid criticism of your statement of Foreign Policy . Of course that is a criticism that is being made. I obviously dont think it is valid. I have supported the administrations position and i think that position has been correct, i think my position has been correct. As far as china was concerned, i stated over and over again that it was essential during that period of the United States make it clear that we would not tolerate china falling under communist domination. As a result of our taking the strong stand that we did, the civil war there was ended and at least in the south of china, the communist have moved out and we do have a strong, free bastion there. I would like to point out that i have been supporting the presence position throughout. I think the president was correct in ordering this. I think the president was correct in his decision to continue the flight while the conference is going on. I know that in reading a particular discussion that senator kennedy had shortly after his statement about the aggressor that he made the statement that he felt that these particular flights were ones that should not have occurred at that time. How would we have felt that mr. Khrushchev had had a fight over the United States . The answer is that communist espionage goes on all the time. The United States cant afford to have an espionage act or an intelligence lag anymore than a missile lag. Question, what i object to hear is the constant reference to surrendering. Forgets to point in a votehe key vote which ive referred to several times where he was in the minority, was one that rejected his position. Now, why did they rejected . For the following reason that the senators knew what the president of United States new, that you should not indicate to the communists in advance that you are going to surrendering area. Why . Because they know and senator kennedy will also know that if you do that, you encourage them to more aggression. Mr. Kennedy . On. Kennedy number one come china, mr. Nixon talked in the spring of 1964 about putting american boys into china. This was a result of the geneva conference. Number two, on the question of just before the conference, because of the hazards involved, i never criticized the u2 flights in general, however. I never suggested espionage should stop. Number three, the Vice President flight15 indicated the were going on even though the administration and the president had canceled flights on may 12. Number three, the Vice President suggests we should keep the communists out. He is indicating that we should fight for these islands come what may because they are an area of freedom. He did not take deposition onto that, he did not take deposition they have both moved within the soviet sphere of influence. I merely say that the United States should read its. Ommitment to the pescadores these islands that we are not talking about, i know how difficult it is to sustain and therefore, i think we should make it very clear by extending the administrations commitment. This question is for senator kennedy. Kennedy, in the course of his speaking tour on your behalf, is saying, and i quote, the ku klux klan is rising again in this campaign. If doesnt stop, all bigots will vote for nixon and all right thinking christians and jews will vote for kennedy rather than be found in the ranks of the klan. Sell is michael to saying much the same thing. What i would like to ask senator kennedy is what is the purpose of the sort of thing, and have you feel about it . How do you feel about it . The head of the klan indicated in a statement that he was not going to vote for me and that he was going to vote for mr. Nixon. I do not suggest in any way or have i ever that it indicates mr. Nixon has the slightest in any way imply any inferences in regards to the ku klux klan, that is absurd. I dont suggest that, i disagree with it. Thisixon knows very well i have never suggested even by the vaguest application he would do anything to improve that. I disapprove of the issue, i do not suggest that mr. Nixon does in any way. V. P. Nixon i welcome this opportunity to join senator kennedy completely on that statement and disabled for the Largest Television audience in history something that i have been saying in the past and will always say in the future. Debate, it television pointed out that it was my position that americans must choose the best man of either party. We cant settle for anything but the best. That means, of course, the best man that this nation can produce. That means that we cant have any test of religion, any test of race. Also, as far as religion is concerned, i have seen communism abroad, i have seen what it does. Communism is the enemy of all religions. We would do believe in god must join together. We must not be divided on this issue. The worst thing that i can think to happen would be for it to be decided over a religious issue. I obviously repudiate anybody who uses the religious issue, i will not tolerate it. I have ordered all of my people to have nothing to do with it. Whoever may be listening, remember, if you believe in america, if you want america to set the right example for the world, we cannot have religion or racial prejudice. ,e cannot have it in our house and we certainly cannot have it in a president ial matter. Mr. Mcgee has a question for Vice President nixon. Mr. Vice president , some of your Early Campaign literature you were going to see if new laws were needed to protect the public against unprecedented abuse of power. Decided whether such a new laws are needed and if so, what would they be . Mcgee, i am mr. Planning a speech on that subject next week and also so that we can get the opportunity for the question to be before the next television debate. I will state simply in advance of it that i believe that in this area, the laws that should be passed as far as the big National Emergency strike is concerned are ones that will give the president more weapons with which to deal with those struggles. I have a disagreement with senator kennedy on this point. He has stated the position were the first indicated that he would favor compulsory arbitration as one of the weapons a president might have. I understand in his last speech that he changed the position and indicated that he felt by governments speeches might be the best way to stop this. I do not believe we should have either compulsory arbitration. Givenk the moment that you to the union on the one side and the management on the other side , we eventually are going to government to get it settled. That most of these things will end up being settled by government. That will be the end, in my opinion of all the things that we do not want. I do believe that we can get to the president of the United States powers in addition to what he presently has which would enable him to be more effective than he has been in handling these. One last point i should make. It hasord in handling been very good in this administration. We have had less manhours lost in the last several years than we had in the previous seven years by a great deal. I only want to say that however good the record is, it can always be better because in this critical year, we have got to move forward. All americans must move Forward Together and we have to get the greatest cooperation possible. Afford massive effects on the economy when we are in a terrible complication. Senator, your comment . I always had difficulty recognizing that recognizing my positions when stated by the Vice President. m opposed to that i was opposed to it in 1958. I have suggested that the president should be given other weapons. I dont know what other weapons the Vice President is talking. Im talking about giving him four or five tools. Injunction, but also the Factfinding Commission to make recommendations. Recommendations with great force of public opinion. One of the additional powers and i would suggest, the president having five powers, he only has very limited powers today. Therefore, there would be a greater incentive on both sides to reach an agreement as well. Now, we can set up a factfinding committee but those powers are limited. We can provide an injunction. There are no other powers or actions to take a muscle went to the congress. It is a difficult and sensitive matter. The president should have a variety of things he could do. Therefore, they would be incentives for companies to be ready to take this flight. Question is for senator kennedy. Kennedy, Vice President trust ofs that he has the twoparty platform. He has called on you to supply your figures. Would you do that . I state again that i believe in a valid budget. Only two times when an unbalanced budget is warranted would be during a serious or a National Emergency where the should be large expenditures in national defense. On the question on the cost of our budget, i have stated that it is my best judgment that are Agricultural Program when the possibly 2 billion less than the current program. My judgment is that the program willice president proposed cost 1 billion more than the present program. The most expensive in history. The money on agriculture in last two years than 100 years of the Agricultural Department before that. Secondly, i believe that the policy that is a ministration has followed has added about 3 billion per year. A burden on the taxpayers. I would hope under a different policy that it would be possible to reduce that by at least 1 billion. Tord, i think it is possible and through tax changes, for the, i have suggested that in the villagee congress is now past and the present time will be fully implemented and cost 1 billion for the secretary fund, a proposal that i have put forward and with many of my party support, would be financed under capital forecurity medical care, doctors, nurses when they retire. In my judgment, we would spend more money in this administration, more money on housing, we would spend more money, and i hope, more wisely, on defense. I believe that the next administration should work a balanced budget, and that would be my intention. The fact of the matter is, here is where i stand. I just want to have it on the public record. Mr. Vice president , senator kennedy has indicated on several occasions that you have misstated his record and his figures. Will issue a white paper reporting exactly what you said on compulsory arbitration and the record will show that i have been correct. He again is engaging in this, what i would call mirror game of here it is, and here it is in. On the one hand, he suggests that his medical care program is a problem because of Social Security. But Social Security is a tax. The people pay it, it comes right out of your paycheck. This does not mean that the people are not going to be paying the bill. Hislso indicates that agricultural bill costs less than ours all of the experts indicate that it is the most with the program, effect on the farmers that america has ever had in an Election Year or any other time and i would also point out that senator kennedy left out a part of that program. A 25 rise in food prices. That the people would have to pay. Are we going to have that when it isnt going to help the farmers . I dont think we should. Isn he goes on to say that going to change the Interest Rate situation and we are going to get some more money that way. What he doesnt say is that we are going to have inflation. I dont believe we have to pay our bills through inflation. Mr. , mr. Trump ands rp and mr. Trump and m mr. Drummonds question. The republican platform states that the nation needs to work in the pace of Economic Growth. Is it fair, therefore, to conclude that you feel that there has been insufficient Economic Growth during the past eight years, and if so, what would you do beyond the present Administration Policies to step it up . Ayin never satisfied with the Economic Growth of this country. Im not satisfied with that even if there were no communism in the world the particularly when we are in the kind of a race we must see that america grows as fast as we can because even though we have maintained as i pointed out in my first debate, even though the growth in this administration has been twice as high as the Truman Administration, that isnt good enough because america must be able to grow enough not only to take care of our needs at home, all these things we want, we had better build enough to maintain the forces that we have a broad and in asia, africa, latin america. Going to cost more money and growth will help us to win that battle. What we have to do is to stimulate that structure of america. The private enterprise sector of the economy in which there is the greatest possibility for expansion. That is why i advocate a program which will simulate more investment in our economy. In addition to that, we have to move on other areas. Moving into those areas of programs so that we make adequate use of the resurgence of those areas. Resources of those areas. We also have to see the tremendous talent that our people have is used adequately. The quality of opportunity for employment and education is not just the benefit of the minority group, it is for the benefit of the nation. We needion to that, programs, particularly in higher education, which was simulate scientific breakthroughs which will bring more growth. What all this adds up to is this. America has not been standing still. Anybody who says america has been standing still for the last seven and a half years has not been traveling around america. We have been moving, we have been moving much faster than the truman years, but we can and must move faster, and that is why i stand so strongly for a program that will move america so that we can stay ahead of the soviet union and win the battle for freedom and peace. Senator kennedy . Sen. Kennedy first may i correct a statement that under my Agricultural Program, food prices would go up 25 , that is untrue. It is about twoandahalf sense. 10 ,will put his income up to end three quarters percent. Tomatoes, a cost less for the tomatoes than the label in his hand. Betterve he should do and anybody who suggests that program would come to anything indicated by the Vice President is an error. He suggested that we ate distressed areas. He suggested we have an education bill. The administration and the republican majority in the congress have opposed any Real Progress to education. The Vice President has the deciding vote. This administration and this country here have the lowest rate of Economic Growth between jobs of any major industrialized time in the world in 1959. When we have to find 25,000 new jobs per week for the next 10 years, we are going to have to grow more. Democratic platform and others say 5 , many say 4. 5 . Why we dont have full employment today. Mr. Mcgee have the next question for senator kennedy. Senator kennedy, you mentioned tax loopholes. Are you aware senator Lyndon Johnson is texas, one of the states leaders feel is in doubt and they are seeking assurance from senator johnson that the oils allowance not be cut. The democratic platform in the collision itable inequitable depletion do you consider the 27. 5 inequitable and we do ask that it be cut . Sen. Kennedy mr. Mcgee, there ,re about 100 for commodities different kinds of Minerals Including oil. I think all of those should be gone over in detail to make sure that no one is getting a tax break, make sure that no one is getting away from paying the taxes we ought to pay. It includess oil, everything within the range of taxation. Includes oil abroad. Treated no differently than the oil and home. Take at least some of the smaller producers. Moving about eight or nine days in texas. I can assure you that if im elected president , taxes will be going through capitals and if theres any inequities in oil or any other commodities i would vote to close that loophole. I have voted in the past to reduce the depletion allowed that goes from 5 billion down to maintain a 27. 5 . I believe we should study this and other allowances and all the rest and make a determination of how we can stimulate growth, how we can provide the revenues needed to move our country forward. Mr. Vice president . V. P. Nixon senator kennedys position in mind are completely different on this. I think the presentation allowance. I favor not because i want to make a lot oil men rich, but because of what to make america rich. Why do we have a depletion allowance . Because this is the simulation, the incentive for companies to go out and explore for oil and develop. If we didnt have education allowance, we would have our oil exports cutrts substantially in this country. Im exactly opposite of the senator because of my belief that if america is going to have what we want, the thing to do is not to discourage enterprise, not to discourage people to go out and discover more oil and minerals, but to encourage. So he would be doing exactly the wrong thing. One other thing, he suggests a number of other items they can be taken into account. He also said a moment ago that we would get more money by revising the tax laws. As fard point out that as depletion allowances are concerned, the Oil Depletion allowance is one that provides 80 of all of those involved. You are not going to get much from revenue unless you move in the area that he indicated. I opposed it for the reason that i mentioned. I oppose it because i want us to have more oil exporting and not less. Gentlemen, the time is going short, so please give your questions and answers as brief as possible consistent with clarity. In the past three years, there has been a negative is of more than 4 billion from the United States, apparently for two reasons. Anduse exports have slumped because of increased American Investments abroad. If you were president , how would you go about stopping this shortage . The first thing we have to do is to continue to keep confidence abroad in the american dollar. That means that we must continue to have a balanced budget here at home in every possible circumstance that we can because the moment that we have loss of confidence in our own fiscal. Cy at home, secondly, we have to increase our exports. This one must be stepped up. That, as far as the movement of gold is concerned, we have to there in mind that we must get more help from our allies abroad in this great venture in which all free men are involved of winning the battle for freedom. America has been touring a tremendous load in this respect. Forve favored our president economic and military assistance. But now we find that the countries of europe that we have aided and the far east, these countries, some former enemies, some friends, have now recovered completely. They have got a greater share of economic assistance abroad. That is why i am advocating and will develop during the course programdministration a in which we enlist more aid from the other countries, other concerted nations in a program of Economic Development for africa, asia, and latin america. The United States cannot continue to carry the major share of this burden by itself. We can carry a big share, but we have got to have more help from our friends abroad and this will be very helpful in reversing the gold flow. Senator kennedy . Sen. Kennedy to correct the record, mr. Nixon said that his record was optimal. To make sure that there are not loopholes. On the question of gold, the difficulty of course is if we do have any obligations abroad, we therefore have to maintain not only a favorable balance of trade, but also our dollars overseas to sustain other economies. In other words, if were going to continue to maintain, we have got to maintain a sound monetary , and we alsolicy have to have a favorable balance of trade. We have to be able to compete in the world market, we have to be able to sell off more than we consume if we are going to meet our obligations. Many of the countries around the world still see restrictions against our goods going all the way back to the days when there was a dollar shortage. Now there isnt a dollar shortage and yet many of these Companies Continue to move against our goods. I believe that we must be able because we always did because of our technological lead. Ask these other countries not to restrict our goods coming in, and third, we have to dissuade them persuade them to assume some of the responsibility that we have maintained in africa, latin america, and asia. Now for senator kennedy. Senator kennedy, a question on american prestige. In light of the fact that the soviet ambassador was recently expelled and that mr. Khrushchev has this week canceled his trip to cuba for fear of stirring i would like to ask you to spell out somewhat more fully how you think we should measure american prestige to determine whether it is rising or whether it is falling. I think there are many tests for prestige. The significance of prestige is really that we are so identified with the cause of freedom. Therefore, if our influence is spreading, our prestige is spreading, than those who stand now on the razor rage of a decision between the communist system wondering whether they should use the system of freedom or the system of communism, they will be persuaded to follow our example. There have been indications that our prestige is not as high as it once was. The result of our being second , and inik in 1967 believe i paraphrase and accurately, he said that many of these countries displayeddevelopment with scientific advances and therefore many of these countries now feel that the soviet union is now on par with the United States. Second, the Economic Growth of the soviet union is greater than ours. This has a great effect on the developed world which means its problems of low income and high population density. Three, a poll taken in february ask people in 10 countries who would be first scientifically and militarily and a majority in every country except three felt that it would be the soviet union. China. Ealing with red we received support on the position that we had taken of only two african countries, one, liberia, and the iron other union of south africa. Every other african country either abstained or voted against us. Eight more countries voted against us in asia. On the nuclear resolution which we were so much opposed to, the same thing happened. A candidate for the president of brazil took a trip to cuba during the election in order to get the benefit of supporters within brazil. Twoe are many indications independent countries with the both nowe years, supporting soviet for policy in the u. N. Moving in that direction. I would say our prestige is not so hot. Mr. Vice president . V. P. Nixon i would say first of all that senator kennedys statement that he just made is not going to help our polls abroad, it isnt going to help our prestige, either. Lets look at the vote in the congo. Lets look at the situation with regard to Economic Growth as it really is. We find that the soviet union is a very primitive economy. It is catching up with us, and it is not catching up with us. We are well ahead and we can stay ahead provided we have confidence in america and dont run her down instead of builder up. We can look also at other items which senator kennedy has made but i alone would say this. In this whole matter of prestige and putting a stand for what is right, getting back to this , i canthat we discussed think of nothing that will be greater for the prestige of the United States among the free nations in asia than for us to take senator kennedys advice that will go against what a majority of the senate, both democrat and republican voted in advance, wesay in will surrender in areas of the country. In other words, if the United States is going to maintain its strength and prestige, we must not only be strong militarily and economically, we must be firm diplomatically. Certainly we have been speaking of whether we should have retreated. Lets remember that the way to win is not to retreat. Thank you, gentlemen. Agree that time alone would have the last word. The candidates wish to thank the networks for the opportunity to appear. Would we speak the ground rules likewise agreed upon by can radio and television networks. Was devoted to answering questions from the reports. It candidate was questioned in turn and each had the opportunity to comment on the answer of his opponent. Reporters were free to ask any questions on any subject. Neither candidate was given any advanced information on any questions that would be asked. Those were the conditions agreed upon for this meeting of the candidates tonight. The fact agreed upon is that when the hour got down to the last view minutes, if there were time left for another question and suitable time for an answer, the questioning would end at that point. That is the situation at this moment. After reviewing the rules for this evening, i would like to use my remaining few moments of the hour to tell you something about the other remainder in other arrangements. I would emphasize that each candidate is in the studio alone except for three reporters of the press and the television crew. The studio is identical in every detail of lighting, background, physical equipment. We have also experienced a somewhat similar isolation. You afford fourth and the third of these historic joint appearances scheduled for friday, october 21. At that time, the candidates will again share the same platform on Foreign Policy. Good night. Announcer it has been 60 years this false and Richard Nixon and massachusetts senator john kennedy met for four debates during the president ial campaign. Over the next hour, American History tv and washington live toour live are look back at the first ever televised abates between president ial candidates and the impact on the election and later contest for the oval office. Is the president ial studies director at the university of virginias miller center. We will see an exchange between mr. Nixon and mr. Kennedy during their first debate on said over 26, 1960. 26, 1960. R the television and radio stations of the United States and their affiliated stations are proud to provide facilities for discussion of issues in the correct Political Campaign by the candidates for the presidency. The candidates need no introduction. The republican, Richard Nixon and the democratic candidate, senator john kennedy. According to rules set by the candidates themselves, each mentioned make an Opening Statement of approximately eight minutes duration and a closing statement of approximately three minutes duration. In between, the candidate will answer or comment on answers to questions put by a panel of correspondence. In this, the first discussion of a series of four, the subject matter has been agreed to be restricted to internal or domestic matters. Now for the first Opening Statement by senator john f. Kennedy. Sen. Kennedy 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, the question is whether the world will exist half slave or half free, whether it will move in the direction of freedom and in the direction that we are taking, or whether it would 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 discussed 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. Yorkhrushchev is in new and he maintains communism around the world because of the productive power of the soviet union itself. Chinese communists have always but theyge population, are important and dangerous now because they are mounting a major effort within their own country. The kind of country we have here. Have, thef society we kind of strength we build in the United States will be to defend the freedom. Senator kennedy. V. P. Nixon the things that senator kennedy has said many of us can agree with. That we no question cannot discuss our internal affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our international position. What has happened to you . We find that your wages have ine up five times as much the Eisenhower Administration as they did in the Truman Administration. We find that the prices youve paid went up five times as much in the Truman Administration as the Eisenhower Administration. What is the result of this . This means that the average Family Income went up 15 in the eisenhower years and 2 in the truman years. This is not standing still. Is, may at this record i emphasize it isnt enough. A record is never something to stand on, it is something to build on. And in building on this record, progress,that we have we know the way to progress, and i think first of all, our own records prove that we know the way. Announcer washington journal continues. Host welcome in our viewers joining us on cspan3 from American History tv as we are joined by barbara perry, director of the university of virginias miller center. Barbara perry, 60 years from that first debate between president Richard Nixon and senator john kennedy and if there is one thing you hear about the legacy of that debate, it is that those who are watching on tv thought kennedy won, and those listening on the radio thought nixon won. Is that actually true