Transcripts For CSPAN3 Presidential Debates 1960 Presidential Debate - John F. Kennedy Richard... 20240712

The two candidates will not be sharing the same platform. The democratic president ial nominee john f. Kennedy, separated by 3000 miles in the los angeles studio, the Vice President richard m nixon. Now joined for tonights discussion by the facility, which permits each candidate to see and hear the other. Good evening senator kennedy. Sen. Kennedy good evening. Bill good evening Vice President nixon. Hank from nbc news. Douglasvon fremd, cater, roscoe drummond. As you probably noted, the four reporters include a newspaper man any magazine reporter. They were selected by the vice secretaries of the candidates from among the reporters traveling with the candidates. Broadcasting representatives were chosen by their company. Uponules have been agreed by the representatives of both candidates in the radio and television networks. There will be no Opening Statements by the candidates or any closing summations. The entire hour will be devoted to answering questions from the reporters. Each candidate to be questions in turn with opportunities for comment by the other. Each answer will be limited to 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. Mr. Mcgee senator kennedy, yesterday you used the words triggerhappy and referring to Vice President Richard 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. So the question is, would you take military actions to defend berlin . Sen. Kennedy mr. Mcgee, we have a contractual right to be in berlin coming out of the conversation of world war ii that has been reinforced by the president of the United States and reinforced by a number of other nations under nato. Ive stated on many occasions 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 berlin, im sure there isnt any doubt in the mind of the russians. We will meet a commitment to maintain the freedom and independence of west berlin. Bill mr. Vice president , do you wish to comment . V. P. Nixon yes as a matter of , fact, the statement that senator kennedy made was that to the effect that there were triggerhappy republicans was an indication of triggerhappy republicans. I resent that comment, i i resent it 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 led us into war. I do not mean by that that one party is a war party and the other party is a peace 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. As far as berlin is concerned, there isnt any question about the necessity of defending berlin, the rights of people to be free there, 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. Bill the next question is for Vice President nixon. Mr. Von fremd mr. Vice president , a twopart question concerning the offshore islands of the straits. If you were president and the Chinese Communist began an invasion, would you launch the United States into a war by sending the seventh fleet and other military forces, and forces to resist this aggression, and secondly, if the regular conventional forces failed such an invasion, would you authorize the use of Nuclear Weapons . V. P. Nixon 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 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 then were a prelude to another attack, there is not any question that the United States would then again, as in the case of berlin, honor our treaty 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, however, 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 them in advance 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. Know,ted first, we austria, and then he went on and each time it was thought this was all that he wanted. What did the Chinese Communists want . They dont just want these places, they want the world. And the question is, if you surrender or indicate in advance that you are not going to defend any part of the free world and you figure that is going to satisfy them, it does not satisfy them, it only wets their appetite. And then the question becomes, when do you stop . I often heard president eisenhower discussing this question and make the statement that if we once start the process of indicating that this point or that point is not the place to stop those who threaten the peace and freedom of the world, where do we stop them . And i say that those of us who stand against surrender of territory, this or any other in the face of blackmail, in the face of force for the communists are standing for the course that , will lead to peace. Bill senator kennedy, do you wish to comment . Sen. Kennedy the United States now has a treaty which i voted for in 1955 to defend them on this island. The miles are five or four miles respectively, 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. Nearly in the defense of this island. That is the issue. I believe we must meet our commitment. I support it. That is the present american position. The treaty does not include these two islands. Mr. Nixon suggests the United States should go to war if these two islands are attacked. I suggest that if they are attacked or 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 as free territory. Not as the defense of formosa. 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 treaty was passed in 1955. We have intended to persuade shanghai in january of 1959 to reduce the number of troops he has on there. This is a serious issue and we also understand completely if we disagree and if so, where . Cater has the next question for mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cater 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 prolonged period do you envisage before there can be a summit conference, and do you think that there can be any new initiatives on the grounds of nuclear disarmament, nuclear control, or weapons control during this . Period . Sen. Kennedy i think widgets strengthen our conventional forces, and we should attend in january, and 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 period, but we must get started immediately. On the question of disarmament, 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. There are indications that 10, 15, 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 mistake. One of my disagreements with the president of the administration is that i dont feel that a real effort has been made on this very sensitive subject, not only of nuclear control, but also a general disarmament. Less than 100 people have worked on the subject and i believe it has been reflected in our success and 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 last great effort to provide for control of nuclear testing, iftrol of Nuclear Weapons, possible, control about a space and free from weapons, and also to begin again the subject of general disarmament levels. This must be done. If we cannot succeed, i think the fate of our own civilization and the fate of worlds and the future of the human race is involved in preventing a nuclear war. Bill mr. Vice president , your comment . V. P. Nixon yes, im going to make a major speech on this whole subject before the next debate and i will have an opportunity then 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 danger of war, to control pests, to move towards controlled disarmament. To control pests, but also, when keep in mind this 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, right under the president himself. We have gone certainly the extra mile and then some in making offers to the soviet union on control of test, 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 the United States ever make an agreement based on trust. There must be an absolute guarantee. Just a comment on senator kennedys last answer, he forgets that in the same debate which he said he voted for, that he voted against an amendment for an amendment 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 on party voting for it, and it 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. Bill the next question is by mr. Drummond for Vice President nixon. Mr. Drummond mr. Nixon, i would like to ask one more aspect, another aspect of this same question. It is my understanding that president eisenhower never advocated that they should be defended under all circumstances as a matter of principle. I heard secretary dulles say 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. V. P. Nixon first of all, 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 , that thee withdrawn 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 is concerned, i have often heard him discuss this question, as i related ago, 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. First it will be quemoy and matsu, next it will be formosa. 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 the world to press you to the 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 learn it again. That is why i think the senator 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. Voted with the 70 against the trial. The senate was right because they knew the lesson of history. May i say that i would trust the candidate desk senator kennedy would 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. Bill senator kennedy . Sen. Kennedy i dont think its possible for mr. Nixon to state the record industry and of the facts with more precision than he just did. In 1955 at a press conference, the treaty that we have with the republic of china excludes quemoy and matsu with the treaty area. That was done what much thought and the liberation. Therefore, that treaty does not deliberation. Therefore, that treaty does not commit the United States to defend anything except the pescadores and the treaty 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 to guarantee , four and five miles off the coast and not within the treaty area. I do not suggest that this administration has been attempting since 1955 to persuade to lessen the commitment. He sent a mission to president in 1955 of mr. Robinson and the general said they were still doing it in 1959. General ridgway said, who is chief of staff, to go to war matsu would see an unwanted 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 islands are indefensible. I believe that we should meet our commitments and if the Chinese Communist attack the formosa 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. The treaty. Mr. Nixon would add a guarantee with the communists seizing cuba 90 miles off the coast of the United States. Mr. Von fremnd has a question for senator kennedy. Mr. Von fremd 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 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 . Sen. Kennedy well, i must say that mr. Truman has his message of expressing things, he has been in politics for 50 years he has been president of the United States. I really dont think there is anything i could say to president of truman at the age of 76 that will cause him to change his particular speaking manner. Perhaps his misses can, but i dont think i can. Any comment, mr. Vice president . V. P. Nixon of course, both senator kennedy and i have felt mr. Trumans ire, and consequently i think he can speak with some feeling on the subject. I just do want to say one thing, however. We all have tempers, i have one, im sure senator kennedy has one. But when a mans president of the United States or for more president former president , he 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 up 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, that i could approach president eisenhower in maintaining the dignity of the office, in seeing to it that whenever any mother or father talks to his child, he can look at the man in the white house and whatever he may think of his policies, he will say, there is a man who maintain the kind of standards personally that i would want my child to follow. Caters question is for Vice President nixon. Mr. Cater Vice President , i would like to return just once more if i made to this area dealing with the communists. Critics have claimed that on at least three occasions in recent years, on the sending of american troops to indochina in 1954, on the matter of continuing the flight in may, 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. Just two days ago, you said that you called on senator kennedy to serve notice to communist aggressors around the world that we are not going to repeat one inch more anyplace. We did retreat in shanghai. Would you say this was a valid criticism of your statement of Foreign Policy . V. P. Nixon 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 indochina 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 indochina 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 indochina, 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 president s 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 was going on. I know that in reading a particular discussion that senator kennedy had shortly after his statement about the regrets that he made the statements that he felt that these particular flights were ones that should not have occurred at that time. And the implication was how would we have felt that mr. Khrushchev had had a fight over the United States while he was visiting here . The answer is that communist espionage goes on all the time. The answer is that the United States cant afford to have an espionage lag or intelligence lag anymore than a missile lag. Referring to your question, what i object to hear is the constant reference to surrendering these islands. Quotes directly from what he read from a moment ago, but what he forgets to point out that the key vote in a vote which ive referred to several times where he was in the minority, was one that rejected his position. Now, why did they reject it . For the following reason that the senators knew what the president of United States new, knew, 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. Bill senator kennedy . Number one on indochina, mr. Nixon talked in the spring of 1964 about putting american boys into indochina. This was a result of the geneva conference that petitioned indochina. Number two, on the question of the u2 flights, just before the conference, was a mistake in timing because of the hazards involved, i never criticized the u2 flights in general, however. I never suggested espionage should stop. It still goes on. Number three, the Vice President on may 15 asked of the u2 flight indicated the flight 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 in doubt about whether we would fight. Thats not the position he is taking. He is indicating that we should fight for these islands come what may because they are an area of freedom. He did not take that position into that, in budapest. New guinea and donna have both moved within this on Foreign Policy. I merely say that the United States should read its commitment to the pescadores. As was said, and has been supported, these islands that we are not talking about, are not worth the bones of a single american soldier. Therefore, i think we should make it very clear that disagreements between mixture nixon mr. Nixon and myself. Bill this question is for senator kennedy. Mr. 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. Governor michael is 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 and how do you feel about it . The head of the klan, who lives in tampa, florida, 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 involvement or in any way imply any inferences in regards to the ku klux klan, that is absurd. I dont suggest that, i dont support it, i disagree with it. Mr. Nixon knows very well this campaign, 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 mr. Nixon i welcome this opportunity to join mr. Kennedy on that issue and Say Something i have been saying in the past and would always say in the future on our last Television Debate, i pointed out it was my position that americans must choose the best man that either party could produce. We cannot settle for anything but the best. Best man this nation can produce, and that means we could have any we cant have any test of religion, we cant have any test of race, it must be the test of a man. Concerned,eligion is ive seen communism abroad and ive seen what it does. Of allsm is the enemy and we who do believe in god must join together and must not be divided. The worst thing i think that can happen on this campaign would be for it to be decided on religious issue. , iepudiate the clan repudiate anyone who uses the religious issue. Ive ordered all of my people to have nothing to do with it and i say to this great audience, remember, if you believe in america, if you want america to set the right example for the world that we cannot have religion or racial prejudice, we cannot have it in our hearts, but we certainly cannot have it in a president ial campaign. Some of your Early Campaign literature said you were making new laws needed to protect the public against excessive use of power by labor unions. Have you decided whether such new laws were needed and if so, what would they do . Esther nixon mr. Mcgee, i am we can getspeech so the opportunity and it will be before the next Television Debate stop i will say simply in advance that i believe in this area, the laws which should be passed as far as the big National Emergency crisis is concerned are ones that will give the president more weapons with which to deal with the strikes. I have a basic disagreement with senator kennedy on this point. He has taken the position he first indicated in october of last year he would favor compulsory arbitration as one weapon the president might have. Speechstand in his last he changed that position and indicated he felt the government seizure might be the best way to stop a strike which could not be settled. I do not believe we should have either compulsory arbitration. I think the moment you give to the union on the one side and management on the other, the escape hatch of eventually going to the government, most will end up being settled by government and that will be wage control that will mean price control, all the things you do not want. We can give to the president of the United States powers in addition to what he presently has any fact finding area that would enable him to be more effective than we have been in handling these. The record in handling this has been very good during this administration. We have had less man hours lost in these last seven years then we have in the previous seven years by a great deal and i only want to say however good the record is, it couldnt be better in this time in the 60s, we got to move forward. All americans must move forward getther and we must cooperation between labor and management. We cannot afford stoppages when we are in the terrible competition we are in. Comments . S your mr. Kennedy i always have difficulty recognizing my positions when presented by the Vice President. I have suggested the president should be given other weapons to protect the National Interest in the there are strikes be on visions of the tafthartley act. I dont know what other weapons the Vice President is talking about. Im talking about four or five tools. I dont need a factfinding committee under the injunction, but also to make recommendations that could not be binding but that have great force of public opinion. One of the powers i would suggest would be seizure. The president having five powers, four or five powers and only has very limited power today. The company would know which power to use and there would be greater incentive on both sides to reach an agreement without taking it to the government. The difficulty now is the president s powers are limited. He could provide an injunction if there is an actual emergency in the strike could go on. There are no other powers he could take them as he went to the congress. This is a difficult and sensitive matter. The president should have a variety of things he should do. Fore would be incentive Steel Companies who are ready to take this strike to break the unions which didnt happen. The next question is for senator kennedy. Kennedy, Vice President your platform would run 10 billion a year more than his. He has called on you to supply your figures. Would you do that . Mr. Kennedy. I have stated in both of the debates that i believe in a balanced budget and i have supported that in my 14 years in congress. It would bes in a session or National Emergency where there should be large expenditures for national defense. On the question of the cost of our budget, i have stated it is my best judgment that ours would cost a billion and a half, 2 billion less than the agricultural program. My judgment is the program the Vice President put forward would cost a billion dollars more than the present program which is the most expensive in history. On agriculture in the last eight years in the whole of the Agriculture Department before that stop i believe the high Interest Rate policy this administration has followed has added 3 billion a year interest on the debt, which is a burden on the taxes. I hope under a different Monetary Policy would be possible to reduce that burden. Possible to gain 700 million to a billion dollars in tax changes which i believe would close up loopholes on dividend withholdings and expenses. I have suggested the medical care and the bill which the congress now has passed and the president signed is fully implemented would cost a billion dollars on the treasury fund. They proposal i have put forward and which many members of my party support, which is medical care and finance under social security. Its less than three cents a day per person for medical care when they retire. In my judgment, we would spend more money on education, more money on housing, more money and i hope more wisely on defense than this administration has done. I believe the next administration should work for a balanced budget and that would be my intention. The fact of the matter is here is where i stand and i just want to have it on the public record. President . Mr. Vice mr. Nixon president mr. Kennedy has said i have misstated his figures and i will what a white paper quoting he said on arbitration for example in the record will show i have been correct. As far as the figures are concerned tonight, hes engaging in what i would call a mirror game, here it is and here it isnt. On the one hand, he suggested as far as the medical care program is concerned that is not the problem because of social security. The people pay social security. It comes right out of your paycheck. It doesnt mean the people are not going to be paying the bills. He indicates as far as his agriculture bill is concerned it will cost less than ours. Indicate itss the most fantastic program, the Worst Program as far is its effects on the farmers america has ever had foisted upon it in an Election Year or any other time and i would point out senator kennedy left out a part of the cost of that program h when he 5 rise in food prices that the people would have to pay. Are we going to have that when it is not going to help the farmers . Then he goes on to say he is going to change the Interest Rate situation and we are going to get more money that way. What he is saying there is we will have inflation, we will go back to what we had under mr. Truman when italy had political control of the Federal Reserve ford. Mr. Mcgee next, mr. Drummonds question. You and governor rockefeller said jointly the nations Economic Growth ought to be accelerated and the republican platform states the nation needs to quicken the pace of Economic Growth. Therefore, mr. Vice president , to conclude you feel 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 . Mr. Nixon mr. Drummond, i am never satisfied with the Economic Growth of this country. Im not satisfied with it even if there were no communism in the world, but particularly when we are in the kind of race we are in, we have to see america grow as fast as we can. Even though we have maintained as i pointed out in our first even of the growth in this administration has been twice as much as it was in the truman administration, that is not enough. America must be able to grow enough not only to take care of our needs at home, housing and health, weve got to grow enough to maintain the forces we have abroad and wage the nonmilitary battles of the world in asia, africa, and africa and latin america. What do we do about it . Here, i believe basically what we have to do is stimulate that sector 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 of tax reform which will stimulate more investment in our economy. In addition, we have to move on other areas that are holding back. I refer to distressed areas. We have to move into those areas with programs so we can make adequate use of the resurgence of those areas. Ofhave to see all the people the United States, the tremendous talents our people have are used, that is why in this area of civil rights, the equality of opportunity for employment is not just for the benefit of the minority groups, its for the benefit of the nation so we can get scientists, engineers and the rest we need. We need programs in Higher Education which will stimulate scientific rate throughs, which will bring more growth. All of that adds up to this america has not been standing still. Lets get that straight. Anyone who says america has been standing still has not been traveling around america. Youve been traveling in some other country. ,e have been moving much faster but we can and must move faster and that is why i stand so strongly for programs that will move America Forward so we can stay ahead of the soviet union and win the battle for freedom and peace. Mr. Mcgee senator kennedy . Mr. Kennedy first let me correct that food prices would go up 25 . That is untrue. The problem is even if you put income up 10 , it would be three cents out of that . 25. The man who grows tomatoes, the rest of the tomatoes and just a label on the can, when the farmers wages . 50 an hour, he should do that are. Anyone who suggests that program would come to any figure indicated by the Vice President is in error. The Vice President suggested we a distressed areas. Theinistration administration and republican majority has opposed any realistic aid to education. And thisnistration country last year had the lowest rate of Economic Growth, which means jobs of any major industrialized society in the world in 1959. We have to find what he 5000 new jobs a week for the next 10 years, we are going to have to grow more. Senator rockefellers is 5 . Many say 4. 5 . The last eight years, the average growth has been 2. 5 . That is why we dont have full employment today. Mr. Mcgee senator kennedy, a moment ago, you mentioned tax loopholes. Your running mate is from texas. That oilproducing state and one that many feel is in doubt this Election Year. Many say oilmen are seeking assurance that the Oil Allowance will not be cut. The democratic platform pledges to plug loopholes and refers to an equitable allowance as being a conspicuous loophole. 27. 5 consider the allowance inequitable and would you have it be cut . Mr. Kennedy there are about 100 for commodities that have some kind of depletion allowance. I believe all of those should be gone over in detail and make sure no one is going a tax break, make sure no one is getting away from paying the taxes it ought to pay. That includes oil, it includes everything in the range of taxation. We want to make sure it is fair and equitable. It includes oil abroad. The oil industry has had hard times. Particulate some of the smaller producers. If i am elected president , the whole spectrum of taxes will be gone through carefully and if there is any inequities in oil or any other commodity, i would vote to close that loophole. Toave voted in the past reduce the depletion allowance for the largest producers. For those 5 million down to maintain at 25 . I believe we should study that and all the rest and make a determination of how we can stimulate growth, provide the revenue needed to move our country forward. Mr. Vice president . Senator kennedys position and mind is completely different. I favorite not because i want to make a lot of oilmen rich, but because i want to make america rich. Why do we have a depletion allowance . Because this is the incentive for companies to go out and explore for oil and develop stop if we did not have a depletion allowance, i believe we would have our oil explanation exploration cut substantially. As far as i am concerned, its exactly opposite of the senators and it is my belief that if america is going to have the growth i talk about and that we want, the thing to do is not to discourage individual enterprise, not to discourage people to go out and discover more oil and minerals, but to encourage it. So he would be doing exactly the wrong thing. There are number of other items to be taken into account. He said a moment ago we would get more money by revising the tax laws, including depletion. I should point out as far as depletion allowance is concerned , the Oil Depletion allowance is one that provides 80 of all of those involved in depletion. But you are not going to get much from revenues as far as depletion allowances are concerned. But i oppose it for the reasons i mentioned. Toppose it because i want us have more Oil Exploration and not less. I may remind if you, time is going short, so please keep your answers as brief as possible. Mr. Vice president , in the past three years, theres been an exodus of more than 4 billion of gold from the United States, apparently for two reasons exports have slumped and have not covered imports and because of increased American Investments abroad. If you were president , how would you go about stopping this departure of gold from our stores . Mr. Nixon the first thing we have to do is continue to keep confidence abroad in the american dollar. That means we must continue to have a balanced budget here at home in every possible circumstance we can because the moment we have loss of confidence in our own fiscal policy at home, it results in gold going out. Secondly, we have to increase our exports as compared with our imports. Here we have a very Strong Program Going Forward and this one must be stepped up. That, as far as the movement of gold is concerned, we have to bear in mind we must get more help from our allies venture inhis great which all three men are involved winning the battle for freedom. American america has been carrying a tremendous load. Programsvored our abroad for military assistance but now, we find the countries of europe, for example that we abated, and japan, these countries, some are former emmys , some are some are former enemies, some are friends and theyve got to air a greater economicthis load of assistance abroad. Thats why im advocating and will develop over the course of the next administration if i get the opportunity a program in which we enlist more aid from the other countries on a concerted basis in the programs 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 weve got to have more help from our friends abroad and these factors will be helpful in reversing the gold flow you have spoken of. Senator kennedy. Mr. Kennedy just to correct the record this matter should be thoroughly gone into. His record is the opposite of that and he does not want to go into it. Ifthe question of the goal, we do have heavy obligations notad, we have to maintain only a favorable balance of trade but send a good deal of our dollars overseas to sustain other economies. If we are going to continue to maintain our position, we have to maintain a sound monetary and fiscal policy. We have to have control over inflation and have an equal trade and compete in the world market and sell more than we consume if we are going to meet our obligations. In addition, many countries around the world still keep restrictions against our good, going back to the days when there was a dollar shortage. Now there is not a dollar shortage at many of these countries continue to move against our good. I believe we must be able to compete in the market and we must be able to compete against them and we have to be sure to maintain it. We have to persuade other countries not to restrict our goods coming in, not to act if there was a dollar gap and to persuade them to assume some of the responsibilities to assist underdeveloped countries in latin america and asia make an economic breakthrough of their own. Cracks a question now for a senator for senator kennedy. Mr. Khrushchev has this week canceled his trip to cuba for fear of stirring resentment throughout all of latin america, 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 falling . The significance of prestigious because we are so identified with the cause of freedom, therefore if we are rising, our influence is spreading if our prestige is spreading. Those who stand now on the razor edge of decision between us or between the communists is for one reason whether they should use the system of freedom or the system of communism, they will be persuaded to follow our example. There have been several indications are prestige is not as high as it once was. The resultallen said of our being second in space with sputnik in 1957, and i paraphrase him he says many of these countries equate Space Development to scientific productivity and scientific advancement. Therefore, he says, many of these countries feel the soviet union which was once a backwards is now on par with the United States. The, growth in the soviet union is greater than ours. This has a great affect on the developed world which faces problems of low income and high population density and inadequate resources. A gallup poll in february asked people in 10 countries which country they thought would be first in 1970 both scientifically and military militarily. Every country except greece felt it would be the soviet union by 1970. In the post u. N. , particular dealing with red china, we received support of a position we have taken by only two african countries. One liberia and the other, south inica, not a popular country africa. Every other african country eithers estate either abstained or voted against us. More countries voted against us in asia than voted with us. On the resolution you are so much opposed to, the same thing happened the candidate who is a candidate for president of it called to castro to get the there are many indications. Both supporting soviet Foreign Policy at the u. N. Say our prestige is not so hot. The longer we give the image of being on the rise, the longer we give the image of vitality. Senatorn i would say kennedy state and is not going to help our gallup polls abroad and is not going to help our prestige either. Lets look at the vote in the congo. Lets look cap the situation with regard to Economic Growth as it really is. We find the soviet union is a very primitive economy. Not catching up with us. We are well ahead and we can stay ahead, provided we have confidence in america and do not run her down in order to build her up. We can look at other items senator kennedy has named. This whole matter of prestige come in the final analysis, to stand for what is right and getting back to this matter we discussed at the outset, i can think of nothing that would be a greater blow to the prestige of the United States among the free nations in asia than for us to take senator kennedys advice and go against what a majority of the members of the senate both democrat and republican said in 1955 as to say in advance we will surrender in areas to the communists. If the United States is going to maintain its strength and prestige, we must not only be strong militarily and economically, we we must be firm diplomatically. Certainly, we have been speaking of whether we should have retreat or defeat. Lets remember, the way to win is not to retreat and not to surrender. Thank you gentlemen. As we mentioned at the opening of this program, the candidates agreed to determine who had the last word. The i would repeat the ground rules agreed upon by representative of the candidate in the radio and television network. The entire hour was devoted to answering questions from the reporters. Each candidate was questioned in turn and each had the opportunity to comment on the answer of his opponent. The reporters were free to ask any question on any subject. Neither candidate was given any advance information on any questions that would be asked. Those were the coin those were the conditions agreed upon for this third meeting of the candidates tonight. I might add that also agreed upon was the fact that when the hour got down to the last few minutes, if there was not sufficient time left for another question and a suitable time for an answer, the questioning would end at that point. And that is the situation at this moment. After reviewing the rules for this evening, i might use the remaining few moments of the hour to tell you something about the other arrangements for this the participants a continent apart. I would emphasize first each candidate was in a studio alone except for three photographers and three reporters of the press the television. Those studios, identical in every detail of lighting, background, and physical equipment, even to the decorating. The news men in the first studio have also experienced a somewhat similar isolation. I would remind you the fourth in the series of these historic joint appearances is scheduled for friday, october 21. At that time, the candidates will again share the same platform to discuss Foreign Policy. Good night. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer next on American History tv, we are joined by barbara perry, president ial studies director at the university of virginias miller center. She looked back at the four debates in the fall of 1960 between incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon and massachusetts senator john f. Kennedy. The firstever televised debates between president ial candidates. First, a brief look at mr. Nixon and mr. Kennedy during their first meeting in chicago on september 26, 1960. The television and radio stations of the u. S. And their