Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon First Joint Radio-Television Broadcast Page 3

     MR. FLEMING. Senator, the Vice President in his campaign has said that you are naive and at times immature. He has raised the question of leadership.
     On this issue, why do you think people should vote for you rather than the Vice President?

     MR. KENNEDY. Well, the Vice President and I came to the Congress together in 1946.
     We both served in the Labor Committee. I've been there now for fourteen years, the same period of time that he has, so that our experience in government is comparable.
     Secondly, I think the question is "What are the programs that we advocate?"
     What is the party record that we lead?
     I come out of the Democratic party, which in this century has produced Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and which supported and sustained these programs which I've discussed tonight.
     Mr. Nixon comes out of the Republican party. He was nominated by it. And it is a fact that through most of these last 25 years the Republican leadership has opposed Federal aid for education, medical care for the aged, development of the Tennessee Valley, development of our natural resources.     
I think Mr. Nixon is an effective leader of his party. I hope he would grant me the same.
     The question before us is: Which point of view and which party do we want to lead the United States?

     MR. SMITH.. Mr. Nixon, would you like to comment on that statement?

     MR. NIXON. I have no comment.

     MR. SMITH.. The next question--Mr. Novins.

     MR. NOVINS. Mr. Vice President, your campaign stresses the value of your 8-year experience, and the question arises as to whether that experience was as an observer or as a participant or as an initiator of policymaking.
     Would you tell us, please, specifically what major proposals you have made in the last 8 years that have been adopted by the administration?

     MR. NIXON. It would be rather difficult to cover them in eight and--in two and a half minutes.
     I would suggest that these proposals could be mentioned:
     First, after each of my foreign trips, I have made recommendations that have been adopted.
     For example, after my first trip abroad, I strongly recommended that we increase our exchange programs particularly as they related to exchange of persons, of leaders in the labor field and in the information field.
     After my trip to South America, I made recommendations that a separate inter-American lending agency be set up which the South American nations would like much better than a lend--than to participate in the lending agencies which treated all the countries of the world the same.
     I have made other recommendations after each of the other trips.
     For example, after my trip abroad to Hungary, I made some recommendations with regard to the Hungarian refugee situation which were adopted, not only by the President but some of them were enacted into law by the Congress.
     Within the administration, as a chairman of the President's Committee on Price Stability and Economic Growth, I have had the opportunity to make recommendations which have been adopted within the Administration and which I think have been reasonably effective.
     I know Senator Kennedy suggested in his speech at Cleveland yesterday that that committee had not been particularly effective. I would only suggest that while we do not take the credit for it, I would not presume to, that since that committee has been formed, the price line has been held very well within the United States.

     MR. KENNEDY. Well, I would say in the latter that the--and that's what I found somewhat unsatisfactory about the figures, Mr. Nixon, that you used in your previous speech. When you talked about the Truman administration, you--Mr. Truman came to office in 1944, and at the end of the war, and the difficulties that were facing the United States during that period of transition, 1946, when price controls were lifted, so it's rather difficult to use an overall figure taking those 7 years and comparing them to the last 8 years. I prefer to take the overall percentage record of the last 20 years of the Democrats and the 8 years of the Republicans to show an overall period of growth.
     In regard to price stability, I'm not aware that that committee did produce recommendations that ever were, certainly, before the Congress from the point of view of legislation in regard to controlling prices. In regard to the exchange of students and labor unions, I am chairman of the subcommittee on Africa and I think that one of the most unfortunate phases of our policy towards that country was the very minute number of exchanges that we had. I think it's true of Latin America also. We did come forward with a program of students for the Congo of over 300, which was more than the Federal Government had for all of Africa the previous year
     So that I don't think that we have moved at least in those two areas with sufficient vigor.

     MR. SMITH.. The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Warren.

     MR. WARREN. Senator Kennedy, during your brief speech a few minutes ago you mentioned farm surpluses.

     MR. KENNEDY. That s correct.

     MR. WARREN. I'd like to ask this: It's a fact, I think, that presidential candidates traditionally make promises to farmers. Lots of people, I think, don't understand why the Government pays farmers for not producing certain crops or paying farmers, if they overproduce for that matter. Now, let me ask, sir:
     Why can't the farmer operate like the businessman who operates a factory? If an auto company overproduces a certain model car Uncle Sam doesn't step in and buy up the surplus. Why this constant courting of the farmer?

     MR. KENNEDY. Well, because I think that if the Federal Government moved out of the program and withdrew its support, then I think you would have complete economic chaos. The farmer plants in the spring and harvests in the fall. There are hundreds of thousands of them. They really don't--are not able to control their market very well. They bring their crops in or their livestock in, many of them, about the same time. They have only a few purchasers that buy their milk or their hogs, a few large companies, in many cases, and, therefore, the farmer is not in a position to bargain very effectively in the marketplace.
     I think the experience of the 20's has shown what a free market could do to agriculture. And if the agricultural economy collapses, then the economy of the rest of the United States sooner or later will collapse.
     The farmers are the No. 1 market for the automobile industry of the United States. The automobile industry is the No. 1 market for steel. So, if the farmers' economy continues to decline as sharply as it has in recent years, then I think you would have a recession in the rest of the country.
     So I think the case for the Government intervention is a good one.
     Secondly, my objection to present farm policy is that there are no effective controls to bring supply and demand into better balance. The dropping of the support price in order to limit production has not worked, and we now have the highest surpluses, $9 billion worth, we've had a higher taxload from the Treasury for the farmer in the last few years with the lowest farm income in many years. I think that this farm policy has failed. In my judgment, the only policy that will work will be for effective supply and demand to be in balance, and that can only be done through governmental action.
     I, therefore suggest that in those basic commodities which are supported, that the Federal Government, after endorsement by the farmers in that commodity, attempt to bring supply and demand into balance, attempt effective production controls so that we won't have that 5 or 6 percent surplus which breaks the price 15 or 20 percent.
     I think Mr. Benson's program has failed, and I must say, after reading the Vice President's speech before the farmers, as he read mine, I don't believe that it's very much different from Mr. Benson's. I don't think it provides effective governmental controls. I think the support prices are tied to the average market price of the last 3 years, which was Mr. Benson's theory. I, therefore, do not believe that this is a sharp enough breach with the past to give us any hope of success for the future.

     MR. SMITH.. Mr. Nixon, comment?

     MR. NIXON. I of course, disagree with Senator Kennedy insofar as his suggestion as to what should be done with re--on the farm program.
     He has made the suggestion that what we need is to move in the direction of more government controls, a suggestion that would also mean raising prices that the consumers pay for products and imposing upon the farmers controls on acreage even far more than they have today.
     I think this is the wrong direction. I don't think this has worked in the past; I do not think it will work in the future.
     The program that I have advocated is one which departs from the present program that we have in this respect.
     It recognizes that the Government has a responsibility to get the farmer out of the trouble he presently is in because the Government got him into it, and that's the fundamental reason why we can't let the farmer go by himself at the present time. The farmer produced these surpluses because the government asked him to, through legislation during the war.
     Now that we have these surpluses, it's our responsibility to indemnify the farmer during that period that we get rid of the farmer--the surpluses. Until we get the surpluses off the farmer's back, however, we should have a program, such as I announced, which will see that farm income holds up. But I would propose holding that income up, not through a type of program that Senator Kennedy has suggested that would raise prices, but one that would indemnify the farmer, pay the farmer in kind from the products which are in surplus.