them want. it's been charged in some quarters, mr. vice president, that many of the hungarians that have been admitted to this country were members of the party at one time. from your of our screening procedures and so on, what is your evaluation of the danger from that source? well, let me say, ken, that you're an expert on that field yourself, because of your service on the judiciary committee and your of immigration affairs. i can only give you my appraisal and my appraisal is that there is no signifier and security risk to the united states from hungary and refugees. we have to remember this that having lived in a communist country, that some of these young people had to to some organizations that were perhaps dominated by communists in order to hold a job. but on the other hand, i think they have proved their devotion to liberty and their the fact that they oppose communism by the fact that many of them either fought against the communist or supported those who

were fighting against them. and so i say we don't need to worry about any significant risk from this source. and i feel that these people should be brought in under the procedures that we currently are following in which they are being screened, in my opinion, adequately. let me turn to another subject. the president, as recently asked congress for standby powers to send united states troops to the middle east in case trouble there. now, our position has arisen to some aspects of this proposal. what do you think is likely to happen in congress about president's proposal? i think the president's proposal will be approved substantially in the form that it has been proposed. i mean, that that means no changes at all will be made. but i think that proposal has been very carefully thought out by the president and working with his advisors in the state department. and i think under the circumstances that after congress has thoroughly exploded, as they will, that the majority of congress, both in the senate and the house will

approve it. what about the curbs that are being suggested on this and by powers? will they be likely to be of such a character as to tie his hands in a way that the program will be robbed of its effectiveness, do you think? it's very difficult to say at this time what curbs are eventually going to be passed, if any, by the congress. i will only say this, that to place too many restrictions on the president's power would, of course, mean that the proposal would lose the very effect that it was intended to have. and we certainly hope that the congress will give very serious consideration to any proposed curbs before adopting them. i might say, incidentally, that another feature that i think we should mention is the economic program, which is part of the president's proposal. i think we've all noted that some opposition has arisen to those economic. i think in this field we should recognize that the two the two

parts of the proposals must go together. on the one hand, these countries must be, if they desire to be protected from inferior fashion or from attack from abroad, they must be assured that we will stand with them. but on the other hand, to get at the basic problems in the area and to create a really sound piece, we must also have a program in which we are able to assist them economically. and for that reason, think the congress, as it considers this program eventually will not place too many restrictions on the president insofar as the economic are concerned. you think both of those then should be bound up in the resolution adopted? i am not wedded necessarily, and i don't think that the president is to the the language of the resolution as it is. we we recognize the right of the congress to have its its say with regard to what changes might be made. but i do think it is important that the general be followed and

the economic part of the resolution be passed and approved along with the part dealing with defending these countries from military aggression and internal. the other day you made a very significant and important when you were presiding over the senate on the filibuster rule and now that's tied in people's minds with the civil rights issue. do you think likely to see action in this congress civil rights legislation? i would say this just to get it in perspective. i think there is a much better chance that we will have action on civil rights legislation in this congress than there was in the last. and incidentally, may i say also that we of us who are interested in this cause of appreciated the leadership you've given to this in the house of representatives, where, of course, the bill was passed in the last session. i think first you will agree with me that the civil rights proposals of the president will again pass the congress. and this session. and i think that now in senate, the climate is much better.

it was two years ago and even a year ago or passage of a substantial portion of that program this year. i think the chances are good. it's difficult to say that they are short. this past week, we've the president's budget message and when that was read to us, the house, the chairman of the appropriations committee who is of course a democrat, got up immediately afterwards and made a speech about cutting down the spending and saying that the budget figures were too high and that we should reduce. do have any comment on that, on the budget or are they attack on it as being too large on the part of the democratic side? well, i may say that we all interested in having our budget as low as is consistent our national security and with our national. and i might say to that we will be very happy to have strong

support. our friends in the democratic side of the aisle, of the aisle, in support this principle. i think, as you are perhaps aware of that has not been a consistent at least by a majority of that of our friends on the other side of the aisle in the past and i am sure that if that if they do present proposals with regard to the budget which will affect the saving without endangering the security of the united states or without reducing the service that the people want and that they should have, that they will find support for those proposals turning to a more general subject, the president. and on the political side, the president has repeatedly his desire to create a modern party. i wonder what that term means to. you and what are the chances success for achieving modern republicanism as the president uses that phrase? or can it be rather difficult to

to describe what that term means, the time that we have today? i perhaps that to me and i can say this, where the president cannot think the modern republican party means a republican party, which stands for the kind of enlightened and progressive leadership that president eisenhower has furnished the american people in the past four years, and that he will continue to furnish and in the next four years, it's kind of leadership which recognizes our world responsibilities, which is conservative, as he has often said, dealing with our money. but which also recognizes that there are certain human needs which must be met and in which the federal government work in partnership with states and individual to meet. in the last congress, you and the president smashing victories all over this country. still, the democrats retain congress. have you got any explanation for that? i suppose if i had the real explanation and that i'd be a political expert, which

unequaled in the history of the country we've all been trying to find out why that happened. and i think perhaps of it may be due to first the change in voter habits in the country. our people now are voting for men and for candidates than for parties. they were highly selective. they would go down the line and for a republican for president, a democrat for governor, and then for a republican for the house and for a democrat example for city council in the like. and so i think that the best as far as those of us who are republicans are concerned and this is our good advice to our democratic is this better organization and better candidates. i have found that where we had top organization, top candidates, that generally speaking want. and then, of course, i would add to that as far as the republicans are concerned, that the those who are have good organization and who are good candidates should also be

supporting actively and articulately the eisenhower philosophy, which the republican party has now adopted. we have time for just one short question. as we start off a 57, do you think our chances for world peace are better or worse than they were a year ago? i think they are as good as they were a year ago. there are dangers which exist today, which existed then. but i do feel that with the enlightened leadership that we in this country, working with our allies abroad, that the chances are at least as good and we hope to make them better. thank you. ladies and gentlemen, our guest today has been the vice president of the united. please try to be with me two weeks from today when the new senator from new york, jacob javits, will be ourthis is congg

with. let's look at congress. our guest was elected to the house of representatives four years later, to the senate. and two years after that, vice president of the united states. he has had a meteoric rise in government unmatched by anyone in recent history. he's known today is probably the most active vice president in the entire history of our country. it's an honor and privilege to welcome to the program. the vice president, the united states. --, it's fine to have you here to talk to the people in new york. well, thank you very much, ken. i'm always delighted to appear on your program. this is an annual event on my calendars. you know. i want to ask you first about the progress of president's program in congress. are you satisfied with the way it's going? well, i couldn't say that i am satisfied with the progress. of course, we have to have in mind that this is an election year and that the president has a democratic and considering

those factors, considerable progress has been made in the foreign field, in the field of national defense. i think the congress will come out with a good record. but in the domestic field, for example, in areas like labor legislation, i'm afraid that the president is going to get very little of the program that he's asked for, for the benefit of the nation. tell me, how do you view economic outlook today? well, of course, this is the current guessing game as to what will happen to a free economy and no one can say with certainty what the trends will be. but i feel myself, on the basis of a recent reports that i have read that for the first time in several months, the american people can look to the economic future with real optimism. i say real optimism because there are several factors which prove that the economy is

basically sound and that the forces of downturn have spent themselves and that the forces of upturn of growth are beginning to reassert themselves. i don't need to go into this. isn't the time or the place to the figures, the facts. but there are a number of indices which show a definite upturn in many respects. and i think looking through the summer months and the fall months that we can assume that our economy is again going to be the way up toward the full production that we all want. you've recently made some remarks on the sherman adams situation, and they have been interpreted. interpreted by many people as meaning that you think it's up to the president to decide whether governor adams stays on or not. would that be a correct interpretation? but, yes, yes, it is a correct interpretation. after all, sherman adams is the president's administrative assistant, his chief assistant.

the president knows him. the president has indicated that he believes he should be retained in the position that he holes. in the absence, of course, of other proof which might indicate some activities which have not come to light to date and i can only say that i have great confidence, as i'm sure the american people have in the integrity of the president and his judgment of men and in the moral and ethical standards that he will apply in this case as well as in all the other cases involving the people in his administration. i assume there is a distinction between cases where there was what we call a quid pro quo for action taken and a case such as this, where there is no evidence to date to that effect. exactly. i would say, for example, that you can't compare this case with a case where someone received a

favor or a gift and then fixed a tax case or someone received a gift and then obtained an i.r.s. loan for the one who was responsible for giving him the gift. there were many instances of that type in the previous administration, as you're aware. i'm aware of them because i was on one of the committees that investigated them. and in this instance, as the president has pointed out, there has been no proof that mr. adams, after he received the gifts that he admitted receiving, changed his official action in any way and that any favor was granted to the individual who was gift giver. that would not have been granted under the normal circumstances. and the administration process. mr. vice president, you said you recently had a stormy tour of south america. and let me ask you this question. i understood that you were warned not to go to venezuela to

now. why did you go there in the face of warnings? well, ken, i can only say this, that i've had warnings and many of the countries that i have visited and, i visited over 50 in the last five years with mrs. nixon warnings from communist elements and extremist elements that if i came, there would be demonstrations. let me put it the other way. suppose after the communists had warned that they would demonstrate that i had said i wouldn't go. what does this put the position of the united states in? it would make it appear that first, that the communist venezuela, which they do not, because they are a very small minority. and second, it would make it appear that a representative of the united states was being blackmailed, that he was afraid go and to face up to these demonstrators. and i can only say that as far as our foreign policy is concerned, it seemed to me that it was essential that we not show a picture to the world of a representative of the united states, in effect, putting his tail between, his legs and

running whenever the communists happened to make a threat of this type. and may i say to in that connection, i think the developments since have proved that it was right to go. right to go, because by going the communists overplayed their hands. and all over latin america. some government leaders who previously didn't believe that the communists were a real danger or that they would resort to violence, now have changed their views. and also, i think that it was a plus from the standpoint of alerting the people in the united states to some of the problems in latin america and the necessity for dealing with them effectively. tell me what, changes you think would help our united states policies with our southern? well, of course, we haven't time to go into detail, but i would sum it up very briefly in this way. the first place we have a great deal of cultural exchange with latin america. the day students and teachers and labor leaders and the like. i think this has to be greatly

stepped up. in fact, i would double it if the funds were available and i would hope the congress would provide it. and the second place we need to reduce the barriers to trade which currently exists to between latin america and the united states. they are among our best customers today. we depend upon them. they depend upon us. so it is essential to gradually reduce these barriers through the years. and third, there must be a greater flow of capital, both private capital and government capital from the united states into, latin america. i would just summarize by saying that the people of latin america are friendly to the united states, the great majority of them. they want to trade with us. they want to have good political and diplomatic relations with us. and i would say, because this is the case, it is most essential that we recognize that what helps latin america raises the standard of living of the poor people in many parts of this continent also helps us a good, sound, healthy, prosperous latin

america means a more prosperous united states. what do you think of the idea of sending some of our major league baseball teams down there on a post-season tour? south and latin america. well, of course, i've heard some wags suggest that this shouldn't be done unless we allow the spitball to be used again. i can only say that that i found in latin america that one thing we have in common among a lot of other things is the love for baseball. and i would think that if one or two of our big league ball teams could make a tour of latin america, that this, along with our other exchange programs, would be very effective in creating goodwill. what do you think will be the effect of the recent executions of former premier nash and other hungarian leaders on the international communist movement? can i can answer question from a personal standpoint? in 1947, when i was in great

britain, i had an interview with arthur horner, who was the head of the miners union in britain. in talking to him, i found he took the complete communist internationally. and noted just in the paper, i think a couple of days ago, a few days ago, that arthur horner had, in effect, criticized the this action had been taken under the direction of the soviet leaders in which knowledge and the others who participated in the hungarian were executed. i can say that as far as this particular action is concerned, it's going to have a very effect from the standpoint of the soviet leaders on the communist movement around the world. one other thing i should add, however, that i think is rather significant from our standpoint, the standpoint the free nations generally, the communist leaders of the soviet union must have known that this cruel and brutal would have such an effect. so why did they do it? why did they risk losing this

support of people like horner and others around the world? it seems to me that they must have had great provocation to do it, and the provocation must have been that they are having real trouble. their satellites that they had to show the iron fist. and so they willing to write off to risk the loss of some support of their communist parties and other parts of the world in order to keep control in the satellites. i think that execution of knowledge is the best proof we could have that they are having troubles behind the iron curtain. you're going to campaign in the congressional elections next fall. well, i imagine i'll make a few speeches, ken. do you think this business downturn will hurt the republican chances in the next election if the business downturn is a major issue in november as it is today? it will hurt our chances. but for those that are indicating that all is lost, i say we should take lesson out of the book of harry truman. i remember that his stock was

lower june of 1948 than the republican stock is today, and he won in november. i think if we put on a good fighting, aggressive campaign that we can make a real showing in those congressional races and in the various state races next november. i want to ask you this question, mr. vice president. i see your picture on a lot of magazine covers, and i read a lot of stories, what they call the known nixon. what do you think about that? is there a new nixon? well, again, it's very difficult for any man to analyze what his critics say about him personally. i can only say i would be very ashamed if i hadn't changed. and the 11 years that i've been in public service and i think you'd would probably say the same thing about yourself. i will say, however, that i do believe that i have followed certain principles, certain principles with regard to the economy, with regard to our

responsibility. throughout those 11 years and will stand on my record to indicate that, there has been some consistency. so as far as the new nixon is concerned, i might suggest that it's very possible that many of those who are finding the new nixon may not even know the known. the old one. do you think that your fundamental principles have changed in any way over the years? fundamental principles. in the general sense, i would say have not changed. what changes are the facts that come to your attention. how you deal with problems in carrying out those principles. and in that respect, all get new facts and new experience. what's your reaction? mr. president, to this talk that president eisenhower will retire before the end of his term? well, using a good midwestern term that my father used to use. hogwash. i've never heard anything so ridiculous. there's never been any

discussion that by the president or those in his official family and who knows, the president and his great dedication to public service would realize that he would not indulge or engage in this kind of a patent political action. thank you very much, mr. vice president. ladies and gentlemen, our guest today has been the vice president of the united states. i hope you'll be able to be with me two weeks fromgood morning ed

morning. what a gorgeous day. welcome to the 20th annual seminar on the american revolution. my name is beth hill and i'm e