what questions will be asked. time alone determines who will be asked the final question. the first question is for senator kennedy. wordsterday used the trigger-happy to describe president nixon. you said the next president would come face-to-face with a serious crisis in berlin. would you take military action to defend berlin. kennedy: we have a contractual right to be in berlin. by thes been reinforced president of the united states and other nations under nato. i have stated on many occasions that we must meet are commitment

to berlin. it is a commitment we must meet if we are going to protect the security of western europe. i don't think there's any doubt in the mind of any american and i hope there is not any doubt in the mind of people in west berlin. i'm sure there is not any doubt in the mind of the russians. we will knit -- meet our commitment to the freedom of west berlin. the statement that senator kennedy made was to the effect that there were trigger-happy republicans, that an indication of trigger-happy republicans. i resent that comment because it is an implication that republicans have been trigger-happy and would lead the nation into war. , would remind senator kennedy senator whoublican has led the country into the

war. i do say that any statement to the effect that the republican party is trigger-happy is belied by the record. we have kept out of other wars and that does not indicate that we have been sure happy. we have been strong but not trigger-happy. there is some concern about the necessity of defending or len -- of berlin. there isn't any question about what the united american people would do in the event there were an attempt by the communist takeover berlin. for: the next question is vice president next -- nixon. paneled: concerning the offshore islands in the formosa strait. the unitedaunch

states into a war by sending the military forces to resist this if theion, and conventional forces failed to halt such an invasion, would you authorize the use of nuclear weapons? it would be completely irresponsible for a candidate for presidency or the president himself to indicate the course of action and weapons he would use in the event of such an attack. i will say this, in the event such an attack occurred and in the event the attack was a prelude to an attack on formosa, which would be the indication today because the chinese communist say over and over again that there objective is not the or -- offshore island that they only consider them a stepping stone to taking formosa. there isn't any question that the united states would again honor our treaty obligations and

standby our ally in formosa but it -- in formosa. but to indicate the nature of this response would be incorrect and inappropriate and not in the best interest of the united states. i will only say this in addition . to do what senator kennedy has suggested, that we will surrender these islands or force our allies to surrender them in advance is not something that would lead to peace. it would lead, in my opinion, to war. this is the history of dealing with dictators and something that senator kennedy and all americans must know. we tried this with hitler's and it did not work. austria and then he went on to the sedate and land, and each time this was all that he wanted. what do the chinese communists want?

they don't just want formosa, they want the world. the question is that if you surrender or indicate in advance that you are not going to surrender any part of the free them, it does not satisfy come it only whets the appetite. the question comes, when do you stop them? i have often heard president eisenhower make the statement, that is it, we will not start the process of indicating this point are that point is not the place to stop those who threaten the peace and freedom of the world, where do we stop? i say those of us who stand against the surrender of territory, this or any others, in the face of blackmail or force, are standing in the course that will lead to peace. bill: senator kennedy? kennedy: the united states has a treaty which i voted for in the senate in 1955, defend formosa

and the islands. the islands that nixon is discussing our five miles off china. when i relations committee wrote to the president, we received back, neither you nor any other american need feel that the u.s. will be involved in hostilities. that is the issue, i believe we must meet our commitment to formosa. i support it and the islands. the treaty does not include these two islands. mr. nixon suggest that the united states should go to war if these islands are attacked. i suggest that if formosa is attacked or any area that formosa, an attack on then of course the united states is at war. what mr. nick some wants to do us to theed -- commit

defense of these islands, when they are free territory and not part of the defense of formosa. the commander of the adriatic fleet has said these islands are not worth the bones of a single american. they are not within the treaty area. they were not within the treaty area when the treaty was passed in 1955. spoken with china about reducing the number of troops he has on the islands. bill: the next question is percent of the kennedy. st: you said that it is important that the united states builds its strength. what sort of long period you envisage before there can be a summit conference, and do you

think there can be any new initiatives on the ground of nuclear disarmament or weapons control during this period? kennedy: i think we should strengthen our conventional forces. we should increase the increase .he airlift capacity it may be a long period but we must get started immediately. i must say that i feel that another effort must 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 possess a nuclear capacity. there are indications that because of new inventions that

10-20 nations will have nuclear capacity, including red china, by the end of the presidential office in 1964. this is extremely serious. of not makingce every effort we could make to provide for some control over these weapons i think would be a great mistake. one of my disagreements with the present administration is that i don't feel a real effort has been made on the sensitive subject not only of nuclear control the general disarmament. people in the federal government have been working on this problem. i believe it is reflected on our successes and failures in geneva. we may not be able to get satisfactory assurance, and maybe necessary for us to begin testing again, but i hope that the next administration will make one last great effort to provide control of nuclear

testing and nuclear weapons, and if possible, control of outer space free from nuclear weapons. if we cannot succeed we must strengthen ourselves, but i would make the effort, because i think the state of the world and future and human race is involved in defense -- preventing a nuclear war. nixon: i'm going to make a major speech on the subject next week before the next debate. i will have an opportunity then to answer questions which may arise with regard to my position on it. there is no question but that we must move forward and every possible way to reduce the danger of war and move toward controlled disarmament. this,so lets have in mind when senator kennedy suggests we have not been making an effort, he does not know he's been talking about.

it is not the number of people working in an administration, it is a matter of who they are. this is one of the highest level operations. we have gone the extra mile and then some and making offers to the soviet union on disarmament. 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. that inkennedy forgets the same beat -- debate about the formosa resolution, he voted against an amendment, and in this amendment, which passed the senate overwhelmingly, it puts the senate of the united states on record with the majority of the senators on party holding fort -- for it, put them on

record against the very position the senator takes now of surrendering or indicating in advance that the united states will not defend the offshore islands. bill: the next question is by mr. drummond for vice president nixon. panelist: i would like to raise another aspect of the same question. it is my understanding that president eisenhower never and matsuthat hanoi could be defended under all circumstances is a matter of principle. i heard secretary dulles at a press conference in 1958 say that he thought it was a mistake for shanghai scheck to deploy troops to these islands. what has led you to take what appears to be a different position on this subject? nixon: referring to the secretary dulles and his press conference, i think if you read it all, you will find that he

also indicated in the press conference that when the troops are withdrawn from hanoi, the implication was that someone could be better defended. there is not enough heavy artillery. i don't think there is any indication that keneally and matsu should not be defended. as far as president eisenhower is concerned, i have often heard him discuss this question, as i related a moment ago, the president has always indicated that we must not make the mistake in dealing with dictators, and indicating we will make a concession at the point of a gun. whatever you do that, inevitably the dictator is encouraged to try it again. first it will be these islands, next it may be formosa. what will we do then?

my point is this, once you follow this course of action of indicating you're not going to defend a particular area, the inevitable result is that it encourages a man who is determined to congress a world to press you to the point of no return. that means war. we went through this tragic experience leading to world war ii and learned our lesson again in korea. we must not learned again. again -- learnd it again. senator johnson was among those who rejected the position. the senate was right because they knew the lessons of history. i would trust that senator kennedy would change his position on it, change it because as long as he is a major presidential candidate, he continues to suggest that we

turn over these islands, he is only encouraging the aggressors to press the united states to the point where war would be inedible. -- inevitable. the road to war is always paved with good intentions. we are not quite have peace by giving an and indicating in advance that we are not going to defend what has become a symbol of freedom. kennedy: i don't think it is possible for mr. nexen to state the record. facts.distorted the fromress conference secretary dulles says that we dis this colluded those -- cluded those islands from the treaty. that does not commit us to defend that area.

i completely sustain the treaty, i voted for it, i would take any action necessary to defend the treaty, formosa, and the pesky door islands. the islands are not within the treaty area, and i do not -- in 1955, the administration was continuing to try and dissuade in 1959. to go to war to me would seem a tragic mistake. i stand with the secretary of state who said these islands are indefensible. attack formosa,

they know it would mean a war. i would not hand over control of these islands under any wing of gun, but the treaty is very precise. off theher islands are coast of china, and i would question why nixon is questioning the defense of these islands and not the communist control of cuba. the chairman of the republican national committee declared earlier this week that you owed vice president nixon and the republican party a public apology for some strong charges made by former president harry truman who bluntly suggested where the republican party could go. to think you own apology? mr.edy: i must say that truman has his method of expressing things. he has been in politics for 50

years and been president of the united states. i don't think there is anything that i can say to resident truman that is going to cause him at the age of 76 to change his particular speaking pattern. perhaps mrs. truman can, but i cannot. any comment, mr. vice president? nixon: i think so. both senator kennedy and i have ire.had mr. truman's i do want to see one thing, we all have tempers. but when a man is president of the united states or a former president, he has an obligation not to lose his temper in public. one thing i've noted as i have traveled around the country is the tremendous number of children who come out see the presidential candidates. theirmothers holding babies up so they can see a man who might be president of the

united states. i know senator kennedy sees them, too. it makes you realize that whoever is president is going to be a man who all of the children of america will either look up to or down to. i can only say that i'm very proud that president eisenhower restored dignity and decency, and frankly, good language and good conduct to the presidency of the united states. i only hope it should i win this election, that i can 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 to the man in the white house, and whatever he may think of his policies, he can say, there is a man who maintains the kind of personal standards that i would want my child staff. vice president, i would like to return to the area

of dealing with the communists. critics have claimed that on at least three occasions in recent years, on the sending of american troops in indochina -- american troops to indochina, and the flight of the u2 in may, and our commitment to the offshore islands, you have overstated the administrative position, that you have taken a more bellicose position in president eisenhower. just two days ago you said that you called on senator kennedy to serve notice around the world that we will not concede one inch more anyplace, when we did retreat from the balkan islands. nixon: of course it is a criticism that is being made. i have supported the administration's position and i

think that position has been correct. i think my position is been correct. as far as indochina was concerned, i stated over and over that it was essential during that. -- during that period that we would not tolerate indochina falling under communist domination. -- as a result of our taking a strong stand, the civil war was ended, and today at least in the south of indochina, the communist have moved out and we have a strong, free area there. i would like to point out that i have been supporting the president's position on u2's throughout. i think he was correct in ordering these flights and correct in his decision to continue the flight while the process was going on. a discussion that senator kennedy had shortly after his statement about regret, that he made the

statement that he felt these particular flights were ones that should not have occurred at that time, and the indication was how mr. khrushchev what felt -- how we would have felt if mr. khrushchev had a flight over the united states while he was visiting here? communistswer is the espionage goes on all the time. the answer is that the united states cannot afford to have an espionage lapse or intelligence lag. referring to your question about i amffshore islands, what against is the constant reference of surrendering these islands. the senator forgets to point out that the key vote in a boat i have referred to many times is

one that rejected his position. that -- thew senators knew that you should not indicate to the communists in advance you will surrender an area. because they know as senator kennedy will have to know that if you do that, you encourage them to more aggression. kennedy: on indochina, mr. nick to -- and talked about putting american voice --boys into indochina. on the question of the u-2 flights, i thought the u-2 flight in may just before the conference was a mistake and timing because of the hazards involved if the summit had any hope of success. i never criticized the u-2 flights in general. i know that espionage continues to go on on both sides.

after the u-2 flights, the president indicated the fights were going on even though the administration had canceled the flight on may 12. number three, the vice president suggest we should keep the communist in doubt as to whether we should fight. het is not what he's saying, is indicating we should fight for these islands come what may because they are, in his words, in the area free. -- in the area of freedom. he did not take this position in other areas, including cuba. i'm merely saying that the united states should meet its commitments to formosa. the admiral has indicated that these islands we are talking about are not worth the bones of a single american soldier. i think we should make it very

clear, mr. nixon is extending the commitment. panelist: mr. kennedy, adam powell, in the course of his speaking tour on your behalf is saying, the ku klux klan is rising again in this campaign. if it does not 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-minded. governor tsao is saying much the same thing. what i would like to ask is what is the purpose of this sort of thing and how you feel about it? clandy: the head of the has indicated in a statement that he was not going to vote for me, that he would vote for

mr. nixon. suggest that this indicates mr. nixon has the slightest sympathy, involvement or in any way or any inferences, involvement with the ku klux klan. this wholenows that suggestedt i've never he has done anything but disapprove of this. that is what i do now, i disapprove the issue, i do not suggest that mr. next dozen anyway. nixon: i welcome this opportunity to join senator kennedy in that statement and say before this largest television audience in history, something i've been saying in the past and will always see in the future. in our last debate, i pointed out that it was my position that americans must choose the best man that either party can produce.

we cannot settle for anything but the best. that of course means the best man that this nation can produce, and that means we cannot have any tests of religion or race, it must be a test of a man. also as far as religion is concerned, i have seen communism abroad and i have see what it does. communism is the enemy of all religion. we do believe in god must join together and we must not be divided on this issue. the worst thing i can think to happen in this campaign would be repudiate thely i ku klux klan and i will not tolerate it. i've ordered all of my people have nothing to do with it. i say to this great audience, whoever may be listening, 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 and we surly cannot have it in the presidency. mr. vice president, some of your early campaign literature said you were making a study to see if new laws were needed to protect the public against excessive use of power by labor unions. have you decided whether such new laws are needed, and if so, what would they do? planning a speech on that subject next week. also, so that we can get the the questionsfor in, it will be before the next debate. i will state the play that i lossve that in this era, laws shouldssed --

be passed to give the president more ability to deal with this. mr. kennedy has taken the position, he is indicated that he would approve of compulsory arbitration. i understand in his last speech for the steelworkers union that he change that position and indicated he felt that government seizure might be the [indiscernible] i do not believe we should have compulsory arbitration or seizure. give the that when you escape hatch of going to the government to get it settled, most of these great strikes will end up being settled. will mean wage control, price control, all of the things we do not want.

but i do believe that we can get to the president of united which power and position would enable him to be more effective than we have been in handling these the record in handling has been very good during this administration. strikes in thes last seven years than the previous seven years by a great deal. gothis critical year, we've to move forward. all americans must move over together and we have to have the greatest cooperation possible between labor and management. we cannot afford a massive effect on the economy. moderator: senator, your comments? i never suggested

the solution to the national dispute. i'm not opposed to that. i neveri'm suggesting the prest should be given other weapons to protect the national interest beyond the injunction provision of the mccarthy act. i don't know what the vice president is talking about. don't need the fact-finding committee. also, the power of the fact-finding commission to make recommendations that have great force. one of the additional powers i would suggest, the president having four or five hours. hpowers. the union would not be which power to use. both sides should have an agreement themselves before taking it to the government. setting up a fact-finding committee. the powers are limited.

there could be in injunction if there is a national emergency. unless it went to the congress. this is a different matter. the president should have a variety of things he could do. therefore, there would be incentives. they felt the injunction of 80 days would break the union did not happen. moderator: the next question is for senator kennedy. >> mr. kennedy, vice president nixon said the two-party platform and yours would be $10 million more than is. his. would you do that?/ i. kennedy: as i have stated, believe in a balanced budget and have supported that concept during my 14 years in congress. the only time an unbalanced

budget is warranted is an of serious recession or a national emergency where they should be expenditures for national defense. on the cost of our budget, i have stated that our agricultural program will cost $2 billion less. my judgment is the program the vice president proposed would caost $1 billion more than the present program. the most expensive in history. spent more money in agriculture in the past eight years than the 100 years before that. i i believe the policy of this administration follows added three billion dollars a year. that is a burden on the taxpayers. i would hope under a different

monetary policy, it would be possible to reduce that burden. third, i think it is possible to billion on dividend withholdings and expenses. i've suggested the medical care for the aging and the bill that t $1ress has passed will cos billion on the treasury. the proposal i have put forward and many of the members of my party support, the medicare financed under social security. it is less than three cents a day per person for medical care, doctors and nurses. would spendnt, we morning on this administration -- more money on on this this administration.

i believe the next administration to work and balanced budget and that would be my intention. is --ct of the matter here is where i stand. moderator: mr. vice president? hasnixon: senator kennedy stated multiple times i have misstated his record. i will quote exactly what he said on arbitration and the record will show i have been correct. as far as the figures are concerned tonight, he is engaging in this mirror game of here it is and here it isn't. as far as the medical program is concerned, that is not really a problem because of social security. the people pay it. it comes out of your paycheck. this doesn't mean that people will not be paying the bill. he also indicates it would cost

less than ours. all i can suggest is all the experts indicate it is the most fantastic program, the worst program on the farmers america has had foisted upon it on an election year. senator kennedy left out a part of the cost of the program. a 25% rise in food prices that the people would have to pay. are we going to have that when it will not help the farmers? i don't think we can have that program. change on to say he will the interest rate situation and get more money that way. what he is saying is we will have inflation. we will go back to what we had under president truman where he had control of the federal reserve. i don't believe we should pay our bills through inflation. drummond. next, mr. before the'xon,

convention, you and governor rockefeller said the nation's economic growth ought to be accelerated and the republican platform states the nation needs to quicken the pace of economic growth. is it fair therefore, mr. vice president, to conclude you feel there has been insufficient economic growth during the past eight years? if so, what would you do beyond the present administration policies to step it up? mr. nixon: mr. drummond, i'm never satisfied with the economic growth of this country. i'm not satisfied with it even if there was no communism in the world. particularly in this kind of race, we have to see america grow as fast as we can. because even though we have maintained, as i pointed out in with the debate,

soviet union. even though the growth in this administration as been twice is as much, that is not enough. america should grow enough not only to take care of our needs at home, we have to grow enough to maintain the poise we have a borad.road. it will cost more money. growth will help us win that battle. what do we do about it? believe basically is what we have to do is stimulate the private enterprise sector of the economy in which there is greater possibility for expansion. that is why i have the program of tax reform that would stimulate more investment in our economy. we have to move on other areas. stress area.e

see that all of the people of the united states, the tremendous talents of the people we have, are used. this'll area of civil rights that this whole area of civil whole area of civil rights. we need programs particularly in higher education which will stimulate scientific breakthroughs which will bring more growth. what it adds up to is this -- america has not been standing still. anybody who says america has been standing still for the last 7.5 years has not been traveling around america. we have been moving much faster than we did under truman. what we can and must do.

we need programs that will move america forward so we can stay ahead of the soviet union and win the battle for freedom and peace. moderator: senator kennedy. mr. kennedy: let me correct the statement that under my agriculture program food prices will go up 25%. that is untrue. cents.mer gets 2.5 that would be three cents out of that $.25. tomatoes, itrows costs less to grow the tomatoes then it is for the label on the can. anyone who suggests the program without any figure indicated by the vice president is in error. the administration vetoed the bill passed by the congress twice. the education bill.

the administration and the republican majority has opposed any realistic approach to education. this administration and this country last year had the lowest rate of economic growth of jobs of any major industrialized country in the world in 1959. we have to find 25,000 new jobs a week for the next 10 years. governor rockefeller said five to 10. many say 4.5%. the average growth have been 2.5%. moderator: mr. mcgee has the next question for senator kennedy. >> a moment ago, you mentioned tax loopholes. senator lyndon johnson is from texas which many political leaders feel is in doubt. are hopingin texas

that the rates will not be cut. it refers to inequitable allowance being conspicuous loopholes. do you consider the 27.5% allowance in equitable's and allow it to be cut? mr. kennedy: there are 104 commodities that have some kind of allowance, including oil. i believe all of those should be gone over in detail to make sure no one is getting a tax break, to make sure no one is getting away from paying the taxes they ought to pay which includes oil and all kinds of minerals. everything within the range of taxation. it includes oil abroad. it should be treated differently than here at home. the oil industry has hit hard times. i can assure you that if i am

elected president, the full spectrum will be gone through carefully. if there are any inequities, i will vote to close that loophole. i have voted in the past to reduce the balance for the largest producers. those $5 million down maintain 27.5%. we should study this and other allowances to make a determination of how we can stimulate growth, how we can provide the revenue needed to move our country forward. moderator: mr. vice president. mr. nixon: senator kennedy and my position are completely different. i favor the balance, not because i want to make a lot of oil men rich, it is because i want to make america rich. because this is the stimulation for companies to go out and explore for oil. depreciable have a

allowance, we would have our oil expiration -- exploration cut substantially in this country. it is exactly opposite to the senator. it is because of my belief that if america is going to have the growth that we talk about and we want, the thing to do is not to discourage individual enterprise, not to discourage people to go out and find more minerals, but encourage it. he would be doing the wrong thing. he suggested there are a number of items to take into account. he also said we would get more money to finance this program by dividing the tax laws. i should point out as far as allowances are concerned, the oil allowance is one that provides 80% of all of those involved. you are not going to get much from revenue as far as the

allowances are concerned unless you move in the area that you indicated. usppose this because i want to have more oil exploration, not less. time is growing short so please keep your questions and answers as clear as possible. >> mr. vice president, in the past three years, there has been an axis of more than $4 billion of gold from the united states for two reasons. andps and exports, increased american investments abroad. i would you go about stopping this departure of gold? mr. nixon: the first thing we have to do is continue to keep confidence oabroad and the american dollar. we have to have a balanced budget at home in every possible

circumstance we can. the moment we have lost this confidence in our own fiscal policies at home, it results in gold going up. secondly, we have to increase our exports compared to our imports. we have a very strong program in the department of commerce. it must be stepped up. beyond that, as far as the gold is concerned and the movement of gold, we have to bear in mind that we must get more help from our allies abroad in this great venture in which all three are involved in winning the battle for freedom. america has been carrying a tremendous load. i have favored our programs abroad for military assistance. now we find the countries of europe that we invaded and japan, these countries, some former enemies and some friends,

have recovered. they have to bear a greater share of this load. that is why i'm advocating and will develop during the course of the next administration a program in which we enlist more aid from these other countries 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 ourselves. we can carry a big share but we need help from our friends abroad. these factors will be very helpful in reversing the gold flow. moderator: senator kennedy. -- kennedy: mr. nixon said we have to make sure there are no loopholes. he does not want to go into it. on the question of the gold, the difficulty is if there are heavy

obligations abroad, we have to have a balance of trade but send a good deal of our dollars to sustain other economies. if we will continue to maintain our position, we have to maintain a sound monetary and fiscal policy. we have to have control over inflation. we have to be able to compete in the world market. we have to be able to sell abroad more than we consume if we can meet our obligations. many of the countries around the world still keep restrictions against our goods, going back to where there was a dollar shortage. many of these countries continue to move against our goods. i believe we must be able to compete in the market, in all the basic commodities abroad. we have to be sure to maintain it. we have to persuade the other

countries not to restrict our goods, not to act if there was a dollar gap. we have to persuade them to assume some of the response ibilities that we have maintained. moderator: the question never senator kennedy. >> a question on american prestige. in light of the fact the soviet ushevsador, and that mr. canceled his trip to cuba, i would like to ask you to spell out more fully how you think we should measure american first prestige to determine if it is rising or falling? mr. kennedy: we are so identified with freedom.

we are rising. our influence is spreading. is spreading.ige wondering whether they should use the system of freedom to develop their countries or physical communism. they will be persuaded to follow us. allen said the result space, iing second in paraphrase him, he said many of these countries equate space development with scientific productivity and advancement. he said many of these countries feel the soviet union is on par with the united states. economic growth of the soviet union suggests it is to present

2%. low income in the developed world and high population density. in february asked people in 10 countries which country would be first scientifically and militarily. a majority felt it would be the soviet union by 1970. four, in the vote dealing with red china in the u.n., we received the support of only two african countries. one was liberia and the other was south africa. not a popular country in africa. every other african country either abstained or votes against us. more voted against us in asia. on the neutralist opposition, same thing happened. candidate for president of

brazil in order to get the benefits within brazil. there are many indications. guinea and ghana, two independent countries, both now are supporting soviet foreign policy in the u.n. laos is moving in that direction. our prestige is not so high. we have to give the image of vitality. say senator would kennedy's statement will not help our gallup polls abroad or our prestige. let's look on the boat on the congo -- vote on the congo. this situation regards to economic growth as it really is. its growth rate is not what

counts, it is whether it is catching up with it. it is not. we are well ahead and we can stay ahead provided we have confidence in america. we could look also at other items that senator kennedy has made. i will conclude by saying this, in this whole matter of prestige, standing for what is right and getting matter t backo this matter, i can think of nothing that would be a greater blow to the prestige of the united states among the free asian nations to go against what a majority of the members of the senate, both republican and democrat, said in 1955. to say in advance we will surrender an area to the communists. in other words, the united states will maintain its strength, we must be strong militarily and economically but

be firm diplomatically. we have been speaking of whether we have retreat or defeat. the way to win is not to retreat or surrender. moderator: thank you, gentlemen. as we mentioned at the opening candidatesgram, the agreed who would have the last word. the candidates have an opportunity to thank the network. . will repeat the ground rules the entire hour was devoted to answering questions from reporters. each candidates have 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 advanced information on any

question that would be asked. 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 enough, there was not time for question and answer, the questioning wiwould end. that is the situation at this moment. after reviewing the rules, i would like to use the remaining few moments to tell you something about the other arrangements for this debate. emphasize that each candidate within the studio, except for three photographers and three reporters and the television personnel, though studios have every identical background and even the scenes used to decorate.

it is a similar isolation. i would remind you the fourth in the series of these joint appearances scheduled for friday, october 21. at that time, the candidates will share the same platform to discuss foreign policy. this is bill tshadel. good night. you missed any of the presidential debate, go to c-span.org. youur special debate page, can watch the entire debate choosing between the split screen or this would camera option. you can even go to specific questions and answers from the

debate, finding the content you want quickly and easily. you can create clips of your favorite debate moments to share on social media. desktop,g, on your phone or tablet for the presidential debates. >> after i came up with that idea, i did research information. this is the case for a lot of pieces that will be done for this competition. it is a complicated issue. it is not black and white. it is so multifaceted that i had to research to get a base knowledge of what i wanted to talk about in this piece. obviously, i cannot talk about it all. i wanted to decide what i wanted to talk about. >> i thought it would be nice to have a focal point. i started interviewing my parents before i started

shooting. i researched this topic extensively. nt'ssearched my pare pharmacy. i went on the internet and researched. >> a lot of internet research to find more facts and data and statistics about employment of those with developmental disabilities. most of the information that i got off of the internet came from government founded websites. that is how i knew that most of the information i was getting was legitimate. >> your message to washington, d.c. -- what is the most urgent issue for the president and congress to address in 2017? our competition is open to all middle school and high school students with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or

groups of up to three to have a five minute documentary and explore opposing opinions. the $100,000 will be awarded in shared between the 150 students and 53 teachers. the grand prize of $5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. the deadline is january 20, 2017. mark your calendars and spread the word. for more information go to our website, studentcam.org. >> with the supreme court back in session, we have a special webpage to help you follow the court. go to c-span.org, select supreme court. you will see the calendar for this term, a list of all current justices and with video-on-demand, watch arguments we have aired and recent c-span appearances by supreme court justices at c-span.org.

next, a conversation about the alamo. george p. bush, state senator jose menendez and the musician phil collins spoke at the texas tribune festival and often. austin. it was the site of a battle mexican army andcan arm civilians. this is about one hour. >> we are here to talk about a landmark project about a landmark. this is not just any landmark. it is arguably the most important, most visited, most sacred, most misunderstood place in texas. the alamo is best remembered