Selective U. S. assistance will be a necessity as we carefully evaluate just what is, and is not, in our national interest.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, a Humphrey-Muskie Administration will resist outright military aggression. We will honor our treaty commitments. We will maintain an adequate and balanced defense--capable of protecting our security and maintaining the peace.

If another Communist country tried to liberalize its policies and Russia tried to intervene, what would be the attitude of a Humphrey Administration?

A Humphrey-Muskie Administration would never be indifferent to the fate of Czechoslovakia. We must act now to restrain future incidents by making it clear to the Soviet Union that future invasions of independent countries will have an adverse and chilling effect on ending the cold war. It is to the advantage of the Soviet Union as well as to our advantage to reduce tensions and military budgets. This, we must emphasize, can never be more than a hope if Russia insists on doctrinaire subservience--at gunpoint--from its client states.

At the same time, we must avoid rash promises of "liberation," as were made in the 1950's. These only raise false hopes and create animosity toward the United States when they go unfulfilled.

Are you in favor of establishing additional modus operandi for the constant evaluation of our foreign aid program and for the supervision of the distribution of the funds provided for in such programs?

We must increasingly channel our development aid through multi-lateral institutions such as the World Bank. To systematize and evaluate our foreign aid program we need such institutions as the Inter-American Committee of the Alliance for Progress to provide continuous review.

How does your position differ from Mr. Nixon's with respect to law and order?

Unlike my Republican opponent, I have not attempted to play on a nation's emotions by reading them local news accounts of rapes and murders. I have attempted to deal rationally and realistically with an emotion-charged issue.

We differ completely in our attitudes toward curbing crime by dealing with its root causes. Mr. Nixon feels that the relationship between poverty and crime is exaggerated, that "if the conviction rate were doubled in this country, it would do more to eliminate crime than a quadrapuling of the funds of any governmental war on poverty"; and that "the wave of lawlessness is due to the example of intellectuals and the growing disrespect of the young." Moreover, Mr. Nixon has used the Supreme Court and the Attorney General as scapegoats.

I reject these views of the causes of crime as simplistic and politically oriented. I have stressed that we must eradicate the poverty and deprivation which breed crime; urged an end to the drug traffic which promotes crime; discussed the need to end the backlog of court cases which undercuts our criminal process; argued that the Supreme Court does not promote crime by protecting individual liberties; and I have proposed specific programs of federal assistance to upgrade police personnel at the local level.

Do you see any way, that is acceptable to society, of expressing opposition to a law other than a legal appeal?

There are many ways to express opposition to unjust laws and unfair conditions. The sit-ins and freedom rides of the early 1960's were moving expressions of opposition to segregation laws. In addition, marches such as the 1963 Civil Rights March and the 1968 Poor People's March, helped the passage of more just laws. Democracy is infinitely perfectable--and infinitely imperfect, it does not thrive when its citizens are passive about injustice.

Do you believe the voting age should be lowered,

Yes. I have supported moves throughout my public career to lower the voting age to 18. The 18-year-old vote will continue to be a priority item of a Humphrey-Muskie Administration.