Bob Dole: Hello, this is Senator Bob Dole and I'd like to ask for your help. Thousand Americans faced the holiday season with hopes of joy. Yet this is a time of grief and pain for millions of Cambodians who have been driven by war and now face the prospect of starvation and death in refugee camps. I asked the people of Kansas to join with me now to help reduce the suffering in Cambodia. Your contribution, no matter how small, will help purchase the rice, children's food and medicine that is so desperately needed. Send your check or money order made out to UNICEF. That's UNICEF, U-N-I-C-E-F to Cambodian Relief, Office of Senator Bob Dole, 444 SE Quincy, Suite 392, Topeka, KS. Let me say that again. Cambodian Relief, Office of Senator Bob Dole, 444 SE Quincy, Suite 392. Topeka, KS, ZIP 66683. There will be no new year at all for thousands of starving Cambodians unless you help now, thank you very much. Don't let this holiday season be a sad one. Make that one for the road a coffee. This is Senator Bob Dole. Have a safe holiday. The holidays should be a time of love and joy, not tragedy. If you drink, don't drive. If you drive, don't speed. And all of us in the spirit of the holidays should take a little time to watch over our friends and neighbors. This is Senator Bob Dole. A little care can make this your merriest holiday season yet. [...] Carol Snyder: [woman singing along to organ music] Will everyone here Kindly step to the rear, And let a winner lead the way? Here is a man Who will do a great job, And his name is Bob! Bob Dole for Senator! Back in a bunch, I came up with a hunch; He s an up-and-at-em-guy. He s one of those men Who will easily win, And triumphantly, people will say, Will everyone here Kindly step to the rear, And let a winner lead the way? Will everyone here Kindly step to the rear, And let a winner lead the way? Here is a man Who will do a great job, His name is Bob! Bob Dole for Senator! Back in the group, I came up with a scoop. He s an up-and-at-em-guy. He s one of those men Who will easily win, And triumphantly, people will say, Will everyone here Kindly step to the rear, And let a winner lead the way? And let Bob Dole lead the way! [woman singing along to organ music, take 2] Will everyone here Kindly step to the rear, And let a winner lead the way? Here is a man Who will do a great job, And his name is Bob! Bob Dole for Senator! Back in the bunch, I came up with a hunch; He s an up-and-at-em-guy. He s one of those men Who will easily win, And triumphantly, people will say, Will everyone here Kindly step to the rear, And let a winner lead the way? Will everyone here Kindly step to the rear, And let a winner lead the way? Here is a man Who will do a great job, His name is Bob! Bob Dole for Senator! Back in the group, I came up with a scoop. He s an up-and-at-em-guy. He s one of those men Who will easily win, And triumphantly, people will say, Will everyone here Kindly step to the rear, And let a winner lead the way? And let Bob Dole lead the way! [pipe organ solo] [...] Unnamed interviewer: We are at the fifth Human Events Political Action Conference, Representative Bob Dole, Republican of Kansas, and Representative Edward Gurney, Republican of Florida, answer questions from the audience. Unnamed woman: The gentleman over here on my left. Dr. May: I've just been talking to - I'm Doctor May from Pennsylvania by the way. Just been talking to Doctor Ellis about whether we should or should not identify our opponents as Socialists, and I should like to seek some advice from the two members at the table as to whether we should do this or not. Edward Gurney: Well, I would break that down into two parts in answering that. In the first place, I think it's unwise to call your opponent -- your particular opponent in the campaign --anything. I think when you do this, you arouse hostility on the part of some of the voters. I didn't attack, ever, my candidate on the other side. I simply said what I believed in. Now, generally, should you call the New Frontier socialist or something like that? I didn't do that either. But I did it this way. I said the Kennedy administration have surrounded themselves with people -- and I'd call out names -- and then I would say what programs they stood for. Say, for example, that Arthur Schlesinger had said some years ago that he thought that the future course of this government and the answer to communism was socialism. In other words, stick to facts. Don't call anybody anything by a label. But say this is what he believes in. This is what he said publicly. This is what he's written about. And attack it from that point. And I think if you do that and do it effectively, you get your point across and people catch on pretty quickly. Unnamed woman: And then, of course, there's a group that chooses to ignore their opponents and nothing hurts them more -- anyone more -- than to be ignored. I've heard that thought expressed... Another question? Gurney: No, the main newspaper in my district, which probably covers two-thirds of the population, not only did not endorse me, but actively endorsed my opponent. Once in a while, I got clipped by the newspaper too, and in some of the releases I don't think actually this was the policy of the paper. They've been extremely cooperative with me since the election, but I think actually, it came from probably an employee down in the composing room who was a dyed in the wool Democrat. I know there are some here. But you know what I mean? Because I'm a Republican. There were other newspapers in the district that also endorsed my opponent. Senator Smathers endorsed my opponent, Senator Holland did. Congressman Herlong did, Congressman Haley, and two or three others thrown in. I had the book thrown at me so far as endorsements of my opponent was concerned. I found out it really didn't make much difference. Again, the people wanted to see what Ed Gurney was for and what his opponent was for, and they finally made up their mind. And in fact, I handled it this way. When all these endorsements came out, I said, you've been hearing on TV these many endorsements of all these leading people in Washington from my opponent. I said I think the voters of this district want to find out what the Congressman they're going to elect stands for, not what Senator Smathers or Holland stands for. And that's precisely what they did want to hear. Unnamed woman: Yes, I'm from the losing 6th Congressional District in Florida, where I'm vice chairman of the county committee, and I'd like to take home some specific suggestions as to how we might have improved our congressional campaign. For instance, I plugged doorbell ringing. Nobody thought it was very important, and they thought it should begin very late. When did you begin ringing the doorbell with the literature? Also, what part did your workers play in getting the vote out for the party? Or did they work strictly for you? Third, how many television appearances -- these shorter ones -- did you actually make? And I have one more. Do you have a sample of your literature? [audience laughter] Gurney: Well, to answer the last one first, I don't, but if you'll give me a name after the conference, I'll certainly give you one. Two, I agree with you that they should have listened to you on doorbell ringing. It's the most important part of campaigning. You can't have enough workers and you can't get elected unless you do. And let me hit this thing hard because it's true. You can have the greatest candidate in the world who looks like Rudolph Valentino and talks like Demosthenes, but unless you got people out there ringing your doorbells, you're never going to get him elected. I think we first started probably about a month before the election. You've got to sort of judge how you work this thing up to a crescendo, and honestly, I'm new at this game and I don't think I should be in a position to advise and counsel you 100% on that. I'll tell you this. What happened in our election when John F. came back here and tended to the knitting on this cuber and I come from Maine incidentally originally. This is why I sound like Kennedy occasionally. I apologize. [audience laugher] It completely threw a left hook into our campaign for about two weeks. It just stalled dead in its tracks because Orlando, Florida is a sack base. The trucks were rushing through the Key West. The military was coming down the F101s, 102s, and 105s were flying over and nobody was interested in Gurney and Sutton. They couldn't care less, so we had to pick up these pieces and start all over again. So this made a little difference too, in this door-to-door business, but I'd say that we started the actual door-to-door about a month before, but we started the organization long before that so that we had it ready to go. Unnamed woman: Question from this section in the back of the room. Cox: My name is Cox. I'm from New Jersey. I'm interested in the agricultural situation, and I'd like to invite comments from both gentlemen. Principally upon how you handled agricultural problems and questions as they arose in your campaign. What your own convictions are concerning controls and subsidies. I've read your comment about the Freeman program, so I have some idea of what you're going to say, but I would like to have your comments. Unnamed woman: Mr. Dole. Bob Dole: Well, as I've said, Mr. Cox, I'm a member of that committee and my opponent Mr. Breeding had been here six years and been on the AG committee that long and he was chairman of the Wheat Subcommittee and of course, his big pitch was that if you defeat me, Kansas loses a subcommittee chairman. And we were on the same committee. We watched each other very closely for two years. We were always present and whenever he was absent, I could be absent. But otherwise, I was there. When he went on one plane, I took the next flight. But this is the way it worked for two years. It was sort of a battle of wits. Who could anticipate the others? But our philosophy in reference to farm programs is exactly, I'd say at least 90% opposite. He believed in Mr. Freeman's program or theory of supply management. My opponent happened to be a large landowner. He owned 54 quarter sections of land which is over 8000 acres. But he would always go out and bleed for the family farmer, and I often ask how many family farmers did he consume getting the 54 quarters of land. But in addition, he had gas production on his land, which made it even easier to farm. But these are the things, of course, that we raised in the campaign. Mr. Freeman couldn't enact a program that would hurt a farmer of this size. And I certainly think, for one, and a member of the committee and there 14 Republicans and 21 Democrats on the Ag Committee, that the more controls we impose on the farmer, the more difficult we make it for the small or the average farmer. If he takes a 10% cut in whatever crop it might be, this is his bread and butter. If a man like my opponent takes a 10% cut instead of making $500,000, he only makes $450,000. So, we think that, despite all the hue and cry from the administration about supply management and surpluses, that we're moving in exactly the wrong direction. Unnamed woman: Now a question from this section. The lady in the red. Unnamed female audience member: I'd like to ask Mr. Gurney what his odds were as to registration. Gurney: Well, our odds were about 5 to 1, five on the Democratic side and one on the Republican side. Now, this isn't an entirely clear picture. I want you to know that because I don't want to hold myself out as a complete hero here. We have many Republicans who have gone to Florida in recent years, and this is particularly true in my own district, who were Northerners. They, one, are retired people. And, two, they are workers in my area, particularly in the missile and space industry. There are many Republicans among these people. They usually register as Democrats and the reason why they do is because the registrar of voters always sells them the bill of goods, that you register as a Democrat or you lose your vote, so that there are many hidden Republicans in that registration, although there's no question that there were many more Democrats than there were Republicans on my side. Does that answer your question? Frank Ellis: My name is Frank Ellis. I'm from Rockford, Illinois. I'm interested in the reactions of the two gentlemen to an article that appeared in this week's U.S. News as to the functions of a congressman whilst he is in Washington. We've had some considerable comment about what people say out in the hustings and what they do while they're down here. This is a basic philosophic thing. I'd like to know what you gentlemen actually think your job is while you're down here. Dole: Well, I think having been two years in Congress, perhaps I'm still not certain what my proper function should be. Mr. Ellis, I want to commend you on sending John Anderson to Congress because he's a real good man. Sometimes you wonder yourself what your real function is, whether you should be a guide for tourists, or whether you should be a statesman. And of course, to be a statesman, you have to be elected, which necessarily makes you a guide. [audience laughter] So there are all sorts of problems. And of course, as Ed has said, and we'll find out, I felt the first six months, my first duty was to find out where I was. In fact, I used to tell them at home, I wondered why they never recorded my vote, because I voted, apparently in the Senate Chamber for a while, not knowing that I was in the wrong place. [laughter from the audience] But it's very important to be in the right body when the votes are taken. But these are some of the basic things I think. I think my first obligation of course is to stay in Washington. This is a very important factor in our campaign. My opponent left early. His attendance record was 73% when Congress adjourned and mine was 99. And I wrote him letters and told him what was going on back here, so to keep him advised and we publicized these. It was a very important factor in our campaign because I felt that my opponent should know what was going on in Washington. [laughter and applause] And I know he appreciated the letters very much, but at any rate, I do think seriously our first obligation is here. We have an obligation to attend our committee meetings. As a member of the Committee on Agriculture, we met almost every day for six or seven months. Sometimes twice a day. And of course, we do try to attend the meetings and we have our subcommittee meetings and we have, I think, another obligation. And of course, one to our family that my wife feels that I've forgotten. But we have an obligation, if we have some time to go to Rockford, Illinois or somewhere else in this country and talk about Conservative government because it's very difficult for you sometimes to go back after you've been here a couple of three days and sell the program unless they have a live, living example of someone who's actually withstood the test. Unnamed man: I'd like to pose a partially hypothetical situation for Mr. Gurney. You said that organization is the keystone of any campaign. I think we all understand that. How would you attack the problem where, with a relatively overwhelming Republican registration and an entrenched Republican organization -- which, however, is so involved in its petty politics that it has difficulty coming up with a good candidate -- how would then an organization be formed to bring through a candidate through the primaries without destroying the eventual party organization? Gurney: Well, that is a tough one, I guess. And maybe Bob could answer that better after I get through and I certainly hope he speaks to it. The reason why it's hard for me is because this situation does not exist in Florida at all, you see. We do not have strong party organizations in either the Democrat or the Republican ranks because we've never had a two party system as such, as you have in New York. And races always there are done pretty much on a personal organization basis. I can only tell you this from my own experience, that as I stated in the opening speech that starting in the beginning with no organization at all, we built up an organization that eventually had about 500 people in it. We did this ourselves beginning in January of 1962. If it can be done in Florida, it certainly can be done elsewhere. Looking at it from a detached point of view, I would say where you have that situation, you had two solutions. One, if you're unhappy with the people that are entrenched in your party organization, of course the thing to do is to get people in there that are sympathetic with you and throw out the old crowd. This is a hard job and it takes time, but it has been done. That is one way to do it. The other way to do it, and this has been done too -- because I remember this was once done in Maine when I lived there a long time ago, where I came from originally -- the party machine were backing one candidate, but another candidate who was better got out on his own. He built his own organization just as I did. And by golly, he won. [...] Marilyn May: This is Marilyn May, for Bob Dole. [singing along with upbeat band] Will everyone here Kindly step to the rear, And let a winner lead the way? Vote for the man who stands above all the rest, He'll pass every test, It's Bob Dole because he's the best! Unnamed man: Look at an influential senator and you'll see a man who began young enough to gain the experience of dedicated service. Now's the time to put Bob Dole in the Senate, where his proven dedication and ability will make him the influential voice we need. Bob Dole in the Senate is an investment in Kansas. Marilyn May: [singing] Step up to the poll, cast your vote for Bob Dole, and let a winner lead the way! Marilyn May: This is Marilyn May for Bob Dole. [singing along with upbeat band] Will everyone here Kindly step to the rear, And let a winner lead the way? Vote for the man who stands above all the rest, He'll pass every test, It's Bob Dole because he's the best! Unnamed man: The congressional record proves during his seven years as Representative, Bob Dole has led in seeking better prices for Kansas farmers. Bob Dole is your kind of Kansan. Vote for Bob Dole for United States Senator. Marilyn May: [singing along with upbeat band] Step up to the poll, cast your vote for Bob Dole, and let a winner lead the way! Marilyn May: This is Marilyn May for Bob Dole. [singing along with upbeat band] Will everyone here kindly step to the rear, and let a winner lead the way? Vote for the man who stands above all the rest, he'll pass every test, It's Bob Dole because he's the best! Unnamed man: The congressional record proves during his seven years as Representative, Bob Dole has introduced and supported legislation to improve law enforcement and combat crime. Yes, Bob Dole is my kind of Kansan, and your kind of Kansan. Vote for Bob Dole for United States Senator. Marilyn May: [singing along with upbeat band] Step up to the poll, cast your vote for Bob Dole, and let a winner lead the way! Marilyn May: This is Marilyn May for Bob Dole. [singing along with upbeat band] Will everyone here kindly step to the rear, and let a winner lead the way? Vote for the man who stands above all the rest, he'll pass every test, It's Bob Dole because he's the best! Unnamed man: Bob Dole believes in performance, not just promises. For over 7 years, his attendance record in Congress has been an outstanding 97%. Let's put Bob Dole in the Senate, where his kind of dedication to us can do the most for us. He's our kind of Kansan. Marilyn May: [singing along with upbeat band] Step up to the poll, cast your vote for Bob Dole, and let a winner lead the way! [...] Unnamed group of people: [singing along with band] There is a man in Washington D.C. He's everything a congressman should be. This congressman, Bob Dole is his name. He's a dedicated man who serves both you and me. Let's reelect Bob Dole Keep Bob on the job! [music] Let's reelect Bob Dole Keep Bob on the job! [music] [...] Bob Dole: This is Congressman Bob Dole with my weekly radio report from Washington. I certainly wish to thank the station for carrying our program as a public service broadcast. I think again this week I will discuss what is a matter of very important concerns in the Big First district of Kansas, and that is the possibilities of wheat legislation. As you perhaps know, Congress is now in recess until Monday, July 8. It'll be well to point out that on July 10 and July 11 we will have wheat subcommittee hearings, and as a member of that subcommittee, I think that we can probably guess with some precision, following these meetings, whether or not we are going to have any wheat legislation this year. And I'm talking about the legislation which would require considerable hearings -- legislation that might present some new approach to the problem. It is always possible, of course, in some last-minute effort, there could be an extension of present law, or some other stopgap legislation. I might point out very frankly -- and I think this is the matter that should be studied carefully by farmers -- that many, many farmers have written indicating that they voted 'no' because they wanted no new legislation. And again, I urge you that if you feel this way or if you feel that we do need some program, that you let us know, because one of the biggest comments or one of the comments most often heard -- stated correctly -- is that we haven't heard from the farmers. The farmers want nothing because they haven't written. We've explained that as far as a farmer in Kansas is concerned, right now he is busy harvesting. In fact, now, in most places, you've finished, but you still have other groundwork to do. But it does indicate that, to me, that perhaps there is this feeling among the members of the subcommittee because many of them say, 'Well, I had only six letters,' 'I've only had a dozen letters,' 'I've only had 25 letters.' And the letters I received have been from farmers who say, 'It's time we got the government out of agriculture. I voted 'no' because I want the government out, and please don't pass any new legislation.' And if this is the way you feel, of course, we would appreciate your comments and suggestions on this. I do think that with Secretary [of Agriculture Orville] Freeman announcing that he would visit Russia for one month, would indicate that the Administration has no real desire to put any effort behind wheat legislation this year. And despite the differences Members of Congress have had, including myself, with Mr. Freeman -- or what I felt were very strict control programs right down the line -- he does have some influence with urban Democrat Members and some Democrat Members from rural areas. And I do believe that his departure for Russia to study agriculture conditions there would be a very strong indication that this administration, at least for the time being -- and I think Mr. Freeman made this statement last week in a press conference -- are not seeking any new legislation. Now if this is true, I do believe that Secretary Freeman should clarify some of the administrative problems which would result in the event that there is no new legislation. I think, one -- and I have set this forth in a letter to Mr. Freeman -- and in fact, five points which I feel he should clarify, and he should make some definite announcement to the farmer that there will be no new legislation, as far as this Administration is concerned. Because with that announcement, I think, we can say very frankly that there would be no new legislation because the Democrats have an 80-vote majority in the House of Representatives and they have a two-to-one margin in the Senate. And if this Administration goes on record saying there would be no new wheat legislation, then I believe we can probably assume that will be the case. But if this is the case, then, I think, in fairness to the wheat producers in Kansas -- and everywhere in this country -- Secretary Freeman should ask [correcting himself] should answer some questions about the present -- the existing program. I know many farmers have written about the possible loss of history if they overplant their allotments, and this is true, we have an official opinion from the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] which we'll be happy to mail to anyone who requests it. But we think the regulations should be changed, and if a law is necessary, then Secretary Freeman should urge the support in the enactment of such a law. Because when quotas have been voted down by the farmers as they were on May 21st, I don't think it's fair to turn around and penalize the farmer and threaten him with a possible loss of history if he overplants his allotments. I'm not saying that anybody should gain history by overplanting their allotment, but he certainly should not be penalized in a year when there are no quotas in effect. And I think this is the way it should be: when there are no quotas in effect, he has a right to overplant his allotment without losing any history. And I believe, too, that there are other very important questions, and one deals with cross compliance on a basis that you'll get no conservation reserve payment, if you did not stay within your wheat allotment. I think this is another punitive measure -- and one that was not contemplated when the amendment was offered several years ago. These are two of the five questions we have asked Secretary Freeman to answer, and we're hopeful that in the following weeks we can discuss his answers; though, as yet it's been about two weeks now, and we've had no reply. Again, this is Bob Dole, and please contact me: Room 244, House Office Building, if you have any comments or suggestions. Thank you. [...] Bob Dole: Well, I think it's a matter of timing. And let me make it clear that we came here in the spirit of friendship for Israel, not as lobbyists for Israel -- a concern about peace in the Mid-East. And I think it's a very frank discussion -- I think we have some obligation to have the same kind of frank discussion with Mrs. [Golda] Meir, if she visits this country soon. [...] Bob Dole: The goal in Vietnam hasn't changed. It wasn't initiated, first of all, by President Nixon, and I sometimes wonder when we talk about all the problems now, where all these people were several years ago. But I think -- I think that the prisoners [of war] have a priority. I'd say that. I've said it before. I've said it to the president -- and I think he understands that -- but that's not the only objective in South Vietnam, no. [...] Speaker 1: A columnist in Boston once wrote, 'If you like Richard Nixon, you'll love Robert Dole.' Maybe that's one reason the president chose Senator Dole as the new Republican National Chairman. Obviously, it would be only one reason; the main one would be that the president thought Dole could do the job as he wanted it done. The senator was born in Russell, Kansas, 47 years ago and is a lawyer by profession. During World War II, he was so grievously wounded in the right arm and shoulder that he has to shake hands with his left hand. Senator Dole wants to talk about why he supports President Nixon on Indochina. Senator Bob Dole: I have on my mind a continuing situation that has gnawed at this country for nearly eight years, the war in Vietnam, a war that has claimed thousands of lives, ruptured our nation's economy, and torn great holes in the fabric of our society. I want to discuss it because some who are responsible for its beginnings and its growth, now seek to make it Nixon's War. Frequently, I have risen in the Senate, yes, to defend President Nixon's policy of Vietnamization, but also to set the record straight. There are some who ignore or distort the president s very successful efforts to bring it under control and to disengage from it. Many of the president's critics today were active in government circles in the early and middle 1960s. Almost without exception, they actively participated in or passively approved of the decisions that enmeshed us -- for the second time in a generation -- in an Asian land war. We should pause and reflect on just how we got into this war. Then we -- our getting out -- makes even more sense. Those of us who support the president have no doubt about his commitments to peace. We believe it transcends politics. To those who are opposing this president, but who supported Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, it is difficult to tell whether they were sincere then and political now, whether it is only now that they are sincere, whether they have always been sincere but erred, whether they have always been political but wrong. It perhaps doesn't make much difference. Then Richard Nixon came in, and where some -- in fact many -- joined in support of him in his approach to end the war. This approach was to train South Vietnamese troops to replace American troops. He called it Vietnamization -- that American troops would no longer be called on to fight and die while Vietnamese troops played secondary and support roles. That approach, as we all know, is succeeding. Casualties are -- yes -- too high. One is too many. But in December 1970, 130 Americans were killed in action -- the lowest monthly total since 1965. In fact, Vietnamization is succeeding so well, it is difficult for me to understand why such a policy is not drawing unanimous support from those who got us into the war and who now want us out. Troop levels have been reduced by more than 200,000, and will be reduced 265,000 by May 1. There will be further announcements concerning further withdrawals by President Nixon prior to May 1. I have made my position clear, time after time in the Senate, as we have faced up to the demands that we, in effect, surrender now, whatever the consequences. And we debated for weeks a so-called 'Amendment to End the War,' which would tie the president's hands and rob him of options for peace. And President Nixon is worried -- and rightly -- about what his surrender or abandonment would do to the American spirit, as well as how it would affect world opinion of the territorial ambitions of the communist world. I share those concerns. I also hate war -- I know of no member of Congress who does not. Certainly, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson did, and President Nixon does hate war and its awful consequences. I agree with the statement of the Democrat National Chairman, Lawrence O'Brien, who once said, 'As our president tries to convince the aggressors that their warfare must be abandoned, he must not be left to bear his heavy burdens alone.' Mr. O'Brien and those who put politics and presidential aspirations first may no longer feel that way, but I do, and I believe the vast majority of American people do too. Together we can help bring to our country and the world the realization of President Nixon's -- and all Americans' dream -- a generation of peace in our lifetime. I can think of no greater goal, no greater priority. Speaker 1: Senator Robert Dole, the Republican National Chairman. [...] Bob Dole: But I think he'll come on very strong in the next Congress. I think we'll find in his State of the Union message -- and I have no advanced information about the State of the Union message -- that he's going to have a number of positive progressive programs: welfare reform, revenue sharing, draft reform, governmental reform. And I think perhaps we'll see an activist president. He'll be taking initiative. He'll be a visible president, and I think, perhaps, with the economy at least hopefully coming up in '71 and '72, with a war going down and the economy up, [President Richard] Nixon will be re-elected. [...] Bob Dole: I'm suggesting that in the Senate we set aside a special time each day to be known as the presidential hour. And as I visualized it, the presidential hour would be reserved for four groups of senators. First, those senators who think they're president. Second, those senators who think they should have been President. Third, those senators who think they want to be President, and 4th, those senators who are ready to settle for being Vice President. [...] John Bachelor: The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association invites you to Meet the Member. Now, here is the producer and editor of Meet the Member, Joseph McCaffery. Joseph McCaffery (JM): Good evening. They call him the hard-hitting Kansas senator and he hits hard and, when it's necessary, hits often. It's no wonder Bob Dole is being talked of for a spot in the Republican Senate leadership. He began his move after the 91st Congress was only a few months old. As he explains it, 'I got tired of people like Kennedy, Muskie, and McGovern getting up and browbeating the president about Vietnam. I thought we Republicans ought to keep reminding them every day that the war was already there when Nixon was elected.' Since that time, Senator Dole has become the president s man on the Senate floor, and he usually gives better than he takes. He did as reporter Lloyd Miller of the [Kansas City] Star noted at the time, 'Human service in the bitter battles to confirm Nixon Supreme Court nominees Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell.' Dole was on the floor time after time trying to counter charges. And he was also the man to lead the fight against the Cooper-Church Amendment, which was finally approved. However, he bested Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Fullbright in a duel over the repeal of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Fullbright had hoped to have a full dressed debate over Vietnam policy, using the repealer as the handle, but Dole grabbed the repealer, tacking it to the military sales bill during the Cooper-Church debate. He saved the administration some Senatorial scars. The Senator is a member of the Agriculture Committee, the Public Works Committee, the Select Committee on Small Business, and the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. On the Agriculture Committee, he was responsible for hammering out the new farm bill. He also introduced the Rural Telephone Bank bill, similar to the House bill which was finally accepted and made law. The meat inspection bill, which he co-sponsored, passed both houses, became law, Public Law 91-342. As a member of the Public Works Committee, he was active in supporting the Water Pollution Control Act. He served as the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Disaster Relief. And as a member of the Small Business Committee, he introduced legislation to increase the availability of management counseling to small business concerns. As a member of the Nutrition and Human Needs Select Committee, better known as the Hunger Committee, Senator Dole has taken part in the field hearings all over the country studying hunger and malnutrition. He has been active in backing school lunch and food stamp legislation. Seriously wounded in World War II, as evidenced by his crippled right arm and the Purple Heart ribbon he wears on his lapel, Bob Dole began his political career in the Kansas legislature, served as Russell County Attorney, being elected to the House of Representatives in 1960. He served there for four terms before moving to the Senate in the 1968 election. A Kansan who has watched his career said, 'Bob can stay in the Senate forever, unless of course, he might be on the national ticket in '76.' And I'll be back in one minute. Tonight, Bob Dole of Kansas was the member we met on Meet the Member. Tomorrow night, we'll meet Thomas Eagleton. John Bachelor: Meet the Member has been brought to you by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, representing leading manufacturers of prescription drugs. This is John Bachelor speaking.