[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2151-S2156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  ``MEET THE PRESS''--FEBRUARY 5, 1995

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the transcript 
of the NBC News program, ``Meet the Press,'' of yesterday, Sunday, 
February 5, 1995, be printed in the Record. The guests were Senator Bob 
Dole, Senate majority leader, and Senator Robert C. Byrd. The moderator 
was Tim Russert of NBC, with panelists Robert Novak, of the Chicago 
Sun-Times, and 
 [[Page S2152]] Lisa Myers, of NBC News, and roundtable guest William 
Safire, a columnist with the New York Times.
  There being no objection, the transcript was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Transcript From NBC News ``Meet the Press,'' Feb. 5, 1995

       Guests: Senator Bob Dole and Senator Robert Byrd.
       Moderator: Tim Russert, NBC News.
       Panel: Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times and Lisa Myers, NBC 
     News.
       Roundtable guest: William Safire, columnist, the New York 
     Times.
       Mr. Russert. Welcome again to Meet the Press. Our issue 
     this Sunday morning: a constitutional amendment to balance 
     the budget. Is it a good idea? Will it work? Will it pass? 
     We'll ask our guest in his first Sunday morning interview in 
     more than eight years. He's now serving his 37th year in the 
     US Senate, the legendary Robert C. Byrd, Democrat from West 
     Virginia.
       Then we'll get the Republican view from a senator who would 
     prefer to be president. We'll talk about budget, taxes, and 
     presidential politics with Bob Dole, Republican of Kansas.
       And in our roundtable, a look at the political landscape in 
     China, Russia, and here in America with author and New York 
     Times columnist William Safire.
       And beginning today and every Sunday, we'll end our program 
     with the Meet the Press Minute. We're going to share with you 
     rare archival footage from our Meet the Press library. This 
     morning you'll see young congressman John F. Kennedy talking 
     about Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. The date: December 
     2nd, 1951.
       And joining me in the questioning today, Lisa Myers of NBC 
     News and Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times. And with us 
     now, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia.
       Senator, welcome back to Meet the Press.
       Senator Byrd. Thank you.
       Mr. Russert. We have a $200 billion deficit, a $4 trillion 
     debt. Why wouldn't you be for a law forcing Congress to 
     balance the budget?
       Senator Byrd. You say, ``for a law.'' This is not a law. 
     This amendment will amend the basic organic law of this 
     country, which is above an ordinary statute. There are two 
     reasons it's in the main: It is bad constitutional policy and 
     it is bad economic policy. As to its being bad constitutional 
     policy, the Constitution is a charter of government. It is a 
     charter of certain basic, individual rights. It is decidedly 
     not a charter of economic policy, and for the first time, if 
     this amendment were adopted, it would be writing into the 
     Constitution economic policy.
       Also, this amendment would interfere with the majoritarian 
     democratic control of the Congress. It would institute 
     minority rule by imposing supermajorities, supermajority 
     requirements on the development of fiscal policy. It would 
     also tamper with all three parts of the tri-part 
     constitutional structure of government that was set into 
     place by the framers 206 years ago.
       As to its being bad economic policy, it would severely 
     damage the Nation's ability to develop a sane, sensible 
     fiscal policy. It would cripple efforts to stabilize the 
     business cycle in that it would create a severe fiscal drag 
     on the economy at a time when the economy may already be 
     weak.
       It would hamper the capacity of the nation to make long-
     term investments in fiscal and human infrastructure. It would 
     make it almost impossible for our nation to coordinate its 
     economic policy with the economic policies of other nations. 
     Moreover, it would put into the hands of the courts the 
     management of macroeconomic policy. And finally, it would be 
     devastating for a group such as the elderly. It would 
     devastate Medicare, other programs that aid the elderly such 
     as Meals on Wheels, veterans' programs, veterans' pensions, 
     veterans' compensation, veterans' health care, and it would 
     also
      be very destructive of environmental policy and other social 
     policies which the nation--which are good for the nation 
     and good for its people.
       Mr. Russert. Senator----
       Senator Byrd. So these in the main are the fears that I 
     have concerning this amendment. Now if it didn't do any of 
     these--if it didn't do any of these, it would mean that it 
     does nothing, in which case it would be but an empty promise 
     in the Constitution, and that would undermine the faith of 
     the American people and the Constitution.
       Mr. Russert. Senator Dole, our next guest, said that 
     there'll be a vote within the next three weeks on the 
     balanced budget amendment. Will there be?
       Senator Byrd. I hope we'll not rush this matter. Sixty-
     eight percent of the Republicans, 77 percent of the Democrats 
     and 83 percent of the Independents feel that the American 
     people ought to know what's in this amendment before we adopt 
     it. It takes time, and I hope that Mr. Dole will give the 
     Senate time to inform the American people. Woodrow Wilson 
     said that the informing function of the legislative branch 
     was as important as the legislative function.
       The American people don't know what's in this measure, and 
     we senators who vote on it ought to also be told what the 
     plan is, what the details are for achieving a balanced budget 
     in seven years. The American people are entitled to that.
       The American people are smart consumers. When they go to 
     the store, they press and squeeze the tomatoes and the 
     cantaloupes and the vegetables; they look under the hood when 
     they buy a car, they kick the tires. They need to know what's 
     in this amendment. They're entitled to know. We shouldn't 
     distrust them. We shouldn't treat them like children, and we 
     should let them know what's under the hood. They want to know 
     that.
       Mr. Russert. Do you have the 34 votes necessary to block 
     the amendment as of now?
       Senator Byrd. It's a very close call right now. It could go 
     either way, but I believe that if the American people are 
     informed as to what's in this plan, they're going to be so 
     concerned that, ``the knees of senators will buckle,'' in the 
     words of one of the House leaders. So I think the American 
     people are entitled to know, and we're treating them like 
     children if we don't tell them.
       Mr. Russert. Will you use every tactic you know to stop 
     this?
       Senator Byrd. I'm glad you asked me that. I'm not 
     interested in dilatory tactics. I'm only interested in the 
     American people having the information that they ought to 
     have. And I hope that we would debate this sufficiently for 
     them to be informed. And I believe that Mr. Dole, the 
     majority leader--and he's a very capable majority leader; I'm 
     very fond of him--I hope that he will give the Senate ample 
     opportunity to debate this matter so that the American 
     people, who send us here, will be informed.
       Mr. Russert. What's ample opportunity? Weeks, months?
       Senator Byrd. We've got to remember that the constitutional 
     convention met behind closed doors. It met for almost four 
     months to write this Constitution. Now surely we shouldn't be 
     in a hurry to vote on something that is going to deliver 
     irreparable injuries to the basic organic document. It would 
     seem to me that anything less than 3 weeks for debate--from 3 
     to 4 or 5 weeks ought to be sufficient time in which to 
     inform the American people and inform ourselves. We're 
     entitled to know what the details are of the plan which would 
     achieve this goal.
       Mr. Russert. Are you concerned, Senator, that by putting 
     forth the Democratic Party as the party that blocks a 
     constitutional amendment, you're going to give the 
     Republicans a huge political issue in the presidential race 
     in '96?
       Senator Byrd. I'm not concerned in this instance so much 
     about party as I am about the Constitution of the United 
     States. And what this amendment will do to the institutions 
     of government, the three branches of the government--it will 
     impact on the executive, on the judiciary and on the 
     legislative. And it will change forever. It's not like a 
     statute which can be repealed later in the same year by the 
     Congress. It's an amendment which will change the 
     Constitution we'll be delivering to our children, a 
     Constitution that is far different from the one which was 
     handed down to us by our forefathers.
       Mr. Russert. Lisa.
       Ms. Myers. Senator, you have said that this amendment would 
     mean radical changes in people's lives, that it would be 
     devastating to the elderly, to the environment, to veterans, 
     to a whole series of people. What about the devastation to 
     your five grandchildren, though, of continuing to pile up 
     these mountains of debt? Aren't these deficits that we're 
     running today tantamount to stealing from them?
       Senator Byrd. I agree that we have to do something about 
     the deficits. We have to reduce them, and we have done 
     something. I think we ought to stay on a steady, strong 
     course such as the one we set in 1990 at the budget summit 
     when we passed a bill that would reduce the deficits by $482 
     billion over five years, and again in 1993 when we passed a 
     package with President Clinton's help that would reduce the 
     deficit over $432 billion over the next five years, and it 
     has done better than that.
       And remember this, that in the case of the 1993 budget 
     deficit reduction package, not one Republican in the Senate, 
     not one Republican in the House, voted for that budget 
     reduction package because it increased taxes some and it cut 
     programs and it inflicted some pain. Now that's the course we 
     should stay on: additional multifaceted budget deficit bills. 
     And let's don't tamper with the Constitution, because I don't 
     want to pass a Constitution on to my children that is a 
     different Constitution, providing for a different form of 
     government, than we have had in our time.
       Ms. Myers. Senator, President Clinton is sending up a 
     budget tomorrow which projects $200 billion deficits as far 
     as the eye can see, at least for the next decade. How soon 
     are you willing to commit to balance the budget?
       Senator Byrd. I began my commitment in 1990 at the budget 
     summit under Mr. Bush and under a Democratic Congress. I 
     continued my commitment in 1993 with the deficit reduction 
     package that I've already described. We ought to stay on that 
     course.
       I'm concerned about the President's budget which will be 
     sent to the Congress tomorrow. I'm not in favor of the $63 
     billion tax cut over a period of the next five years. I'm 
     also not in favor of the $205 billion tax cut which is in the 
     so-called Contract With America. I think we shouldn't be 
     cutting taxes now. I must say that Mr. Clinton is going to 
     pay for his tax cut with reductions in programs. But the 
     monies that are saved from reductions in programs ought to go 
     toward balancing the budget and reducing the deficit.
       Now as to the Contract With America, let me tell you what 
     my contract is. There's my 
      [[Page S2153]] contract with America. This is the 
     Constitution of the United States of America. That's the only 
     contract I have with America. That contract was written 206 
     years ago. It didn't suddenly bloom in the last election. So 
     I'm concerned about these proposed tax cuts. I think it's 
     folly at a time like this when we ought to be doing 
     everything we can to reduce the deficit to be talking about 
     cutting taxes.
       Ms. Myers. Senator, one last thing. The Washington Post--
     I'm sure you're familiar with this headline--has called you 
     ``the king of pork.'' Given your commitment to balance the 
     budget, are you now willing to tell the people of West 
     Virginia that they're going to have to settle for less?
       Senator Byrd. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of 
     the United States 13 times in the last 48 years. I took that 
     oath, I swore to God and I put my hands on God's Gospel when 
     I did it. Now I am of a generation that believes in keeping 
     one's oath. I'm talking about my oath to the Constitution in 
     this situation here. I'm talking about this immortal document 
     that was written by men. And I think it's somewhat a pretense 
     for those of us in our generation to assume that we're wiser 
     than the framers of that constitutional document who lived 
     200 years ago.
       Mr. Novak. Senator Byrd, tomorrow the House of 
     Representatives will pass a line item veto which would give 
     the president authority to veto individual items in bills 
     instead of the whole bills. You oppose that. Now you have 
     said that when Robert Byrd does a filibuster in the Senate, 
     you will make it clear that it is a filibuster. Are you ready 
     to filibuster the line item veto?
       Senator Byrd. Bob, there are people in this town who 
     wouldn't know a filibuster if they met it on the street. I 
     don't intend to engage in dilatory tactics, dilatory quorum 
     calls and so on. Now that's the way of the old filibuster. 
     But there is such a thing as an unlimited debate, and that's 
     one of the two things in particular that makes the Senate the 
     premier upper body in the world today, the right of unlimited 
     debate and the right to amend. Now we owe it to the American 
     people to debate these matters.
       There are people, I think, who have the attitude, it seems 
     to me, that if we debate a bill three days or a week or two 
     weeks, that we're filibustering. Now a line item veto, again, 
     would shift power from the legislative branch to the 
     president. It disturbs the balances of powers, the separation 
     of powers, the checks and balances in the Constitution. And 
     we ought not to alter that Constitution lightly. So I will 
     fight that, again, as I have fought it before. But I don't 
     intend to engage in dilatory tactics, that kind of 
     filibuster.
       Mr. Novak. Senator Byrd, you have also said that you 
     thought perhaps the Republicans, who have been in opposition 
     in the minority much more than the Democrats, know how to be 
     a minority party more in the Senate. Are you attempting to 
     guide the new Democratic leader, Senator Thomas Daschle, in 
     how to be an opposition party, because at times you seem more 
     like the opposition leader than Senator Daschle?
       Senator Byrd. Well, let me tell you about that. The two 
     things that we've had up in the Senate, in which I've taken a 
     little time on, were the so-called unfunded mandates. Now 
     Congress can't bind the next Congress. Congress can change 
     that law even in this Congress. And I felt that the Congress 
     ought to take more time to debate. I'm not in favor of 
     ramming things through just because there's a so-called 
     charter, Contract With America, that somebody signed. I 
     didn't sign it.
       So I was on the Senate floor at a time when I wanted to 
     stop that contract--so-called contract--from being rammed 
     through, or one of its parts, and I also saw coming behind 
     that this constitutional amendment on the balanced budget. 
     And, no, Tom Daschle's doing a good job. I want to see him 
     succeed. I want to help him. I think he's off to a good 
     start. I walked away from the leadership. I could have had it 
     again, I knew where the votes were. But I'm not interested in 
     being the leader of the Senate. I'm interested in doing my 
     job as a senator, which I came here to do.
       Mr. Novak. Senator, you've been quoted, sir, as saying you 
     thought the Senate has lost its soul. Why do you think it's 
     lost its soul?
       Senator Byrd. Well, one reason why I say that is that we 
     seem to have lost our sense of history. We have no 
     institutional memory in the Senate, it seems to me. We ought 
     to understand that it is our responsibility to defend the 
     institution, to defend the Constitution and to take the time 
     to do it. I think sometimes we bend whichever way the wind 
     blows. We don't realize that being a United States senator is 
     the highest public office that this country can give. 
     Presidents come and presidents go, but senators don't fade 
     away very easily sometimes.
       Mr. Russert. Senator, is the Senate less civil now than it 
     was?
       Senator Byrd. Yes, it is far more partisan now than it was 
     when I came here.
       Mr. Russert. Why?
       Senator Byrd. I think there are too many who put party 
     first, last and always. Party is important, but I don't rank 
     it as the first thing in my life or in the history of this 
     country. I believe that we have a duty to study as 
     legislators, to try to know what we're doing and to try to do 
     what's right for the country. And that's what I see, what I 
     think is wrong. We're too partisan. There are some who seem 
     to think that the Senate is a crucible that was intended to 
     enable us to forge the party's fortunes for the next half-
     century. But I believe--getting back to this situation, I 
     believe and hope that we'll have the time--we'll take the 
     time to study this matter carefully. It's going to come to a 
     final vote. It'll be voted up or it'll be voted down. I hope 
     we'll take the time because it's far too important to rush 
     through.
       Mr. Russert. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, we 
     thank you for joining us this morning.
       Senator Byrd. Thank you.
       Mr. Russert. Coming next, Bob Dole. He wants to be your 
     president. We'll find out why after this message.
       (Announcements.)
       Mr. Russert. We're back with the Republican leader of the 
     U.S. Senate, Bob Dole.
       Senator, lots of speculation about you.
       Senator Dole. Really?
       Mr. Russert. The week of April 14, 1945, 2nd Lieutenant Bob 
     Dole, 10th Mountain Division, trying to take Hill 913 in 
     Northern Italy, wounded. Fifty years later, the week of April 
     14, 1995, what will Senator Bob Dole do?
       Senator Dole. Will probably make--well, we'll make a formal 
     announcement that we're a candidate for president of the 
     United States. Can't do it on the 14th, that happens to be 
     Good Friday. But it will be that week.
       Mr. Russert. That week. And why are you picking that week?
       Senator Dole. Well, it will be warmer. It also, I think, 
     has some--you know, that's a week that meant a lot to me a 
     long time ago. And I think it puts a focus on America and 
     what's happened in the past 50 years, some of us who were 
     involved and where we intend to go from here. But, you know, 
     we haven't picked a definite date, but I assume it's going to 
     be that week.
       Mr. Russert. The week of April 14th. Will it underscore the 
     difference in your military experience as opposed to Bill 
     Clinton's?
       Senator Dole. That's not the purpose, but I assume some 
     people might suggest that. But I picked it because I thought 
     it was a fairly important experience in my lifetime, and it's 
     not aimed at anyone else.
       Mr. Russert. You're going to challenge Bill Clinton for the 
     presidency. It's an intensely----
       Senator Dole. Well, if I get the nomination. But if you 
     want to bestow it on me today----
       Mr. Russert. I'm a registered Independent. I don't have 
     that power, but----
       Senator Dole. That's all right.
       Mr. Russert. It's an intensely personal choice for a voter 
     to make. How is Bob Dole different than Bill Clinton?
       Senator Dole. Well, I don't want to describe Bill Clinton, 
     but I would just say as far as Bob Dole is concerned, if 
     people are looking for someone with experience and someone 
     who's been tested in a lot of ways and somebody who gets up 
     every morning and knows that people can have difficulties--
     because I have a little difficulty dressing and things like 
     that--that being sensitive, I guess, to people's concerns, 
     who I think has a good record of conservative views on taxes 
     and spending and--but also understands that we need to reach 
     out as a party. You know, that's where I come from. Much like 
     Jack Kemp, I must say, when dealing with black Americans, 
     Hispanics, it seems to me that if we're going to be a 
     majority party, it's going to be up to us to make that 
     happen. That means we reach out to people.
       Mr. Russert. You're 71 years old. In 1996----
       Senator Dole. That's chronological. I'm probably about 55, 
     otherwise. I know, I always subtract the four years I spent 
     in the hospital, so that gets me down to 67 right there.
       Mr. Russert. In 1996 you'll be 73 years old, which would be 
     the oldest for any man to begin his first term as president. 
     In light of that, would you commit to the American people 
     that you would only serve one term as president?
       Senator Dole. Well, I must say that's an option that people 
     have talked about. But we haven't made a decision. I assume 
     we will make that decision before we announce so the American 
     people will know. Some people might like it; some might say, 
     ``Well, you're a lame duck on day one.'' There have been a 
     lot of one-term presidents in the past few years, in the past 
     two decades or so, but it's a judgment we haven't made.
       Mr. Russert. You have been in Washington for 36 years?
       Senator Dole. I guess that's right. Not quite--34 years.
       Mr. Russert. Why wouldn't people say, ``Bob Dole, you 
     created this mess. Who are you to suggest you can fix it?''
       Senator Dole. Well, I think basically I've tried to keep in 
     touch with real people all the time I've been in Washington. 
     I know where I'm from; I've never forgotten my roots in 
     Kansas. And secondly, again. I think many of us have been 
     fighting the battle. We're happy to have the replacements, 
     the troops, the cavalry come riding in as they did last 
     November. Now we have a majority in the House and Senate, we 
     can really make these things happen.
       Mr. Russert. Lots of discussion about President Clinton and 
     the so-called character issue. How big of an issue do you 
     think that would be in a presidential race?
       Senator Dole. I don't know. I mean, I think the media, 
     others--certainly we're all going to be subject to total 
     scrutiny. But my 
      [[Page S2154]] view is maybe it's an issue; I think the 
     overriding issue should be where will this person--this 
     nominee, whoever--take us or take America and does he or she 
     have any ideas? So it's going to be a difficult race. We have 
     a number of outstanding Republicans, you know, going to be 
     involved in the primary process. So anybody who's thinking 
     about it is going to have to give up about a year and a half 
     of their life.
       Mr. Russert. Your wife Elizabeth Hanford Dole, former 
     secretary of labor, secretary of transportation, educated at 
     Duke, Oxford and Harvard Law. Will she be an activist first 
     lady like Hillary Rodham Clinton?
       Senator Dole. Not in that sense--not in the policy sense. 
     But Elizabeth certainly has her own career and would like 
     to--you know, I haven't discussed this with her and you're 
     going to get me in trouble. I mean, I can handle most things, 
     but I want to be careful here. So it would be--obviously, she 
     would want to be doing something, maybe more traditional 
     first lady efforts. But she's been involved in the Red Cross. 
     She likes it. It's a public service, making a difference in 
     people's lives.
       Mr. Russert. But you don't think the first lady should be 
     involved directly in policy formulation?
       Senator Dole. I think it's a very high risk. I said that 
     when Hillary Clinton was assigned health care. It's a high 
     risk. If it fails, A, and, B, if it--to keep it from failing, 
     how much do you give way? I think it was a mistake then and I 
     think it would be a mistake for any future first lady or 
     first man.
       Mr. Russert. One issue that is going to be on the ballot in 
     1996 in California, you were talking about the politics of 
     inclusion, reaching out to black Republicans, like Jack Kemp, 
     is a proposition or referendum which is going to say that, 
     ``Race or color will not be a criteria for either 
     discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to 
     anyone.'' Would you be in favor of such a referendum or 
     proposition?
       Senator Dole. Well, right now we've asked the Congressional 
     Research Service to send us all the bills that involve--with 
     preferences, and we're looking at it. I mean, it--again, with 
     my record, I think I can look at it with some credibility. 
     Has it worked? Has it had an adverse or reverse reaction? Why 
     did 62 percent of white males vote Republican in 1994? I 
     think it's because of things like this, where sometimes the 
     best qualified person does not get the job because he or she 
     may be of one color, one--and I'm beginning to believe that 
     may not be the way it should be in America.
       Mr. Russert. So that this referendum, which would, in 
     effect, eliminate affirmative action, is something that you 
     could support?
       Senator Dole. Well, you know, I haven't read that. It's 
     something that we're looking at. Let me say that. I want to 
     be fair. I want people to have opportunities in America by 
     creating more jobs and not having to struggle every time. If 
     you have somebody that wants a raise, ``Well, what's your 
     color? What's your ethnic background?'' You know, the people 
     in America now are paying a price for things that were done 
     before they were born. We did discriminate; we did suppress 
     people. It was wrong. Slavery was wrong. But should future 
     generations have to pay for that? Some would say yes. I think 
     it's a tough question.
       Mr. Russert. Lisa.
       Ms. Myers. Senator, the balanced budget amendment--you just 
     heard Senator Byrd.
       Senator Dole. Yes.
       Ms. Myers. Why don't Republicans just get it over with and 
     lay out a seven-year plan on how you would accomplish a 
     balanced budget?
       Senator Dole. Well, we were sort of hoping the president in 
     his budget would give us some clues on a seven-year plan. He 
     didn't give you any clue on anything. He didn't cut spending. 
     It's--doesn't even cut the deficit. All he does is extend 
     these caps and there's no real spending cuts. But I'm going 
     to say a thing about Robert Byrd. He's the master of the 
     game. And I say that with admiration. He knows the Senate 
     rules. He knows it will not have a--vote very soon on a 
     balanced budget amendment because he knows every trick in the 
     book; in fact, he wrote the book. So I believe it will pass 
     by a very close vote. And we'll lay out all we can. We'll be 
     as specific as we can. But it's like a seven-year weather 
     forecast. You know, we don't know what's going to happen. 
     What may sh--we don't know what economic--maybe there'll be 
     some calamity somewhere in the world, maybe some conflict 
     we're involved in.
       But that--in my view, this is a way to, in effect, skirt 
     responsibility. If we don't do anything, we're going to 
     increase spending in the next--the deficit by 18 percent in 
     the next 20 to 30 years. We're never going to have a balanced 
     budget. We have to make tough decisions. It's going to affect 
     everybody, and we ought to be prepared for it.
       Ms. Myers. When will you lay out as much as you can?
       Senator Dole. Well, Senator Domenici, chairman of the 
     Budget Committee, is working on that now.
       Ms. Myers. So the Republicans will have at least an outline 
     on how you balance the budget over seven years?
       Senator Dole. Well, we'll have as much information as we 
     can, but with the und----
       Ms. Myers. While the amendment is being debated?
       Senator Dole. Sure, with the understanding that, you know, 
     we can't be certain of anything.
       Ms. Myers. Right.
       Senator Dole. These are all economic assumptions. The 
     economy may go up or down. But I think we'll do the best we 
     can and this so-called ``right to know'' amendment--we've 
     offered an amendment called the ``need to lead'' amendment. 
     It's about time the Democrats started some leadership around 
     here instead of trying to scare people on Social Security or 
     veterans or everything else. We'll never have a balanced 
     budget if everybody is going to be exempt.
       Ms. Myers. All right. Let's talk about the nomination of 
     Dr. Henry Foster to be surgeon general, President Clinton's 
     choice. Are you troubled by the fact that Dr. Foster now says 
     he performed as many as a dozen abortions?
       Senator Dole. I'm troubled by the fact that we were not--
     more troubled by the fact that we were not given that 
     information before the nomination was sent up. I think the 
     administration, maybe they should have known; they surely 
     asked the question. That troubles me almost as much as 
     knowing they've sent up this nomination. Will it be in some 
     difficulty? Yes.
       Ms. Myers. How much difficulty?
       Senator Dole. I don't know yet. It depends on--I know 
     Senator Coats, of Indiana, a member of the Labor Committee, 
     has indicated strong opposition. We haven't had a discussion 
     of it, a so-called ``conference level'' where all Republicans 
     were present.
       Ms. Myers. Will you oppose the nomination?
       Senator Dole. I'm not certain. I don't like what I hear or 
     what I read. I haven't met with the nominee.
       Ms. Myers. But you don't like it because he performed a 
     dozen----
       Senator Dole. That's right. I think it's one thing to be an 
     obstetrician, but, again, it's sort of--I think again, it 
     doesn't show--well, I think they should have checked it more 
     carefully.
       Ms. Myers. But even though that Dr. Foster says that he--
     most of these abortions, less than a dozen over, I think, 
     some 30 years of practice, were performed in cases of rape--
     --
       Senator Dole. Right.
       Ms. Myers [continuing]. Incest or danger to the life of the 
     mother.
       Senator Dole. Again, let's get him on the record and let's 
     see what the testimony is. My view is, we shouldn't shoot 
     down somebody before they've even had a hearing, and you may 
     decide that based on everything that is laid out and his 
     record in other areas, his record on teen pregnancy--he's 
     done a lot
     of good things, don't misunderstand me--that maybe he should 
     be confirmed. The general rule is that the president is 
     entitled to his nominees. And that's been the general rule 
       around here forever.Ms. Myers. So you do not agree, then, 
     with some anti-abortion activists who say the very fact that 
     he performed abortions is a disqualifying factor?
       Senator Dole. I may turn out to be that way, but, again, 
     I--since I get to vote and they don't, I want to see the 
     evidence.
       Ms. Myers. Well, if you feel that strongly about it, if 
     you're elected president, would you then promise to never 
     appoint anyone who favors abortion rights to any judicial 
     position?
       Senator Dole. Well, I'd rather wait until I get elected to 
     answer that, but----
       Ms. Myers. But if you feel that strongly about it, Senator, 
     doesn't it carry over----
       Senator Dole. No, I feel strongly about hearing the facts. 
     I mean, it's--I know it's not--a lot of precedent for it in 
     this town, but I'd like to have the facts laid out--
     everything he's done. If that one thing disqualifies him, 
     we'll see what happens.
       Mr. Novak. Senator Dole, since neither you nor any other 
     Republicans leaders are planning to do anything on abortion 
     in this Congress, which would satisfy the strong pro-life 
     constituency you have, critics say that taking off on Dr. 
     Foster is a cheap way out of that predicament, instead of 
     trying for a human life amendment, which you probably 
     couldn't get through the Senate at all, you can just satisfy 
     the pro-lifers by attacking Dr. Foster. Is there some 
     validity to that?
       Senator Dole. Well, I must--I haven't thought of that. I 
     mean, I happen to be pro-life. I think we agree with Ralph 
     Reed when they ask about prayer in school and these other 
     issues, and he's the executive director of the Christian 
     Coalition, that we need to address jobs and welfare reform 
     and tax cuts. This should be our priority. It doesn't mean 
     we're not going to address these issues some time in the next 
     two years.
       Mr. Novak. Senator, you have been known for scathing 
     criticism of supply side, as you once said that--had a little 
     joke with the----
       Senator Dole. That wasn't my joke. I repeated it and it 
     became my joke.
       Mr. Novak. But the--the good----
       Senator Dole. Good news, bad news.
       Mr. Novak. The good news was, a bus full of supply siders 
     crashed; the bad news was some of them survived. With that 
     background----
       Senator Dole. No, there were three empty seats.
       Mr. Novak. Three empty seats, all right. Well, you can tell 
     it better than I can.
       Senator Dole. Yeah.
       Mr. Novak. With that background, sir, how can you hope to 
     get support from the supporters of Jack Kemp who has now 
     dropped out of the presidential race?
       Senator Dole. Well, we've already picked up his supporters 
     in Iowa. Darrell Carney is 
      [[Page S2155]] on the Dole team. He was Kemp's chairman. 
     We're going to pick up a lot of support of Iowa. Plus, I 
     think, people looking at Jack Kemp and Bob Dole's records, 
     they find them fairly consistent, plus the effort to reach 
     out to other people to broaden the party. But I must say, if 
     you look back when we were saying those things--and that was 
     not my joke, but--pretty good--always got a laugh, so I kept 
     repeating it. Bob Hope still uses some of his stuff he had 25 
     years ago. So what we were saying then is what Republicans 
     are doing now.
       Ten years ago when we had to fight and win by one vote, the 
     budget battle is 1985, House Republicans were saying, ``We 
     don't want to cut spending, just cut taxes.'' Now they're 
     saying. ``Cut spending first.'' That's been my position ever 
     since I've been here. So I think its consistent. I don't 
     think--I think it's going to appeal to many people who say, 
     ``Cut spending first before we have a big tax cut.''
       Mr. Novak. In line with Mr. Russert's question about 
     whether you would only serve one term, there's also been 
     speculation that you might name your selection for vice 
     president and run as a tandem as Ronald Reagan did with 
     Richard Schweiker in 1976. Are you considering Jack Kemp for 
     that?
       Senator Dole. Well, certainly Jack would be on any list I 
     put together, along with Pete Wilson and Colin Powell and----
       Mr. Novak. In advance of the convention?
       Senator Dole. Well, if I did that, we have--again, that's a 
     decision that hasn't been made. I think some think it's a 
     plus and some think it's a minus and some haven't thought 
     about it.
       Mr. Novak. But it's possible?
       Senator Dole. Yeah.
       Mr. Novak. And you also had--who else----
       Senator Dole. You know, it's not really a short list. It 
     includes a number of people. We have a number of outstanding 
     governors--Governor Voinovich; Tommy Thompson, who's thinking 
     about running; Jim Edgar; Bill Weld; Governor Whitman. You've 
     got this whole list of people that I think would be 
     outstanding running mates. And some may run for president.
       Mr. Novak. You would include General Power on that list, 
     though?
       Senator Dole. Oh, yes.
       Mr. Novak. Colin Powell.
       Senator Dole. I had a good visit with him two or three 
     weeks ago. We didn't talk about this specific thing, but----
       Mr. Novak. Did he say he was a Republican?
       Senator Dole. No. But he--the thing that encouraged me--he 
     did know that polling was going on in America and that his 
     name was in the polling.
       Mr. Novak. Let me ask you two quick questions on issues, 
     sir.
       Senator Dole. Thank you. He knew he was running ahead of 
     me.
       Mr. Novak. Let me ask you two quick questions on issues. 
     The minimum--President Clinton has asked for an increase in 
     the minimum wage; Speaker Gingrich and the House leadership 
     is against it. You have now taken a position. Do you see any 
     kind of a tradeoff where the Republicans support an increase 
     in the minimum wage and the Democrats support a cut in the 
     capital gains tax?
       Senator Dole. I knew that would occur to you. I haven't 
     thought about it fully--might be a good trade. But I think 
     first we want to take a look at the minimum wage. He goes 
     back and says, ``Well, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich supported 
     one before.'' But we also had a sub-minimum wage--a training 
     wage and we also excluded certain size companies. Where has 
     he been the last two years with the increase in min--why did 
     we wait until now? Maybe because he made the deal with Mexico 
     and there's all the criticism with that, he thought maybe he 
     ought do something for low-income people.
       My colleague, Senator Kassebaum, is very wary of increasing 
     the minimum wage. She thinks we ought to have, if anything, a 
     targeted minimum wage that goes to low-income people, that 
     most of this is not going to people in the poverty level, 
     it's going to go to, you know, job entrants, young people and 
     some whose families make $50,000, $60,000 a year.
       Mr. Novak. But you don't rule it out. You don't rule out 
     supporting it.
       Senator Dole. With the deal you've suggested, I'd--you 
     know, that throws some new light on it. That might make it 
     very attractive.
       Mr. Novak. One last thing. You wrote in a letter--you and 
     several of your colleagues wrote a letter to Secretary of the 
     Treasury Rubin a couple weeks ago asking, ``What was the role 
     of the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund in 
     the devaluation of the Mexican peso, which has led to all 
     this trouble?'' Are you going to pursue that? Are you going 
     to ask for hearings? Just what do you have in mind? Is there 
     some scandal involved there?
       Senator Dole. Well, we don't know. I mean, there could be 
     because there's a feeling that somebody was feasting off 
     these devaluations around the world forever. It might be some 
     of the big concerns on Wall Street. We don't know the facts, 
     but we're going to try to find out.
       Senator D'Amato is very determined, and he told Secretary 
     Rubin just last week, he's going to monitor this almost on a 
     daily or weekly basis. And we're going to continue to push to 
     sort of peg the peso to the dollar at 3.52.
       Mr. Novak. You are going to push for that?
       Senator Dole. Sure.
       Mr. Novak. When will those hearings be held, sir?
       Senator Dole. Well, I know--whenever--I know Senator 
     D'Amato and Secretary Rubin met last week. I think it's going 
     to be an ongoing thing at a staff level and at the necessary 
     time maybe have hearings.
       Mr. Russert. Finally, Senator, our colleague Mark Shields, 
     talking about Newt Gingrich the other day, said, quote, 
     ``Imagine a Republican leadership team comprised of a good 
     guy and a bad guy and Bob Dole is the good guy?''
       Senator Dole. That shows you can finally make it in this 
     town.
       Mr. Russert. Has Newt Gingrich's rhetoric softened Bob 
     Dole?
       Senator Dole. I don't think it's so much that, it's been--
     everybody's been comparing Gingrich and Clinton, and I've 
     been able to be the spectator and people have sort of 
     forgotten about me. And they say, ``Gee, well, it's not the 
     same fellow I met last week.'' So maybe some of the things 
     that have been said--but I think it's been more the 
     comparison. Let's face it, Newt is in line to be president. 
     He's in the line of succession, which is more than most of us 
     can say. And he and Clinton--the speaker is very powerful, 
     the most powerful speaker we've had in a long, long time; 
     doing a good job and we're working closely together.
       Mr. Russert. Should he temper his rhetoric?
       Senator Dole. Well, I think things are settling down. I've 
     noticed a little different--you know, I look down the hall 
     now and then from the Senate over to the House and I don't 
     hear anything. Used to be able to hear it, just putting your 
     hea--so I think it's settling down on the House side.
       Mr. Russert. In 1976, When Bob Dole ran, he was described 
     as a hatchet man, and accused the Democrat wars--World War I, 
     World War II, Korea, were Democrat wars.
       Senator Dole. It was in my briefing book.
       Mr. Russert. Well, it--in 1988, you said to George Bush, 
     ``Stop lying about my record.'' In 1996----
       Senator Dole. See. I only made two mistakes.
       Mr. Russert. Well--but in 1996, will there be a different 
     Bob Dole running for president?
       Senator Dole. I think--well, I hope so. I mean, you try 
     to--if you don't try to learn from your mistakes, you ought 
     to get out of the business, whatever it is, whether it's 
     media or politics. And certainly I've said things I shouldn't 
     have said. Now I've never been more relaxed about what I'm 
     doing now. I mean, it seems to me that, you know, I'm at sort 
     of peace with myself. I know what I want to do. I'm not going 
     to be around criticizing any of my running mates or--not 
     running mates, but anybody out there running on the 
     Republican side. I've never personally attacked President 
     Clinton or Mrs. Clinton. I gave that up. I had a round of 
     that several years ago.
       Mr. Russert. Senator Dole, thanks for joining us.
       Senator Dole. Thank you.
       Mr. Russert. And we'll see you in Russell, Kansas, in 
     April.
       Senator Dole. I hope so. That's right, Meet the Press will 
     be there, right?
       Mr. Russert. Well, I lost the Super Bowl bet; I'll be 
     there.
       We'll be right back with William Safire.
       (Announcements.)
       Mr. Russert. Welcome back to Meet the Press. With us now, 
     William Safire.
       Bill, welcome. We have a trade war with China?
       Mr. Safire. Yeah. We weren't able to apply human rights to 
     the Chinese, and so the Clinton administration said, ``We'll 
     do anything you want, we'll give you MFN, we'll trade with 
     you,'' and that policy has been a big flop. And what has 
     happened is now American business has said, ``Well, we can't 
     fight on human rights grounds, but we're certainly ready to 
     fight on CD grounds.'' And I think that's kind of sad to see. 
     We should be standing for principle rather than just saving 
     $300 million on a--on the trade war.
       Mr. Russert. Who's going to lead China in the next century?
       Mr. Safire. Big question. It can go any one of four ways. 
     If it goes the establishment way, Xiang, then China will hold 
     together the way it is now. I don't think that'll happen. 
     He's a transitional figure. If it goes to Lee, he's the tough 
     guy of Tiananmen. And then you would have repression and a 
     very tough dictatorship. If it goes to Xu Rangzhi--he's the 
     economist; he's more the good guy, looks like Mayor Koch 
     actually, but a sound citizen. And then there's a dark horse, 
     Xiao Zhou, who is the Newt Gingrich of China, the head of the 
     legislature there, and nobody knows what he stands for.
       Mr. Russert. Who's going to lead the United States of 
     America in the next century?
       Mr. Safire. In the next century----
       Mr. Russert. Well----
       Mr. Safire [continuing]. Are you talking about--you 
     skipping over 1996 and----
       Mr. Russert. All right, we'll start at '96. I was trying to 
     let you off the hook, but got to '96, Safire.
       Mr. Safire. OK. We see Dole, who is awfully good as a 
     majority leader, and that's the big weakness. He's a 
     compromiser. And when you asked earlier, what about a one-
     term commitment, the very fact that they're talking about 
     that, and he's allowing the talk to continue, suggests that 
     perhaps he's better off in the job he's in. He looked over 
     his shoulder sort of on today's program and 
      [[Page S2156]] I think mentioned Pete Wilson out there. So 
     if Gingrich goes for it, that would weaken Gramm and help 
     Dole. It's a wonderful business.
       Mr. Russert. We have to take a quick break. We'll be back 
     with more Bill Safire after this.
       (Announcements.)
       Mr. Russert. Bill Safire, we've talked with you about 
     Russia quite a bit on this program. President Clinton said at 
     the State of the Union, ``American children go to bed now and 
     there's no nuclear missiles from Russia aimed at them.'' But 
     what is this real situation in Russia?
       Mr. Safire. Things are in terrific turmoil at the moment 
     because of the Chechnyan war. Boris Yeltsin's popularity has 
     gone right into the tank. I mean, he's in single digits. He's 
     below--you know, way below any other major leader. That's 
     because the reformers have deserted him, or they think he's 
     deserted them. And the Zhirinovsky nationalists have also 
     deserted him, because he's brought discredit on the armed 
     forces, and he's got nobody, except he's got himself 
     surrounded with about 70,000 or 80,000 soldiers who answer 
     directly to him around Moscow. The big question--here we are 
     talking about American elections and who's going to be the 
     candidate. The question in Russia is: Will there be an 
     election in 1996?
       Mr. Russert. Well----
       Mr. Safire. There are some good men around, Yavlinsky and--
     you know, it's coming along. But if the popularity of Yeltsin 
     stays so low, he may not want to have an election.
       Mr. Russert. And cancel the election.
       Mr. Safire. And postpone it for a few years, and that will 
     be terrible.
       Mr. Russert. A chilling thought to end our roundtable this 
     morning. Bill Safire, Bob Novak, Lisa Myers, thank you very 
     much. We'll be right back with our Meet the Press Minute.
       (Announcements.)
       Mr. Russert. Deja vu: December, 1951, President Truman was 
     in the third year of his term, there was widespread 
     speculation about another Democrat challenging him. And the 
     big unknown: the plans of General Dwight David Eisenhower. 
     Let's take a look.
       (File footage from December 2, 1951).
       Mr. Ernest Lindley. Who, in your opinion, would make the 
     strongest Democratic nominee for the presidency next year?
       Representative John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts): 
     Well, as--I've only heard of one or two men discussed, and as 
     it seems fairly inevitable that if President Truman is a 
     candidate for reelection, he will receive the nomination. I 
     would say that he would be probably the strongest. Now 
     there's been some talk of General Eisenhower running. I don't 
     know whether General Eisenhower's a Republican or a Democrat.
       Ms. Martha Rountree. You're not convinced that he is a 
     Republican, though, are you?
       Representative Kennedy. I have no reason to be convinced 
     he's a Republican or a Democrat, as he's ignored politics for 
     a long time, quite rightly, in his military career. But there 
     are those who say they know, and in view of that, perhaps we 
     can accept their opinion.
       Once General Eisenhower takes off his uniform, leaves a 
     very critical situation in Western Europe and takes a 
     position on issues like civil rights and labor legislation, 
     etc., and becomes a candidate and runs for office, I think 
     we'd get a better idea of whether he is going to be able to 
     sweep the country or not.
       (End of footage.)
       Mr. Russert. Hmm. General Colin Powell, are you listening?
       That's all for today. Join Giselle Fernandez later tonight 
     for the ``NBC Nightly News.'' And tomorrow on ``Today,'' 
     continuing coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial. Tomorrow night 
     on the ``NBC Nightly News'' with Tom Brokaw, remarkable 
     advances in the treatment of strokes.
       We'll be back next week when our guest will be another 
     presidential hopeful, former Vice President Dan Quayle. If 
     it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
       (Announcements.)8se Law,
       

                          ____________________