This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu

ROBERT J. DOLE ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

Interview with

Rep. ROBERT H. (“BOB”) MICHEL

May 24, 2007

Interviewer

Brien R. Williams

Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics 2350 Petefish Drive Lawrence, KS 66045 Phone: (785) 864-4900 Fax: (785) 864-1414 This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 2

Williams: This is an oral history interview with former Republican Leader Bob Michel, for the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas. We are in the Washington [D.C.] law offices of Hogan & Hartson, and today is Thursday, May 24, 2007, and I’m Brien Williams. Mr. Michel, it strikes me that you and Bob Dole shared a lot in terms of where you came from and what you did. Can you just—

Michel: Well, goodness. Of course, Bob was from Russell, Kansas. We all know that, you know. And I was from Peoria, or am from Peoria. I still regard it as my hometown. I know Bob always has a warm affection for Russell, Kansas. Gosh, all through the years he would make reference to it. I think we all feel, at least he did and I did, felt real strongly about the people who initially sent us into the big arena of politics, and we’re always appreciative of that start we got. I share Bob’s view that, boy, we never want to forget those roots back there in Kansas or Peoria, Illinois. [laughs]

Williams: Both of you are, quote, unquote, children of the Depression, too.

Michel: Oh, by all means.

Williams: How has that affected you and him?

Michel: Well, I tell you, that had a big effect. I was just doing a thing for my own alma mater back in Peoria, Bradley University, and they have an Institute of Principal Politics. When I was giving a lecture to the students and the hall was jammed, I was very happy that they were so attentive to what I was saying about my early life, and I said I was a product of the Depression. I think no question that that has had a bearing on my entire life, because I remember while I was fortunate that my father was a machinist and a toolmaker, a job that was really required, and was working most of the time during the Depression, but there was 25 percent unemployment around the country. My mother was from a family of twelve, eight boys, from out in Utah, and while they were agriculturally dominated at that time, several of her brothers were very good mechanics and rode the rails, you know, hooking their way back here to the East, could they find jobs, you know. This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 3

I had not only one paper route but I had three at the same time, mowed grass and all the routine that you do, you know, in those days. But the thing that struck me, it was a Friday night, I think it was, and my two uncles came home to the house, came and stayed with us, and they were working on piecework. Actually, they were kind of disconsolate and downhearted, you know, because Mom or Dad would say, “Well, how did you do this week?” and they announced what the check was for the week, you know, and I realized that I was making more carrying my three paper routes than they were as first- class mechanics working at Jarvis Chevrolet in Peoria, Illinois. It wasn’t that their work was not competent; it just that there wasn’t that kind of business. People couldn’t even get their cars repaired, you know. Then to witness that personally, of people who really had problems getting by, that always stuck with me, and you never forget it. Frankly, when I look back at history, you say 25 percent unemployment, I think in today’s time you’d just about have a revolution. I remember my toughest race when I was running for the first time reelection after being Leader, why, there was 16 percent unemployment in Peoria. Man, that was tough. The general public was about 10 percent, but I had a significant problem. Those things really stick with you.

Williams: You’re talking about them as memories when you were growing up and a young man. What bearing did they have on your career as a public servant?

Michel: Well, I guess in one respect it made me all the more conservative from the standpoint of—for example, my father, another one of the things that I learned from my father, I can spend my earnings or whatever on my clothes and whatever I wanted to, except that he wanted to be sure that I was putting 10 percent away. I had a bank account and he’d check that every once in a while and see that whatever I was making mowing yards or working at a tailor’s shop or papers, that I was laying 10 percent away. That was another principle that always stuck with me, always get yourself prepared for a rainy day. [laughs] And I’m sure Bob—that’s kind of the background he had in his family. We shared a common—those of us born at that time and eventually became public figures, why, boy, that shaped our lives and our thinking about issues. No question about it.

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 4

Williams: That’s fiscal policy. What about other areas?

Michel: Well, I was the son of a French immigrant; my father was French. And my mother did not finish high school; she was a house domestic. They were conservative. Of course, in this country at that time we were evolving as a melding of blacks and whites from our Civil War and black constituency, and that was not the easiest—I learned later on that I had to do more in the area of melding the differences between the—I didn’t get it from my parents, because they were still—that’s the way people were. You just can’t get away from it. But they were always very religious people. I had to go to Sunday school every Sunday, you know, and even on the tithing, my father would give me a dime or a quarter or something to share, that I was getting used to contributing to the church and to other philanthropic causes too.

Williams: I seem to recall that Bob Dole, when asked what party he was going to be affiliated with, sort of said, “Well, who has the most votes in Kansas?”

Michel: Right.

Williams: And he found out it was pretty Republican.

Michel: Right.

Williams: Therefore he became a Republican. I suspect you were sort of a Republican from birth.

Michel: Oh, in my case, yes. I remember, of course, even though in the Depression, you know, what [Franklin D.] Roosevelt did to bring us out of it, and who I would still refer to as one of our greater presidents of all of them combined, my mother and father detested him. Oh, they just couldn’t stand Roosevelt, you know. They were hardshell Republicans. [laughs] I never really asked them, “How did you become Republican?” It happened and that was the environment in which I grew up.

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 5

Williams: You became active politically in high school, as I recall.

Michel: Well, yes, never thinking you’re going to do anything down the road a ways. It’s just I was fortunate in high school, for example, to have a homeroom teacher who was a stickler on parliamentary procedure. Not all of them got the kind of training I did in Miss McGrath’s homeroom. I don’t even know if some of them ever chose up officers, but she said we were going to have officers, you’re going to run the program, and what little it might be, you know, president and vice president, secretary. Of course, are there any amendments to the minutes as read, you know. It was good training back in high school. I never thought I was going to use it later on other than maybe in just running a normal meeting, having some gift of leadership to move things along, and that helped. [laughs]

Williams: As you came of age on the brink of World War II, did you have a sense of where you would be career-wise later on in your life?

Michel: No, I had none whatsoever. I liked music and I was good at singing. Gosh, from Sunday school on, grade school, high school, whether it’s double quartet, madrigals, a capella choir, I loved—of course, I eventually married my wife in the music school at Bradley. She’s a very accomplished pianist, her degree in music education and piano. So that was one of the things that always stuck with me. I took public speaking class, but again never thinking that—when I look back on it and I say my voice training plus the opportunity to have gone to speech class, obviously helped me when I became a full- fledged politician. But I never thought of it in those terms, I really didn’t. As a matter of fact, I first started out, my major was engineering because I was real good on a drafting board, and my father coached me along, had all these fine instruments that he brought over from the Old Country in his work, and I thought that was for me, and I was good at it. Only had a semester, however, before the War came along and interrupted it all. I always said one of the good things for me personally that happened about the War that I obviously determined sitting around a draft board was not for me. It’d have to be something different than that for a career. As a matter of fact, then I switched my major to economics and business administration. This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 6

The way I actually got involved in politics for real was when the president of the university called me in one day just a couple months before graduation and wanted to know what I was going to do, because I had been active in managing a couple of campaigns on the campus of Bradley University. Well, I guess I was elected junior class president too. He said, “I have a good friend who’s running for Congress to succeed Everett [M.] Dirksen, who’s retiring from the Congress.” Everett Dirksen had represented our 18th District for sixteen years in the House and already was a very prominent individual, of course, and that’s eventually what led to him being chosen as a nominee to run in the Senate against the then-Majority Leader, Scott [W.] Lucas. But anyway, I said, “Well, jeez, Mr. Owen, I haven’t had political science. I haven’t had journalism.” He said, “You just go have the interview. Judge [Harold] Velde needs a man Friday for his campaign, and asked me if I could make a recommendation. I’ve observed you on campus and I think you should go down and have the interview.” So I went down, had the interview, and lo and behold, we hit it off very well. Of course the key was the judge said, “Well, of course, you know, Bob—you don’t know, but in politics there’s not very much pay involved, but if, of course, I’m successful, I’d like to think of taking you along to Washington and being in my shop. So we’ll pay you thirty bucks a week.” So graduating then in June and going to work for the campaign then back in 1948, why, that’s the way it all began, you know. Jeez, I remember learning how to write a press release from a couple of good reporters in the district who were friends of the judge, who wanted him to win, and taught me a key line here, one thing and another. [laughs] So it was really by accident that I got really immersed. Of course, then by coming down here and then, of all things, I was very fortunate that Everett Dirksen had, incidentally, in those days, had only, I think, five people in his congressional office, but he was still a dominant figure. He wasn’t loaded up like we have today with over twenty- some people, and hardly desk room for all the staff. The keys were a husband and wife affair [Mr. and Mrs. John Gomien], both of whom could take shorthand and type, and I was fortunate that they, of course, while Everett Dirksen during that two years was campaigning for the Senate, they were happy to stay on the Hill and work for Judge Velde, who was my predecessor, and coach me. It was a little bit awkward situation This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 7 where this little neophyte from Peoria, Bobby Michel, comes out here to Washington to tell these folks who’d been there working on the Hill for fifteen years, how to run the office. They were very wonderful people. My wife and I then got to know them, played bridge together, so it was a nice camaraderie arrangement. Then, of course, I spent eight years as the AA, and then the judge decided voluntarily to retire, and he said, “Bob, it’s not for me. No reason why you shouldn’t make the race.” He said, “You’ve learned enough around here to be able to do what’s required to be a congressman.” [laughs] I would encourage young people in college today, don’t be afraid to start down at the bottom and run for the school board or the county board or even just some council of some sort, and give yourself an opportunity to prove your leadership qualities, and eventually you’ll be rewarded.

Williams: Did you have subsequent contacts with the president at Bradley as your career progressed?

Michel: Unfortunately, no, because it—well, I take that back. Yes. We were down here several years and he was still the president of the university, and from time to time he’d come down. Then I think he left the university and went to California and represented like the Chamber of Commerce out there, a couple of them, and when they came back, of course we renewed the old friendship. He was a great one for boosting Bradley basketball. We actually became a national power because the president was so engrossed in our basketball team, and we had a good one. And they weren’t seven-footers either, you know. [laughs] Oh goodness.

Williams: So do you think that kind of a career start is possible today?

Michel: Oh, hardly. That was unique for me. I have to tell the folks I was very lucky. I was at the right place at the right time. Although I tell folks opportunity knocks sometimes but once, you better—I could have very well said, “Oh, I don’t want to go down for that interview. That’s just so far afield for me,” but I was pliable and amenable, and I found out that that was probably one of the bigger lessons in life I learned. [laughs]

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 8

Williams: I think you started out talking about this—I thought you were going to go to this, to talk a bit about the G.I. Bill. Is that right?

Michel: Oh, well, of course that was very helpful to me. Gosh, at that time I got it really through my wife, I guess, more than anything when I went to Bradley. That was the best thing that ever happened to me, meeting her and then the music school. She was three years younger than I was, but she was already a junior and I was going back to becoming an ending freshman at three and a half years gone in the military, you know. So that had all played a role for me.

Williams: We’ll have another occasion to talk about your World War II experiences in detail, but I’d like you to talk just a little bit about the importance of World War II as a life experience that you and Bob Dole both shared very many common points.

Michel: By all means. We talked about the Depression as being a big one. Having served in the military, particularly in World War II, and in my case in the infantry, and having seen my share of the worst of it, an event you never, never forget that. I’m reminded particularly when I co-authored the resolution to give George “the first” [George H.W. Bush] the first the authority to use ground troops in the Gulf War, and Speaker Tom [Thomas S.] Foley, who often likes to refer to how I—it was a very emotional debate, but it was bipartisan in how I came up to him and I told him, I said, “Well, Tom, you and I are on different sides of this issue, and I just told our memories. You vote your conscience on this one. This is not a political issue, Republican or Democrat; it’s a vote of conscience. And I’m going to have to oppose you, Tom, because I think we have to do what we do, but I’ll tell you, for me it’s very emotional.” And then as I described during the course of my remarks on the floor a generation ago, twenty-five, thirty, well, whatever it was, years ago I was in the enlisted ranks during all my tenure in the Congress, I was always given to following orders, and had nothing to say about my future or fortune, whatever, and here I am a generation later now as a member of the highest legislative body in the land, and now I’m making a life-and-death decision for another generation. I know I got real emotional at the time, and I feel it strongly. You can’t address the issue without recalling those vivid memories of what you young people This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 9 who might again be thrust in harm’s way will have to face and what I faced. And frankly, I was of that generation when we thought, just like the generation before, World War I, the war to end all wars, and ours was going to be the demise of Hitler and all those things that were involved there. Of course, then ultimately when you—particularly as we’re recording this near Memorial Day and thinking in terms of, goodness sakes, here’s Korea and here’s Vietnam and here’s the Gulf War and now the Iraqi War—and I know Bob shared the same thing with me. That’s a real tough, tough decision to make.

Williams: I read the interview, I guess, with the Capitol Historical Society that you and Mr. Foley shared, and this came up in that interview. It was very moving to hear you talk about the vote in ’91, but then you’d also been through the whole Vietnam—you were voting then.

Michel: Right. And I never made a trip to Vietnam. I don’t know, I always remembered somewhere about—I thought it was [Douglas] MacArthur himself, he said, “Don’t get involved in a land war in Asia.” Of course, [John F.] Kennedy had the vanguard of trainees and, of course, the French—that was just a debacle for the French, and here we were following suit. But I didn’t—I guess at the time felt that I was experienced enough or knowledgeable enough to know is this a good thing or a bad thing. Of course, ultimately you come to some conclusions, particularly then when you think in terms of the overall conflict between at that time the Soviet Union and the United States, and Harry [S.] Truman saying, well, it’s just a police action, it turned out to be much more than a police action, but then as it ended up, here we were on the 38th Parallel—that was them—and here we are with South Korea. Then when we got to Vietnam, then it was a different parallel. And in Europe where it was at that time still the Soviet Union trying to get the minds of the people in East Germany and West Germany. So when you witnessed and experienced that in your real life, it really makes an impression of what this was all about globally, you know, far from what I would have been thinking about back in Peoria in high school or college, although I had a wonderful history teacher. He was Armenian, and, oh, he really made history come to life. I guess one of my recommendations to the college kids just a few weeks ago, you know, they said, “What would you concentrate on?” I said, well, boy, you don’t do yourself any This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 10 harm by taking as much history as you can in any walk of life, because when you think in terms of what we’re involved in today and then you have to ask yourself the question, listen, these people making the decisions, do they really know historically what some of the factors are going to be? I don’t think we were nearly aware of what was involved in the Islamic community, you know. So life is a learning experience.

Williams: I’ve heard many people say, when I interview veterans for the Library of Congress, that they wish there were more people in Congress today who have had combat experience, because their attitude might be different.

Michel: Well, you know, that’s true. When I was a junior congressman, boy, most of us had served some time in the military. Of course, now today there are very few. I’m thinking of how our Chowder and Marching Society began because back in [Richard M.] Nixon’s day and [Gerald R.] Ford’s day and a number of former members of Congress from around the country, including John Lodge from Connecticut, names that are familiar, you know, and there was a pension bill that came up to pay us all World War II veterans a pension, and these twelve fellows got together, all members of the House of Representatives, all Republicans, and said, “This is kind of crazy, robbing Peter to pay Paul. What do we need a pension for? That was our obligation and responsibility when our government called us into service.” And by getting together and deciding they were going to fight this thing, they beat that pension bill by one vote, which then led to that organization becoming what it was, with ex-presidents and vice presidents and secretaries are members of it because they thought strongly about that issue, but then other issues following on. It was another learning experience, you know.

Williams: Did you and Senator Dole ever sit down and reminisce about or share thoughts?

Michel: Oh, I don’t know. It was always kind of my happenstance, I think, that we both knew what it was like. Neither of us, I don’t think, ever wanted to press that experience upon our contemporaries other than to say, “Well, yeah, we know what you’re talking about in spades.” But not really, other than, oh, I guess a time I’m remembering, I guess This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 11 it was at the time of the Gulf War when Bob and I and Brent Scowcroft, Colin [L.] Powell were there, Bush “the first” called us down to the White House for a luncheon, and it was the day that we had the bombing in the Gulf War that was just devastating. Saddam [Hussein]’s troops were retreating, and I remember distinctly President Bush— “the first” at that time—having been a former pilot, he said, “Our pilots are coming back telling us that this is like shooting fish in a barrel.” Because the question came up, well, now what? And he reiterated to all of us, saying that, “Look. Our United Nations mandate was to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. He was the aggressor, and our role is to kick him out of there.” Now it’s quite obvious we’ve accomplished that. Of course, in retrospect, twenty-twenty hindsight-people say, “Well, why didn’t you go the whole way at that time and save yourselves what you’re doing today?” But I remember distinctly that was not the mandate of the U.N., and frankly, you wonder then how would we have handled that. Any different than we do? Would we have been better off? I don’t know. That’s a question for history.

Williams: A big one.

Michel: Sure is.

Williams: Let’s go back to that first race of yours when you succeeded the congressman you’d been working for. Were you a household name in the district by then?

Michel: Not really, although the name Michel was—incidentally, when I went into the service I wanted to prove to my dad that he should have stuck to his French pronunciation, Michel [pronounced Mee-shell]. Mother always thought that’s a much prettier pronunciation than Michael. He said, “Listen, I came to America to be an American. If they want to call Michael, Mitchell, anything, that’s good enough for me.” But anyway, when I went all through my three and a half years, everybody knew me as Bob Michel [pronounced mee-SHELL]. I’ve got a little story to tell you on that when one of my former old platoon sergeants called me up after listening to me in the debate on the House floor, never realizing that I was in his platoon back in the war as Bob Michel [pronounced mee- This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 12

SHELL] because everybody said, “The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Michel [pronounced MY-kul],” and Dan Flood from Pennsylvania and Silvio Conte of Massachusetts, on my subcommittee, used to love to refer to me as, “The gentleman from Illinois, Monsieur Michel.” So it finally dawned on me, he called me from Chillicothe, Ohio, and he says, “My gosh, Bob, I didn’t realize that was you from our former old Fox Company.” And I said, “Well, it is, Charlie.” [laughs] But just the pronunciation of a name. So when I ran the first time, however, we subsequently realized maybe a shirttail relative, because Victor P. Michel—“Mi-kul” at that time—was mayor of Peoria for a term and a state senator, and he was a popular individual, and I thought, well, better that we stick with the name “Mi-kul” in the political arena rather than confusing the people. So it worked out right to do that. [laughs] There was a five-man race, and Jim Almond [phonetic], who eventually became our state central committeeman, was one of my opponents, of course one of my closest friends today. He retired down in Arizona. He was the principal opponent, and I think there were about 19,000 votes for me and 16,000 for him, and then the others drifted away.

Williams: In that district particularly after so many years Dirksen had served, it probably wouldn’t have been very likely a Democrat would have won.

Michel: It was a Republican district. Basic six counties were still there, right. It’s gotten—well, of course, now it’s enlarged so, too, and through redistricting, which is another problem we face today, you know, these curlicue districts, twenty-two counties instead of six, and running kittywumpus all over the state. [laughs]

Williams: So when did you first meet Bob Dole?

Michel: Well, I guess it wasn’t until he was elected to the House. Of course, I’m trying to think back, you know, how did we finally get to know him as kind of a comedian right off the bat? He was so good at telling stories. Of course, in the House you got so much dead time, you go back in the cloakroom, you know, and have a hot dog or Coke or whatever, you know, and whiling away your time sometimes, and when Bob was there, This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 13 he always had some story to tell or some quip. He was just fantastic at it. Everybody just got to know, my gosh, how did this guy come up with these expressions and get everybody in a good laughable mood? [laughs] It was amazing.

Williams: And this was right from the start?

Michel: Right. Right. Like I said, it just didn’t take long, you got to know him, boy, he’s a fun fellow. That’s the way you got to recognize him. Then, of course, eventually you realize the guy is—and of course, the two of us, from my standpoint of our experience in the War, there was a community of interest, this was no slouch. Bob was a very significant individual and one heck of a good—of course, then he got on the Agriculture Committee and very active and forceful and effective in Food for Peace Program and anything that would promote the cause of agriculture, why, he was right there in the forefront of it all. Of course, Kansas is Kansas, a big wheat state. It’s like Pat Roberts has got to be, and Sebelius and those folks all got to be known for an area they represented. Well, they really know the subject. [laughs] And were articulate in expressing their views. That was another thing, in Bob’s case. He had a gift. As you say, a gift for gab, a gift for public speaking.

Williams: You came to the House in 1957.

Michel: Right. Elected in ’56.

Williams: And he came in 1961, I guess, elected in 1960.

Michel: Right.

Williams: And he became—is it the president of the freshman class?

Michel: Could very well be. I was of mine, and I didn’t realize that I guess—it would be very understandable, because, like I said, he was a very popular individual from the word go. [laughs] This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 14

Williams: Do you have any recollections of working with him as a colleague in the House?

Michel: Well, not in the House as much as in the Senate, after he got to the Senate. I remember specifically when I’d been elected Leader before he became in the leadership role in the Senate. One of the things that always struck me, which showed a trait of character for Bob, never being carried away with his own position, you know, of importance. I remember specifically on the first leadership meeting we had together at the White House, and normally when you come out after the president and you meet the press, and I don’t know, for me I guess I just always kind of yielded to the senators to go first, then I’d mop up. But Bob specifically told me, “Hey, Bob, I’m the new kid on the block. Lead off.” And it’s funny how just little things like that, but it was a trait of character in Bob. He was never carried away with the fact that he was the Leader, either Minority or Majority Leader. That was one of those additional responsibilities that is thrust upon you and do the best job you can at it. He was good.

Williams: Going back to Bob Dole in the House for a moment, or maybe just a more general question I have, and that is, as a member of the House, are you always sort of looking at your colleagues and thinking, “This one is going to try to get over to the Senate”?

Michel: Oh, I don’t know. Not so much other than particularly if—we were Republicans, you know, and you had an up-and-coming House member that had potential for going to the Senate, why, boy, you were always—the thought would say, “Well, Bob, when are you going to rack it up here and go for the enchilada?” [laughs] Although so many House members would be reluctant to refer to the upper house or get an advancement to become in the Senate, although today—I think I checked the other day, I think just over half of the members of the Senate were former members of the House, whether they be Republican or Democrat. So it was pretty much a natural, or some liked state government and preferred to go—I remember several of our members who’ve done that, like Charlie [Charles] Thone This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 15 from Nebraska and—name escapes me, from Minnesota. After they’d become governor, I’d ask them, “How is it being—?” “Boy, it’s a lot better than in the House. We can really get things done. I mean, you’re in an executive position role rather than simply a legislator,” and I don’t mean to demean the legislative process, because it has equal status under our Constitution with the three branches of government, but nonetheless, there’s a difference between having that executive authority and even when you’re picking presidential candidates. They’ll look and say, “Well, he’s only been a legislator. He’s never had to really run the whole show.” [laughs] “And how good of an executive is he?” And that’s true that legislators many times have a deficiency in their leadership role, in having experience of an executive over a group of individuals.

Williams: So at some point did it occur to you that seeing Bob Dole in the House, “He’s going to go to the Senate”?

Michel: Oh, I think there’s no question about it. I’m trying to think who the senators were at the time. Of course, I remember [Frank] Carlson was a great senator and then— oh, gee whiz, several others. And then, of course, sometimes you waited, and opened up against a member of the opposition party, why, you had situations where members decided, “Well, I’m going to take him on in the primary.” [laughs] And that’s happened. Then it’s kind of a sticky wicket if you know them both and don’t have a preference one way or another, although sometimes you say, “It’s a good thing he’s running, because we’d lose a seat with the incumbent, who is not pulling his oars, and we need a change of face,” or one thing and another.

Williams: So as a legislator in the House, what came to mind for you was Bob Dole on the Agriculture Committee.

Michel: Yes. Right. Very dominant.

Williams: To what extent was his interest in things like the Food Stamp [Program] and foreign aid and whatnot strictly based on the interest of farmers, and to what extent was it, let’s say, quote, unquote, humanitarian interest? This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 16

Michel: Well, initially I would say it was probably his constituency in the farming community that he obviously represented. Then as he grew in stature and became a more prominent member of the House, then, of course, he broadened the scope of his whole thinking, for that matter. Of course, he’s always very strong on defense, too. So I think it’s just kind of a natural that he would be very active, and of course it’s to our advantage to have agricultural exports. Then, of course, when you get down the road a piece and you’re just beginning ethanol in those early days, you know, as a substitute fuel for petrol, but I think that just grew with his stature and his broadening his vision of what his obligation and responsibilities—probably looking forward to, quite frankly, then his moving on to the Senate and maybe being on the Foreign Affairs Committee and having to deal with those subjects. In other words, his obligation and responsibility was going to go far beyond the State of Kansas or the congressional district that he once represented. Of course, that’s to the people’s advantage when one takes it on and makes such a success of it like Bob has.

Williams: To what extent was his World War II experience gave him a sort of privileged position or—

Michel: Just that much more respect for what he had undergone experience-wise and that when he spoke, he spoke with authority. You’re not going to kid Bob Dole about what combat is all about and life in the service. He’s lived it, and that means a heck of a lot.

Williams: So he moved on then to the Senate.

Michel: Yes.

Williams: And fairly quickly began to get leadership positions there within the Republican National Committee and so on and so forth.

Michel: Right.

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 17

Williams: So talk a little bit more about your relations with him because he was the Leader in the Senate.

Michel: Well, then, of course, when I got up to the point where I got to be Whip first and chairman of the Congressional Campaign Committee for one devastating term, gee, I always look back on that and said, how did I ever get promoted to Whip when I was responsible, or at least was chairman, when we lost forty-seven seats in the House. Of course, the year was Watergate, and that was just absolutely devastating. I know my wife and I, we would hate to wake up in the morning, turn the news on and find out what other shoe had dropped the night before, you know. It was terrible. And trying to get candidates to run. But Bob was—and then coupled with that was his ability campaign- wise, and, of course, he was really on the speaking circuit because members loved to have him come speak to their district, he’d give them an entertaining speech. In addition to being philosophically right, it was—they’d say, “Jeez, that was a damn good speech.” So Bob then became, of course, chairman of the Committee itself, which is another mark of distinction and leadership on his part. So it was just a broadening of all the things in which he got involved during the course of his tenure.

Williams: Mentioning 1974 brings to mind his senatorial election that year which he came very close to losing. Were Republicans around the country aware of that particular race with Dr. [Bill] Roy?

Michel: I can’t say honestly that at that time—I was probably in a position where it was, jeez, I had all I could do to take care of my House members, let alone, but I was aware, obviously, as chairman of the Congressional Campaign Committee, who is at the top of the ticket. Is the governor running and is he popular or not? And is a senator running? Is he popular or not? That makes a big difference to the House members who are usually lower on the ballot. So it had to be a consideration for those of us in the House and Congressional Committee.

Williams: Talk a little bit about the relationship of the Republican National Congressional Committee and the Republican National Committee. This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 18

Michel: Well, I think today there’s far better coordination between the three—Senatorial, Congressional, and, of course, again, today money is such a factor that while it’s always been some factor, I think if I’d like to correct something today, it would be oh, how could we get by without money being such a factor in this whole equation. It’s just unconscionable. I ran the first time for Congress for $15,000 in a congressional race. My toughest one, when I was running the first time for reelection as a Leader and they couldn’t get it—Reaganomics was rather unpopular, we had the recession of 1982, and then I spent, I think, 660,000, and that was the most. But today I’m thinking, first of all, we have old Bob [Robert K.] Dornan out in California in a House race, a million dollars, my goodness what’s happening here? Of course, now a multimillion-dollar House race is not even suggesting that senators or governors or whatever—I don’t know that it’s helped the process. I wish there were some way we could get by without it being such a factor, but it is a fact of life.

Williams: Just as a matter of historical note here, when you were in charge of the NRCC, what were the relations between the Senate and the Republican National Committee? How did things work?

Michel: Well, like I said, it wasn’t near what it is today. Of course, we didn’t have the communications, we didn’t have the kind of facilities. It was haphazard back in those early days. We were kind of on our own. It’s a much better coordinated operation today than it was back in Bob’s and my early days, but that isn’t to say that, of course, the National Committee was always very important, because their initial consideration was the president, because many times the president himself, if he was elected president or if he was the nominee, had something to say about who’s going to be the chairman of the National Committee, whereas in both the Senate and House, we were pretty free to pick our own leaders, you know, minus presidential influence one way or another.

Williams: So when Dole was head of the RNC, what did the House members expect to get from the organization?

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 19

Michel: Well, of course, you turn initially to your Congressional Campaign Committee as helping you, but you also realize that the National Committee had a capacity for raising money. And, boy, if the National Committee itself thought enough and was interested enough in that race to put some money in it, why, then you’d gone up another notch in the recognition, and that was good for you if it happened. [laughs]

Williams: What about recruitment? Where did that figure?

Michel: That’s so much better today, too. Of course, the times make a difference. Like I said, that year of Watergate, we didn’t have candidates jumping all over themselves to come forward and say, “Hey, I want to run for Congress,” at least to take a seat. All your efforts practically were defensive. Hold what you got. You’re going to lose some, but, jeez, don’t lose the whole ball of wax here. It was devastating. We lost both in the House and Senate.

Williams: So you were chair for a couple of years only?

Michel: Of the Congressional Campaign Committee, just one term, two years, yes. Then the opportunity came to run for Whip. When Les Arends bowed out, of course he was Whip for longer than I think any man in history will ever serve, twenty-five years in number two spot with Joe Martin and with Charlie Halleck and with Gerry Ford, you know, he was another one, well liked, but he really never gave any kind of indication he wanted to move up to the top spot. He was content to be the Whip. It was kind of odd. You won’t find that today, I don’t think.

Williams: And you as Whip, what were your main responsibilities?

Michel: Well, of course, I was Whip for three terms, and under Johnny [John J. Rhodes]. I was trying to put the pieces together and participate, of course, whenever we had meetings on where are we going, what are we going to be doing, and, of course, during all those years for me I was a perpetual member of the minority. I have thirty-eight years total in the House, all of them in the minority. I never chaired anything, a subcommittee This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 20 or a committee or a sub-sub of anything. Only on the last day that I was in the Congress, when Speaker Tom Foley said, “Well, Bob, I think you’ve been in the minority long enough. You’ve been denied this gavel. I want you to bring the House to order.” It was a plenty full House and they all laughed. [laughs] I finally got to wield the gavel for a couple of minutes.

Williams: Was that pretty bittersweet for you?

Michel: Well, yes. Of course, I had made the decision not to run again. We were forty votes behind, and I just couldn’t conceive that we were going to pick up forty seats and become majority. While I’d liked to have matched Les Arends’ forty years, I said, you know, there’s nothing magic in forty over thirty-eight. And I was getting up to seventy, in the seventies, and I recognized in my own case that there were some things in which I was not as sharp as I once was, that I was slipping a little bit, and better go out on a high note rather than be something less than what you were initially and always perceived as you got reelected as Leader, as deserving of the honor and the credit, and that you weren’t just hanging on. That’s what helped me make my decision then to bow out. Then, of course, after we done fifty-two seats, to say did you have a second thought, yes, briefly, although Newt [Gingrich] and I would still have had a knock ‘em, sock ‘em contest. I don’t think Newt would have let the opportunity go by without challenging. And I could have lost, although I think had I lost, I’d gone back to my position as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And even though Newt jumped over several members as chairman, I don’t think he could have afforded to do that with me, because my basic conservative voting record’s better than his. I would have stayed, so I could have been chairman on the Committee on Appropriations, but then when you weigh it all and the nice opportunity I had to come here with collegial people, the same thing that I enjoyed up there, why, I have no regrets whatsoever.

Williams: We’re getting near the end of this tape, so I’m going to stop and put a fresh tape in, and we’ll pick it up.

[End Tape 1; Begin Tape 2] This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 21

Williams: All right. We were just talking about the relationship between you, leadership on the House side, and Senator Dole on the Senate side. So talk a little bit more about that relationship.

Michel: Well, Bob and I, our philosophy of life, I think, in politics is pretty—we’re a pretty in sync with one another. I can’t recall any time when on critical issues, even minor ones in which we were at odds with one another, that it made a difference, because we were leaders in our respective houses generally. We were in perfect sync with one another. I think the fact that Bob once served in the House always made us more comfortable in the sense that we knew he had an appreciation for if there was a different kind of nuance going on in the Senate versus the House, he could quickly understand what it was for those of us in the House to deal with what we were dealing with, because he was once there. So that was always helpful. On the big issues we were always working together, and in our conferences down at the White House we were both given the opportunity to speak up and that was required or express the views of our membership, and we did so as best we could always. It was a good relationship that I had with Bob, no question about it. I guess sometimes you read about leaders at odds with one another, not in sync, and I just can’t think of a situation like that where we were at odds.

Williams: Never?

Michel: No, I really can’t.

Williams: You’re not just being politic here.

Michel: No. Maybe we did vote differently on some minor issues, if I go back in the record. I can’t remember how I voted on so many of these things, you know. But it would have been very minor. It wouldn’t have been controlling, that would be sure, you know, or in our leadership role that it made that difference.

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 22

Williams: How often did you meet with Senator Dole?

Michel: Of course, in those days we were having much more, it seems to me, regular meetings with the president. As a matter of fact, speaking with Denny [J. Dennis] Hastert, there’s no question but that Denny did not have the relationship with George W. [Bush] that I had with [Ronald W.] Reagan, for example, or with George “the first.” It just wasn’t there. Boy, the times that I took groups up to the White House for a key issue with President Reagan. I never thought he got near the credit for helping the legislative process, and I don’t recall Denny and George W. operating that way. Whether it was Jim [James A.] Baker organizing it, or [Ken] Duberstein or Mike [Michael] Deaver, Reagan was always very helpful in that respect. Of course, I’d never take more than ten or twelve in a group in the Cabinet Room there, and usually mixed, Republicans and Democrats. Particularly on an issue I’d have a little crib card. “The ones that are for you, Mr. President, are over here on the right. The ones who are against you are on the left. The swing votes are in the middle,” and what the state was, because you couldn’t expect the president to always remember that. But those were very important occasions to help sway the vote. I don’t know exactly how Bob operated with the senators. There weren’t as many, and, of course, they had a bit different kind of relationship there than I did with the House, where you have to try and make the most of a limited period of time with far more members involved.

Williams: So were these meetings attended by the Senate and the House?

Michel: Generally speaking, they were joint leadership meetings, yes, so that we’d keep them informed. There might be some occasion he wanted just the House members there or the Senate was already done with the issue or vice versa, but generally speaking, initially we were both taken into the confidence of the president, and that was a good way to do it, whether you were in the majority or the minority, but each side recognizing what the differences were going to be because you had the power to do it or you were playing second fiddle to the majority in your house. Of course, in my case I was always representing the minority. But it sure taught me, I think, to be a heck of a better legislator This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 23 by the fact that then subsequent I’d have to tell some of our subsequent leaders, “Listen. You may find that you’ll be in the minority again some day. You’ll appreciate a little bit more respect than what I see you giving the minority.” Overall, I think it helps you to have that relationship where you have a—and Bob was good at that. Of course, the Senate’s a different body than the House is in many occasions, and there is a more genteel mannerism, generally speaking, in the Senate than there is in the House, and respect for one another is deeper than it runs in the House, where members are quick to respond with words possibly that they wish they had not said. Of course, in some cases they’re taken down and withdrawn from the record too. [laughs]

Williams: So at these leadership meetings, the Speaker of the House, a Democrat, would be there too.

Michel: Oh, sure.

Williams: So this is very bipartisan.

Michel: “Tip” [Thomas P.] O’Neill and—of course there were times when—but not many. Most of the times when they’d have a leadership, I think the president would like—of course in our case, when we were in the minority, he’d just have to have the majority there too; otherwise, you’re just rubbing people the wrong way. I think sometimes Tip would get just a little bit ticked off that Reagan was as good as he was in convincing members on his side to split away. [laughs] Because they were the two Irishmen and you used to get that sense of feeling, you know. Tip would say, “Doggone it, you tend to your men and I’ll tend to mine,” because obviously he lost some votes because of the President’s popularity and his deftness in helping win the issue for Republicans, even though being in the minority. But that was fun. That was exhilarating to put it together.

Williams: I imagine you have some interesting recollections of O’Neill and Reagan interacting with each other and probably some with Dole and Reagan too.

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 24

Michel: Oh, sure. By all means. Of course, on—what was it—St. Patrick’s Day, of course, everybody’d get together, and of course Reagan loved those storytelling times. Of course, Bob fit into that mode. He could match story for story, just about. [laughs] I guess the Scripture says “Thou shalt not envy,” but I was always enviable of Bob’s capacity and capability for telling—and the President’s too—for telling stories, or anybody who had that gift for recollection of the punchline, you know, to make the story really what it was, what it should be. That’s a gift. You just don’t read about that in books. You’ve got to have that innate ability to do it, and Bob did.

Williams: It’s my sense that Reagan was a storyteller—

Michel: Yes.

Williams: —and a lot of Bob Dole’s humor came from the situation, spontaneously. Am I right?

Michel: Right. Right.

Williams: That’s an exceptional talent.

Michel: Absolutely. Quick of wit. Absolutely. Great talent.

Williams: Of course, occasionally it had a rapier—

Michel: Well, you know, you’ve got to take—can’t be perfect all the time. [laughs]

Williams: What about the same kind of meetings with George the 41st?

Michel: Well, let me see. Is that the first one or the second?

Williams: George Herbert Walker Bush.

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 25

Michel: Well, yes, for me it was a continuation because it was the four years following Reagan. So I had twelve years. There were a couple issues, however, in which George Herbert Walker Bush was a little bit more moderate than Reagan would have been, you know, not all that much, but there were a couple of occasions. And frankly, I only, I think, crossed President Bush once. It was on a cable television thing. But I was at odds with what his particular view was at that time, and I’ve never regretted that, incidentally, since seeing what’s happened.

Williams: My impression would be the meeting with President Bush would have been a little bit more businesslike maybe, or not?

Michel: Oh, I don’t know. There wasn’t that much difference between the two when it came to that.

Williams: What about Dole meeting with Bush? Since they had been rivals on so many occasions, was that a harmonious relationship in these leadership meetings?

Michel: I didn’t sense it. I didn’t sense that at all. Bob, he had a capacity in his role to speak up for what he was obliged to do so as the Leader in the Senate, but it was always decorous, and I didn’t detect any payback thing or anything of that nature, quite frankly. I think that’s one of Bob’s strong points again. He was not one to publicly air the dirty laundry or whatever the occasion had at the time.

Williams: How would you assess Bob Dole as Leader, particularly since you’d also had observation of Dirksen and Hugh [D.] Scott [Jr.] and Howard [H.] Baker [Jr.], all the ones who came before.

Michel: Right. Of course, you’re victims of your own individual body chemistry, I guess, and they’re all different individuals. But Bob, he could match them with the best, no question about it, for the times that he was in the position, as attested to the fact that he was so well received to become a presidential candidate. So had he been otherwise, This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 26 why, they wouldn’t have thought in terms of Bob being suited to fill a role as the standard bearer of the party.

Williams: What adjectives would come to mind when I mention Everett Dirksen?

Michel: Oh, Everett Dirksen? [imitating Dirksen’s voice] Well, he always had that deep voice. Oh, his vocabulary was just terrific, and he had that gift to reach back into the Scriptures if need be, to quote Isaiah or one thing and another to buttress his point. He also had a good sense of history, and then, of course, his eloquence was just unsurpassed. I don’t know that—it’s hard to say sometimes whether it’s a compliment or not when you say, “Oh, that was a beautiful speech. But, what’d he say?” And then someone would say, “Well, I can’t really…, but it was beautifully said and spoken.” But generally speaking, his advice to me I remember a few times, “Bob, don’t clutter up your speech. Three principal points. That’s enough.” In other words, you can’t bring the audience along or they lose the key point you’re trying to make. He was very gifted at presenting his case and a touch of humor if he thought it was necessary. He and Lyndon [B.] Johnson, of course, oh, they’ve got—I’ll tell you, in the Dirksen Leadership Library there’s a couple of exchanges between Everett and—or even in writing of letters on an issue back and forth, the eloquence that he used to make the point, it was a great experience for me. It was wonderful, and I was privileged to be invited over to the senators—because I was his congressman—over to his office back in the little back room where they’d have a little touch, you know, after working hours. Of course, Everett—we were a big distillery town at one time. We had the largest in the world, many of them, and bourbon was, of course, that old distillery Hiram Walker’s, you know, they used to distill a lot of corn for bourbon purposes, and now it’s been converted to ethanol. But Everett always [imitating Dirksen’s voice], “Bob, I’ll have about three fingers.” [laughs] And that meant in a glass with some ice. And if it was only two, why, obviously it wasn’t as strong. [laughs]

Williams: So he took you under his wing a little bit?

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 27

Michel: I think so, yes. I wasn’t averse to asking him questions, because he was a master at it, you know, “Senator, gosh, I’ve got a problem here,” or there. “How would you handle that?” He was just a wonderful individual.

Williams: What about Hugh Scott? What are your recollections?

Michel: Hugh was a different personality. He would take so many more notes in the leadership meetings with the president, it seemed to me, than others did. Just like, for example, in the House side, John Brademas wouldn’t be involved in much of the conversation, but he was writing all the time. I guess he’s probably written a couple of books. He became then president of New York University. But I always felt like, jeez, I didn’t want to spend my time thinking about what I’m writing; I’d better be just thinking and hopefully be able to retain it, what I was listening to, because don’t miss a word. [laughs]

Williams: And then I guess Howard Baker succeeded Hugh Scott. What was his leadership like?

Michel: Of course, Howard was a good friend of mine. His wife and my wife were sorority sisters. And being Everett Dirksen’s son-in-law, why, we were very good friends and got along so well. I remember one time when the Senate was considering a library for Hubert [H.] Humphrey, and Howard called me and said, “Bob, I’ve got a resolution over here for 5 million dollars for a library for Hubert Humphrey. What’s your reaction about our having matched with a Republican?” And I said, “Well, my first thought is, Everett Dirksen—,” you know he had already passed away by that time. Of course, he was his son-in-law. “Maybe a little sticky wicket for you, Howard, but I think we ought to do something for the senator.” I somehow got on the 5 million bucks and I said, “Well, of course, Everett Dirksen, whatever he’d do would be at half the cost of Hubert Humphrey. We could be satisfied maybe with two and a half million, like chumps.” Of course, today at the Dirksen [Congressional] Center now we have an endowment of about 9 million dollars. It’s well funded and we do programs for schoolteachers, limited in the summertime, on This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 28 congressional leadership in the Congress, and we’re going to do more of that as the resources continue to mount and there’s an interest in it.

Williams: The website is very impressive. I spent some time there. Then when you were describing Dirksen, I began to think those might be some of the same words you’d use for Robert [C.] Byrd. How would you describe Robert Byrd?

Michel: It was a completely different relationship, obviously, because he was a Democrat. He was once in the House. I must say that I never really was impressed with him as a member of the House, but as he kept serving in the Senate, I got to respect the fellow for the prodigious reading. He became a voracious reader, I guess, and history, too. Of course, he’s always pulling out the Constitution, you know, as a reminder that he really grew in the Senate. Of course, now the other thing is telltale, you know. It’s a little sad in some respects because he’s not the Bob Byrd he once used to be. But I was on the Appropriations Committee and the two of us got along very well together. I remember while we both had to rely on staff, sometimes I’d get pretty perturbed. Then I say, “Listen. We in the House, we’d like to negotiate with the senator, rather than staff.” We are supposed to be somewhat equal, you know. Of course, then, jeez, the State of West Virginia is about ready to sink, you know, with all the projects with Bob Byrd’s— what do we call them now—earmarks today, you know.

Williams: When you came to the House, you probably came as a, quote, unquote, [Dwight D.] Eisenhower Republican.

Michel: Yes. Well, frankly, maybe a [William H.] Taft Republican, because Everett Dirksen was supporting Bob Taft back at that convention. Boy, that was the first convention I attended out there in Chicago, and old Senator [William] Milliken got up. I can still see him standing on a chair, then so crestfallen when Governor [Harold] Stassen—they had passed the first time around. Mike didn’t have the votes yet, and he wanted to be the one to put Ike over the top at the ’52 convention, you know. Of course, that was the convention where Everett Dirksen pointed down to Thomas Dewey and, “Governor, you’ve taken us down the road to defeat.” [laughs] It’s a great thing on film, This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 29 but that’s what happened back in those convention days when they didn’t have it all wrapped up like they do today with these primaries and stuff. But it was really interesting to go to a convention and smoke-filled rooms notwithstanding, there was some action. [laughs] And it was meaningful. Today it’s not nearly that—it’s kind of going through the motions.

Williams: It was riveting television.

Michel: Right.

Williams: July of ’52 I was becoming politically aware at the time, and I was just on the edge of my chair watching both conventions. So as a Taft Republican, then—

Michel: But I have a letter, one of the first letters in my Dirksen collection of letters, is one that I wrote to Ike when I was an A.A., and he was president of Columbia University, in which my right-wing conservatism came out, and I addressed him as general, as my former commanding officer, and told him my 39th Infantry experience, you know, “and always respected you, and now that they’re talking about you running for president and being boosted by (what we then called) the New England Republicans,” the gist of it was, “I hope you would not forget your Midwest heritage in all these goings-on.” I got a very interesting letter back, of course, which is in the Dirksen Library there. He says, well, of course, none of these machinations really mean anything significant. I’m president of the university. Anyway, he was giving the impression that he’s happy where he is, this is all conjecture and far beyond—he wasn’t at that point yet. But I said it a lot better in my letter than I’ve expressed it to you here, and he’s done it beautifully in his response to mine. But that was the whole idea, that the Cabots and the Lodges, you know, and then Dewey, even though he’s a tough prosecutor, you know, in Republicans it was Midwest versus New England in those days, you know. It was just a fact of life, but it was a little naïve on my part because I was just an A.A. at that time, and like a young Republican, hot to trot but not all that dry behind the ears. [laughs]

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 30

Williams: Did Eisenhower disappoint you?

Michel: Oh no, absolutely not. My first big moment with Ike was when he came to Peoria to give his farm speech at the Bradley Field House, and I was asked to sing the “Star-Spangled Banner” on that particular occasion. Then, of course, later when I was actually elected, it was boosting my candidacy—everybody, for that matter; it wasn’t for me. But we actually lost two seats when Ike ran for reelection in ’56, so I was fortunate to win, but it was basically a Republican district, no question about that.

Williams: Where did you stand politically in ’64?

Michel: Oh, I was a [Barry] Goldwater guy—jeez, I went in thirty-eight states for Barry Goldwater, nearly lost my House seat in the process, running against a [unclear] truck driver at Caterpillar, because I felt so strongly about it. But it was good experience. I learned a lot in that. [laughs]

Williams: Had you and Goldwater been colleagues in the House?

Michel: No, no. Frankly, we weren’t all that close, really, like I was with Reagan and Bush and Dole and so many more, you know. But it was just that—gosh, I can still see us going into San Francisco and seeing this big orange-on-blue—[William] Scranton was one of the opponents in that convention. Of course, there again, the convention meant something.

Williams: Indeed. Then what about Nixon? How does he fit in in terms of—

Michel: Well, I always was very close to Nixon, I guess, because I—well, number one, he was on the House on Un-American Activities Committee that my predecessor got on then. He was in the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] before he was elected to Congress, and one of the reasons was the communist conspiracy at that time was a real thing, and the judge at one time was an FBI agent with those folks out at the University of California at Berkeley under his surveillance, and he was so ticked off at some of the This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 31 stuff they’d send back here—[James P.] McGranery, I think it was, was attorney general at the time—and nothing ever happened. Of course, then when Dirksen decided he was moving up, that’s what moved him to run for Congress, was, “By gore, I’m going down there to do something about what I’ve been learning about at the grass-roots level and make some people aware of it, and get on that House Committee on Un-American Activities.” Of course, it was very controversial. As a matter of fact, he only ran four terms, my predecessor, but he had opposition in the primary every time because it was such a controversial thing, the Hollywood Ten. As a matter of fact, the counsel one time, when the judge and I were on our way to an Illinois football game, heard on the news that the counsel had subpoenaed Harry Truman. Jiminy Christmas, I remember receiving the formal letter of declination that Murphy brought up to the judge, and we eventually took it out to present it to President Truman after he was long since—for his library, so he’d have that original letter that he wrote about declining to testify before the Congress. [laughs] But like I say, those were controversial days.

Williams: So did your Republicanism then go through a lot of changes with the times?

Michel: Oh, I don’t know. I was always basically quite conservative, but I always supported every civil rights bill. Of course, where I broke even as Leader, I was one of thirty-three on our side who voted for the assault weapons ban. As a former infantryman, I said there’s absolutely no sense in having civilians around the country having assault weapons. They’re for one purpose only, and I know that it’s for. I’ve been through that routine. So forgive me, boys, for not supporting the NRA [National Rifle Association] on that one, but that’s unreasonable for me. I just voted against it. There were only thirty-three on our Republican side at that time who voted that way, but that’s the way I felt. I felt I could back it up with my experience, again calling upon what we did during the War.

Williams: When Reagan came into office, of course, the tax cuts in ’81 were a major factor, and then in ’82 Congress sort of stepped back with TEFRA [Tax Equity and Fiscal This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 32

Responsibility Act]. Where did you stand on that, and did you work closely with Dole in really going up against the president and the whole supply side and all of that?

Michel: Gosh, I supported the president as best I could, you know, and I knew that there were differences, but I stuck pretty close to what the president wanted to have done, and let it go at that.

Williams: Because some people thought that Dole was really going against Reagan.

Michel: Well, yes, I couldn’t quite picture it that way, I think. Bob Dole knows the Senate and he knows what can be done. I remember, of course, one thing where Jack Kemp and I were opposed to [Richard B.] Cheney and [Trent] Lott in the House, just passing the bill in the House, even though it was a lousy bill. “Let’s get it over to the Senate, where they can clean it up. We’re not saying we’re for Chairman Rostenkowski’s bill here, but the only way we see our way out of this thing is to pass it in the House, get it over to the Senate, and clean it up in conference.” Of course, that’s the position Jack and I took at that time, explained ourselves very well, but Trent Lott and Dick Cheney, they said, “Well, it’s so bad, we can’t stomach it.” And I said, “Well, but I’ve got to be looking at the overall procedural process here that makes something tick in the end.” So that’s when you’ve got to swallow temporarily to get a good taste afterwards. [laughs]

Williams: Was that a common practice, that you’d send something over to the Senate—

Michel: Oh, it depends on the situation sometimes. Of course, some fellows whose think their political life hangs on every vote they cast, they remain Simon Pure, so to speak, but when you’re the Leader and you’re looking on how do you move the process, why, you’ve got more latitude and leeway to maybe vote for something rather ridiculous or bad, to keep the process alive, if that’s the only way you can get it done.

Williams: I’ve had occasion to interact with some people in the biotech field, and they said that the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which is the Biotech Industry Incentives Act, was This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 33 very important in terms of freeing up federal agencies in conducting biotech and medical research and whatnot. You’re not recalling that bill specifically.

Michel: No.

Williams: Okay. Because I know you’ve had an interest in healthcare.

Michel: Right.

Williams: And a lot of people in the medical and biotech area think that was a real watershed bill.

Michel: Sure enough.

Williams: So we were talking about Eisenhower and Taft, Nixon, all these sort of Republican viewpoints. Then Newt Gingrich comes to town, and I read somewhere, it said there was a real gap between your style and way of looking at things and this newer generation.

Michel: Oh, no question about that.

Williams: You mentioned in terms of style and in terms of values and even in terms of thought processes. Explain yourself.

Michel: Well, Newt’s whole idea was that the opposition were our enemies, you know, and I always said, “Newt, they’re our political adversaries, not our enemies.” I recall the days of Joe Martin and Sam Rayburn. I said, “When they switched back and forth, depending upon who was in the majority, they always had a great respect for one another. Don’t lose your head when you’re arguing against your opponents over there. Keep it on the substance of the issue and not the personality.” His whole methodology was always much more hard-line than mine was. Of course, part of that was the fact that I was in the minority and I had nothing to gain by alienating Democrats on the other side of the aisle This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 34 who I might want to call on one day to support those 192 Republicans and win a couple things, and we did. Of course, that was ten votes less than what they got today in the Republican side, but to do that, you’ve got to always keep control of yourself and have a credible discourse that you don’t have to apologize for in the end. Of course, Newt always prided himself in being a backbencher lobbing up grenades to the leadership in front, you know, and you expect that. I always had a half a dozen or so that I—not that bad, whether it was a group that was the bomb throwers and then there were the other group that just were philosophically more liberal to the degree that they couldn’t buy our program intact philosophically. So those were different groups. You had to deal differently with those. John Boehner will make the point, for example, in the bank scandal or something, that he and some others were in the back lobbing up the—making it difficult for the leadership at that time, and of course I told him—and I didn’t have any fix involved at all in that thing. But then when I realized what was going on, obviously I had to accept the fact that that’s—it’s too bad that that happened, but we’ll have to clean it up, correct it, and we did.

Williams: I was surprised that Gingrich had come to the House as early as 1979.

Michel: Yes, after the third try.

Williams: Did he immediately have an impact?

Michel: Well, not really immediately, but he wasn’t afraid to speak up, you know. He wasn’t one of those who was going to wait until he got to be a senior member before he’d speak. Then, of course, he liked the idea of when there was electronic coverage of the House became a thing and, of course, using special order time to really sound off on things to the degree that it got so bad when Tip had to put a stop to members using the occasion to act as though they’re talking to Democrats and ask them to respond when there was nobody on the floor of the House to respond. Shoot, I couldn’t argue with Tip on that score. That was just outrageous, but it was being done, you know.

This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 35

Williams: So what was the rule that was—

Michel: Then, of course, by that time then it was a question of—well, they couldn’t move the cameras around, but that kind of procedure was—

Williams: But even today the way it’s shot, you don’t get any sense of the room.

Michel: Right. And, of course, that was always a point, too. We were afraid of people hogging the spotlight. Initially you wondered, jeez, how much show biz is there going to be here, and will everybody be respectful of the House of Representatives as an institution and make it a debating forum rather than one of showmanship.

Williams: I want to end with a question that keeps coming to my mind, and that is that during the last fifth of the twentieth century, essentially, or in your case, really the last half of the twentieth century, almost—

Michel: [laughs] Right.

Williams: —the sort of ongoing battle was over the role of government in American life, how much government is there going to be; bureaucracies; is the government going to solve problems or not. Then tied right in with that is the matter of the expense of running the government and its programs. Do you see that as just being an ongoing feature of American life, or is someone going to win out in that battle?

Michel: Oh, I don’t know. You know, I’m reminded that when I would tell people the difference between when I first came to Congress and when I left. When I first came there, the constituency said, “Bob, we want you to go down to Washington and cut the cost of government, get it off our back, and lower my taxes.” They didn’t ask me, “I want you to go down there and look out for this benefit,” or that benefit or, “Give me this,” or, “Give me that.” There was just none of that. It was all “Keep government in check. We understand we have to have a government, somebody’s got to serve, we hope we elect good people to perform for us, and we have a Constitution which is also a very This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 36 viable document that ought to be adhered to very strictly.” So that’s kind of the way I came to the Congress. Sure, government’s got some role and responsibility here and there, but, boy, keep it under control. Keep it under restraint. Don’t let it get out of hand. If you don’t want to pay taxes or you think the government’s costing too much, there’s only one way to stop it, and that’s refrain from succumbing to the temptation to spend for this or that “goodie” program, one thing and another. Of course, since that time, there have been those things that have brought government more and more into our life, the whole healthcare system, you know. Now we’re just trying to get the last people involved that aren’t covered and guarantee the fact that our farmers, those relatively few farmers that are agricultural people out there, are still able to feed the entire mass of the country as it grows, be mindful of their plight when there’s an act of God or drought or one thing and another. So you’ve got so many more things people are asking for today than in the old days when there wasn’t that penchant for looking to Washington for an answer. Sometimes you really have to come back in those committee hearings and ask people, “Well, what’s this local community putting up for this? What’s your contribution as an organization to making this thing go? Has it all got to be general taxpayer money? Are there some volunteers out there, some philanthropists who feel so strongly about it that “No matter what, we’re going to fund this thing because we think it’s worthwhile”? But to turn first to government, well, of course you get into the question then of research, basic research. I’m now on the other side of the table, where I offered amendments to even cut NIH [National Institutes of Health] when I was in the Congress because I thought, frankly, we were maybe giving them too much money and it wasn’t being spent all that wisely. Of course, when I was first on that committee on HEW [Department of Health, Education and Welfare], 200 million dollars as a way of comparison for the National Institute of Health, today it’s 27 billion dollars, and I was responsible as chairman of the Committee on Medical Research in no small measure for doubling that research money in five years after I left the Congress, by making over three hundred and thirty, forty visits to Capitol Hill to lobby members to put more money into research, basic research medically. Boy, that’s the only way we’re going to cut down this overall long cost, is finding ways of preventing these disaster things from happening, and it all begins with research. This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 37

So I think the whole attitude of the country has changed on so many things, no question about it. Of course, one thing, I remember when ethanol first started, and I remember talking to Dwayne Andreas, of course, from Archer Daniels Midland, about, “Well, I guess, yes, I can support subsidizing the production of ethanol because it has some prospects of being a good substitute eventually.” But eventually, you’ve got to pull your weight along with the oil industry. We can’t subsidize one and not the other. Of course, here we are, we’re still at that juncture. I forget what it is, but it’s significant. That’s why there are so many plants being built and the country producing ethanol. Then we’re getting the backlash from the farming community, “My god, you’re increasing the cost of my cattle feed and chicken feed, one thing and another, a dollar a bushel or more.” [laughs] It’s amazing.

Williams: To say nothing of tortillas in Mexico.

Michel: Right. Right.

Williams: Any last words about your former colleague, Bob Dole?

Michel: Well, no, but I’m happy to participate in anything that would bring attention to Bob Dole’s service in the Congress. He was just one wonderful colleague and friend, an active participant in the process at those levels—practically legislative thoroughly and then even a shot at the presidency. And then being a fellow combat infantryman with me during World War II, we both knew we had an obligation to serve and were called to do it, and we both will be eternally grateful for the good Lord looking upon us enough to bring us back and to be able to do what we’ve been able to do subsequently. We’re coming up to that day again when we just have to be reminded of those rows and rows and rows of white crosses of those who never made it back, but who gave it their all. So you just can’t help but feel very fortunate that we did make it back and were able to contribute in some other measure to this great government of ours. It’s wonderful to hopefully pass on the legacy that would encourage young people to realize, boy, you’ve got all kinds of distractions out there and everybody pulling every which way, but, boy, This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 38 to know freedom like the freedom we enjoy, and hopefully you’ll preserve it for generations to come.

Williams: Good note to end on. Thank you.

[End of interview] This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 39

Index

Almond, Jim, 12 Andreas, Dwayne, 37 Arends, Les, 19

Baker, Howard H. Jr., 27 Baker, James A., 22 Biotech Industry Incentives Act (Bayh-Dole Act), 32 Boehner, John, 34 Brademas, John, 27 Bradley University, 2 Bush, George H.W., 8, 11, 22, 25, 30 Byrd, Robert C., 28

Carlson, Frank, 15 Cheney, Richard B., 32 Chowder and Marching Society, 10 Conte, Silvio, 12

Deaver, Michael, 22 Dewey, Thomas, 28, 29 Dirksen Congressional Center, 27 Dirksen, Everett M., 6, 12, 26, 27, 31 support for William H. Taft, 28 Dole, Robert J., 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 23, 30, 37 agricultural programs, 13 as chairman of Republican National Committee, 17 as Majority Leader, 14, 25 as Minority Leader, 14 broad interests of legislation, 16 effects of World War II, 16 Kansas roots, 2 sense of humor, 12 service in House versus Senate, 21 storytelling ability, 13, 24 Dornan, Robert K., 18 Duberstein, Ken, 22

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 29, 30

Flood, Dan, 12 Foley, Thomas S., 8, 20 Food for Peace Program, 13 Ford, Gerald R., 10, 19 This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 40

Gingrich, Newt, 20, 33, 34 Goldwater, Barry, 30 Gomien, Mr. and Mrs., 6

Halleck, Charlie, 19 Hastert, J. Dennis and George W. Bush, 22 Hollywood Ten, 31 Humphrey, Hubert H., 27 Hussein, Saddam, 11

Iraq War, 9, 11

Johnson, Lyndon B., 26

Kemp, Jack F. Jr., 32 Kennedy, John F., 9

Lodge, John, 10 Lott, Trent, 32 Lucas, Scott W., 6

MacArthur, Douglas, 9 MacRrath, Miss (teacher), 5 Martin, Joe, 19 Martin, Joseph William (, 33 McGranery, James P., 31 Michel, Robert H. about his father, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 about his mother, 2, 4, 11 about his mother, 4 about his wife, 5, 8 and Dirksen Congressional Center, 27 as chairman of Committee on Medical Research, 36 as chairman of Congressional Campaign Committee, 17, 19 as member of Republican National Committee, 18 as Minority Leader, 32 as Minority Whip, 17, 19 chairman, Appropriations Committee, 20 collection of letters, 29 decision to retire from U.S. Senate, 20 educational background, 5, 9 effects of the Great Depression, 2, 3, 4 effects of World War II, 5, 8 military background, 8 on Barry Goldwater, 30 on Dwight D. Eisenhower, 29, 30 This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 41

on Everett M. Dirksen, 26, 27, 31 on Franklin D. Roosevelt, 4 on George H.W. Bush, 22, 25 on Howard H. Baker, Jr., 27 on Hugh D. Scott, 27 on John Boehner, 34 on John Brademas, 27 on Lyndon B. Johnson, 26 on medical research, 36 on Newt Gingrich, 33, 34 on Richard M. Nixon, 30 on Robert C. Byrd, 28 on Robert J. Dole, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 37 on role of government in American life, 35 on Ronald W. Reagan, 22, 23 on Thomas Dewey, 29 on Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, 23 political background, 4, 5, 6, 7 position on assault weapon ban, 31 position on civil rights bills, 31 position on ethanol, 37 religious background, 4 Milliken, William, 28

National Institutes of Health (NIH), 36 Nixon, Richard M., 10, 30

O’Neill, Thomas P. "Tip", 23, 34 Owen, David, 6, 7

Powell, Colin L., 11

Rayburn, Samuel T. ("Sam"), 33 Reagan, Ronald W., 22, 23, 30 Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, 19 Republican convention, 1952, 28 Republican National Committee, 18, 19 Republican National Congressional Committee, 18 Rhodes, John J., 19 Roberts, Pat, 13 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 4 Roy, Dr. Bill, 17

Scott, Hugh D., 27 Scowcroft, Brent, 11 Scranton, William, 30 Sebelius, Keith, 13 Stassen, Harold, 28 This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas. http://dolearchives.ku.edu Michel 5-24-07—p. 42

Taft, William H., 28 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA), 31 Thone, Charles, 14 Truman, Harry S., 9, 31

Velde, Harold, 6

Watergate effect on Republican Party, 17, 19