Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I think if I could further clarify that, of the 45 amendments there are about 6 deal breakers, if my conversation with the chairman is correct. Most of them are sense of Senate. And there are others that have been agreed to. But my basic premise is--and goodness knows, this new Member of the Senate is not about to say that we should change the process of the Senate. And this Member of the Senate is not about to preclude any Member from offering any amendment. The point that I am trying to make is that every amendment, every sense-of-the-Senate amendment, every deal-breaking amendment also to some degree interferes with the process and the conclusion of a balanced budget which has taken us 3 years. And I know because I have been sitting in the chair presiding, listening to the same speeches that are made today in the Chamber during morning business, and people can make them in their districts; they can make them on the steps of the Capitol; they can make them here, and that is quite proper of the Senate and is advisable.

Mr. ROBERTS. Could I have an additional minute?

Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to yield.

Mr. ROBERTS. 1,000 hours. I said hours and minutes; even years. This has been the third year on this particular budget plan. This is the culmination of 3 years of hard work that the Senator from New Mexico has put in, all members of the Budget Committee, as well as the staff. This has been a Lonesome Dove Trail ride. I hope we get through the tall grass and balanced budget with all of our body parts intact. If we do, the chairman will get most of the credit. In the last session of the Congress we had two balanced budgets. We worked very hard and very diligently. They were vetoed by the President. We even came to a Government shutdown. Nobody wants to repeat that. I understand that when you are doing a budget for the U.S. Government, you have many, many strong differences of opinion. After all, for better or worse, the Congress of the United States reflects the diversity we have in this country and the strong difference of opinions. Goodness knows, we have good diversity and strong differences of opinion. The House, the other body, just the other night stayed until 3 a.m., and, finally, by a two-vote margin, succeeded in defeating an amendment that was a deal breaker. It involved highways. As a matter of fact, it involved transportation, the very issue we are discussing on the floor at this very moment other than my comments. Two votes was the difference. Goodness knows, everybody in the House of the Representatives, everybody in the Senate cares about transportation and cares about highways and the infrastructure. We came within five votes of a deal breaker on the floor of the Senate. I think it was five votes in regard to health care for children. Who can be opposed to additional funds for health care for children? As a matter of fact, the chairman has worked very hard to provide $16 billion in regard to that goal. So we had highways, health care, and we had a situation in regard to the construction of our schools, to fix the infrastructure of the Nation's schools--$5 billion--with a $100 billion price tag, which set a very unique precedent. I don't question the intent. I don't question the purpose nor the integrity of any Senator, nor, for that matter, anyone who would like to propose an amendment or a better idea in regard to the budget. But I would suggest that the high road of humility and responsibility is not bothered by heavy traffic in this instance. Most of the amendments--I have them all here. Here is the stack, 45 of them. Most of the pending amendments right here are either sense of the Senate or they have been rejected outright as deal breakers. Sense of the Senate means it is the sense of the Senate. It has no legal standing, has no legislative standing. It is just a Senator saying this would be a good idea in terms of my intent, my purpose, what I think we ought to do. And there are a few that are agreed to that obviously will be very helpful. But here are the 45. Most of them are simply not going anywhere but raises the point. I took a little counting here. There are 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans--11 Republicans who have decided that they will take the time of the Senate, take the time of the American people, take the time of the chairman of the Budget Committee and staff and go over and repeat their priority concerns in regard to the budget. There is nothing wrong with that. I understand that. Each Senator is an island in terms of their own ideas and their own purpose and their integrity. I do not really question that but in terms of time, I mean after 3 years of debate, after hours and hours and hours of careful deliberation between the President and the Republican leadership and 45 pending amendments. I have my own amendments. I have my own amendments. I should have had some sense of the Senate amendments. I feel a bit left out. I thought we had a budget deal. I thought we were going to vote on it. I thought that we were going to conclude. And then during the regular appropriations process, during the regular order, if you will, of the rest of the session, why, perhaps we could address these things that I care very deeply about. Maybe we ought to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution introduced by Senator Roberts that all wheat in Kansas should be sold at $6. That is a little facetious, to say the least, but I do have concerns about crop insurance, a child care bill I have introduced, along with a capital gains bill, capital gains and estate tax. I think capital gains should be across the board. I think estate tax should be at least $1 million. I want a sense-of-the-Senate resolution or amendment declaring that. Or maybe an amendment--I tell you what we ought to have, if the chairman would agree. I think you ought to make a unanimous consent request to consider an amendment that all Senators who offer an amendment on the budget process must be required to serve 6 months on the Budget Committee. Why not? Perhaps in the interest of time, since all of the time that is being spent by the 11 Republicans and the 8 Democrats--oh, I forgot my sense-of-the-Senate resolution on defense. I do not think we have enough money committed to our national defense with the obligations we hear from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the administration and everything else. So add that one in Roberts' sense of the Senate. Maybe we ought to have a unanimous consent request, to save time, to get this business done, to accept the responsibility for the budget, I could just ask unanimous consent that all amendments pending be laid on the table and considered en bloc and ask for the yeas and nays and we could get the budget deal and go home. I have not made that unanimous consent request. That would be untoward. That is the mildest word I could use for it because it would violate agreements the distinguished chairman has made with other Senators. So let me say this to all the Senators who introduced all these sense-of-the-Senate amendments, fell asleep, issued a lot of press releases back home and got a lot of credit. And I laud their intent, laud their purpose. What about breaking the deal? What about the law of unintended or intended effects? What about the responsibility of delaying the Senate and possibly delaying 3 years of work, 3 years of work to get to a balanced budget? As you can see by the tone of my remarks, perhaps my patience as a new Member of the Senate is not near the patience of Chairman Job, Chairman Job Domenici, in regard to the Budget Committee. Now, I had intended on reading the names of all the Senators, their amendments and lauding their intent in behalf of all the things that we would like to see done. As I say, I have them all here. They range from everything from highways to education to defense to making sure that we have proper tax relief across the board. I will not do that. But I would at least ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider the job and the mission and what our distinguished chairman and members of the Budget Committee have brought to the floor of the Senate. And if we could, if we could plead for a little bit of expeditious consideration, because you know what is going to happen. Time will run out and then we will engage in what the Senate calls a votearama, and the votearama is like ``Jeopardy'' or any other game you play on television. You will not even hear what the amendment is. We will just hear an amendment by X, Y, or Z, Senator X, Y, or Z and then we will vote on it and obviously that will make a good statement back home and we can consider that very serious bill, that serious legislative intent during the regular order which should have been considered that way from the first. Again, I thank the chairman so much.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Friday, April 25.

Mr. ROBERTS. I further ask unanimous consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and there be then a period of morning business until the hour of 11:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Smith of Oregon for 30 minutes, Senator Dorgan 30 minutes, Senator Daschle or his designee for 30 minutes, Senator Thomas or his designee for 60 minutes; from 10:30 to 11:30, Senator Grams for 10 minutes, Senator Kennedy for 20 minutes, Senator Conrad for 10 minutes, Senator Wellstone for 10 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1225, which was received from the House.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow from 9:30 in the morning until 11:30, the Senate will be in a period of morning business to accommodate a number of Senators wishing to speak. At 11:30, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 562, the reverse mortgage bill. Under the agreement, there will be 1 hour for debate on that bill. However it is our understanding that no Senator will request a rollcall on passage, therefore, with that in mind, Senators should not expect rollcall votes to occur during Friday's session of the Senate. On Monday, April 28, the Senate will debate the motion to proceed to S. 543, regarding protections to volunteers. A cloture motion will be filed tomorrow on this issue, which will call for a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 543 on Tuesday of next week. Therefore, the next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday, April 29, at 2:15 p.m. If cloture is invoked on Tuesday, it is expected that the Senate will proceed to the bill on Tuesday. Therefore, additional votes can be expected to occur on Tuesday on amendments to the volunteer protection bill. The Senate could also be asked to turn to any other Legislative or Executive Calendar items that may be cleared for action.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m., on Friday, April 25, the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 562 and the Senate then immediately begin consideration under the following limitation: 1 hour for debate on the bill equally divided in the usual form, there will be no amendments in order to the bill, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time the bill will be read for a third time with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, first, the Child Care Expansion Act includes funding for a short-term, flexible grant program to encourage small businesses to work together to provide day care services for employees. This program is a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of 3 years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $50,000 for startup costs, training, scholarships or other related activities. Businesses will be required to match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future. The idea behind this 3-year grant is for the small communities and small businesses in that community to get together to provide the child care facility. The $50,000 grant over 3 years will provide startup money for our smaller communities, for the major businesses in that community to come together and provide a facility that otherwise would not be achieved. Second, this legislation includes an expansion of the child and dependent care tax credit, targeting the credit to working parents who need it the most, not only the people who are trying to be self-reliant in regard to welfare reform but the low- and middle-income family. It will increase from $720 for one child, up to $1,080, and from the current $1,140 for two or more children to $1,620 for families with more than one dependent. In addition, the credit is phased out for higher income wage earners, which means that the deficit exposure or the expenditure side is very, very limited. This legislation also addresses the needs of parents who choose to work from the home. In this case, the Internal Revenue Service rules are expanded to allow taxpayers who need to use the family room or some other room for home-based business while caring for dependents. The current IRS rules are much too strict and simply do not make sense for people who want to work at home but have to take care of the youngsters as well. Finally, this legislation encourages our Nation's most experienced care givers, our older Americans, who are already participating in federally supported work programs, to provide child care services in communities where it is feasible to do so. Obviously, there is a bonding that goes on, Mr. President, in regard to grandkids and also grandparents. This bill certainly encourages that bonding. This legislation includes no new entitlements or mandates on the business community. It fills a pressing need without creating more bureaucracy or Government. Child care is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. While parents continue to struggle to meet the constant demand of work and family, it seems to me we must continue to do our part to expand the child care options and protect our Nation's most valuable resource--our children. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of America's kids and cosponsor the Child Care Expansion Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues of legislation that I introduced on April 10 called the Child Care Expansion Act. This legislation--the first legislation I have had the privilege of introducing in this body--does address one of the greatest challenges that faces families today, and that is finding dependable and affordable child care. The demand for quality child care is rising. We have changes in family structure, more working mothers, and significant changes in social policy, which all have helped--all have helped--drive this increase. In fact, only 2 years ago 60 percent of children under the age of 5 were cared for by someone other than a parent while their mother or father was working. We have had numerous studies that indicate the availability of child care has failed to keep up with this demand. Three out of four parents responding to a national poll indicate that there is an insufficient supply of child care, Mr. President, especially for infants. Child care keeps America working. In 1994, three out of five women with children under the age of 6 were in the work force. A lack of dependable child care causes these workers to lose time and to be less productive. Child care benefits provided by employers help to recruit and retain quality employees. It pays off with lower costs in regard to the businesses that have a good child-care program. And child-care providers are also small business owners who contribute to the economy while keeping our children safe. Child care provides access to high-quality learning environments for children in their critical learning years. Just last week--I think it was last Wednesday--in the Wall Street Journal there was an article entitled ``Good, Early Care Has a Huge Impact on Kids, Studies Say.'' And that article pointed out the monumental importance of quality child care in the first 3 years of the infant's life. And according to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, a study cited in the article, high-quality child care provided by nurturing, stimulating care givers improves the cognitive learning and language skills. These are skills a child depends on for the rest of his or her life. So child care is central to the implementation of successful welfare reform. I might add, that the concept of this child-care bill, as far as I was concerned, became very evident as we went through welfare reform legislation in the past session of the Congress when I had the privilege of being the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and we were approaching food stamp reform. It became obvious to me, if we were going to provide self-reliance, independence, and the tools with which about 2,000 people in Kansas needed to get off the welfare rolls and become self-reliant--these people had been on welfare for over 5 years--they did two things, job training, that is obvious, and the second thing was child care. Stringent new work requirements will move more welfare parents into the work force and create an even greater demand for quality child care. I think this legislation simply addresses these issues through a responsible four-pronged approach. There are no new entitlements, no new mandates on businesses. This legislation fills a pressing need without creating more bureaucracy or more government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 548 be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I think probably the incumbent would have an edge.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his contribution and his leadership. If this resolution is adopted, what will we tell the local citizens group working to elect a new mayor or a city council? Will we say that free speech extends no further than the classified advertisements? Remember, we have full-page ads costing x and we have 30-second television ads costing x but you put a limit on it: Sorry, no TV. Maybe it will get on the news, maybe not. The Supreme Court in Buckley put it this way: ``Being free to engage in unlimited public expression subject to a ceiling on expenditures is like being free to drive an automobile as far and as often as one desires on a single tank of gasoline.'' You can't get there from here to Kansas on a single tank of gasoline--whether it is traveling the State or in regards to any kind of expression in regard to any kind of politics or any kind of campaigning. The tyranny of this resolution, like tyranny forever, is based on a false assumption that somehow we have too much, too much political speech and it should be limited. How much political speech in a democracy is too much? Last year, millions of Americans gave $2.6 billion to fill 476 offices. Again, columnist George Will points out they still had enough left over to spend $4.5 billion on potato chips. We spent more on yogurt in this year than we spent on political discourse, discussing the great issues of the day. Or put another way, one Super Bowl ad could finance two campaigns for Congress. One Super Bowl ad, 2\1/2\ districts in the Congress. How much is enough? I submit we need more political speech, not less. And further, what will be the chilling impact of this resolution on citizen involvement in the election and the governmental process? The Senator from Nevada said people are sick and tired of politics and business as usual and they are not choosing to vote. I submit it is not because we need to give more power to the Federal Election Commission and limit political debate. The problem is, in my view, that too many candidates do not speak out on the issues in candor and say they are for something that identifies with the individual who is going to vote. Our democracy survives solely on the consent of the governed. That is pretty basic. That consent is given as long as the governed have confidence in the men and women they elect to public office. We have in place a number of filters through which candidates must be sifted to ensure those who survive receive a consensus. These filters give the electorate opportunities to eliminate candidates, many candidates who aspire to public office but quite frankly, judged in the eyes of the public, are not serious candidates, they sift out those who cannot attract a consensus. We do this in order that our form of government can so long exist. I want to ask the question. There is a feeling here in this body that Senators feel put upon that they have to sit, hopefully in another office, and raise campaign funds. My word, what a terrible chore. What a condescending, elitist point of view, that we should be free of asking people for their trust and their support, their investment in good government, their partnership in good faith so we can shine the light of truth in the darkness and discuss these issues free from that terrible burden. What a terrible burden. Is a candidate's ability to attract campaign funds--let me repeat this. Is a candidate's ability to attract campaign funds any less important to this process than his or her ability to attract votes? How can a candidate expect to get the consent of the governed if he or she cannot attract their support in funds to wage a campaign? Make no mistake. Our debate today is important. It is about freedom. Said the distinguished Hugo Black: ``There are grim reminders all around this world that the distance between individual liberty and firing squads is not always as far as it seems.'' The great men and women who debated this issue before us arrived at a simple but eloquent conclusion--to limit political speech is to limit and lose freedom. We are called again to reach this same conclusion. I urge rejection of the resolution. Said the statesman George Mason: ``No free Government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.'' First amendment freedoms are fundamental principles. Let us preserve the blessings of liberty. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I come to this issue not only as a Member of the Senate, but also as a former newspaperman. So when we get to the freedom-of-speech issue, I have some pretty strong feelings. In saying that, I want to make it abundantly clear--very clear--that I do not, in any way, question the intent of the supporters, but I do question their practical effect. When I was presiding, I listened intently to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, whom I respect. I was very interested in his comments with regard to the kind of political debate that he would like to go back to, that I would like to go back to. He calls it a stump speech. In South Carolina, it is a stump speech. My wife is from South Carolina. Many times I have listened to the distinguished Senators from South Carolina. It is a privilege to hear them discuss the issues--old-style campaigning and politics, grassroots politics. In Kansas we call it ``listening tours.'' I had the privilege before serving in this body to be in the lower body. I represented 66 counties. I went on a listening tour every August. It took about 5,000 miles and about 3 weeks. That is the old style of discussing the issues for people where they come to the courthouse and the sale barn or the Rotary Club. And we would discuss the issues. I enjoyed that. The Senator from South Carolina is a master. That is why the people doubtless send him back to represent that outstanding State. In entering this debate I am reminded that America has been here before. It seems to me that our task today is a moral and ethical and philosophical exploration of free speech, and its role in the political affairs of mankind. It is that serious. It is that encompassing. ``Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered,'' said the patriot Thomas Paine in ``Common Sense.'' This resolution--not the intent, but this resolution--in terms of practical effect is tyranny. Adopt it and wonder whether ``Common Sense'' could exist in our time in terms of public distribution and dissemination and understanding. This resolution is tyranny of the worst kind: Government tyranny. Adopt it and wonder whether ``The Federalist Papers,'' written by James Madison and John Jay to influence voters in New York to adopt a new Constitution, could, in fact, exist in our time. Listen carefully to this resolution where Congress and the States are given unlimited power to set limits. Limits on what? Limits on ``* * * the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to a candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to * * *'' Federal, State, and local offices. Now my colleagues, I urge you. Do not be misled. The debate today is not about elections. It is not about campaign finance reform. We are all for that, more especially in regard to public disclosure, as the distinguished Senator from South Carolina certainly has described in his remarks. It is not about Republicans, or Democrats, or what party controls the Congress. That is not what it is about. It is, rather, about the most basic right of individuals guaranteed by our Constitution--the right of free speech, the right written first, the right without which no other right can long exist. Listen carefully again to the language of the first amendment, which we proposed to change: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. My colleagues, those words have magic. They are among the most important accomplishments of mankind. Democracy is an experiment in progress. Yet, the rights guaranteed in the first amendment have stood for more than 200 years. Seldom have legislative assaults on the first amendment been so far-reaching and so onerous as the resolution that we debate today. Columnist George Will has called this effort more dangerous than the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798. Those laws placed Government controls on specific kinds of speech. This resolution proposes general Government controls on both the quantity and the quality of political speech. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by a young country that had adopted, but did not fully appreciate, the first amendment rights of free speech. They were passed because some in the Government didn't like what some of its citizens were saying about politicians, politics, and Government. Like we are today, some in the Government were worried, of course, about the national security. But it is instructive to note that Government's attempt to limit free speech is like walking in a swamp-- your good intentions are tugged and pulled simply from all sides. Abigail Adams, for example, urged passage of the acts to deal with Benjamin Franklin Bache. He was an editor who had referred to her husband as ``old, querulous, bald''--I can sympathize with that-- ``blind, crippled, toothless.'' He was arrested but died before he could be prosecuted, according to historians Jean Folkerts and Dwight Teeter in their book, Voices of a Nation. Twenty-five persons were charged under the sedition laws. Included was one unlucky customer in a Newark tavern who staggered into the sunlight to make a negative comment about John Adams' anatomy as the President's carriage passed by. Only after the rights of American citizens to speak freely were trampled by their Government did our young country come to appreciate the real meaning of the first amendment. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson objected to the attack on free speech with their Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. Madison presented the importance of free speech to democratic government. His argument has great relevance to our discussion today as he drew the connection between free speech and elections. ``Let it be recollected, lastly, that the right of electing members of the government constitutes more particularly the essence of a free and responsible government. The value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for public trust; and on the equal freedom, consequently of examining and discussing these merits and demerits of the candidates respectively.'' That is the essence of free political speech. That is the essence of the philosophy advanced by the great philosophers like John Milton, John Locke, John Stuart Mill: The consent of a marketplace of ideas based on unfettered speech and thought. Mill argued that people could trade their false notions for true ones only if they could hear the true ones. And he denounced all government attempts to censure expression. One of America's great jurists, Louis Brandeis, warned us to ``be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent * * *'' We could substitute ``reform'' for ``beneficent.'' ``* * * the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.'' Well, the advocates of this resolution want us to believe that the need for Congress to limit campaign spending is so great that the first amendment's rights are secondary. Well, first let me lay to rest any notion that virtually everybody in this distinguished body is somehow against campaign reform. It is the definition of campaign reform in the practical effect that is exceedingly important. But the proponents of this legislation further argue that limits on campaign spending are really not limits on speech at all. I think that is the point that was made by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. The Supreme Court, in its Buckley decision, dispensed with that argument in this way: Yes. It was a 5-to-4 vote. Yes. I know it is controversial. But listen. ``A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. I can go to 66 counties or 105 counties in Kansas, and I can meet with every farmer, businessman, any member of a civic group, and I can discuss the issues. And when I am done, I have probably touched 1 percent of the populace. This decision by the Supreme Court certainly applies. ``This is because,'' and I am quoting again, ``virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money.'' I wish it was not so but that is the case. ``The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event.'' ``The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio''--and I am quoting again from the Buckley decision--``and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.'' Now, in Kansas, Mr. President, a full-page advertisement in the Topeka Capital Journal costs $4,400. One 30-second television ad to reach across the State costs more than $33,000. Too much? Well, I would think it would be too much. Of course, if you are the publisher of the Capital Journal, or the advertising manager, or the same in regard to the TV station and you look at your costs and the comparative costs of what is happening in today's mass communications, it might not be too much. That is the going rate. I do not think we can legislate that rate. Even speech via the Internet or the Postal Service requires the spending of resources. Now, suppose we adopt this resolution and that it is ratified by the States. What will we tell the Kansas business owner who wishes to petition his Government either for a redress of any kind of a grievance or to criticize a candidate or to urge the election of another candidate? Will we say that free political speech is only a half-page of advertisement? In our infinite wisdom as incumbents in office, will we say free speech only applies to 15 seconds at one TV station?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted to yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS. The incumbents of the Government, whether it be State, I suppose county, or in the Congress of the United States, would decide what is appropriate in terms of spending limits not only for themselves but for their challengers.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted to yield.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator for his contribution and again would only summarize by saying that we could get at much of the problem here with real campaign reform legislation that centers on public disclosure. I repeat my remarks that I think the American people are six jumps ahead of the process here. It has been my experience, if they know how much money is being spent and where the money is coming from, they make a pretty good decision. Candidates cannot--well, in some cases it might work --but in most cases they cannot buy elections. It works against them. I will put my money on the free press and free speech and public disclosure, and I urge rejection of this resolution. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is the incumbency, with all due respect. And second, who is going to enforce all this? We are going to need a SWAT team down at the Federal Election Commission.

Mr. ROBERTS. If I could ask one other question of the Senator, I think an additional two questions that people should be asking are: Who decides? Who decides what the limit is?

Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to respond.