[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11133-S11134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 MR. PEROT AND THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on the 
decision to exclude Mr. Perot from the upcoming Presidential debates. I 
want to make it clear from the outset that I support my President and I 
support my party, but I do believe that Mr. Perot ought to be included 
in these debates. After all, Mr. Perot and his party have now qualified 
to be on the ballot in all 50 States in this Nation. He has become 
eligible for Federal funding. In fact, he will receive nearly $30 
million in Federal funding, based on his previous performance. Last 
election he received nearly 20 percent of the vote nationwide, and some 
exit polls indicate he would have done even better if people had not 
already made the judgment that he could not win. In polling that has 
been done this year, 76 percent of the American people have indicated 
they would like to see him included.
  I think, for all of those reasons, Mr. Perot deserves to be included. 
But I think there are other reasons as well. I think Mr. Perot has made 
a significant contribution to the national debate and discussion over 
deficit reduction. Frankly, if you go back to the 1992 debates and the 
1992 campaign, Mr. Perot can rightfully claim that he served as a prod 
to both parties to discuss deficit reduction. I believe that remains 
one of the foremost challenges this country faces. Mr. Perot would help 
the debate, in terms of a focus on deficit reduction.
  Mr. Perot has also made a contribution in two other areas that have 
received very little attention during this Presidential campaign. 
First, with respect to the question of trade, he has a different view 
than either the Republican challenger, Mr. Dole, or the incumbent 
President, President Clinton. This country deserves a debate and 
discussion on trade policy as part of this Presidential campaign.
  Finally, I think Mr. Perot has also made a contribution with respect 
to the question of campaign finance reform. We have heard virtually 
nothing in this campaign about campaign finance reform.
  I hope the Presidential commission will review their decision and 
decide to include Mr. Perot. Again, I emphasize, I am not a Perot 
supporter. I do not intend to vote for him for President of the United 
States. I intend to support the President. I intend to support my 
party. I think the President has an outstanding record in terms of 
actually delivering on deficit reduction.
  I recall very well, when the President came in, in 1992, he inherited 
a budget deficit of $290 billion. That has now been reduced, by the 
best estimate for this year, to $116 billion, about a 60-percent 
reduction. In fact, the deficit has come down every year for 4 years in 
a row.
  Partly because of the Clinton economic plan that was passed in 1993--
that was a deficit reduction plan--I believe we have seen the 
resurgence of this economy. We have become the most competitive nation 
in the world, replacing Japan. Not only have we seen a dramatic 
reduction in the deficit, but we have seen a significant strengthening 
of economic growth. We have had the strongest private sector economic 
growth on this President's watch than on that of the last three 
Presidents. We have also seen the lowest misery index--the measure of 
inflation and unemployment--in 28 years. Business investment is 
increasing at a rate that is the highest in 30 years. We have seen the 
creation of more than 10 million new jobs during this President's term.
  I think this President has an outstanding record to take before the 
American people. But I think most of us also know that the job is not 
finished. The job is not yet completed. More needs to be done. I do 
believe Mr. Perot would play a positive role in putting a focus on the 
additional deficit reduction that needs to be made in this country.
  As I have stated, I also believe he would make a positive 
contribution to a debate on trade policy and with respect to 
the question of campaign finance reform. I am sure the occupant of the 
chair may share these views. Or perhaps not.

  I do think the commission's decision is fatally flawed. When they 
make a determination that somebody not be included because they have no 
realistic chance of winning, what are they going to do when one of the 
two major candidates has no realistic prospect of winning? We have had 
several Presidential campaigns where that was the case. Let's go back 
to the 1984 Presidential race with Ronald Reagan as the incumbent 
President. There was no realistic chance anybody was going to beat him. 
Should we have canceled the Presidential debates altogether?
  This year we see the challenger 17 points behind. Nobody has ever 
made up that kind of gap. Should the Presidential commission determine 
Mr. Dole has no realistic chance of winning the election, and therefore 
cancel the debates? The logic used by the commission--that because 
somebody does not have a realistic prospect of winning the election 
they should be excluded from the debates--is a slippery slope.
  We ought to include those who have met the tests that Mr. Perot has 
met. I understand Mr. Perot is a controversial figure. His 1992 
Presidential campaign--with his entrance into the race, his withdrawal, 
and his reentrance--raised many questions. But we are still left with 
some basic facts.
  First, he has qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 States. He has 
done that. His party has qualified to be on the ballot in every State 
in the Nation.
  Second, he has become eligible for Federal matching funds. The only 
people who have managed to do that this year are Bill Clinton, Bob 
Dole, and Ross Perot. Nobody else has qualified to get Federal matching 
funds.
  Third, he received nearly 20 percent of the national vote in the last 
election. I think that merits inclusion in these debates. Finally, 
perhaps most important, the vast majority of the American people, 
according to the polls, want him included. They want to hear a debate 
that includes Mr. Perot. It does not mean they want to vote for him 
necessarily, but they want to see him included in the debate.
  As I have said before, I think he has demonstrated he has made a 
positive contribution on the issues of deficit reduction, trade, and 
campaign finance reform.
  So, I hope the Presidential commission will review their decision and 
decide to include Mr. Perot without having a court have to review this 
decision for them.
  I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator's thoughtful 
comments are well received, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order for not to exceed 10 minutes.

[[Page S11134]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The distinguished Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________