From remarks by Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) in the Congressional Record, June 16.

Charges are being made . . . .that {Republican} opposition to public financing is merely a "smokescreen" for our opposition to changing the status quo.

Well, all I can say is, what a difference a year makes. A year ago the campaign finance reform bill before the Senate -- the so-called Boren-Goldwater package, a bipartisan package -- had the support of a broad coalition of members from both sides of the aisle. . . .And the bill did not, and I reiterate, did not, contain public financing.

One might ask the question as to why public financing is now an essential ingredient in campaign reform when it was not last year.

It seems to me that any discussion of a campaign finance reform measure should be based on the supposition that the changes will ensure broader -- not more restricted -- participation in the electoral process.

Public financing of Senate campaigns impinges on an individual's right to support voluntarily those political candidates of his or her choice; public financing diminishes -- not increases -- an individual's opportunity to participate in the political process. In fact, I believe the bill poses serious questions regarding First Amendment rights of both the individual contributors and the candidates. . . .

Right now budget conferees -- at least the Democratic ones -- are struggling to come up with a fiscal 1988 budget. I believe if you ask them, what would you think of creating a new government "entitlement program" costing millions of dollars, they would not look kindly upon it. And yet that is what public financing of Senate campaigns would be -- an outright subsidy for those seeking reelection