Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, right now the names of the people who fly on Air Force One would be of public record; is that correct?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this amendment is we are trying to find a way to reduce the influence of money in American politics; we are not trying to find a way to allow hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional money into the process. This amendment would potentially create a huge loophole through which wealthy individuals could funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to a single candidate through the hard money system. The reason why the Shays-Meehan bill bans soft money is to put an end to the notion of these enormous contributions from private individuals. This amendment would provide a new way for special interests to influence the legislative process. That is why I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Even when we have a wealthy candidate putting his or her own money into it, that is an excuse for a private individual to then begin to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars into a campaign.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my problem with this amendment is that it would prohibit States from erecting excessive ballot access barriers to candidates for Federal office. It would set ballot petition signature limits for the President, the Vice President, United States Senate, and House candidates. In addition, it would set ballot petition time limitations. Protections are important, but individual States should be allowed to control their campaign laws. Assuring there are no undue barriers to prevent individuals from running for Federal office is imperative to keeping our political process fair, but I am concerned with the Federal Government imposing limitations on the States for how they govern ballot access. This deals with an important set of issues, and should be dealt with not solely with this amendment, but rather, should be fully debated in the House after the Shays-Meehan substitute has passed. One of the things that the Shays-Meehan bill does is to provide for an opportunity for debate and discussion through the Commission. This is an issue that I think there should be hearings on, I think we should have a dialogue about. But I just do not think that an amendment to the Shays-Meehan bill is the appropriate place to deal with this issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the 5 minutes in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will not use all of my time, but in conclusion, essentially what this does is, a presidential candidate who receives taxpayer-funded matching funds from participating in debates, they will not be able to participate in any debates to which equally qualifying candidates for funds would have participated in. I agree that there should be more open and free debate, but I am also concerned that the bill might have the opposite effect. It might actually stifle debate, if a candidate who takes matching funds cannot participate in the debate. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Commission on Presidential Debates was established in 1987 to ensure debates are a permanent part of every general election. It handles the rules of who participates and how the presidential debates will take place. I am concerned with the fact that if this amendment were to pass, Congress would essentially be setting the rules for who can and who cannot participate in presidential debates. I believe that that decision should remain with the independent commission. Certainly, this is an item that in another forum that we could discuss, have hearings on, and I think that would be in our interest. But in any event, I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we should vote ``no'' on this amendment and take it up at another point in time. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, what is No. 85?

Mr. MEEHAN. We would need to know----

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for that warning to all of the libertarians and others. I appreciate that very articulate presentation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), another leader in the bipartisan effort to pass campaign finance reform. (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to do with campaign finance reform, absolutely nothing to do with campaign finance reform. This bill, as we are on the verge of passing, is not an excuse for anyone who has any idea about anything to come into this House floor and try to defeat this bill. This has nothing to do with campaign finance reform. We are on the verge of making history with the most significant campaign finance reform bill in 20 years. Let us get on and pass this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), a leader in our bipartisan effort. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to another leader in our bipartisan effort, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand), a leader in the effort of campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want to understand the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman read the amendment so we are clear?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague makes a very valid point. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. Clearly, a member of the Armed Forces or the Armed Forces Reserves should have the right to contribute to a Federal election. Yet I would remind the gentleman that all legal permanent residents have the right to contribute in Federal campaigns, according to the United States Supreme Court. With this amendment, it seems to me the gentleman is making a value judgment that legal permanent residents who served in the Armed Forces are worthy of first amendment protection because they laid down their lives for this country. But how about those legal permanent residents who are doctors? They save American lives every day. Or how about the legal permanent residents who are the parents of those young men and women who have lost their lives fighting for our country? Should they not also be given the full protection of the first amendment? I do not object to the gentleman's amendment, but I do want to point out the arbitrary nature of this particular exclusion. This amendment is only necessary because the gentleman, rightly, perceives the inequities of a flat-out ban. The problem is, I could think of many worthy exemptions and exceptions. There are so many ways that legal permanent residents prove their allegiance to this government and to the United States. Serving in the Armed Forces is only one example. But I certainly would accept the gentleman's amendment, but I think it is important to point out the injustice of just picking out one small group.