[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 2 (Thursday, January 7, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E61]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     REFORMING PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BILL McCOLLUM

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 6, 1999

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Presidential 
Debate Reform Act. The situation surrounding the 1996 Presidential 
election has highlighted some flaws in our current method for selecting 
a President and Vice President of the United States of America. One 
critical flaw involves the way Presidential debates are scheduled.
  My legislation would create the framework for deciding the 
participants and structure of Presidential debates. This framework 
would include a commission of three people nominated by the President. 
The President would nominate one person from a list submitted by the 
Republican National Committee, one person from a list submitted by the 
Democratic National Committee, and one person who is unaffiliated 
submitted jointly by the RNC and the DNC. These commissioners would 
then schedule several debates.
  One such debate would be optional and include any Presidential 
candidate who is on the ballot in 50 states or polls at 5 percent in 
popular polls among likely voters. This could include major party 
candidates, although it would provide a forum for lesser known 
candidates to express their views.
  The commission would then establish debates for Vice Presidential and 
Presidential candidates of the two major parties and anyone polling 
over 5 percent in polls taken after the optional debate. The penalty 
for a candidate choosing not to participate in the debates would be a 
reduction in the amount of Federal funds that candidate's party will 
receive to run the next convention. The reduction would be equal to the 
fraction of ``mandatory'' debates missed. I cannot imagine that a party 
would want to miss out on $3 million, which is approximately the amount 
that would be lost by missing one debate, based on the cost of the 1996 
conventions.
  This has nothing to do with whether I think certain people should or 
should not participate in debates. However, I do believe that we need 
to have an established framework with defined ground rules to ensure 
fairness in the system.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good bill and I look forward to 
pursuing this as the 2000 election heats up. I urge my colleagues to 
review this legislation and support its passage.

                          ____________________