We have the opportunity today to pass real, comprehensive campaign finance reform. But instead, we are wasting our time on a mean-spirited, poorly-drafted, partisan amendment that has nothing to do with real reform.

Mr. Chairman, although the text of Mr. Sweeney's amendment is vague, the intent is crystal clear. The goal of this amendment is to target the First Lady by forcing her to pay for the full costs of her travel when she flies on government planes. Mrs. Clinton is already following the same FEC rules as all other candidates, rules that require her to reimburse the government for the fair value of the travel.

If this amendment were to pass the First Lady would be forced to abandon the security the Secret Service says she needs, or face exorbitant costs that no candidate could afford. It is a simple reality that the First Lady needs additional security when she travels. Every First Lady in recent memory has traveled with extra security.

I know the First Lady. And I can tell you that she would want nothing more than to be able to travel on commercial airlines so that she could meet the voters of New York state, the way Mr. Sweeney and I do, when we return home to our districts.

In addition to jeopardizing the safety of the First Lady, Mr. Chairman, this amendment contains a glaring loophole. Mr. Sweeney's amendment would apply to all candidates, "other than a candidate who currently holds federal office." So what this amendment says is, it's OK to have two sets of rules: one for current officeholders, and one for everyone else.

I have here a letter from the Chair of the FEC which states clearly that no provision of election law covers incumbent travel on government airlines. It is only FEC regulations that govern this area. Mr. Sweeney would like to undermine these regulations by passing a law that specifically exempts incumbents and creates an enormous loophole.

If Mr. Sweeney's amendment is such a good idea for Mrs. Clinton, then why don't we apply it to candidates who rely on state transportation and state security when they run for federal office? Or, better yet, why don't we apply it to members of this body who regularly fly on corporate jets but aren't required to reimburse the company for the full cost of the plane?

We should not open up a huge loophole in election law by punishing challengers and giving incumbents a free ride. I urge my colleagues to reject the Sweeney Amendment.

###