    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [June 16, 1995]
    [Pages 900-901]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on a
    Bipartisan Commission on Political Reform
    June 16, 1995

    Dear Mr. Speaker:
        I was delighted when you and I agreed to the suggestion of a citizen
    in New Hampshire that we create a bipartisan commission to address the
    issues of political reform. As you stated at the time, this proposal
    offers the best chance in a generation to break through the stalemate
    between the parties that has blocked progress for reform. As you know,
    the citizen stated that this commission should be modeled after the base
    closing commission; I agree. This is an idea with wide appeal: in
    addition to our agreement, this proposal has previously been endorsed by
    Senate Majority Leader Dole, and a similar proposal has been introduced
    by Representatives Maloney, Meehan, Johnson, and others. I am writing to
    set forth my views on the best way to write into legislation the
    agreement we reached in New Hampshire.
        As you know, to succeed, such a panel must be distinguished and
    truly bipartisan; it must have a firm deadline for action; and it must
    have a mechanism for presenting its proposals to the President and the
    Congress in such a way that we will be forced to act on them in a timely
    and comprehensive manner. Several times in recent years, particularly
    thorny issues, including base closings and congressional and judicial
    pay, have been addressed in this fashion.
        First, the commission should be bipartisan in nature. Under this
    model, it would be comprised of eight members, appointed by the
    President in consultation with the leaders of the Congress. The
    President would make two appointments; two would be made in consultation
    with the Speaker of the House; two would be made in consultation with
    the Majority Leader of the Senate; one each would be made in
    consultation with the minority leaders of the House and Senate. No more
    than four commissioners could be members of any one political party. To
    ensure that the commissioners are independent, receive the trust of the
    people, and can take a fresh look at these issues, they should not be
    current Federal officials or Members of Congress, or officers of or
    counsel to the political parties. In this fashion, we have an
    opportunity to achieve consensus and balance that will produce a
    national consensus on reform.
        Second, the commission should be given a firm deadline in which to
    act--by February 1, 1996. These issues, while difficult, are not new,
    and can be fruitfully addressed in that time. The American people want
    to know that we will act during this Congress, and I believe the best
    chance of that is before the electoral season begins in the summer of
    1996. The commission would be charged with considering all the issues of
    political reform, including campaign finance reform and lobby reform.
    Let me be clear: I do not believe that this proposal for establishing a
    commission should deter or detract from the previously scheduled Senate
    action on political reform (S. 101), a measure I strongly support. That
    would be contrary to the purpose of the entire enterprise--making
    progress on reforms

    [[Page 901]]

    that are stalled, not to delay action on measure that are moving
    forward. If the Congress has taken final action on any of these matters
    before the commission meets, the panel could choose not to address them
    altogether.
        Third, its recommendations must be dealt with in an expedited and
    comprehensive manner, in the same fashion as the proposals of the base
    closing commission. They would be sent to the President, who would
    reject them or send them on to the Congress in their entirety. They
    should then be considered on the ``fast track''--an up or down vote,
    with no amendments, within 30 days of the submission by the President.
    Only in this way can the American people be assured that narrow
    interests do not pick apart the coherent and comprehensive
    recommendations of the bipartisan commission. (As you know, the
    recommendations of the base closing commission take effect unless they
    are rejected by the Congress, but in this instance I believe it is more
    appropriate to give the Congress the opportunity to vote up or down.)
        Working together to follow up on our New Hampshire agreement, we
    have a rare opportunity for truly bipartisan cooperation on a matter of
    urgent concern to the American people. We have a chance to put aside
    partisan interests to work toward the national interest. I look forward
    to working with you toward this end, and to hearing your views on this
    proposal or others you might have for moving ahead, and I have directed
    my staff to meet with your staff on this matter. If we take these steps,
    we will set in motion a process that could truly transform American
    politics for the better.
        Sincerely,

                                                          William J. Clinton