Bill Pascrell: “we are back to the beginning if we listened to the last two speakers. As in the beginning, we here in this House are…”

“we are back to the beginning if we listened to the last two speakers. As in the beginning, we here in this House are divided into two groups, one group that says there is too much money in campaigns and another group that says there is never enough money in campaigns. And the more that you have, the more free speech that you have. The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) explicitly and implicitly stated just a few moments ago what this debate is all about. And that is, what he is really after is an unlimited number of dollars in campaigns. That is the crux of the debate. Regardless of the amendments, regardless of substitutions, that is the crux of the debate. The issue of campaign finance reform is not the same as base closings. In base closings, we had a need for an independent commission that could break the impasse that existed, because no one wanted to vote to close a base in their own State. There is no comparison between the subjects that we discuss today and the subjects that were discussed in past Congresses, none whatsoever. With campaign finance reform, we are not voting to close a base and put anyone out of business, no. Passing campaign finance reform is an entirely different subject. The only reason to pass and create a commission is to avoid making a hard-choice decision ourselves. The people did not send us here to put the hard decision on someone else's shoulders, Mr. Chairman. That is not why I came.…”