Mr. BENNETT. Well, I take your advice.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield my time.

Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Bennett, thank you very, very much.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to speak today before this subcommit- ! tee on an issue I've been interested in for some 20 years now-regional primaries. Perusing my files recently, I ran across a newspaper column dealing with the presidential nominating process. Here's a portion of what it said: "This outlay of money is not the only excess. The expenditures of time and energy are equally disproportionate. Preparations in New Hampshire have been under way since last October, some nine months before the Republican convention. The candidates are competing there on a hand-to-hand basis, like local office-seekers, and they must meanwhile keep their eyes on the 49 other states."

The above statement could have appeared yesterday in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the St. Louis Dispatch or the Florida Times-Union. But it didn't. It appeared in February, but not last February-February of 1964. And it was in the Washington Star!

This dramatizes the point that for years now people have criticized the nominating process and how it is faulted, but there has been no action. They have talked of regional primaries. But it has been talk, pure and simple. It is obvious to almost any observer that the present way we nominate our presidents is, at best, haphazard. What we need is action to back up our words of criticism.

I have introduced what I believe is sound legislation. My bill, H.R. 251, would establish a series of six regional presidential primaries at which the public may express its preference for the nomination of a candidate for election to the presidency. To receive federal financing under existing law, a candidate would have to run in at least one state primary in each region.

The bill is very straightforward and workable. Such a system of regional primaries would reduce the chance of a handful of people choosing a presidential nominee. With all due respect to the wonderful people of Iowa and New Hampshire, that is what we now face. Individuals running for president now spend an inordinate amount of time stumping states that provide only a fraction of the delegates needed to nominate a candidate. In so doing, candidates hope to "catch fire" and roar ahead to more populous states. In George Bush's words, they want the "Big Mo," as in momentum.

To make matters worse, small states such as Iowa and New Hampshire are scheduled mere days before a huge pack of primaries, referred to in 1984 as “Super Tuesday" primaries. Of course, before 1984 it was assumed such_a_ "front-stacking" system would help a well-known frontrunner such as Walter F. Mondale. But, as well all know, Gary Hart's upset win New Hampshire propelled him on a flaming trail that nearly garnered him the nomination.

What would H.R. 251 do? It would provide a systematic approach that would help reduce the extremely high campaign expenditures as well as the great amount of time that is now spent on a Presidential primary. Additionally, it would help eliminate the costly jockeying that occurs between different states in their efforts to get the most "influential" primary election.

I believe that regional primaries, as outlined in my bill, would provide a solution to all of these problems and would allow candidates of all persuasions to actively participate in the primary process without requiring them to concentrate on particular states due to financial restraints.

We ought to move to deal sensibly with the inherent problems with our present ad hoc system of primaries. Certainly we need to strike a balance between wellknown candidates and underdogs. It has been said that a national primary would virtually eliminate the chance of an underdog to gain momentum needed to get nominated. This obviously shouldn't happen, but neither should we tip the scales toward "unknowns," thus insuring that already prominent candidates have little chance to get nominated. This bill is a good compromise between our present system and a national primary.

Surely there's a way to insure that all have a fair chance: The Gary Harts, Pierre du Ponts, Richard Gephardts, Pat Robertsons, George Bushes and Mario Cuomos The have nots (low name recognition, low funding) should have a reasonable shot! against the haves (high name recognition, high funding). We can do that and will if

we enact legislation that provides an adequate number of regional primaries. I believe my bill does.

There is a broad purpose here-more effective democracy. My chief interest in primary elections is to increase the "grass roots" or democratic base of our country. Admittedly, there are other possible advantages, such as elections cost containment. Regional primaries would put sense into the presidential nominating process. The process we have now is so disjointed as to promote political psychosis on behalf of candidates, not to mention campaign coordinators. We now have a hodgepodge of decisions being made in caucuses, primaries and smokefilled rooms, with no real rhyme or reason involved.

Some Southern state legislatures have moved toward a Southern regional primary. This is another case of the people and the states being ahead of us up here in Congress. While we should applaud these states for their initiative, we in Congress should take this up and move to a comprehensive, fair and consistent regional primary system. Only by an act of Congress can we insure a uniform system of regional primaries. My regional primary bill would force candidates to focus their attention on one region of the country at a time, thus allowing them to outline a coherent set of proposals. This would allow candidates to be more focused and help voters get a grasp of who stands for what. We in Congress must get in tune with the states and the people. Regional primaries is an idea whose time has come.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman for letting me speak here today. Let's move to insure that future Congressmen aren't still debating this in the year 2004!

Mr. SWIFT. Our next witness is also from the State of Florida, the Honorable Bill Nelson.

I might mention as he is coming to the table that the Honorable Morris Udall has submitted testimony and has informed us that he is not going to be able to be here to testify in person.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MORRIS K. UDALL, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE State of ArizONA

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of H.R. 1380, bipartisan legislation which would bring badly needed order to the timing of presidential primaries, caucuses and conventions. Along with you, Mr. Chairman, Representatives Frenzel and Conte, this measure has been co-sponsored by twenty-four of my colleagues.

H.R. 1380 would limit the selection of delegates to our national nominating convention to a reasonable period beginning in the second Tuesday of March and ending the second Tuesday in June.

This bill does not call for a drastic overhaul of the presidential primary system. It does not violate the constitutional prerogatives of the states and parties to determine how to select presidential nominees. If enacted it would result in two important changes in the way we choose our presidential nominees. First, the primary season would be limited to a specific period of time, eliminating the disproportionate influence of a few primary states. Second, a shorter primary season would reduce the amount of campaign spending and relieve some of the "boredom factor" experienced by many voters.

Under the present system of primaries and caucuses, too much emphasis is placed on the results in two small states by both the candidates and the media. We have in fact delegated to New Hampshire and Iowa virtually the power to pick our presidential nominees.

The folks in New Hampshire and Iowa are good people, but I don't think they should have the sole responsibility of choosing our presidents. In fact, there are fewer Democrats in the whole state of New Hampshire than there are in my congressional district. Many candidates have been knocked out of the race simply by not having won those states or done as well as the media expected. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we need a more equitable system for picking our presidents.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation does not compel secretaries of state to hold a primary or a caucus on a specified state. Nor does this legislation compel the political parties to hold regional contests on specified dates.

The genius of this bill is its simplicity and its purpose is clear: to make the selection process cleaner and fairer.

Our presidential primary season has become a marathon event, stretching from the cattle shows and straw polls of Wisconsin to the primaries of California and New Jersey. This lengthy process literally wears out the voters, testing their patience and dulling their senses.

Prolong presidential campaigns are also extremely expensive. In this past primary cycle, the Democratic candidates spent a whopping 69 million dollars. A shorter primary season would reduce the necessity and opportunities for excessive spending.

We are fortunate to live in a country that is distinctly unique and varied. We are a nation of rich diversity. Our primary/caucus system should be designed to reflect this diversity. It should test a candidate's ability to build coalitions and to represent regional and national interests.

Mr. Chairman, the time for enacting this simple but important legislation is now. We should not lose an opportunity to bring the selection process of our presidential nominees into the mainstream of our national political institution and out of the hands of two states that have made presidential politics a cottage industry.

Mr. SWIFT. Bill, welcome. Your formal statement will be made a part of the record. You may proceed as you choose.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I am going to abbreviate this. I need to chair a hearing at 10 o'clock.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BILL NELSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. NELSON. Let me just talk from the map that I have passed out. The thrust of this bill, H.R. 3542, is to set up 10 regional primaries. The map suggests ten regions, but by no means is that anything with any terrific finality to it. It's just 10 regions that sort of naturally developed as we were looking at the United States.

The specific lines of what States are in the regions is not what is important; it's the principle that you would set up 10 primaries, 2 to be held each primary day starting in February of the Presidential election year, and each of the remaining 4 primary dates, or a total of 5, would come 4 weeks thereafter. So, candidates would be compressed into basically a 4-month period, 4 weeks apart between the primary or caucus dates. On each of those five dates there would be two regions in the country that would be having a primary or their caucuses, all determined by State law.

The Federal bill that I have filed gets the Federal Government in the act of setting this up and paying for the primary elections. But as far as the rules, the law that would govern the elections, that is all conducted by the States. It's the principle of saying that there has got to be a better way than the chaos of candidates running all over the country, west to east, Mr. Thomas, and east to west, running to this or that State caucus or primary. This tries to bring some rationality into the system.

Now, obviously it would be considered by most States to be desirable to be first. So, how do you handle that? You do it by lot.

My suggestion is that all ten groupings of whatever you decide are the groupings of the States within a region would draw by lot, and they would fall on one of those five election dates, with the only proviso that you would not have two regions contiguous on the same election date. That is simply so that you wouldn't stack the geographical preference. In other words, you wouldn't have regions one and two being contiguous on the first primary date. It would have to be region-if the lot had region one showing that it was going on the primary date, there would have to be the other region going on that first primary date would have to be a noncontiguous region to region one.

Mr. Chairman, that pretty much summarizes the philosophy of this legislation.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL NELSON A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee on Elections on behalf of my bill, H.R. 3542, the Regional Presidential Primaries Act.

This legislation is aimed at bringing a measure of order to the present chaotic process whereby we nominate condidates for President of the United States.

The way we have elected the President of the United States has evolved over two centuries. Originally, the President was chosen in the Electoral College by electors picked by the various State Legislatures. That system went out well before the Civil War. It was followed by the popular election of the electors who cast their votes for the presidential and vice presidential nominees of their respective political parties. The nominating of presidential candidates has also undergone profound evolution. After the obvious choices among the Founding Fathers, such as Washington, Adams and Jefferson, the emerging parties began to choose their presidential and vice presidential nominees in cacuses of their members in the Congress. This was followed by the national party convention system which was inaugurated by the supporters of Andrew Jackson.

In our own time, presidential preference primaries and grass-roots caucuses have come to play a major role in choosing the presidential nominees. This has contributed to the popular nomination of our presidential candidates, corresponding with the popular election of the members of the Electoral College, who now essentially rubber stamp the results of the popular vote in the Presidential election.

The chaotic element comes from the competition of the various states for the honor and the business benefits of having early primaries, which extend the primary period and exhaust the candidates, and from the local caucus system which puts a premium on special interest activists who turn out for the caucuses and lay claim to bits of the candidate's political soul. The result can be the nomination of an exhausted candidate, who has been running all over the country to campaign in widely scattered primary and caucus states, and a candidate who has been forced to take positions that prevent him from offering mainstream leadership to the American people.

I think we need another major change in the way we choose our chief executiveto move from the chaotic presidential primary and caucus system of recent years to an orderly system of regional presidential primaries.

As you know, many of the Southern states are moving their primary dates to March 8, 1988, which will produce a "Super Tuesday" presidential primary in the South. I believe this effort is constructive and I support it.

However, I have to recognize the concern of many that this will lead to a national primary, which would overtax the capacities of all but the strongest and best financed candidates.

I believe it would be better to have an established system of regional primaries that would end the competition among states and regions and, at the same time, provide a known pattern of primaries over a period from February to June, which would allow the American people a chance to get to know the candidates and make their judgment upon them.

My legislation would reform the nominating process by dividing the country into 10 regions and provide for primaries or caucuses in the states of two of the regions at a time-on one of five dates over a four-month period.

The states could decide, with the respective national and state party committees, on whether to have a primary or a caucus or to choose their national convention delegates in some other way. But the dates of primaries and caucuses would be specified according to lot and would be limited to the five dates separated by four week periods. Candidates would be able to concentrate on the states in two areas, instead of running all over the country in a frantic effort to meet primary and caucus schedules set by competing state legislatures.

I think it is important that the Federal Government, at this stage, not preempt the power of the states and the national parties to make their own rules for primaries and caucuses-except in this crucial area of the timing of the primaries and caucuses, which has become so central to the nominating process.

I personally favor, for example, rules which would allow independents to vote in party primaries, if they choose. I think this would encourage each party to seek to broaden its appeal to a majority of the voters. I think this would be healthy, would

bring more people into the mainstream of presidential politics, and would enhance the chances that the candidates nominated would be more representative of the mainstream of America.

Nevertheless, I do not think we should legislate such a rule. I believe the parties and the states, which have differing political traditions, should decide this kind of question for themselves.

My view is that the timing of primaries and caucuses is so important that we should address this question through national legislation and leave the other questions to the states and the political parties.

My legislation would encourage states to conduct presidential primaries, by providing funding for primaries mandated by the national government. But it would not require them to adopt the primary system.

I think a regional primary system would serve the country better than a combination of primaries and caucuses. But the essential reform, I believe, is to establish an orderly system of dates for primaries on a regional basis.

I think the result would be a more orderly and rational system of selecting the Chief Executive of the greatest country on earth. It would make the presidential selection process less of a mad scramble and would strengthen our basic democratic institutions.

I have suggested in my legislation that the country be divided into 10 regions (including states and territories choosing convention delegates) for purposes of conducting presidential primaries and caucuses. A suggested division of the country for that purpose is attached. I have made this suggestion simply in order to show that a rasonable division of the country into 10 regions is possible, not to imply that this is the only manner in which such a division could be accomplished. I would welcome any suggestions for modification of the boundaries of these districts.

The important point, I think, is that 10 primaries-conducted in separate parts of the country-would answer the concern that one region or another would have an unfair advantage over other regions. The proposal I have made would allow voters in two non-contiguous regions to have their say on presidential candidates on successive primary dates. I think this would keep the presidential nominating process open, while providing some order and rationality to the process.

I hope this committee will look favorably on a system of regional primaries and I urge you to report legislation to the House which will begin to being some sanity and order to the way we nominate our Presidents.

I want to note in closing that it has been brought to my attention that several states require that major parties nominate their presidential candidates before they conduct petition campaigns to get on the presidential election ballot. I believe that language which would recognize this requirement should be included in a committee markup. It is not my intention to exclude minor parties from the presidential election process.

I do recognize, however, that our two-party system has a long tradition and that it has served our country well. The basic legislation I am proposing would strengthen that tradition and enhance the vitality of our traditional political system.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.