[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7642-H7643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE KELLWOOD CO. OF WEST VIRGINIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I first tonight want to commend the Kellwood 
plant in Spencer, WV. As garment manufacturers across the Nation are 
working to improve working conditions, I have today sent a letter to 
the Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, praising the Kellwood Co. of 
Spencer as an innovative firm which is a step ahead in the push to 
eliminate abuse of labor laws.
  Kellwood, which is the largest private label clothing supplier in the 
United States, employs 500 people at a major manufacturing and 
distribution facility in West Virginia. This facility has long been a 
stabilizing force in the community and is a respected and revered 
employer. In the summer of 1995, Kellwood began implementing a program 
requiring its contractors to submit to independent audits and, if 
needed, follow-up remediation efforts. The company is now in the 
process of completing audits of its contractors nationwide to make sure 
they are following the rules.
  I believe these voluntary efforts by Kellwood track perfectly with 
the Labor Department's no-sweat initiative and they are successful in 
correcting the contractor problems that exist in the industry.
  The U.S. Department of Labor no-sweat campaign is an effort to crack 
down on sweatshops and clothing contractors violating the Fair Labor 
Standards Act by using child labor that forces workers to put in 
excessive hours without adequate pay or operating unsafe shops.
  The Kellwood Co. has become a corporate leader in eliminating these 
abuses. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Labor Department will 
recognize the leadership role that Kellwood has taken in regard to 
contractor compliance, particulary as Kellwood is one of a number of 
companies taking part in the upcoming Fashion Industry Forum at 
Marymount University where various parts of the apparel industry will 
meet to try to continue taking on the problem of sweatshops. Kellwood 
is to be commended.


                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. WISE. I had wanted to talk about reform because this is reform 
week here. This is when the Republican leadership is to bring to the 
floor its campaign finance reform bill. The problem is, this is not 
campaign reform, it is campaign retreat. What this does is it does not 
get cash out of politics. It results in cashing in.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that this bill that will 
be brought to the floor, only this week a distinguished West Virginian, 
Rebecca Cain, the leader, president of the National League of Women 
Voters, criticized this bill as not being true reform.
  I think it is important to point out that most Americans, most West 
Virginians when they talk to me, think the problem is money needs to be 
taken out of politics, not put into it.
  Let us look at what this bill, if it passes, would do. It would 
permit the maximum amount that individuals can give to a candidate to 
go from $1,000 to $2,500 per election. That does not sound like reform 
to me. It would permit the cumulative amount that individuals can give 
to candidates and to political action committees to go from $25,000 to 
$72,500 per year. Does not sound like reform to me.
  It would also permit the maximum amount that individuals can give to 
any one political party, committee, to go from $20,000 to $58,000 per 
year. Incidentally, that is on top of the $72,500 that is already 
permitted.

                              {time}  2100

  Now, this is a proposal I really find fascinating. In fact, under 
this proposal

[[Page H7643]]

a wealthy individual would now be able to give over $300,000 in hard-
money contributions to affect Federal elections in their State, another 
$2.8 million in hard money to other State political action committees, 
for a total of $3.1 million in a single year. Now, that is real 
encouraging grassroots participation. That is up, incidentally, $3.1 
million. Under the present law it is $25,000. We get much more reform 
like this, there is no need to have any law at all.
  And, incidentally, the bill still would permit unlimited amounts of 
soft money, which is probably the greatest abuse of all.
  Whom is this bill directed to, Mr. Speaker? Only 1 percent of 
Americans gave campaign contributions of $200 or more during the past 
election, and it is indisputable that raising these individual limits 
can only increase the influence of the wealthy. I thought the purpose 
was to get grassroots participation to encourage people to participate 
into elections, to get more volunteers. You pass something like this, 
and all you do is send a message we are only interested in a rich 
person's club, we are only interested in how much influence money can 
buy.
  We want real campaign reform, and that can be done on a bipartisan 
basis. But this is not campaign reform, it is campaign retreat, Mr. 
Speaker, and this is a hypocrisy to bring this out or it is ludicrous 
to bring this out on the floor and call it campaign reform.
  This bill should be limiting costs, not increasing them. It should be 
encouraging small donors, not discouraging them. It should be limiting 
outside expenditures by outside groups. It just does nothing to curb 
that. It does nothing to restrict independent expenditures in a 
campaign, or not accountable, and it does nothing to make incumbents 
any more easily challenged. In fact, this is an incumbent protection 
bill because 9 times out of 10 that incumbent can go get that big 
contribution much more easily than a challenger.
  Not campaign reform, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________