    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book II)]
    [August 4, 1995]
    [Pages 1200-1203]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on Political Reform and an Exchange With Reporters
    August 4, 1995

        The President. Good afternoon. I have just finished a very
    productive and stimulating meeting with two outstanding Americans, John
    Gardner and Doris Kearns Goodwin. In the best tradition of our
    citizenship, they have set aside their very busy lives and concerns and
    work to take some time to come to Washington to try to help make
    political reform a reality.
        We discussed how the trust of the American people has been eroded by
    what they see in Washington, by how the lobbyists hold sway more today
    then ever before. And the American people don't like it. The hardworking
    American families of this country know that they did not pay for the
    kind of influence that they see exercised too often in today's Congress.
        When Congress treats telecommunications reform, for example, merely
    as a joust among would-be monopolists, ordinary consumers lose out. When
    the NRA hijacks a congressional hearing process, crime victims and
    police officers lose out. And everybody knows that last week's vote in
    the House to dramatically undermine our ability to enforce our
    environmental laws would not have happened if real campaign finance
    reform and real lobbying reform had been on the books.
        For too long these issues have been mired in partisan in-fighting
    and paralyzed by special interests. We have an obligation to act when we
    can to move beyond partisanship. I had hoped we had reached such a point
    several

    [[Page 1201]]

    weeks ago in New Hampshire when I shook hands with Speaker Gingrich on a
    proposal made to us by an ordinary American in the audience that we
    create a political reform commission that would work more or less like
    the base closing commission to make recommendations on campaign finance
    reform and lobbying reform.
        Shortly after I returned from New Hampshire, I sent the Speaker a
    letter putting forward my ideas on how to do that. That moment of
    optimism gave way to 5 weeks of silence. When I asked John Gardner and
    Doris Kearns Goodwin to help me make this happen, I certainly hoped that
    the respect and eminence that they bring to this process would help move
    things forward. If there were a commission, these are the kinds of
    people I would appoint to it.
        We continue to hope that the Speaker will live up to his handshake
    and move forward on this commission. But we shouldn't wait, and Congress
    shouldn't either.
        Today I am announcing that I will use the power of my office to
    bring the sunlight of full disclosure to the lobbying process in
    Washington. Right now lobbyists can operate in secret. They can lawfully
    conceal who they work for, what loopholes or contracts or regulations
    they are seeking to pass, or what actions they are seeking to stop. And
    lobbying of the executive branch isn't disclosed at all.
        Last week, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the United States
    Senate voted for lobbying reform. But the House leadership has made it
    clear that they will not even schedule a vote on this measure for quite
    a long while. Delay, debate, and division: that's the same old thing.
    They won't put lobbyists in their proper place in our governmental
    structure.
        So today I have decided to act on my own within my executive
    authority. I am requesting the Attorney General to prepare an Executive
    order that would bar executive branch employees from meeting with any
    lobbyist who does not fully disclose his or her activities to the
    public. In other words, if lobbyists want to contact the executive
    branch, fine, they can. That's an important part of our work here. But
    they can do it only if they tell the public who they are, what they're
    working on, how much they're spending, and what policy they are pushing
    or trying to block. We will, in other words, follow the strict and
    meaningful standards of the Senate bill. From now on, the executive
    branch will operate as if the Senate bill had become law.
        I have now acted on lobby reform. Now there is no excuse for
    congressional delay. The Senate has done its work. I urge the House to
    finish the job. This is really a moment for real bipartisan progress on
    political reform. In recent days, strong and often growing bipartisan
    majorities in the United States Senate have voted to preserve, first of
    all, public funding of Presidential campaigns--something John Gardner
    here did so much to create--to schedule a vote on campaign finance
    reform over the objection of the Senate majority leader and to pass a
    tough gift and lobby reform program in the Senate.
        This bipartisan impulse is our best hope for true and lasting
    reform. But to get there it will have to spread to the House, which has
    been moving back into the past, not going forward into the future. That
    is our challenge today.
        From the reform victories of the turn of the century progressives to
    the changes that followed Watergate, moments of national renewal have
    always called forth people of good will, regardless of party, who were
    willing to do what it takes to change things for the better. This is
    part of our national history, and it must be part of our common ground.
        I call on Congress to join us here to pass lobby reform and campaign
    finance reform, to do it in a bipartisan way, and to restore the public
    trust. In the meanwhile, I am going to establish lobby reform in the
    executive branch by enacting by Executive order the bill passed by the
    United States Senate.
        I'd like now to invite John Gardner and Doris Kearns Goodwin to say
    a few words.

    [At this point, John W. Gardner, founder of Common Cause, and historian
    Doris Kearns Goodwin made brief remarks.]

    Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

        Q. Mr. President, the Speaker today said that the reason he hasn't
    responded to the handshake is because his priority now is saving
    Medicare and that you're not doing anything to save Medicare and why not
    focus in on that as an issue instead of political and campaign finance
    reform.
        The President. First of all, it takes no energy at all. He doesn't
    have to do anything in the Congress right now. All he has to do is to do
    what he said he'd do when he shook hands with me. Let's set up a
    commission. He can

    [[Page 1202]]

    make his appointments, Senator Dole can make his appointments, I'll make
    my appointments, and Senator Daschle and Congressman Gephardt can make
    their appointments, and then let the commission go do its work. That is
    not a persuasive reason. There is nothing to do. That takes about 2 or 3
    hours of staff time and about 30 minutes of his time.
        So--and let's say this. Our administration has made the Medicare
    Trust Fund better. Their Medicare cuts are not necessary either to fix
    the Trust Fund or to balance the budget. Over half of their Medicare
    cuts--or roughly half of them--are increased costs to beneficiaries of
    Medicare which will not put one red cent into the Medicare Trust Fund.
    That is not what this is about.
        We have shown you can balance the budget without hurting people on
    Medicare. And that's what I think the Speaker and the majority in the
    House and the Senate ought to say they want to do. And when they say
    that, we can resolve further problems with the Medicare Trust Fund. I
    have shown I'm willing to deal with that. I proposed some savings to
    help deal with that. This is not about the Medicare Trust Fund. This is
    about whether these beneficiaries are going to be soaked for no good
    reason.

    Campaign Finance Reform

        Q. Mr. President, why not take the same kind of unilateral action on
    campaign finance reform as you seem to be doing on lobbying reform, say,
    with respect to soft money donations to the party? And does the party
    understand fully, sir, your feelings about them selling access to you to
    big money donors?
        The President. Yes, and we changed that. And we can change that. And
    I have no problem changing that. That is wrong.
        I think--by the way, I think that the President and that any other
    person in public office ought to meet with his or her supporters,
    including financial supporters. I think that's important. I would do
    that anyway. I have always done that; from the time I was attorney
    general of my State I have done that. But it is wrong to raise money on
    the promise of guaranteed specific kinds of access. That is wrong, and
    we stopped that.
        Now, the difference is, I can do this lobby reform and hold the
    executive branch to a higher standard and challenge the Congress to
    follow suit in a way that does not in any way undermine the public
    interest. But if I hold the Democrats to a standard which in effect
    paralyzes them financially, in comparison to the Republicans, I will be
    punishing the very public interest that I seek to advance because it
    will make it less likely that there will be competitive elections.
        The American people's only chance to make the right choices is when
    there are genuine competitive elections. I would love nothing better--if
    I could get an agreement with the Republican Party we could shut this
    whole thing down tomorrow. We could, by mutual agreement, at least
    change the party rules on campaign finance reform. And if they would do
    it, we could do it and we wouldn't have to wait for Congress to act.

    Telecommunications Reform

        Q. You mentioned the telecommunications bill, sir. Have the changes
    that have been made to it today made it any more acceptable to you?
        The President. Well, I want to wait and see what happens. I know
    that they acted to try to stop one person from being able to own
    television stations, newspapers, radios, and cable networks in the same
    market. That was a very important step forward. I congratulate the House
    on that. Did the V-chip amendment pass? They're working on that. That's
    also very important to me.
        As you know, I issued a letter on the House bill, which was changed
    markedly after it came out of committee--that's a very unusual
    procedure--setting forth the concerns that I have, the Vice President
    shares, our administration has. We'll just have to review the bill when
    it gets in its final form.

    Bosnia and Croatia

        Q. What about the war in Croatia? Are you concerned that that could
    spread into an all-out war in the Balkans?
        The President. Yes--well, I'm concerned that it could spread the war
    in Bosnia and in the Croatia-Serbia area.
        Let me just back up and say the Croatian offensive originally was
    launched in response to the Serb attack on Bihac, one of the protected
    areas. And it has largely, apparently, relieved a lot of pressure on
    Bihac. But because it is so comprehensive, it runs the risk of a wider
    war. And that is what we have cautioned against in our contacts with the
    Croats.

    [[Page 1203]]

        Q. So, Mr. President, you're saying that the actual offensive is
    justified?
        The President. I explained that the original Croatian action, which
    we were told by the Croatian Government they would feel compelled to
    take, was animated by the Serbian attack on Bihac. But we have asked
    them to exercise real restraint because we are very concerned about a
    wider war.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President spoke at 2:15 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White
    House.