Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323153328
label
Princeton University 5/10/91 [OA 8322] [6]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153328
contentType
document
title
Princeton University 5/10/91 [OA 8322] [6]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13755-009
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153328
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4b89e07578e5a52f
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13755
Folder ID Number:
13755-009
Folder Title:
Princeton University 5/10/91 [OA 8322] [6]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
21
4
1
PRE-TS version
(Hinchliffe//Blymire)
May 4, 1991
1 p.m.
PRINCETON Draft One
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
May 10, 1991
Thank you, President Shapiro. I'm delighted to be here to
help in the dedication of this impressive complex. Though I must
say I'm glad this is May, and not the first snowfall. I don't
think Barbara would let me take part in your Olympics.
I'm very proud to receive your Honorary Degree. But I'm
going to have to disappoint you. Yale's threatened to revoke my
degree if I swim in the Woody Woo. However, I will take pleasure
in having my motorcade drive out through Nassau Gate.
As I stand here, I remember a day when a young Yale first-
baseman and his team met Princeton on the field of battle. I see
that site is now home to your Third World Center. I guess that's
appropriate -- the Third World would have been the only place I
could have gotten a pro ball contract. Wish just once I could
have played on a team that had a year like Pete Carril's.
Seriously, I'm honored to receive a degree from Princeton.
After all, Washington said "no college has turned out better
scholars or more estimable characters." Certainly it's the only
school that can claim as alumni the last two Secretaries of
State. Both have been outstanding public servants. And both of
them love this school. But only one has the tattoo to prove it.
I'll always remember the first time I saw the globe inside
the Wilson School lobby. Anywhere you touch it, you set off
vibrations across the rest of its surface. Makes us realize that
2
whatever we do affects the rest of the world. A pretty powerful
responsibility. One I know this country is ready to accept.
Sometimes people call me an idealist. Well, that's the way
I know I'm an American. When I see the yellow-ribbon spirit that
bound us to our sons and daughters in the Gulf I feel such pride.
Optimism. And possibilities. When we see American soldiers greet
Iraqi pows with genuine compassion -- then we know what rich
resources we have to help each other here at home. We will make
the 21st century another American century of success and pride.
All we need to do is join our caring, our talents, and our hands.
One hot July day last year, I stood at a podium on the South
Lawn. The sight in front of me was unforgettable: 5,000 Americans
of every faith, region, social group, and age. Brought together
for a day of rejoicing. Together we signed into law the Americans
with Disabilities Act: tremendously important and inspiring leg-
islation that's reshaping this country. It was one of the proud-
est moments of my Presidency: because it was a moment when our
government was working exactly the way our Founding Fathers
envisioned it could. Exactly the way we want it to. We were
able to make that bill a reality because the President, the Con-
gress, and the American people worked together: each carrying out
their roles the way the Constitution planned it 200 years ago.
That's the way we can bring about a new America. And that's
the way we must bring about a new America -- heading ahead into
our future by looking back into our past.
By picturing 40 men at a meeting. 40 men earnestly trying
3
to transform the most perfect idea of a democracy into a reality.
40 men of strong convictions and high reason thinking beyond
them-selves -- thinking of posterity and of the future. Crafting
an exhilarating document of philosophy as well as politics -- the
Constitution of the United States of America. Putting into
concrete words the visionary genius of Jefferson and the
Declaration of Independence. Leaving us a legacy that is as real
and important in our 20th century lives as two centuries ago.
But the Constitution's brilliant, original balance is being
threatened. The first thing we must do before we can move
forward as a nation is to rediscover this document's purpose --
and recommit ourselves to its preservation. And, above all, to
the preservation of its bedrock principle of separation of
powers. As Alexander Hamilton said: no branch should be allowed
"to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over
the others, in the administration of their powers. " Yet in the
America of 1991, this is exactly what has happened.
When people ask me what this government should be I send them
right back to the Constitution. Right back to the place where
they can read about the brilliant concept of a legislative branch
created as a collective, deliberative body. I tell them that in
the Constitution they can also read about a new kind of unified
executive branch that can act decisively, quickly, energetically.
One created with expansive prerogatives to enact legislation.
The Constitution framers designed these branches with co-
equal but different powers and talents. They conceived them as
4
pieces of a puzzle that fit together best when each does the work
it does best. Unfortunately there are now 535 would-be executives
who need to go back and read their Constitution. Because what we
have is a House Out of Order. And a fettered presidency. For
the sake of American democracy at the dawn of the 21st century we
must declare this situation intolerable and return to our roots.
Congress is eroding the mortar of our Constitution by usurp-
ing Presidential power. By imposing endless and arbitrary shack-
les on the executive's ability to function, Congress is draining
the energy of the Constitution and lifeblood of this nation.
As Commander-in-Chief I was constitutionally able to execute
powers in the Gulf -- to execute them quickly, decisively,
knowing that full responsibility rested on me. But here at home,
I am frustrated and impeded by a Congress obsessed with control.
Let me make sure you understand something. I have the
greatest respect for the legitimate role of Congress in our
system -- and for the wisdom of deferring to its Members in the
appropriate ways. And I have the greatest loyalty for Congress as
an institution -- after all, 24 years ago, it was there I first
raised my hand to be sworn into public life. But 2 years ago I
took a more important oath. And that means I must speak out when
I see that by invading the Presidential prerogative, Congress has
neglected what it was established to do. When instead, it has
distorted and unbalanced the separation of powers. We cannot
stay silent when attempts are made to exercise the Office of the
President from the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
5
To keep America strong and fair and true to Jefferson's
vision, we must act to restore the original rule of law of our
Constitution. All branches have to work well in order for our
government to work at all. As President, I am obligated to issue
this call for action: for I am the only person charged by the
Constitution to swear I will "preserve, protect, and defend" it.
I cannot ignore that it further charges me to "faithfully execute
the Office of President." If the President does not resist
Congressional encroachment upon the prerogatives of his office --
then it is an abdication of his constitutional responsibilities.
And that is something I will not do. This charge to restore
Congress to its Constitutional definition is a non-partisan
crusade. For the sake of America, I urge all Americans to join.
What do I mean by saying Congress is eroding Presidential
power? I mean a Congress that positions itself to act in a way
wholly contrary to the allocation of powers in the Constitution.
I mean a Congress that tries to encroach on the Presidency
with unprecedented incursions into its ability to perform.
I mean a Congress which has sacrificed its historical role
in reasoned debate on issues of broad policy: choosing instead to
focus on the detailed management of executive branch authority.
I mean a Congress created to deal in broad strokes which is
instead mired down in a petty realm where no detail of executive
administration is too small. Where congressmen have been trans-
formed from national legislators to narrowly focused ombudsmen
consumed with micromanaging details of departments. As Teddy
6
Roosevelt warned: The President cannot do his work "if Congress
is permitted to undertake the task of making up his mind for him
as to how he shall perform what is clearly his sole duty.' "
Let me tell you about the invasive micromanagement -- or,
rather, micromismanagement -- we have to live with every day. You
see, Congress prefers to control the details of executive branch
departments and agencies through riders to appropriations bills.
It uses the power of the purse to control who does what. It con-
ducts "oversight" hearings that have no relation to legislative
work; and are simply a political way of controlling executive
branch work. Undermining that branch's ability to discharge its
Constitutional duties. Simply put, micromanagement is how Con-
gress forces the executive branch to run the government its way.
Not what the Founders wanted. Not what the American people want.
Look how it's hamstrung the Defense Department. Its budget's
a micromanaging free-for-all. 30 years ago, 2 committees in each
chamber dealt with this executive department. Now, when its per-
centage of the GNP is only 1/2 half as much as then, it has to
answer to 107 committees and subcommittees. Each day of every
session senior Defense officials spend more than 80 hours prepar-
ing and testifying at committee hearings. Deputy Sec. Atwood
spends 1/3 of his time responding to committees. At times,
former Sec. Carlucci testified 4 days a week on the Hill -- asked
the same questions and giving the same answers to one committee
after another. Last year it took 500 man years and over $50
million just to write reports responding to Congressional queries
7
on such items as plans for manning tugboats, and accounting for
the number of military bands. And Defense staff has to respond
yearly to more than 3/4 million Congressional staff inquiries.
Then there's Veterans Affairs. It must notify Congress 6
months in advance of staffing changes affecting as few as 3 of
nearly 1/4 million employees. And Justice, where a rider was
added preventing the closing of a 2-person FBI bureau on Montana
that would have saved $1.9 million. And Commerce, where Congress
overruled the Secretary's decision that five pork-barrel public-
works projects costing $11 million were ineligible and unlawful.
And foreign policy. There has to be a better way to share
the power. Over the last 20 years we have witnessed a disturbing
departure, as Congress has more boldly asserted an ever-increas-
ing and influential role in day-to-day micromanagement of foreign
policy operations. The founding fathers did not intend that our
foreign policy should be conducted or reviewed by grand juries.
They fought to focus the conduct of foreign policy in one man.
The President. That was so as a nation we could act quickly,
decisively, secretly. The role envisioned for Congress was
political, not regulatory, and certainly not obstructionist.
Yet last year, when I asked for $800 million in aid for
developing democracies in Panama and Nicaragua, look at the
restrictions tacked on. A provision for D.C. to use federal
funds for abortion. A hold-up on aid until a child care bill was
passed. A $185m correctional facility for West Virginia.
And this is all supposed to be kept secret. Buried in the
8
119-page Interior Department appropriations bill, for instance,
was a clause prohibiting employees of that executive department
from making any record of who contacted them from the Hill, and
what information they were asked to provide. That's been called
a "perfect illustration of congressional micromanagement. "
How did this ever get so far. How did we get to the point
where Congress has strayed from its historical role of helping to
set overall direction for the nation. Where it wastes its talents
and our energies in the petty details of policy execution.
Well, I'll tell you some of the things I learned in my years
on the Hill. Congress has become paralyzed by committees. We
now have as many subcommittees -- over 300 -- as we had staff
members after the war. Committees are feifdoms. run by power
brokers. But are they fields of specialization? Well, the
average Congressman belongs to 7 -- the average senator 11. Some
hearings are scheduled simultaneously. But the system continues
because it allows members to better intervene in the daily
details of executive and independent agencies. That means more
and more work is done not by the elected representatives, but by
a kind of unelected "shadow government." Congressional staff.
These surrogate legislators run the offices while their
bosses juggle committee meetings and interview executive agency
employees about line item expenditures. These anonymous faces
hold the power of legislation -- often creating, drafting, and
negotiating bills. They are near-tenured -- hold unaccountable,
undemocratic powers -- and have mushroomed in size the past 20
9
years. They make up the equivalent of a small city -- nearly
40,000 strong. And they cost the taxpayers $1/3 billion yearly -
- $600,000 average per member for staff and administration. Some
earn $100,000. This explosion in staff has facilitated the
parallel growth of committees, the establishment of subcommittee
fiefdoms, and therefore of micromanagement.
But the most troubling aspect of the Hill staff is that
Congress has exempted them from the watchdog laws it strictly
imposes on executive branch staff. Although Congressional per-
sonnel are intricately involved with every aspect of executive
agency operations, they aren't covered by the laws that restrict
executive employees. The Freedom of Information Act. Government
in the Sunshine Act. Privacy Act. Civil Rights statute. Special
Prosecutors. Inspector Generals. Congress has freed itself from
such constraints -- while at the same time awarding itself and
its staff entitlements it denies to all others. A Congressional
leader explained: "We can't subject congressional staff to crim-
inal exposure for conflict of interest -- it's an infringement on
their right to represent special interests."
When those who make laws don't have to live under them, they
lose the incentives that make reform and improvement possible.
Then, of course, there is the biggest incentive of all. Re-
election. We need to ask ourselves how much this is at the root
of what goes on behind the closed, and open, doors on the Hill.
Re-election. There's more turnover in the Supreme Soviet
than in the U.S. House. This body was supposed to be the "chamber
10
of the people," rotating every two years to reflect changes in
the American tide. Instead, it's become the "chamber of the
incumbents," virtually handing out lifetime contracts.
The stacked deck election process grossly favors incumbents.
But what's most disturbing is that it makes voters increasingly
impotent and irrelevant. 33% turnout for midterm elections proves
the impotence voters feel toward this unresponsive, troubled
institution. And a largely voter-proof Congress has, in turn,
led to further arrogance of power. By tenuring incumbents, the
legislative process itself has become arbitrary and undemocratic.
In turn, as voter influence over Congress shrinks, it is
increasingly dominated by special interest groups. That is the
shame -- and the sham -- of American elections today. Congress-
ional staffs have become unofficial, taxpayer-financed campaign
staffs. 44% are based in home districts; the Hill-based ones
churn out mass mailings of unsolicited "newsletters" that are
essentially campaign literature. Each year, over $100 million in
tax dollars goes into the franking process to send 3/4 billion
pieces of mail. Less than 5% answers constituent questions.
In election years, the House sends 100 million more pieces
of mail than in off-years. The year before his re-election, one
senator sent 11 million pieces. Another sent an average of 10
pieces per household. How can challengers compete with that? Or
compete with gerrymandering -- the politicians' self-preserving
contribution to modern art. Or compete with PACs -- the biggest
power in campaign financing. 93% of which went to House incum-
11
bents in 1988. One incumbent senator alone received $4 million.
The fact is: a 97% re-election rate is not about legislative
leadership. It's about the recent phenomenon of constituent ser-
vice. An unfair incumbent advantage. A bottom-line distortion
that's turned the institution that was the genius of American
political creation into a bloated machine. A machine that despite
its resources, can't do its appointed work in a timely manner.
That's why we have to move now. American government is
being gridlocked by an adversarial Congress where constituent
work busywork have replaced governing. A Congress where special
interests stifle innovation. Where there is paralysis, not
policy. Where, as Princetonian James Madison wrote: "The
legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its
activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex."
America has to realize that Congress does not best live up
to its constitutional trust by serving as a combination of
bureaucrats and pseudo-Presidents. We must ensure that Congress
realizes the brilliant genius of its design and talent. After
all, it is defined in the first article. It is the power closest
to the people. And -- most importantly of all -- we are a nation
of laws. And it is Congress that must make them.
We can become the place envisioned by the founding fathers.
The place where branches work together, not in opposition, each
in its best way. Where we rely on historically proven political
checks and balances; not inappropriate legal ones. We can restore
respect to government by restoring coherence to government.
12
We have the best government in the world. Today in Poland
and Hungary, the demand for copies of the Federalist Papers is
insatiable. And Vaclev Havel says that the Constitution "inspires
us to be citizens." We've been deeded an invaluable treasure by
our ancestors. It is our obligation to them -- and to those who
follow us -- to restore it to its original purpose and purity.
So I propose we take steps to reinvigorate our government --
starting by pledging loyalty to our Constitution. First, Congress
must distance itself from micromanagement. Oversight should be
based on mutual trust, not complicated regulations that frustrate
development of trust. Congress must return to its planning role
and focus on the big picture, so executive departments can make
their own decisions within general guidelines. In return, the
executive branch promises to improve the consultative process.
The President must have access to the line-item veto, as
most Governors do. This doesn't give the office all-omnipotent
power. It merely provides a detailed exposure of hidden agenda
items -- and makes Congress accountable for personal votes.
On the Hill, the committee system should be consolidated.
Then, as members acquire specific in-depth responsibilities,
staff could be cut back and put back in their appropriate place.
We must make the Congress more responsive to, and reflective
of, the country. That means election reform that will level the
playing field between incumbents and challengers. No longer
should Congress be able to be above the law just because its work
is no longer meaningfully reviewed by the voters.
13
Instead of gerrymandering, we need a nationwide standard for
redistricting based on population, not politics. And the Atty
General must attack in court all gerrymanders that bring undue
advantage to controlling state parties -- regardless of political
affiliation. This will make voter choice possible again.
The paramount need for competitive elections compels bold
action. So we must have real, significant PAC reform and public
financing of Congressional candidates, without any spending caps.
While we're at it, we must eliminate the "soft money" loophole
which allows corporations and unions to use their own funds
without limitation to establish and administer PAC operations.
We must enact strict restrictions against Congressional
staff being used in campaigns. We all know there are ways to
circumvent the law and campaign on tax dollars. Let's make all
campaigns equal by having all workers paid from campaign funds.
We can do this. We will enter the 21st century with unity
of purpose if we become reformist supporters of the greatest
political document conceived: our night watchman of democracy.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you at the "Foun-
tain of Freedom. " I hope these thoughts have lived up to the
goals Woodrow Wilson set for himself when he made speeches as
President of Princeton. "If I have the privilege of coming into
your life
then fire calls to fire and real life begins, the
life that generates life, the life that generates power. "
Together, as Americans, we can rediscover that power -- and
recommit ourselves to that fire. God bless you all.
14
May 4, 1991
TO:
TONY
FROM:
BETH
SUBJECT:
PRINCETON
Hi. Here's the speech. I hope you like it and that it's
what you wanted -- you said to make it an "attack dog" speech, so
I tried. (And, let's say I put my whole heart into it!)
Also, here are all of my notes, listed under each source I
used for research. Length: I noticed most commencement speeches
are 12 pages of text (i.e., not including jokes) -- that's just
what this came out to. There were so many parts to it, I
couldn't figure out how to make it shorter.
I hope everything goes well. It's not everything I wanted
it to be -- I wish I could have written it in the office, feeling
well. I'll talk to you on Monday.
Hope Michigan went well --
Hinchliffe/Blymire
May 7, 1991
1 p.m.
A:P3 Draft Two
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
May 10, 1991
[[Thank you, President Shapiro. Governor Florio; Members of
Congress; Mrs. Shapiro; Board of Trustees Chairman Henderson;
Dean Williamson; Associate Dean Morrow.]] I'm delighted to be
here to help in the dedication of this impressive complex.
Though I must say I'm glad this is May, and not the first
snowfall. I don't think Barbara would let me take part in your
Olympics. //
Seriously, I'm honored to receive an honorary degree from
Princeton. After all, Washington said "no college has turned out
better scholars or more estimable characters." Certainly, it's
the only school that can claim as alumni the last two Secretaries
of State. Both have been outstanding public servants. And both
of them love this school. But only one has the tattoo to prove
it.///
I'll always remember the first time I saw the globe inside
the Woodrow Wilson School lobby. Anywhere you touch it, you set
off vibrations across the rest of its surface. I can't think of
a more appropriate symbol for this nation's role in the world.
When we act, we really can set off tremors across the globe. We
have become accustomed to that responsibility as a nation. We
see it as our special burden and our special blessing.
I would like to talk today about the source of America's
greatness, its Constitution. More to the point, I will discuss
2
the way in which our separation of powers doctrine gives our
people a government that preserves for this and future
generations the promise and blessings of liberty.
Most politicians today must confront an unpleasant fact:
People have lost faith in government because government has
become incomprehensible to them. The Washington of the civics
textbook seems to bear little resemblance to the Washington we
read about in newspapers or magazines, or see on the television
screen. What in theory is a nicely orchestrated system of
government, looks more like a three-ring mud-wrestling match, in
which behemoths struggle for superiority. The concept of
separated powers has given way to the view that politicians and
judges in Washington struggle over a single, amorphous power.
Let me suggest that we can restore faith in government by
making our government more faithful to the design our founders
laid out. I'm not asking that we don powdered wigs and restore
the institutions as they were two centuries ago. I'm really
calling for us to honor the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Let's start by discussing Congress. The founders never
envisioned a Congress that would churn out hundreds of thousands
of pages worth of reports, hearings, documents, laws, rules and
regulations each year. They saw Congress as a rather modest
branch of government, charged with doing the nation's business
deliberately. They thought that state governments would assume
far greater importance in the scheme of things -- and for 150
years, they were right.
3
Although the founders took great pains to ensure that the
President could not become an elected monarch, they were most
wary of Congress. James Madison, a Princeton graduate, warned
that "The legislative department is everywhere extending the
sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous
vortex.
It is against the enterprising ambition of this
department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy
and exhaust all of their precautions."
Madison did not mean to disparage Congress with this
comment, any more than I wish to do so today. He merely wanted
to acknowledge a fact of human nature: Politicians strive
naturally to accumulate power, and will stop only when prevented
from doing so by law or force.
Consider a few ways in which Congress has tried to weaken or
usurp executive authority within the realm of domestic politics:
Start with the excessive exercise of oversight powers.
Thirty years ago, we devoted nearly 9.5 percent of our gross
national product to Pentagon expenditures. Today, Pentagon
spending accounts for only 5 percent of our GNP. But
Congressional oversight has metastasized. One hundred seven
committees and subcommittees oversee Defense programs and
spending. For FY-1989, the Pentagon devoted 500 man-years and
over $50 million just to write reports responding to
Congressional queries on such items as plans for manning
tugboats, and accounting for the number of military bands.
Defense staff has to respond yearly to more than 750,000
4
Congressional staff inquiries.
Cabinet agencies can offer equally chilling accounts of the
ways in which Congress, ostensibly exercising its powers of
oversight, binds an executive.
Ironically, it also ties up the legislative branch. What
our founders saw as a deliberative body sometimes behaves like a
legislative Tower of Babel. Congress now includes many
committees, subcommittees, task forces and panels -- over 300.
The average member of the House belongs to seven committees or
subcommittees; the average senator, eleven. One wag around
Washington says that anyone who forgets the name of a member of
the House or Senate always can get by simply by addressing the
politician as "Mr. Chairman or Madame Chairman." But think about
it: more than half the members of Congress now have that title.
Congressional staffs, which not too long ago included only
two to three assistants per representative, formulate policy,
draft laws, determine votes. Now, this band of more than 37,000
costs taxpayers more than $300 million each year -- and each
Congressional office spends an average of $600,000 on staff.
As staffs proliferate, they must find things to do. They
spend a great deal of time pursuing re-election, through the
special privilege of franked mail.
But congressional "service" distorts government in other
ways. It has become common practice, for instance, for members
of Congress to attach regulations or appropriations to bills that
deal with entirely different issues.
5
Last year, when I asked for $800 million in aid for
developing democracies in Panama and Nicaragua, some Senators
tacked on a provision that would enable the District of Columbia
government to use federal funds for abortions. Another Senator
demanded child-care legislation. The final measure included $185
million for a correctional facility.
Congress has become so adept at bundling many different
bills under a single title that members often have no idea
exactly what they are voting for -- and many later find
themselves unable to explain such peculiarities as a federal
grant to study COW belches, or a Lawrence Welk Museum.
In short, the more adroit Congress becomes at performing
favors or micromanaging the executive branch, the less competent
it becomes with regard to its own duties.
At the same time, Congress has fallen victim to perceptions
of arrogance. It has rendered itself exempt from the many rules
and regulations it writes for the executive branch -- and for
everyone else. Congressional personnel, for instance, are not
covered by the laws that restrict -- or protect -- executive
branch employees. These laws include the Freedom of Information
Act. Government in the Sunshine Act. Privacy Act. Civil Rights
statutes. Congress does not have to respond to queries from
special prosecutors or inspectors general. In short, it has freed
itself from a wide range of restraints, while awarding itself and
its staff special perks.
A Congressional leader once told a member of our
6
administration: "To impose criminal liability on our staff for
conflicts of interest would be an unconstitutional infringement
on our Constitutional duty to represent the special interests." "
He was not joking!
A president faces a tough challenge in trying to "preserve,
protect and defend" a constitution plagued by such chaos.
Fortunately, our system provides powers suited to the task.
The president's most powerful tool for preserving,
protecting and defending the Constitution is the veto.
Six times in my presidency, I have vetoed bills that weaken
the presidential powers. In each case, I wanted to preserve
presidential powers, in accordance with my oath of office. Over
a year from now, Congress will vote on whether to reauthorize the
independent counsel statute -- a law that has done a great deal
to discourage good people from executive branch service. The
debate over that bill should prove interesting from the
standpoint of defining and preserving presidential powers.
Vetoes serve another purpose. They provide a tool for
forcing the legislature to legislate wisely and deliberately,
rather than with reckless haste. According to this theory, when
Congress bundles up a series of unrelated measures and calls it a
"bill," a president has the authority to veto separate measures,
as if they were separate bills. Several times in my presidency,
we have exercised a power much like this by refusing to honor
provisions of a law that seem to violate the Constitution.
While the notion of the inherent veto remains controversial,
7
I have sought -- and will continue to seek -- a line-item veto,
even though I believe such a power already rests within the
Constitution. The line-item veto can protect the American people
from injudicious Congressional legislation and appropriation.
The second presidential power is the power to propose
legislation. Every president makes regular use of this power.
We recently have challenged Congress, for instance, to pass our
crime and transportation packages by June 14. Such bills address
national problems. They reflect a special presidential power,
which Thomas Jefferson noted in his first inaugural. He
described the president as the only government officer who
"commands a view of the whole ground."
Ironically, the legislative power may offer a means for
confining Congressional aspirations and restoring the balance of
powers. The military base-closing exercise demonstrated that in
many ways Congress simply cannot reform itself without outside
help. Many members will admit -- off the record, of course --
that we need to restore competition in Congressional elections.
We will do our best to challenge gerrymanders, regardless of
which party benefits from improperly drawn congressional
boundaries.
We also will try to reform campaign financing. In the past
we have proposed eliminating political action committees
supported by corporations, unions or trade organizations; and
preventing those organizations from paying for the overhead of
administrative costs of independent PACs. We have tried to
8
strengthen political parties by increasing the amounts of money
they may contribute to political campaigns. We would like to
reduce the power of incumbency by prohibiting the use of excess
campaign funds, paring down the franking privilege, and
prohibiting politicians from building up big campaign chests by
rolling campaign contributions from one cycle to another. And
candidates also ought to disclose all "soft money" contributions
and their sources.
Finally, we ought to restore faith in Congressional
intentions by applying to Congress the statutes it applies to
everyone else.
Now, we will achieve none of these reforms without making
use of another, emerging power of the presidency -- a tool one
constitutional scholar calls the rhetorical presidency and many
commentators call the bully pulpit.
A president often must lead by example, and propose reforms
that don't involve new legislation or new demands on taxpayers'
earnings. Our America 2000 education strategy, for instance,
does not create lots of new programs or impose new burdens on
American taxpayers. It draws on people's common frustration with
an educational system that must do better. It encourages people
to use their common sense in creating better schools. It won't
help build a new office building in Washington, but it very well
may inspire people to build a better future for themselves.
This approach motivates other parts of our legislative and
economic program. We have proposed, for instance, returning a
9
number of programs to the states, where people understand their
needs and know how best to fulfill them.
For too long, pundits and special interests have equated
vision with bureaucracy. This is irresponsible not only in terms
of public policy, but also in terms of constitutional theory.
The more a president defines his or her powers strictly in terms
of legislation, the more likely it will be that Congressional and
presidential responsibilities merge and our system of checks and
balances will exist only in theory, not in practice.
Although I have talked a great deal about the founders
today, the presidency changes constantly. Presidents define
themselves by the ways in which they use their constitutional
powers. They may use the veto power to shape policy, protect the
Constitution, and encourage Congress to think carefully about its
actions. They may exercise their foreign policy powers -- not
just in matters of war, but also -- as we did during the Persian
Gulf crisis -- through such actions as seizing assets,
maintaining diplomatic contacts, promoting free and fair trade.
Finally, and perhaps most important -- a president must
serve not merely as the unitary executive, but as a unifying
executive. As President, I feel a special duty to promote the
values, goals, and purposes that bind us as Americans.
As President, I feel honor-bound to strengthen the marvelous
system of government bequeathed to us, so that we may remain the
freest, most moral, most prosperous land in history.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
The -TS draft
(Hinchliffe//Blymire)
May 4, 1991
1 p.m.
PRINCETON Draft One
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
May 10, 1991
Thank you, President Shapiro. I'm delighted to be here to
help in the dedication of this impressive complex. Though I must
say I'm glad this is May, and not the first snowfall. I don't
think Barbara would let me take part in your Olympics.
As I stand here, I remember a day when a young Yale first-
baseman and his team met Princeton on the field of battle. I see
that site is now home to your Third World Center. I guess that's
appropriate -- the Third World would have been the only place I
could have gotten a pro ball contract. Wish just once I could
have played on a team that had a year like Pete Carril's.
Seriously, I'm honored to receive a degree from Princeton.
After all, Washington said "no college has turned out better
scholars or more estimable characters." Certainly it's the only
school that can claim as alumni the last two Secretaries of
State. Both have been outstanding public servants. And both of
them love this school. But only one has the tattoo to prove it.
I'll always remember the first time I saw the globe inside
the Wilson School lobby. Anywhere you touch it, you set off
vibrations across the rest of its surface. I can't think of a
more appropriate symbol for this nation's role in the world.
When we act, we really can set off tremors across the globe. We
have become accustomed to that responsibility as a nation. We
see it as our special burden and our special blessing.
2
I would like to talk today about the source of America's
greatness, its Constitution. More to the point, I would like to
discuss the doctrine of the separation of powers, and how it
plays a critical role in giving our people a government that
preserves for this and future generations the promise and
blessings of liberty.
Our Constitution has endured for two centuries because it,
unlike many constitutional documents, appreciates human nature -
- in all its grit and glory. Our founders understood that men
and women in positions of power will do their best to extend
their powers and usurp others'. They understood that
legislatures naturally fall prey to ugly disputes -- "faction,"
Madison called it. They understood that an effective government
required an energetic president, an ambitious Congress, and a
restrained, impartial judiciary. In short, the founders were not
Pollyannas when it came to writing and thinking about human
nature. They understood the power of ambition -- and tried to
harness it for the good of the people.
The general order of the Constitution really is rather
simple: A president would lead and serve the entire nation.
Congress would serve the people, district-by-district, state-by-
state, and it would function as a deliberative body. The
founders never envisioned a Congress that would churn out
hundreds of thousands of pages worth of reports, hearings,
documents, laws, rules and regulations each year. They thought
Congress would be constrained to act with "deliberate speed" in
3
matters of national import. They also saw the president as the
one significant brake on the natural tendency of politicians to
accumulate power. They gave him powers of appointment and veto,
and they made him the one and only official charged officially
with protecting and defending the Constitution.
It is impossible for me to emphasize too strongly this
responsibility for upholding the Constitution. Our founders knew
that Congress would try to overstep its constitutional
authorities, and they knew that presidents who failed to defend
their powers would lose them. Thus, American political history
contains an unchanging subplot: the constant battle between the
president and the Congress in matters of governance.
We all know that politicians don't enjoy the best of
reputations these days (poll data). I would like to argue that
our problems stem in part from a breakdown of the separation of
powers. Congress, behaving quite naturally, has pursued -- and
in some cases acquired -- powers that properly belong to the
executive.
You undoubtedly are familiar with many of the ways in which
Congress tries to micromanage the executive branch, but I will
list a few of them for illustrative purposes.
The Department of Defense: Thirty years ago, we devoted
nearly 5 percent of our gross national product to Pentagon
expenditures. Two committees in each house of Congress reviewed
that spending -- and did a pretty good job.
Today, Pentagon spending accounts for only half as much of
4
our GNP as it did during the early days of the Kennedy
presidency. But Congressional oversight has metastasized.
During the budget process, 107 committees and subcommittees look
over Defense programs and spending. Look how it's hamstrung the
Defense Department.
Each day of every session senior Defense officials spend
more than 80 hours prepar-ing and testifying at committee
hearings. Deputy Secretary XXX Atwood spends 1/3 of his time
responding to committees. At times, former Secretary Frank
Carlucci testified 4 days a week on the Hill -- asked the same
questions and giving the same answers to one committee after
another. Last year the Pentagon devoted 500 man years and over
$50 million just to write reports responding to Congressional
queries on such items as plans for manning tugboats, and
accounting for the number of military bands. Defense staff has
to respond yearly to more than 750,000 Congressional staff
inquiries.
Then there's Veterans Affairs. It must notify Congress 6
months in advance of staffing changes affecting as few as 3 of
the department's nearly 250,000 employees. And Justice, where a
rider was added preventing the closing of a 2-person FBI bureau
on Montana that would have saved $1.9 million. And Commerce,
where Congress overruled the Secretary's decision that five pork-
barrel public-works projects costing $11 million were ineligible
and unlawful.
What our founders saw as a deliberative body sometimes
5
degenerates into a legislative Tower of Babel. Different
committees speak with different voices, and carry different
amounts of political weight. Some committees snatch power from
others. Some demand entirely different kinds of information
about the very same programs or issues. As a result, the
legislative branch dissipates its time and energy by
micromanaging another branch of government -- and it also makes
it very difficult for the executive branch to execute the law.
Congress now includes as many subcommittees -- over 300 --
as it had staff members after World War II. The average member
of the House belongs to seven committees or subcommittees; the
average senator, eleven. One wag around Washington says that
anyone who forgets the name of a member of the House or Senate
always can get by simply by addressing the politician as "Mr.
Chairman or Madame Chairman." But think about it: more than half
the members of Congress now have that title.
The proliferation of committees has produced another
explosion on Capitol Hill. Congressional staffs, which not too
long ago included only two to three assistants per
representative, have grown more rapidly than any other branch of
government. They formulate policy, draft laws, determine votes.
This band of 40,000 costs taxpayers more than $300 million each
year -- and each Congressional office spends an average of
$600,000 on staff.
Members of Congress make full use of this resource -- the
the benefit of politicians and occasional detriment to the
6
constitution.
As committees and staffs proliferate, Congress digs ever
more deeply into executive branch affairs -- and ironically,
surrenders its ability to fulfill its own basic responsibilities.
Congressional offices expend great effort serving special
interests from back home -- rather than the supposedly unspecial
constituent. In some cases, as in the Keating Five, members
attempt to help out people who live outside the district, but
contribute to the politicians' campaign chests.
Often, in order not to be seen performing such favors,
Congress resorts to sleights of hand. Last year, when I asked
for $800 million in aid for developing democracies in Panama and
Nicaragua, for instance, one member tacked on a provision that
would enable the District of Columbia government to use federal
funds for abortions. Another demanded child-care legislation.
And the final measure included $185 million for a correctional
facility in West Virginia.
Buried in the 119-page Interior Department appropriations
bill was a clause prohibiting employees of that executive
department from making any record of who contacted them from the
Hill, and what information they were asked to provide. That's
been called a "perfect illustration of congressional
micromanagement."
Since the reform of Congress in 1974, Congress has passed a
balanced budget only once. It has met its deadlines for passing
budgets only XX times. Scandals involving members of both
7
parties have sprung up with depressing regularity.
Nevertheless, Congress has rendered itself exempt from the
many rules and regulations it writes for the executive branch --
and for everyone else. Congressional personnel, for instance,
are not covered by the laws that restrict -- or protect --
executive branch employees. These laws include the Freedom of
Information Act. Government in the Sunshine Act. Privacy Act.
Civil Rights statutes. Congress does not have to respond to
queries from special prosecutors or inspectors general. In short,
it has freed itself from a wide range of restraints, while
awarding itself and its staff special perks. A Congressional
leader once told a member of our administration: "We can't
subject congressional staff to crim-inal exposure for conflict of
interest -- it's an infringement on their right to represent
special interests." And he was not joking!
But I come to praise Congress and our constitution, not to
bury them. I have the greatest respect for the legitimate role
of Congress in our system -- and for the wisdom of deferring to
its Members in the appropriate ways. And I have the greatest
loyalty for Congress as an institution -- after all, 24 years
ago, it was there I first raised my hand to be sworn into public
life.
But presidents, as I have noted, also have special
responsibilities to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution. They do so through judicious use of the veto
power, for instance. Six times in my presidency, I have vetoed
8
bills that weaken the presidential powers. (examples)
Presidents also may use the power to propose legislation in
hopes of preserving and clarifying the separation of powers.
(legislative proposals: campaign finance reform, line-item veto,
etc.)
Then, of course, there is the biggest incentive of all. Re-
election. We need to ask ourselves how much this is at the root
of what goes on behind the closed, and open, doors on the Hill.
Re-election. There's more turnover in the Supreme Soviet
than in the U.S. House. This body was supposed to be the "chamber
of the people," rotating every two years to reflect changes in
the American tide. Instead, it's become the "chamber of the
incumbents," virtually handing out lifetime contracts.
The stacked deck election process grossly favors incumbents.
But what's most disturbing is that it makes voters increasingly
impotent and irrelevant. 33% turnout for midterm elections proves
the impotence voters feel toward this unresponsive, troubled
institution. And a largely voter-proof Congress has, in turn,
led to further arrogance of power. By tenuring incumbents, the
legislative process itself has become arbitrary and undemocratic.
In turn, as voter influence over Congress shrinks, it is
increasingly dominated by special interest groups. That is the
shame -- and the sham -- of American elections today. Congress-
ional staffs have become unofficial, taxpayer-financed campaign
staffs. 44% are based in home districts; the Hill-based ones
churn out mass mailings of unsolicited "newsletters" that are
9
essentially campaign literature. Each year, over $100 million in
tax dollars goes into the franking process to send 3/4 billion
pieces of mail. Less than 5% answers constituent questions.
In election years, the House sends 100 million more pieces
of mail than in off-years. The year before his re-election, one
senator sent 11 million pieces. Another sent an average of 10
pieces per household. How can challengers compete with that? Or
compete with gerrymandering -- the politicians' self-preserving
contribution to modern art. or compete with PACs -- the biggest
power in campaign financing. 93% of which went to House incum-
bents in 1988. One incumbent senator alone received $4 million.
The fact is: a 97% re-election rate is not about legislative
leadership. It's about the recent phenomenon of constituent ser-
vice. An unfair incumbent advantage. A bottom-line distortion
that's turned the institution that was the genius of American
political creation into a bloated machine. A machine that despite
its resources, can't do its appointed work in a timely manner.
That's why we have to move now. American government is
being gridlocked by an adversarial Congress where constituent
work busywork have replaced governing. A Congress where special
interests stifle innovation. Where there is paralysis, not
policy. Where, as Princetonian James Madison wrote: "The
legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its
activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex. "
America has to realize that Congress does not best live up
to its constitutional trust by serving as a combination of
10
bureaucrats and pseudo-Presidents. We must ensure that Congress
realizes the brilliant genius of its design and talent.
We have the best government in the world. Today in Poland
and Hungary, the demand for copies of the Federalist Papers is
insatiable. And Vaclev Havel says that the Constitution "inspires
us to be citizens." We've been deeded an invaluable treasure by
our ancestors. It is our obligation to them -- and to those who
follow us -- to restore it to its original purpose and purity.
So I propose we take steps to reinvigorate our government -
-starting by pledging loyalty to our Constitution. First,
Congress must distance itself from micromanagement. Oversight
should be based on mutual trust, not complicated regulations that
frustrate development of trust. Congress must return to its
planning role and focus on the big picture, so executive
departments can make their own decisions within general
guidelines. In return, the executive branch promises to improve
the consultative process.
The President must have access to the line-item veto, as
most Governors do. This doesn't give the office all-omnipotent
power. It merely provides a detailed exposure of hidden agenda
items -- and makes Congress accountable for personal votes.
On the Hill, the committee system should be consolidated.
Then, as members acquire specific in-depth responsibilities,
staff could be cut back and put back in their appropriate place.
We must make the Congress more responsive to, and reflective
of, the country. That means election reform that will level the
11
playing field between incumbents and challengers. No longer
should Congress be able to be above the law just because its work
is no longer meaningfully reviewed by the voters.
Instead of gerrymandering, we need a nationwide standard for
redistricting based on population, not politics. And the Atty
General must attack in court all gerrymanders that bring undue
advantage to controlling state parties -- regardless of political
affiliation. This will make voter choice possible again.
The paramount need for competitive elections compels bold
action. So we must have real, significant PAC reform and public
financing of Congressional candidates, without any spending caps.
While we're at it, we must eliminate the "soft money" loophole
which allows corporations and unions to use their own funds
without limitation to establish and administer PAC operations.
We must enact strict restrictions against Congressional
staff being used in campaigns. We all know there are ways to
circumvent the law and campaign on tax dollars. Let's make all
campaigns equal by having all workers paid from campaign funds.
We can do this. We will enter the 21st century with unity
of purpose if we become reformist supporters of the greatest
political document conceived: our night watchman of democracy.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you at the "Foun-
tain of Freedom." I hope these thoughts have lived up to the
goals Woodrow Wilson set for himself when he made speeches as
President of Princeton. "If I have the privilege of coming into
your life
then fire calls to fire and real life begins, the
(
12
life that generates life, the life that generates power. "
Together, as Americans, we can rediscover that power -- and
recommit ourselves to that fire. God bless you all.
Info for speech's p.1
(wal- Beth has the
April 29, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR BETH HINCHLIFFE
CAROL BLYMIRE
file Peggy
FROM:
PEGGY DOOLEY
SUBJECT:
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY -- BUILDING DEDICATION
I know you've already received a fair amount of information
from Bob Durkee. He gave me a lot of additional material. The
only other tidbits I can offer are:
Famous Princeton grads (many, many others listed in books
attached) : Woodrow Wilson and James A. Baker III
In front of the first President's house (a beautiful old
yellow house that you pass on your way into the campus -- it
now houses the Alumni Council) are two sycamore trees planted
to commemorate the Boston Tea Party.
The event is to dedicate Bendheim Hall, Fisher Hall, Scudder
Plaza, and Jacoby Library. I have attached a map of the
speech site.
The Fountain of Freedom -- to the left of the podium -- was
dedicated when President Johnson dedicated the Robertson
Building (a.k.a. the Woodrow Wilson School) in 1966. It is
called the Fountain of Freedom in keeping with the goals of
the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy: world harmony and
the spreading of democracy. (see map) Also: in the lobby
of the Woodrow Wilson School there is a sculpture of a globe,
and anywhere you touch it, it sets off vibrations over the
rest of the surface -- analogous to whatever happens in one
spot of the world affects the rest of it
The Princeton fight song is "Crash Through the Line of Blue"
(Yale joke?)
###
FRICK LABORATORY
CORWIN HALL
(Politics)
Fountain of
Freedom
BENDHEIM
HALL
across the street, butin
line of sight, School
)
PODIUM
(Center for InH.
-
1
of Architecture]
Studies)
-
\
\
/
Scudder
Plaza
FISHER NALL
(Economics)
ROBERTSON NALL
Woodrow Wilson School of
Public & Intl. Affairs
Also being dedicated: Jacoby Library
greatest
of
all
I
have
learned
to
ereez
it
11
rarelv
fall
to
the
lot
effect man to retire from this station
reputation
and
bring
him
it
thour pretensions
high
confidence
first and great revolutionary wase preêminent
him to the first place in his country s ind destined for
page in the volume of faithful histors. 1 ask SO much confidence
Many give firmness and effect to the legal administration of VOUR affairs.
often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall
thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view
vhole ground. I ask your indulgence for mv own errors, which will
be intentional; and your support against the errors of others, who mav
mn what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation im-
by your suffrage is a consolation to me for the past; and my future
ude will be to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it
vance, to conciliate that of others by doing them all the good in my
and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all.
ing, then, on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedi-
the work, ready to retire from it whenever vou become sensible how
better choice it is in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power
Trules the destinies of the universe, lead our councils to what is best,
are them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.
FIRST ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS
December 8, 1801
DW CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: It is a cir-
nance of sincere gratification to me that on meeting the great council of
amon, I am able to announce to them, on the grounds of reasonable
that the wars and troubles which have for so many years afflicted
Res nations have at length come to an end,1 and that the communica-
peace and commerce are once more opening among them. While we
return thanks to the beneficent Being who has been pleased to
Vinto them the spirit of conciliation and forgiveness, we are bound
cculiar gratitude to be thankful to him that our own peace has been
wd through so perilous a season, and ourselves permitted quietly to
the earth and to practice and improve those arts which tend to
your comforts. The assurances, indeed, of friendly disposition, re-
from all the powers with whom we have principal relations, had
10 confidence that our peace with them would not have been dis-
?Lege 1801, Napoleon made peace with Austria, in March with Naples, in July
and in October with Russia.
[387]