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
323151677
label
Public Administration Groups 10/24/91 [OA 6038] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323151677
contentType
document
title
Public Administration Groups 10/24/91 [OA 6038] [1]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13586-004
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Draft Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323151677
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
6479fafcea55fa3d
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 Draft Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13586
Folder ID Number:
13586-004
Folder Title:
Public Administration Groups 10/24/91 [OA 6038] [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
17
4
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 24, 1991
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN ADDRESS TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
The National Museum of American History
Washington, D.C.
11:52 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very, very much for being
here. I know it's nice to get off of work. (Laughter.) But I'm
talking about getting people this interested in public service to
come together. I'm particularly pleased to see Tim Clark, who is
president of the National Capital Area Chapter of the American
Society for Public Administration; Ray Kline, over here, the
president of the National Association of Public Administrators; and
then my old friend, Dave Maxwell, Vice-chairman of the Council for
Excellence in Government -- all interested in public service.
I am delighted to join you this morning. I come here, I
hope, in a constructive vein to discuss two issues that we all care
about deeply: public service and then -- Tim touched on it -- public
faith in government.
Like many of you I have devoted much of my adult life
to public service. And I, too, cherish public service really as a
special honor -- and a personal obligation. And I always have. Long
ago, my dad served for years as the moderator of the town meeting,
the Connecticut town meeting in our town of Greenwich. It convened
once a month, and people came there and talked about whatever
concerned them, as they always do at town meetings. It could be
rowdy or boring; the meetings always, though, gave people a special
sense that their opinions made a difference, and that they shared
something special with their neighbors and friends. Those meetings
taught me just what we mean when we talk of a government of the
people, by the people, and for the people.
The notion of public service has always motivated
Americans to be Americans. More than 150 years ago, de Tocqueville
noted with some astonishment that "When an American needs the
assistance of his fellows, it is very rare for that to be refused,
and I have often seen it given spontaneously and eagerly." He did
not mistake us for saints. He understood that freedom demands such
service to others.
It also demands that public servants lead by example.
Americans will not tolerate hypocrisy. People in other countries
wonder why we make such a fuss when our leaders violate our standards
of behavior. The reason is simple: As Americans, we feel that we
have a destiny to lead, to show the way by ideals -- not just to
ourselves, but to the entire world.
Yet while our government rests upon unchanging
principle, it cannot rest upon past achievements. Government, like
everything else, must evolve. Our long and sturdy tradition of
tolerance enables us to test new ideas through public debate. When
Congress considers issues, no one minds a tough and honest
discussion. We expect it. By the same token, we want and expect our
free press to look beneath events, take account of people's motives,
and ask tough questions rather than numbly repeating partisan
MORE
- 2 -
propaganda or baseless rumor. We demand integrity in public behavior
and discourse, and when we don't get it, we react.
The recent hearings on Judge Thomas stirred a kind of
anger. The American people saw some of the seamier sides of
Washington life. They saw proceedings that degenerated into target
practice against good men and women. Ronnie Perry of Brunswick,
Georgia, wrote me a letter -- I don't know him. Here's what it said:
"It is my fear that good, honest, moral men and women in this country
will no longer subject themselves to the ridicule that Judge Thomas
had to face." Likewise, Anita Hill's backers might wonder how anyone
might be expected to come forward in the future if public officials
cannot maintain proper confidentiality -- such as the confidentiality
promised to Professor Hill.
I want to digress, though, in fairness, to read from
page three of the hearings on the committee in the Judiciary, because
Senator Biden, in my judgment, tried. Here's what he said at the
very opening of these hearings: "Second, while I have less
discretion than a judge in a trial to bar inappropriate or
embarrassing questions, all of the witnesses should know that they
have a right to ask that the committee go into closed session." He
cites a rule here, Rule 26.5 -- "to go into a closed session if a
question requires an answer that is a clear invasion to the right to
privacy.
"The committee will take very seriously the request of
any witness to answer particularly embarrassing questions as they
view whether or not it is embarrassing to answer those questions in
private.' So I think -- I salute the Chairman for those words that
went unheeded as the process unfolded.
The bruising hearings showed what happens when political
factions let agendas overwhelm personal decency. Some people have
tried to drag public debate to a new low, searching openly for dirt -
- any dirt -- without regard to people's rights to privacy, sometimes
without concern for the facts. While crusading pressure groups talk
about their favorite issues, they forget that human beings sit there
beneath the glare of the spotlight, vulnerable to assault from all
quarters. The piranha tactics of smearing the individual and
ignoring the issue serve no public purpose. They aim to destroy
lives and wreck reputations.
The dramatic hearings and the theatrics outside the
hearing rooms captivated the attention of the American public, all
right. Millions upon millions of Americans watched the hearings with
a combination of curiosity, suspense, and I submit to you all,
disgust. The nation was stunned and repulsed by the spectacle. The
scenes from the Senate bore little resemblance to the tidy
legislative process that we all studied in school and that we
describe to our children -- now, maybe to our grandchildren. X-
rated statements, cross-examinations pushed aside the soaps and
Saturday cartoons. And the process seemed unreal -- more like a
satire than like the government in which all of you, in which I, take
so much pride; more like a burlesque show than a civics class
The hearings also showed that politicians must contend
with a host of different forces and influences. The public saw the
congressional staffers everywhere; saw outside pressure groups
exhorting and twisting -- and the staffs ever-present, everywhere.
I worry that the hearings sent our people this kind of
false message: If you want to make a difference, don't enter public
service. Join a special interest group. That way, whether it's the
right or the left, join a special interest group, and that way you
can fight as hard as you want, or as dirty as you want, without any
responsibility for the results.
MORE
- 3 -
I served in Congress. I have great respect for
Congress. I know the incredible pressure and difficulty of working
there. But public faith in Congress is absolutely vital for our form
of government. I think we can all work together to help strengthen
its image and build greater public support.
Members of Congress criticize the Executive Branch all
the time. That's fine -- often constructively. And I offer these
suggestions, then, in a spirit of constructive criticism.
First, given the outrageous nature of the leaks and the
Senate's announced intention of going after them, the Senate must
determine who leaked the information -- and turned what should have
been a confidential investigation into what many people who wrote me
described as "a circus" and "a travesty."
Here's a proposal that I support: The Senate should
appoint immediately a special counsel to find out who leaked what and
for what reasons. The public cares very much about this case, and in
my view, they will for a long, long time. And the investigation
ought to focus just on this case. And the special counsel should
receive unfettered access to all relevant records and witnesses, and
should have subpoena power to get to the truth. The Senate ought to
set a clear goal for finishing up the investigation. I suggest
January 3rd, when it returns for a new session. Frankly, the
American people just will not understand it if the Senate fails to
bring the leaker or leakers to justice.
Second, we must promote more tolerant, less viciously
partisan debate. I've heard complaints that the White House does not
consult sufficiently with Congress in matters of these nominations.
Frankly, I have tried to consult with Congress on many issues and we
have worked hard to cooperate with Congress and we welcome closer
consultation. Let me just get that out on the table. I don't want
to put any nominee through a public meat grinder. And I always
welcome advice, especially in cases that might prove controversial.
Much of what I have to say today has been sharpened by
discussion with members of Congress. But let me make it clear: I
will not give a group of senators veto power over a nominee before
the Senate has conducted hearings and held a confirmation vote. I
will not surrender presidential authority or powers any more than
Congress will surrender its power.
In any event, no one ought to accept the charge of
insufficient consultation as an excuse for this unforgivable leak.
Third, the hearings focused attention on the problem of
sexual harassment in the workplace. We have taken additional steps
at the White House as recently as yesterday to address the problem.
We will ensure that employees of the Executive Office of the
President are aware of the problem and appreciate fully our strong
commitment to building a workplace free of harassment. And on March
1st, our administration submitted a civil rights bill that contains
specific provisions to strengthen penalties against sexual harassment
and encourage compliance with the law. That was back on March 1st.
Congress will act soon -- I hope by passing my civil rights bill.
And at the very least, I hope Congress will pass the portions on
which we have reached agreement.
But legislation alone can't solve the problem of sexual
harassment in the workplace. Sexual harassment is ugly behavior.
Together, we must eradicate prejudices -- not just through laws, but
through simple respect for other human beings. In the end, laws can
punish prejudice, but they cannot, alone anyway, produce
enlightenment. Only we can do that -- by acting on our convictions.
MORE
- 4 -
The Thomas hearings also raised concerns about the
confirmation process generally. And let me offer several specific
recommendations for reforming the process:
First, shorten the time lapse between nominations and
confirmation -- shorten it to six weeks. It takes four times as long
to secure a vote today -- four times as long as it did just 30 years
ago, during the presidency of John Kennedy. It took the Senate an
average of 63 days to confirm our appointments sent up in 1989; 65
days for the group nominated in 1990. We now have a large group of
people waiting for the Senate to vote on their nominations, and they
have been waiting an average of 80 days.
At the beginning of this week, more than 190 nominations
remained pending before the Senate. A few examples: I nominated Bob
Clarke -- Robert Clarke for appointment as Comptroller of the
Currency on January 23rd, more than nine months ago. I nominated
Larry Lindsey for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board on February
28th. In times of economic concern, we need the service of these
people. And if members of the Senate don't like my nominees, then
they should vote against them. But they should not stall progress by
resorting to the old -- and in my view, obsolete -- technique of
placing a hold on nominations. Once again, this isn't Republican or
Democrat; it is institutional.
We in the White House certainly must do our part. We
will redouble our efforts to ensure that nominees complete all their
required paperwork promptly, and will respond promptly to requests
for further important information. I've asked our Office of the
White House Counsel and Office of Government Ethics to see that our
regulations and clearance procedures do not, however, discourage
public service. I am committed to an ethical administration, but we
must ensure that our rules have not become so detailed and so onerous
as to scare good, honest people away from public service.
And second, we will work with committees in Congress to
ensure the confidentiality of information. I have ordered that the
FBI reports be carried directly to committee chairmen and any members
designated by the chairmen. The members will read the reports
immediately, in the presence of the agent, and then return them. No
FBI reports will stay on Capitol Hill. And furthermore, members only
will have access to these reports. Staffs will not have access to
these reports.
This preserves confidentiality. In my view, it protects
nominees. It protects potential witnesses against the nominees. And
it protects the members of Congress.
Third, Congress should establish a mechanism for
investigating congressional leaks thoroughly, professionally,
promptly. And I've met this week with several leaders from the
Senate from both parties, and they agree that we must prevent future
leaks and establish a suitable mechanism for investigating them
swiftly, bringing culprits to justice. (Applause.)
There is no excuse for leaks that wreck lives and
needlessly destroy reputations. The law already prohibits such leaks
from the Executive Branch. And again, we intend to enforce that law
rigorously. I know it's not easy. I've been there. I saw it when I
was Director of Central Intelligence when we dealt with national
security. I've seen frustrating leaks in the White House that have
nothing to do with character assassination or national security, that
simply relate to policy matters. I know it's not a simple matter
here. But we've got to do better, both the Executive and the
Legislative Branch.
And fourth, Congress ought to follow the same laws that
it imposes on everyone else. (Applause.) More than a dozen laws
MORE
- 5 -
apply to the Executive Branch, but not the Congress. Most of these
laws apply to everyone in America except members of Congress.
Congress does not have to comply with the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It
does not have to follow Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 --
a title that prohibits sexual harassment and discrimination on the
basis of race, color, sex, religion and national origin. It doesn't
have to obey the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 -- the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
I would wager that the American people do not know that
Congress has exempted itself from the sexual harassment laws private
employers and the Executive Branch must obey. And they have. We've
heard choruses of criticism against the evils of sexual harassment.
And we've received good suggestions about how to become more vigilant
about this insidious crime.
But these lessons should not be wasted on the men and
women who drafted the law. (Applause.) For, you see, when Congress
exempts itself from the very laws that it writes for others, it
strikes at its own reputation and shatters public confidence in
government.
These exemptions encourage special interest groups to
press, then, for reckless regulations, knowing that Congress might
adopt such laws if it won't feel the sting of these laws. This
practice creates the appearance and reality of a privileged class of
rulers who stand above the law. Our founders thought it proposterous
to suggest that such behavior would ever take place in America.
We did a little research. Federalist Paper, Number 57,
asserts that elected officials -- and here's the exact language:
"can make no law which will not have in full operation on themselves
and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society." The
writer of that paper also noted ominously, "If this spirit shall ever
be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the
legislature as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to
tolerate anything but liberty."
The people have begun to speak now. And today I call
upon the Congress to take a simple step toward increasing public
confidence: submit to the laws it imposes on others, including
strict enforcement provisions -- not just Ethics Committee
jurisdiction -- and do so by the year's end. (Applause.)
There's a lot of just plain people up there on the Hill
trying to make a living. And people who work for Congress ought to
have the same rights and legal remedies as those who work for anyone
else.
But Congress also must submit to the laws that is
imposed on the Executive Branch. And this includes the Privacy Act,
which prohibits inappropriate leaks by executive agencies -- Title VI
of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the Independent Counsel Law.
And all of us should demonstrate our commitment to clean
and effective government. From the very start of my administration,
I made it absolutely clear that I expect my appointees to follow
strict standards of propriety so the American people would have full
and increasing confidence in our ability and integrity.
I established a Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform
in January of 1989. I pushed for initiatives that resulted in the
Ethics Reform Act of 1989. I signed an Executive Order in April '89,
setting forth the principles of ethical government service. And I
charged the Office of Government Ethics with issuing a single,
comprehensive and clear set of objective, reasonable and enforceable
standards. Those standards will be ready soon. They're out now for
review.
MORE
- 6 -
In the executive departments and the White House we do
strive to set and meet high standards of public service. I'll never
be happy. We can always do better in the Executive Branch, in the
departments and in the White House. And I pledge to the American
people that I'm not here to point fingers; I will continue to see
that we do a better job of all of this in the Executive Branch of the
government. I'm going to keep on trying. But all I'm doing here is
inviting the Congress to do the same. Sometimes we protest too much,
and we reform too little. And so now is the time to act.
And finally -- going on too long here, but I'm wound up
on this. (Laughter.) I really feel strongly about this. Finally,
we all must remember that our business is to do the public's
business. That becomes increasingly different for a Congress that
contains more than 300 committees and subcommittees, and makes use of
nearly 40,000 workers.
It becomes increasingly difficult for a Congress that
answers to no one with respect to its budget, its staff, its perks,
even the enforcement of its own rules.
The business of doing the people's business gets even
more difficult when committees make broad and unfocused demands. For
example, the Judiciary Committee asked Clarence Thomas to submit more
than 32,000 pages of documentation prior to his hearings. I'd hate
to give a quiz to the Senators to see how many people read the 32,000
documents that they asked for. (Laughter and applause.) A defense
bill routinely runs a gamut of committees and subcommittees.
I support the bipartisan effort of Senators Boren and
Domenici, Representatives Hamilton and Gradison to trim this
overgrown thicket of committees and subcommittees. These four are
out front for congressional reform, and I salute them. Senator Boren
framed the matter when he said this: "No one dyoubts that Congress
is in trouble as an institution. In poll after poll, Americans
describe Congress" -- these are his words -- "as inefficient,
unresponsive, wasteful and compromised by the way it finances its
campaigns." "It's time for Congress to take another look at itself,"
these four suggest. " It's time to go beyond piecemeal efforts and to
enact comprehensive, bicameral reforms."
I support the efforts of the congressional reformers. A
system originally designed to help Congress do the public's business
has turned into a machine so complex and bewildering that the public
doesn't understand it. Many members of Congress do not fully
understand it. Only specialists and lobbyists can pick their way
through the labyrinth.
The American people want more. They want a government
that will foster economic growth and fight crime and drugs and work
to improve schools and build better roads and answer the concerns of
the people. And they want a government that listens, not one that
commands.
And in the end, taxpayers won't be impressed with
reforms if members of Congress pay greater heed to the Beltway
lobbyists and pressure groups than to constituents. If people feel
powerless, they will find ways to recover their just powers.
Our founders handed down to us the finest system of
government in history, one in which the legislature and the executive
do battle as part of our system of checks and balances. But we must
remember who is servant and who is master. Noah Webster asked in
1802, "If all officers of government are the servants of the people,
how can it be expected that the masters should not, at times, take
the government out of the hands of the servants."
The reforms I've proposed today will help us do the
people's business. They will rein in a government that seems remote
- 7 -
-- seems distant and complex; they will bring it back to the people,
and give citizens the feeling of power that we felt at those town
meetings some 60 years ago. We must remember: We come here to
serve. A few simple reforms can go a long way toward building the
public faith upon which our entire democracy depends.
Thank you not only for your interest, but for all you do
in elevating public service. It's worthwhile. Don't give up your
work.
Thank you very, very much, indeed. (Applause.)
END
12:25 P.M. EDT
CLOSE HOLD
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
10/23/91
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
---
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
SUBJECT:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991 - 11:45 a.m.
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SUNUNU
MCCLURE
SCOWCROFT
PETERSMEYER
DARMAN
PORTER
BRADY
ROGICH
BROMLEY
SMITH
CARD
MCBRIDE
DEMAREST
SNOW
FITZWATER
GRAY
HOLIDAY
REMARKS:
The attached has been forwarded to the President.
RESPONSE:
CLOSE HOLD
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
Snow/Aarhus
PROCESS.TS
OCTOBER 23, 1991
01 OCT 23 P6: 04
DRAFT TWO
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AM. HISTORY
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11:45 A.M.
I am delighted to join you this morning. I would like to
discuss two issues we all care about deeply: Public service and
public faith in government.
Like many of you, I have devoted much of my adult life to
public service. I, too, cherish public service as a special
honor -- and personal obligation. My father served for years as
moderator of a Connecticut town meeting, for instance. It
convened once a month, and people talked about whatever concerned
them -- as they always do at town meetings. It could be rowdy,
or boring, but the meetings always gave the people a special
sense that their opinions made a difference, and that they shared
something special with their neighbors and friends. Those
meetings impressed upon me what we mean when we talk of a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The notion of public service always has motivated Americans
to be -- Americans. More than 150 years ago De Tocqueville noted
with some astonishment more that "When an American needs the
assistance of his fellows, it is very rare for that to be
refused, and I have often seen it given spontaneously and
eagerly." He did not mistake us for saints. He understood that
freedom demands such service to others.
2
It also demands that public servants must lead by example.
Americans will not tolerate hypocrisy. People in other countries
wonder why we make such a fuss when our leaders violate our
normal standards of behavior. The reason is simple: As
Americans, we feel that we have a destiny to lead, to show the
way by ideals -- not just to ourselves, but to the entire world.
Yet while our government rests upon unchanging principle, it
cannot rest upon past achievements. Government, like everything
else, must evolve. Our long and sturdy tradition of tolerance
enables us to test new ideas through public debate. When
Congress considers issues, no one minds a tough, honest
discussion. We expect it. By the same token, we want and expect
our free press to look beneath events, take account of people's
motives, and to ask tough questions rather than numbly repeating
partisan propaganda or baseless rumor. We demand integrity in
public behavior and discourse, and when we don't get it, we react
angrily.
The recent hearings on Justice Thomas stirred that kind of
anger. The American people saw some of the seamier sides of
Washington life, and I'm not talking about the testimony. I'm
talking about proceedings that degenerated into target practice
against good men and women. Ronnie Perry of Brunswick, Georgia
wrote me to say, "It is my fear that good, honest moral men and
women in this country will no longer subject themselves to the
ridicule that Judge Thomas had to face." Likewise, Anita Hill's
backers might wonder how anyone might be expected to come forward
3
in the future if public officials cannot maintain proper
confidentiality -- such as the confidentiality promised to
Professor Hill.
The bruising hearings showed what happens when political
factions let agendas overwhelm a sense of personal decency. Some
people have tried to drag public debate to a new low, searching
openly for dirt -- any dirt -- without regard to people's rights
to privacy, sometimes with less concern for the facts. While
crusading pressure groups talk about their favorite issues, they
forget that human beings sit beneath the glare of the spotlight,
vulnerable to assault from all quarters. The pirhanna tactics of
smearing the individual and ignoring the issue have no aim but to
destroy lives and wreck reputations.
Many Americans, frankly, were stunned and repulsed when they
saw the recent hearings. The scenes from the Senate bore little
resemblance to the tidy legislative process we studied in school,
and that we describe to our children. X-rated statements and
cross-examinations pushed aside the soaps and Saturday cartoons.
On television, the process seemed unreal -- more like a satire
than like the government in which they take great pride; more
like a burlesque show than civics class.
The hearings also showed that politicians must contend with
a host of different forces and influences. The public saw
outside pressure groups exhorting and twisting arms. The public
saw Congressional staffs -- everywhere.
4
I worry that the hearings sent our children this false
message: If you want to make a difference, don't enter public
service. Join a special interest group. That way, you can fight
as hard as you want, without any responsibility for the results.
Now, I served in Congress and I know the incredible pressure
and difficulty of working there. But public faith in Congress is
absolutely vital for our form of government. I think we can all
work to help Congress strengthen its image and build greater
public support. Let me suggest several steps.
First, given the outrageous nature of the leaks and the
Senate's announced intention of going after them, the Senate must
determine who leaked the information -- and turned what should
have been a confidential investigation into what many people who
wrote me described as "a circus" and "a travesty."
Here's a proposal that I support: The Senate should appoint
an investigator to find out who leaked what, and for what
reasons. The public cares very much about this case, and the
investigator should receive unfettered access to all relevant
records and witnesses, and the Senate ought to set a clear goal
for finishing up the investigation. I suggest January 3, when it
returns for a new session.
Second, we must promote more tolerant, less viciously
partisan debate. I have heard complaints that the White House
does not consult sufficiently with Congress in matters of
nominations.
5
Frankly, we have worked hard to cooperate with Congress and
we welcome closer consultation. Much of what I have to say today
has been sharpened by discussions with members of Congress. But
I will not surrender Presidential authority or powers any more
than Congress will surrender its power. For instance, the Senate
has a duty to advise and consent in Presidential nominations, but
it has no right to select members of an administration. [[In any
event, no one ought to accept the charge of insufficient
consultation as an excuse for this unforgiveable leak. ]]
Third, the hearings made it clear that we must redouble our
efforts to combat sexual harassment. On March 1 our
Administration submitted a civil rights bill that contains
language to strengthen penalties against sexual harassment.
Congress will act soon on a bill -- I hope by passing the
administration version. At the very least, I hope Congress will
pass the portions on which we have reached agreement.
But legislation alone can't solve the problem of sexual
harassment in the workplace. Sexual harassment is ugly,
ridiculous behavior. Together, we must eradicate prejudices --
not just through laws, but through simple respect for other human
beings. In the end, laws can punish prejudice, but they cannot
produce enlightenment. Only we can do that -- by acting on our
convictions.
The Thomas hearings also raised concerns about the
confirmation process generally. Let me offer several specific
recommendations for reforming that process.
3
6
First, shorten the time lapse between nominations and
confirmation votes to six weeks. It takes four times as long to
secure a vote today as it did just 30 years ago, during the
presidency of John Kennedy. It took the Senate an average of 63
days to confirm our appointees sent up in 1989; 65 days for the
group nominated in 1990. We now have a large group of people
waiting for the Senate to vote on their nominations, and they
have been waiting an average of 80 days.
At the beginning of this week, more than 150 nominations
remained pending before the Senate. A few examples: I nominated
Robert Clarke for reappointment as Comptroller of the Currency on
January 23 -- more than nine months ago. I nominated Larry
Lindsey for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board on February 28.
In times of economic concern, we need the service of these men.
If members of the Senate don't like my nominees, they should vote
against them. But they should not stall progress by resorting to
the old -- and obsolete -- technique of placing a hold on
nominations.
We in the White House will do our part. We will redouble
our efforts to ensure that nominees complete all their required
paperwork promptly, and will respond promptly to requests for
further important information.
Second, we will work with committees in Congress to ensure
the confidentiality of information. I suggest, for instance,
that FBI agents carry FBI reports directly to committee chairmen
and any members designated by the chairman, that the members of
7
Congress examine the documents in the presence of the agents, and
that the agents return the information to FBI headquarters
immediately after the elected officials have reviewed the
documents. Committees ought to have access to summaries of
investigations, but only on the grounds that staff members not
see them. FBI reports and summaries should go only to members of
Congress, not to staffs.
This preserves confidentiality. It protects nominees. It
protects potential witnesses against the nominees. And it
protects members of Congress.
Third, Congress should establish a mechanism for
investigating congressional leaks thoroughly, professionally and
promptly. I have met this weeks with Senate leaders from both
parties. They agree that we must prevent future leaks, and
establish a suitable mechanism for investigating them swiftly,
and bringing culprits to justice.
Fourth, Congress ought to follow the same laws it imposes
upon everyone else. At least 14 major laws apply to everyone --
the White House, the public, everyone -- except Congress. This
includes the Equal Pay act of 1963. It includes Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a title that prohibits sexual
harassment, and discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex,
religion and national origin. It includes the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The Fair Labor Standards Act. The
Criminal Conflict of Interest provisions of supreme court
statutes. Title Six of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 --
8
the special counsel law. The Freedom of Information Act. The
Privacy Act.
Congress should not exempt itself from the very laws it
writes for the nation. This practice shakes public confidence in
government. It encourages special interest groups to press for
reckless regulations, knowing that Congress might adopt them for
everyone else. It creates the appearance and reality of a
privileged class of rulers who stand above the law.
This violates our most cherished assumptions about our
government. In the Federalist Papers, number 57, our founders
asserted that elected officials "can make no law which will not
have in full operation on themselves and their friends, as well
as on the great mass of society." The writer of that paper also
noted ominously, "If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as
to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature as well as on
the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but
liberty."
Well, the people have begun to speak. They hear about
bounced checks; they watch saucy hearings -- and they get angry.
Americans expect better of themselves and their leaders.
Today I call upon Congress to take a simple step toward
increasing public confidence: submit to each and every law it has
imposed upon everyone else, and do so by the year's end. Sen.
Charles Grassley has insisted that any new civil rights bill
apply to Congress, and I support that move. But Congress also
9
must submit to the laws that it has imposed upon the executive
and judicial branches of government.
And all of us should demonstrate our commitment to clean and
effective government. From the very start of my Administration,
I made it absolutely clear that I expect my appointees to follow
strict standards of propriety, so the American people would have
full confidence in our ability and integrity.
I established a Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform in
January, 1989. I pushed for initiatives that resulted in the
Ethics Reform Act of 1989. I signed an Executive Order in April
1989 setting forth the principles of ethical government service.
I charged the Office of Government Ethics with issuing a "single,
comprehensive and clear set" of "objective, reasonable and
enforceable" standards. Those standards will be ready soon.
In the Executive departments and the White House we strive
to set and meet high standards of public service, and we invite
Congress to do the same. Sometimes we protest too much, and
reform too little. Now is the time to act.
Finally, we all must remember that our business is to do the
public's business. That becomes increasingly difficult for a
Congress that contains more than 300 committees and
subcommittees, and makes use of nearly 40,000 workers.
It becomes increasingly difficult for a Congress that
answers to no one with respect to its budget, its staff, its
perks, even the enforcement of its own rules.
10
The business of doing the people's business gets even more
difficult when committees make broad and unfocused demands. For
example, the Judiciary Committee asked Clarence Thomas to submit
more than 32,000 pages of documentation prior to his hearings. A
defense bill routinely runs a gamut of committees and
subcommittees.
I support the efforts of Sens. Boren and DeConcini, and
Representatives Hamilton and Gradison to trim this overgrown
thicket of committees and subcommittees. Senator Boren framed
the matter when he said, "No one doubts that Congress is in
trouble as an institution. In poll after poll, Americans
describe Congress as inefficient, unresponsive, wasteful and
compromised by the way it finances its campaigns. It's time for
Congress to take another look at itself. it's time to go beyond
piecemeal efforts and to enact comprehensive, bicameral reforms."
I support the efforts of the Congressional reformers. A
system originally designed to help Congress do the public's
business has turned into a machine so complex and bewildering
that the public doesn't understand it. Many members of Congress
do not fully understand it. Only specialists and lobbyists can
pick their way through the labyrinth.
The American people want more. They want a government that
will foster economic growth, fight crime and drugs, work to
improve schools, build better roads, and answer to the people's
concerns. They want a government that listens, not one that
commands.
11
In the end, taxpayers won't be impressed with reforms if
members of Congress pay greater heed to Beltway lobbyists and
pressure groups than to constituents. If people feel powerless,
they will find ways to recover their just powers.
Our founders handed down to us the finest system of
government in history, one in which the legislature and executive
do battle as part of our system of checks and balances. But we
must remember who is servant and who is master. Noah Webster
asked in 1802: "If all officers of government are the servants
of the people, how can it be expected that the masters should
not, at times, take the government out of the hands of the
servants."
The reforms I've proposed today will help us do the people's
business. They will rein in a government that seems distant and
complex; they will bring it back to the people, and give citizens
the feeling of power that we felt at those town meetings long
ago. We must remember: We come here to serve. A few simple
reforms can go a long way toward building the public faith upon
which our entire democracy depends.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
#
#
#
#
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
91 OCT 28 P2: 36
October 28, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR TONY SNOW
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR
COMMUNICATIONS AND DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
GENE C. SCHAERR 10mls
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Presidential address: Public Administration
Groups; the Museum of American History
Counsel's office has reviewed the matter, and has no legal
objection to the final draft. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this matter.
CC: PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
CLOSE HOLD
280157SS
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
91 OCT 23 P12: 23
10/22/91
NOON, WED., OCT. 23
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
SUBJECT:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11: 45AM
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
>
HORNER
SUNUNU
MCCLURE
SCOWCROFT
PETERSMEYER
DARMAN
PORTER
BRADY
ROGICH
BROMLEY
SMITH
McBRIDE
CARD
>
SNOW
DEMAREST
FITZWATER
GRAY
HOLIDAY
REMARKS:
Please provide comments/edits on the attached directly
to Tony Snow, Rm. 122, x2930, with a copy to this office
NO LATER THAN NOON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
CLOSE HOLD
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
Comments by Gregg Petersmeyer
I believe that the focus of this address should be the value
system more than the Congressional system. That should drive the
recommendations for reforming the Congressional system. I do not
think that is clear in the current structure of the address.
Therefore, I would structure the address in the following way:
The Congressional system in operation today reflects a value
system within the Congress or the political system.
Therefore, the first and most critical issue is exactly what
value system should be determine the congressional system? The
second issue is how should that value system be woven into a
reformed congressional system so that the congressional system
accurately reflects the right values?
America has always stood for certain values
We have moved
away from many of those values, particularly here in Washington
and especially within the political system in the Congress
The Thomas hearings demonstrated just how far we have moved
In order to regain America's confidence in the value system of
the Congress, it is necessary to reform the Congressional system
in such a way as to clearly reflect the values that are important
to the country. I would recommend that the Congress reflect our
nation's value system by making the following reforms in the
Congressional system:
CLOSE HOLD
280157SS
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
91 OCT 23 A8: 30
DATE: 10/22/91
NOON, WED., OCT. 23
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
SUBJECT:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11: 45AM
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SUNUNU
MCCLURE Acid Rain
SCOWCROFT
PETERSMEYER
DARMAN
PORTER
BRADY
ROGICH
N/C
BROMLEY
SMITH
MCBRIDE
CARD
SNOW
DEMAREST
\
FITZWATER
GRAY
Schaer
HOLIDAY
REMARKS:
Please provide comments/edits on the attached directly
to Tony Snow, Rm. 122, x2930, with a copy to this office
NO LATER THAN NOON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
CLOSE HOLD
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
Snow/Aarhus
PROCESS.TS
OCTOBER 22, 1991
01 CCT 22 P6: 20
DRAFT ONE
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11:45 A.M.
[Introductory acknowledgments, warm-up jokes, etc.]
I am delighted to join you this morning. I would like to
discuss two issues we all care about deeply: Public service and
public faith in government.
I have devoted much of my adult life to public service, and
my family has cherished public service as a special honor -- and
obligation. My father for years served as moderator of a
Connecticut town meeting that convened once a month. He ran for
the U.S. Senate at what now seems the tender age of 55. 11 He
ran because he cared about the government, and wanted to make a
difference. He lost by 1,000 votes out of more than 862,000, but
entered the Senate two years later. He served in the Senate for
a full decade.
I too have enjoyed the privilege of public service, and it
has given me an incredibly rich and rewarding variety of
experiences. In public service, you wrestle with the real
issues: education and health care; jobs and economic growth;
crime and punishment; war and security. Every one in this room
has experience the surge of pride you feel when you help someone
solve a problem -- or when you help build new hope and pride
within your community.
2
The notion of public service lies at the heart of our system
of government. Our founding fathers sought to build a citizen
government -- one that would represent all walks of life and
respond to the needs and concerns of everyone, not just a
privileged elite.
Our founders wanted to build a commonwealth of freedom and
prosperity, and they took special care to craft a system of
government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The notion of public service always has motivated Americans
to be -- Americans. More than 150 years ago De Tocqueville noted
with some astonishment more that "When an American needs the
assistance of his fellows, it is very rare for that to be
refused, and I have often seen it given spontaneously and
eagerly." He did not mistake us for saints, however. He
understood that freedom demands such service to others.
Good government depends on effective public service --
selfless, efficient, judicious. Our nation has the unique
distinction of growing out of a set of ideals, not from the ruins
of war or the chain of royal inheritance. Our system of
government depends upon the constant defense and refreshment of
the values we hold dear.
As public servants, we must lead by example. Americans will
not tolerate hypocrisy. This distinguishes the United States
from lands in which people accept corruption as a fact of life.
People elsewhere wonder why Americans make such a fuss when our
leaders violate our normal standards of behavior. The reason is
3
simple: We have a government of, by and for the people. We
demands that our leaders honor our shared values.
We also know that government must change with the times.
Our long and sturdy tradition of tolerance and honesty enables
government to adapt. When Congress debates issues, no one minds
a tough, honest debate. We expect it. By the same token, we
expect our free press to peer beneath events, to take account of
people's motives, to understand the histories of events, and to
have the courage to ask tough questions rather than numbly
repeating partisan propaganda. As a nation, we demand integrity
in public behavior and discourse. When we don't get it, we react
angrily.
The recent Thomas hearings stirred that kind of anger. In
the process they highlighted the difficulty of persuading people
to enter public service. Ronnie Perry of Brunswick, Georgia
wrote me to say, "It is my fear that good, honest moral men and
women in this country will no longer subject themselves to the
ridicule that Judge Thomas had to face. "
Mr. Perry was right: The bruising and personal hearings
showed what happens when political factions allow their agendas
to overwhelm their personal sense of decency. They ignore the
fact that human beings sit beneath the glare of the spotlight and
lay themselves vulnerable to assault from all quarters. They
forget that vicious political campaigns can -- and do -- destroy
lives.
4
Americans distrust such power deeply, especially when it is
not balanced by any obligation to set things right when rumors
prove false and indictments fail to produce results. We always
have prided ourselves on fairness and decency.
Many Americans, frankly, were stunned when they saw the
Thomas hearings. The scenes from the Senate bore little
resemblance to the tidy legislative process we studied in school,
and that we describe to our children. The process seemed unreal
-- more like a satire than like the government in which they take
great pride; more like Saturday Night Live than like civics
class.
The hearings also showed that politicians do not always act
independently. Outside pressure groups exert enormous influence,
and Congressional staffs -- which grow more rapidly than kudzu -
- increasingly shape policy. Who can forget the scenes of aides
handing senators scraps of paper, containing the questions the
senators should ask or the arguments they ought to make?
In some ways, the hearings told our children: If you want to
make a difference, don't enter public service. Join a special
interest group. That way, you can fight as hard as you want, and
you don't have to accept any responsibility for the results.
Now, I served in Congress and I know the incredible pressure
and difficulty of working there. But I also think we can all
work to help Congress strengthen its image and improve its
performance.
5
First, we must complete some unfinished business from the
hearings. We must determine who leaked the information -- who
turned what should have been a confidential investigation into
what many people who wrote me described as "a circus" and "a
travesty." [seymour amendment language]
We must combat sexual harassment. From the start our
Administration's civil rights bill has contained language to
strengthen penalties against sexual harassment. Congress will
act soon on the matter -- I hope by considering and passing the
administration civil rights bill. That alone can't solve the
problem, however. Each of us shares an obligation to eradicate
this menace, not just through laws, but through simple respect
for other human beings. In the end, laws can punish prejudice,
but they cannot produce enlightenment. We alone can do that
through word and example.
The Thomas hearings also raised concerns about the
confirmation process generally. Let me offer several specific
recommendations for reforming that process.
First, shorten the time lapse between nominations and
confirmation votes to 30 working days. It takes four times as
long to secure a vote today as it did just 30 years ago, during
the presidency of John Kennedy. It took the Senate an average of
63 days to confirm our appointees sent up in 1989; 65 days for
the group nominated in 1990. Right now, the average waiting
period for those we have nominated this year without receiving
Congressional review comes to 80 days.
6
At the beginning of this week, we still had 154 nominations
pending. I nominated Robert Clarke for reappointment as
Comptroller of the Currency on January 23 -- more than nine
months ago. I nominated Larry Lindsey for a seat on the Federal
Reserve Board on February 28. I nominated Bob Gates to serve as
Director of the CIA more than five months ago. These are not
trivial appointments, and yet they have dragged on far too long.
Sen. Biden has suggested that we can do better, and I agree. My
proposal can help Congress keep things moving. In return, we
will redouble our efforts to ensure that nominees complete all
their required paperwork promptly.
Second, I propose that we treat FBI reports to the Judiciary
Committee the same way we handle FBI reports for every other
committee. We will give the committee with a summary of FBI
investigations, with the understanding that and only Senators --
no staff -- will have authority to review those documents. We
will show the full FBI reports to interested Senators, but the
committee itself will keep no copies of the reports. Sen. Nunn
has suggested similar reforms.
Third, I suggest that Congress establish a mechanism for
investigating congressional leaks thoroughly, professionally and
promptly. The Senate's treatment of the leak in the Thomas
hearings ought to establish a noble precedent -- not a reason for
discouragement. [seymour amendment stuff]
Fourth, Congress ought to follow the same laws it imposes
upon everyone else. At least 14 major laws apply to everyone --
7
the White House, the public, everyone -- except Congress. This
includes the Equal Pay act of 1963. It includes Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a title that prohibits sexual
harassment, and discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex,
religion and national origin. It includes the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The Fair Labor Standards Act. The
Criminal Conflict of Interest provisions of supreme court
statutes. Title Six of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 --
the special counsel law. The Freedom of Information Act. The
Privacy Act.
This special status hurts Congress and shakes public
confidence in government. It encourages special interest groups
to press for reckless regulations, knowing that Congress might
adopt them for everyone else. This keeps the pressure groups
happy -- and makes life uncomfortable for everyone else. It
creates the appearance and reality of a privileged class of
rulers who stand above the law.
This violates our most cherished assumptions about our
government. In the Federalist Papers, number 57, our founders
asserted that elected officials "can make no law which will not
have in full operation on themselves and their friends, as well
as on the great mass of society." The writer of that paper also
noted ominously, "If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as
to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature as well as on
the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but
liberty."
8
Well, the people have begun to speak. They see scandals
about checks and hearings and so on, and they get angry. They
become contemptuous of Congress, and perhaps even of the law.
Some embrace the notion of term limitations. This disrespect
just isn't healthy. So today I call upon Congress to take a
simple step toward increasing public confidence. I call upon it
to accept for itself each and every law it has imposed upon
everyone else. It shouldn't dawdle. It should do so before the
end of this year.
I promise you this: I will not sign any civil rights bill
that does not hold Congress to the same standard applied to the
people in this room -- to the rest of the federal government.
Finally, we all must remember that our business is to do the
public's business. That becomes increasingly difficult for a
Congress that contains more than 300 committees and
subcommittees, and benefits from the services of nearly 40,000
workers. Things get even worse when committees make broad and
unfocused demands. For example, the Judiciary Committee asked
Clarence Thomas to submit 30,000 pages of documentation prior to
his hearings. Individual senators asked for other documents as
well. Similarly, a defense bill routinely goes through 38
different committees and untold subcommittees. Each demands time
and documents -- and each demand slows the public's business.
I support the efforts of Sen. Boren and others to wrestle
with this complicated problem. A system originally designed to
help Congress do the public's business has turned into a machine
9
so complex and bewildering that the public doesn't understand it.
Many members of Congress do not fully understand it. Only
specialists and lobbyists can pick their way through the dense
thickets.
The American people want more. They want a government that
will foster economic growth, that will fight crime and drugs,
that will work to improve schools, that will build better roads,
and that will answer to their concerns first and foremost.
In the end, the public shouldn't have to care about process;
it needs better and more responsive government. The people won't
be impressed with reforms if members of Congress pay greater heed
to lobbyists who live far from the district than they do to the
men and women who work and vote in the district.
Our founders handed down to us the finest system of
government in American history, one in which the executive and
legislative branches constantly tug and pull at one another, and
one that lets the people rise up and call for more and better.
But we must remember who is servant and who is master. Noah
Webster noted this in 1802, when he noted, "If all officers of
government are the servants of the people, how can it be expected
that the masters should not, at times, take the government out of
the hands of the servants."
The reforms I've proposed today can help us do the people's
business. They can help us honor the promise of our own
Constitution and the values of the people we serve. They can
10
help us restore pride in public service -- and earn the public
faith vital for everything we hold dear.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
#
#
#
#
CLOSE HOLD
Document No.
280157SS
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
91 OCT 23 P4: 06
DATE:
10/22/91
NOON, WED., OCT. 23
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
SUBJECT:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11: 45AM
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SUNUNU
MCCLURE
SCOWCROFT
PETERSMEYER
DARMAN
PORTER
BRADY
ROGICH
BROMLEY
SMITH
CARD
MCBRIDE
SNOW
DEMAREST
\
FITZWATER
GRAY
HOLIDAY
REMARKS:
Please provide comments/edits on the attached directly
to Tony Snow, Rm. 122, x2930, with a copy to this office
NO LATER THAN NOON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23. Thank you.
Called
RESPONSE:
CLOSE HOLD
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
Snow/Aarhus
PROCESS.TS
OCTOBER 22, 1991
01 CCT 22 P6: 20
DRAFT ONE
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11:45 A.M.
[Introductory acknowledgments, warm-up jokes, etc.]
I am delighted to join you this morning. I would like to
discuss two issues we all care about deeply: Public service and
public faith in government.
I have devoted much of my adult life to public service, and
my family has cherished public service as a special honor -- and
obligation. My father for years served as moderator of a
Connecticut town meeting that convened once a month. He ran for
the U.S. Senate at what now seems the tender age of 55. 11 He
ran because he cared about the government, and wanted to make a
difference. He lost by 1,000 votes out of more than 862,000, but
entered the Senate two years later. He served in the Senate for
a full decade.
I too have enjoyed the privilege of public service, and it
has given me an incredibly rich and rewarding variety of
experiences. In public service, you wrestle with the real
issues: education and health care; jobs and economic growth;
crime and punishment; war and security. Every one in this room
has experience the surge of pride you feel when you help someone
solve a problem -- or when you help build new hope and pride
within your community.
2
The notion of public service lies at the heart of our system
of government. Our founding fathers sought to build a citizen
government -- one that would represent all walks of life and
respond to the needs and concerns of everyone, not just a
privileged elite.
Our founders wanted to build a commonwealth of freedom and
prosperity, and they took special care to craft a system of
government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The notion of public service always has motivated Americans
to be -- Americans. More than 150 years ago De Tocqueville noted
with some astonishment more that "When an American needs the
assistance of his fellows, it is very rare for that to be
refused, and I have often seen it given spontaneously and
eagerly." He did not mistake us for saints, however. He
understood that freedom demands such service to others.
Good government depends on effective public service --
selfless, efficient, judicious. Our nation has the unique
distinction of growing out of a set of ideals, not from the ruins
of war or the chain of royal inheritance. Our system of
government depends upon the constant defense and refreshment of
the values we hold dear.
As public servants, we must lead by example. Americans will
not tolerate hypocrisy. This distinguishes the United States
from lands in which people accept corruption as a fact of life.
People elsewhere wonder why Americans make such a fuss when our
leaders violate our normal standards of behavior. The reason is
3
simple: We have a government of, by and for the people. We
demands that our leaders honor our shared values.
We also know that government must change with the times.
Our long and sturdy tradition of tolerance and honesty enables
government to adapt. When Congress debates issues, no one minds
a tough, honest debate. We expect it. By the same token, we
expect our free press to peer beneath events, to take account of
people's motives, to understand the histories of events, and to
have the courage to ask tough questions rather than numbly
repeating partisan propaganda. As a nation, we demand integrity
in public behavior and discourse. When we don't get it, we react
angrily.
The recent Thomas hearings stirred that kind of anger. In
the process they highlighted the difficulty of persuading people
to enter public service. Ronnie Perry of Brunswick, Georgia
wrote me to say, "It is my fear that good, honest moral men and
women in this country will no longer subject themselves to the
ridicule that Judge Thomas had to face."
Mr. Perry was right: The bruising and personal hearings
showed what happens when political factions allow their agendas
to overwhelm their personal sense of decency. They ignore the
fact that human beings sit beneath the glare of the spotlight and
lay themselves vulnerable to assault from all quarters. They
forget that vicious political campaigns can -- and do -- destroy
lives.
4
Americans distrust such power deeply, especially when it is
not balanced by any obligation to set things right when rumors.
prove false and indictments fail to produce results. We always
have prided ourselves on fairness and decency.
Many Americans, frankly, were stunned when they saw the
Thomas hearings. The scenes from the Senate bore little
resemblance to the tidy legislative process we studied in school,
and that we describe to our children. The process seemed unreal
-- more like a satire than like the government in which they take
great pride; more like Saturday Night Live than like civics
class.
The hearings also showed that politicians do not always act
independently. Outside pressure groups exert enormous influence,
and Congressional staffs -- which grow more rapidly than kudzu -
- increasingly shape policy. Who can forget the scenes of aides
handing senators scraps of paper, containing the questions the
senators should ask or the arguments they ought to make?
In some ways, the hearings told our children: If you want to
make a difference, don't enter public service. Join a special
interest group. That way, you can fight as hard as you want, and
you don't have to accept any responsibility for the results.
Now, I served in Congress and I know the incredible pressure
and difficulty of working there. But I also think we can all
work to help Congress strengthen its image and improve its
performance.
5
First, we must complete some unfinished business from the
hearings. We must determine who leaked the information -- who
turned what should have been a confidential investigation into
what many people who wrote me described as "a circus" and "a
travesty." [seymour amendment language]
We must combat sexual harassment. From the start our
Administration's civil rights bill has contained language to
strengthen penalties against sexual harassment. Congress will
act soon on the matter -- I hope by considering and passing the
administration civil rights bill. That alone can't solve the
problem, however. Each of us shares an obligation to eradicate
this menace, not just through laws, but through simple respect
for other human beings. In the end, laws can punish prejudice,
but they cannot produce enlightenment. We alone can do that
through word and example.
The Thomas hearings also raised concerns about the
confirmation process generally. Let me offer several specific
recommendations for reforming that process.
First, shorten the time lapse between nominations and
confirmation votes to 30 working days. It takes four times as
long to secure a vote today as it did just 30 years ago, during
the presidency of John Kennedy. It took the Senate an average of
63 days to confirm our appointees sent up in 1989; 65 days for
the group nominated in 1990. Right now, the average waiting
period for those we have nominated this year without receiving
Congressional review comes to 80 days.
6
At the beginning of this week, we still had 154 nominations
pending. I nominated Robert Clarke for reappointment as
Comptroller of the Currency on January 23 -- more than nine
months ago. I nominated Larry Lindsey for a seat on the Federal
Reserve Board on February 28. I nominated Bob Gates to serve as
Director of the CIA more than five months ago. These are not
trivial appointments, and yet they have dragged on far too long.
Sen. Biden has suggested that we can do better, and I agree. My
proposal can help Congress keep things moving. In return, we
will redouble our efforts to ensure that nominees complete all
their required paperwork promptly.
Second, I propose that we treat FBI reports to the Judiciary
Committee the same way we handle FBI reports for every other
committee. We will give the committee with a summary of FBI
investigations, with the understanding that and only Senators --
no staff -- will have authority to review those documents. We
will show the full FBI reports to interested Senators, but the
committee itself will keep no copies of the reports. Sen. Nunn
has suggested similar reforms.
Third, I suggest that Congress establish a mechanism for
investigating congressional leaks thoroughly, professionally and
promptly. The Senate's treatment of the leak in the Thomas
hearings ought to establish a noble precedent -- not a reason for
discouragement. [seymour amendment stuff]
Fourth, Congress ought to follow the same laws it imposes
upon everyone else. At least 14 major laws apply to everyone --
7
the White House, the public, everyone -- except Congress. This
includes the Equal Pay act of 1963. It includes Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a title that prohibits sexual
harassment, and discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex,
religion and national origin. It includes the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The Fair Labor Standards Act. The
various
Criminal Conflict of Interest provisions of supreme court
7
statutes. Title Six of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 --
the special counsel law. The Freedom of Information Act. The
Privacy Act.
This special status hurts Congress and shakes public
confidence in government. It encourages special interest groups
to press for reckless regulations, knowing that Congress might
adopt them for everyone else. This keeps the pressure groups
happy -- and makes life uncomfortable for everyone else. It
creates the appearance and reality of a privileged class of
rulers who stand above the law.
This violates our most cherished assumptions about our
government. In the Federalist Papers, number 57, our founders
asserted that elected officials "can make no law which will not
have in full operation on themselves and their friends, as well
as on the great mass of society." The writer of that paper also
noted ominously, "If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as
to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature as well as on
the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but
liberty. "
8
Well, the people have begun to speak. They see scandals
about checks and hearings and so on, and they get angry. They
become contemptuous of Congress, and perhaps even of the law.
Some embrace the notion of term limitations. This disrespect
just isn't healthy. So today I call upon Congress to take a
simple step toward increasing public confidence. I call upon it
to accept for itself each and every law it has imposed upon
everyone else. It shouldn't dawdle. It should do so before the
end of this year.
I promise you this: I will not sign any civil rights bill
that does not hold Congress to the same standard applied to the
people in this room -- to the rest of the federal government.
Finally, we all must remember that our business is to do the
public's business. That becomes increasingly difficult for a
Congress that contains more than 300 committees and
has
subcommittees, and benefits from the services of nearly 40,000
workers Things get even worse when committees make broad and
unfocused demands. For example, the Judiciary Committee asked
Clarence Thomas to submit 30,000 pages of documentation prior to
his hearings. Individual senators asked for other documents as
well. Similarly, a defense bill routinely goes through 38
different committees and untold subcommittees. Each demands time
and documents -- and each demand slows the public's business.
I support the efforts of Sen. Boren and others to wrestle
with this complicated problem. A system originally designed to
help Congress do the public's business has turned into a machine
9
so complex and bewildering that the public doesn't understand it.
Many members of Congress do not fully understand it. Only
specialists and lobbyists can pick their way through the dense
thickets.
The American people want more. They want a government that
will foster economic growth, that will fight crime and drugs,
that will work to improve schools, that will build better roads,
and that will answer to their concerns first and foremost.
In the end, the public shouldn't have to care about process;
it needs better and more responsive government. The people won't
be impressed with reforms if members the of Congress pay greater heed
to lobbyists who live far from the district than they do to the
men and women who work and vote in the district.
Our founders handed down to us the finest system of
government in American history, one in which the executive and
legislative branches constantly tug and pull at one another, and
one that lets the people rise up and call for more and better.
But we must remember who is servant and who is master. Noah
Webster noted this in 1802, when he noted, "If all officers of
government are the servants of the people, how can it be expected
that the masters should not, at times, take the government out of
the hands of the servants."
The reforms I've proposed today can help us do the people's
business. They can help us honor the promise of our own
Constitution and the values of the people we serve. They can
10
help us restore pride in public service -- and earn the public
faith vital for everything we hold dear.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
#
#
#
#
CLOSE HOLD
Document No.
280157SS
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
91 OCT 23 P2: 45
DATE:
10/22/91
NOON, WED., OCT. 23
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
SUBJECT:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11: 45AM
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SUNUNU
MCCLURE
SCOWCROFT
PETERSMEYER
DARMAN
PORTER
BRADY
ROGICH
BROMLEY
SMITH
MCBRIDE
CARD
SNOW
DEMAREST
FITZWATER
GRAY
HOLIDAY
REMARKS:
Please provide comments/edits on the attached directly
to Tony Snow, Rm. 122, x2930, with a copy to this office
NO LATER THAN NOON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
O.K CLOSE HOLD
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
Snow/Aarhus
PROCESS.TS
OCTOBER 22, 1991
01 OCT P6: 20
DRAFT ONE
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11:45 A.M.
[Introductory acknowledgments, warm-up jokes, etc.]
I am delighted to join you this morning. I would like to
discuss two issues we all care about deeply: Public service and
public faith in government.
I have devoted much of my adult life to public service, and
my family has cherished public service as a special honor -- and
obligation. My father for years served as moderator of a
Connecticut town meeting that convened once a month. He ran for
the U.S. Senate at what now seems the tender age of 55. 11 He
ran because he cared about the government, and wanted to make a
difference. He lost by 1,000 votes out of more than 862,000, but
entered the Senate two years later. He served in the Senate for
a full decade.
I too have enjoyed the privilege of public service, and it
has given me an incredibly rich and rewarding variety of
experiences. In public service, you wrestle with the real
issues: education and health care; jobs and economic growth;
crime and punishment; war and security. Every one in this room
has experience the surge of pride you feel when you help someone
solve a problem -- or when you help build new hope and pride
within your community.
2
The notion of public service lies at the heart of our system
of government. Our founding fathers sought to build a citizen
government -- one that would represent all walks of life and
respond to the needs and concerns of everyone, not just a
privileged elite.
Our founders wanted to build a commonwealth of freedom and
prosperity, and they took special care to craft a system of
government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The notion of public service always has motivated Americans
to be -- Americans. More than 150 years ago De Tocqueville noted
with some astonishment more that "When an American needs the
assistance of his fellows, it is very rare for that to be
refused, and I have often seen it given spontaneously and
eagerly. He did not mistake us for saints, however. He
understood that freedom demands such service to others.
Good government depends on effective public service --
selfless, efficient, judicious. Our nation has the unique
distinction of growing out of a set of ideals, not from the ruins
of war or the chain of royal inheritance. Our system of
government depends upon the constant defense and refreshment of
the values we hold dear.
As public servants, we must lead by example. Americans will
not tolerate hypocrisy. This distinguishes the United States
from lands in which people accept corruption as a fact of life.
People elsewhere wonder why Americans make such a fuss when our
leaders violate our normal standards of behavior. The reason is
3
simple: We have a government of, by and for the people. We
demands that our leaders honor our shared values.
We also know that government must change with the times.
Our long and sturdy tradition of tolerance and honesty enables
government to adapt. When Congress debates issues, no one minds
a tough, honest debate. We expect it. By the same token, we
expect our free press to peer beneath events, to take account of
people's motives, to understand the histories of events, and to
have the courage to ask tough questions rather than numbly
repeating partisan propaganda. As a nation, we demand integrity
in public behavior and discourse. When we don't get it, we react
angrily.
The recent Thomas hearings stirred that kind of anger. In
the process they highlighted the difficulty of persuading people
to enter public service. Ronnie Perry of Brunswick, Georgia
wrote me to say, "It is my fear that good, honest moral men and
women in this country will no longer subject themselves to the
ridicule that Judge Thomas had to face. "
Mr. Perry was right: The bruising and personal hearings
showed what happens when political factions allow their agendas
to overwhelm their personal sense of decency. They ignore the
fact that human beings sit beneath the glare of the spotlight and
lay themselves vulnerable to assault from all quarters. They
forget that vicious political campaigns can -- and do -- destroy
lives.
4
Americans distrust such power deeply, especially when it is
not balanced by any obligation to set things right when rumors
prove false and indictments fail to produce results. We always
have prided ourselves on fairness and decency.
Many Americans, frankly, were stunned when they saw the
Thomas hearings. The scenes from the Senate bore little
resemblance to the tidy legislative process we studied in school,
and that we describe to our children. The process seemed unreal
-- more like a satire than like the government in which they take
great pride; more like Saturday Night Live than like civics
class.
The hearings also showed that politicians do not always act
independently. Outside pressure groups exert enormous influence,
and Congressional staffs -- which grow more rapidly than kudzu -
- increasingly shape policy. Who can forget the scenes of aides
handing senators scraps of paper, containing the questions the
senators should ask or the arguments they ought to make?
In some ways, the hearings told our children: If you want to
make a difference, don't enter public service. Join a special
interest group. That way, you can fight as hard as you want, and
you don't have to accept any responsibility for the results.
Now, I served in Congress and I know the incredible pressure
and difficulty of working there. But I also think we can all
work to help Congress strengthen its image and improve its
performance.
5
First, we must complete some unfinished business from the
hearings. We must determine who leaked the information -- who
turned what should have been a confidential investigation into
what many people who wrote me described as "a circus" and "a
travesty." [seymour amendment language]
We must combat sexual harassment. From the start our
Administration's civil rights bill has contained language to
strengthen penalties against sexual harassment. Congress will
act soon on the matter -- I hope by considering and passing the
administration civil rights bill. That alone can't solve the
problem, however. Each of us shares an obligation to eradicate
this menace, not just through laws, but through simple respect
for other human beings. In the end, laws can punish prejudice,
but they cannot produce enlightenment. We alone can do that
through word and example.
The Thomas hearings also raised concerns about the
confirmation process generally. Let me offer several specific
recommendations for reforming that process.
First, shorten the time lapse between nominations and
confirmation votes to 30 working days. It takes four times as
long to secure a vote today as it did just 30 years ago, during
the presidency of John Kennedy. It took the Senate an average of
63 days to confirm our appointees sent up in 1989; 65 days for
the group nominated in 1990. Right now, the average waiting
period for those we have nominated this year without receiving
Congressional review comes to 80 days.
6
At the beginning of this week, we still had 154 nominations
pending. I nominated Robert Clarke for reappointment as
Comptroller of the Currency on January 23 -- more than nine
months ago. I nominated Larry Lindsey for a seat on the Federal
Reserve Board on February 28. I nominated Bob Gates to serve as
Director of the CIA more than five months ago. These are not
trivial appointments, and yet they have dragged on far too long.
Sen. Biden has suggested that we can do better, and I agree. My
proposal can help Congress keep things moving. In return, we
will redouble our efforts to ensure that nominees complete all
their required paperwork promptly.
Second, I propose that we treat FBI reports to the Judiciary
Committee the same way we handle FBI reports for every other
committee. We will give the committee with a summary of FBI
investigations, with the understanding that and only Senators --
no staff -- will have authority to review those documents. We
will show the full FBI reports to interested Senators, but the
committee itself will keep no copies of the reports. Sen. Nunn
has suggested similar reforms.
Third, I suggest that Congress establish a mechanism for
investigating congressional leaks thoroughly, professionally and
promptly. The Senate's treatment of the leak in the Thomas
hearings ought to establish a noble precedent -- not a reason for
discouragement. [seymour amendment stuff]
Fourth, Congress ought to follow the same laws it imposes
upon everyone else. At least 14 major laws apply to everyone --
7
the White House, the public, everyone -- except Congress. This
includes the Equal Pay act of 1963. It includes Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a title that prohibits sexual
harassment, and discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex,
religion and national origin. It includes the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The Fair Labor Standards Act. The
Criminal Conflict of Interest provisions of supreme court
statutes. Title Six of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 --
the special counsel law. The Freedom of Information Act. The
Privacy Act.
This special status hurts Congress and shakes public
confidence in government. It encourages special interest groups
to press for reckless regulations, knowing that Congress might
adopt them for everyone else. This keeps the pressure groups
happy -- and makes life uncomfortable for everyone else. It
creates the appearance and reality of a privileged class of
rulers who stand above the law.
This violates our most cherished assumptions about our
government. In the Federalist Papers, number 57, our founders
asserted that elected officials "can make no law which will not
have in full operation on themselves and their friends, as well
as on the great mass of society." The writer of that paper also
noted ominously, "If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as
to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature as well as on
the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but
liberty."
8
Well, the people have begun to speak. They see scandals
about checks and hearings and so on, and they get angry. They
become contemptuous of Congress, and perhaps even of the law.
Some embrace the notion of term limitations. This disrespect
just isn't healthy. So today I call upon Congress to take a
simple step toward increasing public confidence. I call upon it
to accept for itself each and every law it has imposed upon
everyone else. It shouldn't dawdle. It should do so before the
end of this year.
I promise you this: I will not sign any civil rights bill
that does not hold Congress to the same standard applied to the
people in this room -- to the rest of the federal government.
Finally, we all must remember that our business is to do the
public's business. That becomes increasingly difficult for a
Congress that contains more than 300 committees and
subcommittees, and benefits from the services of nearly 40,000
workers. Things get even worse when committees make broad and
unfocused demands. For example, the Judiciary Committee asked
Clarence Thomas to submit 30,000 pages of documentation prior to
his hearings. Individual senators asked for other documents as
well. Similarly, a defense bill routinely goes through 38
different committees and untold subcommittees. Each demands time
and documents and each demand slows the public's business.
I support the efforts of Sen. Boren and others to wrestle
with this complicated problem. A system originally designed to
help Congress do the public's business has turned into a machine
9
so complex and bewildering that the public doesn't understand it.
Many members of Congress do not fully understand it. Only
specialists and lobbyists can pick their way through the dense
thickets.
The American people want more. They want a government that
will foster economic growth, that will fight crime and drugs,
that will work to improve schools, that will build better roads,
and that will answer to their concerns first and foremost.
In the end, the public shouldn't have to care about process;
it needs better and more responsive government. The people won't
be impressed with reforms if members of Congress pay greater heed
to lobbyists who live far from the district than they do to the
men and women who work and vote in the district.
Our founders handed down to us the finest system of
government in American history, one in which the executive and
legislative branches constantly tug and pull at one another, and
one that lets the people rise up and call for more and better.
But we must remember who is servant and who is master. Noah
Webster noted this in 1802, when he noted, "If all officers of
government are the servants of the people, how can it be expected
that the masters should not, at times, take the government out of
the hands of the servants."
The reforms I've proposed today can help us do the people's
business. They can help us honor the promise of our own
Constitution and the values of the people we serve. They can
10
help us restore pride in public service -- and earn the public
faith vital for everything we hold dear.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
#
#
#
#
CLOSE HOLD
280157SS
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
91 OCT 23 P2: 39
10/22/91
NOON, WED., OCT. 23
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
SUBJECT:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11: 45AM
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SUNUNU
MCCLURE
SCOWCRO
PETERSMEYER
>
DARMAN
PORTER
BRADY
ROGICH
BROMLEY
SMITH
McBRIDE
CARD
SNOW
DEMAREST
N
FITZWATER
GRAY
HOLIDAY
REMARKS:
Please provide comments/edits on the attached directly
to Tony Snow, Rm. 122, x2930, with a copy to this office
NO LATER THAN NOON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
MEMORANDUM FOR TONY SNOW
October 23, 1991
The NSC staff has reviewed the draft presidential address and concurs as
amended. Jony live deleted the reference to me on p.l. because we PHILLIP are close D. BRADY to
agreement on a final date and I Brent don't Scowcroft want to soch Rates the boat. Assistant to the
President
and Staff Secretary
CC: Phillip D. Brady
Ext. 2702
Snow/Aarhus
PROCESS.TS
OCTOBER 22, 1991
01 CCT 22 P6: 20
DRAFT ONE
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11:45 A.M.
[Introductory acknowledgments, warm-up jokes, etc.]
I am delighted to join you this morning. I would like to
discuss two issues we all care about deeply: Public service and
public faith in government.
I have devoted much of my adult life to public service, and
my family has cherished public service as a special honor -- and
obligation. My father for years served as moderator of a
Connecticut town meeting that convened once a month. He ran for
the U.S. Senate at what now seems the tender age of 55. 11 He
ran because he cared about the government, and wanted to make a
difference. He lost by 1,000 votes out of more than 862,000, but
entered the Senate two years later. He served in the Senate for
a full decade.
I too have enjoyed the privilege of public service, [and it
I
has given me an Asa incredibly rich and rewarding variety of
experiences In public service, ant, you wrestle with the real
issues: education and health care; jobs and economic growth;
international peace the nation's
crime and punishment; war and security. Every one in this room
has experience the surge of pride you feel when you help someone
solve a problem -- or when you help build new hope and pride
within your community.
2
The notion of public service lies at the heart of our system
of government. Our founding fathers sought to build a citizen
government -- one that would represent all walks of life and
respond to the needs and concerns of everyone, not just a
privileged elite.
Our founders wanted to build a commonwealth of freedom and
prosperity, and they took special care to craft a system of
government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The notion of public service always has motivated Americans
to be -- Americans. More than 150 years ago De Tocqueville noted
with some astonishment more that "When an American needs the
assistance of his fellows, it is very rare for that to be
refused, and I have often seen it given spontaneously and
eagerly." He did not mistake us for saints, however. He
understood that freedom demands such service to others.
Good government depends on effective public service --
selfless, efficient, judicious. Our nation has the unique
distinction of growing out of a set of ideals, not from the ruins
of war or the chain of royal inheritance. Our system of
government depends upon the constant defense and refreshment of
the values we hold dear.
As public servants, we must lead by example. Americans will
not tolerate hypocrisy. This distinguishes the United States
from lands in which people accept corruption as a fact of life.
People elsewhere wonder why Americans make such a fuss when our
leaders violate our normal standards of behavior. The reason is
3
simple: We have a government of, by and for the people. We
demands that our leaders honor our shared values.
We also know that government must change with the times.
Our long and sturdy tradition of tolerance and honesty enables
government to adapt. When Congress debates issues, no one minds
a tough, honest debate. We expect it. By the same token, we
expect our free press to peer beneath events, to take account of
people's motives, to understand the histories of events, and to
have the courage to ask tough questions rather than numbly
repeating partisan propaganda. As a nation, we demand integrity
in public behavior and discourse. When we don't get it, we react
angrily.
The recent Thomas hearings stirred that kind of anger. In
the process they highlighted the difficulty of persuading people
to enter public service. Ronnie Perry of Brunswick, Georgia
wrote me to say, "It is my fear that good, honest moral men and
women in this country will no longer subject themselves to the
ridicule that Judge Thomas had to face."
Mr. Perry was right: The bruising and personal hearings
showed what happens when political factions allow their agendas
to overwhelm their personal sense of decency. They ignore the
fact that human beings sit beneath the glare of the spotlight and
lay themselves vulnerable to assault from all quarters. They
forget that vicious political campaigns can -- and do -- destroy
lives. ? upu tations
4
Americans distrust such power deeply, especially when it is
not balanced by any obligation to set things right when rumors
prove false and indictments fail to produce results. We always
have prided ourselves on fairness and decency.
Many Americans, frankly, were stunned when they saw the
Thomas hearings. The scenes from the Senate bore little
?
resemblance to the tidy legislative process we studied in school,
and that we describe to our children. The process seemed unreal
-- more like a satire than like the government in which they take
great pride; more like Saturday Night Live than like civics
class.
The hearings also showed that politicians do not always act
independently. Outside pressure groups exert enormous influence,
and Congressional staffs -- which grow more rapidly than kudzu -
a
- increasingly shape policy. Who can forget the scenes of aides
handing senators scraps of paper, containing the questions the
senators should ask or the arguments they ought to make?
In some ways, the hearings told our children: If you want to
make a difference, don't enter public service. Join a special
interest group. That way, you can fight as hard as you want, and
you don't have to accept any responsibility for the results.
Now, I served in Congress and I know the incredible pressure
and difficulty of working there. But I also think we can all
work to help Congress strengthen its image and improve its
performance.
5
First, we must complete some unfinished business from the
hearings. We must determine who leaked the information -- who
turned what should have been a confidential investigation into
what many people who wrote me described as "a circus" and "a
travesty." [seymour amendment language]
We must combat sexual harassment. From the start our
Administration's civil rights bill has contained language to
strengthen penalties against sexual harassment. Congress will
act soon on the matter -- I hope by considering and passing the
administration civil rights bill. That alone can't solve the
problem, however. Each of us shares an obligation to eradicate
this menace, not just through laws, but through simple respect
for other human beings. In the end, laws can punish prejudice,
but they cannot produce enlightenment. We alone can do that
through word and example.
The Thomas hearings also raised concerns about the
confirmation process generally. Let me offer several specific
recommendations for reforming that process.
First, shorten the time lapse between nominations and
confirmation votes to 30 working days. It takes four times as
long to secure a vote today as it did just 30 years ago, during
the presidency of John Kennedy. It took the Senate an average of
63 days to confirm our appointees sent up in 1989; 65 days for
the group nominated in 1990. Right now, the average waiting
period for those we have nominated this year without receiving
Congressional review comes to 80 days.
process has
confirmation
6
At the beginning of this week, we still had 154 nominations
pending. I nominated Robert Clarke for reappointment as
Comptroller of the Currency on January 23 -- more than nine
months ago. I nominated Larry Lindsey for a seat on the Federal
Reserve Board on February 28.
nominated Bob Gates to servé as
Selete.
Director of the CIA more than five months ago.
These are not
trivial appointments, and yet they have dragged on far too long.
Sen. Biden has suggested that we can do better, and I agree. My
proposal can help Congress keep things moving. In return, we
will redouble our efforts to ensure that nominees complete all
their required paperwork promptly.
Second, I propose that we treat FBI reports to the Judiciary
Committee the same way we handle FBI reports for every other
committee. We will give the committee with a summary of FBI
investigations, with the understanding that and only Senators --
no staff -- will have authority to review those documents. We
will show the full FBI reports to interested Senators, but the
committee itself will keep no copies of the reports. Sen. Nunn
has suggested similar reforms.
Third, I suggest that Congress establish a mechanism for
investigating congressional leaks thoroughly, professionally and
promptly. The Senate's treatment of the leak in the Thomas
hearings ought to establish a noble precedent -- not a reason for
discouragement. [seymour amendment stuff]
Fourth, Congress ought to follow the same laws it imposes
upon everyone else. At least 14 major laws apply to everyone --
7
the White House, the public, everyone -- except Congress. This
includes the Equal Pay act of 1963. It includes Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a title that prohibits sexual
harassment, and discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex,
religion and national origin. It includes the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The Fair Labor Standards Act. The
Criminal Conflict of Interest provisions of supreme court
statutes. Title Six of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 --
the special counsel law. The Freedom of Information Act. The
Privacy Act.
This special status hurts Congress and shakes public
confidence in government. It encourages special interest groups
to press for reckless regulations, knowing that Congress might
adopt them for everyone else. This keeps the pressure groups
happy -- and makes life uncomfortable for everyone else. It
creates the appearance and reality of a privileged class of
rulers who stand above the law.
This violates our most cherished assumptions about our
government. In the Federalist Papers, number 57 our founders
asserted that elected officials "can make no law which will not
have in full operation on themselves and their friends, as well
as on the great mass of society. " The writer of that paper also
noted ominously, "If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as
to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature as well as on
the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but
liberty."
8
Well, the people have begun to speak. They see scandals
about checks and hearings and so on, and they get angry. They
become contemptuous of Congress, and perhaps even of the law.
Some embrace the notion of term limitations. This disrespect
just isn't healthy. So today I call upon Congress to take a
simple step toward increasing public confidence. I call upon it
to accept for itself each and every law it has imposed upon
everyone else. It shouldn't dawdle. It should do so before the
end of this year.
I promise you this: I will not sign any civil rights bill
that does not hold Congress to the same standard applied to the
people in this room -- to the rest of the federal government.
Finally, we all must remember that our business is to do the
public's business. That becomes increasingly difficult for a
Congress that contains more than 300 committees and
subcommittees, and benefits from the services of nearly 40,000
workers. Things get even worse when committees make broad and
unfocused demands. For example, the Judiciary Committee asked
Clarence Thomas to submit 30,000 pages of documentation prior to
his hearings. Individual senators asked for other documents as
well. Similarly, a defense bill routinely goes through 38
different committees and untold subcommittees. Each demands time
and documents -- and each demand slows the public's business.
I support the efforts of Sen. Boren and others to wrestle
with this complicated problem. A system originally designed to
help Congress do the public's business has turned into a machine
9
so complex and bewildering that the public doesn't understand it.
Many members of Congress do not fully understand it. Only
specialists and lobbyists can pick their way through the dense
thickets.
The American people want more. They want a government that
will foster economic growth, that will fight crime and drugs,
that will work to improve schools, that will build better roads,
and that will answer to their concerns first and foremost.
In the end, the public shouldn't have to care about process;
it needs better and more responsive government. The people won't
be impressed with reforms if members of Congress pay greater heed
to lobbyists who live far from the district than they do to the
men and women who work and vote in the district.
Our founders handed down to us the finest system of
government in American history, one in which the executive and
legislative branches constantly tug and pull at one another, and
one that lets the people rise up and call for more and better.
But we must remember who is servant and who is master. Noah
Webster noted this in 1802, when he said noted, "If all officers of
government are the servants of the people, how can it be expected
that the masters should not, at times, take the government out of
the hands of the servants."
The reforms I've proposed today can help us do the people's
business. They can help us honor the promise of our own
Constitution and the values of the people we serve. They can
10
help us restore pride in public service -- and earn the public
faith vital for everything we hold dear.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
#
#
#
#
CLOSE HOLD
280157SS
Document No.
AC HAS SEEN
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
91 OCT 23 P2: 30
10/22/91
NOON, WED., OCT. 23
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
SUBJECT:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11: 45AM
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SUNUNU
MCCLURE
SCOWCROFT
PETERSMEYER
DARMAN
PORTER
BRADY
ROGICH
BROMLEY
SMITH
McBRIDE
CARD
SNOW
DEMAREST
\
FITZWATER
GRAY
HOLIDAY
REMARKS:
Please provide comments/edits on the attached directly
to Tony Snow, Rm. 122, x2930, with a copy to this office
NO LATER THAN NOON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
CLOSE HOLD
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
Snow/Aarhus
PROCESS.TS
OCTOBER 22, 1991
01 OCT 22 P6: 20
DRAFT ONE
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11:45 A.M.
[Introductory acknowledgments, warm-up jokes, etc.]
I am delighted to join you this morning. I would like to
discuss two issues we all care about deeply: Public service and
public faith in government.
I have devoted much of my adult life to public service, and
my family has cherished public service as a special honor -- and
obligation. My father for years served as moderator of a
Connecticut town meeting that convened once a month. He ran for
the U.S. Senate at what now seems the tender age of 55. 11 He
ran because he cared about the government, and wanted to make a
difference. He lost by 1,000 votes out of more than 862,000, but
entered the Senate two years later. He served in the Senate for
a full decade.
I too have enjoyed the privilege of public service, and it
has given me an incredibly rich and rewarding variety of
experiences. In public service, you wrestle with the real
issues: education and health care; jobs and economic growth;
crime and punishment; war and security. Every one in this room
has experience the surge of pride you feel when you help someone
solve a problem -- or when you help build new hope and pride
within your community.
2
The notion of public service lies at the heart of our system
of government. Our founding fathers sought to build a citizen
government -- one that would represent all walks of life and
respond to the needs and concerns of everyone, not just a
privileged elite.
Our founders wanted to build a commonwealth of freedom and
prosperity, and they took special care to craft a system of
government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The notion of public service always has motivated Americans
to be -- Americans. More than 150 years ago De Tocqueville noted
with some astonishment more that "When an American needs the
assistance of his fellows, it is very rare for that to be
refused, and I have often seen it given spontaneously and
eagerly. " He did not mistake us for saints, however. He
understood that freedom demands such service to others.
Good government depends on effective public service --
selfless, efficient, judicious. Our nation has the unique
distinction of growing out of a set of ideals, not from the ruins
of war or the chain of royal inheritance. Our system of
government depends upon the constant defense and refreshment of
the values we hold dear.
As public servants we must lead by example. Americans will
not tolerate hypocrisy. This distinguishes the United States
from lands in which people accept corruption as a fact of life.
People elsewhere wonder why Americans make such a fuss when our
leaders violate our normal standards of behavior. The reason is
3
simple: We have a government of, by and for the people. We
demands that our leaders honor our shared values.
We also know that government must change with the times.
Our long and sturdy tradition of tolerance and honesty enables
government to adapt. When Congress debates issues, no one minds
a tough, honest debate. We expect it. By the same token, we
expect our free press to peer beneath events, to take account of
people's motives, to understand the histories of events, and to
have the courage to ask tough questions rather than numbly
repeating partisan propaganda. As a nation, we demand integrity
in public behavior and discourse. When we don't get it, we react
angrily.
The recent Thomas hearings stirred that kind of anger. In
the process they highlighted the difficulty of persuading people
to enter public service. Ronnie Perry of Brunswick, Georgia
wrote me to say, "It is my fear that good, honest moral men and
women in this country will no longer subject themselves to the
ridicule that Judge Thomas had to face. "
Mr. Perry was right: The bruising and personal hearings
showed what happens when political factions allow their agendas
to overwhelm their personal sense of decency. They ignore the
fact that human beings sit beneath the glare of the spotlight and
lay themselves vulnerable to assault from all quarters. They
forget that vicious political campaigns can -- and do -- destroy
lives.
4
Americans distrust such power deeply, especially when it is
not balanced by any obligation to set things right when rumors
prove false and indictments fail to produce results. We always
have prided ourselves on fairness and decency.
Many Americans, frankly, were stunned when they saw the
Thomas hearings. The scenes from the Senate bore little
resemblance to the tidy legislative process we studied in school,
and that we describe to our children. The process seemed unreal
-- more like a satire than like the government in which they take
great pride; more like Saturday Night Live than like civics
class.
The hearings also showed that politicians do not always act
independently. Outside pressure groups exert enormous influence,
and Congressional staffs -- which grow more rapidly than kudzu -
- increasingly shape policy. Who can forget the scenes of aides
handing senators scraps of paper, containing the questions the
senators should ask or the arguments they ought to make?
In some ways, the hearings told our children: If you want to
make a difference, don't enter public service. Join a special
interest group. That way, you can fight as hard as you want, and
you don't have to accept any responsibility for the results.
Now, I served in Congress and I know the incredible pressure
and difficulty of working there. But I also think we can all
work to help Congress strengthen its image and improve its
performance.
5
First, we must complete some unfinished business from the
hearings. We must determine who leaked the information -- who
turned what should have been a confidential investigation into
what many people who wrote me described as "a circus" and "a
travesty." [seymour amendment language]
We must combat sexual harassment. From the start our
Administration's civil rights bill has contained language to
strengthen penalties against sexual harassment. Congress will
act soon on the matter -- I hope by considering and passing the
administration civil rights bill. That alone can't solve the
problem, however. Each of us shares an obligation to eradicate
this menace, not just through laws, but through simple respect
for other human beings. In the end, laws can punish prejudice,
but they cannot produce enlightenment. We alone can do that
through word and example.
The Thomas hearings also raised concerns about the
confirmation process generally. Let me offer several specific
recommendations for reforming that process.
First, shorten the time lapse between nominations and
confirmation votes to 30 working days. It takes four times as
long to secure a vote today as it did just 30 years ago, during
the presidency of John Kennedy. It took the Senate an average of
63 days to confirm our appointees sent up in 1989; 65 days for
the group nominated in 1990. Right now, the average waiting
period for those we have nominated this year without receiving
Congressional review comes to 80 days.
6
At the beginning of this week, we still had 154 nominations
pending. I nominated Robert Clarke for reappointment as
Comptroller of the Currency on January 23 -- more than nine
months ago. I nominated Larry Lindsey for a seat on the Federal
Reserve Board on February 28. I nominated Bob Gates to serve as
Director of the CIA more than five months ago. These are not
trivial appointments, and yet they have dragged on far too long.
Sen. Biden has suggested that we can do better, and I agree. My
proposal can help Congress keep things moving. In return, we
will redouble our efforts to ensure that nominees complete all
their required paperwork promptly.
Second, I propose that we treat FBI reports to the Judiciary
Committee the same way we handle FBI reports for every other
committee. We will give the committee with a summary of FBI
investigations, with the understanding that and only Senators --
no staff -- will have authority to review those documents. We
choppy
will show the full FBI reports to interested Senators, but the
committee itself will keep no copies of the reports. Sen. Nunn
has suggested similar reforms.
Third, I suggest that Congress establish a mechanism for
investigating congressional leaks thoroughly, professionally and
promptly. The Senate's treatment of the leak in the Thomas
hearings ought to establish a noble precedent -- not a reason for
discouragement. [seymour amendment stuff]
Fourth, Congress ought to follow the same laws it imposes
upon everyone else. At least 14 major laws apply to everyone --
7
the White House, the public, everyone -- except Congress. This
includes the Equal Pay act of 1963. It includes Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a title that prohibits sexual
harassment, and discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex,
religion and national origin. It includes the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The Fair Labor Standards Act. The
Criminal Conflict of Interest provisions of supreme court
statutes. Title Six of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 --
the special counsel law. The Freedom of Information Act. The
Privacy Act.
This special status hurts Congress and shakes public
confidence in government. It encourages special interest groups
to press for reckless regulations, knowing that Congress might
adopt them for everyone else. This keeps the pressure groups
happy -- and makes life uncomfortable for everyone else. It
creates the appearance and reality of a privileged class of
rulers who stand above the law.
This violates our most cherished assumptions about our
government. In the Federalist Papers, number 57, our founders
asserted that elected officials "can make no law which will not
have in full operation on themselves and their friends, as well
as on the great mass of society." The writer of that paper also
noted ominously, "If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as
to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature as well as on
the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but
liberty."
aventance
8
Well, the people have begun to speak. They see scandals
about checks and hearings and so on, and they get angry. They
become contemptuous of Congress, and perhaps even of the law.
Some embrace the notion of term limitations. This disrespect
just isn't healthy. So today I call upon Congress to take a
simple step toward increasing public confidence. +I call
Cougress should
lives by
upon it
Sound
to accept for itself each and every law it has imposed upon
everyone else. It shouldn't dawdle. It should do so before the
end of this year.
I want
to
a
CR bill but
I promise you this: I will not sign any civil rights bill
that does not hold Congress to the same standard applied to the
people in this room -- to the rest of the federal government.
Finally, we all must remember that our business is to do the
public's business. That becomes increasingly difficult for a
Congress that contains more than 300 committees and
subcommittees, and benefits from the services of nearly 40,000
workers. Things get even worse when committees make broad and
unfocused demands. For example, the Judiciary Committee asked
Clarence Thomas to submit 30,000 pages of documentation prior to
his hearings. Individual senators asked for other documents as
well. Similarly, a defense bill routinely goes through 38
different committees and untold subcommittees. Each demands time
and documents -- and each demand slows the public's business.
I support the efforts of Sen. Boren and others to wrestle
with this complicated problem. A system originally designed to
help Congress do the public's business has turned into a machine
9
so complex and bewildering that the public doesn't understand it.
Many members of Congress do not fully understand it. Only
specialists and lobbyists can pick their way through the dense
thickets.
The American people want more. They want a government that
will foster economic growth, that will fight crime and drugs,
that will work to improve schools, that will build better roads,
and that will answer to their concerns first and foremost.
In the end, the public shouldn't have to care about process;
it needs better and more responsive government. The people won't
be impressed with reforms if members of Congress pay greater heed
to lobbyists who live far from the district than they do to the
men and women who work and vote in the district.
Our founders handed down to us the finest system of
government in American history, one in which the executive and
legislative branches constantly tug and pull at one another, and
one that lets the people rise up and call for more and better.
But we must remember who is servant and who is master. Noah
said
Webster noted this in 1802, when he noted "If all officers of
government are the servants of the people, how can it be expected
that the masters should not, at times, take the government out of
the hands of the servants."
The reforms I've proposed today can help us do the people's
business. They can help us honor the promise of our own
Constitution and the values of the people we serve. They can
10
help us restore pride in public service -- and earn the public
faith vital for everything we hold dear.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
#
#
#
#
CLOSE HOLD
280157SS
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
91 OCT 23 Pl: 46
10/22/91
NOON, WED., OCT. 23
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
SUBJECT:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
45AM
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SUNUNU
MCCLURE
SCOWCROFT
PETERSMEYER
>
DARMAN
PORTER
BRADY
ROGICH
BROMLEY
SMITH
McBRIDE
CARD
SNOW
DEMAREST
\
FITZWATER
GRAY
HOLIDAY
REMARKS:
Please provide comments/edits on the attached directly
to Tony Snow, Rm. 122, x2930, with a copy to this office
NO LATER THAN NOON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
See comments
CLOSE HOLD
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
Snow/Aarhus
PROCESS.TS
OCTOBER 22, 1991
01 1 OCT 22 P6:20
DRAFT ONE
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GROUPS
THE MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991
11:45 A.M.
[Introductory acknowledgments, warm-up jokes, etc.]
I am delighted to join you this morning. I would like to
discuss two issues we all care about deeply: Public service and
public faith in government.
I have devoted much of my adult life to public service, and
my family has cherished public service as a special honor -- and
obligation. My father for years served as moderator of a
Connecticut town meeting that convened once a month. He ran for
the U.S. Senate at what now seems the tender age of 55. 11 He
ran because he cared about the government, and wanted to make a
difference. He lost by 1,000 votes out of more than 862,000, but
entered the Senate two years later. He served in the Senate for
a full decade.
I too have enjoyed the privilege of public service, and it
has given me an incredibly rich and rewarding variety of
experiences. In public service, you wrestle with the real
issues: education and health care; jobs and economic growth;
crime and punishment; war and security. Every one in this room
has experience the surge of pride you feel when you help someone
scully
solve a problem -- or when you help build new hope and pride
45178
within your community.
2
The notion of public service lies at the heart of our system
of government. Our founding fathers sought to build a citizen
government -- one that would represent all walks of life and
respond to the needs and concerns of everyone, not just a
privileged elite.
Our founders wanted to build a commonwealth of freedom and
prosperity, and they took special care to craft a system of
government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The notion of public service always has motivated Americans
to be -- Americans. More than 150 years ago De Tocqueville noted
with some astonishment more that "When an American needs the
Scully
assistance of his fellows, it is very rare for that to be
x5178
refused, and I have often seen it given spontaneously and
eagerly.' He did not mistake us for saints, however. He
understood that freedom demands such service to others.
Good government depends on effective public service --
selfless, efficient, judicious. Our nation has the unique
distinction of growing out of a set of ideals, not from the ruins
of war or the chain of royal inheritance. Our system of
government depends upon the constant defense and refreshment of
the values we hold dear.
As public servants, we must lead by example. Americans will
not tolerate hypocrisy. This distinguishes the United States
from lands in which people accept corruption as a fact of life.
People elsewhere wonder why Americans make such a fuss when our
leaders violate our normal standards of behavior. The reason is
3
simple: We have a government of, by and for the people. We
demands that our leaders honor our shared values.
We also know that government must change with the times.
Our long and sturdy tradition of tolerance and honesty enables
government to adapt. When Congress debates issues, no one minds
a tough, honest debate. We expect it. By the same token, we
expect our free press to peer beneath events, to take account of
people's motives, to understand the histories of events, and to
have the courage to ask tough questions rather than numbly
repeating partisan propaganda. As a nation, we demand integrity
in public behavior and discourse. When we don't get it, we react
angrily.
The recent Thomas hearings stirred that kind of anger. In
the process they highlighted the difficulty of persuading people
to enter public service. Ronnie Perry of Brunswick, Georgia
wrote me to say, "It is my fear that good, honest moral men and
women in this country will no longer subject themselves to the
ridicule that Judge Thomas had to face. "
Mr. Perry was right: The bruising and personal hearings
showed what happens when political factions allow their agendas
to overwhelm their personal sense of decency. They ignore the
fact that human beings sit beneath the glare of the spotlight and
lay themselves vulnerable to assault from all quarters. They
forget that vicious political campaigns can -- and do -- destroy
lives.
4
Americans distrust such power deeply, especially when it is
not balanced by any obligation to set things right when rumors
prove false and indictments fail to produce results. We always
have prided ourselves on fairness and decency.
Many Americans, frankly, were stunned when they saw the
Thomas hearings. The scenes from the Senate bore little
resemblance to the tidy legislative process we studied in school,
and that we describe to our children. The process seemed unreal
-- more like a satire than like the government in which they take
great pride; more like Saturday Night Live than like civics
class.
The hearings also showed that politicians do not always act
independently. Outside pressure groups exert enormous influence,
and Congressional staffs -- which grow more rapidly than kudzu -
- increasingly shape policy. Who can forget the scenes of aides
handing senators scraps of paper, containing the questions the
senators should ask or the arguments they ought to make?
In some ways, the hearings told our children: If you want to
make a difference, don't enter public service. Join a special
interest group. That way, you can fight as hard as you want, and
you don't have to accept any responsibility for the results.
Now, I served in Congress and I know the incredible pressure
and difficulty of working there. But I also think we can all
work to help Congress strengthen its image and improve its
performance.
5
First, we must complete some unfinished business from the
hearings. We must determine who leaked the information -- who
turned what should have been a confidential investigation into
what many people who wrote me described as "a circus" and "a
travesty." [seymour amendment language]
We must combat sexual harassment. From the start our
Administration's civil rights bill has contained language to
strengthen penalties against sexual harassment. Congress will
act soon on the matter -- I hope by considering and passing the
administration civil rights bill. That alone can't solve the
problem, however. Each of us shares an obligation to eradicate
this menace, not just through laws, but through simple respect
for other human beings. In the end, laws can punish prejudice,
but they cannot produce enlightenment. We alone can do that
through word and example.
The Thomas hearings also raised concerns about the
confirmation process generally. Let me offer several specific
recommendations for reforming that process.
First, shorten the time lapse between nominations and
confirmation votes to 30 working days. It takes four times as
long to secure a vote today as it did just 30 years ago, during
the presidency of John Kennedy. It took the Senate an average of
63 days to confirm our appointees sent up in 1989; 65 days for
the group nominated in 1990. Right now, the average waiting
period for those we have nominated this year without receiving
Congressional review comes to 80 days.
6
At the beginning of this week, we still had 154 nominations
pending. I nominated Robert Clarke for reappointment as
Comptroller of the Currency on January 23 -- more than nine
months ago. I nominated Larry Lindsey for a seat on the Federal
Reserve Board on February 28. I nominated Bob Gates to serve as
Director of the CIA more than five months ago. These are not
trivial appointments, and yet they have dragged on far too long.
Sen. Biden has suggested that we can do better, and I agree. My
proposal can help Congress keep things moving. In return, we
will redouble our efforts to ensure that nominees complete all
their required paperwork promptly.
Second, I propose that we treat FBI reports to the Judiciary
Committee the same way we handle FBI reports for every other
committee. We will give the committee with a summary of FBI
that
investigations, with the understanding that and only Senators --
Halp
no staff -- will have authority to review those documents. We
part
will show the full FBI reports to interested Senators, but the
committee itself will keep no copies of the reports. Sen. Nunn
has suggested similar reforms.
Third, I suggest that Congress establish a mechanism for
investigating congressional leaks thoroughly, professionally and
promptly. The Senate's treatment of the leak in the Thomas
hearings ought to establish a noble precedent -- not a reason for
discouragement. [seymour amendment stuff]
Fourth, Congress ought to follow the same laws it imposes
upon everyone else. At least 14 major laws apply to everyone --
7
the White House, the public, everyone -- except Congress. This
includes the Equal Pay act of 1963. It includes Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a title that prohibits sexual
harassment, and discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex,
religion and national origin. It includes the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The Fair Labor Standards Act. The
Criminal Conflict of Interest provisions of supreme court
?
statutes. Title Six of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
Y5044 anus
:
the special counsel law. The Freedom of Information Act. The
Privacy Act.
This special status hurts Congress and shakes public
confidence in government. It encourages special interest groups
to press for reckless regulations, knowing that Congress might
adopt them for everyone else. This keeps the pressure groups
happy -- and makes life uncomfortable for everyone else. It
creates the appearance and reality of a privileged class of
rulers who stand above the law.
This violates our most cherished assumptions about our
government. In the Federalist Papers, number 57, our founders
asserted that elected officials "can make no law which will not
have in full operation on themselves and their friends, as well
as on the great mass of society." The writer of that paper also
noted ominously, "If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as
to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature as well as on
the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but
liberty."
8
Well, the people have begun to speak. They see scandals
about checks and hearings and so on, and they get angry. They
become contemptuous of Congress, and perhaps even of the law.
Some embrace the notion of term limitations. This disrespect
just isn't healthy. So today I call upon Congress to take a
simple step toward increasing public confidence. I call upon it
to accept for itself each and every law it has imposed upon
everyone else. It shouldn't dawdle. It should do so before the
end of this year.
I promise you this: I will not sign any civil rights bill
that does not hold Congress to the same standard applied to the
people in this room -- to the rest of the federal government.
Finally, we all must remember that our business is to do the
public's business. That becomes increasingly difficult for a
Congress that contains more than 300 committees and
subcommittees, and benefits from the services of nearly 40,000
workers. Things get even worse when committees make broad and
unfocused demands. For example, the Judiciary Committee asked
Clarence Thomas to submit 30,000 pages of documentation prior to
his hearings. Individual senators asked for other documents as
thereare 38 different committees and subcommittees
well. Similarly, a defense bill routinely goes through 38
which claim jurisdiction ver national security legislation.
different committees and untold subcommittees. Each demands time
Taylor
and documents -- and each demand slows the public's business.
X3192
I support the efforts of Sen. Boren and others to wrestle
with this complicated problem. A system originally designed to
help Congress do the public's business has turned into a machine
This too sames any
check
host
9
so complex and bewildering that the public doesn't understand it.
Many members of Congress do not fully understand it. Only
scally
specialists and lobbyists can pick their way through the dense
45178
thickets.
The American people want more. They want a government that
will foster economic growth, that will fight crime and drugs,
that will work to improve schools, that will build better roads,
and that will answer to their concerns first and foremost.
In the end, the public shouldn't have to care about process;
it needs better and more responsive government. The people won't
be impressed with reforms if members of Congress pay greater heed
/scully
F5178
to lobbyists who live far from the district than they do to the
men and women who work and vote in the district.
Our founders handed down to us the finest system of
the sounders
as
world?
government in American history, one in which the executive and
Name D 5044
legislative branches constantly tug and pull at one another, and
Y
one that lets the people rise up and call for more and better.
But we must remember who is servant and who is master. Noah
Webster noted this in 1802, when he noted, "If all officers of
government are the servants of the people, how can it be expected
that the masters should not, at times, take the government out of
the hands of the servants."
The reforms I've proposed today can help us do the people's
business. They can help us honor the promise of our own
Constitution and the values of the people we serve. They can
10
help us restore pride in public service -- and earn the public
faith vital for everything we hold dear.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # # #