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
323151948
label
Old House Chamber - [Reform Speech] 4/3/92 [OA 6100] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323151948
contentType
document
title
Old House Chamber - [Reform Speech] 4/3/92 [OA 6100] [1]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13614-007
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
323151948
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ff223dc4c7d00676
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:
13614
Folder ID Number:
13614-007
Folder Title:
Old House Chamber - [Reform Speech] 4/3/92 [OA 6100][1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
18
1
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
UNTIL 10:40 A.M. E.S.T.
FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1992
TEXT OF REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY OF
PHILADELPHIA
Old House Chamber
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The vision of the Founding Fathers may still be hard for us to
fully comprehend. But if you really think about it, their goals
were not much different than ours. They wanted their new country
to prosper, and they knew intuitively that the road to prosperity
was freedom. They believed in the fundamentals -- in the
inherent strength of faith and family -- and they were determined
to preserve them. They wanted the citizens of our young nation
to live in peace, safe and secure from threats at home and
abroad. It took a revolution to achieve their vision, and it is
our duty to preserve it.
They say when British General Cornwallis surrendered to
Washington at Yorktown in 1781, his troops marched to the tune,
"The World Turned Upside Down.' It was a profoundly simple
recognition that an old world order was ending and a new one
beginning.
Now, more than two hundred years later, we are again in the midst
of great change. Democracy and freedom once again have turned
the world upside down. America once again championed a great
worldwide movement. We stood firm for our principles through
some very difficult times. We did indeed change the world. Now,
as you have heard me say, if we could change the world, we can
change America.
Henry Luce called the 20th century the American Century. In a
world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must now meet five great challenges to ensure that the next
century is also the American Century.
First, our children must develop good character and values so
they can be educated adults, literate and drug-free, motivated to
make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must dramatically change
our education system -- literally revolutionize it. Our America
2000 education initiative means top-to-bottom educational reform.
Second, our people must have a sense of well-being about their
physical health. My health care proposal guarantees access to
the finest health care system in the world, and keeps that care
affordable for all our citizens. Next, our civil justice system
must do what it was designed to do: dispense justice for all.
Eighteen million lawsuits a year are choking us, costing us
billions of dollars, and putting a tremendous drag on our
civility and our economy. If Congress passes my Access to
Justice Act, this too can change.
- more -
2
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That's
why we have an aggressive pro-growth trade policy. It demands
more open foreign markets for quality American goods and services
to sustain and create American jobs.
Finally, if we are to change America we must change the way
government works. That is what I will address today. G.K.
Chesterton said, "We cannot discuss reform without reference to
form". This has been amply demonstrated in just the last decade
as one institution after another has been challenged, forced to
take a hard look within itself, make needed improvements, and act
to make the institution live up to its principles. That is the
process called reform.
To ensure their competitive edge, businesses launch reforms
geared to quality. Then, by measuring performance, they improve
performance. Often it's not flashy, the return to old values and
standards like "built to last a lifetime", or "service with a
smile." Competition works -- the proof? Today American products
are quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Reform has improved performance in our military. In the face of
tighter budgets, we've cut the fat, gotten leaner and smarter.
Desert Storm proved it. The drive for excellence has influenced
almost every other institution, from state and local government
to trade associations and unions.
Yet, the federal government is a glaring hold-out. It resists
reform and protects a failed status quo, even in the face of an
unambiguous need for change. This is not about barber shops or
gymnasium privileges or parking spaces. It is not about perks.
It is about the governmental process, and its potential to help
or hinder the public good. It is about big things, major changes
to make government more responsive. It is about the changes that
are sweeping the rest of the country but are not being made in
Washington.
The most recent proof that we have a major problem was the
inability of Congress to rise to the challenge of helping our
economy. Instead it reverted to form -- trying to raise taxes
and increase government spending. If it cannot address a
straightforward short-term proposal to stimulate the economy, how
can it possibly deal with the more complex issues like the badly
needed reforms of our education, health care and legal systems?
If we are to reform education, health care, our legal system, if
we are to reduce red tape and regulation, make our country
competitive, get this horrendous deficit down, we must reform the
Congressional process itself, and make it responsive to our
country's real needs.
The growth of big government has diminished the role of Congress
from policy-making to program-making. Promulgating and
protecting more programs sets in motion a perpetual cycle of
Congressional support for more unnecessary spending, creating
bigger and even less responsive bureaucracies. Then, by
servicing the needs of program recipients, Congressional staffs
help to ensure Members' re-election and a continuation of
business as usual. Beyond that, Congress routinely exempts
itself from the laws it imposes on the rest of the nation, laws
like the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about these
dangers. Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials,
"Can make no law which will not have its full operation on
themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the
society."
- more -
3
Federalist Paper #52 argued that permanent majorities are
dangerously undemocratic. James Madison would be appalled to
hear that 98 percent of Congressmen who seek re-election are in
fact re-elected -- that one party, the Democrats, has controlled
the House 56 out of the last 60 years.
That means self-perpetuating staffs and a bureaucracy beholden to
one set of leaders. The bank and post office scandals are the
result of one-party control -- one party's lack of supervision,
lack of new blood, and lack of change.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but by no means all
of it. We have had divided government before, sometimes during
periods of great crisis. Each time we have worked together in
good faith to meet those challenges.
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress, the sticky
web of 284 Congressional committees and subcommittees, the almost
40,000 legislative branch employees and staff, $2.5 billion of
taxpayer financing, overlaid with a $117 million re-election war
chest for incumbents in special-interest campaign contributions.
None of this promotes reform and change. Rather, it aggressively
protects the status quo. Conscientious Members of Congress
understand this. That's why House Republican Leader Bob Michel
has proposed Congressional reform legislation. He's got some
great ideas for improving the Congress and its procedures, like
legislative calendar process reform, reduction in the number of
Congressional staff, and reduction of the number of Congressional
committees.
There are good people in Congress, many of them, on both sides of
the aisle -- I think of your own Senator Arlen Specter, right
here with me today. Talk to Arlen, he enthusiastically supports
changing our Congressional system because he believes in changing
the status quo.
Then talk to retiring Members, many of them dedicated people like
Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, and you will hear the
frustration. When asked about the prospect of endless budget
deficits, he issued this indictment of the system, "The fact is
that we are unable, institutionally, to do what has to be done.
We are literally not watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome
burns; we are watching the entire orchestra."
Senator Rudman knows the biggest threat to future job creation is
deficit spending, and the current Congressional structure is not
capable of addressing that threat. He knows that Americans are
generous, people willing to do what is necessary to make this
country better. But there is a mismatch between their
willingness to help and their skepticism about Congress. They
just don't trust Congress to use their hard-earned tax dollars
wisely.
Today government is a $1.5 trillion enterprise. But people in
Washington frequently forget that the taxpayer is the original
investor, customer, shareholder, and board member all rolled into
one. When folks in government forget that, they issue nettlesome
regulations. Those regulations increase the cost of doing
business, but worse, they don't really solve the problems they
were designed to solve. As President, I'm going to keep trying
to change the regulatory process, but I'll need the help of the
Congress.
- more -
4
When government forgets who is really the boss -- the American
taxpayer -- it becomes insulated and unresponsive. But
unresponsive government doesn't just happen. Congress creates
these giant centralized bureaucracies, lays down the mandates,
funds the programs. Then, it is the Congress that protects them,
investigates them, micro-manages them, and ultimately perpetuates
them. Programs that have outlived their function rarely outlive
their funding. With a Congressional Subcommittee Chairman as
godparent, they become stepchildren of the Congress.
Some 107 different Congressional committees and subcommittees
claim some degree of oversight responsibility for the Department
of Defense. 74 compete for jurisdiction over the War on Drugs.
Just this week, after being reported from one committee in the
House, our energy bill to make us more energy-efficient and
energy-independent was referred to no less than eight additional
House committees. It should be no surprise that it takes so long
to get anything done.
When the Secretary of Agriculture and his top staff have to
testify in 14 hearings in one day, think of the time and
resources that takes. Think of the thousands of hours spent by
the Executive Branch to fulfill the thousands of Congressional
demands for testimony, and government reports.
Democratic Senator David Boren summed it up by saying, "No one
doubts that Congress is in trouble as an institution." That's
why I support his efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of
committees and subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of course.
And I know that the federal government cannot be run like IBM or
the local convenience store, but we can improve its performance,
and we must. What merely hampered us in the past, will paralyze
us in the future. Our ability to compete demands we make these
reforms, not just of Congress but of the federal bureaucracy as
well. It means emphasizing the building blocks of a more
responsive government by relying on what works: choice,
competition, decentralization. But let me be clear, we cannot
reform the executive branch without first reforming the Congress.
Taken together, the following actions will help make government
work for the people.
First, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on
others. No more special treatment. Like age, race, sex and
disability discrimination laws. Congress should submit to the
laws it imposes on the Executive Branch, like conflict of
interest laws or the Independent Counsel Law. I will propose
legislation to end such special treatment for Congress next week.
Further, I will veto any future legislation that extends such
special treatment to the Congress.
Second, Congress should reform its operations and procedures. I
support the Boren-Domenici reform bill in the Senate and the
Hamilton-Gradison bill in the House which sets up a bipartisan
group to evaluate Congressional operations and make
recommendations. It is a good beginning, but real reform like
that contained in the Michel bill is essential now. Change is
still on the back burner. The American people must turn up the
heat.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Full disclosure of
assets, liabilities, and compensation is a key element of reform.
I am not required to disclose my income tax returns. In a sense,
I feel it is an invasion of my privacy.
- more -
5
But for 12 years I have made public those tax returns and I
believe all people aspiring to the Presidency should do that.
Perhaps Congress does not need to go that far, but they should
make their existing disclosure rules much more rigorous.
Beyond that, we must totally eliminate special-interest Political
Action Committees and put limits on so-called "leadership PACs."
I have proposed ways to increase the legitimate role of our
political parties, reduce the influence of special interests, and
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising.
And let me say it straight out: federal funding of Congressional
elections would only worsen the problem. Campaign finance reform
is stalled on Capitol Hill, but the time for action is long past,
we must clean up our election system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending and federal non-defense
employment next year. I have proposed two-year budgets. I have
proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs without
touching Social Security. If mandatory spending were allowed to
grow for inflation and eligible population only, we could save
about two trillion dollars over the next decade. The American
people should demand that the Congress pass the same measure that
43 governors have: the line-item veto. They should demand a
Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. Obviously, a balanced
budget requirement would have to be phased in. But such an
amendment is needed to discipline both the executive and
legislative branches.
In the absence of those important measures I will continue to use
whatever means are legally at my disposal, including the
line-item rescission, to protect the taxpayer from the spending
excesses of Congress. And I will oppose any attempt by the
Congress to dismantle the only defense the taxpayer has against
Congressional overspending -- the budget caps implemented in the
1990 Budget Act.
Fifth, regulatory reform. We put a 90 day moratorium on new
government regulations. We are revising and eliminating
regulations that impede our ability to compete, and we are
accelerating regulations that enhance our competitive edge.
Since I announced the moratorium on January 28th, the growth of
burdensome regulations has already been reversed. As our review
continues we will announce further steps to reduce the burden of
unnecessary regulations. But we cannot do it alone. Congress,
in passing legislation, must be committed to cutting down the
regulatory burden as well.
Sixth, we must limit Congressional terms. We must address the
Congress of the future. The cycle of virtually guaranteed
re-election, particularly in the House of Representatives,
through the built-in advantages of incumbency must be broken.
Our Founding Fathers never considered elected government service
to be a career. I believe Senators should be limited to two
terms, and Representatives, limited to six terms. As President
my terms are limited, the same rule should apply to Members of
Congress. Our first concern should be the country, not a
lifetime political career.
This brings me to my final point. Certainly, governing today is
complex and time-consuming. But not so many years ago,
representing the people back home was a part-time Washington job.
Somehow Members managed to finish their work and adjourn just
before the hot, humid Washington, D.C. summers. Air conditioning
changed all this, and now, thanks to modern technology, Congress
sits year-round.
- more -
6
Many Members of the House and Senate are now permanent
Washingtonians. We do not need a career Congress, we need a
citizen Congress. To borrow a line from former Senate Majority
Leader Howard Baker "They ought to be living in America and
visiting Washington." He was right. He knew that the
overwhelming majority of state legislatures are able to do their
work each year in sessions lasting less than 6 months, some as
short as 3 months every two years.
With a streamlined committee structure, a leaner staff, Members'
time organized around legislation rather than re-election, and
better discipline on how they spend the people's money, Congress
could return to what the Founders envisioned as a government
truly close to the people. I suggest that in the future,
Congress and the Administration work together to achieve a
legislative schedule that allows Members to spend more continuous
time at home so they can truly stay in touch with the people.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the world. As
in the first days of our new nation, we must change an
unresponsive government. The reforms I've outlined today can
help renew our faith in government, we cannot stop with
Congressional process, we must reform the federal bureaucracy as
well. I will have more to say on that in the near future. But
today our mission is to begin restoring the principles of our
Founders, and guaranteeing for our children a new American
Century.
The choice is clear. On one side stand the defenders of the
status quo. On the other: the forces of change. We must make
the choice worthy of the men who met here, and began the world's
only permanent revolution. Now that we've changed the world, we
must make the choice to change America.
# # #
OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 3, 1992
THANK YOU, BRIAN [GUTHRIE, PRESIDENT OF THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA], FOR THAT KIND
INTRODUCTION. SENATOR SPECTER; CONGRESSMAN COUGHLIN;
MARTHA AIKENS, SUPERINTENDENT OF INDEPENDENCE PARK. I
SEE JOSEPH CICIPPIO. OLD CONGRESS HALL IS HOME TO
GREAT IDEAS AND GREAT DEBATE. IN THIS VERY ROOM,
PIVOTAL AND PROFOUND DISCUSSIONS OCCURRED -- SETTING IN
MOTION A GRAND EXPERIMENT IN MAN'S ABILITY TO CHART HIS
OWN FUTURE.
- 2 .
THE VISION OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS MAY STILL BE
HARD FOR US TO FULLY COMPREHEND. BUT IF YOU REALLY
THINK ABOUT IT, THEIR GOALS WERE NOT MUCH DIFFERENT
THAN OURS. THEY WANTED THEIR NEW COUNTRY TO PROSPER -
- AND THEY KNEW INTUITIVELY THAT THE ROAD TO PROSPERITY
WAS FREEDOM. THEY BELIEVED IN THE FUNDAMENTALS -- IN
THE INHERENT STRENGTH OF FAITH AND FAMILY -- AND THEY
WERE DETERMINED TO PRESERVE THEM. THEY WANTED THE
CITIZENS OF OUR YOUNG NATION TO LIVE IN PEACE -- SAFE
AND SECURE FROM THREATS AT HOME AND ABROAD. IT TOOK A
REVOLUTION TO ACHIEVE THEIR VISION -- AND IT IS OUR
DUTY TO PRESERVE IT.
THEY SAY WHEN BRITISH GENERAL CORNWALLIS
SURRENDERED TO WASHINGTON AT YORKTOWN IN 1781, HIS
TROOPS MARCHED TO THE TUNE, "THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE
DOWN." IT WAS A PROFOUNDLY SIMPLE RECOGNITION THAT AN
OLD WORLD ORDER WAS ENDING AND A NEW ONE BEGINNING.
- 3 -
NOW, MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS LATER, WE ARE
AGAIN IN THE MIDST OF GREAT CHANGE. DEMOCRACY AND
FREEDOM ONCE AGAIN HAVE TURNED THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN.
AMERICA ONCE AGAIN CHAMPIONED A GREAT WORLDWIDE
MOVEMENT. WE STOOD FIRM FOR OUR PRINCIPLES THROUGH
SOME VERY DIFFICULT TIMES. WE DID INDEED CHANGE THE
WORLD. NOW, AS YOU HAVE HEARD ME SAY, IF WE COULD
CHANGE THE WORLD, WE CAN CHANGE AMERICA.
HENRY LUCE CALLED THE 20TH CENTURY THE AMERICAN
CENTURY. IN A WORLD MORE DRIVEN BY ECONOMIC
COMPETITION THAN EVER BEFORE, WE MUST NOW MEET FIVE
GREAT CHALLENGES TO ENSURE THAT THE NEXT CENTURY IS
ALSO THE AMERICAN CENTURY.
- 4 -
FIRST, OUR CHILDREN MUST DEVELOP GOOD CHARACTER AND
VALUES so THEY CAN BE EDUCATED ADULTS -- LITERATE AND
DRUG-FREE -- MOTIVATED TO MAKE LEARNING A LIFELONG
PURSUIT. WE MUST DRAMATICALLY CHANGE OUR EDUCATION
SYSTEM -- LITERALLY REVOLUTIONIZE IT. OUR AMERICA 2000
EDUCATION INITIATIVE MEANS TOP-TO-BOTTOM EDUCATIONAL
REFORM. SECOND, OUR PEOPLE MUST HAVE A SENSE OF WELL-
BEING ABOUT THEIR PHYSICAL HEALTH. MY HEALTH CARE
PROPOSAL GUARANTEES ACCESS TO THE FINEST HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, AND KEEPS THAT CARE AFFORDABLE FOR
ALL OUR CITIZENS.
NEXT, OUR CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM MUST DO WHAT IT WAS
DESIGNED TO DO: DISPENSE JUSTICE FOR ALL. EIGHTEEN
MILLION LAWSUITS A YEAR ARE CHOKING US -- COSTING US
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS -- AND PUTTING A TREMENDOUS DRAG ON
OUR CIVILITY AND OUR ECONOMY. IF CONGRESS PASSES MY
ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, THIS T00 CAN CHANGE.
- 5 -
AND IN THE NEXT CENTURY, ECONOMIC COMPETITION, AS
WELL AS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY WILL COME FROM BEYOND OUR
BORDERS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN AGGRESSIVE PRO-GROWTH
TRADE POLICY. IT DEMANDS MORE OPEN FOREIGN MARKETS FOR
QUALITY AMERICAN GOODS AND SERVICES TO SUSTAIN AND
CREATE AMERICAN JOBS.
FINALLY, IF WE ARE TO CHANGE AMERICA WE MUST CHANGE
THE WAY GOVERNMENT WORKS. THAT IS WHAT I WILL ADDRESS
TODAY. G.K. CHESTERTON SAID, "WE CANNOT DISCUSS REFORM
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO FORM". THIS HAS BEEN AMPLY
DEMONSTRATED IN JUST THE LAST DECADE AS ONE INSTITUTION
AFTER ANOTHER HAS BEEN CHALLENGED -- FORCED TO TAKE A
HARD LOOK WITHIN ITSELF, MAKE NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS, AND
ACT TO MAKE THE INSTITUTION LIVE UP TO ITS PRINCIPLES.
THAT IS THE PROCESS CALLED REFORM.
- 6 -
TO ENSURE THEIR COMPETITIVE EDGE, BUSINESSES LAUNCH
REFORMS GEARED TO QUALITY. THEN, BY MEASURING
PERFORMANCE, THEY IMPROVE PERFORMANCE. OFTEN IT'S NOT
FLASHY -- THE RETURN TO OLD VALUES AND STANDARDS LIKE
"BUILT TO LAST A LIFETIME", OR "SERVICE WITH A SMILE."
COMPETITION WORKS -- THE PROOF? TODAY AMERICAN
PRODUCTS ARE QUANTIFIABLY BETTER THAN JUST A FEW YEARS
AGO.
REFORM HAS IMPROVED PERFORMANCE IN OUR MILITARY.
IN THE FACE OF TIGHTER BUDGETS, WE'VE CUT THE FAT,
GOTTEN LEANER AND SMARTER. DESERT STORM PROVED IT.
THE DRIVE FOR EXCELLENCE HAS INFLUENCED ALMOST EVERY
OTHER INSTITUTION, FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND UNIONS.
- 7 -
YET, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A GLARING HOLD-OUT.
IT RESISTS REFORM AND PROTECTS A FAILED STATUS QUO --
EVEN IN THE FACE OF AN UNAMBIGUOUS NEED FOR CHANGE.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT BARBER SHOPS OR GYMNASIUM PRIVILEGES
OR PARKING SPACES. IT IS NOT ABOUT PERKS. IT IS ABOUT
THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS, AND ITS POTENTIAL TO HELP OR
HINDER THE PUBLIC GOOD. IT IS ABOUT BIG THINGS --
MAJOR CHANGES TO MAKE GOVERNMENT MORE RESPONSIVE. IT
IS ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT ARE SWEEPING THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY BUT ARE NOT BEING MADE IN WASHINGTON.
- 8 -
THE MOST RECENT PROOF THAT WE HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM
WAS THE INABILITY OF CONGRESS TO RISE TO THE CHALLENGE
OF HELPING OUR ECONOMY. INSTEAD IT REVERTED TO FORM
-- TRYING TO RAISE TAXES AND INCREASE GOVERNMENT
SPENDING. IF IT CANNOT ADDRESS A STRAIGHTFORWARD
SHORT-TERM PROPOSAL TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, HOW CAN
IT POSSIBLY DEAL WITH THE MORE COMPLEX ISSUES LIKE THE
BADLY NEEDED REFORMS OF OUR EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE AND
LEGAL SYSTEMS? IF WE ARE TO REFORM EDUCATION, HEALTH
CARE, OUR LEGAL SYSTEM -- IF WE ARE TO REDUCE RED TAPE
AND REGULATION, MAKE OUR COUNTRY COMPETITIVE, GET THIS
HORRENDOUS DEFICIT DOWN, WE MUST REFORM THE
CONGRESSIONAL PROCESS ITSELF, AND MAKE IT RESPONSIVE TO
OUR COUNTRY'S REAL NEEDS.
- 9 -
THE GROWTH OF BIG GOVERNMENT HAS DIMINISHED THE
ROLE OF CONGRESS FROM POLICY-MAKING TO PROGRAM-MAKING.
PROMULGATING AND PROTECTING MORE PROGRAMS SETS IN
MOTION A PERPETUAL CYCLE OF CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR
MORE UNNECESSARY SPENDING -- CREATING BIGGER AND EVEN
LESS RESPONSIVE BUREAUCRACIES. THEN, BY SERVICING THE
NEEDS OF PROGRAM RECIPIENTS, CONGRESSIONAL STAFFS HELP
TO ENSURE MEMBERS' RE-ELECTION AND A CONTINUATION OF
BUSINESS AS USUAL. BEYOND THAT, CONGRESS ROUTINELY
EXEMPTS ITSELF FROM THE LAWS IT IMPOSES ON THE REST OF
THE NATION -- LAWS LIKE THE LANDMARK CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1964.
- 10 -
PROPHETICALLY, THE FOUNDING FATHERS WARNED US ABOUT
THESE DANGERS. FEDERALIST PAPER #57 ASSERTS THAT
ELECTED OFFICIALS, "CAN MAKE NO LAW WHICH WILL NOT HAVE
ITS FULL OPERATION ON THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS, AS
WELL AS ON THE GREAT MASS OF THE SOCIETY." FEDERALIST
PAPER #52 ARGUED THAT PERMANENT MAJORITIES ARE
DANGEROUSLY UNDEMOCRATIC. JAMES MADISON WOULD BE
APPALLED TO HEAR THAT 98% OF CONGRESSMEN WHO SEEK RE-
ELECTION ARE IN FACT RE-ELECTED -- THAT ONE PARTY, THE
DEMOCRATS, HAS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE 56 OUT OF THE LAST
60 YEARS. THAT MEANS SELF-PERPETUATING STAFFS AND A
BUREAUCRACY BEHOLDEN TO ONE SET OF LEADERS. THE BANK
AND POST OFFICE SCANDALS ARE THE RESULT OF ONE-PARTY
CONTROL -- ONE PARTY'S LACK OF SUPERVISION, LACK OF NEW
BLOOD, AND LACK OF CHANGE.
ONE-PARTY RULE IS A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM, BUT BY
NO MEANS ALL OF IT. WE HAVE HAD DIVIDED GOVERNMENT
BEFORE, SOMETIMES DURING PERIODS OF GREAT CRISIS. EACH
TIME WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET
THOSE CHALLENGES.
- 11 -
THE LARGER ISSUE IS THE SYSTEMIC PROBLEM OF
CONGRESS -- THE STICKY WEB OF 284 CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES, THE ALMOST 40,000
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES AND STAFF, $2.5 BILLION OF
TAXPAYER FINANCING, OVERLAID WITH A $117 MILLION RE-
ELECTION WAR CHEST FOR INCUMBENTS IN SPECIAL-INTEREST
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, AND MILLIONS MORE IN SPECIAL-
INTEREST INFLUENCE.
NONE OF THIS PROMOTES REFORM AND CHANGE. RATHER,
IT AGGRESSIVELY PROTECTS THE STATUS QUO. CONSCIENTIOUS
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UNDERSTAND THIS. THAT'S WHY HOUSE
REPUBLICAN LEADER BOB MICHEL HAS PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL
REFORM LEGISLATION. HE'S GOT SOME GREAT IDEAS FOR
IMPROVING THE CONGRESS AND ITS PROCEDURES -- LIKE
LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR PROCESS REFORM, REDUCTION IN THE
NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF, AND REDUCTION OF THE
NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.
- 12 -
THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE IN CONGRESS -- MANY OF THEM -
- ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE -- I THINK OF YOUR OWN
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER, RIGHT HERE WITH ME TODAY. TALK
TO ARLEN -- HE ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTS CHANGING OUR
CONGRESSIONAL SYSTEM BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IN CHANGING
THE STATUS QUO.
THEN TALK TO RETIRING MEMBERS, MANY OF THEM
DEDICATED PEOPLE LIKE SENATOR WARREN RUDMAN OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE, AND YOU WILL HEAR THE FRUSTRATION. WHEN
ASKED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF ENDLESS BUDGET DEFICITS, HE
ISSUED THIS INDICTMENT OF THE SYSTEM, "THE FACT IS THAT
WE ARE UNABLE, INSTITUTIONALLY, TO DO WHAT HAS TO BE
DONE. WE ARE LITERALLY NOT WATCHING THE FIDDLER FIDDLE
WHILE ROME BURNS; WE ARE WATCHING THE ENTIRE
ORCHESTRA.' "
- 13 -
SENATOR RUDMAN KNOWS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO FUTURE
JOB CREATION IS DEFICIT SPENDING, AND THE CURRENT
CONGRESSIONAL STRUCTURE IS NOT CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING
THAT THREAT. HE KNOWS THAT AMERICANS ARE GENEROUS --
PEOPLE WILLING TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS
COUNTRY BETTER. BUT THERE IS A MISMATCH BETWEEN THEIR
WILLINGNESS TO HELP AND THEIR SKEPTICISM ABOUT
CONGRESS. THEY JUST DON'T TRUST CONGRESS TO USE THEIR
HARD-EARNED TAX DOLLARS WISELY.
TODAY GOVERNMENT IS A $1.5 TRILLION ENTERPRISE.
BUT PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON FREQUENTLY FORGET THAT THE
TAXPAYER IS THE ORIGINAL INVESTOR, CUSTOMER,
SHAREHOLDER, AND BOARD MEMBER ALL ROLLED INTO ONE.
WHEN FOLKS IN GOVERNMENT FORGET THAT, THEY ISSUE
NETTLESOME REGULATIONS. THOSE REGULATIONS INCREASE THE
COST OF DOING BUSINESS, BUT WORSE, THEY DON'T REALLY
SOLVE THE PROBLEMS THEY WERE DESIGNED TO SOLVE. AS
PRESIDENT, I'M GOING TO KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE THE
REGULATORY PROCESS, BUT I'LL NEED THE HELP OF THE
CONGRESS.
- 14 -
WHEN GOVERNMENT FORGETS WHO IS REALLY THE BOSS --
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER -- IT BECOMES INSULATED AND
UNRESPONSIVE. BUT UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T JUST
HAPPEN. CONGRESS CREATES THESE GIANT CENTRALIZED
BUREAUCRACIES, LAYS DOWN THE MANDATES, FUNDS THE
PROGRAMS. THEN, IT IS THE CONGRESS THAT PROTECTS THEM,
INVESTIGATES THEM, MICRO-MANAGES THEM, AND ULTIMATELY
PERPETUATES THEM. PROGRAMS THAT HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR
FUNCTION RARELY OUTLIVE THEIR FUNDING. WITH A
CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AS GODPARENT, THEY
BECOME STEPCHILDREN OF THE CONGRESS.
- 15 -
SOME 107 DIFFERENT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND
SUBCOMMITTEES CLAIM SOME DEGREE OF OVERSIGHT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. SEVENTY-
FOUR COMPETE FOR JURISDICTION OVER THE WAR ON DRUGS.
JUST THIS WEEK, AFTER BEING REPORTED FROM ONE COMMITTEE
IN THE HOUSE, OUR ENERGY BILL TO MAKE US MORE ENERGY-
EFFICIENT AND ENERGY-INDEPENDENT WAS REFERRED TO NO
LESS THAN EIGHT ADDITIONAL HOUSE COMMITTEES. IT SHOULD
BE NO SURPRISE THAT IT TAKES SO LONG TO GET ANYTHING
DONE.
WHEN THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND HIS TOP
STAFF HAVE TO TESTIFY IN FOURTEEN HEARINGS IN ONE DAY,
THINK OF THE TIME AND RESOURCES THAT TAKES. THINK OF
THE THOUSANDS OF HOURS SPENT BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO
FULFILL THE THOUSANDS OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMANDS FOR
TESTIMONY, AND GOVERNMENT REPORTS.
- 16 -
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR DAVID BOREN SUMMED IT UP BY
SAYING, "NO ONE DOUBTS THAT CONGRESS IS IN TROUBLE AS
AN INSTITUTION." THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT HIS EFFORTS TO
TRIM THE OVERGROWN THICKET OF COMMITTEES AND
SUBCOMMITTEES WHICH NOW PARALYZES THE CONGRESS.
CONGRESS HAS LEGITIMATE OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES
OF COURSE. AND I KNOW THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CANNOT BE RUN LIKE IBM OR THE LOCAL CONVENIENCE STORE,
BUT WE CAN IMPROVE ITS PERFORMANCE, AND WE MUST. WHAT
MERELY HAMPERED US IN THE PAST, WILL PARALYZE US IN THE
FUTURE. OUR ABILITY TO COMPETE DEMANDS WE MAKE THESE
REFORMS, NOT JUST OF CONGRESS BUT OF THE FEDERAL
BUREAUCRACY AS WELL. IT MEANS EMPHASIZING THE BUILDING
BLOCKS OF A MORE RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT BY RELYING ON
WHAT WORKS: CHOICE, COMPETITION, DECENTRALIZATION. BUT
LET ME BE CLEAR, WE CANNOT REFORM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
WITHOUT FIRST REFORMING THE CONGRESS.
TAKEN TOGETHER, THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WILL HELP
MAKE GOVERNMENT WORK FOR THE PEOPLE.
- 17 -
FIRST, CONGRESS MUST GOVERN ITSELF BY THE LAWS IT
IMPOSES ON OTHERS. NO MORE SPECIAL TREATMENT. LIKE
AGE, RACE, SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAWS.
CONGRESS SHOULD SUBMIT TO THE LAWS IT IMPOSES ON THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH -- LIKE CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS OR
THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LAW. I WILL PROPOSE
LEGISLATION TO END SUCH SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR CONGRESS
NEXT WEEK. FURTHER, I WILL VETO ANY FUTURE LEGISLATION
THAT EXTENDS SUCH SPECIAL TREATMENT TO THE CONGRESS.
SECOND, CONGRESS SHOULD REFORM ITS OPERATIONS AND
PROCEDURES. I SUPPORT THE BOREN-DOMENICI REFORM BILL
IN THE SENATE AND THE HAMILTON-GRADISON BILL IN THE
HOUSE WHICH SETS UP A BIPARTISAN GROUP TO EVALUATE
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT
IS A GOOD BEGINNING, BUT REAL REFORM LIKE THAT
CONTAINED IN THE MICHEL BILL IS ESSENTIAL NOW. CHANGE
IS STILL ON THE BACK BURNER. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST
TURN UP THE HEAT.
- 18 -
THIRD, SWEEPING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. FULL
DISCLOSURE OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND COMPENSATION IS
A KEY ELEMENT OF REFORM. I AM NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE
MY INCOME TAX RETURNS. IN A SENSE, I FEEL IT IS AN
INVASION OF MY PRIVACY. BUT FOR TWELVE YEARS I HAVE
MADE PUBLIC THOSE TAX RETURNS AND I BELIEVE ALL PEOPLE
ASPIRING TO THE PRESIDENCY SHOULD DO THAT. PERHAPS
CONGRESS DOES NOT NEED TO GO THAT FAR, BUT THEY SHOULD
MAKE THEIR EXISTING DISCLOSURE RULES MUCH MORE
RIGOROUS.
- 19 -
BEYOND THAT, WE MUST TOTALLY ELIMINATE SPECIAL-
INTEREST POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES AND PUT LIMITS ON
SO-CALLED "LEADERSHIP PACS." I HAVE PROPOSED WAYS TO
INCREASE THE LEGITIMATE ROLE OF OUR POLITICAL PARTIES,
REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND DECREASE
THE TIME CANDIDATES AND INCUMBENTS SPEND FUND-RAISING.
AND LET ME SAY IT STRAIGHT OUT: FEDERAL FUNDING OF
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS WOULD ONLY WORSEN THE PROBLEM.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS STALLED ON CAPITOL HILL, BUT
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS LONG PAST -- WE MUST CLEAN UP
OUR ELECTION SYSTEM.
- 20 -
FOURTH, SPENDING REFORM. I HAVE ALREADY PROPOSED
TO FREEZE DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AND FEDERAL
NON-DEFENSE EMPLOYMENT NEXT YEAR. I HAVE PROPOSED TWO-
YEAR BUDGETS. I HAVE PROPOSED TO CURB AS WELL THE
GROWTH OF MANDATORY PROGRAMS WITHOUT TOUCHING SOCIAL
SECURITY. IF MANDATORY SPENDING WERE ALLOWED TO GROW
FOR INFLATION AND ELIGIBLE POPULATION ONLY, WE COULD
SAVE ABOUT TWO TRILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD DEMAND THAT THE CONGRESS
PASS THE SAME MEASURE THAT 43 GOVERNORS HAVE: THE LINE-
ITEM VETO. THEY SHOULD DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. OBVIOUSLY, A BALANCED BUDGET
REQUIREMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE PHASED IN. BUT SUCH AN
AMENDMENT IS NEEDED TO DISCIPLINE BOTH THE EXECUTIVE
AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES.
- 21 -
IN THE ABSENCE OF THOSE IMPORTANT MEASURES I WILL
CONTINUE TO USE WHATEVER MEANS ARE LEGALLY AT MY
DISPOSAL, INCLUDING THE LINE-ITEM RESCISSION, TO
PROTECT THE TAXPAYER FROM THE SPENDING EXCESSES OF
CONGRESS. AND I WILL OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT BY THE
CONGRESS TO DISMANTLE THE ONLY DEFENSE THE TAXPAYER HAS
AGAINST CONGRESSIONAL OVERSPENDING -- THE BUDGET CAPS
IMPLEMENTED IN THE 1990 BUDGET ACT.
FIFTH, REGULATORY REFORM. WE PUT A NINETY-DAY
MORATORIUM ON NEW GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. WE ARE
REVISING AND ELIMINATING REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE OUR
ABILITY TO COMPETE, AND WE ARE ACCELERATING REGULATIONS
THAT ENHANCE OUR COMPETITIVE EDGE. SINCE I ANNOUNCED
THE MORATORIUM ON JANUARY 28TH, THE GROWTH OF
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS HAS ALREADY BEEN REVERSED. AS
OUR REVIEW CONTINUES WE WILL ANNOUNCE FURTHER STEPS TO
REDUCE THE BURDEN OF UNNECESSARY REGULATIONS. BUT WE
CANNOT DO IT ALONE. CONGRESS, IN PASSING LEGISLATION,
MUST BE COMMITTED TO CUTTING DOWN THE REGULATORY BURDEN
AS WELL.
- 22 -
SIXTH, WE MUST LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL TERMS. WE MUST
ADDRESS THE CONGRESS OF THE FUTURE. THE CYCLE OF
VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED RE-ELECTION, PARTICULARLY IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THROUGH THE BUILT-IN
ADVANTAGES OF INCUMBENCY MUST BE BROKEN. OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS NEVER CONSIDERED ELECTED GOVERNMENT SERVICE TO
BE A CAREER. I BELIEVE SENATORS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
TWO TERMS, AND REPRESENTATIVES, LIMITED TO SIX TERMS.
AS PRESIDENT MY TERMS ARE LIMITED, THE SAME RULE SHOULD
APPLY TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. OUR FIRST CONCERN SHOULD
BE THE COUNTRY, NOT A LIFETIME POLITICAL CAREER.
THIS BRINGS ME TO MY FINAL POINT. CERTAINLY,
GOVERNING TODAY IS COMPLEX AND TIME-CONSUMING. BUT NOT
so MANY YEARS AGO, REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE BACK HOME
WAS A PART-TIME WASHINGTON JOB. SOMEHOW MEMBERS
MANAGED TO FINISH THEIR WORK AND ADJOURN JUST BEFORE
THE HOT, HUMID WASHINGTON, D.C. SUMMERS. AIR
CONDITIONING CHANGED ALL THIS, AND NOW, THANKS TO
MODERN TECHNOLOGY, CONGRESS SITS YEAR-ROUND.
- 23 -
MANY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE ARE NOW
PERMANENT WASHINGTONIANS. WE DO NOT NEED A CAREER
CONGRESS -- WE NEED A CITIZEN CONGRESS. TO BORROW A
LINE FROM FORMER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HOWARD BAKER
"THEY OUGHT TO BE LIVING IN AMERICA AND VISITING
WASHINGTON." HE WAS RIGHT. HE KNEW THAT THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF STATE LEGISLATURES ARE ABLE TO
DO THEIR WORK EACH YEAR IN SESSIONS LASTING LESS THAN
SIX MONTHS -- SOME AS SHORT AS THREE MONTHS EVERY TWO
YEARS.
WITH A STREAMLINED COMMITTEE STRUCTURE, A LEANER
STAFF, MEMBERS' TIME ORGANIZED AROUND LEGISLATION
RATHER THAN RE-ELECTION, AND BETTER DISCIPLINE ON HOW
THEY SPEND THE PEOPLE'S MONEY, CONGRESS COULD RETURN TO
WHAT THE FOUNDERS ENVISIONED AS A GOVERNMENT TRULY
CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE. I SUGGEST THAT IN THE FUTURE,
CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION WORK TOGETHER TO
ACHIEVE A LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE THAT ALLOWS MEMBERS TO
SPEND MORE CONTINUOUS TIME AT HOME SO THEY CAN TRULY
STAY IN TOUCH WITH THE PEOPLE.
- 24 -
CHANGE IS SWEEPING AMERICA, JUST AS IT IS SWEEPING
THE WORLD. AS IN THE FIRST DAYS OF OUR NEW NATION, WE
MUST CHANGE AN UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT. THE REFORMS
I'VE OUTLINED TODAY CAN HELP RENEW OUR FAITH IN
GOVERNMENT -- WE CANNOT STOP WITH CONGRESSIONAL
PROCESS -- WE MUST REFORM THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY AS
WELL. I WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY ON THAT IN THE NEAR
FUTURE. BUT TODAY OUR MISSION IS TO BEGIN RESTORING
THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR FOUNDERS, AND GUARANTEEING FOR
OUR CHILDREN A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.
THE CHOICE IS CLEAR. ON ONE SIDE STAND THE
DEFENDERS OF THE STATUS QUO. ON THE OTHER: THE FORCES
OF CHANGE. WE MUST MAKE THE CHOICE WORTHY OF THE MEN
WHO MET HERE - -- AND BEGAN THE WORLD'S ONLY PERMANENT
REVOLUTION. NOW THAT WE'VE CHANGED THE WORLD, WE MUST
MAKE THE CHOICE TO CHANGE AMERICA.
THANK YOU, AND MAY GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.
# # #
OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 3, 1992
THANK YOU, BRIAN [GUTHRIE, PRESIDENT OF THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA], FOR THAT KIND
INTRODUCTION. SENATOR SPECTER; CONGRESSMAN COUGHLIN;
MARTHA AIKENS, SUPERINTENDENT OF INDEPENDENCE PARK. I
SEE JOSEPH CICIPPIO. OLD CONGRESS HALL IS HOME TO
GREAT IDEAS AND GREAT DEBATE. IN THIS VERY ROOM,
PIVOTAL AND PROFOUND DISCUSSIONS OCCURRED -- SETTING IN
MOTION A GRAND EXPERIMENT IN MAN'S ABILITY TO CHART HIS
OWN FUTURE.
- 2 -
THE VISION OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS MAY STILL BE
HARD FOR US TO FULLY COMPREHEND. BUT IF YOU REALLY
THINK ABOUT IT, THEIR GOALS WERE NOT MUCH DIFFERENT
THAN OURS. THEY WANTED THEIR NEW COUNTRY TO PROSPER -
- AND THEY KNEW INTUITIVELY THAT THE ROAD TO PROSPERITY
WAS FREEDOM. THEY BELIEVED IN THE FUNDAMENTALS -- IN
THE INHERENT STRENGTH OF FAITH AND FAMILY AND THEY
WERE DETERMINED TO PRESERVE THEM. THEY WANTED THE
CITIZENS OF OUR YOUNG NATION TO LIVE IN PEACE -- SAFE
AND SECURE FROM THREATS AT HOME AND ABROAD. IT TOOK A
REVOLUTION TO ACHIEVE THEIR VISION -- AND IT IS OUR
DUTY TO PRESERVE IT.
THEY SAY WHEN BRITISH GENERAL CORNWALLIS
SURRENDERED TO WASHINGTON AT YORKTOWN IN 1781, HIS
TROOPS MARCHED TO THE TUNE, "THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE
DOWN." IT WAS A PROFOUNDLY SIMPLE RECOGNITION THAT AN
OLD WORLD ORDER WAS ENDING AND A NEW ONE BEGINNING.
- 3 -
NOW, MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS LATER, WE ARE
AGAIN IN THE MIDST OF GREAT CHANGE. DEMOCRACY AND
FREEDOM ONCE AGAIN HAVE TURNED THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN.
AMERICA ONCE AGAIN CHAMPIONED A GREAT WORLDWIDE
MOVEMENT. WE STOOD FIRM FOR OUR PRINCIPLES THROUGH
SOME VERY DIFFICULT TIMES. WE DID INDEED CHANGE THE
WORLD. NOW, AS YOU HAVE HEARD ME SAY, IF WE COULD
CHANGE THE WORLD, WE CAN CHANGE AMERICA.
HENRY LUCE CALLED THE 20TH CENTURY THE AMERICAN
CENTURY. IN A WORLD MORE DRIVEN BY ECONOMIC
COMPETITION THAN EVER BEFORE, WE MUST NOW MEET FIVE
GREAT CHALLENGES TO ENSURE THAT THE NEXT CENTURY IS
ALSO THE AMERICAN CENTURY.
- 4 -
FIRST, OUR CHILDREN MUST DEVELOP GOOD CHARACTER AND
VALUES SO THEY CAN BE EDUCATED ADULTS -- LITERATE AND
DRUG-FREE -- MOTIVATED TO MAKE LEARNING A LIFELONG
PURSUIT. WE MUST DRAMATICALLY CHANGE OUR EDUCATION
SYSTEM -- LITERALLY REVOLUTIONIZE IT. OUR AMERICA 2000
EDUCATION INITIATIVE MEANS TOP-TO-BOTTOM EDUCATIONAL
REFORM. SECOND, OUR PEOPLE MUST HAVE A SENSE OF WELL-
BEING ABOUT THEIR PHYSICAL HEALTH. MY HEALTH CARE
PROPOSAL GUARANTEES ACCESS TO THE FINEST HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, AND KEEPS THAT CARE AFFORDABLE FOR
ALL OUR CITIZENS.
NEXT, OUR CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM MUST DO WHAT IT WAS
DESIGNED TO DO: DISPENSE JUSTICE FOR ALL. EIGHTEEN
MILLION LAWSUITS A YEAR ARE CHOKING US -- COSTING US
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS -- AND PUTTING A TREMENDOUS DRAG ON
OUR CIVILITY AND OUR ECONOMY. IF CONGRESS PASSES MY
ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, THIS TOO CAN CHANGE.
- 5 -
AND IN THE NEXT CENTURY, ECONOMIC COMPETITION, AS
WELL AS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY WILL COME FROM BEYOND OUR
BORDERS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN AGGRESSIVE PRO-GROWTH
TRADE POLICY. IT DEMANDS MORE OPEN FOREIGN MARKETS FOR
QUALITY AMERICAN GOODS AND SERVICES TO SUSTAIN AND
CREATE AMERICAN JOBS.
FINALLY, IF WE ARE TO CHANGE AMERICA WE MUST CHANGE
THE WAY GOVERNMENT WORKS. THAT IS WHAT I WILL ADDRESS
TODAY. G.K. CHESTERTON SAID, "WE CANNOT DISCUSS REFORM
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO FORM". THIS HAS BEEN AMPLY
DEMONSTRATED IN JUST THE LAST DECADE AS ONE INSTITUTION
AFTER ANOTHER HAS BEEN CHALLENGED -- FORCED TO TAKE A
HARD LOOK WITHIN ITSELF, MAKE NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS, AND
ACT TO MAKE THE INSTITUTION LIVE UP TO ITS PRINCIPLES.
THAT IS THE PROCESS CALLED REFORM.
- 6 -
TO ENSURE THEIR COMPETITIVE EDGE, BUSINESSES LAUNCH
REFORMS GEARED TO QUALITY. THEN, BY MEASURING
PERFORMANCE, THEY IMPROVE PERFORMANCE. OFTEN IT'S NOT
FLASHY -- THE RETURN TO OLD VALUES AND STANDARDS LIKE
"BUILT TO LAST A LIFETIME", OR "SERVICE WITH A SMILE."
COMPETITION WORKS -- THE PROOF? TODAY AMERICAN
PRODUCTS ARE QUANTIFIABLY BETTER THAN JUST A FEW YEARS
AGO.
REFORM HAS IMPROVED PERFORMANCE IN OUR MILITARY.
IN THE FACE OF TIGHTER BUDGETS, WE'VE CUT THE FAT,
GOTTEN LEANER AND SMARTER. DESERT STORM PROVED IT.
THE DRIVE FOR EXCELLENCE HAS INFLUENCED ALMOST EVERY
OTHER INSTITUTION, FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND UNIONS.
- 7 -
YET, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A GLARING HOLD-OUT.
IT RESISTS REFORM AND PROTECTS A FAILED STATUS QUO --
EVEN IN THE FACE OF AN UNAMBIGUOUS NEED FOR CHANGE.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT BARBER SHOPS OR GYMNASIUM PRIVILEGES
OR PARKING SPACES. IT IS NOT ABOUT PERKS. IT IS ABOUT
THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS, AND ITS POTENTIAL TO HELP OR
HINDER THE PUBLIC GOOD. IT IS ABOUT BIG THINGS --
MAJOR CHANGES TO MAKE GOVERNMENT MORE RESPONSIVE. IT
IS ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT ARE SWEEPING THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY BUT ARE NOT BEING MADE IN WASHINGTON.
- 8 -
THE MOST RECENT PROOF THAT WE HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM
WAS THE INABILITY OF CONGRESS TO RISE TO THE CHALLENGE
OF HELPING OUR ECONOMY. INSTEAD IT REVERTED TO FORM
-- TRYING TO RAISE TAXES AND INCREASE GOVERNMENT
SPENDING. IF IT CANNOT ADDRESS A STRAIGHTFORWARD
SHORT-TERM PROPOSAL TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, HOW CAN
IT POSSIBLY DEAL WITH THE MORE COMPLEX ISSUES LIKE THE
BADLY NEEDED REFORMS OF OUR EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE AND
LEGAL SYSTEMS? IF WE ARE TO REFORM EDUCATION, HEALTH
CARE, OUR LEGAL SYSTEM -- IF WE ARE TO REDUCE RED TAPE
AND REGULATION, MAKE OUR COUNTRY COMPETITIVE, GET THIS
HORRENDOUS DEFICIT DOWN, WE MUST REFORM THE
CONGRESSIONAL PROCESS ITSELF, AND MAKE IT RESPONSIVE TO
OUR COUNTRY'S REAL NEEDS.
- 9 -
THE GROWTH OF BIG GOVERNMENT HAS DIMINISHED THE
ROLE OF CONGRESS FROM POLICY-MAKING TO PROGRAM-MAKING.
PROMULGATING AND PROTECTING MORE PROGRAMS SETS IN
MOTION A PERPETUAL CYCLE OF CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR
MORE UNNECESSARY SPENDING -- CREATING BIGGER AND EVEN
LESS RESPONSIVE BUREAUCRACIES. THEN, BY SERVICING THE
NEEDS OF PROGRAM RECIPIENTS, CONGRESSIONAL STAFFS HELP
TO ENSURE MEMBERS' RE-ELECTION AND A CONTINUATION OF
BUSINESS AS USUAL. BEYOND THAT, CONGRESS ROUTINELY
EXEMPTS ITSELF FROM THE LAWS IT IMPOSES ON THE REST OF
THE NATION -- LAWS LIKE THE LANDMARK CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1964.
- 10 -
PROPHETICALLY, THE FOUNDING FATHERS WARNED US ABOUT
THESE DANGERS. FEDERALIST PAPER #57 ASSERTS THAT
ELECTED OFFICIALS, "CAN MAKE NO LAW WHICH WILL NOT HAVE
ITS FULL OPERATION ON THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS, AS
WELL AS ON THE GREAT MASS OF THE SOCIETY." FEDERALIST
PAPER #52 ARGUED THAT PERMANENT MAJORITIES ARE
DANGEROUSLY UNDEMOCRATIC. JAMES MADISON WOULD BE
APPALLED TO HEAR THAT 98% OF CONGRESSMEN WHO SEEK RE-
ELECTION ARE IN FACT RE-ELECTED -- THAT ONE PARTY, THE
DEMOCRATS, HAS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE 56 OUT OF THE LAST
60 YEARS. THAT MEANS SELF-PERPETUATING STAFFS AND A
BUREAUCRACY BEHOLDEN TO ONE SET OF LEADERS. THE BANK
AND POST OFFICE SCANDALS ARE THE RESULT OF ONE-PARTY
CONTROL -- ONE PARTY'S LACK OF SUPERVISION, LACK OF NEW
BLOOD, AND LACK OF CHANGE.
ONE-PARTY RULE IS A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM, BUT BY
NO MEANS ALL OF IT. WE HAVE HAD DIVIDED GOVERNMENT
BEFORE, SOMETIMES DURING PERIODS OF GREAT CRISIS. EACH
TIME WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET
THOSE CHALLENGES.
- 11 -
THE LARGER ISSUE IS THE SYSTEMIC PROBLEM OF
CONGRESS -- THE STICKY WEB OF 284 CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES, THE ALMOST 40,000
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES AND STAFF, $2.5 BILLION OF
TAXPAYER FINANCING, OVERLAID WITH A $117 MILLION RE-
ELECTION WAR CHEST FOR INCUMBENTS IN SPECIAL-INTEREST
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, AND MILLIONS MORE IN SPECIAL-
INTEREST INFLUENCE.
NONE OF THIS PROMOTES REFORM AND CHANGE. RATHER,
IT AGGRESSIVELY PROTECTS THE STATUS QUO. CONSCIENTIOUS
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UNDERSTAND THIS. THAT'S WHY HOUSE
REPUBLICAN LEADER BOB MICHEL HAS PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL
REFORM LEGISLATION. HE'S GOT SOME GREAT IDEAS FOR
IMPROVING THE CONGRESS AND ITS PROCEDURES -- LIKE
LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR PROCESS REFORM, REDUCTION IN THE
NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF, AND REDUCTION OF THE
NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.
- 12 -
THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE IN CONGRESS -- MANY OF THEM -
- ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE -- I THINK OF YOUR OWN
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER, RIGHT HERE WITH ME TODAY. TALK
TO ARLEN -- HE ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTS CHANGING OUR
CONGRESSIONAL SYSTEM BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IN CHANGING
THE STATUS QUO.
THEN TALK TO RETIRING MEMBERS, MANY OF THEM
DEDICATED PEOPLE LIKE SENATOR WARREN RUDMAN OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE, AND YOU WILL HEAR THE FRUSTRATION. WHEN
ASKED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF ENDLESS BUDGET DEFICITS, HE
ISSUED THIS INDICTMENT OF THE SYSTEM, "THE FACT IS THAT
WE ARE UNABLE, INSTITUTIONALLY, TO DO WHAT HAS TO BE
DONE. WE ARE LITERALLY NOT WATCHING THE FIDDLER FIDDLE
WHILE ROME BURNS; WE ARE WATCHING THE ENTIRE
ORCHESTRA.' "
- 13 -
SENATOR RUDMAN KNOWS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO FUTURE
JOB CREATION IS DEFICIT SPENDING, AND THE CURRENT
CONGRESSIONAL STRUCTURE IS NOT CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING
THAT THREAT. HE KNOWS THAT AMERICANS ARE GENEROUS --
PEOPLE WILLING TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS
COUNTRY BETTER. BUT THERE IS A MISMATCH BETWEEN THEIR
WILLINGNESS TO HELP AND THEIR SKEPTICISM ABOUT
CONGRESS. THEY JUST DON'T TRUST CONGRESS TO USE THEIR
HARD-EARNED TAX DOLLARS WISELY.
TODAY GOVERNMENT IS A $1.5 TRILLION ENTERPRISE.
BUT PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON FREQUENTLY FORGET THAT THE
TAXPAYER IS THE ORIGINAL INVESTOR, CUSTOMER,
SHAREHOLDER, AND BOARD MEMBER ALL ROLLED INTO ONE.
WHEN FOLKS IN GOVERNMENT FORGET THAT, THEY ISSUE
NETTLESOME REGULATIONS. THOSE REGULATIONS INCREASE THE
COST OF DOING BUSINESS, BUT WORSE, THEY DON'T REALLY
SOLVE THE PROBLEMS THEY WERE DESIGNED TO SOLVE. AS
PRESIDENT, I'M GOING TO KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE THE
REGULATORY PROCESS, BUT I'LL NEED THE HELP OF THE
CONGRESS.
- 14 -
WHEN GOVERNMENT FORGETS WHO IS REALLY THE BOSS --
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER -- IT BECOMES INSULATED AND
UNRESPONSIVE. BUT UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T JUST
HAPPEN. CONGRESS CREATES THESE GIANT CENTRALIZED
BUREAUCRACIES, LAYS DOWN THE MANDATES, FUNDS THE
PROGRAMS. THEN, IT IS THE CONGRESS THAT PROTECTS THEM,
INVESTIGATES THEM, MICRO-MANAGES THEM, AND ULTIMATELY
PERPETUATES THEM. PROGRAMS THAT HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR
FUNCTION RARELY OUTLIVE THEIR FUNDING. WITH A
CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AS GODPARENT, THEY
BECOME STEPCHILDREN OF THE CONGRESS.
- 15 -
SOME 107 DIFFERENT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND
SUBCOMMITTEES CLAIM SOME DEGREE OF OVERSIGHT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. SEVENTY-
FOUR COMPETE FOR JURISDICTION OVER THE WAR ON DRUGS.
JUST THIS WEEK, AFTER BEING REPORTED FROM ONE COMMITTEE
IN THE HOUSE, OUR ENERGY BILL TO MAKE US MORE ENERGY-
EFFICIENT AND ENERGY-INDEPENDENT WAS REFERRED TO NO
LESS THAN EIGHT ADDITIONAL HOUSE COMMITTEES. IT SHOULD
BE NO SURPRISE THAT IT TAKES SO LONG TO GET ANYTHING
DONE.
WHEN THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND HIS TOP
STAFF HAVE TO TESTIFY IN FOURTEEN HEARINGS IN ONE DAY,
THINK OF THE TIME AND RESOURCES THAT TAKES. THINK OF
THE THOUSANDS OF HOURS SPENT BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO
FULFILL THE THOUSANDS OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMANDS FOR
TESTIMONY, AND GOVERNMENT REPORTS.
- 16 -
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR DAVID BOREN SUMMED IT UP BY
SAYING, "NO ONE DOUBTS THAT CONGRESS IS IN TROUBLE AS
AN INSTITUTION." THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT HIS EFFORTS TO
TRIM THE OVERGROWN THICKET OF COMMITTEES AND
SUBCOMMITTEES WHICH NOW PARALYZES THE CONGRESS.
CONGRESS HAS LEGITIMATE OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES
OF COURSE. AND I KNOW THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CANNOT BE RUN LIKE IBM OR THE LOCAL CONVENIENCE STORE,
BUT WE CAN IMPROVE ITS PERFORMANCE, AND WE MUST. WHAT
MERELY HAMPERED US IN THE PAST, WILL PARALYZE US IN THE
FUTURE. OUR ABILITY TO COMPETE DEMANDS WE MAKE THESE
REFORMS, NOT JUST OF CONGRESS BUT OF THE FEDERAL
BUREAUCRACY AS WELL. IT MEANS EMPHASIZING THE BUILDING
BLOCKS OF A MORE RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT BY RELYING ON
WHAT WORKS: CHOICE, COMPETITION, DECENTRALIZATION. BUT
LET ME BE CLEAR, WE CANNOT REFORM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
WITHOUT FIRST REFORMING THE CONGRESS.
TAKEN TOGETHER, THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WILL HELP
MAKE GOVERNMENT WORK FOR THE PEOPLE.
- 17 -
FIRST, CONGRESS MUST GOVERN ITSELF BY THE LAWS IT
IMPOSES ON OTHERS. NO MORE SPECIAL TREATMENT. LIKE
AGE, RACE, SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAWS.
CONGRESS SHOULD SUBMIT TO THE LAWS IT IMPOSES ON THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH -- LIKE CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS OR
THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LAW. I WILL PROPOSE
LEGISLATION TO END SUCH SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR CONGRESS
NEXT WEEK. FURTHER, I WILL VETO ANY FUTURE LEGISLATION
THAT EXTENDS SUCH SPECIAL TREATMENT TO THE CONGRESS.
SECOND, CONGRESS SHOULD REFORM ITS OPERATIONS AND
PROCEDURES. I SUPPORT THE BOREN-DOMENICI REFORM BILL
IN THE SENATE AND THE HAMILTON-GRADISON BILL IN THE
HOUSE WHICH SETS UP A BIPARTISAN GROUP TO EVALUATE
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT
IS A GOOD BEGINNING, BUT REAL REFORM LIKE THAT
CONTAINED IN THE MICHEL BILL IS ESSENTIAL NOW. CHANGE
IS STILL ON THE BACK BURNER. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST
TURN UP THE HEAT.
- 18 -
THIRD, SWEEPING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. FULL
DISCLOSURE OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND COMPENSATION IS
A KEY ELEMENT OF REFORM. I AM NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE
MY INCOME TAX RETURNS. IN A SENSE, I FEEL IT IS AN
INVASION OF MY PRIVACY. BUT FOR TWELVE YEARS I HAVE
MADE PUBLIC THOSE TAX RETURNS AND I BELIEVE ALL PEOPLE
ASPIRING TO THE PRESIDENCY SHOULD DO THAT. PERHAPS
CONGRESS DOES NOT NEED TO GO THAT FAR, BUT THEY SHOULD
MAKE THEIR EXISTING DISCLOSURE RULES MUCH MORE
RIGOROUS.
- 19 -
BEYOND THAT, WE MUST TOTALLY ELIMINATE SPECIAL-
INTEREST POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES AND PUT LIMITS ON
SO-CALLED "LEADERSHIP PACS." I HAVE PROPOSED WAYS TO
INCREASE THE LEGITIMATE ROLE OF OUR POLITICAL PARTIES,
REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND DECREASE
THE TIME CANDIDATES AND INCUMBENTS SPEND FUND-RAISING.
AND LET ME SAY IT STRAIGHT OUT: FEDERAL FUNDING OF
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS WOULD ONLY WORSEN THE PROBLEM.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS STALLED ON CAPITOL HILL, BUT
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS LONG PAST -- WE MUST CLEAN UP
OUR ELECTION SYSTEM.
- 20 -
FOURTH, SPENDING REFORM. I HAVE ALREADY PROPOSED
TO FREEZE DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AND FEDERAL
NON-DEFENSE EMPLOYMENT NEXT YEAR. I HAVE PROPOSED TWO-
YEAR BUDGETS. I HAVE PROPOSED TO CURB AS WELL THE
GROWTH OF MANDATORY PROGRAMS WITHOUT TOUCHING SOCIAL
SECURITY. IF MANDATORY SPENDING WERE ALLOWED TO. GROW
FOR INFLATION AND ELIGIBLE POPULATION ONLY, WE COULD
SAVE ABOUT TWO TRILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD DEMAND THAT THE CONGRESS
PASS THE SAME MEASURE THAT 43 GOVERNORS HAVE: THE LINE-
ITEM VETO. THEY SHOULD DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. OBVIOUSLY, A BALANCED BUDGET
REQUIREMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE PHASED IN. BUT SUCH AN
AMENDMENT IS NEEDED TO DISCIPLINE BOTH THE EXECUTIVE
AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES.
- 21 -
IN THE ABSENCE OF THOSE IMPORTANT MEASURES I WILL
CONTINUE TO USE WHATEVER MEANS ARE LEGALLY AT MY
DISPOSAL, INCLUDING THE LINE-ITEM RESCISSION, TO
PROTECT THE TAXPAYER FROM THE SPENDING EXCESSES OF
CONGRESS. AND I WILL OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT BY THE
CONGRESS TO DISMANTLE THE ONLY DEFENSE THE TAXPAYER HAS
AGAINST CONGRESSIONAL OVERSPENDING -- THE BUDGET CAPS
IMPLEMENTED IN THE 1990 BUDGET ACT.
FIFTH, REGULATORY REFORM. WE PUT A NINETY-DAY
MORATORIUM ON NEW GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. WE ARE
REVISING AND ELIMINATING REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE OUR
ABILITY TO COMPETE, AND WE ARE ACCELERATING REGULATIONS
THAT ENHANCE OUR COMPETITIVE EDGE. SINCE I ANNOUNCED
THE MORATORIUM ON JANUARY 28TH, THE GROWTH OF
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS HAS ALREADY BEEN REVERSED. AS
OUR REVIEW CONTINUES WE WILL ANNOUNCE FURTHER STEPS TO
REDUCE THE BURDEN OF UNNECESSARY REGULATIONS. BUT WE
CANNOT DO IT ALONE. CONGRESS, IN PASSING LEGISLATION,
MUST BE COMMITTED TO CUTTING DOWN THE REGULATORY BURDEN
AS WELL.
- 22 -
SIXTH, WE MUST LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL TERMS. WE MUST
ADDRESS THE CONGRESS OF THE FUTURE. THE CYCLE OF
VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED RE-ELECTION, PARTICULARLY IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THROUGH THE BUILT-IN
ADVANTAGES OF INCUMBENCY MUST BE BROKEN. OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS NEVER CONSIDERED ELECTED GOVERNMENT SERVICE TO
BE A CAREER. I BELIEVE SENATORS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
TWO TERMS, AND REPRESENTATIVES, LIMITED TO SIX TERMS.
AS PRESIDENT MY TERMS ARE LIMITED, THE SAME RULE SHOULD
APPLY TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. OUR FIRST CONCERN SHOULD
BE THE COUNTRY, NOT A LIFETIME POLITICAL CAREER.
THIS BRINGS ME TO MY FINAL POINT. CERTAINLY,
GOVERNING TODAY IS COMPLEX AND TIME-CONSUMING. BUT NOT
so MANY YEARS AGO, REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE BACK HOME
WAS A PART-TIME WASHINGTON JOB. SOMEHOW MEMBERS
MANAGED TO FINISH THEIR WORK AND ADJOURN JUST BEFORE
THE HOT, HUMID WASHINGTON, D.C. SUMMERS. AIR
CONDITIONING CHANGED ALL THIS, AND NOW, THANKS TO
MODERN TECHNOLOGY, CONGRESS SITS YEAR-ROUND.
- 23 -
MANY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE ARE NOW
PERMANENT WASHINGTONIANS. WE DO NOT NEED A CAREER
CONGRESS -- WE NEED A CITIZEN CONGRESS. TO BORROW A
LINE FROM FORMER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HOWARD BAKER
"THEY OUGHT TO BE LIVING IN AMERICA AND VISITING
WASHINGTON." HE WAS RIGHT. HE KNEW THAT THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF STATE LEGISLATURES ARE ABLE TO
DO THEIR WORK EACH YEAR IN SESSIONS LASTING LESS THAN
SIX MONTHS -- SOME AS SHORT AS THREE MONTHS EVERY TWO
YEARS.
WITH A STREAMLINED COMMITTEE STRUCTURE, A LEANER
STAFF, MEMBERS' TIME ORGANIZED AROUND LEGISLATION
RATHER THAN RE-ELECTION, AND BETTER DISCIPLINE ON HOW
THEY SPEND THE PEOPLE'S MONEY, CONGRESS COULD RETURN TO
WHAT THE FOUNDERS ENVISIONED AS A GOVERNMENT TRULY
CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE. I SUGGEST THAT IN THE FUTURE,
CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION WORK TOGETHER TO
ACHIEVE A LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE THAT ALLOWS MEMBERS TO
SPEND MORE CONTINUOUS TIME AT HOME SO THEY CAN TRULY
STAY IN TOUCH WITH THE PEOPLE.
- 24 -
CHANGE IS SWEEPING AMERICA, JUST AS IT IS SWEEPING
THE WORLD. AS IN THE FIRST DAYS OF OUR NEW NATION, WE
MUST CHANGE AN UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT. THE REFORMS
I'VE OUTLINED TODAY CAN HELP RENEW OUR FAITH IN
GOVERNMENT -- WE CANNOT STOP WITH CONGRESSIONAL
PROCESS -- WE MUST REFORM THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY AS
WELL. I WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY ON THAT IN THE NEAR
FUTURE. BUT TODAY OUR MISSION IS TO BEGIN RESTORING
THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR FOUNDERS, AND GUARANTEEING FOR
OUR CHILDREN A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.
THE CHOICE IS CLEAR. ON ONE SIDE STAND THE
DEFENDERS OF THE STATUS QUO. ON THE OTHER: THE FORCES
OF CHANGE. WE MUST MAKE THE CHOICE WORTHY OF THE MEN
WHO MET HERE -- AND BEGAN THE WORLD'S ONLY PERMANENT
REVOLUTION. NOW THAT WE'VE CHANGED THE WORLD, WE MUST
MAKE THE CHOICE TO CHANGE AMERICA.
THANK YOU, AND MAY GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 2, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
DAVID DEMAREST
If
SUBJECT:
REVISED PHILADELPHIA SPEECH
Attached is a revised version of the Philadelphia speech
incorporating your changes from this morning. Note this current
version is Draft #4.
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #4
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 3, 1992
Thank you for that kind introduction. [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS]
Today, I would rather be in Philadelphia. Old Congress Hall is
home to great ideas and great debate. In this very room, pivotal
and profound discussions occurred -- setting in motion a grand
experiment in man's ability to chart his own future.
The vision of the Founding Fathers may still be hard for us
to fully comprehend. But if you really think about it, their
goals were not much different than ours. They wanted their new
country to prosper -- and they knew intuitively that the road to
prosperity was freedom. They believed in the fundamentals -- in
the inherent strength of faith and family -- and they were
determined to preserve them. They wanted the citizens of our
young nation to live in peace -- safe and secure from threats at
home and abroad. It took a revolution to achieve their vision -
- and it is our duty to preserve it.
They say when British General Cornwallis surrendered to
Washington at Yorktown in 1781, his troops marched to the tune,
"The World Turned Upside Down." It was a profoundly simple
recognition that an old world order was ending and a new one
beginning.
Now, more than two hundred years later, we are again in the
midst of great change. Democracy and freedom once again have
2
turned the world upside down. America once again championed a
great worldwide movement. We stood firm for our principles
through some very difficult times. We did indeed change the
world. Now, as you have heard me say, if we could change the
world, we can change America.
Henry Luce called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must now meet five great challenges to ensure that the next
century is also the American Century.
First, our children must develop good character and values
so they can be educated adults -- literate and drug-free --
motivated to make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must
dramatically change our education system -- literally
revolutionize it. Our America 2000 education initiative means
top-to-bottom educational reform. Second, our people must have a
sense of well-being about their physical health. My health care
proposal guarantees access to the finest health care system in
the world, and keeps that care affordable for all our citizens.
Next, our civil justice system must do what it was designed
to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits a
year are choking us -- costing us billions of dollars -- and
putting a tremendous drag on our civility and our economy. If
Congress passes my Access to Justice Act, this too can change.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That's
why we have an aggressive pro-growth trade policy. It demands
3
more open foreign markets for quality American goods and services
to sustain and create American jobs.
Finally, if we are to change America we must change the way
government works. That is what I will address today. G.K.
Chesterton said, "there can be no talk of re-form, without talk
of form". This has been amply demonstrated in just the last
decade as one institution after another has been challenged --
forced to take a hard look within itself, make needed
improvements, and act to make the institution live up to its
principles. That is the process called reform.
To ensure their competitive edge, businesses launch reforms
geared to quality. Then, by measuring performance, they improve
performance. Often it's not flashy -- the return to old values
and standards like "built to last a lifetime", or "service with a
smile." Competition works -- the proof? Today American
products are quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Reform has improved performance in our military. In the
face of tighter budgets, we've cut the fat, gotten leaner and
smarter. Desert Storm proved it. The drive for excellence has
influenced almost every other institution, from state and local
government to trade associations and unions.
Yet, the federal government is a glaring hold-out. It
resists reform and protects a failed status quo -- even in the
face of an unambiguous need for change. This is not about barber
shops or gymnasium privileges or parking spaces. It is not about
perks. It is about the governmental process, and its potential
4
to help or hinder the public good. It is about big things --
major changes to make government more responsive. It is about
the changes that are sweeping the rest of the country but are not
being made in Washington.
The most recent proof that we have a major problem was the
inability of Congress to rise to the challenge of helping our
economy. Instead it reverted to form -- trying to raise taxes
and increase government spending. If it cannot address a
straightforward short-term proposal to stimulate the economy, how
can it possibly deal with the more complex issues like the badly
needed reforms of our education, health care and legal systems?
five challenges I proposed earlier? If we are to reform
education, health care, our legal system -- if we are to reduce
red tape and regulation, make our country competitive, get this
horrendous deficit down, we must reform the Congressional process
itself, and make it responsive to our country's real needs.
The growth of big government has diminished the role of
Congress from policy-making to program-making. Promulgating and
protecting more programs sets in motion a perpetual cycle of
congressional support for more unnecessary spending -- creating
bigger and even less responsive bureaucracies. Then, by
servicing the needs of program recipients, Congressional staffs
help to ensure members' re-election and a continuation of
business as usual. Beyond that, Congress routinely exempts
itself from the laws it imposes on the rest of the nation -- laws
like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Privacy Act.
5
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about these
dangers. Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials,
"can make no law which will not have its full operation on
themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the
society." It also endorses term limits to ensure "proper
responsibility to the people." Federalist Paper #52 argued that
permanent majorities are dangerously undemocratic. James Madison
would be appalled to hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-
election are in fact re-elected -- that one party, the Democrats,
has controlled the House 56 out of the last 60 years. That means
self-perpetuating staffs and a bureaucracy beholden to one set of
leaders. The bank and post office scandals are the result of
one-party control -- one party's lack of supervision, lack of new
blood, and lack of change.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but by no means
all of it. We have had divided government before, sometimes
during periods of great crisis. Each time we have worked
together in good faith to meet those challenges.
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress -- the
sticky web of 284 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, the
almost 40,000 legislative branch employees and staff, $2.5
billion of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a $117 million re-
election war chest for incumbents in special-interest campaign
contributions, and millions more in special-interest influence.
None of this promotes reform and change. Rather, it
aggressively protects the status quo. Conscientious members of
6
Congress understand this. That's why House Republican Leader Bob
Michel just this week introduced comprehensive Congressional
reform legislation. It's got some great ideas for improving the
Congress and its procedures. Then talk to retiring members, many
of them dedicated people like Senator Warren Rudman of New
Hampshire, and you will hear the frustration. When asked about
the continuing spectre of huge budget deficits, he issued this
indictment of the system, "the fact is that we are unable,
institutionally, to do what has to be done. We are literally not
watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we are watching the
entire orchestra."
Senator Rudman knows the biggest threat to future job
creation is deficit spending and the current Congressional
structure is not capable of addressing that threat. He knows
that Americans are generous -- people willing to do what is
necessary to make this country better. But there is a mismatch
between their willingness to help and their skepticism about
Congress. They just don't trust it to use their hard-earned tax
dollars wisely.
Today government is a $1.5 trillion enterprise. But people
in Washington frequently forget that the taxpayer is the
original investor, customer, shareholder, and board member all
rolled into one. When folks in government forget that, they
issue nettlesome regulations. Those regulations increase the
cost of doing business, but worse, they don't really solve the
7
problems they were designed to solve. That's why we're trying to
change the regulatory process.
When government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it becomes insulated and unresponsive. It
is almost impossible to adequately reward success, much less
punish failure. Talk to the hardworking people in career
government service -- many will say the same thing -- they are
frustrated too. The system, which may have been good for its
time, now must change, and it won't be easy.
That's because this kind of government doesn't just happen.
Congress creates these giant centralized bureaucracies, lays down
the mandates, funds the programs. Then, it is the Congress that
protects them, harasses them, investigates them, micro-manages
them, and ultimately perpetuates them. Programs that have
outlived their function rarely outlive their funding. With a
Congressional Subcommittee Chairman as godparent, they become
stepchildren of the Congress.
Some 107 different Congressional committees and
subcommittees claim some degree of oversight responsibility for
the Department of Defense. Seventy-four compete for jurisdiction
over the War on Drugs. Just this week, after being reported from
one committee in the House, our energy bill to make us more
energy-efficient and energy-independent was referred to no less
than eight additional House committees. It should be no surprise
that it takes so long to get anything done.
8
When the Secretary of Agriculture and his top staff have to
testify in fourteen hearings in one day, think of the time and
resources that takes. Think of the thousands of hours spent by
the Executive Branch to fulfill the thousands of Congressional
demands for testimony, and government reports.
Democratic Senator David Boren summed it up by saying, "no
one doubts that Congress is in trouble as an institution."
That's why I support his efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of
committees and subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve its
performance, and we must. What merely hampered us in the past,
will paralyze us in the future. Our ability to compete demands
we make these reforms, not just of Congress but of the federal
bureaucracy as well. It means emphasizing the building blocks of
a more responsive government by relying on what works: choice,
competition, decentralization. But let me be clear, we cannot
reform the executive branch without first reforming the Congress.
Taken together the following actions will help make
government work for the people.
First, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on
the public. No more special treatment. Like age, race, sex and
disability discrimination laws. Congress should also submit to
the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch -- like conflict of
interest laws or the Independent Counsel Law or the Hatch Act.
9
I will propose legislation to end such special treatment for
Congress [[ today/by next week 11. Further, I will veto any
future legislation that extends such special treatment to the
Congress.
Second, Congress should reform its operations and
procedures. I support the Boren-Domenici reform bill in the
Senate and the Hamilton-Gradison bill in the House which sets up
a bipartisan group to evaluate Congressional operations and make
recommendations. It is a good beginning, but real reform like
that contained in the Michel bill is essential. Change is still
on the back burner. The American people must turn up the heat.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Full disclosure of
assets, liabilities, and compensation is a key element of reform.
I am not required to disclose my income tax returns but for
twelve years I have done just that -- I believe it is the proper
thing to do. So I have called on Congress to pass tough new full
disclosure laws regarding campaign financing. Beyond that, we
must totally eliminate special-interest Political Action
Committees and put limits on so-called "leadership PACs. " I
proposed ways to increase the legitimate role of our political
parties, reduce the influence of special interests, and decrease
the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising. And let
me say it straight out: federal funding of Congressional
elections would only worsen the problem. Campaign finance reform
is stalled on Capitol Hill, but the time for action is long past
-- we must clean up our election system.
5
committee
structure
10
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending and federal non-defense
employment next year. I have proposed biennial budgets. I have
proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs without
touching Social Security. This proposal alone would save [[$390
billion in XX years] The American people should demand that
the Congress pass the same measure that 43 governors have: the
line-item veto. They should demand a Balanced Budget
Constitutional Amendment to phase in more spending discipline on
the Congress and the Executive Branch. In the absence of those
important measures I will continue to use whatever means are
legally at my disposal, including the line-item recission, to
protect the taxpayer from the spending excesses of Congress. And
I will oppose any attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only
defense the taxpayer has against Congressional overspending --
the budget caps implemented in the 1990 Budget Act.
Fifth, regulatory reform. We put a ninety-day moratorium on
new government regulations. We are revising and eliminating
regulations that impede our ability to compete, and we are
accelerating regulations that enhance our competitive edge.
Since I announced the moratorium on January 28th, new regulatory
requirements have already been reduced by over 30 percent. As
our review continues we will announce further steps to reduce the
burden of unnecessary regulations.
Sixth, we must limit Congressional terms. There are good
people in Congress -- I think of your own Senator Arlen Specter,
11
whom I enthusiastically support for re-election. But it is time
to address the Congress of the future. The cycle of virtually
guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages of
incumbency must be broken. Our Founding Fathers never considered
elected government service to be a career. I believe Senators
should be limited to two terms, and Representatives, limited to
six terms. As President my terms are limited, the same rule
should apply to members of Congress. Our first concern should be
the country, not a lifetime political career.
This brings me to my final point. Certainly, governing
today is complex and time-consuming. But not so many years ago,
representing the people back home was a part-time Washington job.
Somehow Members managed to finish their work and adjourn just
before the hot, humid Washington D.C. summers. Air conditioning
changed all this, and now, thanks to modern technology, Congress
sits year-round.
Members of the House and Senate are now permanent
Washingtonians, but tourists in their own home states. We do not
need a career Congress -- we need a citizen Congress. To borrow
a line from former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker "they
ought to be living in America and visiting Washington." He was
right. He knew that the overwhelming majority of state
legislatures are able to do their work in yearly sessions of less
than six months -- some as short as three months every two years.
With a streamlined committee structure, a leaner staff,
Members' time organized around legislation rather than re-
12
election, and better discipline on how they spend the people's
money, Congress could return to what the founders envisioned as a
government truly close to the people. I suggest that in the
future Congress make a firm commitment to finish the people's
business by Memorial Day, so members can return home and truly
stay in touch with the people.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. As in the first days of our new nation, we must change an
unresponsive government. The reforms I've outlined today can
help renew our faith in government -- we cannot stop with
Congressional process -- we must reform the federal bureaucracy
as well. I will have more to say on that in the near futrue.
But today our mission is to begin restoring the principles of our
Founders, and guaranteeing for our children a new American
Century.
The choice is clear. On one side stand the defenders of the
status quo. On the other: the forces of change. We must make
the choice worthy of the men who met here -- and began the
world's only permanent revolution. Now that we've changed the
world, we must make the choice to change America.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1992
02 APR I P3:44
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
&&
FROM:
DAVID DEMAREST
SUBJECT:
FRIDAY'S REFORM SPEECH
Attached is a draft for your review. Your changes have been
incorporated, as have additional changes from senior staff
members.
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #3
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 3, 1992
Thank you for that kind introduction. [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS]
Today, I would rather be in Philadelphia. Old Congress Hall is
home to great ideas and great debate. In this very room, pivotal
and profound discussions occurred -- setting in motion a grand
experiment in man's ability to chart his own future.
The vision of the Founding Fathers may still be hard for us
to fully comprehend. But if you really think about it, their
goals were not much different than ours -- they wanted their new
country to prosper -- and they knew intuitively that the road to
prosperity was freedom. They believed in the fundamentals -- in
the inherent strength of faith and family -- and they were
determined to preserve them. They wanted the citizens of our
young nation to live in peace -- safe and secure from threats at
home and abroad. It took a revolution to achieve their vision -
- and it is our duty to preserve it.
When British General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in
1781, he had his band play "The World Turned Upside Down", as his
troops marched before Washington's Continental Army. It was a
profoundly simple realization that an old world order was coming
to a close and a new order was beginning.
Now, more than two hundred years later, we are again in the
midst of great change. Democracy and freedom once again have
2
turned the world upside down. America once again stood at the
forefront of a great worldwide movement. We stood firm for our
principles through some very difficult times. We changed the
world, and we stand upon a new threshold. Now, as you have heard
me say, if we could change the world, we can change America.
Henry Luce called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must now meet five great challenges, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our children must develop good character and values
so they can be educated adults -- literate and drug-free --
motivated to make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must
dramatically change our education system -- literally
revolutionize it. Our America 2000 education initiative means
top-to-bottom educational reform. Second, our people must have a
sense of well-being about their physical health. My health care
proposal guarantees access to the finest health care system in
the world, and keeps that care affordable for all our citizens.
Next, our civil justice system must do what it was designed
to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits a
year are choking us -- costing us billions of dollars -- and
putting a tremendous drag on our civility and our economy. This
too must change. Congress should pass my Access to Justice Act.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That's
why we have an aggressive pro-growth trade policy. It demands
3
more open foreign markets for quality American goods and services
to sustain and create American jobs.
Finally, if we are to change America we must change
government. That is what I will address today. G.K. Chesterton
said, "there can be no talk of re-form, without talk of form".
This has been amply demonstrated in just the last decade as one
institution after another has been challenged -- forced to take a
hard look within itself, make needed improvements, and act to
make the institution live up to its principles. That is the
process called reform.
To ensure their competitive edge, businesses launch reforms
geared to quality. Then, by measuring performance, they improve
performance. Often it's not flashy -- the return to old values
and standards like "built to last a lifetime", or "the customer's
always right." Competition works -- the proof? Today American
products are quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Reform has improved performance our military. In the face
of tighter budgets, we've cut the fat, gotten leaner and smarter.
Desert Storm proved it. The drive for excellence has influenced
almost every other institution, from state and local government
to trade associations and unions.
Yet, the federal government is a glaring hold-out. It has
resisted reform and protects a failed status quo -- even in the
face of an unambiguous need for change. This is not about barber
shops or gymnasium privileges or parking spaces. It is not about
perks. It is about political power, and its potential to help or
4
hinder the public good. It is about big things -- major changes
to make government more responsive. It is about the changes that
are sweeping the rest of the country but have stopped cold at the
Capital Beltway.
The most recent proof was the inability of Congress to rise
to the challenge of getting our economy rolling again without
reverting to form -- higher taxes and bigger government. This is
the Congress we have come to know -- inefficient, ineffective,
unaccountable, and frankly, out of touch. If it cannot address a
straightforward short-term proposal to stimulate the economy, how
can it possibly deal with the more complex issues like the five
challenges I proposed earlier? Over and over, it has stonewalled
solutions we have proposed. If we are to reform education,
health care, our legal system -- if we are to reduce red tape and
regulation, make our country competitive, we must reform the
Congress and make it responsive to change.
The growth of big government has changed the role of
Congress from policymaking to pork-barreling -- changed the
Congressional office to a Campaign and Constituent office. This
sets in motion a perpetual cycle of congressional support for
more unnecessary spending -- creating bigger and even less
responsive bureaucracies. Then, the Members and their powerful
staffs become go-betweens amidst constituents and the executive
agencies -- expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- thus
ensuring re-election and a continuation of business as usual.
5
Beyond that, Congress routinely exempts itself from the laws it
imposes on the rest of the nation.
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about these
dangers. Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials,
"can make no law which will not have its full operation on
themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the
society." Federalist Paper #52 argued that permanent majorities
are dangerously undemocratic. James Madison would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected -- that one party, the Democrats, has controlled the
House 56 out of the last 60 years. That means self-perpetuating
staffs and a bureaucracy beholden to one set of leaders. The
bank and post office scandals are the result of one party control
-- one party's lack of supervision, lack of new blood, and lack
of change.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but by no means
all of it. We have had divided government before, sometimes
during periods of great crisis. Each time we have worked
together in good faith to meet those challenges.
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress -- the
sticky web of 284 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, the
almost 40,000 legislative branch employees and staff, $2.5
billion of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a $117 million re-
election war chest for incumbents in special-interest campaign
contributions, and millions more in special-interest influence.
6
None of this promotes reform and change. Rather, it
aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to retiring members,
many of them dedicated people like Senator Warren Rudman of New
Hampshire, and you will hear the frustration. When asked about
the continuing spectre of huge budget deficits, he issued this
indictment of the system, "the fact is that we are unable,
institutionally, to do what has to be done. We are literally not
watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we are watching the
entire orchestra."
He knows that Americans are generous -- people willing to do
what is necessary to make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about Congress. They just don't trust it to use their hard-
earned tax dollars wisely.
So when taxpayer money goes for outlandish pork-barrel
projects, or mass mailings that are little more than thinly
veiled re-election devices, people get angry. In the Senate,
eight percent of the out-going mail is for answering voters. The
rest is unsolicited "reports" to the people. Maybe it's small
potatoes to the Congress, but the public knows P.R. when it sees
it. They know it adds up to real money -- their money, and it is
time to put a stop to this charade.
Today government is a $1.5 trillion enterprise. But people
in Washington frequently forget that the taxpayer is the
original investor, customer, shareholder, and board member all
rolled into one. When folks in government forget that, they
7
issue nettlesome regulations. Those regulations increase the
cost of doing business, but worse, they don't really solve the
problems they were designed to solve. That's why we're trying to
change the regulatory process.
When government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it becomes insulated and unresponsive. It
is almost impossible to adequately reward success, much less
punish failure. Talk to the hardworking people in career
government service -- many will say the same thing -- they are
frustrated too. The system, which may have been good for its
time, now must change, and it won't be easy.
That's because this kind of government doesn't just happen.
Congress creates these giant centralized bureaucracies, lays down
the mandates, funds the programs. Then, it is the Congress that
protects them, harasses them, investigates them, micro-manages
them, and ultimately perpetuates them. Programs that have
outlived their function rarely outlive their funding. With a
Congressional Subcommittee Chairman as godparent, they become
stepchildren of the Congress. Some 107 different Congressional
committees and subcommittees claim some degree of oversight
responsibility for the Department of Defense. Seventy-four
compete to exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs. Just
this week our energy bill to make us more energy-efficient and
energy-independent was referred to no less than eight separate
committees -- sequentially! It should be no surprise that it
takes so long to get anything done.
8
When the [ [Agriculture Secretary]] and his top staff have to
testify in fourteen hearings in one day, think of the time and
resources that takes. Think of the thousands of hours spent by
the Executive Branch to fulfill the thousands of Congressional
demands for testimony, and government reports.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve its
performance, and we must. What merely hampered us in the past,
will paralyze us in the future. Our ability to compete demands
we make these reforms, not just of Congress but of the federal
bureaucracy as well. It means emphasizing the building blocks of
a more responsive government by relying on what works: choice,
competition, decentralization. But let me be clear, we cannot
reform the executive branch without first reforming the Congress.
Today I am proposing a set of actions that taken together
will make government work for the people.
First, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on
the public. No more special treatment. Like age, race, sex and
disability discrimination laws. Congress should also submit to
the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch -- like conflict of
interest laws or the Independent Counsel Law or the Hatch Act.
{{I will propose legislation to end such special treatment for
Congress. Further, I will veto any future legislation that
extends such special treatment to the Congress.
9
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress. Senator Boren
said it best when he described the Congress as "inefficient,
wasteful, and compromised by the way it finances its campaigns."
The Boren-Domenici committee reform bill starts by setting up a
bipartisan group to evaluate Congressional operations. It is a
good beginning, but real reform is still on the back burner. The
American people must turn up the heat.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Full disclosure of
assets, liabilities, and compensation is a key element of reform.
I am not required to disclose my income tax returns but I believe
it is the proper thing to do. So I called on Congress to pass
tough new full disclosure laws to stop the abuse that results
from spreading around what's called "soft money."
Beyond that, I called for the total elimination of special-
interest Political Action Committees and limits on so-called
"leadership PACs." I proposed ways to increase the legitimate
role of our political parties, reduce the influence of special
interests, and decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend
fund-raising. And let me say it straight out: federal funding of
Congressional elections would only worsen the problem. Campaign
finance reform is stalled on Capitol Hill, but the time for
action is long past -- we must clean up our election system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
10
I have proposed biennial budgets. I have proposed to curb as
well the growth of mandatory programs without touching Social
Security. This proposal alone would save [[xxx dollars in XX
years]]. The American people should demand that the Congress
pass the same measure that 43 governors have: the line-item veto.
They should demand a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment --
to phase in more spending discipline on the Congress and the
Executive Branch. In the absence of those important measures I
will continue to use whatever means are legally at my disposal,
including the line-item-rescission, to protect the taxpayer from
the spending excesses of Congress. And I will veto any attempt
by the Congress to dismantle the only defense the taxpayer has
against Congressional overspending -- the budget caps implemented
in the 1990 Budget Act.
Fifth, regulatory reform. I have put a ninety-day
moratorium on new government regulations. We are revising and
eliminating regulations that impede our ability to compete, and
we are accelerating regulations that enhance our competitive
edge. Since I announced the moratorium on January 28th, new
regulatory requirements have already been reduced by over 30
percent. As our review continues we will announce further steps
to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations.
Sixth, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. Our Founding Fathers never
considered elected government service to be a career. I believe
11
Senators should be limited to two terms, and Representatives;
limited to six terms. As President my terms are limited, the
same rule should apply to members of Congress. Our first concern
should be the country not a lifetime political career.
[[This brings me to my final point. Certainly, governing
today is complex and time-consuming. But not so many years ago,
representing the people back home was a part-time Washington job.
Somehow Members managed to finish their work and adjourn just
before the hot, humid Washington D.C. summers. Air conditioning
changed all this, and now, thanks to modern technology, Congress
sits year-round.
Members of the House and Senate are now permanent
Washingtonians, but tourists in their own home states. To borrow
a line from Howard Baker "they ought to be living in America and
visiting Washington." Howard Baker was right. And we can
achieve Senator Baker's vision by enacting the reforms I have
proposed.
With a streamlined committee structure, a leaner staff,
Members' time organized around legislation rather than re-
election, and better discipline on how they spend the people's
money, Congress could return to what the founders envisioned as a
government truly close to the people. I suggest that this
Congress, the 102nd, set an example for future Congresses, and
finish action on the important proposals before them, like our
economic action plan, our proposals on education, crime, and
legal reform, to name just a few, and adjourn by Memorial Day.]]
12
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. As in the first days of our new nation, we must change an
unresponsive government. The reforms I've outlined today can
renew our faith in government -- restore the principles of our
Founders, and guarantee for our children a new American Century.
The choice is clear. On one side stand the defenders of the
status quo. On the other: the forces of change. We must make
the choice worthy of the men who met here -- and began the
world's only permanent revolution. Now that we've changed the
world, we must make the choice to change America.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
&2
FROM:
DAVID DEMAREST
SUBJECT:
FRIDAY'S REFORM SPEECH
Attached is a draft for your review. Your changes have been
incorporated, as have additional changes from senior staff
members.
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #3
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 3, 1992
Thank you for that kind introduction. [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS]
Today, I would rather be in Philadelphia. Old Congress Hall is
home to great ideas and great debate. In this very room, pivotal
and profound discussions occurred -- setting in motion a grand
experiment in man's ability to chart his own future.
The vision of the Founding Fathers may still be hard for us
to fully comprehend. But if you really think about it, their
goals were not much different than ours. ++ they wanted their new
country to prosper -- and they knew intuitively that the road to
prosperity was freedom. They believed in the fundamentals -- in
the inherent strength of faith and family -- and they were
determined to preserve them. They wanted the citizens of our
young nation to live in peace -- safe and secure from threats at
home and abroad. It took a revolution to achieve their vision -
- and it is our duty to preserve it.
They say
When British General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in
1781, he had his band play "The World Turned Upside Down", as his
troops marched before Washington's Continental Army. It was a
profoundly simple realization that an old world order was coming endins
statement
one
to a close and a new order was beginning.
Now, more than two hundred years later, we are again in the
midst of great change. Democracy and freedom once again have
2
was
turned the world upside down. America once again stood at the
standing
forefront of a great worldwide movement, We stood firm for our
did indeed
principles through some very difficult times. We X changed the
world, and we stand upon a new threshold. Now, as you have heard
me say, if we could change the world, we can change America.
Henry Luce called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must now meet five great challengesx if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our children must develop good character and values
so they can be educated adults -- literate and drug-free --
motivated to make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must
dramatically change our education system -- literally
revolutionize it. Our America 2000 education initiative means
top-to-bottom educational reform. Second, our people must have a
sense of well-being about their physical health. My health care
proposal guarantees access to the finest health care system in
the world, and keeps that care affordable for all our citizens.
Next, our civil justice system must do what it was designed
to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits a
year are choking us -- costing us billions of dollars -- and
putting a tremendous drag on our civility and our economy. This To
this
too must change, Congress should pass my Access to Justice Actx Act So this too
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
can change
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That's
why we have an aggressive pro-growth trade policy. It demands
3
more open foreign markets for quality American goods and services
which
to sustain and create American jobs.
Finally, if we are to change America we must change
government. That is what I will address today. G.K. Chesterton
said, "there can be no talk of re-form, without talk of form".
This has been amply demonstrated in just the last decade as one
institution after another has been challenged -- forced to take a
hard look within itself, make needed improvements, and act to
make the institution live up to its principles. That is the
process called reform.
To ensure their competitive edge, businesses launch reforms
geared to quality. Then, by measuring performance, they improve
performance. Often it's not flashy -- the return to old values
service with a smile".
and standards like "built to last a lifetime", or "the customer
always right. Competition works -- the proof? Today American
products are quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Reform has improved performance in our military. In the face
of tighter budgets, we've cut the fat, gotten leaner and smarter.
Desert Storm proved it. The drive for excellence has influenced
almost every other institution, from state and local government
to trade associations and unions.
Yet, the federal government is a glaring hold-out. It has
S
resisted reform and protects a failed status quo -- even in the
face of an unambiguous need for change. This is not about barber
shops or gymnasium privileges or parking spaces. It is not about
perks. It is about political power, and its potential to help or
4
hinder the public good. It is about big things -- major changes
to make government more responsive. It is about the changes that
are sweeping the rest of the country but have stopped cold at the
Capital Beltway.
The most recent proof was the inability of Congress to rise
to the challenge of getting our economy rolling again without
reverting to form -- higher taxes and bigger government. This is
the Congress we have come to know -- inefficient, ineffective,
unaccountable, and frankly, out of touch. If it cannot address a
straightforward short-term proposal to stimulate the economy, how
can it possibly deal with the more complex issues like the five
challenges I proposed earlier? Over and over, it has stonewalled
solutions we have proposed. If we are to reform education,
health care, our legal system -- if we are to reduce red tape and
get this howendous defect down,
regulation, make our country competitive, we must reform the
Congress and make it responsive to change.
and the real needs of
ch
The growth of big government has divinglied changed the role of
Congress from policymaking to pork-barreling -- changed the
Congressional office to a Campaign and Constituent office. This
sets in motion a perpetual cycle of congressional support for
more unnecessary spending -- creating bigger and even less
responsive bureaucracies. Then, the Members and their powerful
staffs become go-betweens amidst constituents and the executive
agencies -- expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- thus
ensuring re-election and a continuation of business as usual.
5
Beyond that, Congress routinely exempts itself from the laws it
imposes on the rest of the nation.
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about these
dangers. Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials,
"can make no law which will not have its full operation on
themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the
It also endorses term limits.
society.
A
Federalist Paper #52 argued that permanent majorities
are dangerously undemocratic. James Madison would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected -- that one party, the Democrats, has controlled the
House 56 out of the last 60 years. That means self-perpetuating
staffs and a bureaucracy beholden to one set of leaders. The
bank and post office scandals are the result of one-party control
-- one party's lack of supervision, lack of new blood, and lack
of change.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but by no means
all of it. We have had divided government before, sometimes
during periods of great crisis. Each time we have worked
together in good faith to meet those challenges.
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress -- the
sticky web of 284 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, the
de
almost X40,000 legislative branch employees and staff, $2.5
billion of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a $117 million re-
election war chest for incumbents in special-interest campaign
contributions, and millions more in special-interest influence.
business
just
as
No
restructing
Talk to a whepecter. conscientions
6
Sevatorlen
None of this promotes reform and change. Rather, it
aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to retiring members,
many of them dedicated people like Senator Warren Rudman of New
Hampshire, and you will hear the frustration. When asked about
the continuing spectre of huge budget deficits, he issued this
indictment of the system, "the fact is that we are unable,
institutionally, to do what has to be done. We are literally not
watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we are watching the
entire orchestra."
The biggest threat to future job creation is deticit spending
and the current Congressional structure is not capable of addressing
that
He knows that Americans are generous -- people willing to do threat.
what is necessary to make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about Congress. They just don't trust it to use their hard-
earned tax dollars wisely.
So when taxpayer money goes for outlandish pork-barrel
projects, or mass mailings that are little more than thinly
veiled re-election devices, people get angry. In the Senate,
eight percent of the out-going mail is for answering voters. The
ck
rest is unsolicited "reports" to the people. Maybe it's small
potatoes to the Congress, but the public knows P.R. when it sees
it. They know it adds up to real money -- their money, and it is
time to put a stop to this charade.
Today government is a $1.5 trillion enterprise. But people
in Washington frequently forget that the taxpayer is the
original investor, customer, shareholder, and board member all
rolled into one. When folks in government forget that, they
7
issue nettlesome regulations. Those regulations increase the
cost of doing business, but worse, they don't really solve the
problems they were designed to solve. That's why we're trying to
change the regulatory process.
When government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it becomes insulated and unresponsive. It
is almost impossible to adequately reward success, much less
punish failure. Talk to the hardworking people in career
government service -- many will say the same thing -- they are
frustrated too. The system, which may have been good for its
time, now must change, and it won't be easy.
That's because this kind of government doesn't just happen.
Congress creates these giant centralized bureaucracies, lays down
the mandates, funds the programs. Then, it is the Congress that
protects them, harasses them, investigates them, micro-manages
them, and ultimately perpetuates them. Programs that have
outlived their function rarely outlive their funding. With a
Congressional Subcommittee Chairman as godparent, they become
stepchildren of the Congress. Some 107 different Congressional
committees and subcommittees claim some degree of oversight
responsibility for the Department of Defense. Seventy-four
compete after to exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs. Just
this week 1 our energy bill to make us more energy-efficient and
energy-independent was referred to no less than eight separate
committees -- sequentially! It should be no surprise that it
takes so long to get anything done.
What are we going to do about it
8
When the [[Agriculture Secretary]] and his top staff have to
testify in fourteen hearings in one day, think of the time and
resources that takes. Think of the thousands of hours spent by
the Executive Branch to fulfill the thousands of Congressional
demands for testimony, and government reports.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve its
performance, and we must. What merely hampered us in the past,
will paralyze us in the future. Our ability to compete demands
we make these reforms, not just of Congress but of the federal
bureaucracy as well. It means emphasizing the building blocks of
a more responsive government by relying on what works: choice,
competition, decentralization. But let me be clear, we cannot
reform the executive branch without first reforming the Congress.
Today I am proposing a set of actions that taken together
will make government work for the people.
First, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on
the public. No more special treatment. Like age, race, sex and
disability discrimination laws. Congress should also submit to
the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch -- like conflict of
interest laws or the Independent Counsel Law or the Hatch Act.
{{I will propose legislation to end such special treatment for
Congress. Further, I will veto any future legislation that
extends such special treatment to the Congress. 11
Congesso 9 cts
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
gridlocks
subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress. Senator Boren
said it best when he described the Congress as "inefficient,
wasteful, and compromised by the way it finances its campaigns."
The Boren-Domenici committee reform bill starts by setting up a
bipartisan group to evaluate Congressional operations. It is a
good beginning, but real reform is still on the back burner. The
American people must turn up the heat.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Full disclosure of
assets, liabilities, and compensation is a key element of reform.
I am not required to disclose my income tax returns but I believe
have
it is the proper thing to do. So I called on Congress to pass
tough new full disclosure laws to stop the abuse that results
regarding finances
from spreading around what's called "soft money.
Beyond that, I called for the total elimination of special-
interest Political Action Committees and limits on so-called
"leadership PACs." I proposed ways to increase the legitimate
role of our political parties, reduce the influence of special
interests, and decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend
fund-raising. And let me say it straight out: federal funding of
Congressional elections would only worsen the problem. Campaign
finance reform is stalled on Capitol Hill, but the time for
action is long past we must clean up our election system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
and
non-defence
domestic discretionary spending in federal A employment next year.
10
I have proposed biennial budgets. I have proposed to curb as
well the growth of mandatory programs without touching Social
390 billion
Security. This proposal alone would save [[xxx dollars in XX
years]]. The American people should demand that the Congress
pass the same measure that 43 governors have: the line-item veto.
They should demand a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment
XX
to phase in more spending discipline on the Congress and the
Executive Branch. In the absence of those important measures I
will continue to use whatever means are legally at my disposal,
including the line-item{rescission, to protect the taxpayer from
the spending excesses of Congress. And I will oppose veto any attempt
by the Congress to dismantle the only defense the taxpayer has
against Congressional overspending -- the budget caps implemented
in the 1990 Budget Act.
Fifth, regulatory reform. We have put a ninety-day
moratorium on new government regulations. We are revising and
eliminating regulations that impede our ability to compete, and
we are accelerating regulations that enhance our competitive
edge. Since I announced the moratorium on January 28th, new
regulatory requirements have already been reduced by over 30
percent. As our review continues we will announce further steps
to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations.
Sixth, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. Our Founding Fathers never
considered elected government service to be a career. I believe
11
Senators should be limited to two terms, and Representatives,
limited to six terms. As President my terms are limited, the
same rule should apply to members of Congress. Our first concern
should be the country not a lifetime political career.
[[This brings me to my final point. Certainly, governing
today is complex and time-consuming. But not so many years ago,
representing the people back home was a part-time Washington job.
Somehow Members managed to finish their work and adjourn just
before the hot, humid Washington D.C. summers. Air conditioning
changed all this, and now, thanks to modern technology, Congress
sits year-round.
Members of the House and Senate are now permanent
we 20 not need a career Congress
we need a atizen
Washingtonians, but tourists in their own home states. To borrow congress
a line from Howard Baker "they ought to be living in America and
visiting Washington. Howard Baker was right. And we can
form
achieve Senator Baker's vision by enacting the reforms I have
smote
proposed.
Magnets
With a streamlined committee structure, a leaner staff,
Members' time organized around legislation rather than re-
election, and better discipline on how they spend the people's
money, Congress could return to what the founders envisioned as a
government truly close to the people. I suggest that this
Congress, the 102nd, set an example for future Congresses, and
finish action on the important proposals before them, like our
economic action plan, our proposals on education, crime, and
legal reform, to name just a few, and adjourn by Memorial Day.]
nahe a commitment
frushthe peoples business
12
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. As in the first days of our new nation, we must change an
unresponsive government. The reforms I've outlined today can
renew our faith in government -- restore the principles of our
Founders, and guarantee for our children a new American Century.
The choice is clear. On one side stand the defenders of the
status quo. On the other: the forces of change. We must make
the choice worthy of the men who met here -- and began the
world's only permanent revolution. Now that we've changed the
world, we must make the choice to change America.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
Document No. 318378
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
4/1/92
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
-
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER, PHILADELPHIA, PA
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SKINNER
MCBRIDE
SCOWCROFT
MOORE
DARMAN
PETERSMEYER
BRADY
PORTER
BROMLEY
ROGICH
CALIO
ROLLINS
DEMAREST
SMITH
YEUTTER
FITZWATER
FINDLAY
GRAY
KAUFMAN
HOLIDAY
McGROARTY
REMARKS:
The attached remarks have been forwarded to the President.
RESPONSE:
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1992
C2 APR I P3:44
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
&
FROM:
DAVID DEMAREST
SUBJECT:
FRIDAY'S REFORM SPEECH
Attached is a draft for your review. Your changes have been
incorporated, as have additional changes from senior staff
members.
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #3.
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 3, 1992
Thank you for that kind introduction. [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS]
Today, I would rather be in Philadelphia. Old Congress Hall is
home to great ideas and great debate. In this very room, pivotal
and profound discussions occurred -- setting in motion a grand
experiment in man's ability to chart his own future.
The vision of the Founding Fathers may still be hard for us
to fully comprehend. But if you really think about it, their
goals were not much different than ours -- they wanted their new
country to prosper -- and they knew intuitively that the road to
prosperity was freedom. They believed in the fundamentals -- in
the inherent strength of faith and family -- and they were
determined to preserve them. They wanted the citizens of our
young nation to live in peace -- safe and secure from threats at
home and abroad. It took a revolution to achieve their vision -
- and it is our duty to preserve it.
When British General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in
1781, he had his band play "The World Turned Upside Down", as his
troops marched before Washington's Continental Army. It was a
profoundly simple realization that an old world order was coming
to a close and a new order was beginning.
Now, more than two hundred years later, we are again in the
midst of great change. Democracy and freedom once again have
2
turned the world upside down. America once again stood at the
forefront of a great worldwide movement. We stood firm for our
principles through some very difficult times. We changed the
world, and we stand upon a new threshold. Now, as you have heard
me say, if we could change the world, we can change America.
Henry Luce called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must now meet five great challenges, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our children must develop good character and values
so they can be educated adults -- literate and drug-free --
motivated to make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must
dramatically change our education system -- literally
revolutionize it. Our America 2000 education initiative means
top-to-bottom educational reform. Second, our people must have a
sense of well-being about their physical health. My health care
proposal guarantees access to the finest health care system in
the world, and keeps that care affordable for all our citizens.
Next, our civil justice system must do what it was designed
to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits a
year are choking us -- costing us billions of dollars -- and
putting a tremendous drag on our civility and our economy. This
too must change. Congress should pass my Access to Justice Act.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That's
why we have an aggressive pro-growth trade policy. It demands
3
more open foreign markets for quality American goods and services
to sustain and create American jobs.
Finally, if we are to change America we must change
government. That is what I will address today. G.K. Chesterton
said, "there can be no talk of re-form, without talk of form".
This has been amply demonstrated in just the last decade as one
institution after another has been challenged -- forced to take a
hard look within itself, make needed improvements, and act to
make the institution live up to its principles. That is the
process called reform.
To ensure their competitive edge, businesses launch reforms
geared to quality. Then, by measuring performance, they improve
performance. Often it's not flashy -- the return to old values
and standards like "built to last a lifetime", or "the customer's
always right. Competition works -- the proof? Today American
products are quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Reform has improved performance our military. In the face
of tighter budgets, we've cut the fat, gotten leaner and smarter.
Desert Storm proved it. The drive for excellence has influenced
almost every other institution, from state and local government
to trade associations and unions.
Yet, the federal government is a glaring hold-out. It has
resisted reform and protects a failed status quo -- even in the
face of an unambiguous need for change. This is not about barber
shops or gymnasium privileges or parking spaces. It is not about
perks. It is about political power, and its potential to help or
4
hinder the public good. It is about big things -- major changes
to make government more responsive. It is about the changes that
are sweeping the rest of the country but have stopped cold at the
Capital Beltway.
The most recent proof was the inability of Congress to rise
to the challenge of getting our economy rolling again without
reverting to form -- higher taxes and bigger government. This is
the Congress we have come to know -- inefficient, ineffective,
unaccountable, and frankly, out of touch. If it cannot address a
straightforward short-term proposal to stimulate the economy, how
can it possibly deal with the more complex issues like the five
challenges I proposed earlier? Over and over, it has stonewalled
solutions we have proposed. If we are to reform education,
health care, our legal system -- if we are to reduce red tape and
regulation, make our country competitive, we must reform the
Congress and make it responsive to change.
The growth of big government has changed the role of
Congress from policymaking to pork-barreling -- changed the
Congressional office to a Campaign and Constituent office. This
sets in motion a perpetual cycle of congressional support for
more unnecessary spending -- creating bigger and even less
responsive bureaucracies. Then, the Members and their powerful
staffs become go-betweens amidst constituents and the executive
agencies -- expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- thus
ensuring re-election and a continuation of business as usual.
5
Beyond that, Congress routinely exempts itself from the laws it
imposes on the rest of the nation.
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about these
dangers. Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials,
"can make no law which will not have its full operation on
themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the
society." Federalist Paper #52 argued that permanent majorities
are dangerously undemocratic. James Madison would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected -- that one party, the Democrats, has controlled the
House 56 out of the last 60 years. That means self-perpetuating
staffs and a bureaucracy beholden to one set of leaders. The
bank and post office scandals are the result of one party control
-- one party's lack of supervision, lack of new blood, and lack
of change.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but by no means
all of it. We have had divided government before, sometimes
during periods of great crisis. Each time we have worked
together in good faith to meet those challenges.
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress -- the
sticky web of 284 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, the
almost 40,000 legislative branch employees and staff, $2.5
billion of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a $117 million re-
election war chest for incumbents in special-interest campaign
contributions, and millions more in special-interest influence.
6
None of this promotes reform and change. Rather, it
aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to retiring members,
many of them dedicated people like Senator Warren Rudman of New
Hampshire, and you will hear the frustration. When asked about
the continuing spectre of huge budget deficits, he issued this
indictment of the system, "the fact is that we are unable,
institutionally, to do what has to be done. We are literally not
watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we are watching the
entire orchestra."
He knows that Americans are generous -- people willing to do
what is necessary to make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about Congress. They just don't trust it to use their hard-
earned tax dollars wisely.
So when taxpayer money goes for outlandish pork-barrel
projects, or mass mailings that are little more than thinly
veiled re-election devices, people get angry. In the Senate,
eight percent of the out-going mail is for answering voters. The
rest is unsolicited "reports" to the people. Maybe it's small
potatoes to the Congress, but the public knows P.R. when it sees
it. They know it adds up to real money -- their money, and it is
time to put a stop to this charade.
Today government is a $1.5 trillion enterprise. But people
in Washington frequently forget that the taxpayer is the
original investor, customer, shareholder, and board member all
rolled into one. When folks in government forget that, they
7
issue nettlesome regulations. Those regulations increase the
cost of doing business, but worse, they don't really solve the
problems they were designed to solve. That's why we're trying to
change the regulatory process.
When government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it becomes insulated and unresponsive. It
is almost impossible to adequately reward success, much less
punish failure. Talk to the hardworking people in career
government service -- many will say the same thing -- they are
frustrated too. The system, which may have been good for its
time, now must change, and it won't be easy.
That's because this kind of government doesn't just happen.
Congress creates these giant centralized bureaucracies, lays down
the mandates, funds the programs. Then, it is the Congress that
protects them, harasses them, investigates them, micro-manages
them, and ultimately perpetuates them. Programs that have
outlived their function rarely outlive their funding. With a
Congressional Subcommittee Chairman as godparent, they become
stepchildren of the Congress. Some 107 different Congressional
committees and subcommittees claim some degree of oversight
responsibility for the Department of Defense. Seventy-four
compete to exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs. Just
this week our energy bill to make us more energy-efficient and
energy-independent was referred to no less than eight separate
committees -- sequentially! It should be no surprise that it
takes so long to get anything done.
8
When the [[Agriculture Secretary]] and his top staff have to
testify in fourteen hearings in one day, think of the time and
resources that takes. Think of the thousands of hours spent by
the Executive Branch to fulfill the thousands of Congressional
demands for testimony, and government reports.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve its
performance, and we must. What merely hampered us in the past,
will paralyze us in the future. Our ability to compete demands
we make these reforms, not just of Congress but of the federal
bureaucracy as well. It means emphasizing the building blocks of
a more responsive government by relying on what works: choice,
competition, decentralization. But let me be clear, we cannot
reform the executive branch without first reforming the Congress.
Today I am proposing a set of actions that taken together
will make government work for the people.
First, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on
the public. No more special treatment. Like age, race, sex and
disability discrimination laws. Congress should also submit to
the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch -- like conflict of
interest laws or the Independent Counsel Law or the Hatch Act.
{{I will propose legislation to end such special treatment for
Congress. Further, I will veto any future legislation that
extends such special treatment to the Congress. 11
9
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress. Senator Boren
said it best when he described the Congress as "inefficient,
wasteful, and compromised by the way it finances its campaigns."
The Boren-Domenici committee reform bill starts by setting up a
bipartisan group to evaluate Congressional operations. It is a
good beginning, but real reform is still on the back burner. The
American people must turn up the heat.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Full disclosure of
assets, liabilities, and compensation is a key element of reform.
I am not required to disclose my income tax returns but I believe
it is the proper thing to do. So I called on Congress to pass
tough new full disclosure laws to stop the abuse that results
from spreading around what's called "soft money."
Beyond that, I called for the total elimination of special-
interest Political Action Committees and limits on so-called
"leadership PACs. " I proposed ways to increase the legitimate
role of our political parties, reduce the influence of special
interests, and decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend
fund-raising. And let me say it straight out: federal funding of
Congressional elections would only worsen the problem. Campaign
finance reform is stalled on Capitol Hill, but the time for
action is long past -- we must clean up our election system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
FROM
Policy
domestic discretionary spending and federal employment next year.
and non-defense
DEVEL.
and freeze federal indifirm employment.
10
I have proposed biennial budgets. I have proposed to curb as
well the growth of mandatory programs without touching Social
Security. This proposal alone would save [[xxx dollars in XX
years The American people should demand that the Congress
pass the same measure that 43 governors have: the line-item veto.
They should demand a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment --
to phase in more spending discipline on the Congress and the
Executive Branch. In the absence of those important measures I
will continue to use whatever means are legally at my disposal,
including the line-item-rescission, to protect the taxpayer from
the spending excesses of Congress. And I will veto any attempt
by the Congress to dismantle the only defense the taxpayer has
against Congressional overspending -- the budget caps implemented
in the 1990 Budget Act.
Fifth, regulatory reform. I have put a ninety-day
moratorium on new government regulations. We are revising and
eliminating regulations that impede our ability to compete, and
we are accelerating regulations that enhance our competitive
edge. Since I announced the moratorium on January 28th, new
regulatory requirements have already been reduced by over 30
percent. As our review continues we will announce further steps
to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations.
Sixth, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. Our Founding Fathers never
considered elected government service to be a career. I believe
11
Senators should be limited to two terms, and Representatives,
limited to six terms. As President my terms are limited, the
same rule should apply to members of Congress. Our first concern
should be the country not a lifetime political career.
[[This brings me to my final point. Certainly, governing
today is complex and time-consuming. But not so many years ago,
representing the people back home was a part-time Washington job.
Somehow Members managed to finish their work and adjourn just
before the hot, humid Washington D.C. summers. Air conditioning
changed all this, and now, thanks to modern technology, Congress
sits year-round.
Members of the House and Senate are now permanent
Washingtonians, but tourists in their own home states. To borrow
a line from Howard Baker "they ought to be living in America and
visiting Washington." Howard Baker was right. And we can
achieve Senator Baker's vision by enacting the reforms I have
proposed.
With a streamlined committee structure, a leaner staff,
Members' time organized around legislation rather than re-
election, and better discipline on how they spend the people's
money, Congress could return to what the founders envisioned as a
government truly close to the people. I suggest that this
Congress, the 102nd, set an example for future Congresses, and
finish action on the important proposals before them, like our
economic action plan, our proposals on education, crime, and
legal reform, to name just a few, and adjourn by Memorial Day. ]]
12
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. As in the first days of our new nation, we must change an
unresponsive government. The reforms I've outlined today can
renew our faith in government -- restore the principles of our
Founders, and guarantee for our children a new American Century.
The choice is clear. On one side stand the defenders of the
status quo. On the other: the forces of change. We must make
the choice worthy of the men who met here -- and began the
world's only permanent revolution. Now that we've changed the
world, we must make the choice to change America.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
Document No. 318378
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
4/1/92
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
-
DATE:
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER, PHILADELPHIA, PA
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SKINNER
MCBRIDE
SCOWCROFT
MOORE
DARMAN
PETERSMEYER
BRADY
PORTER
BROMLEY
ROGICH
CALIO
ROLLINS
DEMAREST
SMITH
YEUTTER
FITZWATER
FINDLAY
GRAY
KAUFMAN
HOLIDAY
McGROARTY
REMARKS:
The attached remarks have been forwarded to the President.
RESPONSE:
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1992
C2 APR : I P3:44
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
&
DAVID DEMAREST
SUBJECT:
FRIDAY'S REFORM SPEECH
Attached is a draft for your review. Your changes have been
incorporated, as have additional changes from senior staff
members.
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #3
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 3, 1992
Thank you for that kind introduction. [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS]
Today, I would rather be in Philadelphia. Old Congress Hall is
home to great ideas and great debate. In this very room, pivotal
and profound discussions occurred -- setting in motion a grand
experiment in man's ability to chart his own future.
The vision of the Founding Fathers may still be hard for us
to fully comprehend. But if you really think about it, their
goals were not much different than ours -- they wanted their new
country to prosper -- and they knew intuitively that the road to
prosperity was freedom. They believed in the fundamentals -- in
the inherent strength of faith and family -- and they were
determined to preserve them. They wanted the citizens of our
young nation to live in peace -- safe and secure from threats at
home and abroad. It took a revolution to achieve their vision -
- and it is our duty to preserve it.
When British General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in
1781, he had his band play "The World Turned Upside Down", as his
troops marched before Washington's Continental Army. It was a
profoundly simple realization that an old world order was coming
to a close and a new order was beginning.
Now, more than two hundred years later, we are again in the
midst of great change. Democracy and freedom once again have
2
turned the world upside down. America once again stood at the
forefront of a great worldwide movement. We stood firm for our
principles through some very difficult times. We changed the
world, and we stand upon a new threshold. Now, as you have heard
me say, if we could change the world, we can change America.
Henry Luce called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must now meet five great challenges, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our children must develop good character and values
so they can be educated adults -- literate and drug-free --
motivated to make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must
dramatically change our education system -- literally
revolutionize it. Our America 2000 education initiative means
top-to-bottom educational reform. Second, our people must have a
sense of well-being about their physical health. My health care
proposal guarantees access to the finest health care system in
the world, and keeps that care affordable for all our citizens.
Next, our civil justice system must do what it was designed
to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits a
year are choking us -- costing us billions of dollars -- and
putting a tremendous drag on our civility and our economy. This
too must change. Congress should pass my Access to Justice Act.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That's
why we have an aggressive pro-growth trade policy. It demands
3
more open foreign markets for quality American goods and services
to sustain and create American jobs.
Finally, if we are to change America we must change
government. That is what I will address today. G.K. Chesterton
said, "there can be no talk of re-form, without talk of form".
This has been amply demonstrated in just the last decade as one
institution after another has been challenged -- forced to take a
hard look within itself, make needed improvements, and act to
make the institution live up to its principles. That is the
process called reform.
To ensure their competitive edge, businesses launch reforms
geared to quality. Then, by measuring performance, they improve
performance. Often it's not flashy -- the return to old values
and standards like "built to last a lifetime", or "the customer's
always right." Competition works -- the proof? Today American
products are quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Reform has improved performance our military. In the face
of tighter budgets, we've cut the fat, gotten leaner and smarter.
Desert Storm proved it. The drive for excellence has influenced
almost every other institution, from state and local government
to trade associations and unions.
Yet, the federal government is a glaring hold-out. It has
resisted reform and protects a failed status quo -- even in the
face of an unambiguous need for change. This is not about barber
shops or gymnasium privileges or parking spaces. It is not about
perks. It is about political power, and its potential to help or
4
hinder the public good. It is about big things -- major changes
to make government more responsive. It is about the changes that
are sweeping the rest of the country but have stopped cold at the
Capital Beltway.
The most recent proof was the inability of Congress to rise
to the challenge of getting our economy rolling again without
reverting to form -- higher taxes and bigger government. This is
the Congress we have come to know -- inefficient, ineffective,
unaccountable, and frankly, out of touch. If it cannot address a
straightforward short-term proposal to stimulate the economy, how
can it possibly deal with the more complex issues like the five
challenges I proposed earlier? Over and over, it has stonewalled
solutions we have proposed. If we are to reform education,
health care, our legal system -- if we are to reduce red tape and
regulation, make our country competitive, we must reform the
Congress and make it responsive to change.
The growth of big government has changed the role of
Congress from policymaking to pork-barreling -- changed the
Congressional office to a Campaign and Constituent office. This
sets in motion a perpetual cycle of congressional support for
more unnecessary spending -- creating bigger and even less
responsive bureaucracies. Then, the Members and their powerful
staffs become go-betweens amidst constituents and the executive
agencies -- expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- thus
ensuring re-election and a continuation of business as usual.
The luggest threat to future job creation in Deficit spending and the present
compressional structure is not capable of deal responding to the theat.
5
Beyond that, Congress routinely exempts itself from the laws it
imposes on the rest of the nation.
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about these
dangers. Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials,
"can make no law which will not have its full operation on
themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the
society." Federalist Paper #52 argued that permanent majorities
are dangerously undemocratic. James Madison would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected -- that one party, the Democrats, has controlled the
House 56 out of the last 60 years. That means self-perpetuating
staffs and a bureaucracy beholden to one set of leaders. The
bank and post office scandals are the result of one party control
-- one party's lack of supervision, lack of new blood, and lack
of change.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but by no means
all of it. We have had divided government before, sometimes
during periods of great crisis. Each time we have worked
together in good faith to meet those challenges.
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress -- the
sticky web of 284 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, the
almost 40,000 legislative branch employees and staff, $2.5
billion of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a $117 million re-
election war chest for incumbents in special-interest campaign
contributions, and millions more in special-interest influence.
6
None of this promotes reform and change. Rather, it
aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to retiring members,
many of them dedicated people like Senator Warren Rudman of New
Hampshire, and you will hear the frustration. When asked about
the continuing spectre of huge budget deficits, he issued this
indictment of the system, "the fact is that we are unable,
institutionally, to do what has to be done. We are literally not
watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we are watching the
entire orchestra."
He knows that Americans are generous -- people willing to do
what is necessary to make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about Congress. They just don't trust it to use their hard-
earned tax dollars wisely.
So when taxpayer money goes for outlandish pork-barrel
projects, or mass mailings that are little more than thinly
veiled re-election devices, people get angry. In the Senate,
eight percent of the out-going mail is for answering voters. The
rest is unsolicited "reports" to the people. Maybe it's small
potatoes to the Congress, but the public knows P.R. when it sees
it. They know it adds up to real money -- their money, and it is
time to put a stop to this charade.
Today government is a $1.5 trillion enterprise. But people
in Washington frequently forget that the taxpayer is the
original investor, customer, shareholder, and board member all
rolled into one. When folks in government forget that, they
7
issue nettlesome regulations. Those regulations increase the
cost of doing business, but worse, they don't really solve the
problems they were designed to solve. That's why we're trying to
change the regulatory process.
When government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it becomes insulated and unresponsive. It
is almost impossible to adequately reward success, much less
punish failure. Talk to the hardworking people in career
government service -- many will say the same thing -- they are
frustrated too. The system, which may have been good for its
time, now must change, and it won't be easy.
That's because this kind of government doesn't just happen.
Congress creates these giant centralized bureaucracies, lays down
the mandates, funds the programs. Then, it is the Congress that
protects them, harasses them, investigates them, micro-manages
them, and ultimately perpetuates them. Programs that have
outlived their function rarely outlive their funding. With a
Congressional Subcommittee Chairman as godparent, they become
stepchildren of the Congress. Some 107 different Congressional
committees and subcommittees claim some degree of oversight
responsibility for the Department of Defense. Seventy-four
compete to exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs. Just
this week our energy bill to make us more energy-efficient and
energy-independent was referred to no less than eight separate
committees -- sequentially! It should be no surprise that it
takes so long to get anything done.
8
When the [[Agriculture Secretary]] and his top staff have to
testify in fourteen hearings in one day, think of the time and
resources that takes. Think of the thousands of hours spent by
the Executive Branch to fulfill the thousands of Congressional
demands for testimony, and government reports.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve its
performance, and we must. What merely hampered us in the past,
will paralyze us in the future. Our ability to compete demands
we make these reforms, not just of Congress but of the federal
bureaucracy as well. It means emphasizing the building blocks of
a more responsive government by relying on what works: choice,
competition, decentralization. But let me be clear, we cannot
reform the executive branch without first reforming the Congress.
Today I am proposing a set of actions that taken together
will make government work for the people.
First, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on
the public. No more special treatment. Like age, race, sex and
disability discrimination laws. Congress should also submit to
the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch -- like conflict of
interest laws or the Independent Counsel Law or the Hatch Act.
Name furtor Cong. will
{{I will propose legislation to end such special treatment for
Congress. Further, I will veto any future legislation that
interduce
extends such special treatment to the Congress. 11
9
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress. Senator Boren
said it best when he described the Congress as "inefficient,
wasteful, and compromised by the way it finances its campaigns."
The Boren-Domenici committee reform bill starts by setting up a
bipartisan group to evaluate Congressional operations. It is a
good beginning, but real reform is still on the back burner. The
American people must turn up the heat.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Full disclosure of
assets, liabilities, and compensation is a key element of reform.
I am not required to disclose my income tax returns but I believe
it is the proper thing to do. So I called on Congress to pass
tough new full disclosure laws to stop the abuse that results
from spreading around what's called "soft money. "
Beyond that, I called for the total elimination of special-
interest Political Action Committees and limits on so-called
"leadership PACs. " I proposed ways to increase the legitimate
role of our political parties, reduce the influence of special
interests, and decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend
fund-raising. And let me say it straight out: federal funding of
Congressional elections would only worsen the problem. Campaign
finance reform is stalled on Capitol Hill, but the time for
action is long past -- we must clean up our election system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
10
I have proposed biennial budgets. I have proposed to curb as
well the growth of mandatory programs without touching Social
Security. This proposal alone would save [[XXX dollars in XX
years] The American people should demand that the Congress
pass the same measure that 43 governors have: the line-item veto.
They should demand a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment --
to phase in more spending discipline on the Congress and the
Executive Branch. In the absence of those important measures I
will continue to use whatever means are legally at my disposal,
including the line-item-rescission, to protect the taxpayer from
the spending excesses of Congress. And I will veto any attempt
by the Congress to dismantle the only defense the taxpayer has
against Congressional overspending -- the budget caps implemented
in the 1990 Budget Act. the briggest threat to friture job creati
deficit spending
Fifth, regulatory reform. I have put a ninety-day
moratorium on new government regulations. We are revising and
eliminating regulations that impede our ability to compete, and
we are accelerating regulations that enhance our competitive
edge. Since I announced the moratorium on January 28th, new
regulatory requirements have already been reduced by over 30
percent. As our review continues we will announce further steps
to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations.
Sixth, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. Our Founding Fathers never
considered elected government service to be a career. I believe
11
Senators should be limited to two terms, and Representatives,
limited to six terms. As President my terms are limited, the
same rule should apply to members of Congress. Our first concern
should be the country not a lifetime political career.
[[This brings me to my final point. Certainly, governing
today is complex and time-consuming. But not so many years ago,
representing the people back home was a part-time Washington job.
Somehow Members managed to finish their work and adjourn just
dinet
before the hot, humid Washington D.C. summers. Air conditioning
changed all this, and now, thanks to modern technology, Congress
have
sits year-round.
Members of the House and Senate are now permanent
Washingtonians, but tourists in their own home states. To borrow
a line from Howard Baker "they ought to be living in America and
visiting Washington." Howard Baker was right. And we can
achieve Senator Baker's vision by enacting the reforms I have
proposed.
With a streamlined committee structure, a leaner staff,
Members' time organized around legislation rather than re-
election, and better discipline on how they spend the people's
money, Congress could return to what the founders envisioned as a
government truly close to the people. I suggest that this
Congress, the 102nd, set an example for future Congresses, and
finish action on the important proposals before them, like our
economic action plan, our proposals on education, crime, and
legal reform, to name just a few, and adjourn by Memorial Day. ]]
12
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. As in the first days of our new nation, we must change an
unresponsive government. The reforms I've outlined today can
renew our faith in government -- restore the principles of our
Founders, and guarantee for our children a new American Century.
The choice is clear. On one side stand the defenders of the
status quo. On the other: the forces of change. We must make
the choice worthy of the men who met here -- and began the
world's only permanent revolution. Now that we've changed the
world, we must make the choice to change America.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
1) will send early next
50
prodicts
Document No. 318378
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
4/1/92
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
- -
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER, PHILADELPHIA, PA
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SKINNER
MCBRIDE
SCOWCROFT
MOORE
DARMAN
PETERSMEYER
BRADY
PORTER
BROMLEY
ROGICH
CALIO
ROLLINS
DEMAREST
SMITH
YEUTTER
FITZWATER
FINDLAY
GRAY
KAUFMAN
HOLIDAY
McGROARTY
REMARKS:
The attached remarks have been forwarded to the President.
RESPONSE:
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1992
C2 APR I P3:44
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
&
FROM:
DAVID DEMAREST
SUBJECT:
FRIDAY'S REFORM SPEECH
Attached is a draft for your review. Your changes have been
incorporated, as have additional changes from senior staff
members.
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #3
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 3, 1992
Thank you for that kind introduction. [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS]
Today, I would rather be in Philadelphia. Old Congress Hall is
home to great ideas and great debate. In this very room, pivotal
and profound discussions occurred -- setting in motion a grand
experiment in man's ability to chart his own future.
The vision of the Founding Fathers may still be hard for us
to fully comprehend. But if you really think about it, their
goals were not much different than ours -- they wanted their new
country to prosper -- and they knew intuitively that the road to
prosperity was freedom. They believed in the fundamentals -- in
the inherent strength of faith and family -- and they were
determined to preserve them. They wanted the citizens of our
young nation to live in peace -- safe and secure from threats at
home and abroad. It took a revolution to achieve their vision -
- and it is our duty to preserve it.
When British General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in
1781, he had his band play "The World Turned Upside Down", as his
troops marched before Washington's Continental Army. It was a
profoundly simple realization that an old world order was coming
to a close and a new order was beginning.
Now, more than two hundred years later, we are again in the
midst of great change. Democracy and freedom once again have
2
turned the world upside down. America once again stood at the
forefront of a great worldwide movement. We stood firm for our
principles through some very difficult times. We changed the
world, and we stand upon a new threshold. Now, as you have heard
me say, if we could change the world, we can change America.
Henry Luce called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must now meet five great challenges, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our children must develop good character and values
so they can be educated adults -- literate and drug-free --
motivated to make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must
dramatically change our education system -- literally
revolutionize it. Our America 2000 education initiative means
top-to-bottom educational reform. Second, our people must have a
sense of well-being about their physical health. My health care
proposal guarantees access to the finest health care system in
the world, and keeps that care affordable for all our citizens.
Next, our civil justice system must do what it was designed
to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits a
year are choking us -- costing us billions of dollars -- and
putting a tremendous drag on our civility and our economy. This
too must change. Congress should pass my Access to Justice Act.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That's
why we have an aggressive pro-growth trade policy. It demands
3
more open foreign markets for quality American goods and services
to sustain and create American jobs.
Finally, if we are to change America we must change
government. That is what I will address today. G.K. Chesterton
said, "there can be no talk of re-form, without talk of form".
This has been amply demonstrated in just the last decade as one
institution after another has been challenged -- forced to take a
hard look within itself, make needed improvements, and act to
make the institution live up to its principles. That is the
process called reform.
To ensure their competitive edge, businesses launch reforms
geared to quality. Then, by measuring performance, they improve
performance. Often it's not flashy -- the return to old values
and standards like "built to last a lifetime", or "the customer's
always right. Competition works -- the proof? Today American
products are quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Reform has improved performance our military. In the face
of tighter budgets, we've cut the fat, gotten leaner and smarter.
Desert Storm proved it. The drive for excellence has influenced
almost every other institution, from state and local government
to trade associations and unions.
Yet, the federal government is a glaring hold-out. It has
resisted reform and protects a failed status quo -- even in the
face of an unambiguous need for change. This is not about barber
shops or gymnasium privileges or parking spaces. It is not about
perks. It is about political power, and its potential to help or
4
hinder the public good. It is about big things -- major changes
to make government more responsive. It is about the changes that
are sweeping the rest of the country but have stopped cold at the
Capital Beltway.
The most recent proof was the inability of Congress to rise
to the challenge of getting our economy rolling again without
reverting to form -- higher taxes and bigger government. This is
the Congress we have come to know -- inefficient, ineffective,
unaccountable, and frankly, out of touch. If it cannot address a
straightforward short-term proposal to stimulate the economy, how
can it possibly deal with the more complex issues like the five
challenges I proposed earlier? Over and over, it has stonewalled
solutions we have proposed. If we are to reform education,
health care, our legal system -- if we are to reduce red tape and
regulation, make our country competitive, we must reform the
Congress and make it responsive to change.
The growth of big government has changed the role of
Congress from policymaking to pork-barreling -- changed the
Congressional office to a Campaign and Constituent office. This
sets in motion a perpetual cycle of congressional support for
more unnecessary spending -- creating bigger and even less
responsive bureaucracies. Then, the Members and their powerful
staffs become go-betweens amidst constituents and the executive
agencies -- expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- thus
ensuring re-election and a continuation of business as usual.
5
Beyond that, Congress routinely exempts itself from the laws it
imposes on the rest of the nation.
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about these
dangers. Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials,
"can make no law which will not have its full operation on
themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the
society." Federalist Paper #52 argued that permanent majorities
are dangerously undemocratic. James Madison would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected -- that one party, the Democrats, has controlled the
House 56 out of the last 60 years. That means self-perpetuating
staffs and a bureaucracy beholden to one set of leaders. The
bank and post office scandals are the result of one party control
-- one party's lack of supervision, lack of new blood, and lack
of change.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but by no means
all of it. We have had divided government before, sometimes
during periods of great crisis. Each time we have worked
together in good faith to meet those challenges.
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress -- the
sticky web of 284 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, the
almost 40,000 legislative branch employees and staff, $2.5
billion of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a $117 million re-
election war chest for incumbents in special-interest campaign
contributions, and millions more in special-interest influence.
6
None of this promotes reform and change. Rather, it
aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to retiring members,
many of them dedicated people like Senator Warren Rudman of New
Hampshire, and you will hear the frustration. When asked about
the continuing spectre of huge budget deficits, he issued this
indictment of the system, "the fact is that we are unable,
institutionally, to do what has to be done. We are literally not
watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we are watching the
entire orchestra."
He knows that Americans are generous -- people willing to do
what is necessary to make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about Congress. They just don't trust it to use their hard-
earned tax dollars wisely.
So when taxpayer money goes for outlandish pork-barrel
projects, or mass mailings that are little more than thinly
veiled re-election devices, people get angry. In the Senate,
eight percent of the out-going mail is for answering voters. The
rest is unsolicited "reports" to the people. Maybe it's small
potatoes to the Congress, but the public knows P.R. when it sees
it. They know it adds up to real money -- their money, and it is
time to put a stop to this charade.
Today government is a $1.5 trillion enterprise. But people
in Washington frequently forget that the taxpayer is the
original investor, customer, shareholder, and board member all
rolled into one. When folks in government forget that, they
7
issue nettlesome regulations. Those regulations increase the
cost of doing business, but worse, they don't really solve the
problems they were designed to solve. That's why we're trying to
change the regulatory process.
When government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it becomes insulated and unresponsive. It
is almost impossible to adequately reward success, much less
punish failure. Talk to the hardworking people in career
government service -- many will say the same thing -- they are
frustrated too. The system, which may have been good for its
time, now must change, and it won't be easy.
That's because this kind of government doesn't just happen.
Congress creates these giant centralized bureaucracies, lays down
the mandates, funds the programs. Then, it is the Congress that
protects them, harasses them, investigates them, micro-manages
them, and ultimately perpetuates them. Programs that have
outlived their function rarely outlive their funding. With a
Congressional Subcommittee Chairman as godparent, they become
stepchildren of the Congress. Some 107 different Congressional
committees and subcommittees claim some degree of oversight
responsibility for the Department of Defense. Seventy-four
compete to exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs. Just
this week our energy bill to make us more energy-efficient and
energy-independent was referred to no less than eight separate
committees -- sequentially! It should be no surprise that it
takes so long to get anything done.
8
When the [[Agriculture Secretary]] and his top staff have to
testify in fourteen hearings in one day, think of the time and
resources that takes. Think of the thousands of hours spent by
the Executive Branch to fulfill the thousands of Congressional
demands for testimony, and government reports.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve its
performance, and we must. What merely hampered us in the past,
will paralyze us in the future. Our ability to compete demands
we make these reforms, not just of Congress but of the federal
bureaucracy as well. It means emphasizing the building blocks of
a more responsive government by relying on what works: choice,
competition, decentralization. But let me be clear, we cannot
reform the executive branch without first reforming the Congress.
Today I am proposing a set of actions that taken together
will make government work for the people.
First, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on
the public. No more special treatment. Like age, race, sex and
disability discrimination laws. Congress should also submit to
the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch -- like conflict of
interest laws or the Independent Counsel Law or the Hatch Act.
{{I will propose legislation to end such special treatment for
Congress. Further, I will veto any future legislation that
extends such special treatment to the Congress. 11
9
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress. Senator Boren
said it best when he described the Congress as "inefficient,
wasteful, and compromised by the way it finances its campaigns."
The Boren-Domenici committee reform bill starts by setting up a
bipartisan group to evaluate Congressional operations. It is a
good beginning, but real reform is still on the back burner. The
American people must turn up the heat.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Full disclosure of
assets, liabilities, and compensation is a key element of reform.
I am not required to disclose my income tax returns but I believe
it is the proper thing to do. So I called on Congress to pass
tough new full disclosure laws to stop the abuse that results
from spreading around what's called "soft money."
Beyond that, I called for the total elimination of special-
interest Political Action Committees and limits on so-called
"leadership PACs. " I proposed ways to increase the legitimate
role of our political parties, reduce the influence of special
interests, and decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend
fund-raising. And let me say it straight out: federal funding of
Congressional elections would only worsen the problem. Campaign
finance reform is stalled on Capitol Hill, but the time for
action is long past -- we must clean up our election system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
10
I have proposed biennial budgets. I have proposed to curb as
well the growth of mandatory programs without touching Social
Security. This proposal alone would save [[xxx dollars in XX
years The American people should demand that the Congress
pass the same measure that 43 governors have: the line-item veto.
They should demand a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment --
to phase in more spending discipline on the Congress and the
Executive Branch. In the absence of those important measures I
will continue to use whatever means are legally at my disposal,
including the line-item-rescission, to protect the taxpayer from
the spending excesses of Congress. And I will veto any attempt
by the Congress to dismantle the only defense the taxpayer has
against Congressional overspending -- the budget caps implemented
in the 1990 Budget Act.
Fifth, regulatory reform. I have put a ninety-day
moratorium on new government regulations. We are revising and
eliminating regulations that impede our ability to compete, and
we are accelerating regulations that enhance our competitive
edge. Since I announced the moratorium on January 28th, new
regulatory requirements have already been reduced by over 30
percent. As our review continues we will announce further steps
to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations.
Sixth, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. Our Founding Fathers never
considered elected government service to be a career. I believe
11
Senators should be limited to two terms, and Representatives,
limited to six terms. As President my terms are limited, the
same rule should apply to members of Congress. Our first concern
should be the country not a lifetime political career.
[[This brings me to my final point. Certainly, governing
today is complex and time-consuming. But not so many years ago,
representing the people back home was a part-time Washington job.
Somehow Members managed to finish their work and adjourn just
before the hot, humid Washington D.C. summers. Air conditioning
changed all this, and now, thanks to modern technology, Congress
sits year-round.
Members of the House and Senate are now permanent
Washingtonians, but tourists in their own home states. To borrow
a line from Howard Baker "they ought to be living in America and
visiting Washington." Howard Baker was right. And we can
achieve Senator Baker's vision by enacting the reforms I have
proposed.
With a streamlined committee structure, a leaner staff,
Members' time organized around legislation rather than re-
election, and better discipline on how they spend the people's
money, Congress could return to what the founders envisioned as a
government truly close to the people. I suggest that this
Congress, the 102nd, set an example for future Congresses, and
finish action on the important proposals before them, like our
economic action plan, our proposals on education, crime, and
legal reform, to name just a few, and adjourn by Memorial Day. ]]
12
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. As in the first days of our new nation, we must change an
unresponsive government. The reforms I've outlined today can
renew our faith in government -- restore the principles of our
Founders, and guarantee for our children a new American Century.
The choice is clear. On one side stand the defenders of the
status quo. On the other: the forces of change. We must make
the choice worthy of the men who met here -- and began the
world's only permanent revolution. Now that we've changed the
world, we must make the choice to change America.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #