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
323151949
label
Old House Chamber - [Reform Speech] 4/3/92 [OA 6100] [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323151949
contentType
document
title
Old House Chamber - [Reform Speech] 4/3/92 [OA 6100] [2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13614-008
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
323151949
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ef9d947af504cca1
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:
13614-008
Folder Title:
Old House Chamber - [Reform Speech] 4/3/92 [OA 6100] [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
18
1
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 31, 1992
J2 MAR 31 All : 24
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM: DAVID F. DEMAREST
SUBJECT: RECONCILED REFORM SPEECH
Attached is the first cut of a reconciled draft of your
remarks for Philadelphia. There will be subsequent drafts but
this is where the speech stands at this time.
/toward paym Balu
should
wiy vets
Two threats
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #2
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
word
so they can be educated adults -- literate and drug-free --
motivated to make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must reform
dranaticly change
use chuge,
our education system -- literally revolutionize it. Second, our
people must have a sense of well-being about their physical
health. We must guarantee them access to the finest health care
system in the world, and make that care more affordable. My propozal
to chapse Hn existry health cale system gueranties that we keep quality on
Next, our civil ustice system must do what it was designed
of have
to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits a
came
year are choking us -- costing us billions of dollars -- and
access
a,
putting a tremendous drag on our civility as well as our economy.
This must change - we need to pass mg legis who
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more 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. British
3
essayist, 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 process is called reform.
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it might be called the crusade for quality. Often it's not
flashy -- perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", or "the customer's always right."
At other times it means measuring performance, because that is
the how to improve performance. Competition improves quality and
performance. The proof is that today, American products are
quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Not only the private sector feels the positive pressure of
healthy competition. For example, the military, in the face of
tighter budgets, has 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. But, this is not about
borben shops on office space on party
-
gymnasium privileges or limousines. It is not about perks. It
It is about big things - maj on cheyes to male governt
is about power, and our ability to use it for the public good.
The changes that are sweeping the rest of the country have non respons
4
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. This entrenched status quo
attitude can be laid squarely at the doorstep of Congress.
The most recent proof was its inability to rise to today's
economic challenges without reverting to form -- higher taxes and
bigger government. We all know that government is too big and
spends too much. Too often the way Congress spends the people's
money is the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
accountability, and frankly, without compassion. It stonewalls
solutions we have proposed. With tough, complicated problems
ahead, from education to health care, we simply cannot afford
this kind of government.
whots
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
we
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
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. He argues this sets
in motion a perpetual cycle of congressional support for more
unnecesary spending -- creating bigger and even less responsive
bureaucracies. Then, the members and their increasingly powerful
staffs become ombudsmen between the constituent and the agencies
-- expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- thus ensuring
re-election and a continuation of the status quo. Finally,
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,
5
"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, have controlled the
Congress Hours? 58 out of the last 62 years. That mans self pupibility
staffs That mens a burdencings to
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but not the
keholdu one oct of
only problem. We have had divided government before in our
leadus
leads to
history, sometimes during periods of great crisis. Each time we
conclus
worked together in good faith to meet new challenges.
The bands
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress -- the
rpost scandals oltu
sticky web of 284 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, the
are the
almost 40,000 legislative branch employees and staff, 2.5
stone result
billion dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a 117
and the
cont
million dollar re-election war chest for incumbents in special-
fact that
interest campaign contributions, and millions more in special-
THE
interest influence.
breado
control
This is not a system that can promote reform and change.
Rather, it aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to
super results in lach of
retiring members, many of them good people like Senator Warren
lach
Rudman of New Hampshire, and you will hear the frustration. When
care
to
lack
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
6
literally not watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we
are watching the entire orchestra."
He knows the American people are a compassionate people --
willing to foot the bill to help make this country better. But
skepticism about government. Corpues They just don't trust government ingress? to
there is a mismatch between 2 their willingness to help and their
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 -- taxpayer money, and I
believe we must put a stop to it.
Today government is a trillion and a half dollar enterprise.
But it frequently forgets that the taxpayer is original investor,
&
customer, shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
When it forgets that, it issues counterproductive regulations
Coupun
ones that increase the cost of doing business, but worse, ones
that don't really solve the problem they were designed to solve.
It shelters perpetual programs that have outlived their function,
but not their funding.
Because the government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it has become insulated, unresponsive and
resists reform. It is almost impossible to adequately reward
7
success, much less punish failure. Talk to the hardworking
people in governmment service -- many will say the same thing --
they are frustrated too. But 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. With a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as godparent,
they become stepchildren of the Congress. Some thirty different
draweter
Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim some degree
it terbihy
of oversight responsibility for the Department of Defense.
Seventy-four committees and subcommittees compete to exercise
jurisdiction over the War on Drugs. It should be no surprise
that it takes so long to get anything done.
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
Branch to fulfill Congressional demands for testimony. Think of
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
likemy
More than six hundred from the Defense Department -- and on
through all the Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just 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 new century. Our ability to
8
compete requires us to make these reforms, not just of Congress
but of the federal bureaucracy as well. But let me be clear, it
is impossible to have adequate executive branch reform without
first reforming the Congress.
Today I am proposing a set of actions that taken together
will make government work for the people.
First, universal application of the laws of the land. In
other words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes
on the public. Across the board. No more special treatment.
Like age, race, sex and disability discrimination laws; labor
FOIA?
standards -- worker and workplace protections. Congress should
also submit to the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch --
like conflict of interest laws or the independent counsel law.
So today, I am proposing the Congressional Accountability
Act which will force Congress to be covered by the same laws as
everyone else. Further, I will veto any future legislation that
T??
extends special treatment to the Congress.
toos
broad
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress. Democratic
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 is a
good start, but real reform is still on the back burner. It is
time for the American people to turn up the heat.
what submidors. it
isthm House bill?
difference?
9
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Three years ago, I
proposed the total elimination of special interest Political
Action Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs." I
proposed ways to reduce the influence of special interests,
do not nov
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties.
I
called on Congress to pass tough new full disclosure laws to stop
the abuse that results from spreading around what's called "soft
faron Information
money These reforms are stalled on Capitol Hill, the time for
eith
er
action is long past -- we must clean up our election system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
govt
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
I
tailion sand
have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
not am
without touching Social Security. The American people should
the
demand that the Congress pass the same measure that 43 governors
have: the line-item veto. They should demand a Balanced Budget
discipline Congras Excc. Branch (phase
Constitutional Amendment In the absence of those important
who got Jots
measures I will continue to use whatever means are legally at my
415
AN
disposal, including the line-item-rescission, to protect the
in
taxpayer from the spending excesses of Congress. And I will veto
any attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only defense the
million
got
taxpayer has against Congressional overspending -- the budget
Fed
caps implemented in the 1990 Budget Act.
the
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
10
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 unncessary regulations.
Finally, 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
Senators should be limited to two terms, and Representatives,
limited to six terms. After all, as President my terms are
limited, the same should apply to members of Congress. Our first
concern should be the country not a career. [reten in session to nunber the of was days
1
vs-
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the Fair what
was part
world. Once again, as in the first days of our new nation, we is now
must change an unresponsive government. The reforms I've
full time
-
outlined today can renew our faith in government -- restore the
Leads to
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
March 31, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM: DAVID F. DEMAREST
SUBJECT: RECONCILED REFORM SPEECH
Attached is the first cut of a reconciled draft of your
remarks for Philadelphia. There will be subsequent drafts but
this is where the speech stands at this time.
to may , to
consider
would
unfidence
way No Cut rever
one
6
restip prople of several for return
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #2
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 reform
our education system -- literally revolutionize it. Second, our
people must have a sense of well-being about their physical
health. We must guarantee them access to the finest health care
system in the world, and make that care more affordable.
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 as well as our economy.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more 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. British
3
essayist, 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 process is called reform.
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it might be called the crusade for quality. Often it's not
with
flashy -- perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", or "the customer's always right. "
3
At other times it means measuring performance, because that is
the how to improve performance. Competition improves quality and
performance. The proof is that today, American products are
quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Not only the private sector feels the positive pressure of
healthy competition. For example, the military, in the face of
tighter budgets, has 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. But, this is not about
facter
gymnasium privileges or limousines. It is not about perks. It
is about power, and our ability to use it for the public good.
It's
about bigthings
The changes that are sweeping the rest of the country have
reformation
in
case
4
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. This entrenched status quo
attitude can be laid squarely at the doorstep of Congress.
The most recent proof was its inability to rise to today's
economic challenges without reverting to form -- higher taxes and
bigger government. We all know that government is too big and
spends too much. Too often the way Congress spends the people's
money is the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
accountability, and frankly, without compassion. It stonewalls
solutions we have proposed. With tough, complicated problems
ahead, from education to health care, we simply cannot afford
this kind of government.
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
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. He argues this sets
in motion a perpetual cycle of congressional support for more
unnecesary spending -- creating bigger and even less responsive
bureaucracies. Then, the members and their increasingly powerful
staffs become ombudsmen between the constituent and the agencies
-- expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- thus ensuring
re-election and a continuation of the status quo. Finally,
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,
what wrong wers with house
new blood to to
what's wrong ith that
5
vections
"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, have controlled the
House
Congress 58 out of the last 62 years.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but not the
only problem. We have had divided government before in our
history, sometimes during periods of great crisis. Each time we
worked together in good faith to meet new 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 dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a 117
million dollar re-election war chest for incumbents in special-
interest campaign contributions, and millions more in special-
interest influence.
This is not a system that can promote reform and change.
Rather, it aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to
retiring members, many of them good 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
6
literally not watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we
are watching the entire orchestra."
He knows the American people are a compassionate people --
willing to foot the bill to help make this country better. But
there is a mismatch between their willingness to help and their
skepticism about government. Congress. They just don't trust government Corgress 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 -- taxpayer money, and I
believe we must put a stop to it.
Today government is a trillion and a half dollar enterprise.
But it frequently forgets that the taxpayer is original investor,
customer, shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
When it forgets that, it issues counterproductive regulations --
ones that increase the cost of doing business, but worse, ones
that don't really solve the problem they were designed to solve.
It shelters perpetual programs that have outlived their function,
but not their funding.
Corjuss
Because the government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it has become insulated, unresponsive and
resists reform. It is almost impossible to adequately reward
Itst Corgets and its the also and to
do
dazonecting
jmaps
2nd 70IA people
7
success, much less punish failure. Talk to the hardworking
people in governmment service -- many will say the same thing --
progress
they are frustrated too. But 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.
who would consently
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
udden
them. With a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as godparent,
they become stepchildren of the Congress. Some thirty different
Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim some degree
of oversight responsibility for the Department of Defense
how
Seventy-four committees and subcommittees compete to exercise
jurisdiction over the War on Drugs. It should be no surprise
that it takes so long to get anything done.
up reads
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
Branch to fulfill Congressional demands for testimony. Think of
drama
Xifitar
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
of
More than six hundred from the Defense Department -- and on
through all the Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just 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 new century. Our ability to
8
compete requires us to make these reforms, not just of Congress
but of the federal bureaucracy as well. But let me be clear, it
is impossible to have adequate executive branch reform without
first reforming the Congress.
Today I am proposing a set of actions that taken together
will make government work for the people.
First, universal application of the laws of the land. In
other words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes
on the public. Across the board. No more special treatment.
Like age, race, sex and disability discrimination laws; labor
standards -- worker and workplace protections. Congress should
also submit to the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch --
like conflict of interest laws or the independent counsel law.
So today, I am proposing the Congressional Accountability
Act which will force Congress to be covered by the same laws as
everyone else. Further, I will veto any future legislation that
extends special treatment to the Congress.
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress. Democratic
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 is a
good start, but real reform is still on the back burner. It is
time for the American people to turn up the heat.
and the of reasons
in
what M 45
9
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Three years ago,
proposed the total elimination of special interest Political
changing I and 1/2 still
Action Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs."
I
proposed ways to reduce the influence of special interests,
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
personl
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties. 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." These reforms are stalled on Capitol Hill, 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.
I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
without touching Social Security. The American people should
If proposed
demand that the Congress pass the same measure that 43 governors
I
have: the line-item veto. They should demand a Balanced Budget
well
deciptive the Coyren phase
Constitutional Amendment.
In the absence of those important
measures I will continue to use whatever means are legally at my
triltion save it
disposal, including the line-item-rescission, to protect the
next
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
Catil come we
caps implemented in the 1990 Budget Act.
with
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
10
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 unncessary regulations.
Finally, 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
Senators should be limited to two terms, and Representatives,
limited to six terms. After all, as President my terms are
limited, the same should apply to members of Congress. Our first
concern should be the country not a career.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
# daspion
world. Once again, as in the first days of our new nation, we
days
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
morgliste more touch
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
DATE: 3/31/92
TO:
Dave Demenst
FROM: W. HENSON MOORE
Deputy Chief of Staff to the President
Heream are my changes
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #2
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
what
goals were not much different than ours -- they wanted their new
country to prosper -- and they knew intuitively that the road to
jobs for a developing nation
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 -
d think it mile take reform to
- 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.
the best browledge and
First, our children must develop good character and values
so they can be educated adults -- literate and drug-free
skills
Compute with the heat the would has to offer.
motivated to make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must reform
to achieve that.
our education system -- literally revolutionize it. Second, our
Continue to hatte fruit health care in the would but in available to all and
people must have a sense of well-being about their physical
health. We must guarantee them access to the finest health care
system in the world, and make that care more affordablet american and
then employers.
Next, our civil justice system must do what it was designed
to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits a
not be an unnecessary cost to our economy.
year are choking us -- costing us billions of dollars -- and
putting a tremendous drag on our civility as well as our economy.
Fouth,
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more foreign markets for quality American goods
and services to sustain and create American jobs.
Finally, if we are to change America we must change
as d stated mi an address to the nation in the East Room two weeks ago.
government That is what I will address today. British
it further
3
essayist, 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 process is called reform.
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it might be called the crusade for quality. Often it's not
flashy -- perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", or "the customer's always right."
At other times it means measuring performance, because that is
the how to improve performance. Competition improves quality and
performance. The proof is that today, American products are
quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Not only the private sector feels the positive pressure of
healthy competition. For example, the military, in the face of
tighter budgets, has 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. But, this is not about
gymnasium privileges or limousines. It is not about perks. It
governance its
help or limder
is about power, and our ability to use it for the public good.
The changes that are sweeping the rest of the country have
of Cannot living itself to deal with a simple short the term proposal pale to stimulate five
an economic how can it Deal with more complex economic
Challenges recomery, l just onte 10 4 which an necessary for on longtern growth
?
Unresponsiti or status for government billing reform and contining defrect
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. This entrenched status quo spending
and
attitude can be laid squarely at the doorstep of Congress.
nex
experime
mof
congress
government
The most recent proof was its inability to rise to today's
regulations
are a
economic challenges without reverting to form -- higher taxes and
threat
have node
to future
bigger government.
We all know that government is too big and
you
creation.
spends too much. Too often the way Congress spends the people's
money is the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
If we are to reform
accountability, and frankly, without compassion. It stonewalls
education, on legal system other governames problems such as exercise regulations, health
solutions we have proposed. With tough, complicated problems
can and competiving me must reform the Congress to maler it responsive to change
ahead, from education to health care, we simply cannot afford
this kind of government.
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
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. He argues this sets
in motion a perpetual cycle of congressional support for more
unnecesary spending -- creating bigger and even less responsive
bureaucracies. Then, the members and their increasingly powerful
staffs become ombudsmen between the constituent and the agencies
-- expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- thus ensuring
re-election and a continuation of the status quo. Finally,
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,
5
"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, have controlled the
Congress 58 out of the last 62 years.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but not the
only problem. We have had divided government before in our
history, sometimes during periods of great crisis. Each time we
worked together in good faith to meet new challenges.
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress -- the
sticky web of 284 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, the
almost 40,000 lègislative branch employees and staff, 2.5
billion dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a 117
million dollar re-election war chest for incumbents in special-
interest campaign contributions, and millions more in special-
interest influence.
This is not a system that can promote reform and change.
Rather, it aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to
retiring members, many of them good 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
6
literally not watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we
are watching the entire orchestra."
He knows the American people are a compassionate people --
willing to foot the bill to help make this country better. But
there is a mismatch between their willingness to help and their
skepticism about government. They just don't trust government 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
this
it. They know it adds up to real money -- taxpayer money, and I
believe we must put a stop to it.
Today government is a trillion and a half dollar enterprise.
But it frequently forgets that the taxpayer is original investor,
customer, shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
When it forgets that, it issues counterproductive regulations --
ones that increase the cost of doing business, but worse, ones
that don't really solve the problem they were designed to solve.
It shelters perpetual programs that have outlived their function,
but not their funding. The greated danger to future you oreation is inconholly
deficit spending. a status quo congress cannot deal with this threat. a reformed can Congress
Because the government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it has become insulated, unresponsive and
resists reform. It is almost impossible to adequately reward
7
success, much less punish failure. Talk to the hardworking
people in governmment service -- many will say the same thing --
they are frustrated too. But 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
creates constituencia.
the mandates, funds the programs, Then, it is the Congress that
protects them, harasses them, investigates them, micro-manages
them. With a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as godparent,
they become stepchildren of the Congress. Some thirty different
Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim some degree
of oversight responsibility for the Department of Defense.
Seventy-four committees and subcommittees compete to exercise
jurisdiction over the War on Drugs. It should be no surprise
that it takes so long to get anything done.
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
Branch to fulfill Congressional demands for testimony. Think of
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
More than six hundred from the Defense Department -- and on
through all the Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just 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 new century. Our ability to
8
compete requires us to make these reforms, not just of Congress
but of the federal bureaucracy as well. But let me be clear, it
is impossible to have adequate executive branch reform without
first reforming the Congress. Much ofthe executive branch mandated without lystatute new
requiring personnel, funding organizations and functions which cannet be reformed legislation
Today I am proposing a set of actions that taken together
responsive to
will make government work for the people.
First, universal application of the laws of the land. In
many
other words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes
however are then
on the public. Across the board. No more special treatment.
Like age, race, sex and disability discrimination laws; labor
futh
the
Class
efther laws an good
THE
and
from)
standards -- worker and workplace protections. Congress should
THE
are
Congress
also submit to the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch --
like conflict of interest laws or the independent counsel law.
So today, I am proposing the Congressional Accountability
Act which will force Congress to be covered by the same laws as
everyone else. Further, I will veto any future legislation that
extends special treatment to the Congress.
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress. Democratic
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 is a
good start, but real reform is still on the back burner. It is
time for the American people to turn up the heat.
9
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Three years ago, I
proposed the total elimination of special interest Political
Action Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs. " I
proposed ways to reduce the influence of special interests,
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties. 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. " These reforms are stalled on Capitol Hill, the time for
action is long past -- we must clean up our election system. We med special interest
citizen conquirmen not perfessional conquence are livel of allegance
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
groups contubite
money
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
without touching Social Security. 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. 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
10
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
d willnets any legislation which creates unnecessary regulations
percent. ^ As our review continues we will announce further steps
to reduce the burden of unncessary regulations.
Sixth
Finally, 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
Senators should be limited to two terms, and Representatives,
limited to six terms. After all, as President my terms are
limited, the same should apply to members of Congress. Our first
concern should be the country not a career. We need cityzen legulation, not
Jurfessional politicans
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. Once again, 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
help
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.
# # #
Senenth - Part time Congress Sen Barder corrept)
Eigh 1 support Roth bill of economic impact statement for all laws
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DATE: Mar. 31, 1992
TO: Dave Demarest
FROM: CLAYTON YEUTTER
Counsellor to the President for
Domestic Policy
Dave, here are my edits on the second
draft. Don't consider them sacrosanct, but
I hope they'll be helpful. As an old law
review editor, I edit rather vigorously!
Charlie Kolb is working on the Howard
Baker idea, but you may be doing so as well.
If we come up with a sentence or paragraph
on that, we'll get it to you.
G
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #2
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL3, 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 reform
our education system -- literally revolutionize it. Second, our
people must have a sense of well-being about their physical
health. We must guarantee them access to the finest health care
system in the world, and make that care more affordable.
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 as well as our economy.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more 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. British
3
essayist, 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 process is called reform.
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it might be called the crusade for quality. Often it's not
flashy -- perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", or "the customer's always right."
At other times it means measuring performance, because that is
the how to improve performance. Competition improves quality and
performance. The proof is that today, American products are
quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
It is
>
Not only the private sector that feels the positive pressure of
healthy competition. For example, the military, in the face of
tighter budgets, has 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.
Elsewhere, however,
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. But, this is not about
gymnasium privileges or limousines. It is not about perks. It
is about Dolitical power, and our ability to use it for the public good.
The changes that are sweeping the rest of the country have
4
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. This entrenched status quo
attitude can be laid squarely at the doorstep of Congress.
The most recent proof was its inability to rise to today the
economic challenges without reverting to form -- higher taxes and
fighting our edonomy rolling again
bigger government. We all know that government is too big and
spends in too much. Too often the way Congress spends AV the people's
money is the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
and often Over and over again it has
accountability, I frankly, without compassion. It stonewalls
for dubios reasons at best
solutions we have proposed, With tough, complicated problems
ahead, from education to health care, we simply cannot afford
this kind of government.
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
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. He argues this sets
in motion a perpetual cycle of congressional support for more
S
unnecesary spending -- creating bigger and even less responsive
bureaucracies. Then, the members and their increasingly powerful
staffs become ombudsmen between the it constituent and the agencies
our executive
-- expediting benefits and procuring more pork thus ensuring
re-election and a the status quo. Fina/ly,
continuation business as of usual Dork Darreling. 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,
5
"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, have controlled the
Congress 58 out of the last 62 years.
by no means
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but not the
all only of problem. it. We have had divided government before in our
history, sometimes during periods of great crisis. Each time we have
Those
worked together in good today faith to meet new challenges.
The larger issue is the Fd 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 dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a 1117
million Any dollar re-election war chest for incumbents in special-
interest campaign contributions, and millions more in special-
interest influence. None of this ≤
This is not a system that can promote reform and change.
Rather it aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to
dedicated
retiring members, many of them good people like Senator Warren
Rudman of New Hampshire, and you will hear observe the frustration. When
asked about the continuing spectre of huge budget deficits, Sendtor he Redmon
issued this indictment of the system, "the fact is that we are
unable, institutionally, to do what has to be done. We are
6
literally not watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns; we
are watching the entire orchestra."
He are a --
knows that the American people compassionate generas, committed people
do whatever is necessary
willing to foot the bill tó help make this country better. But
there is a mismatch between their willingness to help and their
skepticism about government. They just don't trust government 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, pitches 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 propogruds P.R. when it sees
it. They know it adds up to real money taxpayer their money, and
believe be we must put a stop to it this abuse.
Today government is a $1.5 trillion and a half dollar enterprise.
people But in it Washington frequently forgets D.C. that the taxpayer is original the investor,
customer, shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
When forgets that, it issues counterproductive regulations, us
folks it in government They, nettlesome
Those ones regulations that increase the cost of doing business, but and worse, they ones
that don't really solve the problem they were designed to solve. They
simply handss Deople
It shelters perpetual programs that have outlived their function,
Such
actions but not Dr their government funding. often
Because the government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it has become insulated, unresponsive and
resists the reform. It is almost impossible to adequately reward
in government
7
success, much less punish failure. Talk to the hardworking
people in governmment service -- many will say the same thing --
they are frustrated too. But 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. With a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as godparent,
had testified in 14 hearings in oneday!
they become stepchildren of the Congress. Some thirty different
Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim some degree
of oversight responsibility for the Department of Defense.
Seventy-four committees and subcommittees compete to exercise
jurisdiction over the War on Drugs. It should be no surprise
that it takes forever SO long to get anything done.
staff
One of my Branch Cabinet to fulfill members Congressional told me some demands time for ago testimony. that head Think his 102 of
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
More than six hundred from the Defense Department -- and on
through all the Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve
its performance, and we must. What merely hampered us in the
Future
past, will paralyze us in the new century. Our ability to
in the world demands that 8 we
the
compete requires us to make these reforms not just of Congress
but At the federal bureaucracy as well. But let me be clear, it
reform The
also and sim 01 toneously,
is impossible to have adequate executive branch reform reform without
first reforming the Congress.
Today I am proposing a set of actions that taken together
will make government work for the people.
First, universal application of the laws of the land. In
other words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes
on the public. Across the board. No more special treatment.
Like age, race, sex and disability discrimination laws; labor
standards -- worker and workplace protections. Congress should
also submit to the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch --
ethics & wles and
like conflict of interest laws or the independent counsel law.
So today, I am proposing the Congressional Accountability
Act which will require force Congress to be covered by the same laws as
everyone else. Further, I will veto any future legislation that
extends special treatment to the Congress.
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress. Democratic
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 is a
good start, but real reform is still on the back burner. It is
time for the American people to turn up the heat.
9
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Three years ago, I
proposed the total elimination of special interest Political
Action Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs. I
proposed ways to reduce the influence of special interests,
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties. 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." These reforms are stalled on Capitol Hill, and 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.
I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
without touching Social Security. 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. 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
10
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 unncessary regulations.
Finally, 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
Senators should be limited to two terms, and Representatives,
limited to six terms. rule After all, as President my terms are
limited, the same should apply to members of Congress. Our first
concern should be the country not a "career. lifetime political
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. Once again, 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.
# # #
from
Gardner
p.g.T.
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #1
MAR
27
Reform
P8:
39
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 1, 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 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.
Many have called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must meet five great challenges now, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our people must be educated, literate -- motivated to
make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must reform our education
system -- literally revolutionize it -- top to bottom. Second,
our people must have a sense of well-being about their health and
the health of their children and families. We must guarantee
them access to the finest health care system in the world, and
make that care more affordable.
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 individuals and businesses
billions of dollars -- and putting a tremendous drag on our
civility as well as our economy.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more foreign markets for American goods and
services to sustain and create American jobs.
were 9001 would reformappers as 35 to 3
Finally, we must address the issue that I am here to discuss
at length today -- reform of our government. During the last
private
decade, one institution after another has been challenged --
uncleas
forced to take a hard look within itself, make needed
improvements, and act to make the institution live up to its
principles. That process is called reform.
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it might be called the crusade for quality. Whether it's the
reform is
quality of a product, or the quality of a service, it's not often
flashy --perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", "the customer's always right", or
"service with a smile". At other times it maysingly means measuring
performance, because that is the way to improve performance. In
many ways, competition has been the driving force to improve
quality and performance, and not surprisingly, it has worked.
Today, American products are quantifiably measured.(G) better than they were
only a few years ago.
It is not just the private sector that has felt the positive
pinch of healthy competition. For example, the military, in the
face of budget cuts, has had to cut the fat, and get leaner and
smarter. Desert Storm proved it could be done. Just about every
other institution -- state and local government, unions, trade
associations, charitable groups -- any organization that serves a
public -- have been influenced by this drive for excellence.
Yet, the federal government has resisted reform and
protected the status quo -- even in the face of an unambiguous
4
need for change. The change that swept the rest of America has
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. The rise of an entrenched
and
dedicated to perpetuatry the
status quo-oriented Washington establishment can be laid
Status
gno-
squarely at the doorstep of the United States Congress.
Everyone knows that government is too big and spends too
much. And there's something else everyone knows: too often the
government spends the money of its customer, the American
taxpayer, the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
accountability, and frankly, without compassion. As I've
PuHM:
mentioned, we've got some very tough problems ahead, and
*
government needs to play a role in solving those problems. But,
reference
right now government, particularly the Congress, is simply not up
to the job. Let me tell you why that is the case, and how we
TAX plan.
must change things.
HOLF then can't This melt
do how Charges
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
the growth of big government has changed the role of Congress
h.c Jahn Atc.
from policymaking to pork-barreling -- changed the Congressional
office to a Campaign and Constituent office. He argues that this
sets in motion a self-perpetuating cycle of congressional support
for unnecessary spending and bigger bureaucracies which in turn
become even more lethargic and unresponsive.
Then, the members and their increasingly powerful staffs
become ombudsmen between the constituent and the bureaucracy --
expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- and thus ensuring
re-election and a continuation of the status quo.
5
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about this.
Madison, in Federalist Paper #52, argued that permanent
majorities are dangerously undemocratic. He would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected. That one party -- the Democrats -- have controlled the
Senade-House,
Congress 58 out of the last 62 years. That not one Republican
s
member of the House -- some with more than 30 years of service -
- has ever been in the majority, and all but five Democrats have
never been in the minority.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but this is not
an attack on divided government. We have had divided government
before in our history, sometimes during periods of great crisis.
Each time we have pulled together as a nation, and met whatever
challenge threatened our security or national well-being.
something
The larger issue is the systemic problem -- the sticky web
of 284 Congressional Committees, 34,000 Capitol Hill employees
and staff, 2 billion dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with
a 117 million dollar re-election war chest in special-interest
campaign contributions, and millions more in special-interest
influence.
This is not a system that can promote reform and change.
Rather, it aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to
retiring members, many of them good 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
6
unable institutionally to do what has to be done. We are not
just watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns, we are
watching the entire orchestra."
Let me give you one small example of the misplaced
proce.
priorities on Capitol Hill -- an example that continually comes
across my desk for action. Three times a week the White House
receives a proclamation passed by a joint resolution of Congress.
It might be to designate a particular day: "National Tap Dance
Day", (true story) or a month, "National Digestive Disease
Gudaer:
Awareness Month". Hundreds of these come to the White House for
remember
Presidential action each year. In fact, nearly one third of all
PmL
the legislation that reaches my desk is like this.
Pullus
Now, while there's nothing wrong with Congress passing a
proclamation heralding "National Crime Victims Week", there is
something wrong when Congress can't pass a comprehensive crime
bill that actually makes people safer in their homes and
communities. "National Asparagus Month" may be good constituent
relations, but the problems in American agriculture have to do
with our national vitality, not our national vegetable.
For every one of these bills, there are legions of staff
churning out the public relations campaigns to accompany them --
both on Capitol Hill, and in the executive branch. There are
constituents contacted, newsletters written, paper -- reams of
paper -- produced. Is this a big ticket item in the federal
budget? Probably not. But it is more evidence of a Congress
that chooses to spend time and effort on the easy constituent
7
relations and routine chores rather than on the difficult, often
controversial issues that determine the future of our country.
These actions undermine the people's confidence in their
government the same way as outrageous pork-barrel spending does.
[[Just as I sent to Congress ten days ago my anti-pork line-item
Gardner
rescissions, I am telling Congress today that from this day
Brady:
forward, the Executive Branch will not spend taxpayer dollars to
delete
fund publicity campaigns for special interests -- so don't send
me any more of these pork-barrel proclamations. ]]
The American people are a compassionate people -- willing to
foot the bill to help make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about government. They just don't trust government to use their
world
hard-earned tax dollars wisely. In dollar terms, one quarter of
u.s.
lown
be
everything we produce, build, or grow as a nation is devoured by
3th
NO-
the central government. There is no bigger appetite on earth.
many
When taxpayer money goes for special-interest publicity
indust.
campaigns and pork-barrel projects, people get angry. They
COS
demand change. Maybe it's small potatoes to the Congress, but
the public knows P.R. when it sees it. For each letter a member
receives, 12,000 go out -- free. That adds up to real money --
taxpayer money, and I think we must put a stop to it.
Today our government is a trillion and a half dollar
business that too often forgets that the taxpayer is customer,
shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
Tarpay,
loses
8
Because government forgets the customer it issues
STOT
counterproductive regulations -- ones that increase the cost of
doing business, but worse, ones that don't really solve the
problem they were designed to solve.
Because the government forgets the shareholder, it shelters
perpetual programs that have outlived their function, but not
their funding. Because the government forgets who is really the
boss -- the American taxpayer -- it has become insulated,
unresponsive and resists reform. It is almost impossible to
adequately reward success, much less punish failure. This is no
slight to the four million hardworking people in the bureaucracy
itself. Talk to them and many will say the same thing -- they
are frustrated as well. But 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. With a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as godparent,
they become stepchildren of the Congress.
A few examples will help drive home the point. Some thirty
different Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim
some degree of oversight responsibility for the Department of
Defense. Seventy-four committees and subcommittees compete to
exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs.
9
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
Branch to fulfill Congressional demands for testimony. Think of
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
Six hundred from the Defense Department --- and on through all the
Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve
its performance. We must improve its performance. So it's not
just the Congress, it's the sprawling federal bureaucracy that
needs reform as well. But let me be clear, it is impossible to
have executive branch reform without reforming the Congress.
I have proposed reforms in the past and I am proposing
additional steps today: in sum they represent how a way we can to return
confidence and clarity to the mission of America's government.
WEMBER no tatution should hand outside the hav.
First, universal application of the laws of the land.
Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials, "can make no
law which will not have in full operation on themselves and their
friends, as well as on the great mass of society." In other
words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on the
public. Across the board. No more exceptions. Like civil
rights laws. Age discrimination laws. The Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Congress should also submit to the laws it imposes on the
Executive Branch -- like the Privacy Act, or Title VI of the
10
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the independent counsel law.
[[ To those ends, today I am sending to Congress [name of
Administration bill] which will force Congress to be covered by
the same laws everyone else is. Further, I will veto any new
legislation that does not also apply to the Congress. ]] But
that is only a first step toward rebuilding public confidence in
our laws and our lawmakers.
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which is now paralyzing the Congress. Democratic
Senator Boren said it best when he described the Congress as
"inefficient, unresponsive, wasteful, and compromised by the way
it finances its campaigns." The numbers of reformers in the
Congress is growing but they need the support of the American
people now more than ever.
we need
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Three years ago -
- in 1989 -- I proposed the total elimination of Political Action
Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs." I proposed
that we increase the support that the parties can provide to
federal campaigns to reduce the influence of special interests,
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties. I
proposed that we reduce allowable contributions by these
"independent" PACs to federal campaigns, and pass laws to ensure
that they stay truly independent and unaffiliated -- in other
words, clean. Finally, I asked the Congress to join me in
11
stopping the abuse that results from spreading around what's
called "soft money" -- I asked support for full disclosure of "soft
money" expenditures by all organizations as the only way to clean
up the system.
we must have
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
But the pown of the President to
influence
without touching Social Security. I call again for the American
the
pamer
people to demand that the Congress pass the same measure that 43
of
the
governors have: the line-item veto. In the absence of that
pense
in
important tool I will continue to use whatever means are legally
times
at my disposal, including the line-item-rescission, to protect
limit.
the taxpayer from the spending excesses of Congress. I will
resist any attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only defense
the taxpayer has against Congressional overspending -- those
budget caps implemented in the 1990 Budget Act. Finally, I again
call for a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.
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. We have cut back XXX of regulations, pages in the Federal
Register by XX% just in the last XX months/years. [[ Today I am
announcing an extension/new review process. ]]
?
12
Next, a new communications policy between the Congress and
the Executive Branch. [[ Logging reform -- decision memo result.
Reform of the nomination process. ]] //
Finally, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. [[ So today, to truly to fix the
system, I have sent to the Congress legislation to limit terms of
United States Senators to two, and Representatives, six terms. ]]
After all, as President my terms are limited. the same should
apply to members of Congress.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. Once again, as in the first days of our new nation, we'
face a challenge. 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. If we could change the world,
we can change America. We must make the choice for change.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
h166-952
"care more about HM.
career than
country."
Page 4.
The is ans.
that would
rotpaso -52,
tax miniase.
spen dry caps.
was
that two
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #1
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
fork May structure the and
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 1, 1992
Thank you for that kind introduction. [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS]
let auxe
me
Today, I would rather be in Philadelphia. Old Congress Hall is
let
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
INTRO
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
worldwide
2
turned the world upside down. America once again stood at the
forefront of a great movement. We stood firm for our principles
through some very difficult times. We changed the world, and we
CHANGE
stand upon a new threshhold. Now, as you have heard me say, if
we could change the world, we can change America.
Hunge
Many have called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must meet five great challenges now, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
the
First, our people must be educated, literate -- motivated to
of
make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must reform our education
need
2/19/49 Mag
duy
system -- literally revolutionize it -- top to bottom. Second,
our people must have a sense of well-being about their health and
Rit
the health of their children and families. We must guarantee
them access to the finest health care system in the world, and
make that care more affordable.
Next, our civil justice system must do what it was designed
FIVE
to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits a
PILLARS
year are choking us -- costing individuals and businesses
billions of dollars -- and putting a tremendous drag on our
civility as well as our economy.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more foreign markets for American goods and
services --and to sustain and create American jobs.
decental accounta the makis inciady It to we chargen and or
3
Finally, we must address the issue that I am here to discuss
at length today -- reform of our government. During the last
" 3
decade one institution after another has been challenged --
forced to take a hard look within itself, make needed
As But Therelk can of
improvements, and act to make the institution live up to its
No
principles. That process is called reform.
V 3 2 To
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it is might be called the crusade for quality . Whether its the
REFORM INTRO
often,
quality of a product, or the quality of a service, it's not often
Roth
flashy perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", "the customer's always right", or
Indorsement S.20 S. 20
"service with a smile". At other times it means measuring
performance, because that is the way to improve performance.
In
John Mercernal
many ways, competition has been the driving force to improve
quality and performance, and not surprisingly, it has worked.
2242626
2626
224
Today, American products are quantifiably better than they were
only a few years ago.
It is not just the private sector that has felt the positive
pinch of healthy competition. For example, the military, in the
face of budget cuts, has had to cut the fat, and get leaner and
smarter. Desert Storm proved it could be done. Just about every
other institution -- state and local government, unions, trade
associations, charitable groups -- any organization that serves a
public -- have been influenced by this drive for excellence.
Yet, the federal government has resisted reform and
protected the status quo -- even in the face of an unambiguous
400 billion a you a you an
educator
4500/kid
40% cncrease in real term
and test down. scores me
recent evidence is how Congress
dealt with
recovery package
they couldn't come together without
tough copues today that wire going
solve-
Angly can't deal with it
if they can't smple deal plan with an
how will they deal
here
we to case the
4
need for change. The change that swept the rest of America has
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. The rise of an entrenched
status quo-oriented Washington establishment, can be laid
squarely at the doorstep of the United States Congress.
Everyone knows that government is too big and spends too
much. And there's something else everyone knows: too often the
government spends the money of its customer, the American
taxpayer, the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
accountability, and frankly, without compassion. As I've
The PRABLEM
mentioned, we've got some very tough problems ahead, and
government needs to play a role in solving those problems. But,
right now government, particularly the Congress is simply not up
to the job. Let me tell you why that is the case, and how we
must change things.
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
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. He argues that this
sets in motion a self-perpetuating cycle of congressional support
for unnecessary spending and bigger bureaucracies which in turn
become even more lethargic and unresponsive.
Then, the members and their increasingly powerful staffs
become ombudsmen between the constituent and the bureaucracy --
expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- and thus ensuring
re-election and a continuation of the status quo.
5
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about this.
Madison, in Federalist Paper #52, argued that permanent
majorities are dangerously undemocratic. He would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected. That one party -- the Democrats -- have controlled the
Congress 58 out of the last 62 years. That not one Republican
member of the House -- some with more than 30 years of service -
- has ever been in the majority, and all but five Democrats have
never been in the minority.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but this is not
an attack on divided government. We have had divided government
before in our history, sometimes during periods of great crisis.
Each time we have pulled together as a nation, and met whatever
challenge threatened our security or national well-being.
The larger issue is the systemic problem -- the sticky web
of 284 Congressional Committees, 34,000 Capitol Hill employees
and staff, 2 billion dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with
a 117 million dollar re-election war chest in special interest
campaign contributions, and millions more in special interest
influence.
filing
This is not a system that can promote reform and change.
Rather, it aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to
retiring members, many of them good 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
6
unable institutionally to do what has to be done. We are not
just watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns, we are
watching the entire orchestra."
Let me give you one small example of the misplaced
priorities on Capitol Hill -- an example that continually comes
across my desk for action. Three times a week the White House
receives a proclamation passed by a joint resolution of Congress.
It might be to designate a particular day: "National Tap Dance
Day", (true story) or a month, "National Digestive Disease
MISPLACED mis PRIMITIES
Awareness Month". Hundreds of these come to the White House for
Presidential action each year. In fact, nearly one third of all
the legislation that reaches my desk is like this.
Now, there's nothing wrong with Congress passing a
proclamation heralding "National Crime Victims Week", there is
something wrong when Congress can't pass a comprehensive crime
bill that actually makes people safer in their homes and
communities. "National Asparagus Month" may be good constituent
relations, but the problems in American agriculture have to do
with our national vitality, not our national vegetable.
For every one of these bills, there are legions of staff
churning out the public relations campaigns to accompany them --
both on Capitol Hill, and in the executive branch. There are
constituents contacted, newsletters written, paper -- reams of
paper -- produced. Is this a big ticket item in the federal
budget? Probably not. But it is more eveidence of a Congress
that chooses to spend time and effort on the easy constituent
7
relations and routine chores rather than on the difficult, often
controversial issues that determine the future of our country.
These actions undermine the people's confidence in their
government the same way as outrageous pork-barrel spending does.
[[Just as I sent to Congress ten days ago my anti-pork line-item
recissions, I am telling Congress today that from this day
forward, the Executive Branch will not spènd taxpayer dollars to
fund publicity campaigns for special interests -- so don't send
me any more of these pork barrel proclamations. ]]
The American people are a compassionate people -- willing to
foot the bill to help make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about government. They just don't trust government to use their
hard-earned tax dollars wisely. In dollar terms, one quarter of
everything we produce, build, or grow as a nation is devoured by
the central government. There is no bigger appetite on earth.
When taxpayer money goes for special interest publicity
campaigns and pork-barrel projects, people get angry. They
demand change. Maybe it's small potatoes to the Congress, but
the public knows P.R. when it sees it. For each letter a
clied
member receives, 12,000 go out -- free. That adds up to real
rates
money -- taxpayer money, and I think we should put a stop to it.
Today our government is a trillion and a half dollar
business that too often forgets that the taxpayer is customer,
shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
stakedur
we got too poblems built in
8
Because government forgets the customer it issues
counterproductive regulations -- ones that increase the cost of
doing business, but worse, ones that don't really solve the
problem they were designed to solve.
Because the government forgets the shareholder, it shelters
perpetual programs that have outlived their function, but not
their funding. Because the government forgets who is really the
boss -- the American taxpayer -- it has become insulated,
unresponsive and resists reform. It is almost impossible to
adequately reward success, much less punish failure. This is no
publicuice
slight to the four million hardworking people in the bureaucracy
TWR
itself. Talk to them and many will say the same thing -- they
are frustrated as well. But 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 that 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. With a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as
godparent, they become stepchildren of the Congress.
A few examples will help drive home the point. Some thirty
different Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim
some degree of oversight responsibility for the Department of
Defense. Seventy-four committees and subcommittees compete to
exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs.
<<0
actes Congress + perpetuates
9
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
Branch to fulfill Congressional demands for testimony. Think of
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
Six hundred from the Defense Department -- and on through all the
Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve
its performance. We must improve its performance. So it's not
just the Congress, it's the sprawling federal bureaucracy that
needs reform as well. But let me be clear, it is impossible to
have executive branch reform without reforming the Congress.
I have proposed reforms in the past and I am proposing
Ampler
additional steps today: in sum they represent how to return
Anguage
confidence and clarity to the mission of America's government.
mark
First, universal application of the laws of the land.
Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials, "can make no
law which will not have in full operation on themselves and their
SOLUTIONS
friends, as well as on the great mass of society." In other
words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on the
public. Across the board. No more exceptions. Like civil
rights laws. Age discrimination Laws. The Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Congress should also submit to the laws it imposes on the
Executive Branch -- like the Privacy Act, or Title VI of the
15 laws that cover
everybody
Congus would be less while
if they knew
Imagine
virid
10
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the independent counsel law.
[[ To those ends, today I am sending to Congress [name of
Administration bill] which will force Congress to be covered by
the same laws everyone else is. Further, I will veto any new
legislation that does not also apply to the Congress. ]] But
that is only a first step toward rebuilding public confidence in
our laws and our lawmakers.
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
groth fince Berst
subcommittees which is now paralyzing the Congress. Democratic
Senator Boren said it best when he described the Congress as
"inefficient, unresponsive, wasteful, and compromised by the way
it finances its campaigns." The numbers of reformers in the
Congress is growing but they need the support of the American
people now more than ever.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Three years ago -
- in 1989 -- I proposed the total elimination of Political Action
Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs." " I proposed
that we increase the support that the parties can provide to
federal campaigns to reduce the influence of special interests,
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties.
I
proposed that we reduce allowable contributions by these
"independent" PAC's to federal campaigns and pass laws to ensure
that they stay truly independent and unaffiliated -- in other
words, clean. Finally, I asked the Congress to join me in
11
stopping the abuse that results from spreading around what's
called "soft money" -- I asked for full disclosure of "soft
money" expenditures by all organizations as the only way to clean
up the system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
without touching Social Security. I call again for the American
people to demand that the Congress to pass the same measure that
43 governors have: the line-item veto. In the absence of that
important tool I will continue to use whatever means are legally
at my disposal, including the line-item-recission, to protect the
SOLUTIONS
taxpayer from the spending excesses of Congress. I will resist
any attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only defense the
taxpayer has against Congressional overspending -- those budget
of
caps implemented in the 1990 Budget Act. Finally, I again call
the
for a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.
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
are accelerating regulations that enhance our competitive edge.
We have cut back XXX of regulations, pages in the Federal
Register by XX% just in the last XX months/years. [[ Today I am
announcing an extension/new review process. ]]
As This
will 40 mod you later
fault is not are and only iforms looking in make Corgons for accountable beneauciary
mod way require ligitation
not wong about country
about their career
12
Next, a new communications policy between the Congress and
the Executive Branch. [[ Logging reform -- decision memo result.
Reform of the nomination process. ]] //
Finally, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. [[ So today, to truly to fix the
system, I have sent to the Congress legislation to limit terms of
United States Senators to two, and Representatives, six terms. ]]
After all, as President my terms are limited, the same should
apply to members of Congress.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. Once again, as in the first days of our new nation, we
face a challenge. 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. If we could change the world,
we can change America. We must make the choice for change.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
#
get spillan
noo your we form replaced your lach
why
kkg done hashing
going
the
wf
have
I believe
have we made the case
I share
share auggest ion
need the Congress
N/American prople
Addremance
Document No. 318 076 718
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
counsel
03/27/92
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: NOON Monday, 03/30
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER, PHILADELPHIA, PA-4/1
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SKINNER
MCBRIDE
SCOWCROFT
MOORE
DARMAN
PETERSMEYER
BRADY
PORTER
BROMLEY
ROGICH
CALIO
ROLLINS
DEMAREST
SMITH
FITZWATER
YEUTTER
GRAY
FINDLAY
KAUFMAN
HOLIDAY
BOSKIN
McGROARTY
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments directly to Dan McGroarty no later
than Noon on Monday, 03/30, with a copy to this office. Thanks.
RESPONSE:
Cuat 30
cust 10
wat 28
cuat 29
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #1
MAR 27 P8: 39
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 1, 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 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.
Many have called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must meet five great challenges now, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our people must be educated, literate -- motivated to
make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must reform our education
system -- literally revolutionize it -- top to bottom. Second,
our people must have a sense of well-being about their health and
the health of their children and families. We must guarantee
them access to the finest health care system in the world, and
make that care more affordable.
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 individuals and businesses
billions of dollars -- and putting a tremendous drag on our
civility as well as our economy.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more foreign markets for American goods and
services to sustain and create American jobs.
3
Finally, we must address the issue that I am here to discuss
at length today -- reform of our government. During the last
decade, 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 process is called reform.
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it might be called the crusade for quality. Whether it's the
quality of a product, or the quality of a service, it's not often
flashy --perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", "the customer's always right", or
"service with a smile". At other times it means measuring
performance, because that is the way to improve performance. In
many ways, competition has been the driving force to improve
quality and performance, and not surprisingly, it has worked.
Today, American products are quantifiably better than they were
only a few years ago.
It is not just the private sector that has felt the positive
pinch of healthy competition. For example, the military, in the
face of budget cuts, has had to cut the fat, and get leaner and
smarter. Desert Storm proved it could be done. Just about every
other institution -- state and local government, unions, trade
associations, charitable groups -- any organization that serves a
public -- have been influenced by this drive for excellence.
Yet, the federal government has resisted reform and
protected the status quo -- even in the face of an unambiguous
4
need for change. The change that swept the rest of America has
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. The rise of an entrenched
status quo-oriented Washington establishment, can be laid
squarely at the doorstep of the United States Congress.
Everyone knows that government is too big and spends too
much. And there's something else everyone knows: too often the
government spends the money of its customer, the American
taxpayer, the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
accountability, and frankly, without compassion. As I've
mentioned, we've got some very tough problems ahead, and
government needs to play a role in solving those problems. But,
right now government, particularly the Congress, is simply not up
to the job. Let me tell you why that is the case, and how we
must change things.
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
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. He argues that this
sets in motion a self-perpetuating cycle of congressional support
for unnecessary spending and bigger bureaucracies which in turn
become even more lethargic and unresponsive.
Then, the members and their increasingly powerful staffs
become ombudsmen between the constituent and the bureaucracy --
expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- and thus ensuring
re-election and a continuation of the status quo.
5
has
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about this.
Madison, in Federalist Paper #52, argued that permanent
majorities are dangerously undemocratic. He would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected. That one party -- the Democrats have controlled the
Congress 58 out of the last 62 years. That not one Republican
member of the House -- some with more than 30 years of service -
- has ever been in the majority, and all but five Democrats have
never been in the minority.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but this is not
an attack on divided government. We have had divided government
before in our history, sometimes during periods of great crisis.
Each time we have pulled together as a nation, and met whatever
challenge threatened our security or national well-being.
yes
The larger issue is the systemic problem -- the sticky web
and Subcommuttees,
of 284 Congressional Committees 34,000 Capitol Hill employees
and staff, 2 billion dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with
a 117 million dollar re-election war chest in special-interest
campaign contributions, and millions more in special-interest
influence.
This is not a system that can promote reform and change.
Rather, it aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to
retiring members, many of them good 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
Avely,eays
Aqo
I
called
far
the
Federtist
has
not
6
unable institutionally to do what has to be done. We are not
just watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns, we are
watching the entire orchestra."
Let me give you one small example of the misplaced
priorities on Capitol Hill -- an example that continually comes
across my desk for action. Three times a week the White House
receives a proclamation passed by a joint resolution of Congress.
It might be to designate a particular day: "National Tap Dance
Day", (true story) or a month, "National Digestive Disease
Awareness Month". Hundreds of these come to the White House for
Presidential action each year. In fact, nearly one third of all
the legislation that reaches my desk is like this.
Now, while there's nothing wrong with Congress passing a
proclamation heralding "National Crime Victims Week", there is
something wrong when Congress can't pass a comprehensive crime
bill that actually makes people safer in their homes and
communities. "National Asparagus Month" may be good constituent
relations, but the problems in American agriculture have to do
with our national vitality, not our national vegetable.
For every one of these bills, there are legions of staff
churning out the public relations campaigns to accompany them --
both on Capitol Hill, and in the executive branch. There are
constituents contacted, newsletters written, paper -- reams of
paper -- produced. Is this a big ticket item in the federal
budget? Probably not. But it is more evidence of a Congress
that chooses to spend time and effort on the easy constituent
7
relations and routine chores rather than on the difficult, often
controversial issues that determine the future of our country.
These actions undermine the people's confidence in their
government the same way as outrageous pork-barrel spending does.
[[Just as I sent to Congress ten days ago my anti-pork line-item
rescissions, I am telling Congress today that from this day
forward, the Executive Branch will not spend taxpayer dollars to
fund publicity campaigns for special interests -- so don't send
me any more of these pork-barrel proclamations. ]]
The American people are a compassionate people -- willing to
foot the bill to help make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about government. They just don't trust government to use their
hard-earned tax dollars wisely. In dollar terms, one quarter of
everything we produce, build, or grow as a nation is devoured by
the central government. There is no bigger appetite on earth.
?
When taxpayer money goes for special-interest publicity
campaigns and pork-barrel projects, people get angry. They
demand change. Maybe it's small potatoes to the Congress, but
the public knows P.R. when it sees it. For each letter a member
receives, 12,000 go out -- free. That adds up to real money --
taxpayer money, and I think we must put a stop to it.
Nhund:
Today our government is a trillion and a half dollar
Perot
business that too often forgets that the taxpayer is customer,
sounds
shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
8
Because government forgets the customer, it issues
counterproductive regulations -- ones that increase the cost of
doing business, but worse, ones that don't really solve the
problem they were designed to solve.
Because the government forgets the shareholder, it shelters
perpetual programs that have outlived their function, but not
their funding. Because the government forgets who is really the
boss -- the American taxpayer -- it has become insulated,
unresponsive and resists reform. It is almost impossible to
adequately reward success, much less punish failure. This is no
slight to the four million hardworking people in the bureaucracy
itself. Talk to them and many will say the same thing -- they
are frustrated as well. But the system, which may have been good
for its time, now must change, and it won't be easy.
Dne 3715 aso
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
Fedsocon
to the
protects them, harasses them, investigates them, micro-manages
them. With a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as godparent,
Confort
they become stepchildren of the Congress.
A few examples will help drive home the point. Some thirty
some H
different Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim
degree 90 of oversight responsibility for the Department of
Defense
of
exercise dong. over the War on Drugs.
Seventy four committees and subcommittees compete to
Mattus comprent
take to make the government respond better to the people's needs.
uraning exising anthony, The are 1 one stays we on
Meently, Furexemple, dare broken the guidlock and succeeded in
advancing major multi-osing initiatives to
environment, antitrust, and financial services,
stramlene regulations in the areas of energy, the
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
Branch to fulfill Congressional demands for testimony. Think of
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
Six hundred from the Defense Department -- and on through all the
Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve
its performance. We must improve its performance. So it's not
just the Congress, it's the sprawling federal bureaucracy that
yes
needs reform as well.
But let me be clear, it is impossible to
have adequate) executive branch reform without reforming the Congress
which 15 the Source 650
mony
conflicting
I have proposed reforms in the past and I am proposing
pressures
on government
additional steps today: in sum they represent how to return
agencies
confidence and clarity to the mission of America's government.
yes
First, universal application of the laws of the land.
Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials, "can make no
without lucy principle] M+law
law which will not have in full operation on themselves and their
friends, as well as on the great mass of society. In other
words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on the
public. Across the board. [NO more except tons. Like civil
Glanderick
QUOTE
Special treatment.
rights laws.
Age discrimination laws
The Americans with
manimum
Disabilities Act.and the Freedom of Information Act age e
Congress should also submit to the laws it imposes on the
Has Freedom of information Ad
Executive Branch -- like the Privacy Act, Title VI of
Race Discrimination
Sex discrim.
"Conflict the of Interest
and
Cige discrim
Laws,
Dicalulism
[Congremously
10
act.
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the independent counsel law.
(yes
[[ To those ends, today I am sending to Congress [name of
extending
Administration bill] which will force Congress to be covered by
such
the same laws everyone else is. Further, I will veto any new
future
special treatment
legislation that does not also apply to the Congress. ]]
But
that is only a first step toward rebuilding public confidence in
our laws and our lawmakers.
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which is now paralyzing the Congress. Democratic
Senator Boren said it best when he described the Congress as
"inefficient, unresponsive, wasteful, and compromised by the way
it finances its campaigns." The numbers of reformers in the
Congress is growing but they need the support of the American
NO
people now more than ever.
to deal with thereality
insumbents who outspand
specialment
getin
challengers by marins of 8tol,
statute
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform Three years ago -
- in 1989 -- I proposed the total elimination of Political Action All
Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs. " I proposed see
that we increase the support that the parties can provide to
earlier
Speech.
federal campaigns to reduce the influence of special interests,
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties. I
proposed that we reduce allowable contributions by these
"independent" PACs to federal campaigns, and pass laws to ensure
that they stay truly independent and unaffiliated -- in other
words, clean. Finally, I asked the Congress to join me in
Insert logging order announcement memo.
if approved after defision CLink to PACs)
stopping addressing the the patential for
11
abuse that results from spreading around what's
called "soft money" -- I asked for full disclosure of "soft
yes
money" expenditures by all organizations as the only way to clean
up the system.
CLOGGING REFORM
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
without touching Social Security. I call again for the American
people to demand that the Congress pass the same measure that 43
governors have: the line-item veto. In the absence of that
important tool 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.
I will
resist any attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only defense
the taxpayer has against Congressional overspending -- those
budget caps implemented in the 1990 Budget Act. Finally, I again
call for a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.
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. We have cut back XXX of regulations, pages in the Federal
Register by XX% just in the last XX months/years. [[ Today I am
n-
announcing an extension/new review process. ]]
And
And I will not accept attempts by the
Democrat resenship to circument the
Members of the House or Senate home the right to
clear intent of the law: one fifth of the
demond a separate vote. byline every
item of pork that I identi fy.
move to top
of page 11
12
Next, a new communications policy between the Congress and
the Executive Branch. [[ Logging reform -- decision memo result.
Legals
Reform of the nomination process ]] //
the timehas cometo
no
Finally, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. [- So today, to truly to fix the
system, I have sent to the Congress legislation to limit terms of
United States Senators to two, and Representatives (and) six terms. 11
After all, as President my terms are limited, the same should
apply to members of Congress.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. Once again, as in the first days of our new nation, we
face a challenge. 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. If we could change the world,
we can change America. We must make the choice for change.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
cityer legislators
sols/economic impact Statement
Document No. 318378
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
92 MAR 30 P12: 44
DATE:
03/27/92
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: NOON Monday, 03/30
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER, PHILADELPHIA, PA-4/1
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
SKINNER
MCBRIDE
SCOWCROFT
MOORE
DARMAN
PETERSMEYER
BRADY
PORTER
BROMLEY
ROGICH
CALIO
ROLLINS
DEMAREST
SMITH
FITZWATER
YEUTTER
GRAY
FINDLAY
HOLIDAY
KAUFMAN
BOSKIN
McGROARTY
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments directly to Dan McGroarty no later
than Noon on Monday, 03/30, with a copy to this office. Thanks.
RESPONSE:
Real
see
comments
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #1
32 MAR 27 P8: 39
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 1, 1992
pMcG
Thank you for that kind introduction. [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS]
Today, I would rather be in Philadelphia. Old Congress Hall is
profouml and
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
value
the inherent 1 trength 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
that ^ its vision - even if that requires
a permanent revolution.
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 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.
Many have called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must meet five great challenges now, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our people must be educated, literate -- motivated to
Fundamentally change
make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must reform. our education
^
system -- literally revolutionize it -- top to bottom.
wemus
they
Second,
our children developgrod character and ostrong values and
Gour people must have a sense of well-being about their physical health and about
Key
the a health of their children and families. We must guaranteed
And our physical health depends on
them access to the finest health care system in the world, and
make that care more affordable.
Next, our civil justice system must do what it was designed
1152 lawsuits Porall.
to do: dispense justice, for all ")^ Eighteen million lawsuits a
year are choking us -- costing individuals and businesses
billions of dollars -- and putting a tremendous drag on our
civility as well as our economy.
Another challenge is that
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more foreign markets for those American goods and
^
services to sustain and create American jobs.
create the marking best products and
services in the world and
3
Finally, we must address the issue that I am here to discuss
at length today -- reform-of-our government. During the last
quality and necessary reform
allover America,
decade, 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 process is called reform.
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it might be called the crusade for quality. Whether it's the
quality of a product, or the quality of a service, it's not often
flashy --perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", "the customer's always right", or
"service with a smile". At other times it means measuring
performance, because that is the way to improve performance. In
many ways, competition has been the driving force to improve
quality and performance, and not surprisingly, it has worked.
Today, American products are quantifiably better than they were
only a few years ago.
It is not just the private sector that has felt the positive
pressure pinch of healthy competition. For example, the military, in the
face of budget cuts, has had to cut the fat, and get leaner and
smarter. Desert Storm proved it could be done. Just about every
other institution -- state and local government, unions, trade
associations, charitable groups -- any organization that serves a
public -- have been influenced by this drive for excellence. in order to
is being driven toward
survive.
But,
Yet, the federal government itself has resisted reform, and It
S
protect the status quo -- even in the face of X unambiguous
pressure
reformment 4 swee ping
need for change. The change that swept the rest of America has
S
Presponsibility For the
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. The rise of an entrenched
status quo Washington can be laid
squarely at the doorstep of the United States Congress.
Everyone knows that government is too big and spends too
much. And there's something else everyone knows: too often the
government spends the money its customer the American
money
-
-
taxpayer
the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
accountability, and frankly, without compassion. As I've
mentioned, we've got some very tough problems ahead, and
government needs to play a role in solving those problems. But,
right now government, particularly the Congress, is simply not up
to the job. Let me tell you why that is the case, and how we
must change things.
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
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. He argues that this
sets in motion a self-perpetuating cycle of congressional support
for unnecessary spending and bigger bureaucracies which in turn
become even more lethargic and unresponsive.
Then, the members and their increasingly powerful staffs
become ombudsmen between the constituent and the bureaucracy --
expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- and thus ensuring
re-election and a continuation of the status quo.
5
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about this.
Stanger thight be
be
Madison, in Federalist Paper #52, argued that permanent
and tyrannical
majorities are dangerously undemocratic He would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected. That one party -- the Democrats -- have controlled the
Congress 58 out of the last 62 years. That not one Republican
member of the House -- some with more than 30 years of service -
- has ever been in the majority, and all but five Democrats have
never been in the minority.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but this is not
an attack on divided government. We have had divided government
before in our history, sometimes during periods of great crisis.
Each time we have pulled together as a nation, and met whatever
challenge threatened our security or national well-being.
The larger problem issue is the systemic problem the sticky web
of 284 Congressional Committees, 34,000 Capitol Hill employees
and staff, 2 billion dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with
a 117 million dollar re-election war chest in special-interest
campaign contributions, and millions more in special-interest
influence.
doesnot does not
This is-nota system that can promote reform and change.
flercely resis any real C hange, and strenwous by
Rather, it aggressively protectophe status quo. Talk to
ingal
retiring members, many of them good 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
6
unable institutionally to do what has to be done. We are not
just watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns, we are
watching the entire orchestra."
Let me give you one small example of the misplaced
priorities on Capitol Hill -- an example that continually comes
across my desk for action. Three times a week the White House
receives a proclamation passed by a joint resolution of Congress.
It might be to designate a particular day: "National Tap Dance
Day", (true story) or a month, "National Digestive Disease
Awareness Month". Hundreds of these come to the White House for
Presidential action each year. In fact, nearly one third of all
the legislation that reaches my desk is like this.
Now, while there's nothing wrong with Congress passing a
proclamation heralding "National Crime Victims Week", there is
something wrong when Congress can't pass a comprehensive crime
bill that actually makes people safer in their homes and
communities. "National Asparagus Month" may be good constituent
relations, but the problems in American agriculture have to do
with our national vitality, vigar not our national vegetable.
For every one of these bills, there are legions of staff
churning out the public relations campaigns to accompany them --
both on Capitol Hill, and in the executive branch. There are
constituents contacted, newsletters written, paper -- reams of
paper -- produced. Is this a big ticket item in the federal
budget? Probably not. But it is more evidence of a Congress
exertitseltion
that chooses to/spend time and-effort on thereasy constituent
7
relations and routine chores rather than on the difficult, often
controversial issues that determine the future of our country.
These actions undermine the people's confidence in their
government the same way as outrageous pork-barrel spending does.
[ [Just as I sent to Congress ten days ago my anti-pork line-item
rescissions, I am telling Congress today that from this day
forward, the Executive Branch will not spend taxpayer dollars to
fund publicity campaigns for special interests -- so don't send
me any more of these pork-barrel proclamations. ]]
The American people are'a compassionate generous people -- willing to
foot the bill to help make this country better. But there is a
greatconflict
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about government. They just don't trust government to use their
hard-earned tax dollars wisely. In dollar terms, one quarter of
everything we produce, build, or grow as a nation is devoured by
the central government. There is no bigger appetite on earth.
When taxpayer money goes for special-interest publicity
campaigns and pork-barrel projects, people get angry. They
The Peopleare right.
demand change A Maybe it's small potatoes to the Congress, but
the public knows P.R. when it sees it. For each letter a member
receives, 12,000 go out -- free. That adds up to real money --
taxpayer money. and I think We must put a stop to it.
Today our government is a trillion and a half dollar
business that too often Surgets things that backwards: the taxpayer it is) IS customer; not the gov' t,
wholstne customer,
A
shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
8
Because government forgets the customer, it issues
counterproductive regulations -- ones that increase the cost of
doing business, but worse, ones that don't really solve the
problem they were designed to solve.
Because the government forgets the shareholder, it shelters
perpetual programs that have outlived their function, but not
their funding. Because the government forgets who is really the
boss -- the American taxpayer -- it has become insulated,
unresponsive and resists reform. It is almost impossible to
adequately reward success, much less punish failure. This is no
slight to the four million hardworking people in the bureaucracy
itself. Talk to them and many will say the same thing -- they
are frustrated as well. But 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. With a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as godparent,
they become stepchildren of the Congress.
A few examples will help drive home the point. Some thirty
different Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim
some degree of oversight responsibility for the Department of
Defense. Seventy-four committees and subcommittees compete to
exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs.
9
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
Branch to fulfill Congressional demands for testimony. Think of
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
Six hundred from the Defense Department -- and on through all the
Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve
its performance. We must improve its performance. So it's not
just the Congress, it's the sprawling federal bureaucracy that
needs reform as well. But let me be clear, it is impossible to
have executive branch reform without reforming the Congress.
I have proposed reforms in the past and I am proposing
additional steps today: in sum they represent how to return
confidence and clarity to the mission of America's government.
First, universal application of the laws of the land.
Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials, "can make no
law which will not have in full operation on themselves and their
friends, as well as on the great mass of society." In other
words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on the
public. Across the board. No more exceptions. Like civil
rights laws. Age discrimination laws. The Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Congress should also submit to the laws it imposes on the
Executive Branch -- like the Privacy Act, or Title VI of the
10
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the independent counsel law.
[[ To those ends, today I am sending to Congress [name of
Administration bill] which will force Congress to be covered by
the same laws everyone else is. Further, I will veto any new
legislation that does not also apply to the Congress. ]] But
that is only a first step toward rebuilding public confidence in
our laws and our lawmakers.
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which is now paralyzing the Congress. Democratic
Senator Boren said it best when he described the Congress as
"inefficient, unresponsive, wasteful, and compromised by the way
it finances its campaigns." The numbers of reformers in the
Congress is growing but they need the support of the American
people now more than ever.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Three years ago -
- in 1989 -- I proposed the total elimination of Political Action
Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs.' " I proposed
that we increase the support that the parties can provide to
federal campaigns to reduce the influence of special interests,
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties. I
proposed that we reduce allowable contributions by these
"independent" PACs to federal campaigns, and pass laws to ensure
that they stay truly independent and unaffiliated -- in other
words, clean. Finally, I asked the Congress to join me in
11
stopping the abuse that results from spreading around what's
called "soft money" -- I asked for full disclosure of "soft
money" expenditures by all organizations as the only way to clean
up the system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
without touching Social Security. I call again for the American
people to demand that the Congress pass the same measure that 43
governors have: the line-item veto. In the absence of that
important tool 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. I will
resist any attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only defense
the taxpayer has against Congressional overspending -- those
budget caps implemented in the 1990 Budget Act. Finally, I again
call for a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.
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. We have cut back XXX of regulations, pages in the Federal
Register by XX% just in the last XX months/years. [[ Today I am
announcing an extension/new review process. ]]
12
Next, a new communications policy between the Congress and
the Executive Branch. [[ Logging reform -- decision memo result.
Reform of the nomination process. ]] //
Finally, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. [[ So today, to truly to fix the
system, I have sent to the Congress legislation to limit terms of
United States Senators to two, and Representatives, six terms. ]]
After all, as President my terms are limited, the same should
apply to members of Congress.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. Once again, as in the first days of our new nation, we
face a challenge. 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. If we could change the world,
we can change America. We must make the choice for change.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
2364
Document No. 318378
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
92 MAR 30 P3: On
03/27/92
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: NOON Monday, 03/30
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER, PHILADELPHIA, PA-4/1
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
BOSKIN
McGROARTY
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments directly to Dan McGroarty no later
than Noon on Monday, 03/30, with a copy to this office. Thanks.
RESPONSE:
March 30, 1992
TO:
DAN MCGROARTY
The NSC staff concurs with the draft presidential remarks.
for Brent Scowcroft
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
CC: Phillip D. Brady
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #1
J2 MAR 27
Reform
P8:
39
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 1, 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 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.
Many have called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must meet five great challenges now, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our people must be educated, literate -- motivated to
make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must reform our education
system -- literally revolutionize it -- top to bottom. Second,
our people must have a sense of well-being about their health and
the health of their children and families. We must guarantee
them access to the finest health care system in the world, and
make that care more affordable.
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 individuals and businesses
billions of dollars -- and putting a tremendous drag on our
civility as well as our economy.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more foreign markets for American goods and
services to sustain and create American jobs.
3
Finally, we must address the issue that I am here to discuss
at length today -- reform of our government. During the last
decade, 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 process is called reform.
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it might be called the crusade for quality. Whether it's the
quality of a product, or the quality of a service, it's not often
flashy --perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", "the customer's always right", or
"service with a smile". At other times it means measuring
performance, because that is the way to improve performance. In
many ways, competition has been the driving force to improve
quality and performance, and not surprisingly, it has worked.
Today, American products are quantifiably better than they were
only a few years ago.
It is not just the private sector that has felt the positive
pinch of healthy competition. For example, the military, in the
face of budget cuts, has had to cut the fat, and get leaner and
smarter. Desert Storm proved it could be done. Just about every
other institution -- state and local government, unions, trade
associations, charitable groups -- any organization that serves a
public --- have been influenced by this drive for excellence.
Yet, the federal government has resisted reform and
protected the status quo -- even in the face of an unambiguous
4
need for change. The change that swept the rest of America has
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. The rise of an entrenched
status quo-oriented Washington establishment, can be laid
squarely at the doorstep of the United States Congress.
Everyone knows that government is too big and spends too
much. And there's something else everyone knows: too often the
government spends the money of its customer, the American
taxpayer, the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
accountability, and frankly, without compassion. As I've
mentioned, we've got some very tough problems ahead, and
government needs to play a role in solving those problems. But,
right now government, particularly the Congress, is simply not up
to the job. Let me tell you why that is the case, and how we
must change things.
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
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. He argues that this
sets in motion a self-perpetuating cycle of congressional support
for unnecessary spending and bigger bureaucracies which in turn
become even more lethargic and unresponsive.
Then, the members and their increasingly powerful staffs
become ombudsmen between the constituent and the bureaucracy --
expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- and thus ensuring
re-election and a continuation of the status quo.
5
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about this.
Madison, in Federalist Paper #52, argued that permanent
majorities are dangerously undemocratic. He would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected. That one party -- the Democrats -- have controlled the
Congress 58 out of the last 62 years. That not one Republican
member of the House -- some with more than 30 years of service -
- has ever been in the majority, and all but five Democrats have
never been in the minority.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but this is not
an attack on divided government. We have had divided government
before in our history, sometimes during periods of great crisis.
Each time we have pulled together as a nation, and met whatever
challenge threatened our security or national well-being.
The larger issue is the systemic problem -- the sticky web
of 284 Congressional Committees, 34,000 Capitol Hill employees
and staff, 2 billion dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with
a 117 million dollar re-election war chest in special-interest
campaign contributions, and millions more in special-interest
influence.
This is not a system that can promote reform and change.
Rather, it aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to
retiring members, many of them good 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
6
unable institutionally to do what has to be done. We are not
just watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns, we are
watching the entire orchestra."
Let me give you one small example of the misplaced
priorities on Capitol Hill -- an example that continually comes
across my desk for action. Three times a week the White House
receives a proclamation passed by a joint resolution of Congress.
It might be to designate a particular day: "National Tap Dance
Day", (true story) or a month, "National Digestive Disease
Awareness Month". Hundreds of these come to the White House for
Presidential action each year. In fact, nearly one third of all
the legislation that reaches my desk is like this.
Now, while there's nothing wrong with Congress passing a
proclamation heralding "National Crime Victims Week", there is
something wrong when Congress can't pass a comprehensive crime
bill that actually makes people safer in their homes and
communities. "National Asparagus Month" may be good constituent
relations, but the problems in American agriculture have to do
with our national vitality, not our national vegetable.
For every one of these bills, there are legions of staff
churning out the public relations campaigns to accompany them --
both on Capitol Hill, and in the executive branch. There are
constituents contacted, newsletters written, paper -- reams of
paper -- produced. Is this a big ticket item in the federal
budget? Probably not. But it is more evidence of a Congress
that chooses to spend time and effort on the easy constituent
7
relations and routine chores rather than on the difficult, often
controversial issues that determine the future of our country.
These actions undermine the people's confidence in their
government the same way as outrageous pork-barrel spending does.
[ [Just as I sent to Congress ten days ago my anti-pork line-item
rescissions, I am telling Congress today that from this day
forward, the Executive Branch will not spend taxpayer dollars to
fund publicity campaigns for special interests -- so don't send
me any more of these pork-barrel proclamations. ]]
The American people are a compassionate people -- willing to
foot the bill to help make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about government. They just don't trust government to use their
hard-earned tax dollars wisely. In dollar terms, one quarter of
everything we produce, build, or grow as a nation is devoured by
the central government. There is no bigger appetite on earth.
When taxpayer money goes for special-interest publicity
campaigns and pork-barrel projects, people get angry. They
demand change. Maybe it's small potatoes to the Congress, but
the public knows P.R. when it sees it. For each letter a member
receives, 12,000 go out -- free. That adds up to real money --
taxpayer money, and I think we must put a stop to it.
Today our government is a trillion and a half dollar
business that too often forgets that the taxpayer is customer,
shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
8
Because government forgets the customer, it issues
counterproductive regulations -- ones that increase the cost of
doing business, but worse, ones that don't really solve the
problem they were designed to solve.
Because the government forgets the shareholder, it shelters
perpetual programs that have outlived their function, but not
their funding. Because the government forgets who is really the
boss -- the American taxpayer -- it has become insulated,
unresponsive and resists reform. It is almost impossible to
adequately reward success, much less punish failure. This is no
slight to the four million hardworking people in the bureaucracy
itself. Talk to them and many will say the same thing -- they
are frustrated as well. But 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. With a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as godparent,
they become stepchildren of the Congress.
A few examples will help drive home the point. Some thirty
different Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim
some degree of oversight responsibility for the Department of
Defense. Seventy-four committees and subcommittees compete to
exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs.
9
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
Branch to fulfill Congressional demands for testimony. Think of
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
Six hundred from the Defense Department -- and on through all the
Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve
its performance. We must improve its performance. So it's not
just the Congress, it's the sprawling federal bureaucracy that
needs reform as well. But let me be clear, it is impossible to
have executive branch reform without reforming the Congress.
I have proposed reforms in the past and I am proposing
additional steps today: in sum they represent how to return
confidence and clarity to the mission of America's government.
First, universal application of the laws of the land.
Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials, "can make no
law which will not have in full operation on themselves and their
friends, as well as on the great mass of society." In other
words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on the
public. Across the board. No more exceptions. Like civil
rights laws. Age discrimination laws. The Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Congress should also submit to the laws it imposes on the
Executive Branch -- like the Privacy Act, or Title VI of the
10
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the independent counsel law.
[[ To those ends, today I am sending to Congress [name of
Administration bill] which will force Congress to be covered by
the same laws everyone else is. Further, I will veto any new
legislation that does not also apply to the Congress. ]] But
that is only a first step toward rebuilding public confidence in
our laws and our lawmakers.
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which is now paralyzing the Congress. Democratic
Senator Boren said it best when he described the Congress as
"inefficient, unresponsive, wasteful, and compromised by the way
it finances its campaigns." The numbers of reformers in the
Congress is growing but they need the support of the American
people now more than ever.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Three years ago -
- in 1989 -- I proposed the total elimination of Political Action
Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs." I proposed
that we increase the support that the parties can provide to
federal campaigns to reduce the influence of special interests,
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties.
I
proposed that we reduce allowable contributions by these
"independent" PACs to federal campaigns, and pass laws to ensure
that they stay truly independent and unaffiliated -- in other
words, clean. Finally, I asked the Congress to join me in
11
stopping the abuse that results from spreading around what's
called "soft money" -- I asked for full disclosure of "soft
money" expenditures by all organizations as the only way to clean
up the system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
without touching Social Security. I call again for the American
people to demand that the Congress pass the same measure that 43
governors have: the line-item veto. In the absence of that
important tool 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. I will
resist any attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only defense
the taxpayer has against Congressional overspending -- those
budget caps implemented in the 1990 Budget Act. Finally, I again
call for a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.
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. We have cut back XXX of regulations, pages in the Federal
Register by XX% just in the last XX months/years. [[ Today I am
announcing an extension/new review process. ]]
12
Next, a new communications policy between the Congress and
the Executive Branch. [[ Logging reform -- decision memo result.
Reform of the nomination process. ]] //
Finally, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. [[ So today, to truly to fix the
system, I have sent to the Congress legislation to limit terms of
United States Senators to two, and Representatives, six terms. ]]
After all, as President my terms are limited, the same should
apply to members of Congress.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. Once again, as in the first days of our new nation, we
face a challenge. 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. If we could change the world,
we can change America. We must make the choice for change.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
Document No. 318578
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
92 MAR 30 03/27/9242 P12.
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: NOON Monday, 03/30
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER, PHILADELPHIA, PA-4/1
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
BOSKIN
McGROARTY
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments directly to Dan McGroarty no later
than Noon on Monday, 03/30, with a copy to this office. Thanks.
RESPONSE:
1. Too Long IN DESCRIBING THE PROBLEMS - 9pAqus
B. SAVED PROFILE How TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEMS - WHERE'S THE Domestic
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
BEEF 7"
and Staff Secretary
C. TERM LIMITATIONS - WASN'T THIS THE ACCEED Ext. 2702 Upan
HEADLINE!- - IT SHOULDN'T Be FINDAIV
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #1
2 MAR 27 P8: 39
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 1, 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 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.
Many have called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must meet five great challenges now, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our people must be educated, literate -- motivated to
make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must reform our education
system -- literally revolutionize it -- top to bottom. Second,
our people must have a sense of well-being about their health and
the health of their children and families. We must guarantee
them access to the finest health care system in the world, and
make that care more affordable.
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 individuals and businesses
billions of dollars -- and putting a tremendous drag on our
civility as well as our economy.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more foreign markets for American goods and
services to sustain and create American jobs.
3
Finally, we must address the issue that I am here to discuss
at length today -- reform of our government. During the last
decade, 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 process is called reform.
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it might be called the crusade for quality. Whether it's the
quality of a product, or the quality of a service, it's not often
flashy --perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", "the customer's always right", or
"service with a smile". At other times it means measuring
performance, because that is the way to improve performance. In
many ways, competition has been the driving force to improve
quality and performance, and not surprisingly, it has worked.
Today, American products are quantifiably better than they were
only a few years ago.
It is not just the private sector that has felt the positive
pinch of healthy competition. For example, the military, in the
face of budget cuts, has had to cut the fat, and get leaner and
smarter. Desert Storm proved it could be done. Just about every
other institution -- state and local government, unions, trade
associations, charitable groups -- any organization that serves a
public -- have been influenced by this drive for excellence.
Yet, the federal government has resisted reform and
protected the status quo -- even in the face of an unambiguous
4
need for change. The change that swept the rest of America has
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. The rise of an entrenched
status quo-oriented Washington establishment, can be laid
squarely at the doorstep of the United States Congress.
Everyone knows that government is too big and spends too
much. And there's something else everyone knows: too often the
government spends the money of its customer, the American
taxpayer, the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
accountability, and frankly, without compassion. As I've
mentioned, we've got some very tough problems ahead, and
government needs to play a role in solving those problems. But,
right now government, particularly the Congress, is simply not up
to the job. Let me tell you why that is the case, and how we
must change things.
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
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. He argues that this
sets in motion a self-perpetuating cycle of congressional support
for unnecessary spending and bigger bureaucracies which in turn
become even more lethargic and unresponsive.
Then, the members and their increasingly powerful staffs
become ombudsmen between the constituent and the bureaucracy --
expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- and thus ensuring
re-election and a continuation of the status quo.
5
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about this.
Madison, in Federalist Paper #52, argued that permanent
majorities are dangerously undemocratic. He would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected. That one party -- the Democrats -- have controlled the
Congress 58 out of the last 62 years. That not one Republican
member of the House -- some with more than 30 years of service -
- has ever been in the majority, and all but five Democrats have
never been in the minority.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but this is not
an attack on divided government. We have had divided government
before in our history, sometimes during periods of great crisis.
Each time we have pulled together as a nation, and met whatever
challenge threatened our security or national well-being.
The larger issue is the systemic problem -- the sticky web
of 284 Congressional Committees, 34,000 Capitol Hill employees
and staff, 2 billion dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with
a 117 million dollar re-election war chest in special-interest
campaign contributions, and millions more in special-interest
influence.
This is not a system that can promote reform and change.
Rather, it aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to
retiring members, many of them good 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
6
unable institutionally to do what has to be done. We are not
just watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns, we are
watching the entire orchestra."
Let me give you one small example of the misplaced
priorities on Capitol Hill -- an example that continually comes
across my desk for action. Three times a week the White House
receives a proclamation passed by a joint resolution of Congress.
It might be to designate a particular day: "National Tap Dance
Day", (true story) or a month, "National Digestive Disease
Awareness Month". Hundreds of these come to the White House for
Presidential action each year. In fact, nearly one third of all
the legislation that reaches my desk is like this.
Now, while there's nothing wrong with Congress passing a
proclamation heralding "National Crime Victims Week", there is
something wrong when Congress can't pass a comprehensive crime
bill that actually makes people safer in their homes and
communities. "National Asparagus Month" may be good constituent
relations, but the problems in American agriculture have to do
with our national vitality, not our national vegetable.
For every one of these bills, there are legions of staff
churning out the public relations campaigns to accompany them --
both on Capitol Hill, and in the executive branch. There are
constituents contacted, newsletters written, paper --- reams of
paper -- produced. Is this a big ticket item in the federal
budget? Probably not. But it is more evidence of a Congress
that chooses to spend time and effort on the easy constituent
7
relations and routine chores rather than on the difficult, often
controversial issues that determine the future of our country.
These actions undermine the people's confidence in their
government the same way as outrageous pork-barrel spending does.
[[Just as I sent to Congress ten days ago my anti-pork line-item
rescissions, I am telling Congress today that from this day
forward, the Executive Branch will not spend taxpayer dollars to
fund publicity campaigns for special interests -- so don't send
me any more of these pork-barrel proclamations. ]]
The American people are a compassionate people -- willing to
foot the bill to help make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about government. They just don't trust government to use their
hard-earned tax dollars wisely. In dollar terms, one quarter of
everything we produce, build, or grow as a nation is devoured by
the central government. There is no bigger appetite on earth.
When taxpayer money goes for special-interest publicity
campaigns and pork-barrel projects, people get angry. They
demand change. Maybe it's small potatoes to the Congress, but
the public knows P.R. when it sees it. For each letter a member
receives, 12,000 go out -- free. That adds up to real money --
taxpayer money, and I think we must put a stop to it.
Today our government is a trillion and a half dollar
business that too often forgets that the taxpayer is customer,
shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
8
Because government forgets the customer, it issues
counterproductive regulations -- ones that increase the cost of
doing business, but worse, ones that don't really solve the
problem they were designed to solve.
Because the government forgets the shareholder, it shelters
perpetual programs that have outlived their function, but not
their funding. Because the government forgets who is really the
boss -- the American taxpayer -- it has become insulated,
unresponsive and resists reform. It is almost impossible to
adequately reward success, much less punish failure. This is no
slight to the four million hardworking people in the bureaucracy
itself. Talk to them and many will say the same thing -- they
are frustrated as well. But 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. With a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as godparent,
they become stepchildren of the Congress.
A few examples will help drive home the point. Some thirty
different Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim
some degree of oversight responsibility for the Department of
Defense. Seventy-four committees and subcommittees compete to
exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs.
9
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
Branch to fulfill Congressional demands for testimony. Think of
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
Six hundred from the Defense Department -- and on through all the
Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve
its performance. We must improve its performance. So it's not
just the Congress, it's the sprawling federal bureaucracy that
needs reform as well. But let me be clear, it is impossible to
have executive branch reform without reforming the Congress.
I have proposed reforms in the past and I am proposing
additional steps today: in sum they represent how to return
confidence and clarity to the mission of America's government.
First, universal application of the laws of the land.
Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials, "can make no
law which will not have in full operation on themselves and their
friends, as well as on the great mass of society." In other
words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on the
public. Across the board. No more exceptions. Like civil
rights laws. Age discrimination laws. The Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Congress should also submit to the laws it imposes on the
Executive Branch -- like the Privacy Act, or Title VI of the
10
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 the independent counsel law.
[*[ To those ends, today I am sending to Congress [name of
Administration bill] which will force Congress to be covered by
the same laws everyone else is. Further, I will veto any new
legislation that does not also apply to the Congress. ]] But
that is only a first step toward rebuilding public confidence in
our laws and our lawmakers.
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which is now paralyzing the Congress. Democratic
Senator Boren said it best when he described the Congress as
"inefficient, unresponsive, wasteful, and compromised by the way
it finances its campaigns." The numbers of reformers in the
Congress is growing but they need the support of the American
people now more than ever.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Three years ago -
- in 1989 -- I proposed the total elimination of Political Action
Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs. I proposed
that we increase the support that the parties can provide to
federal campaigns to reduce the influence of special interests,
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties.
I
proposed that we reduce allowable contributions by these
"independent" PACs to federal campaigns, and pass laws to ensure
that they stay truly independent and unaffiliated -- in other
words, clean. Finally, I asked the Congress to join me in
11
stopping the abuse that results from spreading around what's
called "soft money" -- I asked for full disclosure of "soft
money" expenditures by all organizations as the only way to clean
up the system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
without touching Social Security. I call again for the American
7
people to demand that the Congress pass the same measure that 43
governors have: the line-item veto. In the absence of that
important tool 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. I will
resist any attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only defense
the taxpayer has against Congressional overspending -- those
budget caps implemented in the 1990 Budget Act. Finally, I again
call for a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.
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. We have cut back XXX of regulations, pages in the Federal
Register by XX% just in the last XX months/years. [[ Today I am
announcing an extension/new review process. ]]
12
Next, a new communications policy between the Congress and
the Executive Branch. [[ Logging reform -- decision memo result.
Reform of the nomination process. ]] //
Finally, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. [[ So today, to truly to fix the
system, I have sent to the Congress legislation to limit terms of
United States Senators to two, and Representatives, six terms. ]]
After all, as President my terms are limited, the same should
apply to members of Congress.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. Once again, as in the first days of our new nation, we
face a challenge. 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. If we could change the world,
we can change America. We must make the choice for change.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:43 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;# 2
Document No. 31827
92 MAR 30 PI: 59
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
03/27/92
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: NOON Monday, 03/30
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER, PHILADELPHIA, PA-4/1
ACTION FYI
ACTION
EXI
VICE PRESIDENT
HORNER
N
SKINNER
MCBRIDE
SCOWCROFT
MOORE
DARMAN
PETERSMEYER
BRADY
PORTER
BROMLEY
ROGICH
CALIO
ROLLINS
DEMAREST
SMITH
YEUTTER
FITZWATER
FINDLAY
GRAY
KAUFMAN
HOLIDAY
BOSKIN
McGROARTY
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments directly to Dan McGroarty no later
than Noon on Monday, 03/30, with a copy to this office. Thanks.
RESPONSE:
PHILLIP D. BRADY
Assistant to the President
and Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:44 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;# 3
Demarest/Aarhus
2MAR27
Draft #1
Reform
P8:
39
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 1, 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
SENT. BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:44 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;# 4
2
turned the world upside down. America once again stood at the
forefront of a great 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.
Many have called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must meet five great challenges now, if we are to ensure that the
next century is also the American Century.
First, our people must be educated, literate -- motivated to
make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must reform our education
system -- literally revolutionize it -- top to bottom. Second,
our people must have a sense of well-being about their health and
the health of their children and families. We must guarantee
them access to the finest health care system in the world, and
make that care more affordable.
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 individuals and businesses
billions of dollars -- and putting a tremendous drag on our
civility as well as our economy.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That
demands we open more foreign markets for American goods and
services to sustain and create American jobs.
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:45 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;# 5
3
Finally, we must address the issue that I am here to discuss
at length today -- reform of our government. During the last
decade, 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 process is called reform.
In the private sector, or more specifically, in a business,
it might be called the crusade for quality. Whether it's the
quality of a product, or the quality of a service, it's not often
flashy --perhaps it's a return to old values and standards like
"built to last a lifetime", "the customer's always right", or
"service with a smile". At other times it means measuring
performance, because that is the way to improve performance. In
many ways, competition has been the driving force to improve
quality and performance, and not surprisingly, it has worked.
Today, American products are quantifiably better than they were
only a few years ago.
It is not just the private sector that has felt the positive
pinch of healthy competition. For example, the military, in the
face of budget cuts, has had to cut the fat, and get leaner and
smarter. Desert Storm proved it could be done. Just about every
other institution -- state and local government, unions, trade
associations, charitable groups -- any organization that serves a
public -- have been influenced by this drive for excellence.
Yet, the federal government has resisted reform and
protected the status quo -- even in the face of an unambiguous
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:45 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;# 6
4
need for change. The change that swept the rest of America has
stopped cold at the Capital Beltway. The rise of an entrenched
status quo-oriented Washington establishment, can be laid
squarely at the doorstep of the United States Congress.
Everyone knows that government is too big and spends too
much. And there's something else everyone knows: too often the
government spends the money of its customer, the American
taxpayer, the wrong way -- inefficiently, ineffectively, without
accountability, and frankly, without compassion. As I've
mentioned, we've got some very tough problems ahead, and
government needs to play a role in solving those problems. But,
right now government, particularly the Congress, is simply not up
to the job. Let me tell you why that is the case, and how we
must change things.
Political scientist Morris Fiorina paints a disturbing but
familiar picture of how Washington really behaves. He says that
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. He argues that this
sets in motion a self-perpetuating cycle of congressional support
for unnecessary spending and bigger bureaucracies which in turn
become even more lethargic and unresponsive.
Then, the members and their increasingly powerful staffs
become ombudsmen between the constituent and the bureaucracy --
expediting benefits and procuring more pork -- and thus ensuring
re-election and a continuation of the status quo.
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:46 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;# 7
5
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about this.
Madison, in Federalist Paper #52, argued that permanent
majorities are dangerously undemocratic. He would be appalled to
hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-election are in fact re-
elected. That one party -- the Democrats -- have controlled the
Congress 58 out of the last 62 years. That not one Republican
member of the House -- some with more than 30 years of service -
- has ever been in the majority, and all but five Democrats have
never been in the minority.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but this is not
an attack on divided government. We have had divided government
before in our history, sometimes during periods of great crisis.
Each time we have pulled together as a nation, and met whatever
challenge threatened our security or national well-being.
The larger issue is the systemic problem -- the sticky web
of 284 Congressional Committees, 34,000 Capitol Hill employees
and staff, 2 billion dollars of taxpayer financing, overlaid with
a 117 million dollar re-election war chest in special-interest
campaign contributions, and millions more in special-interest
influence.
This is not a system that can promote reform and change.
Rather, it aggressively protects the status quo. Talk to
retiring members, many of them good 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
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:46 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;# 8
6
unable institutionally to do what has to be done. We are not
just watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome burns, we are
watching the entire orchestra."
Let me give you one small example of the misplaced
priorities on Capitol Hill -- an example that continually comes
across my desk for action. Three times a week the White House
receives a proclamation passed by a joint resolution of Congress.
It might be to designate a particular day: "National Tap Dance
Day", (true story) or a month, "National Digestive Disease
Awareness Month". Hundreds of these come to the White House for
Presidential action each year. In fact, nearly one third of all
the legislation that reaches my desk is like this.
Now, while there's nothing wrong with Congress passing a
proclamation heralding "National Crime Victims Week", there is
something wrong when Congress can't pass a comprehensive crime
bill that actually makes people safer in their homes and
communities. "National Asparagus Month" may be good constituent
relations, but the problems in American agriculture have to do
with our national vitality, not our national vegetable.
For every many one of these bills, there are legions of staff
7
churning out the public relations campaigns to accompany them --
both on Capitol Hill, and in the executive branch. There are
constituents contacted, newsletters written, paper -- reams of
paper -- produced. Is this a big ticket item in the federal
budget? Probably not. But it is more evidence of a Congress
that chooses to spend time and effort on the easy constituent
[These "public relations" campaigns NE often for good
causes -- things we want done .Lild .....
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:47 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;# 9
[Devating this much attention to the proclamations
may trivialize the message of the speech Anyway,
connution between 7 proclamation and Excentive
expenditures is tenvous .]
relations and routine chores rather than on the difficult, often
controversial issues that determine the future of our country.
These actions undermine the people's confidence in their
government the same way as outrageous pork-barrel spending does.
[[Just as I sent to Congress ten days ago my anti-pork line-item
rescissions, I am telling Congress today that from this day
forward the Executive Branch will not spend taxpayer dollars to
fund publicity campaigns for special interests -- so don't send
me any more of these pork barrel proclamations. ]]
The American people are a compassionate people -- willing to
foot the bill to help make this country better. But there is a
mismatch between their willingness to help and their skepticism
about government. They just don't trust government to use their
hard-earned tax dollars wisely. In dollar terms, one quarter of
everything we produce, build, or grow as a nation is devoured by
the central government. There is no bigger appetite on earth.
When taxpayer money goes for special-interest publicity
campaigns and pork-barrel projects, people get angry. They
demand change. Maybe it's small potatoes to the Congress, but
the public knows P.R. when it sees it. For each letter a member
receives, 12,000 go out -- free. That adds up to real money --
taxpayer money, and I think we must put a stop to
it
Today our government is a trillion and a half dollar
business that too often forgets that the taxpayer is customer,
shareholder, and board member all rolled into one.
[N.t clean what "it" is, or what the President
wants done. If the problem it publicity for
Extended Page 9.1
pork, let's say tool more clearly The 1/12/000
letter ratio is probably a different problem.]
SENT BY:ine TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:48 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;#10
8
Because government forgets the customer, it issues
counterproductive regulations -- ones that increase the cost of
doing business, but worse, ones that don't really solve the
problem they were designed to solve.
Because the government forgets the shareholder, it shelters
perpetual programs that have outlived their function, but not
their funding. Because the government forgets who is really the
boss - the American taxpayer -- it has become insulated,
unresponsive and resists reform. It is almost impossible to
adequately reward success, much less punish failure, This is no
slight to the four million hardworking people in the bureaucracy
itself. Talk to them and many will say the same thing - they
are frustrated as well. But 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. with a Congressional subcommittee Chairman as godparent,
they become stepchildren of the Congress.
A few examples will help drive home the point. Some thirty
different Congressional committees, and 77 subcommittees claim
some degree of oversight responsibility for the Department of
Defense. Seventy-four committees and subcommittees compete to
exercise jurisdiction over the War on Drugs.
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:48 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;#11
9
Think of the time and resources spent by the Executive
Branch to fulfill Congressional demands for testimony. Think of
the thousands of required reports that must be researched,
written and delivered to Capitol Hill. Sixty reports from HUD.
Six hundred from the Defense Department -- and on through all the
Cabinet Departments.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
just like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve
its performance. We must improve its performance. So it's not
just the Congress, it's the sprawling federal bureaucracy that
needs reform as well. But let me be clear, it is impossible to
have executive branch reform without reforming the Congress.
I have proposed reforms in the past and I am proposing
additional steps today: in sum they represent how to return
confidence and clarity to the mission of America's government.
First, universal application of the laws of the land.
Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials, "can make no
law which will not have in full operation on themselves and their
friends, as well as on the great mass of society." In other
words, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on the
public. Across the board. No more exceptions. Like civil
rights laws. Age discrimination laws. The Americans with
seegal Disabilities Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
and the Privary Act
Congress should also submit to the laws it imposes on the
Executive Branch -- like the Privacy Act, or Title VI of the
Extended Page 11.1
Despecially problematic to / propose making congress subject
to FOIA, waters or anything else, unless we're willing to make
WH subject too ]
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:49 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;#12
[we should amphasize, if true, the whe
?
is willing to cove itself to extend Members of
10 Congress are covered. J
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the independent counsel law.
[[ To those ends, today I am sending to Congress [name of
Administration bill] which will force Congress to be covered by
the same laws everyone else is. Further, I will veto any new
legislation that does not also apply to the Congress.
JU
But
that is only a first step toward rebuilding public confidence in
our laws and our lawmakers.
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which is now paralyzing the Congress. Democratic
Boren quote
S out if
Senator Boren said it best when he described the Gengress as
wtext, which "inefficient, unresponsive, wasteful, and compromised by the way
as campany
name reform.)
it finances its campaigns The numbers of reformers in the
Congress is growing but they need the support of the American
people now more than ever.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Three years ago -
- in 1989 -- I proposed the total elimination of Political Action
Committees and limits on so-called "leadership PACs." I proposed
that we increase the support that the parties can provide to
federal campaigns to reduce the influence of special interests,
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising,
and increase the legitimate role of our political parties. I
proposed that we reduce allowable contributions by these
"independent" PACs to federal campaigns, and pass laws to ensure
that they stay truly independent and unaffiliated -- in other
words, clean.
Finally, I asked the Congress to join me in
[Good place do refer to Back decision implementation]
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:49 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218:#13
[Brief explanation of "saft money" would
help lay 11 person.]
stopping the abuse that results from spreading around what's
called "soft money" -- I asked for full disclosure of "soft
money" expenditures by all organizations as the only way to clean
up the system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
domestic discretionary spending in federal employment next year.
I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory programs
without touching Social Security. I call again for the American
people to demand that the Congress pass the same measure that 43
governors have: the line-item veto. In the absence of that
important tool 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. I will
resist any attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only defense
the taxpayer has against Congressional overspending -- those
budget caps implemented in the 1990 Budget Act. Finally, I again
call for a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.
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. We have cut back XXX of regulations, pages in the Federal
Register by XX% just in the last XX months/years. [[ Today I am
announcing an extension/new review process. 1]
SENT BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 3-30-92 ; 13:50 ; LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-
6218;#14
[OLA has strong concerns about logging proposal;
believes issue deserves hurt more verting w/in
WH before any public 12 retermal
Next, a new communications policy between the Congress and
the Executive Branch. И Logging reform -- decision memo result.
Reform of the nomination process. 11
11
Finally, we must limit Congressional terms. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election through the built-in advantages
of incumbency must be broken. H So today, to truly to fix the
system, I have sent to the Congress legislation to limit terms of
United States Senators to two, and Representatives, six terms. 11
After all, as President my terms are limited, the same should
apply to members of Congress.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. Once again, as in the first days of our new nation, we
face at challenge. 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. If we could change the world,
we can change America. We must make the choice for change.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
#
#
[we understand there is not to be
proposal for legislation.]