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
323153986
label
Federalist Society of Pennsylvania--Government Reform 4/3/92 [OA 7571] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153986
contentType
document
title
Federalist Society of Pennsylvania--Government Reform 4/3/92 [OA 7571] [1]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13805-012
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153986
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d26e556407ae79cb
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13805
Folder ID Number:
13805-012
Folder Title:
Federalist Society of Pennsylvania--Government Reform 4/3/92 [OA 7571] [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
22
4
2
Boren-Domenici Congressional Reform bill
One of the aspects of the bill is committe reform.
Hamilton and Gradison have the identical bill on the House
side
they work as a 4-man team.
Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 2-92 ; 1:12PM ;
4562983-
2024566218;# 1
Executive Office of the President
least
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER 11
DATE 4/2
TO
FAX NUMBER
Pls 6218 hand carry to Gimp (Caral)
OFFICE NUMBER
COMMENTS
FROM
Sharon
FAX NUMBER
OFFICE NUMBER
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 5:47PM ;
4562983-
6220 6218;# 1
Executive Office of the President
Parent)
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER
10
DATE 4/1
TO
Sarah - for Coral Aarhus
FAX NUMBER
OFFICE NUMBER
COMMENTS
could you please take
this down Thanks to the Gimp (Carol)
FROM
Sharen
FAX NUMBER
2983
OFFICE NUMBER
7620
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 5:48PM ;
4562983-
6218;# 2
PENSIVA
@UUD.
STATEMENT OF PETE V. DOMENICI
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS
It Is a pleasure to join my distinguished House and Senate
colleagues today to support an examination of our Congressional
structure.
This is a fairly straight-forward effort. This Joint Committee on
the Organization of Congress is proposed because responsible
lawmakers and citizens alike recognize there is a need to be more
effective.
Our country is faced with many pressing social and economic
demands that merit serious and reasoned attention. Consequently,
Congress has an extraordinary responsibility for balancing citizens'
expectations with its own ability to respond In an efficient and
productive manner.
We are suggesting that operationally we probably should and
can do better.
When I came to the Senate almost 20 years ago, I remember
being astounded that the U.S. Senate did not have a systematic or
formal process for reviewing the U.S. budget -- that, In fact, we could
not coordinate our taxing and spending policies. This problem was
addressed by "The Joint Study Committee on Budget Control," and
legislation subsequently created the Congressional Budget Office and
the House and Senate Budget Committees.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 5:48PM ;
4562983->
62181# 3
DENATVA DOMENICI
0004
TALKING POINTS
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS
BOREN-DOMENICI/HAMILTON-GRADISON
A. WHY REFORM CONGRES$?
o Poll after poll Indicates that the American públic believes Congress is inefficient,
Ineffective, wasteful, and Intrudes far too much into areas of Individual rights and
preferences.
o
Congressional staffs have grown from 2000 In 1947 to 12,000 today.
o In the last Congress, 6,973 bills were introduced-but only 3 percent were
enacted into law.
o Bills are five times longer than they were In 1970 and to be honest, many of them
are designed to micromanage every area of Government -- as well as American
lives.
o The number and size of committees has grown: In 1947 there were only 38
House and Senate committees-today there are almost 300. While there were few
subcommittees In 1947, today there are 83.
o The average Senator Is a member of 12 committees and subcommittees. Under
the reorganization act of 1947, however, Senators were assigned two committees
Instead of as many as nine committees. As we can see, we are now back where
we started with far too many committee responsibilities to do efficient work.
o There are overlapping responsibilities of committees and subcommittees -
multiple jurisdictions - that further complicate our ability to stay informed, meet the
pressing needs of the country, and pass reasoned and appronriate legislation
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 5:49PM ;
4562983-
6218;# 4
10,10
SENATOR DUMENICI
003
order Into the "system." If possible, examine Congressional support agencies
(GAO, CBO, CRS, & OTA), as well as Inspectors General, to eliminate duplication
and strengthen Information flow.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier_7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 5:49PM ;
4562983->
6218;# 5
SERAIVA DUMENICI
41002
S.CON.RES. 57-BOREN/DOMENICI
H.CON. RES. 192-HAMILTON/GRADISON
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS
STATUS OF BILL:
Introduced in House and Senate in July, 1991;
As of March 27, 1992, has 55 Senate cosponsors and 192 House cosponsors;
hearings in the House;
Senate held November hearings before the Rules & Administration Committee; no
HIGHLIGHTS OF BILL:
Creates committee to study reform w/ 8 Members of House and 8 Members of
Senate (4 Republicans and 4 Democrate in each body), appointed by Majority and
Minority Leaders;
Each body to choose two advisory members to committee;
Committee will (a) make full and complete study of organization & operation of
Congress, and (b) recommend improvements for strengthening effectiveness of
Congress, simplifying its operations, Improving relationships with other branches
of the government, and Improving orderly consideration of legislation;
year's time;
Committee has the authority to develop the agenda It wishes to complete In one
AEI, Heritage, Council on Effectiveness In Government, National Assoc. of Public
Outside/external organizations are called upon for assistance (Brookings, Carnegie,
Administratore, etc. have offered their assistance and support).
Some funds may have to be appropriated for necessary operating costs, but most
costs will be borne by voluntary organizations, etc.
DOMENICI OBJECTIVES:
Examine approprlations/budget/authorizations process (examine blennial versus
long-term and short-term planning purposes while allievating cross-jurisdictional
annual process); establish more coherent solence and technology structure (for
problems); streamline committee structures and subcommittee assignments; put
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 5:50PM ;
4562983-
6218;# 6
SENATUR DUMENICI
001
Pete V.
Domenici
United States Senator
TELECOPIER DATA SHEET
From the Washington, D.C., office of
U.S. Senator Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M
Telephone number: 202-224-6621
DATE:
TIME:
PERSON SENDING: Alex Float
PERSON RECEIVING:
Curol Aarhus
ORGANIZATION:
RECEIVING PERSON'S TELEPHONE NUMBER:
RECEIVING PERSON'S TELECOPIER NUMBER:
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT:
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier_7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 5:50PM ;
4562983-
6218:# 7
SENATUR DOMENICI
006
Page Two
Also looking back 20 years ago, I remember being astounded
by, as well as In awe of, my fellow colleagues who mastered the
multitude of tasks, who understood the overlapping jurisdictions of
the committees and subcommittees, and who comprehended the
often erratic but apparently effective floor procedures. It did not take
me too long to learn, however, that there was mounting frustration
and concern.
In fact, these lawmakers were having serious problems juggling
the legitimate demands of their work while trying to address
simultaneously a comprehensive and often conflicting national policy
agenda. As a newly-elected Senator, ranking 99th In seniority, 1 may
have felt some solace knowing that veteran lawmakers were sharing
my concerns. However, it did little to alleviate my fear that 1 simply
could not accomplish the goals I had set for myself, let alone meet
the basic expectations of the people of New Mexico.
Subsequently, the undercurrent of discontent resulted in
numerous commissions and task forces to assess our procedures
and overall operations. In 1976, I was asked to serve on the
bipartisan Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate
Committee System. I was fortunate to serve under the able
leadership of the late Senator Adial Stevenson, III. As a result of our
efforts and recommendations, the Senate passed legislation that
resulted in major jurisdictional changes In the committee structure.
With a few exceptions, these changes are still in effect today.
I learned a great deal from this experience. One of the most
Important elements was that the our Institutional structure could be
adjusted to address the amaigamation of demands, expectations, and
duties. Secondly, I learned that this Is an evolving process that
demands periodic review and analysis, which has happened
numerous times since this legislation was passed in 1977.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 5:51PM ;
4562983-
6218;# 8
SENATUR DURENICI
007
Page Three
Therefore, today we are recommending that we again examine
many of these Important Issues and provide recommendations for
reforming some of our procedures and systems. While we will
address numerous issues, I have two areas that I believe merit
attention.
First, I have a very special Interest In how this country
addresses its science and technology issues and policies. In many
respects, science and technology Is the primary repository and
indicator of our socio-economic health and growth. However, as
stated well In the Carnegle Commission's report on "Science,
Technology, and Government:"
"Because authority in Congress Is highly decentralized,
examining science and technology as a whole and
coordinating the often overlapping activities
of the many committees and subcommittees with
science and technology-related responsibilities are
often difficult This decentralization of responsi-
bility makes the exchange of scientific and technical
Information among committees and subcommittees
In both houses of Congress a particular challenge.
It also presents challenges to those in the
scientific community who desire to stay informed
of congressional S&T-related activities and to
those who may wish to provide Information to
legislators and their staff."
It is my hope that we can begin to take a serious and reasoned
look at this Issue. Considerable examination of this problem has
already been accomplished by the Carnegie Commission on Science,
Technology, and Government, and I am hopeful we will be able to
draw upon their expertise and counsel In this process.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 5:51PM
4562983->
6218;# 9
SENATUR DUMENICI
008
Page Four
My second area of Interest Is that we examine how Congress
utilizes its specific support agencies: the Congressional Budget
Office, the General Account Office, the Office of Technology
Assessment, and the Congressional Research Service.
Over the years we have come to recognize that we must have
technical and analytical support to help us in our decision-making.
Over the years, these support agencies have been responsive and in
many ways have contributed significantly to a sounder national
agenda. At the same time, how we in Congress use these services
and how well these entitles can respond to our increasing demands
and needs should be analyzed. To be frank, there appears to be a
organizations. duplication of services and overlapping responsibilities among these
A multitude of options for data and technical assistance is often
seen as advantageous. However, this is not always the case. The
Issue of quality control, adequate review and analysis of the findings,
and the overall general efficiency of the organizations in relation to
their work for Congress should be reviewed. With dwindling
resources, and concomitant Increases In our and their workloads, It
makes only good sense to examine how we can streamline and
improve our partnerships.
Mr. President, this commission is most fortunate to be able to
draw upon previous efforts of other congressional groups' analyses
and recommendations. The Committee on Rules and Administration
is to be commended for its fine 1988 "Report on Senate Operations,"
and I belleve we will be able to use these recommendations as a
baseline for our own deliberations.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier_7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 5:52PM ;
4562983-
6218:#10
MENATOR PURENICI
1009
Page Five
Given what we elected officials want and need to do to address
the multiple and complex issues of this country, as well as fulfill what
I believe the American public expects of us, I have gladly joined this
effort to assess our Congressional operations. Hopefully, in the short
time-frame we have to do this examination, particularly in light of the
complexities Involved, we can provide some thoughtful and workable
recommendations.
Moreover, we are In a very favorable position to assess the
important relationships between both houses of Congress. We have
mutual objectives in common: we all believe we owe it to the
American public to be as responsive and effective as possible. This
commission will do its best. I hope our efforts will result In valuable
and concrete proposals for a system that once again merits some
change. Thank you.
To
Carol
Date 4/2
Time 1:25
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M Tom Bnuce OMB
of or Bany Anderson 4630
Phone if u have questions
Area Code
Number
Extension
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
1993-1997 5yrs
Elln
Operator
AMPAD
EFFICIENCY@
23-021 CARBONLESS
LB3062
D76
WH
ILLIBERAL
EDUCATION
The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus
Dinesh D'Souza
FP
THE FREE PRESS
A Division of Macmillan, Inc.
NEW YORK
Collier Macmillan Canada
TORONTO
Maxwell Macmillan International
NEW YORK OXFORD SINGAPORE SYDNEY
Illiberal Education
249
ne
eeply offended
pressures. It makes a mockery of scholarship to say: my nonsense is
ne
of their victim's
as good as your science." But even university officials who agree with
es
vilification and
Lewis say they aren't sure what they can do to counter these distortions,
ct
Thernstrom,
since the ideological forces behind them are so strong.
is
that their own
Although curricular and extracurricular concessions by the univer-
A
sity greatly increase the power of minority activists, it is not clear
of the nation's
that they help minority students use knowledge and truth as weapons
r-
ere is just too
against ignorance and prejudice, nor that they assuage the problems
al
uip." Whatever
of low morale and low self-esteem which propelled them in this direction
he
ersity of radical
to begin with. Nor does an apparently more even "balance of power"
a
easingly at risk
between minority and nonminority students produce greater ethnic
become ghet
harmony. In fact, like Michigan activists Kimberly Smith and Tracye
a
Matthews, many minority students find themselves increasingly embit-
al
d perspectives
tered and estranged during their college years, so that by the time
nority activists
they graduate they may be virtually isolated in a separatist culture,
ess into other
and espouse openly hostile sentiments against other groups.
until junior or
At graduation time, it turns out that only a fraction of the minority
n as sensitivity
students enrolled four years earlier are still around, and even among
and sexism in
them the academic record is mixed: a good number (most are probably
students may
not affirmative action beneficiaries) have performed well, but a majority
do professors
conspicuously lag behind their colleagues, and a sizable group has only
t of "diversity"
finished by concentrating in congenial fields such as Afro-American or
Ethnic Studies, under the direction of tolerant faculty advisers. Rela-
papers on race
tively few of these students have developed to their full potential over
0 course mate-
the past four years, or have emerged ready to assume positions of
en, or tabulate
responsibility and leadership in the new multiracial society.
tion. Minority
ssing grades on
SS of oppression
PRINCIPLES OF REFORM
Further, they
1 in an incident
No community can be built on the basis of preferential treatment
ct virtually any
and double standards, and their existence belies university rhetoric
about equality. Conflicting standards of excellence and justice are the
and sometimes
root of the bitter and divisive controversies over admissions, curricular
eir own culture
content, and race relations on campus. In each case, the university
ent at Howard
administration is directly responsible for betraying student idealism
ulticultural and
and replacing it with cynicism and resentment. To remedy the-problem,
3ernard Lewis,
it is necessary to return to fundamental principles; as G. K. Chesterton
cribes what he
said, we cannot discuss reform without reference to form.
ds, "It is very
First, liberal education is education for rulers. In ancient times,
itely, to these
princes, aristocrats, and gentry sought liberal education to prepare
July / 1990
Ag committee
Call with Kay re: Davies Domenici- Boren
language in speech
(Clayton's ofc. x2216)
For Ag Sec /14 hearings sxn
get date $ reason (type of) for hearings.
Call Pinkerton re:
Chesterton quote
Thomas Call Bruce
a
OMBPA 3080
re: 390 billion figure
M how many years? ?
(Dz will put in," in one year")
Call CalloLA OLA
Cong- should we reform
it? Ifso,
how?
Accountability Actgo
Will Congressional
up tomorrow? or next
week?
Lee OLA Liberman
E210
B6
1974
WHRC
t: Encyclopedia
of the
AMERICAN
ADITIONS
REVOLUTION
REVOLUTION
by
Mark Mayo Boatner III
Bicentennial Edition
David McKay Company, Inc.
New York
246
1247
YORKTOWN CAMPAIGN
and Maj. Alexander Ross represented
son would ground their arms there, but
same author (Bonsal) gives many addi-
Cornwallis; Noailles and Laurens repre-
the cavalry (Simcoe's and Tarleton's)
tional instances of British insolence
sented the allies. Washington had stated
would proceed to the surrender field
toward the Americans and an attempt
that "The same Honors will be granted
outside Yorktown with their swords
to pretend that it was the French who
to the Surrendering Army as were
drawn and their trumpets sounding.
had beaten them at Yorktown. Second,
granted to the Garrison of Charles
Surrendered troops would subsequently
there is much pother about a sword that
Town," but British appeals and objec-
be marched to camps in Va., Md., and
O'Hara was supposed to be trying to
tions resulted in a prolonged and heated
Pa.
give away-Cornwallis' sword. Dumas
session at the Moore House. Washing-
At noon two detachments of 100 men
and Rochambeau both wrote in their
ton's representatives could show him
each-one French, one American-occu-
memoirs that O'Hara offered his sword
only a rough draft by midnight, but
pied two British redoubts S.E. of York-
to Rochambeau. Bonsal repeats that
the morning of the 20th he had written
town. The rest of the victorious army
Washington refused to accept the sword
I
his comments on the draft, had the sur-
formed on both sides of the Hampton
"from such a worthy hand," and
1
render document transcribed, and sent
road along which the vanquished would
Johnston says Lincoln accepted and re-
it to Cornwallis to be signed by 11 A.M.
march to the surrender field, about a
turned it. Freeman comments that "no
Cornwallis was also informed that Wash-
mile and a half south of Yorktown. At
American witness mentioned the tender
S
e
ington expected the garrison to march
2 P.M. the King's troops came slowly
of the sword [to Rochambeau, or, pre-
t
out at 2 o'clock to surrender. Between
down the road, allegedly to the tune of
sumably, to anybody else], which the
11 and noon the document was back
"THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN."
S
British officer was entitled to keep under
with the signature of Cornwallis and of
The man most intimately responsible
the explicit terms of the capitulation."
h
Capt. Thos. Symonds, senior naval offi-
for their predicament was not, however,
(Op. cit., 389 n.) Another myth that
cer present. Washington, Rochambeau,
at their head. Earl Cornwallis was "sick,"
must go is that Lincoln received the
and Barras signed for the allies.
so Gen. O'Hara of the Guards acted
:-
surrender in compensation for his sur-
Except for the article based on Brit-
as his deputy. An interesting scene of
render at Charleston; "Lincoln was to
ish precedent at Charleston, that "The
military etiquette resulted when O'Hara
his chief what O'Hara was to Corn-
troops shall march out, with colors
asked his French escort to point out
wallis," points out Freeman. "Had Corn-
cased, and drums beating a British or
Rochambeau and the Guardsman then
wallis sent a Colonel to act for him,
a German march," the surrender terms
raced ahead to present himself to this
Washington would have assigned a
were honorable. Cornwallis and his
officer. With a devastating savoir faire
Colonel to deal with him." (Ibid., 390
on
ed
principal officers could return to Europe
Rochambeau pointed across the road to
n.)
on parole or go to an American port
Washington. The ruddy Irishman bowed
In a field ringed by French hussars
ed
in British hands. The sloop Bonetta was
and turned about to face Washington,
the British and German regiments
a
put at the temporary disposal of Corn-
with an apology for his "mistake."
arrived one by one to present arms,
:SS
wallis "to receive an Aid de Camp to
"Washington showed neither irritation
ground weapons, accoutrements, and
in
carry dispatches to Sir Henry Clinton;
nor disappointment [at the failure of
cased colors, and return to Yorktown.
and such soldiers as he may think proper
Cornwallis to appear]," says Freeman,
Observers commented on the flawless
er-
to send to New York. This last
"but, of course, if the British com-
it.
marching of the Germans and the sloppy
he
provision was a device for getting rid
mander acted through a deputy, would
performance of British troops and their
th
of American deserters whom Washing-
General O'Hara be so good as to consult
music. Although many British soldiers
ton could not grant P.O.W. status and
General Lincoln, who was directly at
had on new uniforms made available
ig-
with whose disciplining he did not wish
hand?" (Op. cit., 389-90)
for the occasion from reserve stocks,
to be burdened; troop capacity of the
A few comments must be made on
a
many were drunk, and all were carrying
sh-
Bonetta was 250, and most of those who
the above version of this dramatic
stuffed knapsacks on the assumption
nit
reached N.Y. on 2 Nov. aboard her
scene. That O'Hara deliberately sought
that they might not return to their camp.
ed
were deserters. Surrender terms permit-
out Rochambeau is supported by Bonsal,
Some of the prisoners threw their
net
ted officers to retain their side arms and
who cites the Memoirs of Gen. (then
muskets onto the surrender heaps in an
the
all personnel to keep their personal
Col.) Mathieu Dumas, the officer sent
effort to damage them. People of the
das
effects. Infantry of the Gloucester garri-
to escort O'Hara. (Op. cit., 165) The
neighborhood were allowed to witness
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 3-24-92 ; 3:59PM ;
4562983:# 2
Ren
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press secretary
For Immediate Release
March 20, 1992
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN ADDRESS TO REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
AND POLITICAL LEADERS
The East Room
4:04 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Welcome to the White House. Fifty-two
days ago in my State of the Union address, I asked Congress to act on
my agenda for economic growth. And I asked for immediate action by
March 20th on a series of proposals to help rekindle the economic
recovery. And I asked the Democratic leadership to put partisanship
aside, pledging to do the same, in order to enact seven sensible
steps to increase investment, strengthen the value of American homes,
and creates jobs.
Well, March 20th has arrived, and no recovery bill of
any kind has come to the White House as of now.
This morning, the congressional conferees finished work
on a tax bill. It would increase taxes and harm the economy. And SQ
today I am doing three things. First, I have just signed the veto
message to stop the Democrats' tax increase. (Applause.) And
second, I am taking several additional steps on my own to help the
recovery with or without action by Congress. And, third, while the
Demecratic leadership in Congrèss is in disarray, I am proposing
action on the real challenges facing America on my long-term plans to
help America compete in the global economy of the future.
Now is the time for real significant change. And I am
disappointed in Congress. In fairness, some Democrats did not want
to put a tax increase in the bill, And I salute them for
courageously standing up against more taxes. But politics prevailed.
A slim majority passed the bill in the face of a certain veto. But
they aren't blocking my economic recovery plan because they're afraid
it won't work) they blocking it because they're afraid it will
work. (Applause.)
I do not take this step lightly. No President has
vetoed a major tax bill since Harry Truman did it in 1948. But I
submitted an economic growth plan to Congress for a reason: to
promote a recovery in which every American has an interest. The
package I proposed was carefully tailored. It was paid for without
raising taxes. It was designed to encourage and strengthen the
positive economic signs we're beginning to see: home sales and
housing starts up as interest rates stay downt retail sales
improving, 164,000 new jobs last month alone.
In response, the Democratic Congress has returned to
form. It's produced a bill that will not strengthen the economy, it
will weaken it. It's produced a bill that will not stimulate growth,
it will stifle it. As if by raflex, the Democrate in Congress could
not resist their natural impulse to raise taxes. But I assure you of
this, I simply will not let them do it. (Applause.)
so moments ago I signed the veto message for the
Democrate' tax increase, because raising taxes will not help create
MORE
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 3-24-92 ; 4:00PM ;
4562983;# 3
- 2 -
jobs. And the bill is not yet here, but the conference report talls
me all I need to know. And when the bill is sent down tonight, this
signed message will be waiting for it and my veto will go back to the
Hill the minute the bill arrives. And needless to say, I will not
send it back via the House post office. (Laughter and applause.)
The message is clear: My veto and a block of votes
ready to sustain it stands ready to stop any tax increase on the
American people.
With that clear, I ask the Democratic leadership to put
aside once and for all the idea of a tax increase. And I ask the
Congress again, pass the seven common-sense measures that I have
proposed to help the economy now. Do so without raising taxes and
I'll sign it. And then let's get on to the long-term agenda. But
stop holding the American economy hostage in a partisan game.
(Applause.)
Passing a tax increase is bad enough, but here's what
really troubles me: the irresponsibility of Congress on this plan.
It's a part of a pattern. It reflects a more serious problem, a
deeper, systemic problem that is gnawing at the strength of our
nation. It is no wonder that Americans are angry.
Today, looking at the accumulated evidence of several
years, it must be said our congressional system is broken. We have a
long tradition in this country of pulling together when national need
demands that we do so. And over the years, many accomplishments,
large and small, have been truly bipartisan.
But Congress today is different. It's more partisan.
Its campaigns are financed by special interests. It's grown out of
control. It's lost the ability to police itself. And perhaps most
importantly, it is no longer accountable to individual American
citizens and voters. And this must change.
One party has controlled the House of Representatives
for almost four decades. Staff has become institutionalized. In
1950 there were about 2,000 personal staff in Congress. And today,
there are almost 12,000 staff for members of Congress themselves, and
almost 40,000, if you include the entire Legislative Branch. The
number of committees and subcommittees has quadrupled.
And for this, we get A Congress incapable of passing the
simple plan that I presented almost two months ago -- a Congress
controlled by the Democratic caucus which cannot manage a tiny bank
or a tiny post office. (Applause.)
In the 1990 elections, special interest political action
committees -- PACs -- gave almost $117 million to incumbent
congressmen and senators. only about $15 million were donated to
challengers. with this eight-to-one spending advantage, obvious
voter discontent was buried in a wave of PAC-financed television
advertising. And so nearly every incumbent won.
The time has come for change, because when the system is
broken you do have to fix it. And I have proposed to eliminate the
PACs which are poisoning our system. And the time has come to
eliminate these political action committees in their entirety.
And I propose also to increase accountability. I'm
ordering several steps to implement promptly the Supreme Court's Beck
decision. (Applause.) No worker should be forced to have money
taken out of his or her paycheck to fund politicians that he or she
disagrees with. We should apply to Congress the same laws from
employment practices, to civil rights, to the Freedom of Information
Act, which it imposes on everyone alse, (Applause.)
MORE
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 3-24-92 ; 4:00PM ;
4562983;# 4
- 3 -
And I believe the time has come to limit the terms of
congressmen. (Applause.) The terms of presidents are limited. It's
time for the terms of congressmen to be limited.
The bottom line is that we all need a new Congress, one
that can and will work with me for constructive change. And in the
meantime, I will take additional actions on my own with every legal
means at my disposal to keep the economy moving up. And I will do so
in spite of the hopelessly tangled congressional web of PACs, perks,
privileges partnership and paralysis. (Laughter.)
There is, of course, a serious limit on what a president
can do without Congress. But I am determined to do all I can to
effect change. And first, I want to underline a fundamental point:
Government is too big and it spends too much. (Applause.)
I have already proposed to freeze domestic discretionary
spending in federal employment next year. (Applause.) And I've also
proposed to curb the growth of mandatory programs without touching
Social security. Mandatory spending -- spending on programs that
need no annual congressional action to keep growing -- consumes
almost two-thirds of the entire federal budget. Over the next
decade, this spending, if left unchecked, will grow by $2 trillion
more than is needed for inflation and new beneficiaries.
Currently, most of these programs grow automatically
without congressional review or even a chance for a presidential
veto.
MY proposal, which is before Congress now, would permit
these programs to grow for inflation and new beneficiaries and, where
necessary, some amount above that. But we need some ceiling to keep
their growth within reasonable bounds. Uncontrollable spending is a
major cause of the federal deficit that I'm working to contain and it
must be addressed. (Applause.)
Today I am sending to Capitol Hill the first of a series
of additional measures to cut federal spending now, this year. I
have also directed all agency heads to look for further areas where
spending cuts can be made now. The line item rescissions, identified
so far in total, will cancel out about $4 billion in unnecessary
spending -- funds for local parking garages, $100, for asparagus
yield declines, mink research, prickly pear research. The examples
would be funny if the effect weren't so serious. And this kind of
wasteful spending destroys public confidence in the integrity of the
government. And Americans have every right to be outraged and
disgusted. It's their money.
And I will work with the Republicans in the House to
bring these items to a vote individually. Forcing the Democratic
leadership to allow line-by-line votes on items of pork will bring us
& step closer to the accountability and the power that 43 governors
have, the line-item veto. (Applause.)
some argue that the President already has that
authority, the line-item veto authority, but our able Attorney
General in whom I have full confidence and my trusted White House
Counsel backed up by legal opinions from most of the legal scholars,
feel that I do not have that line-item veto authority. And this
opinion was shared by the Attorney General in the previous
administration.
And I ask the American people then to demand that a
president be given line-item veto authority legislatively or, if
necessary, by changing the Constitution. The line-item veto is
essential, and I need 1t now. (Applause.)
MORE
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 3-24-92 ; 4:01PM ;
4562983;# 5
- 4 -
And secondly, I've directed the Vice President to step
up the assault on unnecessary regulation and paperwork. Let me give
you a progress report that he gave to me -- and he's doing a superb
job on this. Though some in Congress oppose regulatory relief, I've
already taken specific steps to remove the regulatory roadblocks to
growth. We've implemented plans to promote biotechnology, to lower
construction costs, help small business, ease the credit crunch, help
clean up the air, reduce costs in transportation, and out through the
morass of regulation and agriculture.
And today, we're launching a new public-private
partnership to promote research and development by bringing the good
ideas from our federal labs into the marketplace. Over the coming
months, we will be announcing many more such steps to chop away at
needless regulation and paperwork wherever we can. Too much
regulation smothers innovation, eliminates jobs, and makes America
less competitive.
I realize that these are only modest steps, but they
reflect a fundamental attitude. And if the Democratic leadership
that runs the status quo Congress will not help us change America, we
have to change it without them. And if the Democratic leadership
that runs the status quo Congress will not help us, reform government,
we must reform it without them.
You sec, change is nothing to fear. For more than two
centuries, America has been a force for change. Our restlassness is
legendary. our energy is boundless. Because of this, today America,
even given our economic problems, is the most productive nation on
the face of the Earth, with the highest standard of living. And we
have only one-twentieth of the world's population. But we produce
one-fourth of the world's output. Twice that of Japan; four times
that of Germany.
Today America's credibility and prestige in the world,
not to mention our strength, have never been greater. But we didn't
get where we are by standing still. We got where we are by always
striving to do better. And that's why the current paralysis of the
Congress, controlled over and over again by that liberal Democratic
majority, is so troubling.
It's caused too many Americans, at the exact moment of
triumph for American values around the world, to lose confidence.
Americans are understandably worried about their future -- not only
about the economy right now: all of that is a key problem -- but
about the economic competition of the future, about the central
question that lies at the heart of the American Dream: Will our
children have a better life than we do?
Make no mistake: We will compete and win in the global
economy. In the last 10 years we've become more productive. Our
exports have more than doubled. Manufacturing productivity has
increased. And we are capturing new markets around the world from
Europe to Africa to Latin America.
But in order to keep succeeding in this global economic
competition we've got to change America in five kay ways. We need a
strategy that is confident, forward-looking, future-oriented, and we
need to be willing to change.
First, we must expand markets for American products. so
I will continue to pursue a GATT agreement to open markets further.
I will push for a North American Free Trade Agreement to unlock the
potential of markets in Mexico and Canada. And 1 will work for
bilateral agreements to knock down barriers to American exports.
To win these markets we must guarantee that America will
lead the world in knowledge, in new ideas, in making products of the
MORE
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 3-24-92 ; 4:02PM ;
4562983;# 6
- 5 -
highest quality. And that requires specific investments today. I'VE
proposed to invest more in basic R&D -- research and development --
and in key technologies like high-performance computing, new and
advanced materials in biotechnology.
Congress should approve these investments. And not onl:
the government must invest more in the future. To maintain our edge
by increasing private sector investment, Congress should pass the
capital (Applause.) gains tax cut and make the R&D tax credit permanent.
And second, we must prepare our work force to compete,
through better education, better training. And I've proposed a set
of dramatic reforms in aducation called America 2000, and a new
approach to job training -- Job Training 2000. The idea of America
2000 is simple: to revolutionize American education. And that means
creating new kinds of schools with new technology and new ways of
learning. It means measuring progress and holding schools
accountable for their performance. And it means giving all families,
including low- and middle-income families, choice in picking their
children's schools. (Applause.)
We've put the resources behind our afforts. Although
budget dollars are very tough, education is 50 important to me that
I've increased funding -- funding for education -- by 42 percent just
since 1989, and gave it the biggest increase this year. I put in
place a new program to help train teachers in math and science, and
increased funding for math and science education by over 69 percent.
But more money alone won't do it. We need reform.
And thirdly, we must reform health care. America has
provided the best quality health care in the entire world. But we
are plagued by two problems: Too many Americans are not covered by
health insurance, and health care costs too much. And I have
proposed a comprehensive plan to make health care more affordable,
more available, more sensible. It guarantees access for affordable
health care, affordable health insurance for all Americans. Congress
world. should pass it, and that will help our competitiveness all around the
Fourth, we've got to fix our legal system. America is
drowning in a sea of litigation. Too many lawsuits means higher
prices for consumers and reduced compatitiveness for all America. It
is estimated that fear of medical practice alone generates up to
about $20 billion per year in increased health costs. This must
change. In some cases we should require the loser to pay the
winner's legal fees, and that would stop some of these frivolous
lawsuits. (Applause.)
You know the problem. when parents won't coach little
league teams, when obstetricians won't deliver babies, and when
community pools are closed in the summertime, all because the fear of
liability, we know that something is wrong. And now is the time for
Congress to pass my legislation to fix it.
And fifth, we must tackle each of these challenges
without higher taxes or more government spending. (Applause.)
America doesn't need bigger government it needs better government.
(Applause.) on every one of these issues the Democrats in Congress
are standing in the way of reform. They've cut my budgets for R&D
and investing in the future and then voted instead for pork.
They've stripped choice and accountability out of the
education bill. They are working on a government takeover as a
solution to our health care program, to be financed by a massive tax
increase. And the special interests have made them afraid of legal
reform. Well, it is time for Congress to either lead, to follow, or
simply get out of the way. (Applause.)
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 3-24-92 ; 4:02PM ;
4562983;# 7
- 6 -
On every one of these challenges there are two very
different ways of looking at the world, one is reformist and the
other protects the status quo. And that difference is driven by
values.
The special interests and the foot-draggers do not
believe in the kind of change that we seek. Change which respects
markets more than government dictates: which recognizes fundamental
American values and the difference between right and wrong; which
rewards excellence and punishes wrong-doing. They do not believe
that actions should have consaquences.
Well, one set of actions should have consequences. The
failure of Congress to move on our program of change means only one
thing: it is time for a new Congress. Give others a chance to
control the United States Congress. (Applause.)
You give me the right lawmakers and I'll give you the
right laws. (Laughter.)
Over the coming weeks I'll be speaking more about these
changes and I'll be laying out further specific plans that I have for
each. And I ask the American people to compare those plans to the
response of the Democratic-led status quo Congress and the do-nothing
caucus that has dominated that Democratic Party for too long.
Patrick Henry said, "I like the dreams of the future
better than the history of the past." Well, Patrick Henry was right
Imagine the irony. As the world is beating & path to freedom's door.
if we, ourselves, were to turn back now. If we carry the change
forward we can have & nation of productive workers and competitive
companies, of healthy and secure communities, of schools that are the
best in the entire world. And America can remain a nation whose
exuberant confidence and commitment to freedom are admired worldwide.
I am ready to build such an America. And because if we
can change the world, we can change America.
Thank you all. And may God blass the United states of
America. Thank you very much.
END
4134 P.M. ES:
Draft
WW clearance
1.00 pm
Talking Points -- Governmental Reform
Many American institutions have recognized the need for
fundamental reform over the last decade.
The Federal government, with the exception of the
military, has been a "glaring hold-out."
As a $1.5 trillion enterprise, government must become
more accountable to the taxpayer, who is "original
investor, customer, shareholder, and board member all
rolled into one."
The President reaffirmed his support for six fundamental
reforms to move away from the "failed status quo ... and
make government more responsive:"
require Congress to govern itself by the laws it
imposes on others (minimum wage laws, employment
discrimination protections, Hatch Act restrictions,
ethics rules, privacy protections, etc.)
reform the Congressional committee system;
reform campaign finance laws to reduce the influence
of special interests, require full disclosure of
"soft money" expenditures, and increase the role of
political parties in elections;
reduce Federal spending and reform the budget process
through a balanced budget Constitutional amendment,
maintenance of the 1990 Budget Act spending caps and
other fiscal reforms;
eliminate unnecessary and burdensome government
regulations; and
limit Congressional terms to two terms for U.S.
Senators and six terms for U.S. Representatives.
The President has been seeking enactment of many of these
measures, such as consistent application of the laws,
campaign finance reforms, a balanced budget Constitutional
amendment, the line-item veto and biennial budgeting since
he first took office in 1989.
The President called on Congress to complete work on the
Administration's key legislative initiatives, including
his economic growth plan, comprehensive crime bill,
education reform and civil justice reform, and adjourn by
Memorial Day.
Demarest/Aarhus
Draft #4
Reform
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS AT OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 3, 1992
10:40am
Thank you for that kind introduction. [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS]
Today, I would rather be in Philadelphia. Old Congress Hall is
home to great ideas and great debate. In this very room, pivotal
and profound discussions occurred -- setting in motion a grand
experiment in man's ability to chart his own future.
The vision of the Founding Fathers may still be hard for us
to fully comprehend. But if you really think about it, their
goals were not much different than ours. They wanted their new
country to prosper -- and they knew intuitively that the road to
prosperity was freedom. They believed in the fundamentals -- in
the inherent strength of faith and family -- and they were
determined to preserve them. They wanted the citizens of our
young nation to live in peace -- safe and secure from threats at
home and abroad. It took a revolution to achieve their vision -
- and it is our duty to preserve it.
They say when British General Cornwallis surrendered to
Washington at Yorktown in 1781, his troops marched to the tune,
"The World Turned Upside Down." It was a profoundly simple
recognition that an old world order was ending and a new one
beginning.
Now, more than two hundred years later, we are again in the
midst of great change. Democracy and freedom once again have
2
turned the world upside down. America once again championed a
great worldwide movement. We stood firm for our principles
through some very difficult times. We did indeed change the
world. Now, as you have heard me say, if we could change the
world, we can change America.
Henry Luce called the 20th century the American Century. In
a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must now meet five great challenges to ensure that the next
century is also the American Century.
First, our children must develop good character and values
so they can be educated adults -- literate and drug-free --
motivated to make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must
dramatically change our education system -- literally
revolutionize it. Our America 2000 education initiative means
top-to-bottom educational reform. Second, our people must have a
sense of well-being about their physical health. My health care
proposal guarantees access to the finest health care system in
the world, and keeps that care affordable for all our citizens.
Next, our civil justice system must do what it was designed
to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits a
year are choking us -- costing us billions of dollars -- and
putting a tremendous drag on our civility and our economy. If
Congress passes my Access to Justice Act, this too can change.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well as
economic opportunity will come from beyond our borders. That's
why we have an aggressive pro-growth trade policy. It demands
3
more open foreign markets for quality American goods and services
to sustain and create American jobs.
Finally, if we are to change America we must change the way
government works. That is what I will address today. G.K.
Chesterton said, "we cannot discuss reform without reference to
form". This has been amply demonstrated in just the last decade
as one institution after another has been challenged -- forced to
take a hard look within itself, make needed improvements, and act
to make the institution live up to its principles. That is the
process called reform.
To ensure their competitive edge, businesses launch reforms
geared to quality. Then, by measuring performance, they improve
performance. Often it's not flashy -- the return to old values
and standards like "built to last a lifetime", or "service with a
smile." Competition works -- the proof? Today American
products are quantifiably better than just a few years ago.
Reform has improved performance in our military. In the
face of tighter budgets, we've cut the fat, gotten leaner and
smarter. Desert Storm proved it. The drive for excellence has
influenced almost every other institution, from state and local
government to trade associations and unions.
Yet, the federal government is a glaring hold-out. It
resists reform and protects a failed status quo -- even in the
face of an unambiguous need for change. This is not about barber
shops or gymnasium privileges or parking spaces. It is not about
perks. It is about the governmental process, and its potential
4
to help or hinder the public good. It is about big things --
major changes to make government more responsive. It is about
the changes that are sweeping the rest of the country but are not
being made in Washington.
The most recent proof that we have a major problem was the
inability of Congress to rise to the challenge of helping our
economy. Instead it reverted to form -- trying to raise taxes
and increase government spending. If it cannot address a
straightforward short-term proposal to stimulate the economy, how
can it possibly deal with the more complex issues like the badly
needed reforms of our education, health care and legal systems?
Orthe
ive challenges I proposed earlier? If we are to reform
education, health care, our legal system -- if we are to reduce
red tape and regulation, make our country competitive, get this
horrendous deficit down, we must reform the Congressional process
itself, and make it responsive to our country's real needs.
The growth of big government has diminished the role of
Congress from policy-making to program-making. Promulgating and
protecting more programs sets in motion a perpetual cycle of
congressional support for more unnecessary spending -- creating
bigger and even less responsive bureaucracies. Then, by
servicing the needs of program recipients, Congressional staffs
continue doing
help to ensure members' re-election and a cont nuation of
business as usual. Beyond that, Congress routinely exempts
itself from the laws it imposes on the rest of the nation -- laws
like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Privacy Act.
5
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about these
dangers. Federalist paper #57 asserts that elected officials,
"can make no law which will not have its full operation on
themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the
society." It also endorses term limits to ensure "proper
responsibility to the people." Federalist Paper #52 argued that
permanent majorities are dangerously undemocratic. James Madison
would be appalled to hear that 98% of Congressmen who seek re-
election are in fact re-elected -- that one party, the Democrats,
has controlled the House 56 out of the last 60 years. That means
self-perpetuating staffs and a bureaucracy beholden to one set of
leaders. The bank and post office scandals are the result of
one-party control -- one party's lack of supervision, lack of new
blood, and lack of change.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but by no means
all of it. We have had divided government before, sometimes
during periods of great crisis. Each time we have worked
together in good faith to meet those challenges.
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress -- the
sticky web of 284 Congressional of Committees and subcommittees, the
almost 40,000 legislative branch employees and staff, $2.5
billion of taxpayer financing, overlaid with a $117 million re-
election war chest for incumbents in special-interest campaign
contributions, and millions more in special-interest influence.
None of this promotes reform and change. Rather, it
aggressively protects the status quo. Conscientious members of
6
Congress understand this. That's why House Republican Leader Bob
Michel just this week introduced comprehensive Congressional
reform legislation. It's got some great ideas for improving the
Congress and its procedures. There are good many people in Congress - the aisle
onbothsides of
- I think of your own Senator Arlen Specter here with me today.
Arlen enthusiastically supports changing our Congressional system
because he believes in changing the status quo. Then talk to
retiring members, many of them dedicated people like Senator
Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, and you will hear the same
frustration. When asked about the prospect of endless budget
deficits, he issued this indictment of the system, "the fact is
that we are unable, institutionally, to do what has to be done.
We are literally not watching the fiddler fiddle while Rome
burns; we are watching the entire orchestra."
Senator Rudman knows the biggest threat to future job
creation is deficit spending, and the current Congressional
structure is not capable of addressing that threat. He knows
that Americans are generous -- people willing to do what is
necessary to make this country better. But there is a mismatch
between their willingness to help and their skepticism about
Congress. They just don't trust it to use their hard-earned tax
dollars wisely.
Today government is a $1.5 trillion enterprise. But people
in Washington frequently forget that the taxpayer is the
original investor, customer, shareholder, and board member all
rolled into one. When folks in government forget that, they
7
issue nettlesome regulations. Those regulations increase the
cost of doing business, but worse, they don't really solve the
problems they were designed to solve. That's why we're trying to
change the regulatory process.
When government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it becomes insulated and unresponsive. It
is almost impossible to adequately reward success, much less
punish failure. Talk to the hardworking people in career
government service -- many will say the same thing -- they are
frustrated too. The system, which may have been good for its
time, now must change, and it won't be easy.
That's because this kind of government doesn't just happen.
Congress creates these giant centralized bureaucracies, lays down
the mandates, funds the programs. Then, it is the Congress that
protects them, harasses them, investigates them, micro-manages
them, and ultimately perpetuates them. Programs that have
outlived their function rarely outlive their funding. With a
Congressional Subcommittee Chairman as godparent, they become
stepchildren of the Congress.
Some 107 different Congressional committees and
subcommittees claim some degree of oversight responsibility for
the Department of Defense. Seventy-four compete for jurisdiction
over the War on Drugs. Just this week, after being reported from
one committee in the House, our energy bill to make us more
energy-efficient and energy-independent was referred to no less
8
than eight additional House committees. It should be no surprise
that it takes so long to get anything done.
When the Secretary of Agriculture and his top staff have to
testify in fourteen hearings in one day, think of the time and
resources that takes. Think of the thousands of hours spent by
the Executive Branch to fulfill the thousands of Congressional
demands for testimony, and government reports.
Democratic Senator David Boren summed it up by saying, "no
one doubts that Congress is in trouble as an institution."
That's why I support his efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of
committees and subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities of
course. And I know that the federal government cannot be run
like IBM or the local convenience store, but we can improve its
performance, and we must. What merely hampered us in the past,
will paralyze us in the future. Our ability to compete demands
we make these reforms, not just of Congress but of the federal
bureaucracy as well. It means emphasizing the building blocks of
a more responsive government by relying on what works: choice,
competition, decentralization. But let me be clear, we cannot
reform the executive branch without first reforming the Congress.
Taken together, the following actions will help make
government work for the people.
First, Congress must govern itself by the laws it imposes on
the public. No more special treatment. Like age, race, sex and
disability discrimination laws. Congress should also submit to
9
the laws it imposes on the Executive Branch -- like conflict of
interest laws or the Independent Counsel Law or the Hatch Act.
I will propose legislation to end such special treatment for
Congress next week. Further, I will veto any future legislation
that extends such special treatment to the Congress.
Second, Congress should reform its operations and
procedures. I support the Boren-Domenici reform bill in the
Senate and the Hamilton-Gradison bill in the House which sets up
a bipartisan group to evaluate Congressional operations and make
recommendations. It is a good beginning, but real reform like
that contained in the Michel bill is essential. Change is still
on the back burner. The American people must turn up the heat.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Full disclosure of
assets, liabilities, and compensation is a key element of reform.
I am not required to disclose my income tax returns but for
twelve years I have done just that -- I believe it is the proper
thing to do. So I have called on Congress to pass tough new full
disclosure laws regarding campaign financing. Beyond that, we
must totally eliminate special-interest Political Action
Committees and put limits on so-called "leadership PACs. " I
proposed ways to increase the legitimate role of our political
parties, reduce the influence of special interests, and decrease
the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-raising. And let
(
me say it straight. out: federal funding of Congressional
elections would only worsen the problem. Campaign finance reform
10
is stalled on Capitol Hill, but the time for action is long past
-- we must clean up our election system.
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
noparallel
domestic discretionary spending and federal non-defense
employment next year. I have proposed two-year budgets, and weshined
d.
2
reducing the number of budget process committees from three to
one. I have proposed to curb as well the growth of mandatory
programs without touching Social Security. This proposal alone
(over the next 5 years.)
would save $390 billion from 1993 to 1997.
The American people should demand that the Congress pass the
same measure that 43 governors have: the line-item veto. They
should demand a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment to phase
in more spending discipline on the Congress and the Executive
Branch. In the absence of those important measures I will
continue to use whatever means are legally at my disposal,
including the line-item recission, to protect the taxpayer from
the spending excesses of Congress. And I will oppose any attempt
by the Congress to dismantle the only defense the taxpayer has
against Congressional overspending -- the budget caps implemented
in the 1990 Budget Act.
Fifth, regulatory reform. We put a ninety-day moratorium on
new government regulations. We are revising and eliminating
regulations that impede our ability to compete, and we are
accelerating regulations that enhance our competitive edge.
Since I announced the moratorium on January 28th, the growth of
burdensome regulations has already been reversed. As our review
Call Betsy anderson
a x2774 to confirm
source
Bud
Appro
Auth
11
continues we will announce further steps to reduce the burden of
unnecessary regulations.
Sixth, we must limit Congressional terms.
We must address the Congress of the future. The cycle of
virtually guaranteed re-election, particularly in the House of
Representatives, through the built-in advantages of incumbency
must be broken. Our Founding Fathers never considered elected
government service to be a career. I believe Senators should be
limited to two terms, and Representatives, limited to six terms.
As President my terms are limited, the same rule should apply to
members of Congress. Our first concern should be the country,
not a lifetime political career.
This brings me to my final point. Certainly, governing
today is complex and time-consuming. But not so many years ago,
representing the people back home was a part-time Washington job.
Somehow Members managed to finish their work and adjourn just
before the hot, humid Washington D.C. summers. Air conditioning
changed all this, and now, thanks to modern technology, Congress
sits year-round.
Members of the House and Senate are now permanent
Washingtonians, but tourists in their own home states. We do not
need a career Congress -- we need a citizen Congress. To borrow
a line from former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker "they
ought to be living in America and visiting Washington." He was
right. He knew that the overwhelming majority of state
legislatures are able to do their work each year in session
a?
12
lasting less than six months -- some as short as three months
every two years. With a streamlined committee structure, a
leaner staff, Members' time organized around legislation rather
than re-election, and better discipline on how they spend the
people's money, Congress could return to what the founders
envisioned as a government truly close to the people. I suggest
that in the future, Congress make a firm commitment to finish the
people's business by Memorial Day, so members can return home and
truly stay in touch with the people.
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
world. As in the first days of our new nation, we must change an
unresponsive government. The reforms I've outlined today can
help renew our faith in government -- we cannot stop with
Congressional process -- we must reform the federal bureaucracy
as well. I will have more to say on that in the near futrue.
But today our mission is to begin restoring the principles of our
Founders, and guaranteeing for our children a new American
Century.
The choice is clear. On one side stand the defenders of the
status quo. On the other: the forces of change. We must make
the choice worthy of the men who met here -- and began the
world's only permanent revolution. Now that we've changed the
world, we must make the choice to change America.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
# # #
Coughlin
limited terms
Spector
not term
Scholar
Federalist Society
You don't elect
them for life.
own rulers are
not
prup. in < R
From Gene (Counsel's) Schaerr
Speech insert (replacement sentence)
Since I announced the moratorium on January 28th, we have taken
numerous, concrete steps that will ultimately reduce the prices
American consumers and businesses pay for energy and
transportation; increase the amount of credit available for new
homes and business expansions; cut red tape for emerging
industries like biotechnology; and eliminate other regulatory
barriers to job creation and economic growth.
Fact sheet insert (for bracketed language) :
Today the President noted that regulatory agencies have already
made numerous reforms in response to the President's initiative.
Those reforms will ultimately reduce the prices that consumers
and businesses pay for energy and transportation; increase the
amount of credit available to businesses and individuals; cut red
tape for emerging industries such as biotechnology; and reduce
other regulatory barriers to job creation and economic growth.
352
The Federalist No. 51
[MADISON]
[MADISON]
The Federalist No. 52
353
one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the
the extended republic of the United States, and among the great
multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will
variety of interests, parties and sects which it embraces, a coali-
depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be
tion of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place
presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of
on any other principles than those of justice and the general 6
people comprehended under the same government. This view
good; and there being thus less danger to a minor from the will 7
of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal
of the major party, there must be less pretext also, to provide
system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican
for the security of the former, by introducing into the govern-
government: Since it shews that in exact proportion as the
ment a will not dependent on the latter; or in other words, a
territory of the union may be formed into more circumscribed
will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than
confederacies or states, oppressive combinations of a majority
it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which
will be facilitated, the best security under the republican form,
have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided
for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished; and
it lie within a practicable sphere, the more duly capable it will
consequently, the stability and independence of some member
be of self government. And happily for the republican cause,
of the government, the only other security, must be proportion-
the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent,
ally increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of
by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal princi-
civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it
ple.
be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society
PUBLIUS.
under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily
unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to
reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual is not
secured against the violence of the stronger: And as in the
The Federalist No. 52
latter state even the stronger individuals are prompted by the
uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which
[51]
may protect the weak as well as themselves: So in the former
JAMES MADISON
5 state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually
[Alexander Hamilton]
induced by a like motive, to wish for a government which will
protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It
February 8, 1788
can be little doubted, that if the state of Rhode Island was
To the People of the State of New York.
separated from the confederacy, and left to itself, the insecurity
FROM the more general enquiries pursued in the four last pa-
of rights under the popular form of government within such
pers, I pass on to a more particular examination of the several
narrow limits, would be displayed by such reiterated oppres-
sions of factious majorities, that some power altogether inde-
From The New-York Packet, February 8, 1788. This essay appeared on Feb-
pendent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of
ruary 9 in The Independent Journal. It was numbered 52 in the McLean
the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In
edition and 51 in the newspapers.
The Federalist No. 52
[MADISON]
[MADISON]
The Federalist No. 52
355
354
parts of the government. I shall begin with the House of Repre-
years; must have been seven years a citizen of the United States,
sentatives.
must at the time of his election, be an inhabitant of the State he is
The first view to be taken of this part of the government, re-
to represent, and during the time of his service must be in no of-
lates to the qualifications of the electors and the elected. Those
fice under the United States. Under these reasonable limitations,
of the former are to be the same with those of the electors of the
the door of this part of the Fœderal Government, is open to merit
most numerous branch of the State Legislatures. The definition
of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young
of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental
or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any partic-
article of republican government. It was incumbent on the
ular profession of religious faith.
Convention therefore to define and establish this right, in the
The term for which the Representatives are to be elected,
Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation
falls under a second view which may be taken of this branch.
of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just
In order to decide on the propriety of this article, two questions
mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of
must be considered; first, whether biennial elections will, in this
the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and
case, be safe; secondly, whether they be necessary or useful.
for the additional reason, that it would have rendered too de-
First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in
pendent on the State Governments, that branch of the Fœderal
general, should have a common interest with the people; so it is
Government, which ought to be dependent on the people alone.
particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration,
To have reduced the different qualifications in the different
should have an immediate dependence on, & an intimate sym-
States, to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dis-
pathy with the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably
satisfactory to some of the States, as it would have been difficult
the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can
to the Convention. The provision made by the Convention ap-
be effectually secured. But what particular degree of frequency
pears therefore, to be the best that lay within their option. It
may be absolutely necessary for the purpose, does not appear to
must be satisfactory to every State; because it is conformable
be susceptible of any precise calculation; and must depend on a
to the standard already established, or which may be established
variety of circumstances with which it may be connected. Let
by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States; because,
us consult experience, the guide that ought always to be
being fixed by the State Constitutions, it is not alterable by the
followed, whenever it can be found.
State Governments, and it cannot be feared that the people of
The scheme of representation, as a substitute for a meeting
the States will alter this part of their Constitutions, in such a
of the citizens in person, being at most but very imperfectly
manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the Foederal
known to ancient polity; it is in more modern times only, that 2
Constitution.
we are to expect instructive examples. And even here, in order
The qualifications of the elected being less carefully and
to avoid a research too vague and diffusive, it will be proper to
properly defined by the State Constitutions, and being at the
confine ourselves to the few examples which are best known,
same time more susceptible of uniformity, have been very
and which bear the greatest analogy to our particular case. The
properly considered and regulated by the Convention. A repre-
first to which this character ought to be applied, is the House
sentative of the United States must be of the age of twenty-five
of Commons in Great Britain. The history of this branch of
356
The Federalist No. 52
[MADISON]
[MADISON]
The Federalist No. 52
357
the English Constitution, anterior to the date of Magna Charta,
dangerous to the requisite dependence of the house of represent-
is too obscure to yield instruction. The very existence of it has
atives on their constituents.
been made a question among political antiquaries. The earliest
Elections in Ireland till of late were regulated entirely by
records of subsequent date prove, that Parliaments were to sit
the discretion of the crown, and were seldom repeated except on
only, every year; not that they were to be elected every year.
the accession of a new Prince, or some other contingent event.
And even these annual sessions were left so much at the discre-
The parliament which commenced with George II. was con-
tion of the monarch, that under various pretexts, very long
tinued throughout his whole reign, a period of about thirty-
and dangerous intermissions, were often contrived by royal
five years. The only dependence of the representatives on the
ambition. To remedy this grievance, it was provided by a stat-
people consisted, in the right of the latter to supply occasional
ute in the reign of Charles the second, that the intermissions
vacancies, by the election of new members, and in the chance
should not be protracted beyond a period of three years. On
of some event which might produce a general new election. The
the accession of Wil. III. when a revolution took place in the
ability also of the Irish parliament, to maintain the rights of
government, the subject was still more seriously resumed, and
their constituents, so far as the disposition might exist, was ex-
it was declared to be among the fundamental rights of the peo-
tremely shackled by the controul of the crown over the subjects
ple, that Parliaments ought to be held frequently. By another
of their deliberation. Of late these shackles, if I mistake not,
statute which passed a few. years later in the same reign, the
have been broken; and octennial parliaments have besides been
term 'frequently' which had alluded to the triennial period
established. What effect may be produced by this partial re-
settled in the time of Charles II. is reduced to a precise mean-
form, must be left to further experience. The example of Ire-
ing, it being expressly enacted that a new parliament shall be
land, from this view of it, can throw but little light on the
called within three years after the determination of the former.
subject. As far as we can draw any conclusion from it, it must
The last change from three to seven years is well known to have
be, that if the people of that country have been able, under all
been introduced pretty early in the present century, under an
these disadvantages, to retain any liberty whatever, the ad-
alarm for the Hanoverian succession. From these facts it ap-
vantage of biennial elections would secure to them every degree
pears, that the greatest frequency of elections which has been
of liberty which might depend on a due connection between
deemed necessary in that kingdom, for binding the representa-
their representatives and themselves.
tives to their constituents, does not exceed a triennial return
Let us bring our enquiries nearer home. The example of
of them. And if we may argue from the degree of liberty re-
these States when British colonies claims particular attention;
tained even under septennial elections, and all the other
at the same time that it is so well known, as to require little to
vicious ingredients in the parliamentary constitution, we cannot
be said on it. The principle of representation, in one branch
doubt that a reduction of the period from seven to three years,
of the Legislature at least, was established in all of them. But the
3
with the other necessary reforms, would so far extend the influ-
periods of election were different. They varied from one to
ence of the people over their representatives, as to satisfy us, that
seven years. Have we any reason to infer from the spirit and
biennial elections under the fœderal system, cannot possibly be
conduct of the representatives of the people, prior to the revo-
358
The Federalist No. 52
[MADISON]
[MADISON]
The Federalist No. 53
359
lution, that biennial elections would have been dangerous to
the Fœderal Legislature will not only be restrained by its de-
the public liberties? The spirit which every where displayed it-
pendence on the people as other legislative bodies are; but
self at the commencement of the struggle; and which van-
that it will be moreover watched and controuled by the several
4 quished the obstacles to independence, is the best of proofs
collateral Legislatures, which other legislative bodies are not.
that a sufficient portion of liberty had been every where en-
And in the third place, no comparison can be made between
joyed to inspire both a sense of its worth, and a zeal for its
the means that will be possessed by the more permanent
proper enlargement. This remark holds good as well with regard
branches of the Fœderal Government for seducing, if they
to the then colonies, whose elections were least frequent, as to
should be disposed to seduce, the House of Representatives
those whose elections were most frequent. Virginia was the
from their duty to the people; and the means of influence over
colony which stood first in resisting the parliamentary usurpa-
the popular branch, possessed by the other branches of the gov-
tions of Great-Britain: it was the first also in espousing by pub-
emments above cited. With less power therefore to abuse, the
lic act, the resolution of independence. In Virginia never-
Fœderal Representatives, can be less tempted on one side, and
theless, if I have not been misinformed, elections under the
will be doubly watched on the other.
former government were septennial. This particular example
PUBLIUS.
is brought into view, not as a proof of any peculiar merit, for the
priority in those instances, was probably accidental; and still
less of any advantage in septennial elections, for when com-
pared with a greater frequency they are inadmissible: but
The Federalist No. 53
merely as a proof, and I conceive it to be a very substantial
[52]
proof, that the liberties of the people can be in no danger from
JAMES MADISON
1
biennial elections.
The conclusion resulting from these examples will be not a
February 9, 1788
little strengthened by recollecting three circumstances. The first
To the People of the State of New York.
is that the Foederal Legislature will possess a part only of that
I SHALL here perhaps be reminded of a current observation,
supreme legislative authority which is vested completely in the
"that where annual elections end, tyranny begins." If it be true
British parliament, and which with a few exceptions was exer-
as has often been remarked, that sayings which become prover-
cised by the colonial Assemblies and the Irish Legislature. It
bial, are generally founded in reason, it is not less true that when
is a received and well founded maxim, that, where no other
once established, they are often applied to cases to which the
circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the
reason of them does not extend. I need not look for a proof
shorter ought to be its duration; and, conversely, the smaller
beyond the case before us. What is the reason on which this pro-
the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted. In
the second place, it has, on another occasion, been shewn* that
From The Independent Journal, February 9, 1788. This essay appeared on
February 12 in The New-York Packet. It was numbered 53 in the McLean
See Essay 46. (Editor)
edition and 52 in the newspapers.
The Federalist No. 57
[MADISON]
[MADISON]
384
The Federalist No. 57
385
The Federalist No. 57
of republican government; or favors the elevation of the few
on the ruins of the many? Let me ask whether every circumstance
[56]
is not, on the contrary, strictly conformable to these principles;
JAMES MADISON
and scrupulously impartial to the rights and pretensions of
[Alexander Hamilton]
every class and description of citizens?
Who are to be the electors of the Fœderal Representatives?
February 19, 1788
Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the
To the People of the State of New York.
ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more
THE third charge against the House of Representatives is, that
than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The
it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least
electors are to be the great body of the people of the United
sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to aira
States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every
at an ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of
State of electing the correspondent branch of the Legislature of
the State.
the few.
Of all the objections which have been framed against the
Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen
Fœderal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary.
whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence
Whilst the objection itself is levelled against a pretended o5
of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious
garchy, the principle of it strikes at the very root of republic
faith, or of civil profession, is permitted to fetter the judgment
or disappoint the inclination of the people.
government.
The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be
If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free
first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to &
suffrages of their fellow citizens may confer the representative
cern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society,
trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be
and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for
devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents.
keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their per
In the first place, as they will have been distinguished by the
lic trust. The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the character
reference of their fellow citizens, we are to presume, that in
istic policy of republican government. The means relied on
general, they will be somewhat distinguished also, by those
this form of government for preventing their degeneracy
qualities which entitle them to it, and which promise a sincere
numerous and various. The most effectual one is such a limits
and scrupulous regard to the nature of their engagements.
tion of the term of appointments, as will maintain a proper
In the second place, they will enter into the public service
responsibility to the people.
ader circumstances which cannot fail to produce a temporary
Let me now ask what circumstance there is in the Constine
extion at least to their constituents. There is in every breast
tion of the House of Representatives, that violates the principal
sensibility to marks of honor, of favor, of esteem, and of
From The New-York Packet, February 19, 1788. This essay appeared
orafidence, which, apart from all considerations of interest, is
February 20 in The Independent Journal. It was numbered 57
mee pledge for grateful and benevolent returns. Ingratitude
McLean edition and 56 in the newspapers.
.common topic of declamation against human nature; and it
386
The Federalist No. 57
[MADISON]
[MADISON]
The Federalist No. 57
387
must be confessed, that instances of it are but too frequent and
few governments have furnished examples; but without which
flagrant both in public and in private life. But the universal and
every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked what
extreme indignation which it inspires, is itself a proof of the
energy and prevalence of the contrary sentiment.
is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal
discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of
3
In the third place, these ties which bind the representative to
the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature
his constituents are strengthened by motives of a more selfish
of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and
nature. His pride and vanity attach him to a form of government
which favors his pretensions, and gives him a share in its honors
manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit
which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
and distinctions. Whatever hopes or projects might be enter-
If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law
tained by a few aspiring characters, it must generally happen
not obligatory on the Legislature as well as on the people, the
that a great proportion of the men deriving their advancement
people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.
from their influence with the people, would have more to hope
4 from a preservation of the favor, than from innovations in the
Such will be the relation between the House of Representa-
tives and their constituents. Duty, gratitude, interest, ambi-
government subversive of the authority of the people.
tion itself, are the chords by which they will be bound to fidelity
All these securities however would be found very insuff
and sympathy with the great mass of the people. It is possible
cient without the restraint of frequent elections. Hence, in
that these may all be insufficient to controul the caprice and
the fourth place, the House of Representatives is so constituted
wickedness of man. But are they not all that government will
as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their
admit, and that human prudence can devise? Are they not the
dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed
genuine and the characteristic means by which Republican
on their minds by the mode of their elevation, can be effaced
Government provides for the liberty and happiness of the peo-
by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate
ple? Are they not the identical means on which every State
the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise
Government in the Union, relies for the attainment of these
of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level
important ends? What then are we to understand by the objec-
from which they were raised; there for ever to remain, unless
tion which this paper has combated? What are we to say to the
a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their
men who profess the most flaming zeal for Republican Gov-
title to a renewal of it.
emment, yet boldly impeach the fundamental principle of
I will add as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the
it; who pretend to be champions for the right and the capacity
House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive
of the people to chuse their own rulers, yet maintain that they
measures, that they can make no law which will not have its
will prefer those only who will immediately and infallibly be-
full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on
tray the trust committed to them?
the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed
Were the objection to be read by one who had not seen the
one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect
mode prescribed by the Constitution for the choice of represent-
the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that
atives, he could suppose nothing less than that some unreason-
communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of which
able qualification of property was annexed to the right of suf-
388
The Federalist No. 57
[MADISON]
[MADISON]
The Federalist No. 57
389
frage; or that the right of eligibility was limited to persons of
sions of rank and wealth, no person is eligible as a represent-
particular families or fortunes; or at least that the mode pre-
ative of a county, unless he possess real estate of the clear value
scribed by the State Constitutions was in some respect or other
of six hundred pounds sterling per year; nor of a city or bor-
very grossly departed from. We have seen how far such a sup-
ough, unless he possess a like estate of half that annual value.
position would err as to the two first points. Nor would it in
To this qualification on the part of the county representatives,
fact be less erroneous as to the last. The only difference dis-
is added another on the part of the county electors, which re-
coverable between the two cases, is, that each representative
strains the right of suffrage to persons having a freehold estate
of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand
of the annual value of more than twenty pounds sterling ac-
citizens; whilst in the individual States the election of a repre-
cording to the present rate of money. Notwithstanding these
sentative is left to about as many hundred. Will it be pretended
unfavorable circumstances, and notwithstanding some very un-
that this difference is sufficient to justify an attachment to the
equal laws in the British code, it cannot be said that the repre-
State Governments and an abhorrence to the Foederal Govern-
sentatives of the nation have elevated the few on the ruins of
ment? If this be the point on which the objection turns, it
the many.
deserves to be examined.
But we need not resort to foreign experience on this subject.
Is it supported by reason? This cannot be said, without
Our own is explicit and decisive. The districts in New-Hamp-
maintaining that five or six thousand citizens are less capable of
shire in which the Senators are chosen immediately by the peo-
chusing a fit representative, or more liable to be corrupted by an
ple are nearly as large as will be necessary for her representatives
unfit one, than five or six hundred. Reason, on the contrary as-
in the Congress. Those of Massachusetts are larger, than will be
sures us, that as in so great a number, a fit representative would
necessary for that purpose. And those of New-York still more so.
be most likely to be found, so the choice would be less likely to
In the last State the members of Assembly, for the cities and
be diverted from him, by the intrigues of the ambitious, or the
counties of New-York and Albany, are elected by very nearly
bribes of the rich.
as many voters, as will be entitled to a representative in the
Is the consequence from this doctrine admissible? If we say
Congress, calculating on the number of sixty-five representa-
that five or six hundred citizens are as many as can jointly ex-
tives only. It makes no difference that in these senatorial dis-
ercise their right of suffrage, must we not deprive the people of
tricts and counties, a number of representatives are voted for
the immediate choice of their public servants in every instance
by each elector at the same time. If the same electors, at the
where the administration of the government does not require as
same time are capable of choosing four or five representatives,
many of them as will amount to one for that number of citi-
they cannot be incapable of choosing one. Pennsylvania is an
zens?
additional example. Some of her counties which elect her State
Is the doctrine warranted by facts? It was shewn in the last
representatives, are almost as large as her districts will be by
paper, that the real representation in the British House of Com-
which her Fœderal Representatives will be elected. The city
mons very little exceeds the proportion of one for every thirty
of Philadelphia is supposed to contain between fifty and sixty
thousand inhabitants. Besides a variety of powerful causes, not
thousand souls. It will therefore form nearly two districts for
existing here, and which favor in that country, the preten-
the choice of Fœderal Representatives. It forms however but
390
The Federalist No. 57
[MADISON]
[MADISON]
The Federalist No. 58
391
one county, in which every elector votes for each of its repre-
sentatives in the State Legislature. And what may appear to be
The Federalist No. 58
still more directly to our purpose, the whole city actually elects
[57]
a single member for the executive council. This is the case
JAMES MADISON
in all the other counties of the State.
[Alexander Hamilton]
1
Are not these facts the most satisfactory proofs of the fallacy
which has been employed against the branch of the Foederal
February 20, 1788
Government under consideration? Has it appeared on trial that
To the People of the State of New York.
the Senators of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New-York;
THE remaining charge against the House of Representatives
or the Executive Council of Pennsylvania; or the members of
which I am to examine, is grounded on a supposition that the
the Assembly in the two last States, have betrayed any peculiar
number of members will not be augmented from time to time,
disposition to sacrifice the many to the few; or are in any re-
as the progress of population may demand.
spect less worthy of their places than the representatives and
It has been admitted that this objection, if well supported,
magistrates appointed in other States, by very small divisions of
would have great weight. The following observations will shew
the people?
that like most other objections against the constitution, it can
But there are cases of a stronger complexion than any which
only proceed from a partial view of the subject; or from a
I have yet quoted. One branch of the Legislature of Connecticut
jealousy which discolours and disfigures every object which is
is so constituted that each member of it is elected by the whole
beheld.
2
State. So is the Governor of that State, of Massachusetts, and
1. Those who urge the objection seem not to have recol-
of this State, and the President of New-Hampshire. I leave
lected that the federal constitution will not suffer by a com-
every man to decide whether the result of any one of these ex-
parison with the state constitutions, in the security provided
periments can be said to countenance a suspicion that a dif-
for a gradual augmentation of the number of representatives.
fusive mode of chusing representatives of the people tends
The number which is to prevail in the first instance is de-
to elevate traitors, and to undermine the public liberty.
clared to be temporary. Its duration is limited to the short term
PUBLIUS.
of three years.
Within every successive term of ten years, a census of in-
habitants is to be repeated. The unequivocal objects of these
regulations are, first, to readjust from time to time the appor-
tionment of representatives to the number of inhabitants; under
the single exception that each state shall have one representa-
tive at least; Secondly, to augment the number of representa-
From The Independent Journal, February 20, 1788. This essay appeared
on February 22 in The New-York Packet. It was numbered 58 in the Mc-
Lean edition and 57 in the newspapers.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 : 4- 1-92 ; 5:25PM ;
4562983;# 1
9
Second, reform of the Congressional committee system. I
support efforts to trim the overgrown thicket of committees and
subcommittees which now paralyzes the Congress. Senator Boren
said it best when he described the Congress as "inefficient,
wasteful, and compromised by the way it finances its campaigns."
The Boren-Domenici committee reform bill starts by setting up a
bipartisan group to evaluate Congressional operations. It is a
good beginning, but real reform is still on the back burner. The
American people must turn up the heat.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Full disclosure of
assets, liabilities, and compensation is a key element of reform.
I am not required to disclose my income tax returns but I believe
it is the proper thing to do. So I called on Congress to pass
tough new full disclosure laws to stop the abuse that results
from spreading around what's called "soft money."
Beyond that, I called for the total elimination of special-
interest Political Action Committees and limits on so-called
"leadership PACs.' I proposed ways to increase the legitimate
role of our political parties, reduce the influence of special
interests, and decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend
fund-raising. And let me say it straight out: federal funding of
Congressional elections would only worsen the problem. Campaign
finance reform is stalled on Capitol Hill, but the time for
action is long past -- we must clean up our election system.
FROM
Fourth, spending reform. I have already proposed to freeze
Policy
DEVEL.
domestic discretionary spending and * federal employment next year.
non-defense
federal supplingment.
PAGE
2
2ND STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1992 States News Service
February 13, 1992, Thursday
LENGTH: 840 words
HEADLINE: Former Jersey Candidates Look Back On Race For Presidency
BYLINE: By Kate McKenna, States News Service
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
KEYWORD: electSB
BODY:
While Sen. Bill Bradley and former Governor Thomas H. Kean are better known
among those who filed as possible candidates in 1988, there were several other
New Jerseyans who actually ran for president in the last election. And they
look back on the campaign with mixed feelings.
Emmy Award-winning television and film producer James R. Messenger won't
even discuss his 1988 race for the presidency, which he said cost him $15,000 of
his savings, and taught him a few things about major party support of
lesser-known candidacies.
But the Piscataway resident did consent to forward his well-designed press
packet outlining a complete presidential platform, as well as a statement
explaining why he was no longer involved in politics.
"I ran as a Democrat for president in order to try and introduce into the
presidential campaign the true issues facing this nation," he said.
"Unfortunately, no one was interested."
Although Messenger, whose work has twice earned Academy Award nominations,
had sought major party support, he said official response was confined to a
state party official announcing that he "didn't have a chance" to win a single
vote.
"That was the extent of 'help' from the Democratic Party," states Messenger
with some bitterness. "With all due respect, I have nothing else to say."
But there were some positive results. Right to Life Party candidate William
Marra of W. Milford, a philosophy professor at Fordham University, was the
nation's ninth-highest vote-getter in the last presidential race, earning 22,560
votes.
An articulate speaker who ran on a "Family First" platform, Professor Marra
said minor-party candidacies are needed to broaden the national debate, which he
said remains fixed on economic issues.
He said he would probably not run again "unless someone comes up to me with
$16 million in campaign funds," said Marra, adding that he doubts this will
happen. "I never had any illusion that I would win, but I was glad to do what I
could to call attention to other issues. But once is enough."
LEXIS'NEXIS`LEXIS`NEXIS
PAGE
3
(c) 1992 States News Service, February 13, 1992
Jersey City resident James Mac Warren received 11,435 votes in 1988 as the
Socialist Workers Party candidate, and although he said national campaign was
grueling, it was "a very interesting experience."
"What you've got to understand is that most of the people we appeal to are
those who have lost all interest in the political process," said Warren. "They
see the other candidates as Tweedledee and Tweedledum." Now living in Chicago,
Warren said he would consider running again, if asked.
Even if asked, perennial candidate 78-year-old Bill Gahres of Barnegat said
he would probably never again run for President. But he knows he has what it
takes to wage a longshot run at the presidency -- and it's not for just anyone.
"You have to have a hide like an elephant," said Gahres, who ran as an
independent for president in 1980 and 1984. "And you've got to be a character.
A very staid, timid sort of person is not going to do it."
Waging a colorful campaign through his Committee to Get Rid of Bureaucratic B
t, he knows he raised more than a few eyebrows.
"People took me as some sort of clown, but there was a method to my madness:
free publicity," he said, adding that the process gave him name recognition
highly useful to his start-up legal advertising consultancy.
Although Gahres racked up only 1,718 votes in the 1980 election, it was in
his next election -- the 1981 gubernatorial race -- that he fully learned the
difference a third-party candidate can make. Running on the "Down With Lawyers"
ticket, Gahres racked up 4,525 votes in a race that Republican Thomas H. Kean
won by a mere 1,800 votes.
The Democrat who could have used some of Gahres' votes? James J. Florio.
"If I hadn't been in the race, Florio would have won the first time," Gahres
says now. "The Democrats hated my guts."
Waging a minor-party candidacy could also be considered fleeting fame. It was
only two elections ago that Dennis L. Serette, also of Jersey City, received
50,000 votes as the first presidential candidate run by what is now the New
Alliance Party. Four years later in 1988, the party's nominee became the only
minor-party candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, receiving 201,430 votes in
the process.
And this year, New Alliance nominee Leonora Fulani beat every other
presidential hopeful, Democrat or Republican, by being the first to qualify for
federal matching funds. But after months of searching in answer to questions
from a reporter, party officials have been unable to locate Serrette, who they
say has not been seen or heard from in years.
But there will always be Henry Krajewski, the notorious pig farmer from
Secaucus who ran for president several times in the 1950s and beyond. "His
legacy," according to David A. Bositis, a senior research associate at the
Joint Center for Political Studies in Washington, "is that his campaign buttons
nationwide." and souvenirs have become one of the rarest items among political memorabilia
LEXIS'NEXICL
XIS'NEXIS
Administration of George Bush, 1991 / Oct. 24
gence Richard J. Kerr; nominee for Director
they shared something special with their
of Central Intelligence Robert M. Gates;
neighbors and friends. Those meetings
U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills; Gen.
taught me just what we mean when we talk
Brent Scowcroft, Assistant to the President
of a government of the people, by the
for National Security Affairs; Gen. Karl
people, and for the people.
Stiner, Commander of the U.S. Special Op-
The notion of public service has always
erations Command. William J. Donovan
motivated Americans to be Americans.
was founder and Director of the Office of
More than 150 years ago, de Tocqueville
Strategic Services during World War II.
noted with some astonishment that "When
Richard S. Welch, a CIA official, was killed
an American needs the assistance of his fel-
in Athens, Greece, on December 23, 1975. A
lows, it is very rare for that to be refused,
tape was not available for verification of
and I have often seen it given spontaneous-
the content of these remarks.
ly and eagerly." He did not mistake us for
saints. He understood that freedom de-
mands such service to others.
It also demands that public servants lead
Remarks to Representatives of Public
by example. Americans will not tolerate hy-
Administration Groups on Public
pocrisy. People in other countries wonder
Service
why we make such a fuss when our leaders
violate our standards of behavior. The
October 24, 1991
reason is simple: As Americans, we feel that
Thank you all very, very much for being
we have a destiny to lead, to show the way
here. I know it's nice to get off of work.
by ideals, not just to ourselves but to the
[Laughter] But I'm talking about getting
entire world.
people this interested in public service to
Yet while our Government rests upon un-
come together. I'm particularly pleased to
changing principle, it cannot rest upon past
see Tim Clark, who is president of the Na-
achievements. Government, like everything
tional Capital Area Chapter of the Ameri-
else, must evolve. Our long and sturdy tra-
can Society for Public Administration; Ray
dition of tolerance enables us to test new
Kline, over here, the president of the Na-
ideas through public debate. When Con-
tional Association of Public Administrators;
gress considers issues, no one minds a tough
and then my old friend Dave Maxwell, vice
and honest discussion. We expect it. By the
chairman of the Council for Excellence in
same token, we want and expect our free
Government, all interested in public serv-
press to look beneath events, take account
ice.
of people's motives, and ask tough questions
I am delighted to join you this morning. I
rather than numbly repeating partisan
come here, I hope, in a constructive vein to
propaganda or baseless rumor. We demand
discuss two issues that we all care about
integrity in public behavior and discourse,
deeply: public service and then, Tim
and when we don't get it, we react.
touched on it, public faith in government.
The recent hearings on Judge Thomas
Like many of you, I have devoted much
stirred a kind of anger. The American
of my adult life to public service. And I,
people saw some of the seamier sides of
too, cherish public service really as a special
Washington life. They saw proceedings that
honor and a personal obligation. And I
degenerated into target practice against
always have. Long ago, my dad served for
good men and women. Ronnie Perry of
years as the moderator of the town meet-
Brunswick, Georgia, wrote me a letter. I
ing, the Connecticut town meeting in our
don't know him. Here's what it said: "It is
town of Greenwich. It convened once a
my fear that good, honest, moral men and
month, and people came there and talked
women in this country will no longer sub-
about whatever concerned them as they
ject themselves to the ridicule that Judge
always do at town meetings. It could be
Thomas had to face." Likewise, Anita Hill's
rowdy or boring. The meetings always,
backers might wonder how anyone might
though, gave people a special sense that
be expected to come forward in the future
their opinions made a difference and that
if public officials cannot maintain proper
1495
Oct. 24 / Administration of George Bush, 1991
confidentiality, such as the confidentiality
you, in which I, take so much pride; more
promised to Professor Hill.
like a burlesque show than a civics class:
I want to digress, though, in fairness, to
The hearings also showed that politicians
read from page 3 of the hearings on the
must contend with a host of different forces
Committee on the Judiciary, because Sena-
and influences. The public saw the congres-
tor Biden, in my judgment, tried. Here's
sional staffers everywhere; saw outside pres-
what he said at the very opening of these
sure groups exhorting and twisting, and the
hearings: "Second, while I have less discre-
staffs ever-present, everywhere.
tion than a judge in a trial to bar inappro-
I worry that the hearings sent our people
priate or embarrassing questions, all of the
this kind of false message: "If you want to
witnesses should know that they have a
make a difference, don't enter public serv-
right to ask that the committee go into
ice. Join a special interest group. That way,
closed session." He cites a rule here, rule
whether it's the right or the left, join a
26.5, "to go into a closed session if a ques-
special interest group, and that way you can
tion requires an answer that is a clear inva-
fight as hard as you want or as dirty as you
sion to the right to privacy.
want without any responsibility for the re-
"The committee will take very seriously
sults."
the request of any witness to answer par-
ticularly embarrassing questions as they
I served in Congress. I have great respect
view whether or not it is embarrassing to
for Congress. I know the incredible pres-
answer those questions in private." So I
sure and difficulty of working there. But
salute the Chairman for those words that
public faith in Congress is absolutely vital
went unheeded as the process unfolded.
for our form of government. I think we can
The bruising hearings showed what hap-
all work together to help strengthen its
pens when political factions let agendas
image and build greater public support.
overwhelm personal decency. Some people
Members of Congress criticize the execu-
have tried to drag public debate to a new
tive branch all the time. That's fine, often
low, searching openly for dirt, any dirt,
constructively. And I offer these sugges-
without regard to people's rights to privacy,
tions, then, in a spirit of constructive criti-
sometimes without concern for the facts.
cism.
While crusading pressure groups talk about
First, given the outrageous nature of the
their favorite issues, they forget that human
leaks and the Senate's announced intention
beings sit there beneath the glare of the
of going after them, the Senate must dèter-
spotlight, vulnerable to assault from all
mine who leaked the information and
quarters. The piranha tactics of smearing
turned what should have been a confiden-
the individual and ignoring the issue serve
tial investigation into what many people
no public purpose. They aim to destroy
who wrote me described as "a circus" and
lives and wreck reputations.
"a travesty."
The dramatic hearings and the theatrics
Here's a proposal that I support: The
outside the hearing rooms captivated the
Senate should appoint immediately a spe-
attention of the American public, all right.
cial counsel to find out who leaked what
Millions upon millions of Americans
and for what reasons. The public cares very
watched the hearings with a combination of
much above this case, and in my view, they
curiosity, suspense, and, I submit to you all,
will for a long, long time. And the investiga-
disgust. The Nation was stunned and re-
tion ought to focus just on this case. And
pulsed by the spectacle. The scenes from
the special counsel should receive unfet-
the Senate bore little resemblance to the
tered access to all relevant records and wit-
tidy legislative process that we all studied in
nesses, and should have subpoena power to
school and that we describe to our children,
get the truth. The Senate ought to set a
now, maybe to our grandchildren. X-rated
clear goal for finishing up the investigation.
statements, cross-examinations pushed aside
I suggest January 3d, when it returns for a
the soaps and Saturday cartoons. And the
new session. Frankly, the American people
process seemed unreal, more like a satire
just will not understand it if the Senate fails
than like the Government in which all of
to bring the leaker or leakers to justice.
1496
Administration of George Bush, 1991 / Oct. 24
Second, we must promote more tolerant,
First, shorten the time-lapse between
less viciously partisan debate. I've heard
nominations and confirmation; shorten it to
complaints that the White House does not
6 weeks. It takes four times as long to
consult sufficiently with Congress in mat-
secure a vote today; four times as long as it
ters of these nominations. Frankly, I have
did just 30 years ago, during the Presidency
tried to consult with Congress. And we wel-
of John Kennedy. It took the Senate an av-
come closer consultation. Let me just get
erage of 63 days to confirm our appoint-
that out on the table. I don't want to put
ments sent up in 1989; 65 days for the
any nominee through a public meat grind-
group nominated in 1990. We now have a
er. And I always welcome advice, especially
large group of people waiting for the
in cases that might prove controversial.
Senate to vote on their nominations, and
Much of what I have to say today has
they have been waiting an average of 80
been sharpened by discussion with Mem-
days.
bers of Congress. But let me make it clear: I
At the beginning of this week, more than
will not give a group of Senators veto
power over a nominee before the Senate
190 nominations remained pending before
has conducted hearings and held a confir-
the Senate. A few examples: I nominated
mation vote. I will not surrender Presiden-
Bob Clarke, Robert Clarke, for appointment
tial authority or powers any more than Con-
as Comptroller of the Currency on January
gress will surrender its power.
23d, more than 9 months ago; I nominated
In any event, no one ought to accept the
Larry Lindsey for a seat on the Federal
charge of insufficient consultation as an
Reserve Board on February 28th. In times
excuse for this unforgivable leak.
of economic concern, we need the service
Third, the hearings focused attention on
of these people. And if Members of the
the problem of sexual harassment in the
Senate don't like my nominees, then they
workplace. We have taken additional steps
should vote against them. But they should
at the White House as recently as yesterday
not stall progress by resorting to the old,
to address the problem. We will ensure that
and in my view, obsolete technique of plac-
employees of the Executive Office of the
ing a hold on nominations. Once again, this
President are aware of the problem and ap-
isn't Republican or Democrat; it is institu-
preciate fully our strong commitment to
tional.
building a workplace free of harassment.
We in the White House certainly must do
And on March 1st, our administration sub-
our part. We will redouble our efforts to
mitted a civil rights bill that contains specif-
ensure that nominees complete all their re-
ic provisions to strengthen penalties against
quired paperwork promptly and will re-
sexual harassment and encourage compli-
spond promptly to requests for further im-
ance with the law. That was back on March
portant information. I've asked our Office
1st. Congress will act soon, I hope by pass-
of the White House Counsel and Office of
ing my civil rights bill. And at the very
Government Ethics to see that our regula-
least, I hope Congress will pass the portions
tions and clearance procedures do not, how-
on which we have reached agreement.
ever, discourage public service. I am com-
But legislation alone can't solve the prob-
mitted to an ethical administration, but we
lem of sexual harassment in the workplace.
must ensure that our rules have not become
Sexual harassment is ugly behavior. Togeth-
so detailed and so onerous as to scare good,
er, we must eradicate prejudices, not just
honest people away from public service.
through laws, but through simple respect
And second, we will work with commit-
for other human beings. In the end, laws
tees in Congress to ensure the confidential-
can punish prejudice, but they cannot,
ity of information. I have ordered that the
alone anyway, produce enlightenment.
FBI reports be carried directly to commit-
Only we can do that by acting on our con-
tee chairmen and any members designated
victions.
by the chairmen. The members will read
The Thomas hearings also raised concerns
the reports immediately, in the presence of
about the confirmation process generally.
the agent, and then return them. No FBI
And let me offer several specific recom-
reports will stay on Capitol Hill. And fur-
mendations for reforming the process.
thermore, members only will have access to
1497
Oct. 24 / Administration of George Bush, 1991
these reports. Staffs will not have access to
the men and women who drafted the law.
these reports.
For you see, when Congress exempts itself
This preserves confidentiality. In my
from the very laws that it writes for others,
view, it protects nominees. It protects po-
it strikes at its own reputation and shatters
tential witnesses against the nominees. And
public confidence in government.
it protects the Members of Congress.
These exemptions encourage special in-
Third, Congress should establish a mecha-
terest groups to press, then, for reckless
nism for investigating congressional leaks
regulations, knowing that Congress might
thoroughly, professionally, promptly. And
adopt such laws if it won't feel the sting of
I've met this week with several leaders
these laws. This practice creates the appear-
from the Senate from both parties, and they
ance and reality of a privileged class of
agree that we must prevent future leaks
rulers who stand above the law. Our found-
and establish a suitable mechanism for in-
ers thought it proposterous to suggest that
vestigating them swiftly, bringing culprits
such behavior would ever take place in
to justice.
There is no excuse for leaks that wreck
America.
lives and needlessly destroy reputations.
We did a little research. Federalist Paper
The law already prohibits such leaks from
number 57 asserts that elected officials, and
the executive branch. And again, we intend
here's the exact language, "can make no
to enforce that law rigorously. I know it's
law which will not have in full operation on
not easy. I've been there. I saw it when I
themselves and their friends, as well as on
was Director of Central Intelligence when
the great mass of society." The writer of
we dealt with national security. I've seen
that paper also noted ominously, "If this
frustrating leaks in the White House that
spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tol-
have nothing to do with character assassina-
erate a law not obligatory on the legislature
tion or national security, that simply relate
as well as on the people, the people will be
to policy matters. I know it's not a simple
prepared to tolerate anything but liberty."
matter here. But we've got to do better,
The people have begun to speak now.
both the executive and the legislative
And today I call upon the Congress to take
branch.
a simple step toward increasing public con-
And fourth, Congress ought to follow the
fidence. Submit to the laws it imposes on
same laws that it imposes on everyone else.
others, including strict enforcement provi-
More than a dozen laws apply to the execu-
sions, not just Ethics Committee jurisdic-
tive branch, but not the Congress. Most of
tion, and do so by the year's end.
these laws apply to everyone in America
There's a lot of just plain people up there
except Members of Congress. Congress does
on the Hill trying to make a living. And
not have to comply with the Equal Pay Act
of 1963. It does not have to follow title VII
people who work for Congress ought to
have the same rights and legal remedies as
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a title that
those who work for anyone else.
prohibits sexual harassment and discrimina-
tion on the basis of race, color, sex, religion,
But Congress also must submit to the
and national origin. It doesn't have to obey
laws that is imposed on the executive
the provisions of the Americans with Dis-
branch. And this includes the Privacy Act,
abilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimina-
which prohibits inappropriate leaks by exec-
tion in Employment Act.
utive agencies, title VI of the Ethics in Gov-
I would wager that the American people
ernment Act of 1978, the independent
do not know that Congress has exempted
counsel law.
itself from the sexual harassment laws pri-
And all of us should demonstrate our
vate employers and the executive branch
commitment to clean and effective govern-
must obey. And they have. We've heard
ment. From the very start of my adminis-
choruses of criticism against the evils of
tration, I made it absolutely clear that I
sexual harassment. And we've received
expect my appointees to follow strict stand-
good suggestions about how to become
ards of propriety so the American people
more vigilant about this insidious crime.
would have full and increasing confidence
But these lessons should not be wasted on
in our ability and integrity.
1498
Administration of George Bush, 1991 / Oct. 24
I established a Commission on Federal
one doubts that Congress is in trouble as an
Ethics Law Reform in January of 1989. I
institution. In poll after poll, Americans de-
pushed for initiatives that resulted in the
scribe Congress", these are his words, "as
Ethics Reform Act of 1989. I signed an Ex-
inefficient, unresponsive, wasteful, and
ecutive order in April '89, setting forth the
compromised by the way it finances its
principles of ethical Government service.
campaigns." "It's time for Congress to take
And I charged the Office of Government
another look at itself," these four suggest.
Ethics with issuing a single, comprehensive,
"It's time to go beyond piecemeal efforts
and clear set of objective, reasonable, and
and to enact comprehensive, bicameral re-
enforceable standards. Those standards will
forms."
be ready soon. They're out now for review.
I support the efforts of the congressional
In the executive departments and the
reformers. A system originally designed to
White House we do strive to set and meet
help Congress do the public's business has
high standards of public service. I'll never
turned into a machine so complex and be-
be happy. We can always do better in the
wildering that the public doesn't under-
executive branch, in the departments, and
stand it. Many Members of Congress do not
in the White House. And I pledge to the
fully understand it. Only specialists and lob-
American people that I'm not here to point
fingers; I will continue to see that we do a
byists can pick their way through the laby-
rinth.
better job of all of this in the executive
branch of the Government. I'm going to
The American people want more. They
keep on trying. But all I'm doing here is
want a Government that will foster eco-
inviting the Congress to do the same. Some-
nomic growth and fight crime and drugs
times we protest too much, and we reform
and work to improve schools and build
too little. And so, now is the time to act.
better roads and answer the concerns of the
And finally-going on too long here, but
people. And they want a Government that
I'm wound up on this. [Laughter] I really
listens, not one that commands.
feel strongly about this. Finally; we all must
And in the end, taxpayers won't be im-
remember that our business is to do the
pressed with reforms if Members of Con-
public's business. That becomes increasingly
gress pay greater heed to the beltway lob-
different for a Congress that contains more
byists and pressure groups than to constitu-
than 300 committees and subcommittees
ents. If people feel powerless, they will find
and makes use of nearly 40,000 workers.
ways to recover their just powers.
It becomes increasingly difficult for a
Our founders handed down to us the
Congress that answers to no one with re-
finest system of Government in history, one
spect to its budget, its staff, its perks, even
in which the legislature and the executive
the enforcement of its own rules.
do battle as part of our system of checks
The business of doing the people's busi-
and balances. But we must remember who
ness gets even more difficult when commit-
is servant and who is master. Noah Webster
tees make broad and unfocused demands,
asked in 1802, "If all officers of Govern-
for example, the Judiciary Committee asked
ment are the servants of the people, how
Clarence Thomas to submit more than
can it be expected that the masters should
32,000 pages of documentation prior to his
not, at times, take the Government out of
hearings. I'd hate to give a quiz to the Sena-
the hands of the servants."
tors to see how many people read the
The reforms I've proposed today will help
32,000 documents that they asked for.
us do the people's business. They will rein
[Laughter] A defense bill routinely runs a
in a Government that seems remote, seems
gamut of committees and subcommittees.
distant and complex; they will bring it back
I support the bipartisan effort of Senators
to the people and give citizens the feeling
Boren and Domenici, Representatives Ham-
of power that we felt at those town meet-
ilton and Gradison to trim this overgrown
ings some 60 years ago. We must remem-
thicket of committees and subcommittees.
ber, we come here to serve. A few simple
These four are out front for congressional
reforms can go a long way toward building
reform, and I salute them. Senator Boren
the public faith upon which our entire de-
framed the matter when he said this, "No
mocracy depends.
1499
Oct. 24 / Administration of George Bush, 1991
Thank you not only for your interest but
provision of assistance in locating, tracing,
for all you do in elevating public service.
immobilizing, seizing and forfeiting pro-
It's worthwhile. Don't give up your work.
ceeds of crime, and restitution to the vic-
Thank you very, very much, indeed.
tims of crime.
Note: The President spoke at 11:52 a.m. at
I recommend that the Senate give early
the National Museum of American History.
and favorable consideration to the Treaty
The following persons were not clearly
and give its advice and consent to ratifica-
tion.
identified: Clarence Thomas, Associate Jus-
tice of the Supreme Court; Anita Hill, a
University of Oklahoma law professor who
George Bush
testified before the Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee during the Clarence Thomas confir-
The White House,
mation hearing; Senators Joseph R. Biden
October 24, 1991.
and David L. Boren; and Representatives
Lee H. Hamilton and Willis D. Gradison,
Jr.
Proclamation 6364-National Breast
Cancer Awareness Month, 1991
Message to the Senate Transmitting the
October 24, 1991
Treaty on Mutual Assistance in
Criminal Matters Between Panama and
By the President of the United States
the United States
of America
October 24, 1991
A Proclamation
Despite all we have learned about pre-
To the Senate of the United States:
vention, despite all of the advances that
With a view to receiving the advice and
have been made in its diagnosis and treat-
consent of the Senate to ratification, I trans-
ment, breast cancer continues to kill thou-
mit herewith the Treaty between the
sands of American women each year. Stop-
United States of America and the Republic
of Panama on Mutual Assistance in Criminal
ping this tragic loss of life will require con-
tinued research as well as the sustained co-
Matters, with Annex and Appendices,
operation of scientists, health care profes-
signed at Panama on April 11, 1991. I trans-
sionals, educators, insurance providers, indi-
mit also, for the information of the Senate,
vidual women, and other concerned Ameri-
the Report of the Department of State with
cans.
respect to the Treaty.
The Treaty is one of a series of modern
According to the American Cancer Socie-
mutual legal assistance treaties being nego-
ty, women in the United States have never
tiated by the United States in order to
been at greater risk for breast cancer: an
counter criminal activities more effectively.
estimated one in nine women will develop
The Treaty should be an effective tool to
the disease at some point in their lives. For-
assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of
tunately, however, scientists across the
modern criminals, including members of
country also note that much progress has
drug cartels, "white collar criminals," and
been made in controlling breast cancer.
terrorists. The Treaty is self-executing.
Better and earlier treatment has helped
The Treaty provides for a broad range of
more and more women who have contract-
cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual as-
ed breast cancer to survive the disease.
sistance available under the Treaty in-
Today we continue to rely on basic re-
cludes: (1) the taking of testimony or state-
search to identify and develop improved
ments of witnesses; (2) the provision of doc-
means of preventing, diagnosing, and treat-
uments, records, and evidence; (3) the exe-
ing breast cancer. However, the knowledge
cution of requests for searches and seizures;
yielded by basic research is only as helpful
(4) the serving of documents; and (5) the
as our willingness and our ability to use it. If
1500
Civil Rts. Act- - 1964?
Federalist #57
Domenici- Boren Legislation
What are we doing about this?
In Process
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
March 27, 1992
NOTE FOR DAVID DEMAREST
Assistant to the President for Communications
FROM:
DAVE JUDAY
09
Deputy Assistant to the Vice President
and Deputy Director of Domestic Policy
Per Bill Kristol's suggestion, I have attached some language
regarding the Vice President's past activities regarding
Congressional reform. I hope that this may be useful in
preparing the President's "reform agenda speech" for next
Wednesday. I've also attached a brief summary (prepared in 1985)
of the VP's efforts in this regard.
Should you, or someone in your office, have any further
questions, I can be reached at x6770.
CC: Bill Kristol
Eight years ago, while then serving in the Senate, Vice
President Quayle spearheaded an effort to reform the way the
Senate does its business -- to streamline the unwieldy budget
process, to reorder the Congressional committee system, and to
put an end to the abusive maneuvering around the rules of debate
on the floor of the U.S. Senate -- what should be the world's
greatest deliberative body.
What was true in 1984 is still true today,
the process
has broken down; the business of governing has been trivialized.
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
**REFORMING THE SENATE**
Position:
Senator Quayle believes that major reforms of the Senate
rules and committee structures are needed to allow the Senate
to accomplish the business with which it is charged.
O
Establishment of the Temporary Select Committee to Study
the Senate Committee System.
In June 1984, Senator Quayle objected to a proposed
resolution to make the Indian Affairs Committee a permanent
Committee. He objected to the "proliferation" of Senate
committees and subcommittees, personal and committee staff,
floor amendments and votes, all of which he said have
contributed to the "trivialization" of the work of what is
supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. As a
result, the Majority and Minority leaders jointly moved an
amendment to that resolution to establish a Temporary Select
Committee to study the Senate committee system and report back
in 6 months.
Twelve Senators were appointed to the committee and these
members elected DQ chairman. The Committee held two days of
hearings with testimony from, among others, the majority
leader, the chairman and ranking minority members of the
Appropriations, Armed Services and Budget committees.
After extensive consultations, the Select Committee issued
an unanimous report recommending major changes in the Senate's
committee system as well as changes in Senate rules relating to
consideration of measures on the floor.
The Committee recommended: limiting the number of
committees and subcommittees any one Senator may serve on and
chair; creation of a special panel to study implementing a two-
year budget process; establishing a joint House-Senate
Intelligence Committee; limits on amendments of little or no
bearing to the measures they are offered to; and a crackdown on
dilatory tactics employed by opponents of bills even after the
Senate has voted to invoke cloture against a filibuster.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 3, 1992
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Congress Hall
Independence National Historical Park
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
10:28 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: May I start by thanking Ms. Aikens for
her hospitality, and the hospitality of all those to whom so much
history is entrusted here. And what a superb job they do in
preserving this lovely, lovely historic place. We're grateful --
grateful to you that you are permitting us to have this event here
today.
May I thank Brian Guthrie, the President of the
Federalist Society of Philadelphia, for his introduction, for hosting
this. I see Joe Cicippio. I want to say that 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 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 family, faith -- and they were determined to preserve them. They
wanted the citizens of our young nation to live in peace, safe and
secure from threats at home and abroad. It took a revolution to
achieve their vision -- and it is our duty to preserve it.
They say when British General Cornwallis surrendered to
Washington at Yorktown in 1781, his troops marched to the tune, "The
World Turned Upside Down." It was a profoundly simple recognition
that an old world order was ending and a new one beginning.
Now, more than 200 years later, we are again in the
midst of great change. Democracy and freedom once again have turned
the world upside down. America once again championed a great
worldwide movement. We stood firm for our principles through some
very difficult times. We did indeed change the world. Now, as you
may have heard me say, if we could change the world, we can change
America.
Henry Luce called the 20th century the American Century.
In a world more driven by economic competition than ever before, we
must now meet five great challenges to ensure that the next century
is also the American Century.
First, our children must develop good character, must
develop values so they can be educated adults -- literate, drug-free
-- motivated to make learning a lifelong pursuit. We must
dramatically change our education system -- literally revolutionize
it. Our America 2000 education initiative means top-to-bottom
educational reform. Second, our people must have a sense of well-
being about their physical health. And our health care proposal
MORE
- 2 -
guarantees access to the finest health care system in the world, and
keeps that care affordable for all our citizens.
Next, our civil justice system -- it must do what it was
designed to do: dispense justice for all. Eighteen million lawsuits
a year are choking us -- costing us billions of dollars and putting a
tremendous drag on our civility and our economy. If Congress passes
my Access to Justice Act, this, too, can change.
And in the next century, economic competition, as well
as economic opportunity, will come from beyond our borders. That's
why we have aggressive pro-growth trade policy. It demands more open
foreign markets for quality American goods and services to sustain
and create American jobs.
Finally, if we're to change America we must change the
way government works. That's what I will address today. G.K.
Chesterton said, "we cannot discuss reform without reference to
form". This has been amply demonstrated in just the last decade as
one institution after another has been challenged forced to take a
hard look within itself, make needed improvements, and act to make
the institution live up to its principles. That is the process
called reform.
To ensure their competitive edge, businesses launch
reforms that are geared to quality. Then, by measuring performance,
they improve performance. Often it's not flashy ++ the return to old
values and standards like "built to last a lifetime", or "service
with a smile.' Competition works. The proof? Today -- look around
this great country American products are quantifiably better than
just a few years ago.
Reform has improved performance in our military. In the
face of tighter budgets -- let me look at the military -- in the face
of tighter budgets we've cut the fat, we've gotten leaner and
smarter. And Desert Storm proved it. The drive for excellence has
influenced almost every other institution, from state and local
government to trade associations and unions.
Yet, the federal government is a glaring hold-out. It
resists reform and protects a failed status quo -- even in the face
of an unambiguous need for change. This isn't -- I'm not talking
here about barber shops or perks or calligraphers or parking spaces.
It's about the governmental mental process, its potential to help or
hinder the public good. It is about big things, important things --
major changes to make government more responsive. It's about the
changes that are sweeping the rest of the country but are not being
made in Washington.
The most recent proof that we have a major problem was
the inability of Congress to rise to the challenge of helping our
economy. Instead it reverted to form -- trying to raise taxes,
increase government spending. If it cannot address a straightforward
short-term proposal to stimulate the economy, how can it possibly
deal with the more complex issues like the badly needed reforms of
education, health care, legal systems? I would still like to see
Congress put politics aside and give me an up-and-down vote on the
seven incentives to stimulate this economy that I have pending before
the Congress right now.
But if we are to reform education and health care and
our legal system -- and if we are to reduce red tape and regulation,
make our country competitive, get this horrendous deficit down, we
must reform the congressional process itself. We've got to make it
responsive to our country's real needs.
The growth of big government has diminished the role of
Congress from policy-making to program-making. Promulgating and
MORE
- 3 -
protecting more programs sets in motion a perpetual cycle of
congressional support for more unnecessary spending -- creating
bigger and even less responsive bureaucracies. Then, by servicing
the needs of program recipients, congressional staffs help to ensure
members' reelection and a continuation of business as usual. Beyond
that, Congress routinely exempts itself from the laws that it imposes
on the rest of the nation -- laws like the landmark Civil Rights Act
of 1964.
Prophetically, the Founding Fathers warned us about
these dangers. Federalist Paper 57 asserts that -- and I've just
been given this beautiful volume by your president -- asserts that
elected officials, "can make no law which will not have its full
operation on themselves and their friends,' -- and then it goes on
-- "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 percent of the
congressmen who seek reelection are, in fact, reelected --
that one party, the Democrats, has controlled the House of
Representatives for 56 out of the last 60 years.
And that means self-perpetuating staffs. It means a
bureaucracy, an inbred bureaucracy, beholden to only one set of
leaders. The bank and the post office scandals that have outraged
the American people are the results of one-party control -- one
party's lack of supervision, lack of new blood, lack of change.
There isn't the competition to make these institutions in the
Congress more efficient.
One-party rule is a big part of the problem, but
certainly not -- by no means all of it. We've had divided government
before, sometimes during periods of great crisis. And each time we
have worked together in good faith to meet those challenges.
The larger issue is the systemic problem of Congress --
the sticky web of 284 congressional committees and subcommittees, the
almost 40,000 Legislative Branch employees and staff, $2.5 billion of
taxpayer financing, overlaid with a $117 million in a reelection war
contributions. chest for incumbents in these special-interest campaign
None of this promotes reform and change. Rather, it
aggressively protects the status quo. Conscientious members of
Congress understand this. And that's why the Republican Leader in
the House, Bob Michel, has proposed congressional reform legislation.
There's some good ideas there -- great ideas for improving Congress
and its procedures -- like legislative calendar process reform,
reduction in the number of congressional staff, reduction of the
number of congressional committees.
There are good people in Congress -- many on both sides
of the aisle -- and two of them are up here with me today. I think
of your own Arlen Specter, who came up with us and we talked about
these reforms. Talked to him -- he enthusiastically supports
changing our congressional system because he believes in changing the
status quo. Larry Coughlin, who's leaving the Congress -- no special
ax to grind -- had a very good suggestion coming up here about
changing the numbers on the rules committee so the minority programs
would at least have a chance to be voted on from time to time in the
United States Congress.
There's a lot of ideas -- good ones -- from Democrats
and Republicans alike. And then talk to retiring members -- other
retiring members. Many of them, dedicated people like Warren Rudman
of New Hampshire. I'm sure you heard what he had to say. Talk to
him and you'll hear this frustration. And when asked about the
prospect of endless budget deficits, he issued this indictment of the
system: "The fact is that we are unable, institutionally, to do what
MORE
- 4 -
has to be done. We are literally not watching the fiddler fiddle
when Rome burns, we are watching the entire orchestra."
Now, Senator Rudman knows the biggest threat to future
job creation is deficit spending, and the current congressional
structure is not capable of addressing that threat. He knows that
Americans are generous generous people willing to do what's
necessary to make this country better. But there's a mismatch
between their willingness to help and their skepticism about the
United States Congress. They just don't trust Congress to use their
hard-earned tax dollars wisely.
Today, government is a $1.5-trillion enterprise. But
people in Washington frequently forget that the taxpayer is the
original investor, customer, shareholder, board member all rolled
into one. And when folks in government forget that, they issue
nettlesome regulations. Now, those regulations increase the cost of
doing business; but worse, they don't really solve the problems they
were designed to solve.
The Executive Branch is involved. As President, I'm
going to keep trying to change the regulatory process. But I will
need, because of the legislation, I will need help of the Congress.
When government forgets who is really the boss -- the
American taxpayer -- it becomes insulated and becomes unresponsive.
But unresponsive government doesn't just happen. Congress creates
these giant centralized bureaucracies, then imposes a bunch of
mandate -- lays down the mandates -- funds the programs. And then it
is the Congress that protects them or investigates them or
micromanages them, and ultimately perpetuates them. Programs that
have outlived their function rarely outlive their funding. With a
congressional subcommittee as godparent -- some chairman there as the
godparent -- they become stepchildren of a committee -- one of the
committees of the Congress.
Some 107 different congressional committees and
subcommittees claim some degree of oversight responsibility for the
Department of Defense. Seventy-four compete for jurisdiction over
the war on drugs -- 74 separate entities. Just this week, after
being reported from one committee in the House, our energy bill --
one to make us more energy-efficient, energy-independent -- was
referred to no less than eight additional House committees. It
should be no surprise that it takes so long to get anything done.
Another example when the Secretary of Agriculture and
his top staff have to testify in 14 hearings in one day, think of the
time and resources that takes. Think of the thousands of hours spent
by the Executive Branch to fulfill the thousands of congressional
demands for testimony and government reports. Here's a man sitting
right here that used to have to deal with this, Ken Cribb, and he
knows what I'm talking about.
Democratic Senator David Boren, committed to reform,
summed it up by saying, "no one doubts that the Congress is in
trouble as an institution." And that's why I support, as President,
his efforts -- Senator Boren's efforts -- to trim the overgrown
thicket of committees and subcommittees which now paralyzes the
Congress.
Congress has legitimate oversight responsibilities. We
know that. I respect that. We all know it. And I know that the
federal government cannot be run like IBM or the local convenience
store, but we can improve its performance, and we must. What merely
hampered us in the past, could well paralyze us in the future. Our
ability to compete demands that we make these reforms, not just of
Congress -- not just of the Congress but of the federal bureaucracy
-- the Executive Branch bureaucracy as well. And it means
MORE
- 5 -
emphasizing the building blocks of a more responsive government by
relying on what works: choice -- it works; competition -- it works;
decentralization. But let me be clear, we cannot reform the
Executive Branch without first reforming the Congress.
Taken together, the following actions will help make
government work for the people.
First, the Congress must govern itself by the laws that
it imposes on others. No more special treatment. (Applause.) Like
age, race, sex and disability discrimination laws. Congress should
submit to the laws that it imposes on the Executive Branch -- like
the conflict of interest laws or the Independent Counsel Law.
(Applause.) And I will propose legislation to end such special
treatment for Congress next week. And further, I will veto any
further legislation -- future legislation -- that extends such
special treatment to the Congress.
Second, Congress should reform its operations and
procedures. I support the Boren-Domenici bill. It's a reform bill
in the Senate. And over on the House side, Lee Hamilton, a Democrat,
and Bill Gradison, a Republican, have that bill in the House which
sets up a bipartisan group to evaluate congressional operations and
make recommendations. It's a good beginning. But real reform like
that contained in the Michel bill I think is essential right now.
Change is still on the back burner. The American people have got to
turn up the heat.
Third, sweeping campaign finance reform. Full
disclosure of assets, liabilities, and compensation is a key element
of real reform. Now, let me be subjective a minute. I am not
required to disclose my income tax returns. And in a sense, I guess
I feel like every other American -- that it is an invasion of my
privacy. But for 12 years I have made public in full detail those
tax returns. And I believe that all people aspiring to the office I
now hold should do exactly that. On Congress, perhaps Congress
doesn't need to go that far. But they should make their existing
disclosure rules much more thorough, much more rigorous.
The way to solve a lot of the problem is to have the
constituent know as much as possible. So I favor that kind of
disclosure. Now, beyond that, we must totally eliminate the special-
interest political action committees and then put limits on so-
called leadership PACs.
Now, I've proposed ways to increase the legitimate role
of our political parties, reduce the influence of the special
interests, and decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend
fundraising. And let me say it straight out: Federal funding
-- now pending -- federal funding of congressional elections would
only make the problem worse. Real campaign finance reform is
stalled on Capitol Hill. But the time for action is long past, and
we must clean up our election system. (Applause.)
The fourth one, spending reform. I have already
proposed to freeze domestic discretionary spending and federal
nondefense employment next year. And I've proposed two-year budgets.
And I have proposed, as well, to curb the growth of mandatory
programs without touching the Social Security system.
Now, if mandatory spending were allowed to grow for
inflation and eligible population only, we could save about $2
trillion over the next decade. That's where the big expense is. The
American people should demand that Congress pass the same measure
that 43 governors have: the line-item veto. (Applause.) And they
should demand a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
Obviously, given the financial problems we're facing, budgetary
problems, a balanced budget requirement would have to be phased in.
MORE
- 6 -
But such an amendment is needed now. It will discipline the
Executive Branch; it will discipline the Legislative Branch.
In the absence of those important measures, I will
what continue to use whatever means are legally at my disposal, including,
I called for just a few days ago, use of the line-item
rescission to protect the taxpayer from the spending excesses of the
attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only defense that the
Congress. (Applause.) And I will continue to vigorously oppose any
the obviously 1990 act. about the budget caps -- the caps that were implemented in
taxpayer has against congressional overspending. And I'm talking
Fifth, regulatory reform. We put a 90-day moratorium on
new government regulations. We are revising and eliminating
regulations that impede our ability to compete, and we are
accelerating since regulations that enhance our competitive edge. Now,
burdensome regulations has already been reversed. And as our review
I announced the moratorium on January 28th, the growth of
continues we will announce further steps to reduce the burden of
unnecessary regulations. (Applause.) But it cannot be done alone; I
can't do it alone. Congress, in passing legislation, must be
committed to cutting down the regulatory burden as well.
We must address the Congress of the future. The cycle of virtually
Sixth, we must limit congressional terms. (Applause.)
And through the built-in advantages of incumbency have got to be broken.
guaranteed reelection, particularly in the House of Representatives,
to be a career. And I believe senators should be limited to two
our Founding Fathers never considered elected government service
terms terms, and representatives limited to six terms. And as President my
are limited; the same rule should apply to members of the
political career. (Applause.)
Congress. Our first concern should be the, country, not the lifetime
governing today is far more complex and time-consuming. We have
Now this brings me to my final point. Certainly,
the give that, that's the fact. But not so many years ago, representing to
people back home was a part-time Washington job. Somehow members
Washington, D.C. summers. Air conditioning changed all this.
managed to finish their work and adjourn just before the hot, humid
almost all year round.
(Laughter.) And now, thanks to modern technology, Congress sits
Washingtonians. And we do not need a career Congress, we need a
Many members of the House and Senate are now permanent
citizen Congress. (Applause.) To borrow a line from former Senate
Majority Leader Howard Baker, "They ought to be living in America and
visiting in Washington." (Applause.) I think Senator Baker was right
a serious way. He knew that the overwhelming majority of state
less legislatures are able to do their work each year in sessions lasting
about three months every two years.
than six months -- some of them very short, some of them are
members' time organized around legislation rather than reelection,
With a streamlined committee structure, a leaner staff,
and better discipline on how they spend money, Congress could return
to what the Founders envisioned as a government truly close to the
people. And I suggest that in the future, Congress and the
administration work together to achieve a legislative schedule that
truly stay in touch with the people. (Applause.)
allows members to spend more continuous time at home so that they can
world. It's exciting what's happening. As in the first days of our
Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the
new nation, we must change an unresponsive government. The reforms
that I've outlined today can help renew our faith in government --
confidence in government. We cannot stop with congressional process.
MORE
- 7 -
We must reform the federal bureaucracy as well, and I am going to
have more to say on that in the near future. But today, our mission
is to begin restoring the principles of our Founding Fathers and
guaranteeing for our children a new American Century.
The choice is clear. On one side stand the defenders of
the status quo; on the other, the forces of change. And we must make
the choice worthy of the men who met here in this room and began the
world's only permanent revolution. And now that we've changed the
world -- we have -- we must make the choice to change America.
Thank you all very, very much. And may God bless the
United States.
END
11:00 A.M. EST
OLD HOUSE CHAMBER
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
APRIL 3, 1992
THANK YOU, BRIAN [GUTHRIE, PRESIDENT OF THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA], FOR THAT KIND
INTRODUCTION. SENATOR SPECTER; CONGRESSMAN COUGHLIN;
MARTHA AIKENS, SUPERINTENDENT OF INDEPENDENCE PARK. I
SEE JOSEPH CICIPPIO. OLD CONGRESS HALL IS HOME TO
GREAT IDEAS AND GREAT DEBATE. IN THIS VERY ROOM,
PIVOTAL AND PROFOUND DISCUSSIONS OCCURRED -- SETTING IN
MOTION A GRAND EXPERIMENT IN MAN'S ABILITY TO CHART HIS
OWN FUTURE.
- 2 -
THE VISION OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS MAY STILL BE
HARD FOR US TO FULLY COMPREHEND. BUT IF YOU REALLY
THINK ABOUT IT, THEIR GOALS WERE NOT MUCH DIFFERENT
THAN OURS. THEY WANTED THEIR NEW COUNTRY TO PROSPER -
- AND THEY KNEW INTUITIVELY THAT THE ROAD TO PROSPERITY
WAS FREEDOM. THEY BELIEVED IN THE FUNDAMENTALS -- IN
THE INHERENT STRENGTH OF FAITH AND FAMILY -- AND THEY
WERE DETERMINED TO PRESERVE THEM. THEY WANTED THE
CITIZENS OF OUR YOUNG NATION TO LIVE IN PEACE -- SAFE
AND SECURE FROM THREATS AT HOME AND ABROAD. IT TOOK A
REVOLUTION TO ACHIEVE THEIR VISION -- AND IT IS OUR
DUTY TO PRESERVE IT.
THEY SAY WHEN BRITISH GENERAL CORNWALLIS
SURRENDERED TO WASHINGTON AT YORKTOWN IN 1781, HIS
TROOPS MARCHED TO THE TUNE, "THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE
DOWN." IT WAS A PROFOUNDLY SIMPLE RECOGNITION THAT AN
OLD WORLD ORDER WAS ENDING AND A NEW ONE BEGINNING.
- 3 -
NOW, MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS LATER, WE ARE
AGAIN IN THE MIDST OF GREAT CHANGE. DEMOCRACY AND
FREEDOM ONCE AGAIN HAVE TURNED THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN.
AMERICA ONCE AGAIN CHAMPIONED A GREAT WORLDWIDE
MOVEMENT. WE STOOD FIRM FOR OUR PRINCIPLES THROUGH
SOME VERY DIFFICULT TIMES. WE DID INDEED CHANGE THE
WORLD. NOW, AS YOU HAVE HEARD ME SAY, IF WE COULD
CHANGE THE WORLD. WE CAN CHANGE AMERICA.
HENRY LUCE CALLED THE 20TH CENTURY THE AMERICAN
CENTURY. IN A WORLD MORE DRIVEN BY ECONOMIC
COMPETITION THAN EVER BEFORE, WE MUST NOW MEET FIVE
GREAT CHALLENGES TO ENSURE THAT THE NEXT CENTURY IS
ALSO THE AMERICAN CENTURY.
- 4 -
FIRST, OUR CHILDREN MUST DEVELOP GOOD CHARACTER AND
VALUES so THEY CAN BE EDUCATED ADULTS -- LITERATE AND
DRUG-FREE -- MOTIVATED TO MAKE LEARNING A LIFELONG
PURSUIT. WE MUST DRAMATICALLY CHANGE OUR EDUCATION
SYSTEM -- LITERALLY REVOLUTIONIZE IT. OUR AMERICA 2000
EDUCATION INITIATIVE MEANS TOP-TO-BOTTOM EDUCATIONAL
REFORM. SECOND, OUR PEOPLE MUST HAVE A SENSE OF WELL-
BEING ABOUT THEIR PHYSICAL HEALTH. MY HEALTH CARE
PROPOSAL GUARANTEES ACCESS TO THE FINEST HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, AND KEEPS THAT CARE AFFORDABLE FOR
ALL OUR CITIZENS.
NEXT, OUR CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM MUST DO WHAT IT WAS
DESIGNED TO DO: DISPENSE JUSTICE FOR ALL. EIGHTEEN
MILLION LAWSUITS A YEAR ARE CHOKING US -- COSTING US
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS -- AND PUTTING A TREMENDOUS DRAG ON
OUR CIVILITY AND OUR ECONOMY. IF CONGRESS PASSES MY
ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, THIS T00 CAN CHANGE.
- 5 -
AND IN THE NEXT CENTURY, ECONOMIC COMPETITION, AS
WELL AS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY WILL COME FROM BEYOND OUR
BORDERS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN AGGRESSIVE PRO-GROWTH
TRADE POLICY. IT DEMANDS MORE OPEN FOREIGN MARKETS FOR
QUALITY AMERICAN GOODS AND SERVICES TO SUSTAIN AND
CREATE AMERICAN JOBS.
FINALLY, IF WE ARE TO CHANGE AMERICA WE MUST CHANGE
THE WAY GOVERNMENT WORKS. THAT IS WHAT I WILL ADDRESS
TODAY. G.K. CHESTERTON SAID, "WE CANNOT DISCUSS REFORM
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO FORM". THIS HAS BEEN AMPLY
DEMONSTRATED IN JUST THE LAST DECADE AS ONE INSTITUTION
AFTER ANOTHER HAS BEEN CHALLENGED -- FORCED TO TAKE A
HARD LOOK WITHIN ITSELF, MAKE NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS, AND
ACT TO MAKE THE INSTITUTION LIVE UP TO ITS PRINCIPLES.
THAT IS THE PROCESS CALLED REFORM.
- 6 -
TO ENSURE THEIR COMPETITIVE EDGE, BUSINESSES LAUNCH
REFORMS GEARED TO QUALITY. THEN, BY MEASURING
PERFORMANCE, THEY IMPROVE PERFORMANCE. OFTEN IT'S NOT
FLASHY -- THE RETURN TO OLD VALUES AND STANDARDS LIKE
"BUILT TO LAST A LIFETIME", OR "SERVICE WITH A SMILE."
COMPETITION WORKS -- THE PROOF? TODAY AMERICAN
PRODUCTS ARE QUANTIFIABLY BETTER THAN JUST A FEW YEARS
AGO.
REFORM HAS IMPROVED PERFORMANCE IN OUR MILITARY.
IN THE FACE OF TIGHTER BUDGETS, WE'VE CUT THE FAT,
GOTTEN LEANER AND SMARTER. DESERT STORM PROVED IT.
THE DRIVE FOR EXCELLENCE HAS INFLUENCED ALMOST EVERY
OTHER INSTITUTION, FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND UNIONS.
- 7 -
YET, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A GLARING HOLD-OUT.
IT RESISTS REFORM AND PROTECTS A FAILED STATUS QUO --
EVEN IN THE FACE OF AN UNAMBIGUOUS NEED FOR CHANGE.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT BARBER SHOPS OR GYMNASIUM PRIVILEGES
OR PARKING SPACES. IT IS NOT ABOUT PERKS. IT IS ABOUT
THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS, AND ITS POTENTIAL TO HELP OR
HINDER THE PUBLIC GOOD. IT IS ABOUT BIG THINGS --
MAJOR CHANGES TO MAKE GOVERNMENT MORE RESPONSIVE. II
IS ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT ARE SWEEPING THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY BUT ARE NOT BEING MADE IN WASHINGTON.
- 8 -
THE MOST RECENT PROOF THAT WE HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM
WAS THE INABILITY OF CONGRESS TO RISE TO THE CHALLENGE
OF HELPING OUR ECONOMY. INSTEAD IT REVERTED TO FORM
-- TRYING TO RAISE TAXES AND INCREASE GOVERNMENT
SPENDING. IF IT CANNOT ADDRESS A STRAIGHTFORWARD
SHORT-TERM PROPOSAL TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, HOW CAN
IT POSSIBLY DEAL WITH THE MORE COMPLEX ISSUES LIKE THE
BADLY NEEDED REFORMS OF OUR EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE AND
LEGAL SYSTEMS? IF WE ARE TO REFORM EDUCATION. HEALTH
CARE, OUR LEGAL SYSTEM -- IF WE ARE TO REDUCE RED TAPE
AND REGULATION, MAKE OUR COUNTRY COMPETITIVE, GET THIS
HORRENDOUS DEFICIT DOWN. WE MUST REFORM THE
CONGRESSIONAL PROCESS ITSELF. AND MAKE IT RESPONSIVE TO
OUR COUNTRY'S REAL NEEDS.
- 9 -
THE GROWTH OF BIG GOVERNMENT HAS DIMINISHED THE
ROLE OF CONGRESS FROM POLICY-MAKING TO PROGRAM-MAKING.
PROMULGATING AND PROTECTING MORE PROGRAMS SETS IN
MOTION A PERPETUAL CYCLE OF CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR
MORE UNNECESSARY SPENDING -- CREATING BIGGER AND EVEN
LESS RESPONSIVE BUREAUCRACIES. THEN, BY SERVICING THE
NEEDS OF PROGRAM RECIPIENTS, CONGRESSIONAL STAFFS HELP
TO ENSURE MEMBERS' RE-ELECTION AND A CONTINUATION OF
BUSINESS AS USUAL. BEYOND THAT, CONGRESS ROUTINELY
EXEMPTS ITSELF FROM THE LAWS IT IMPOSES ON THE REST OF
THE NATION -- LAWS LIKE THE LANDMARK CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1964.
- 10 -
PROPHETICALLY, THE FOUNDING FATHERS WARNED US ABOUT
THESE DANGERS. FEDERALIST PAPER #57 ASSERTS THAT
ELECTED OFFICIALS, "CAN MAKE NO LAW WHICH WILL NOT HAVE
ITS FULL OPERATION ON THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS, AS
WELL AS ON THE GREAT MASS OF THE SOCIETY." FEDERALIST
PAPER #52 ARGUED THAT PERMANENT MAJORITIES ARE
DANGEROUSLY UNDEMOCRATIC. JAMES MADISON WOULD BE
APPALLED TO HEAR THAT 98% OF CONGRESSMEN WHO SEEK RE-
ELECTION ARE IN FACT RE-ELECTED -- THAT ONE PARTY, THE
DEMOCRATS, HAS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE 56 OUT OF THE LAST
60 YEARS. THAT MEANS SELF-PERPETUATING STAFFS AND A
BUREAUCRACY BEHOLDEN TO ONE SET OF LEADERS. THE BANK
AND POST OFFICE SCANDALS ARE THE RESULT OF ONE-PARTY
CONTROL -- ONE PARTY'S LACK OF SUPERVISION. LACK OF NEW
BLOOD, AND LACK OF CHANGE.
ONE-PARTY RULE IS A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM, BUT BY
NO MEANS ALL OF IT. WE HAVE HAD DIVIDED GOVERNMENT
BEFORE, SOMETIMES DURING PERIODS OF GREAT CRISIS. EACH
TIME WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET
THOSE CHALLENGES.
- 11 -
THE LARGER ISSUE IS THE SYSTEMIC PROBLEM OF
CONGRESS -- THE STICKY WEB OF 284 CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES, THE ALMOST 40,000
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES AND STAFF, $2.5 BILLION OF
TAXPAYER FINANCING, OVERLAID WITH A $117 MILLION RE-
ELECTION WAR CHEST FOR INCUMBENTS IN SPECIAL-INTEREST
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, AND MILLIONS MORE IN SPECIAL-
INTEREST INFLUENCE.
NONE OF THIS PROMOTES REFORM AND CHANGE. RATHER,
IT AGGRESSIVELY PROTECTS THE STATUS QUO. CONSCIENTIOUS
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UNDERSTAND THIS. THAT'S WHY HOUSE
REPUBLICAN LEADER BOB MICHEL HAS PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL
REFORM LEGISLATION. HE'S GOT SOME GREAT IDEAS FOR
IMPROVING THE CONGRESS AND ITS PROCEDURES -- LIKE
LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR PROCESS REFORM, REDUCTION IN THE
NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF, AND REDUCTION OF THE
NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.
- 12 -
THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE IN CONGRESS -- MANY OF THEM -
- ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE -- I THINK OF YOUR OWN
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER, RIGHT HERE WITH ME TODAY. TALK
TO ARLEN -- HE ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTS CHANGING OUR
CONGRESSIONAL SYSTEM BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IN CHANGING
THE STATUS QUO.
THEN TALK TO RETIRING MEMBERS, MANY OF THEM
DEDICATED PEOPLE LIKE SENATOR WARREN RUDMAN OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE, AND YOU WILL HEAR THE FRUSTRATION. WHEN
ASKED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF ENDLESS BUDGET DEFICITS, HE
ISSUED THIS INDICTMENT OF THE SYSTEM, "THE FACT IS THAT
WE ARE UNABLE, INSTITUTIONALLY, TO DO WHAT HAS TO BE
DONE. WE ARE LITERALLY NOT WATCHING THE FIDDLER FIDDLE
WHILE ROME BURNS; WE ARE WATCHING THE ENTIRE
ORCHESTRA.
"
- 13 -
SENATOR RUDMAN KNOWS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO FUTURE
JOB CREATION IS DEFICIT SPENDING, AND THE CURRENT
CONGRESSIONAL STRUCTURE IS NOT CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING
THAT THREAT. HE KNOWS THAT AMERICANS ARE GENEROUS --
PEOPLE WILLING TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS
COUNTRY BETTER. BUT THERE IS A MISMATCH BETWEEN THEIR
WILLINGNESS TO HELP AND THEIR SKEPTICISM ABOUT
CONGRESS. THEY JUST DON'T TRUST CONGRESS TO USE THEIR
HARD-EARNED TAX DOLLARS WISELY.
TODAY GOVERNMENT IS A $1.5 TRILLION ENTERPRISE.
BUT PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON FREQUENTLY FORGET THAT THE
TAXPAYER IS THE ORIGINAL INVESTOR, CUSTOMER,
SHAREHOLDER, AND BOARD MEMBER ALL ROLLED INTO ONE.
WHEN FOLKS IN GOVERNMENT FORGET THAT, THEY ISSUE
NETTLESOME REGULATIONS. THOSE REGULATIONS INCREASE THE
COST OF DOING BUSINESS, BUT WORSE, THEY DON'T REALLY
SOLVE THE PROBLEMS THEY WERE DESIGNED TO SOLVE. AS
PRESIDENT. I'M GOING TO KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE THE
REGULATORY PROCESS, BUT I'LL NEED THE HELP OF THE
CONGRESS.
- 14 -
WHEN GOVERNMENT FORGETS WHO IS REALLY THE BOSS --
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER -- IT BECOMES INSULATED AND
UNRESPONSIVE. BUT UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT. DOESN'T JUST
HAPPEN. CONGRESS CREATES THESE GIANT CENTRALIZED
BUREAUCRACIES, LAYS DOWN THE MANDATES, FUNDS THE
PROGRAMS. THEN, IT IS THE CONGRESS THAT PROTECTS THEM,
INVESTIGATES THEM, MICRO-MANAGES THEM, AND ULTIMATELY
PERPETUATES THEM. PROGRAMS THAT HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR
FUNCTION RARELY OUTLIVE THEIR FUNDING. WITH A
CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AS GODPARENT, THEY
BECOME STEPCHILDREN OF THE CONGRESS.
- 15 -
SOME 107 DIFFERENT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND
SUBCOMMITTEES CLAIM SOME DEGREE OF OVERSIGHT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. SEVENTY-
FOUR COMPETE FOR JURISDICTION OVER THE WAR ON DRUGS.
JUST THIS WEEK, AFTER BEING REPORTED FROM ONE COMMITTEE
IN THE HOUSE, OUR ENERGY BILL TO MAKE US MORE ENERGY-
EFFICIENT AND ENERGY-INDEPENDENT WAS REFERRED TO NO
LESS THAN EIGHT ADDITIONAL HOUSE COMMITTEES. IT SHOULD
BE NO SURPRISE THAT IT TAKES SO LONG TO GET ANYTHING
DONE.
WHEN THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND HIS TOP
STAFF HAVE TO TESTIFY IN FOURTEEN HEARINGS IN ONE DAY,
THINK OF THE TIME AND RESOURCES THAT TAKES. THINK OF
THE THOUSANDS OF HOURS SPENT BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO
FULFILL THE THOUSANDS OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMANDS FOR
TESTIMONY, AND GOVERNMENT REPORTS.
- 16 -
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR DAVID BOREN SUMMED IT UP BY
SAYING, "NO ONE DOUBTS THAT CONGRESS IS IN TROUBLE AS
AN INSTITUTION." THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT HIS EFFORTS TO
TRIM THE OVERGROWN THICKET OF COMMITTEES AND
SUBCOMMITTEES WHICH NOW PARALYZES THE CONGRESS.
CONGRESS HAS LEGITIMATE OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES
OF COURSE. AND I KNOW THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CANNOT BE RUN LIKE IBM OR THE LOCAL CONVENIENCE STORE,
BUT WE CAN IMPROVE ITS PERFORMANCE, AND WE MUST. WHAT
MERELY HAMPERED US IN THE PAST, WILL PARALYZE US IN THE
FUTURE. OUR ABILITY TO COMPETE DEMANDS WE MAKE THESE
REFORMS, NOT JUST OF CONGRESS BUT OF THE FEDERAL
BUREAUCRACY AS WELL. IT MEANS EMPHASIZING THE BUILDING
BLOCKS OF A MORE RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT BY RELYING ON
WHAT WORKS: CHOICE, COMPETITION, DECENTRALIZATION. BUT
LET ME BE CLEAR, WE CANNOT REFORM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
WITHOUT FIRST REFORMING THE CONGRESS.
TAKEN TOGETHER, THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WILL HELP
MAKE GOVERNMENT WORK FOR THE PEOPLE.
- 17 -
FIRST, CONGRESS MUST GOVERN ITSELF BY THE LAWS II
IMPOSES ON OTHERS. NO MORE SPECIAL TREATMENT. LIKE
AGE, RACE, SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAWS.
CONGRESS SHOULD SUBMIT TO THE LAWS IT IMPOSES ON THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH -- LIKE CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS OR
THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LAW. I WILL PROPOSE
LEGISLATION TO END SUCH SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR CONGRESS
NEXT WEEK. FURTHER, I WILL VETO ANY FUTURE LEGISLATION
THAT EXTENDS SUCH SPECIAL TREATMENT TO THE CONGRESS.
SECOND, CONGRESS SHOULD REFORM ITS OPERATIONS AND
PROCEDURES. I SUPPORT THE BOREN-DOMENICI REFORM BILL
IN THE SENATE AND THE HAMILTON-GRADISON BILL IN THE
HOUSE WHICH SETS UP A BIPARTISAN GROUP TO EVALUATE
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT
IS A GOOD BEGINNING, BUT REAL REFORM LIKE THAT
CONTAINED IN THE MICHEL BILL IS ESSENTIAL NOW. CHANGE
IS STILL ON THE BACK BURNER. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST
TURN UP THE HEAT.
- 18 -
THIRD, SWEEPING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. FULL
DISCLOSURE OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND COMPENSATION IS
A KEY ELEMENT OF REFORM. I AM NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE
MY INCOME TAX RETURNS. IN A SENSE, I FEEL IT IS AN
INVASION OF MY PRIVACY. BUT FOR TWELVE YEARS I HAVE
MADE PUBLIC THOSE TAX RETURNS AND I BELIEVE ALL PEOPLE
ASPIRING TO THE PRESIDENCY SHOULD DO THAT. PERHAPS
CONGRESS DOES NOT NEED TO GO THAT FAR, BUT THEY SHOULD
MAKE THEIR EXISTING DISCLOSURE RULES MUCH MORE
RIGOROUS.
- 19 -
BEYOND THAT, WE MUST TOTALLY ELIMINATE SPECIAL-
INTEREST POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES AND PUT LIMITS ON
SO-CALLED "LEADERSHIP PACS." I HAVE PROPOSED WAYS TO
INCREASE THE LEGITIMATE ROLE OF OUR POLITICAL PARTIES,
REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND DECREASE
THE TIME CANDIDATES AND INCUMBENTS SPEND FUND-RAISING.
AND LET ME SAY IT STRAIGHT OUT: FEDERAL FUNDING OF
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS WOULD ONLY WORSEN THE PROBLEM.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS STALLED ON CAPITOL HILL. BUT
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS LONG PAST -- WE MUST CLEAN UP
OUR ELECTION SYSTEM.
- 20 -
FOURTH, SPENDING REFORM. I HAVE ALREADY PROPOSED
TO FREEZE DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AND FEDERAL
NON-DEFENSE EMPLOYMENT NEXT YEAR. I HAVE PROPOSED TWO-
YEAR BUDGETS. I HAVE PROPOSED TO CURB AS WELL THE
GROWTH OF MANDATORY PROGRAMS WITHOUT TOUCHING SOCIAL
SECURITY. IF MANDATORY SPENDING WERE ALLOWED TO GROW
FOR INFLATION AND ELIGIBLE POPULATION ONLY, WE COULD
SAVE ABOUT TWO TRILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD DEMAND THAT THE CONGRESS
PASS THE SAME MEASURE THAT 43 GOVERNORS HAVE: THE LINE-
ITEM VETO. THEY SHOULD DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. OBVIOUSLY, A BALANCED BUDGET
REQUIREMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE PHASED IN. BUT SUCH AN
AMENDMENT IS NEEDED TO DISCIPLINE BOTH THE EXECUTIVE
AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES.
- 21 -
IN THE ABSENCE OF THOSE IMPORTANT MEASURES I WILL
CONTINUE TO USE WHATEVER MEANS ARE LEGALLY AT MY
DISPOSAL, INCLUDING THE LINE-ITEM RESCISSION, TO
PROTECT THE TAXPAYER FROM THE SPENDING EXCESSES OF
CONGRESS. AND I WILL OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT BY THE
CONGRESS TO DISMANTLE THE ONLY DEFENSE THE TAXPAYER HAS
AGAINST CONGRESSIONAL OVERSPENDING -- THE BUDGET CAPS
IMPLEMENTED IN THE 1990 BUDGET ACT.
FIFTH, REGULATORY REFORM. WE PUT A NINETY-DAY
MORATORIUM ON NEW GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. WE ARE
REVISING AND ELIMINATING REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE OUR
ABILITY TO COMPETE, AND WE ARE ACCELERATING REGULATIONS
THAT ENHANCE OUR COMPETITIVE EDGE. SINCE I ANNOUNCED
THE MORATORIUM ON JANUARY 28TH, THE GROWTH OF
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS HAS ALREADY BEEN REVERSED. AS
OUR REVIEW CONTINUES WE WILL ANNOUNCE FURTHER STEPS TO
REDUCE THE BURDEN OF UNNECESSARY REGULATIONS. BUT WE
CANNOT DO IT ALONE. CONGRESS, IN PASSING LEGISLATION,
MUST BE COMMITTED TO CUTTING DOWN THE REGULATORY BURDEN
AS WELL.
- 22 -
SIXTH, WE MUST LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL TERMS. WE MUST
ADDRESS THE CONGRESS OF THE FUTURE. THE CYCLE OF
VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED RE-ELECTION, PARTICULARLY IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THROUGH THE BUILT-IN
ADVANTAGES OF INCUMBENCY MUST BE BROKEN. OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS NEVER CONSIDERED ELECTED GOVERNMENT SERVICE TO
BE A CAREER. I BELIEVE SENATORS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
TWO TERMS. AND REPRESENTATIVES, LIMITED TO SIX TERMS.
AS PRESIDENT MY TERMS ARE LIMITED, THE SAME RULE SHOULD
APPLY TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. OUR FIRST CONCERN SHOULD
BE THE COUNTRY, NOT A LIFETIME POLITICAL CAREER.
THIS BRINGS ME TO MY FINAL POINT. CERTAINLY,
GOVERNING TODAY IS COMPLEX AND TIME-CONSUMING. BUT NOT
so MANY YEARS AGO, REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE BACK HOME
WAS A PART-TIME WASHINGTON JOB. SOMEHOW MEMBERS
MANAGED TO FINISH THEIR WORK AND ADJOURN JUST BEFORE
THE HOT, HUMID WASHINGTON, D.C. SUMMERS. AIR
CONDITIONING CHANGED ALL THIS, AND NOW, THANKS TO
MODERN TECHNOLOGY, CONGRESS SITS YEAR-ROUND.
- 23 -
MANY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE ARE NOW
PERMANENT WASHINGTONIANS. WE DO NOT NEED A CAREER
CONGRESS -- WE NEED A CITIZEN CONGRESS. TO BORROW A
LINE FROM FORMER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HOWARD BAKER
"THEY OUGHT TO BE LIVING IN AMERICA AND VISITING
WASHINGTON." HE WAS RIGHT. HE KNEW THAT THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF STATE LEGISLATURES ARE ABLE TO
DO THEIR WORK EACH YEAR IN SESSIONS LASTING LESS THAN
SIX MONTHS -- SOME AS SHORT AS THREE MONTHS EVERY TWO
YEARS.
WITH A STREAMLINED COMMITTEE STRUCTURE, A LEANER
STAFF, MEMBERS' TIME ORGANIZED AROUND LEGISLATION
RATHER THAN RE-ELECTION, AND BETTER DISCIPLINE ON HOW
THEY SPEND THE PEOPLE'S MONEY, CONGRESS COULD RETURN TO
WHAT THE FOUNDERS ENVISIONED AS A GOVERNMENT TRULY
CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE. I SUGGEST THAT IN THE FUTURE,
CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION WORK TOGETHER TO
ACHIEVE A LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE THAT ALLOWS MEMBERS TO
SPEND MORE CONTINUOUS TIME AT HOME SO THEY CAN TRULY
STAY IN TOUCH WITH THE PEOPLE.
- 24 -
CHANGE IS SWEEPING AMERICA, JUST AS IT IS SWEEPING
THE WORLD. AS IN THE FIRST DAYS OF OUR NEW NATION, WE
MUST CHANGE AN UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT. THE REFORMS
I'VE OUTLINED TODAY CAN HELP RENEW OUR FAITH IN
GOVERNMENT - WE CANNOT STOP WITH CONGRESSIONAL
PROCESS -- WE MUST REFORM THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY AS
WELL. I WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY ON THAT IN THE NEAR
FUTURE. BUT TODAY OUR MISSION IS TO BEGIN RESTORING
THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR FOUNDERS, AND GUARANTEEING FOR
OUR CHILDREN A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY.
THE CHOICE IS CLEAR. ON ONE SIDE STAND THE
DEFENDERS OF THE STATUS QUO. ON THE OTHER: THE FORCES
OF CHANGE. WE MUST MAKE THE CHOICE WORTHY OF THE MEN
WHO MET HERE -- AND BEGAN THE WORLD'S ONLY PERMANENT
REVOLUTION. NOW THAT WE'VE CHANGED THE WORLD, WE MUST
MAKE THE CHOICE TO CHANGE AMERICA.
THANK YOU, AND MAY GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.
# # #
Draft
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 3, 1992
The President's Address on Governmental Reform
FACT SHEET
Over the last decade, President Bush noted, one American
institution after another has recognized the need to reform --
"to take a hard look within itself, make needed improvements,
and act to make the institution live up to its principles."
For example, to ensure their competitive edge, American
businesses have improved product quality and performance. This
drive for excellence has also influenced other private sector
institutions and State and local governments.
The Federal government, with the exception of the
military, has been a "glaring hold-out. It has resisted reform
and protects a failed status quo -- even in the face of an
unambiguous need for change." The President observed that
government today is a $1.5 trillion enterprise, with the
taxpayer as "original investor, customer, shareholder, and
board member all rolled into one." In order to restore
government accountability to the public, the President proposed
the following governmental reforms.
I. Require Consistent Application of the Laws of the Land
The President announced that he will transmit to the
Congress legislation that would extend to the Congress numerous
laws that it has imposed on the private sector or the executive
branch, but from, which it has either altogether or effectively
exempted itself:
-2-
The "Openness in Congress and Right of Privacy Act of
1992" extends the Freedom of Information Act and the
Privacy Act to both houses of Congress (including
committees) and any instrumentality or other
establishment in the legislative branch other than
Members' personal offices (including the General
Accounting Office). These laws currently apply to
most of the executive branch. The Freedom of
Information Act require disclosure upon request of
certain agency records. The Privacy Act requires
agencies that maintain records on individuals to
allow those individuals access to the records to
determine their accuracy and forbids wholesale
disclosure of personal information contained in those
records.
The "Ethics in Congress Act of 1992" expands the list
of individuals covered by the Independent Counsel
provisions of the Ethics in Government Act. These
provisions currently apply to the President, Vice
President, certain officers of their campaigns, the
Cabinet and other principal officers of agencies, the
CIA Director and Deputy Director, the Commissioner of
the Internal Revenue Service, and Department of
Justice officials from the Attorney General through
the Assistant Attorneys General and any other
individual whose compensation is determined by
Executive Schedule III. This legislation adds to
that list Members of Congress, the Comptroller
General, the chair and treasurer of the principal
campaign committee of each Member of Congress, and
each House's elected officials- (such as the sergeant-
at-arms and doorkeeper).
OFFICERS
The "Ethics in Congress Act" also makes changes in
the conflict-of-interest provisions of United States
Code Title 18. It amends 18 U.S.C. Section 208,
which prohibits executive branch employees from
acting on matters with respect to which they have a
financial interest, so that it also covers officers
and employees of the legislative branch other than
Members. It also extends 18 U.S.C. Section 209,
which forbids supplementation of the salary of
federal officials, to officers and employees of the
legislative branch other than Members.
-3-
The "Congressional Employees' Civil Rights Act of
1992" extends to most legislative branch and White
House employees the rights and remedies concerning
employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
religion, age and disability currently enjoyed by
employees in the private sector and in most of the
executive branch under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 42
U.S.C. Section 1981a. The remedies include the right
to bring a civil action and in some cases the right
to jury trials, compensatory and punitive damages,
LEE
and attorney's fees. These rights and remedies would
supersede the ineffective remedies granted to these
congressional and executive branch employees under
Section 117 and Sections 301-318 and 320 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991.
All employees and applicants for employment in the
executive or legislative branches are to be covered
by the listed statutes except for officers of either
house of Congress, officers of the United States
(within the meaning of the Constitution), members of
the uniformed services, certain employees on the
personal staff of Members of Congress and certain
employees in the Executive Office of the President.
The "Political Activities of Congressional Employees
Act of 1992" reduces incumbency advantages by
extending the Hatch Act's political participation ban
to Congressional employees except for those in the
Members' personal offices.
The "Fair Labor Standards for Congress Act of 1992"
requires Congress and its committees and
instrumentalities other than Members' personal
offices, to abide by the minimum wage/maximum hour
laws that govern the private sector and most of the
executive branch. It replaces the House's existing
regime, which, unlike the one applied to the private
sector and the executive branch, gives House
employees no right to go to court to challenge
violations.
ELVES NO RIEHT ?
The President vowed to veto any further legislation that
extends special treatment to Congress.
-4-
II. Reform the Congressional Committee System
Observing that Congressional action is mired in a "sticky
web of 284 Congressional committees and subcommittees [and]
almost 40,000 legislative branch employees and staff," the
President called for reforming the Congressional committee
system. He applauded as a "good beginning" a resolution,
introduced by Senators Boren and Domenici and Representatives
Hamilton and Gradison, to create a joint House-Senate committee
to evaluate Congressional operations and recommend
comprehensive Congressional reforms. He also encouraged
Congress to pursue the type of comprehensive reform represented
by the bill recently introduced by Representative Michel.
HOUSE MINDRITY REPUBLICAN LEADER
III. Reform Campaign Finance Laws
In order to "increase the legitimate role of our political
parties, reduce the influence of special interests, and
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-
raising," the President reiterated the proposals for sweeping
campaign finance reforms he has been supporting since 1989.
A.
Eliminate Special Interest Political Action
Committees (PACs).
The President called for eliminating political action
committees (PACs) supported by corporations, unions or
trade associations and forbidding such entities to pay
the overhead or administrative costs of any independent
PACs.
B. Limit Contributions of "Leadership PACs".
The President reaffirmed his support for curtailing the
activities of leadership PACs by limiting Federal
candidates and elected officials to one fundraising
committee and by prohibiting transfers between fundraising
committees.
C. Require Full Disclosure of "Soft Money" Expenditures.
The President renewed his call for Congress to pass tough
new laws requiring full disclosure of "soft money"
expenditures -- money spent by political parties and
special interests on voter turnout and registration
efforts. Such disclosure would help restore competition
in elections by attacking the hidden advantage soft money
expenditures currently give incumbents.
-5-
D.
Increase the Role of Political Parties in Elections.
To limit further the influence of special interests, the
President supports measures to strengthen the role of
political parties in elections. Increasing the amounts
political parties can spend on behalf of Congressional
candidates would permit candidates to spend less time
fundraising and ensure that challengers have greater
resources with which to challenge incumbents.
IV. Reduce Federal Spending and Reform the Budget Process
The President again urged Congress to adopt measures to
reduce Federal spending and reform the budget process,
including:
Holding FY 1993 domestic discretionary budget
authority at FY 1992 levels;
Freezing FY 1993 Federal employment in non-defense
agencies at FY 1992 levels;
Establishing a mechanism to control the automatic
growth in existing entitlement and other mandatory
programs, without touching Social Security; and
Giving the President explicit line-item veto
authority.
The President today reiterated his proposal for three
additional measures to foster fiscal discipline:
A.
Institute Biennial Budgets
Biennial budgeting would decrease the time spent on
allocating resources, and leave more time for program
oversight and management.
B.
Amend the Constitution to Require a Balanced Budget.
As the President noted in his FY 1993 Budget, the current
budget system appears to be incapable of eliminating the
Federal deficit, much less of producing a surplus. The
President believes that in order to achieve fiscal
discipline and protect future generations from heavy debt
burdens, the American people should demand a
Constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.
Such a balanced budget amendment should include safeguards
against a resort to higher taxes as the means of complying
with the Constitutional mandate.
-6-
C. Maintain the 1990 Budget Act Caps.
President Bush vowed to "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."
V. Eliminate Unnecessary Government Regulation
In his State of the Union address on January 28, 1992, the
President announced a 90-day moratorium on new government
regulations. During that 90-day period, the major regulatory
agencies are to identify and eliminate regulations that stifle
economic growth and to accelerate regulations that enhance
competitiveness or relieve unnecessary regulatory burdens.
Since January 28, the Administration has halted the growth
of burdensome regulations. As the regulatory review continues,
the Administration will identify and implement additional
measures to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on
businesses, consumers and workers.
VI. Limit Congressional Terms
Declaring that "[o]ur Founding Fathers never considered
elected government service to be a career, the President
endorsed Congressional term limits as a way to break the cycle
of virtually guaranteed re-election of incumbents. He called
for limiting U.S. Senators to two terms and U.S.
Representatives to six terms.
####
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 3, 1992
The President's Address on Governmental Reform
FACT SHEET
Over the last decade, President Bush noted, one American
institution after another has recognized the need to reform --
"to take a hard look within itself, make needed improvements,
and act to make the institution live up to its principles."
For example, to ensure their competitive edge, American
businesses have improved product quality and performance. This
drive for excellence has also influenced other private sector
institutions and State and local governments.
The Federal government, with the exception of the
military, has been a "glaring hold-out. It has resisted reform
and protects a failed status quo -- even in the face of an
unambiguous need for change." The President observed that
government today is a $1.5 trillion enterprise, with the
taxpayer as "original investor, customer, shareholder, and
board member all rolled into one." In order to restore
government accountability to the public, the President proposed
the following governmental reforms.
I.
Require Consistent Application of the Laws of the Land
The President announced that he will transmit to the
Congress legislation that would extend to the Congress numerous
laws that it has imposed on the private sector or the executive
branch, but from which it has either altogether or effectively
exempted itself. The President vowed to veto any future
legislation that extends special treatment to Congress.
-2-
II. Reform the Congressional Committee System
Observing that Congressional action is mired in a "sticky
web of 284 Congressional committees and subcommittees [and]
almost 40,000 legislative branch employees and staff," the
President called for reforming the Congressional committee
system. He applauded as a "good beginning" a resolution,
introduced by Senators Boren and Domenici and Representatives
Hamilton and Gradison, to create a joint House-Senate committee
to evaluate Congressional operations and recommend
comprehensive Congressional reforms. He also encouraged
Congress to pursue the type of comprehensive reform represented
by the bill recently introduced by House Republican Leader
Michel.
III. Reform Campaign Finance Laws
In order to "increase the legitimate role of our political
parties, reduce the influence of special interests, and
decrease the time candidates and incumbents spend fund-
raising," the President reiterated the proposals for sweeping
campaign finance reforms he has been supporting since 1989.
A.
Eliminate Special Interest Political Action
Committees (PACs).
The President called for eliminating political action
committees (PACs) supported by corporations, unions or
trade associations and forbidding such entities to pay
the overhead or administrative costs of any independent
PACs.
B.
Limit Contributions of "Leadership PACs".
The President reaffirmed his support for curtailing the
activities of leadership PACs by limiting Federal
candidates and elected officials to one fundraising
committee and by prohibiting transfers between fundraising
committees.
C.
Require Full Disclosure of "Soft Money" Expenditures.
The President renewed his call for Congress to pass tough
new laws requiring full disclosure of "soft money"
expenditures -- money spent by political parties and
special interests on voter turnout and registration
efforts. Such disclosure would help restore competition
in elections by attacking the hidden advantage soft money
expenditures currently give incumbents.
-3-
D.
Increase the Role of Political Parties in Elections.
To limit further the influence of special interests, the
President supports measures to strengthen the role of
political parties in elections. Increasing the amounts
political parties can spend on behalf of Congressional
candidates would permit candidates to spend less time
fundraising and ensure that challengers have greater
resources with which to challenge incumbents.
IV. Reduce Federal Spending and Reform the Budget Process
The President again urged Congress to adopt measures to
reduce Federal spending and reform the budget process,
including:
Holding FY 1993 domestic discretionary budget
authority at FY 1992 levels;
Freezing FY 1993 Federal employment in non-defense
agencies at FY 1992 levels;
Establishing a mechanism to control the automatic
growth in existing entitlement and other mandatory
programs, without touching Social Security; and
Giving the President explicit line-item veto
authority.
The President today called for the implementation of four
additional measures to foster fiscal discipline:
A.
Institute Two-Year Budgets
Biennial budgeting would decrease the time spent on
allocating resources, and leave more time for program
oversight and management.
B.
Reduce the Number of Budget Process Committees
[To Come]
-4-
C.
Amend the Constitution to Require a Balanced Budget.
As the President noted in his FY 1993 Budget, the current
budget system appears to be incapable of eliminating the
Federal deficit, much less of producing a surplus. The
President believes that in order to achieve fiscal
discipline and protect future generations from heavy debt
burdens, the American people should demand a
Constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.
Such a balanced budget amendment should include safeguards
against a resort to higher taxes as the means of complying
with the Constitutional mandate.
D.
Maintain the 1990 Budget Act Caps.
President Bush vowed to "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.'
V.
Eliminate Unnecessary Government Regulation
In his State of the Union address on January 28, 1992, the
President announced a 90-day moratorium on new government
regulations. During that 90-day period, the major regulatory
agencies are to identify and eliminate regulations that stifle
economic growth and to accelerate regulations that enhance
competitiveness or relieve unnecessary regulatory burdens.
Today the President noted that regulatory agencies have
already made numerous reforms in response to the President's
initiative. Those reforms will ultimately reduce the prices
that consumers and businesses pay for energy and
transportation; increase the amount of credit available to
businesses and individuals; cut red tape for emerging
industries such as biotechnology; and reduce other regulatory
barriers to job creation and economic growth.
As the regulatory review continues, the Administration
will identify and implement additional measures to reduce
unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses, consumers and
workers.
-5-
VI. Limit Congressional Terms
Declaring that "[o]ur Founding Fathers never considered
elected government service to be a career," the President
endorsed Congressional term limits as a way to break the cycle
of virtually guaranteed re-election of incumbents. He called
for limiting U.S. Senators to two terms and U.S.
Representatives to six terms.
####
Talking Points -- Governmental Reform
Many American institutions have recognized the need for
fundamental reform over the last decade.
The Federal government, with the exception of the
military, has been a "glaring hold-out."
As a $1.5 trillion enterprise, government must become
more accountable to the taxpayer, who is "original
investor, customer, shareholder, and board member all
rolled into one."
The President reaffirmed his support for six fundamental
reforms to move away from the "failed status quo and
make government more responsive:"
require Congress to govern itself by the laws it
imposes on others (e.g., employment discrimination
protections, ethics laws and Hatch Act restrictions);
reform the Congressional committee system;
reform campaign finance laws to reduce the influence
of special interests, require full disclosure of
"soft money" expenditures, and increase the role of
political parties in elections;
reduce Federal spending and reform the budget process
through instituting two-year budgeting, reducing the
number of budget committees from three to one,
enacting a balanced budget Constitutional amendment,
maintaining the 1990 Budget Act spending caps and
other fiscal reforms;
eliminate unnecessary and burdensome government
regulations; and
limit Congressional terms to two terms for U.S.
Senators and six terms for U.S. Representatives.
The President has been seeking enactment of many of these
measures, such as consistent application of the laws,
campaign finance reforms, a balanced budget Constitutional
amendment, the line-item veto and biennial budgeting since
he first took office in 1989.
RCV BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 :12:54PM ;
4567929-
4562983;# 1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MIRD nulms littless
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
TO:
Dave Demerest
2983
FAX NUMBER:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
7620
FROM:
Lee S. Liberman
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
G257
PAGES (INCLUDING COVER) :
9
COMMENTS:
RCV. BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 12:55PM ;
4567929->
4562983;# 2
This title may be cited as the "Ethics in Congress Act of
1992.4
Section 302. Independent Counsel
Section 591(b) of chapter 40 of title 28, United States
paragraph (7), substituting a semicolon for the period at the end
Code, is amended by striking the word "and" at the end of
of paragraph (8), and adding the following new paragraphs:
If (9) each Senator, each Member of, or Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, the House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United States;
N (10) the chairman and the treasurer of the principal
campaign committee seeking the election or realection of a
Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives (including
each Delegate and each Resident Commissioner), and any officer of
that committee during the incumbency of the Senator or Member;
N (11) each individual employed on the staff of the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, the House Committee on
Appropriations, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, or the
House Committee on the Judiciary, who is compensated at a rate of
pay at or above level III of the Executive Schedule under section
5313 of title 5."
Section 303. Conflicts of Interest
Chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, is amended as
follows:
(a) Section 208 (a) is amended by inserting "of the
legislative branch of the Government (who is not a Senator or a
Member of, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the House of
Representatives) after "whoever being an officer or employee".
(b) Section 208 (d) (1) is amended by inserting, at the end
of Section 208 (d) (1), "For purposes of this subsection, the term
"agency" shall include either House of Congress (including
committees of either House and joint committees), any agency,
instrumentality or other establishment in the legislative branch
of the Government (including the General Accounting office), or
any officer of either House of Congress, including any Senator,
the President of the Senate, or a Member of, or Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to, the House of Representatives."
(c) Section 209 (a) is amended by inserting "of the
legislative branch of the Government (who is not & Senator or a
Member of, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the House of
Representatives), after "as compensation for his services as an
officer or employee".
- 2 -
RCV BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 12:56PM ;
4567929-
4562983;# 3
BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED.
Section 1. Short Title
This Act may be cited as the "Accountability in Government
Act of 1992.'
TITLE I -- OPENNESS IN CONGRESS
Section 101. Short Title
This title may be cited as the "Openness in Congress Act of
1992."
Section 102. Coverage of Congress by the Freedom of Information
Act
Section 552 of title 5, United States code, is amended by
adding the following new subsection after subsection (f) :
# (g) For purposes of this section, notwithstanding section
551 (1) (A) of this title, the term "agency" shall also include
either House of Congress (including committees of either House
and joint committees), or any agency, instrumentality or other
establishment in the legislative branch of the Government
(including the General Accounting Office), other than the
personal offices of any Senator, or Member of, or Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to, the House of Representatives."
TITLE II -- RIGHT OF PRIVACY
Section 201. Short Title.
This title may be cited as the "Right of Privacy Act of
1992."
Section 202. Application of the Privacy Act to Congress
Section 552a (a) (1) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
00 (1) the term agency means agency as defined in section
552 (f) and (g) of this title and also includes the White House
office, the office of the Vice President, and the personal
offices of any Senator, Member of, or Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, the House of Representatives, and the term
"officer or employee" shall include officers and employees of the
legislative branch and Senators, Members of, or Delegates or
Resident Commissioners to, the House of Representatives;"
TITLE III -- ETHICS IN CONGRESS
Section 301. Short Title.
RCV. BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 4- 1-92 12:56PM ;
4567929-
4562983;# 4
(d) Section 209 (b) is amended by inserting "of the
legislative branch of the Government (who is not a Senator or a
Member of, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the House of
Representatives), after "Nothing herein prevents an officer or
employee".
TITLE IV -- CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES' CIVIL RIGHTS
Section 401. short Title.
This title may be cited as the "Congressional Employees'
civil Rights Act of 1992.'
Section 402. Parity of Rights and Remedies.
(a) Section 717 of the civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e-16) is amended by adding the following new subsection:
(f) Parity of Rights and Remedies. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, all employees or applicants for
employment in the Congress of the United States, or its Houses,
committees, offices or instrumentalities, or the offices of any
of its members, except for (a) officers of either House of
Congress, and (b) employees on the personal staff of a Member who
report directly to the Member and whose annual rate of basic pay
is set at level V of the Executive Schedule or higher, and all
employees of or applicants for employment in any unit of the
Executive branch, including the Executive office of the
President, except for (a) officers of the United States, (b)
employees in the Executive Office of the President who report
directly to the President or Vice President and whose annual rate
of basic pay is set at level V of the Executive Schedule or
higher, and (c) members of the uniformed services, shall enjoy
the same rights to be free from and remedies against
discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability, as
those enjoyed by other employees under this section, section 15
of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.
633a), sections 504 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 794 and 794a (a) (1) and (b) and section 1977A of the
Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a). These rights and remedies
shall include the right to bring an original civil action, the
right to trial by jury, the right to compensatory and punitive
damages, and the right to recover attorney's fees, where those
rights are enjoyed by other employees under this section, section
15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.
633a), sections 504 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 794 and 794a (a) (1) and (b) or section 1977A of the
Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a). The sole exception shall be
that with respect to the Congress of the United States, its
Houses, committees, offices, and instrumentalities, and the
offices of its Members, authorities granted to the Equal
- 3 -
RCV BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 :12:57PM ;
4567929-
4562983;# 5
Employment Opportunity Commission in this section, section 15 of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.
633a), and sections 504 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(29 U.S.C. 794 and 794a (a) (1) and (b)) shall be exercised in each
House of Congress as determined by that House of Congress, and in
offices and instrumentalities not within a House of Congress as
determined by the Congress. with respect to the employees to
whom they are granted, the rights and remedies under this
subsection shall entirely supersede the rights and remadies made
available under section 117 and sections 301-318 and 320 of the
civil Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 601, 1201-1217, and 1219)
(b) Section 1977A (b) (1) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C.
1981a (b) (1)) is amended by striking the words " (other than a
government, government agency or political subdivision)".
TITLE V -- POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES
Section 501. Short Title.
This title may be cited as the "Political Activities of
Congressional Employees Act of 1992."
Section 502. Extension of ban on political activities by
government employees to certain congressional employees
Section 7324 (a) of chapter 73 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding after the word "agency" and before the
words "or an individual employed" the following: ", an employee
in the Legislative branch, including the General Accounting
Office (except employees in the personal offices of Members of
Congress)
TITLE VI -- CONGRESSIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
Section 601, Short Title
This title may be cited as the "Congressional Labor
Relations Act of 1992."
Section 602. Coverage of Congressional Instrumentalities
(a) Section 7103 (a) (3) of chapter 71 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding after "Library of Congress" and
before "Government Printing Office," the following:
"the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the United States
Botanic Garden, the Congressional Budget Office, the General
Accounting Office, the office of Printing Services, the office of
Technology Assessment, the Office of Telecommunications, the
Office of Fair Employment Practices, and the office of the
Postmaster of the House of Representatives,"
- 4 -
RCV BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 :12:58PM ;
4567929-
4562983;# 6
1/1
(b) Section 7103 (a) (3) of chapter 71 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by deleting paragraph (A), "the General
Accounting Office;" and redesignating the remaining paragraphs as
follows:
# (A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(B) the Central Intelligence Agency;
(c) the National Security Agency,
(D) the Tennessee Valley Authority,
(E) the Federal Labor Relations Authority; or
(F) the Federal Services Impasses Panel;"
- 5 -
RCV BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 :12:58PM ;
4567929-
4562983;# 7
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1.
This contains the short title.
Section 101. This section contains the short title of
title I, the "Openness in Congress Act of 1992."
Section 102. This provision extends the Freedom of
Information Act to a number of persons and entities in the
legislative branch: either House of Congress (including
committees of either House and joint committees) and any agency,
instrumentality or other establishment in the legislative branch
(including the General Accounting office). It does not extend
FOIA to Members' personal offices.
Section 201. This section contains the short title of
title II, the "Right of Privacy Act of 1992."
Section 202. This provision extends the coverage of the
Privacy Act to the legislative entities referred to in section
102, to the White House Office and the office of the Vice
President, and to individual Members' personal offices.
Section 301. Section 301 contains the short title of title
III, the "Ethics in Congress Act of 1992."
section 302. This provision expands the list of
individuals covered by the Independent Counsel provisions of the
Ethics in Government Act. It would include on that list Members
of Congress, the Comptroller General, the chair and treasurer of
the principal campaign.committee of each Member of Congress, and
certain highly-compensated staff members of each House's
Committees on Appropriations and Judiciary.
Section 303. This makes four changes in the conflict-of-
interest provisions of title 18. subsection (a) amends 18 U.S.C.
208, which prohibits certain government employees from acting on
matters with respect to which they have a financial interest, so
that it also covers officers and employees of the legislative
branch other then Members. Subsection (b) is a conforming
amendment to 18 U.S.C. 208 that ensures that waivers granted by
Members are subject to public disclosure. Subsections (c) and
(d) extend 18 U.S.C. 209 (a) and (b), which forbid supplementation
of salary of federal officials, to officers and employees of the
legislative branch other than Members.
Section 401. Section 401 contains the short title of title
IV, the "Congressional Employees' civil Rights Act of 1992.'
Section 402. This section extends to specified legislative
and executive branch employees the rights and remedies concerning
employment discrimination currently enjoyed by most executive
branch employees under title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the
RCV BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 ;12:59PM ;
4567929-
4562983;# 8
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 42 U.S.C. 1981a. The remedies
include the right to bring a civil action and in some cases the
right to jury trials, compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorney's fees. These rights and remedies are to supersede
those granted to these congressional and executive branch
employees under section 117 and sections 301-318 and 320 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1991. That regime gives these employees no
right to have the facts of their claims determined by an Article
III tribunal, no right to jury trials where compensatory damages
are sought, and no right to recover punitive damages in
appropriate cases.
Under the new provision, all employees and applicants for
employment in the executive or legislative branches are to be
covered by the listed statutes except for (a) officers of either
House of Congress, (b) congressional employees on the personal
staff of a Member who report directly to the Member and whose
annual rate of basic pay is set at level V of the Executive
Schedule or higher, (c) officers of the United States within the
meaning of the Constitution, (d) employees in the Executive
Office of the President who report directly to the President or
vice President and whose annual rate of basic pay is set at level
V of the Executive Schedule or higher, and (e) members of the
uniformed services.
Under current law, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission performs a number of functions concerning complaints
of employment discrimination by federal employees. Under section
402, with respect to congressional employees those functions
would be performed as directed by the relevant House of Congress,
or by Congress as a whole where the employing entity involved is
not within a single House.
Section 501. This provides the short title for title V.
Section 502. Section 502 extends the political
participation ban of the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 7324, to employees
in the legislative branch except for those employed in the
personal offices of Members.
Section 601. This contains the short title of title VI,
the "Congressional Labor Relations Act of 1992."
Section 602. Subsection (a) extends the provisions of the
Federal Labor Relations Act, which currently covers most agencies
in the executive branch, to a number of entities in the
legislative branch. The entities to be covered are: the Office
of the Architect of the Capitol, the United States Botanic
Garden, the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting
office, the Office of Printing Services, the Office of Technology
Assessment, the Office of Telecommunications, the Office of Fair
Employment Practices, and the office of the Postmaster of the
- 2 -
RCV BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 4- 1-92 ; 1:05PM ;
4567929->
4562983;# 1
House of Representatives. Subsection (b) is a conforming
amendment to reflect the fact that the General Accounting Office
is to be covered by the FLRA.
- 3 -