[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H. W. Bush (1992, Book I)]
[April 3, 1992]
[Pages 532-537]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks to the Federalist Society of Philadelphia in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania

April 3, 1992
    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 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 progrowth trade policy. It demands more open foreign markets 
for quality American goods and services to sustain and create American 
jobs.

[[Page 533]]

    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 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 holdout. It resists reform 
and protects a failed status quo, even in the face of an unambiguous 
need for change. I'm not talking here about barber shops or perks or 
calligraphers or parking spaces. It's about the governmental 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 
redtape 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 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.

[[Page 534]]

    One-party rule is a big part of the problem but certainly 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 chest for 
incumbents in these special-interest campaign contributions. 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. Talk 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 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 Congress.
    When Government forgets who is really the boss, the American 
taxpayer, it becomes insulated, and it becomes unresponsive. But 
unresponsive Government doesn't just happen. Congress creates these 
giant, centralized bureaucracies, then 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 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

[[Page 535]]

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 emphasizing the 
building blocks of a more responsive Government by relying on what 
works: Choice, it works; competition 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--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. And I will propose legislation to end 
such special treatment for Congress next week. And further, I will veto 
any future legislation that extends such special treatment to the 
Congress.
    Second, Congress should reform its operation 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 PAC's.
    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.
    The fourth one, spending reform: I have already proposed to freeze 
domestic discretionary spending and Federal nondefense employment next 
year. And I've proposed 2-year budgets. And I have proposed, as well, to 
curb the growth of mandatory pro-

[[Page 536]]

grams 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. 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. 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 continue to use 
whatever means are legally at my disposal, including what I called for 
just a few days ago, use of the line-item rescission to protect the 
taxpayer from the spending excesses of the Congress. And I will continue 
to vigorously oppose any attempt by the Congress to dismantle the only 
defense that the taxpayer has against congressional overspending. And 
I'm talking obviously about the budget caps, the caps that were 
implemented in the 1990 act.
    Fifth, regulatory reform: We put a 90-day moratorium on new 
Government regulations. We are revising and eliminating regulations that 
impede our ability to compete, and we are accelerating regulations that 
enhance our competitive edge. Now, since I announced the moratorium on 
January 28th, the growth of burdensome regulations has already been 
reversed. And as our review continues we will announce further steps to 
reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations. 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.
    Sixth, we must limit congressional terms. We must address the 
Congress of the future. The cycle of virtually guaranteed reelection, 
particularly in the House of Representatives, through the built-in 
advantages of incumbency have got to be broken. And our Founding Fathers 
never considered elected Government service to be a career. And 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 the Congress. Our first concern should be the 
country, not the lifetime political career.
    Now, this brings me to my final point. Certainly, governing today is 
far more complex and time-consuming. We have to give that; that's the 
fact. 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, DC, summers. Air 
conditioning changed all this. [Laughter] And now, thanks to modern 
technology, Congress sits almost all year round. Many Members of the 
House and Senate are now permanent Washingtonians. And 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.'' I think Senator Baker was right in a 
serious way. He knew that the overwhelming majority of State 
legislatures are able to do their work each year in sessions lasting 
less than 6 months, some of them very short; some of them are about 3 
months every 2 years.
    With a streamlined committee structure, a leaner staff, Members' 
time organized around legislation rather than reelection, 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 allows Members to spend 
more continuous time at home so that they can truly stay in touch with 
the people.
    Change is sweeping America, just as it is sweeping the world. It's 
exciting what's happening. As in the first days of our 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. We must reform the Federal 
bureaucracy as

[[Page 537]]

well, as 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.

                    Note: The President spoke at 10:28 a.m. in Congress 
                        Hall at Independence National Historical Park. 
                        In his remarks, he referred to Martha Aikens, 
                        Superintendent of the park; former hostage 
                        Joseph Cicippio; and T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., 
                        former Assistant Counselor to the President and 
                        former member of the Council of the 
                        Administrative Conference of the United States.