1988 Legislative and
Administrative Message: A
To
the Congress of the
Introduction
In
one sentence of 52 words, the Framers of our Constitution announced the proper
ends of government in a free society:
``We
the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.''
The
six purposes listed in the Preamble for establishing the Constitution serve as
a lasting measure of the legitimate role of government. An American President
has no more sacred duty than to ensure that the government stays within the
constitutional limits that protect individual liberty. In assessing this
Administration's policies and proposals now and for the future, the fundamental
blueprint remains the Preamble of the Constitution.
In
the past 7 years, our Administration has worked to restore a vision of government
that was the Founders' own -- a vision of a free and self-reliant people,
taking responsibility for its own welfare and progress through such time-tested
means as individual initiative, neighborhood and community cooperation, and
local and State self-government. The return of responsibility and authority to
the individual American is now leading to a virtual renaissance in
Our
foreign and defense policies are geared to protect American freedom against
external threats, to guarantee that our liberties are secure from the
aggressions of those whose values are not founded in human freedom. Protection
of liberty today means not just a strong
This
statement of Administration policy is organized according to the six basic
tenets for which the American people first ordained and established the
Constitution:
I.
To
Form a more Perfect
II.
To
Establish Justice .... [94]
III.
To
Ensure Domestic Tranquility .... [94]
IV.
To
Provide for the Common Defense .... [91]
V.
To
Promote the General Welfare .... [103]
VI.
To
Secure the Blessings of
I.
To Form a More Perfect
In
setting aside the Articles of Confederation for a new Constitution, the Framers
acknowledged that the governmental deficiencies of the new Nation were of their
own making. They understood that if the American republic were to endure and
prosper, its organizing principles would have to be revised. The constitutional
system the Framers produced has been the wonder of the free world, but after
200 years some aspects of that system are in need of repair and reform.
Accordingly, I propose the following measures to ``form a more perfect
A.
Balanced Budget Amendment
Before
the Great Depression, the idea that the Federal government should balance its
budget on a yearly basis was treated as though it were part of the
Constitution. The economic crisis, and later World War II, forced the
abandonment of this policy. But what may have been necessary in those national
emergencies is now a permanent feature of the Federal government.
There
is no question that continued Federal budget deficits, fueled by higher
spending, are bad for the economy. Unfortunately, our political system makes it
extremely difficult to reduce the deficit. The public interest in spending
restraint is a generalized one, diffused among the entire citizenry. The
special interests favoring spending on any particular program are smaller, but
they fight much harder to maintain or increase spending.
Certainly,
there are constructive proposals that would help control spending. Since 1981,
our budgets have sought billions of dollars in reductions of outdated and
outmoded programs. Members of the Congress and private think tanks have also
identified wasteful spending. But the political process's inability to overcome
inertia, along with the persistence of special interests, has led many
Americans to despair of achieving budgetary balance without constitutional
reform. That is why 32 States have applied to the Congress to call a
constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing a constitutional
amendment to require a balanced budget -- only two States short of the number
required by Article V of the Constitution.
In
previous years, the Senate has approved such a balanced budget amendment that
would obviate such a convention, but the House has failed to support it. This
is clearly the option I prefer to achieve the consitutionally
mandated balanced budget desired by the overwhelming majority of the American
people.
It
is imperative that the Congress consider such an amendment as a major priority
for 1988, and I will be a willing partner in that enterprise.
B.
Budget Process Reform
It
is widely acknowledged, by the Congress, the press, and the American people,
that the current budget process is not working. The Budget Act of 1974 was
purported to streamline and rationalize the budget considerations by the
Congress. The new process was to ``force'' the various committees to consider
their recommendations in the context of the entire budget and ensure that
proper attention was paid to the bottom line -- the deficit.
In
both substance and form, the process has failed. Deadlines are routinely missed
or ignored. Enforcement mechanisms are rarely employed. Debates over the same
issue occur three and four times a year. And from the size of the deficit, the
process has obviously failed to provide fiscal discipline.
Over
the last 7 years, total revenues paid to the Federal government have increased
by over $250 billion. But total expenditures have increased by some $325
billion. Part of the increased spending, $125 billion, or half of the increase
in revenues, was devoted to rebuilding our national defenses. But last year,
the government spent $140 billion more on domestic programs than in 1981 and
$70 billion more on interest payments due to the deficit. And for every dollar
the Congress has cut from my defense request, they have added $2 to domestic
spending.
Nowhere
is the failure of the budget process more evident than in the annual process of
developing the appropriations bills that establish discretionary spending
levels making up just under one-half the total budget. The regular process
requires that 13 separate appropriations bills be sent to the President well in
advance of the October 1 beginning of a new fiscal year. But the norm has been
anything but normal -- during the last 7 years, the Congress sent only 10 of
the 91 required bills on time. In the last 2 years, not one bill has been on
time and all 13 have been collapsed into one massive piece of legislation.
These
increasingly large spending bills, passed at the last moment before existing
funding expires, deny the Congress and the Executive the ability to adequately
examine their contents. The Congress cannot truly vote on their merits and the
President has little ability to employ a veto.
While
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings has helped restore some fiscal discipline, it simply adds
another layer to an already broken process. The threat of across-the-board cuts
is only partially effective as major portions of the budget are exempt. And G -
R - H does not produce what a truly effective budget process should; namely, a
thorough consideration of spending priorities within the constraints of
available revenues. To assist the next administration in attaining the deficit
targets contained in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law and achieve a balanced
budget within the next few years, the following changes in the budget process
are proposed:
Joint Budget Resolution. The budget process has
so degenerated in recent years that the Presidential budget is routinely
discarded and the congressional one regularly goes unenforced.
The product of this breakdown is a concurrent resolution, requiring neither
consultation with the Administration nor the signature of the President. As a
remedy, I propose that henceforth the Congress and the Executive collaborate on
a joint resolution that sets out spending priorities within the revenues
available. The requirement of a Presidential signature would force both
branches of government to resolve most policy issues before formulating
appropriations measures. The budget process could be further improved by including
in the budget law allocations by committee as well as by budget function.
Individual Transmittal of Appropriations Bills. The current practice of
transmitting full-year omnibus continuing resolutions oversteps appropriation
committee/subcommittee jurisdictions. More important, it does not permit the
Legislative and Executive branches to exercise proper scrutiny of Federal
spending. Therefore, I propose a requirement that appropriations bills be
transmitted individually to the President.
Strict Observance of Allocations. During the 1980s, an
unacceptable budget practice evolved of disregarding congressionally approved
function allocations. Funds regularly were shifted from defense or
international affairs to domestic spending. I strongly urge that each fiscal
year separate defense and non-defense allocations be made and enforced through
a point-of-order provision in the budget act.
Enhanced Rescission Authority. Under current law, the
President may propose rescissions of budget authority, but both houses of
Congress must act ``favorably'' for the rescission to take effect. The Supreme
Court in the Chadha decision (1983) effectively moots
even this limited authority. I propose a change of law that would cure the
legislative veto defect and require the Congress to vote ``up or down'' on any Presidentially proposed
rescission, thereby preventing the Congress from simply ignoring the rescission
or avoiding a recorded vote.
Adopt
Biennial Budgeting. The current budget process consumes too much time and
energy. A 2-year budget cycle offers several advantages -- among them, a
reduction in repetitive annual budget tasks, more time for congressional
oversight and consideration of key spending decisions in reconciliation, and
fewer gimmicks, such as shifting spending from one year to the next. I am
calling on the Congress to adopt biennial budgeting, beginning with a trial
2-year Defense budget.
Truth in Federal Spending Legislation. As part of my Economic
Bill of Rights proposal, I outlined legislation that provides for ``Truth in
Federal Spending.'' Soon I will transmit legislation that will require any
future legislation creating new Federal programs to be deficit-neutral; this
will be done by requiring the concurrent enactment of equal amounts of program
reductions or revenue increases. Additionally, my proposed legislation would
require that all future legislation and implementing regulations be accompanied
by financial impact statements detailing the measure's likely economic impact,
including the effect on State and local governments. Enactment of this proposal
would be an important step toward reassuring the American people that the
Congress is serious about controlling government spending.
C.
Line Item Veto
A
President should have the same tools to control spending that 43 governors
have. I will forward my proposal for a line item veto. It would allow future
Presidents to remove from spending bills those items that are extraneous --
without threatening the continuation of vital government programs. The Congress
could override each veto by a two-thirds vote in each House. The budget crisis,
however, also demands immediate action. For example, last month the Congress
presented me with a catchall spending bill with many extraneous and costly
provisions, some of which had been considered for the first time in conference.
I am asking the Congress immediately to accept the responsibility for making
its own processes work, rather than giving up and resorting to a continuing resolution.
D.
Super-Majority Tax Amendment
Our
Founding Fathers knew that without economic freedom there can be no political
freedom. Even before our Nation was full-born, nine colonies assembled in a
``Stamp Act Congress'' and worked their will to oppose taxation without
representation. Today, we must once again resolve to put an end to
irresponsible taxation and spending. We have fallen into a costly and dangerous
habit, which could threaten our future prosperity, burden future generations,
and reduce the incentive of individuals and businesses to create more goods and
services.
It
is clear that we need a mechanism to control expenditures of Americans'
hard-earned money. To this end, I will send to the Congress a proposed
constitutional amendment to require a super-majority vote in the Congress in
order to increase the tax burden on our citizens. I urge the Congress to act
expeditiously in approving this amendment and to send it to the States for
ratification.
E.
Federalism -- Returning Power to the People
At
the time of my first State of the Union address, it was apparent that the
limited national government envisioned by the Framers had been replaced by a
national government whose involvement in domestic affairs was limited only by
its own will. The Founders understood that unchecked central authority
threatens individual liberties. Accordingly, they constituted a Federal system
of government, with all powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to
the national government reserved to the States and to the people.
We
have sought to revitalize the principle of federalism by reforming the
institutional processes of the national government. This past October, I signed
Executive Order 12612, which requires Executive officials to ensure that all
proposed policies and legislation comply with federalism principles and to
conduct a formal federalism assessment as appropriate, and which restricts
Federal preemption of State laws. The Congress should review its legislative
procedures to determine whether reforms similar to those in Executive Order
12612 are warranted.
The
National Governors Association and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations, as well as State and local officials, have been examining possible
amendments to the Constitution that would restore the structural balance of
power between the national government and the States. If we in
II.
To Establish Justice
For
200 years our Republic has enjoyed a constitutional system that is the envy of
the world. By its own terms and by the will of the American people, the
Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Yet in recent years, some have
advocated and at times have succeeded in promoting a laxity in the observance
of the terms of its text. Fortunately, I can count as one of the most
satisfying legacies of my presidency the work my Administration has done to
restore the foundations of American government through an insistence on the
faithful interpretation and observance of the Constitution.
A.
Judicial Appointments
In
the elections of 1980 and 1984, I promised the American people that I would
nominate judges and justices to the Supreme Court who would be faithful to the
Constitution. I have kept that promise.
Our
written Constitution, adopted and ratified by the people 200 years ago and
amended several times since, is our fundamental law. Every government official
takes an oath to abide by its provisions. For members of the Congress, this
should mean enacting laws only in pursuance of the powers set forth in the
Constitution. As President, this means taking care that the laws are faithfully
executed. To the courts falls the task of adjudicating cases or controversies
according to the Constitution and the laws made under it. In so doing, judges
must faithfully interpret the text of the Constitution, as well as laws passed
by the Congress, as written, in accordance with their original meaning. To do
otherwise would constitute a usurpation of legislative power never intended by
the American people. With this in mind, I have been careful to nominate only
judges faithful to this principle. I urge the Senate to be guided by the same
standards in exercising its constitutional duty in the confirmation process.
Part
of faithfully interpreting the law is seeing to it that those convicted of
crimes are dealt with fairly but firmly. In this respect, I am particularly
proud of my judicial appointments. Federal court records indicate that between
1981, when I first took office, and 1984, the average sentence handed down by a
Federal court per conviction increased dramatically -- by over 100 percent for
rape, over 100 percent for burglary, and over 60 percent for murder. I will
continue to nominate judges who are tough on crime. When the Senate adjourned
last year, 27 judicial nominations were left pending -- an unprecedented number
-- and other vacancies are yet to be filled as well. The Chief Justice of the
B.
Civil Rights
Among
the greatest imperatives in establishing justice is the elimination of
discrimination based on race, sex, and other immutable characteristics.
Discrimination based on religion is equally invidious. This Administration has
held high the banner of equal opportunity for all Americans, and we will not
retreat from the fight against discrimination wherever it exists.
Our
achievements have been significant. We have successfully prosecuted racial hate
groups and have achieved more convictions for criminal civil rights violations
than any previous administration. We have moved aggressively to enforce our
Nation's voting rights laws, thereby securing for thousands of citizens the
most fundamental of all rights -- the right to help shape their future with a
ballot.
In
desegregating our Nation's public schools, we have placed the emphasis where it
should be -- on enhancing educational quality for all children.
I
am particularly proud of our successes in moving
Currently
pending in the Senate, however, is a bill whose vague and sweeping language
threatens to subject nearly every facet of American life -- from the corner
grocery to the local church or synagogue to local and State government -- to
intrusive regulation by Federal agencies and courts. Ironically it does so in
the name of civil rights. This Administration opposes this overreaching
legislation known as the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (S. 557). In its
stead, I have proposed a bill that provides institution-wide coverage under the
appropriate civil rights statutes of educational institutions receiving Federal
aid while avoiding an unwarranted expansion of Federal jurisdiction. My
proposal, the Civil Rights Act Amendments of 1987 (H.R. 1881), also ensures
adequate protection of religious tenets under Title IX and makes clear that no
institution must provide insurance coverage for abortions or perform abortions
as a condition of the receipt of Federal aid.
C.
Protection of Victims of Obscenity and Child Pornography
In
establishing justice we must be ever mindful that our cherished constitutional
freedoms cannot be distorted to protect activities that exploit the innocent
and defenseless. The production and distribution of obscene materials, as well
as child pornography, are such activities. Our Administration has made the
elimination of these materials a top domestic priority.
The
Attorney General's Commission on Pornography report has resulted in several new
law enforcement efforts, foremost among these being the establishment of a
special enforcement unit within the Department of Justice. In a single
operation in 1987 more purveyors of child pornography were federally indicted
than at any time in history, and the first Federal obscenity racketeering
convictions were recently returned in
D.
Legal Services for the Needy
Provision
of needed legal services for those who cannot afford them is an important goal
of our society. Unfortunately, the current system administered by the Legal
Services Corporation (LSC) is not working. Each year the
Congress has mandated that a large portion of these funds be allotted to a
group of ``National and
There
is another way in which the needy are being badly served by LSC. A
congressionally mandated policy of ``Annual Presumptive Funding'' precludes the
possibility of awarding LSC grants on a competitive basis. LSC must be able to
demand results from grantees or give other prospective grantees opportunity
better to serve the poor. While stability is desirable, we must be able to weed
out inefficient or incapable grantees.
III.
To Ensure Domestic Tranquillity
The
leading threat to domestic tranquillity comes in the
form of criminal offenses of citizen against citizen. When I took office crime
rates were soaring. The public, with good reason, felt unsafe in our streets
and often even in homes and places of work. Determined to give
A.
Restoration of the Federal Death Penalty
Federal
statutes currently provide for capital punishment for the offenses of
espionage, treason, murder, and certain other felonies such as air piracy.
Except in the case of the air piracy statute, enacted in 1973, these death
penalty provisions are not accompanied by appropriate procedures required since
the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Furman v.
Fortunately
a solution is at hand. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 created the
United States Sentencing Commission to promulgate sentencing guidelines to
insure consistent, tough, and equitable sentencing. The Commission should go
forward now to set in place procedures to permit the constitutional imposition
of capital sentences for the most serious Federal offenses.
B.
Criminal Justice Reform Act
To
protect further society from criminals, the Congress should act promptly on the
Criminal Justice Reform Act, which I transmitted last year. By statute it would
establish uniform procedures that would allow death penalty provisions in
current Federal statutes to be enforced according to recent Supreme Court
decisions. It also contains important reforms to curb the abuse of habeas
corpus by convicted criminals and to promote truth in the courtroom by ensuring
that evidence obtained by the police through reasonable searches and seizures
can be used at trial. These important protections for the public will complete
the anti-crime effort we began with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of
1984. They were approved by the Senate in 1984 and in part by the House of
Representatives in 1986. The time has come -- this year -- to enact them into
law.
C.
Victims of Crime
In
1982 my Task Force on Victims of Crime pointed out that all too often crime
victims suffer doubly -- they are first victimized by criminals and then by an
inadequate justice system. My Administration has put into effect a number of
the Task Force recommendations. The most important of these has been the
development of model legislation mandating the protection and fair treatment of
crime victims, which by 1986 had become the basis for legislative action in nearly
two-thirds of the States. I am directing the Attorney General to press forward
on the remaining Task Force recommendations.
D.
The Fight Against Terrorism
Innocent
Americans and freedom-loving people across the world have become the victims of
terrorists. But this Nation will not be held captive to the will and whim of
terrorists.
This
Administration is considering a series of legislative proposals designed to
strengthen our hand against terrorists. These include proposals for the
expeditious removal of aliens from the
State-sponsored terrorism, fomented by
governments whose conduct and support for such acts put them outside the
community of nations, remains a scourge on the international scene and a
particular threat to our citizens and interests. We must further develop
the rule of law against these criminals by denying terrorists the legitimacy of
international instruments condoning their activities. The Senate should give
its advice and consent to ratification, with certain reservations, of
Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which would serve to
promote basic human rights. The Administration has rejected Additional Protocol
I, which would give combatant status to terrorist organizations, and I welcome
congressional support of this decision.
E.
Organized Crime
For
over a half-century this Nation has been plagued by organized crime. Due to
vigorous efforts by Federal investigators and prosecutors, some of the most
infamous leaders of organized crime are now facing long jail terms. This
progress has come through a new strategy aimed at penetrating crime syndicates
and targeting their leadership for prosecution. Strike forces have focused on
several major cities such as
Yet,
mob-run crime is still a grave problem. Obscenity, extortion, drug importation
and sales, loan sharking, illegal gambling, and murder are all crimes that we
intend to hit hard during the remainder of this Administration. Our goal is to
put ``the mob'' out of business through vigorous use of both criminal and civil
statutes, by purging organized crime elements from labor organizations, and by
targeting the newer, ``emerging'' organized crime groups to ensure that they
never wield the mob's power and influence.
F.
Prison Capacity Expansion
One
result of our increased efforts to fight crime is that the number of criminals
serving time in Federal prisons has increased dramatically -- nearly 80 percent
since 1981. We anticipate that the Federal inmate population will continue to
increase in the future, particularly in light of the enhanced criminal
penalties contained in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and the new sentencing
guidelines. One of my top priorities for the next year will be to increase
substantially the construction of new prison space to accommodate the increased
number of criminals being removed from our streets.
G.
Drug Free
In
the past 7 years, the Nation has made tremendous gains towards a drug free
We
are on our way to a drug free future. Still, illegal drugs continue to destroy
the lives and the hopes of hundreds of thousands of Americans each year,
especially young people whose future lies before them. Since the beginning of
my Administration, I have committed the Federal government to provide national
leadership and support to the national crusade, encouraging and assisting
private sector efforts and aggressively pursuing Federal responsibilities to
stop the supply and use of illegal drugs. The National Drug Policy Board, which
I established by Executive order on
Five
strategies are aimed at reducing the supply of illegal drugs: enhanced
international cooperation; stepped-up interdiction of drugs coming into the
country; improved intelligence on drug activities; stepped-up investigations to
eliminate drug trafficking organizations; and targeting prosecution of top drug
organizations. Simply put, we are working with our allies throughout the world
to reduce the amount of illegal drugs produced or processed; making sure that
as little as possible of those illicit drugs enter this Nation; and Federal,
State, and local officials are working together to investigate and prosecute to
the fullest these merchants of destruction.
And
we are working to reduce the demand for drugs. Nancy and I join the millions of
parents across the country who know too well that real
progress toward the goal of a drug free
Our
four strategies to reduce demand are: prevention education to keep young people
from becoming drug users; reduction of drug use by high-risk youths; improved
community-based treatment for addicts whose drug habits have removed them from
the American mainstream; and fostering attitudes of intolerance toward drug use
on the part of mainstream adults.
Every
American should be able to enjoy a drug free workplace. Schoolchildren should
have drug free schools. Every citizen should be able to rely on a Federal work
force free from drugs. And every American should be able to enjoy a drug free
transportation system. This Administration is working in partnership with
private employers and State and local governments to ensure all four.
We
are proceeding with a cooperative national effort to reduce and eventually
eliminate drugs from government housing projects. The Department of Education
issued Schools Without Drugs and has mobilized school,
parent, and community efforts to take drugs away from young people and give
them back their lives.
These
efforts have already begun to produce results. In 1987, for the first time
since the National Institute on Drug Abuse began its annual survey of high
school seniors in the early 1970s, a significant drop -- one-third -- in
current cocaine use was revealed. Ninety-seven percent of the seniors polled
disapproved of regular cocaine use, and 87 percent disapproved of even trying
it -- strong evidence that cocaine use is no longer ``in'' among young
Americans.
Finally,
as the Nation's largest employer, the Federal government is committed to establishing
a model for a drug free workplace that deals constructively with illegal drug
use. We are establishing a broad drug education training program for all
employees. The program includes testing of employees holding safety-sensitive
positions. For example, the Department of Transportation has already
implemented drug-testing programs for employees in such positions, including
air-traffic controllers and airline safety inspectors. Indeed, fair and
accurate drug testing is one of the few effective ways to ensure that illegal
drug users begin the process of rehabilitation. Agency programs that include
random testing to identify these drug users will be ready for implementation in
1988. We are putting our money where our heart is. In the past 7 years, there
has been a three-fold increase in Federal spending to fight drugs, bringing the
total close to $3.5 billion this year.
I
worked closely with the Congress to enact the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986,
which embodies a national commitment to fight drug abuse through: increased
criminal penalties, improved criminal investigation and prosecution, demand
reduction, better international cooperation, and more effective interdiction.
The Act also established the White House Conference for a Drug Free America. Already
it has hosted six regional forums to facilitate information gathering and
interchange on various aspects of the drug issue. The Conference will hold a
national assembly in
IV.
To Provide for the Common Defense
Our
government has no higher duty than defense of the freedom of the American
people. On this point, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, two of the most
eminent Framers of our Constitution, were in complete agreement. Wrote
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, ``The
circumstances which endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this
reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which
the care of it is committed.'' James Madison concurred, ``The
means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of
attack.''
In
our constitutional framework, the President and the Congress share the vital
responsibility for ensuring our national security. Within this same
constitutional framework, however, the President has important independent
powers. Both of these constitutional principles apply to the agenda of national
security issues we will face in 1988 and beyond.
Our
two branches of government clearly share powers in such areas as planning and
budgeting for the maintenance of our defense capability; the ratification of
treaties, as in the case of the INF Treaty; and foreign economic and security
assistance, that vital instrument of our foreign policy. At the same time, the
Congress must respect the constitutional wisdom that only the President can act
as the effective Executive agent in the conduct of foreign relations. This
truth is long established in our constitutional law and practice. And the
President, in order to act effectively in the Nation's behalf, needs the
flexibility to respond, within the framework of law, to often unpredictable and
fast-moving challenges.
In
1980, I promised as my first priority to rebuild our national defenses to meet
the Soviet military challenge and to restore
A.
East-West Relations
On
the basis of our renewed strength, and a policy of realism in the pursuit of
peace, we have in the past 7 years taken great strides toward a world in which
freedom can flourish. In the coming year, we face new challenges and new
opportunities, and I hope that the Congress will be my partner in addressing
both.
Today
I have submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification the
Treaty Between the United States of America and the
On
the basis of similar strength and fortitude, and support from the American
people and the Congress, we are engaged in serious negotiations with the
These
accomplishments depend on maintaining our strength. It should now be
unmistakably clear that our determined program to rebuild our military strength
and my Strategic Defense Initiative have spurred major advances in arms
reduction, as well as strengthening our own and allied security. These efforts
must not be undercut.
In
addition, I must reiterate what I said last year -- that legislating Soviet
arms control positions into American law is not the way to get good agreements.
I will veto legislation that undermines national security and undercuts our
negotiating position.
The
issue between East and West, of course, is not simply arms control. Efforts by
the
Human
rights and regional conflicts are key issues on my agenda with the
B.
Defense Budget
Our
defense budget proposals represent an essential program for maintaining our
defensive strength. The defense budget has already been reduced to levels that
will require us to delay the achievement of important defense objectives.
Anything less will jeopardize not only our national security and that of our
allies but also the prospects for fair agreements negotiated with our
adversaries.
With
this in mind we must continue with the Strategic Modernization Program as an
essential guarantor of Free World security at the same time as we seek
clear-cut and effectively verifiable strategic arms reductions. We must also
continue the modernization of nuclear, conventional, and chemical deterrence
forces supporting our commitments to our allies. Additionally, we must ensure
that the conventional force disparities between NATO and the Warsaw Pact are
redressed through a combination of negotiated reductions and the strengthening
of NATO capabilities.
My
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is not simply a program of research and
development of new technology. It offers hope of a reorientation of strategy --
hope for a world in which strategic defenses, which threaten no one and can
block a ballistic-missile attack, play a greater role in maintaining
deterrence. This is a vital program. It is an investment in a safer world for
our children, and it is insurance against violations of arms reduction agreements.
It reinforces our negotiating efforts. I will ask the Congress to provide
increases in funding necessary for essential SDI research, development, and
testing. It is a cornerstone of our security strategy for the 1990s and beyond.
And when it is ready, we will deploy it.
Despite
reductions in defense funding, we must attempt to maintain the strength of our
technology base, pursuing new developments in conventional weapons technology.
We must also continue our Armaments Cooperation initiatives with our allies to
realize improvement in acquisition management and the advantages of shared
technological advances among our allies.
We
will maintain, where necessary, the deployment of
We
must continue to develop and to exercise our capabilities to respond to
low-intensity conflict. These simmering confrontations below the threshold of
large-scale conventional war undermine the political, economic, and security
interests of the
We
must complete the revitalization of our special operations capability begun
early in this Administration and preserve that capability in the ensuing years.
Similarly,
we need a vital and effective intelligence capability. We must ensure that this
capability is effectively managed and that the President has the ability to
employ it flexibly. I will not accept legislation governing the conduct of
intelligence activities that does not preserve the flexibility that is required
if our intelligence community is to do its job. To improve the military
intelligence support to
As
we address the resource requirements for our defense efforts, we must also
streamline the process of resource allocation. For this reason, I urge the
Congress to shift fully to a 2-year defense authorization and appropriation
cycle. This Administration continues to press initiatives that streamline and
strengthen the Federal procurement process to dramatically increase competition
in the award of Federal contracts. We are placing particular emphasis on the
findings of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management (The Packard
Commission) and especially those recommendations having government-wide effect.
C.
Democracy and Freedom
Most
remarkable is the struggle of those directly resisting aggression sponsored by
the
I
strongly support the cause of the brave Freedom Fighters of Nicaragua. On this
issue there have been differences between the Executive branch and the
Congress, but there are also shared principles: that there must not be a Cuban
or a Soviet-bloc military base in Nicaragua, because such a base would threaten
the United States and the other nations in the Hemisphere; that Nicaragua must
not pose a military threat to its neighbors or provide a staging ground for
subversion or destabilization; and that Nicaragua must respect the basic
freedoms and human rights of its own people, including the original pledges the
Sandinista regime made to the Organization of American States in 1979.
It
is now widely accepted that democracy within
At
the San Jose Summit there was a clear consensus among the four Central American
democratic presidents that the Sandinistas had not complied with the Peace
Accord. By making his last-minute promises President Ortega acknowledged the
accuracy of that judgment.
The
key issue is whether the Sandinistas are now committed to genuine and enduring
democracy or do they just seek the elimination of the Nicaraguan Democratic
Resistance.
The
Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance is the best insurance policy for keeping the
peace process on track and producing a democratic outcome in
In
We
support a peaceful solution, but such a solution can be achieved only if the
We
shall continue our policy in the
At
the same time, we will work actively to promote peace between
The
cause of democracy and freedom worldwide is promoted by our program of economic
and security assistance to our allies and friends. Central to our security and
to the preservation of peace are our ties with allies and friends, including
NATO and our East Asian allies --
Since
the enactment of comprehensive reform of our Nation's immigration laws in the
fall of 1986, the flow of illegal aliens across our southern border has been
reduced significantly. Our Nation continues to provide open avenues of legal
immigration that each year allow 600,000 people to join our ranks as permanent
residents. As in the past, a significant portion of these new arrivals are
individuals seeking refuge from oppression in their home countries. I am
pleased to report the Department of Justice has taken two important steps
toward fairer, more expeditious consideration of the asylum applications of
persons suffering persecution because of their religious and political beliefs.
An Asylum Policy and Review Unit, charged with reviewing asylum cases, has been created directly within the Department. In
addition, a change has been proposed in the Immigration and Naturalization
Service that would give specially trained Asylum Officers jurisdiction to
interview applicants and render decisions, while preserving for each applicant
an opportunity for a new hearing before an independent immigration judge. Our
Administration is also studying a further restructuring of the asylum process
to ensure that asylum and refugee cases are considered from a humanitarian
perspective.
As
General Vessey's visit last summer to
D.
The Economic Dimension of Freedom
We
remain active in promoting free economic institutions in the developing world.
In this connection, the Administration strongly supports the intent of the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Expansion Act, which would extend the
Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) for an additional 12-year period and enhance
the program's duty preferences. While not supporting every specific provision
in the bill, such as the one concerning sugar, the Administration shares the
goal of strengthening the CBI and is proposing modifications and alternatives
to reach that goal. In addition, the Senate should give its advice and consent
to the ratification of the Bermuda Tax Treaty, and the Congress should enact
the complementary tax law changes. These actions would help regularize our
economic ties with this strategically important island.
The
To
meet future oil supply disruptions that might develop, it is important that
additional oil reserves be placed in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to meet
our 750-million-barrel target. In the section ``Strengthening America's Energy
Security,'' which follows, I outline several steps that will strengthen
I
am proud that our Administration has instituted an effective and prudent system
of safeguarding our strategic interests in East-West trade. We cannot let our
adversaries acquire through trade vital technology that would strengthen their
military capability against us. At the same time we are determined to harmonize
trade control practices with friends and allies both to enhance their
effectiveness and to avoid undermining the competitive position of
V.
To Promote the General Welfare
As
James Madison observed in The Federalist, No. 41, the meaning of the ``general
welfare'' is restricted to that public happiness which the government may
promote by its clearly enumerated powers. Permitting general and unlimited
powers to government, even though these might be used with the best motives,
would render the Constitution useless as a safeguard for individual freedom.
This
Administration is deeply committed to decreasing the power of the Federal
government to its intended scope and to increasing the power of individuals.
These policies establish conditions most conducive to individual initiative and
enterprise and, consequently, to the creation of wealth and public well-being.
The preservation of freedom, the highest value in our Republic, requires
placing the rights of individuals above the power of government. The great
challenge of our national government is to use only its carefully enumerated
powers in promoting the general welfare by empowering individuals to help themselves.
A.
Empowering Individuals To Control Their Own Resources
If
individuals are to possess genuine autonomy then they must be free to control
their own resources, to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and to keep what they
earn, free from excessive government taxation and spending. To further this
ideal, I propose the following six specifics:
1.
Tax Policy. Experience has shown that higher taxes ultimately fuel higher
spending and do not improve the deficit. During the past 7 years, tax revenues
generally have increased, but spending has still increased 27 percent more than
tax revenues. This is the true source of the deficit.
Those
who favor higher taxes ignore the impact of such taxes on the economy. By
reducing and reforming taxes we have seen unprecedented economic growth, high
rates of job creation, and increasing productivity for over 60 months. During
this period of time, the Administration has lowered income tax rates and
removed the automatic tax increases caused by inflation. Future tax policy must
preserve these and other gains made on behalf of the American taxpayer. Tax
increases should also be opposed on the basis of their burden on economic
growth. These include, but are not limited to, returning to higher marginal
rates for individuals or corporations; repealing indexing; creating a
value-added tax or increasing excise taxes; increasing taxes on capital or
energy sources; and levying new taxes on securities transfers or corporate
takeovers.
2.
Reduction of Capital Gains Tax Rate. The tax reforms accomplished in 1986 did
much to remove provisions that inhibit economic prosperity. The most important
piece of unfinished business is to reduce the capital gains tax rate to the
level that will generate the savings and investment necessary for future
economic growth.
Past
experience demonstrates that lowering the capital gains tax rate will mean
increased realizations of capital gains upon which taxes are paid. When capital
gains tax rates increase, investors tend to hold rather than sell their assets.
If investors hold their assets until death, they can pass their untaxed gains
on to their children, resulting in no income taxes paid on those gains. When
the capital gains tax rate was increased in 1969, for example, it led to an
immediate reduction in the amount of capital gains realized. By contrast, a
reduction in the capital gains tax rate in 1978 and again in 1981 led to
significant increases in capital gains realizations.
Reducing
the capital gains tax rate to an agreed-upon optimum should be a cornerstone of
tax reform for the 1990s. I will consult with the Congress about achieving this
rate reduction as soon as possible.
3.
Raise Revenues with User Fees. The burden of reducing the deficit must not be
allowed to hamper the productive element of society -- the private sector.
Raising new revenues must be confined to areas where they will not burden
productivity. I believe that user fees for services are a sensible alternative
to a policy where revenues are unrelated to expenditures, where some citizens
are singled out for gain while others are excluded. Additionally, user fees
promote efficiency by encouraging individuals to use the proper level of
government services.
4.
Spending Restraint. We all recognize that reducing the size of the Federal
deficit is a top priority. The 2-year budget agreement that the Congress and I
worked out last fall is a first step. But we must go further and reduce the
size and the cost of the Federal government. I will apply the following
principles in considering new appropriations and authorization legislation,
which I urge the Congress also to follow: eliminate pork-barrel spending that
uses national funds to benefit local interests; work toward subsidy-free
business and agriculture marketing; avoid creation of new entitlement programs
and additional cost-of-living increase provisions; direct public assistance to
the needy; and provide for necessary discretion to promote efficient
administration of Federal programs. Moreover, the Congress should avoid
attaching appendages to spending bills that authorize unnecessary programs and
go beyond the enumerated powers of the national government.
5.
Government Management Improvements -- Government of the Future. When I became
President, one of my earliest priorities was to try to reestablish the proper
relationship between the Federal government (which had grown much too large and
too powerful) and the State and local governments; and between government and
the private sector. In 1981, through our federalism and deregulation
initiatives, we placed greater responsibility at the State and local level and
in the private sector. We are continuing those efforts.
But
as we look forward to the beginning of the 21st century, we need to update our
perspective on the proper role of the Federal government and examine what needs
to be done to prepare for the changes that will take place. For example, we
expect the population to grow to over 268 million people. Changes in technology
and communication will link the world's economies, trade, capital flows, and
travel as never before. I have asked the Office of Domestic Affairs to work
with the President's Council on Management Improvement to conduct an in-depth
review and recommend to me by August what further adjustments have to be made
in the Federal role to prepare for these anticipated changes. This summer I
look forward to receiving their report, ``Government of the Future,'' which
will also incorporate plans of my ``Reform '88'' program.
Meanwhile,
those responsibilities that legitimately fall within the enumerated powers of
the Executive branch should be managed to deliver quality service to all of our
citizens. Our government has a major effect upon the daily lives of all of us
through the direct delivery of services, the payment of financial assistance
through various entitlement programs, the collection of taxes and fees, and
through regulating commercial enterprises. My 1988 management priorities will
be to complete the ``Reform '88'' management improvement program I started 6
years ago; to overhaul the administrative, financial, and credit systems in our
Federal government; to implement productivity and quality plans in each agency;
and to direct the Office of Personnel Management to examine the needs of the
Federal work force of the future.
My
goal, therefore, is to ensure that my Administration leaves a ``legacy'' of
good management of today's problems -- with plans in place to handle tomorrow's
challenges.
6.
Social Security Reports to Participants. Virtually all workers are required to
participate in the social security system. But the average worker does not know
the level of benefits that would be paid his family should he die, become
disabled, or retire. As a result he cannot make plans for any supplemental
benefits and insurance he may need.
I
am pleased to announce that before the year is over the Social Security
Administration will begin providing upon request reports similar to those
frequently provided to employees who receive private sector benefits. The
social security report will contain a clear and detailed statement that
outlines a participant's credited earnings and social security taxes for each
year; indicates his current eligibility status; and sets forth an estimate in
current dollars of the current and future benefits available to him.
B.
Freeing the Individual From Government Dependency
It
is a fact of American life that many Federal programs, while attempting to help
the poor, have made them more dependent on the government. Much is within our
reach to help dependent citizens lift themselves to self-sufficiency:
1.
Reducing Welfare Dependency Through
Last year I launched a major effort to encourage
the States, working with established community self-help groups, to undertake a
wide range of ``workfare'' and other responsibility-building reform
experiments.
Experience has clearly shown that it is in the States that real welfare reform
will occur. This was true back in the 1970s in
Last
August I endorsed H.R. 3200/S. 1655, legislation that represents a constructive
and fiscally responsible approach to reducing welfare dependency. This
legislation would help more people become self-sufficient through mandatory
participation requirements and a flexible work and training program. It would
strengthen our ability to require absent parents to support their children. It
also contains the broad waiver authority States need to implement their own
ideas and make the welfare system more responsible to the needs of each
particular State. I call on the Congress to enact this legislation and not use
the present consensus on the need to reform our welfare system as an
opportunity simply to expand the benefit levels, which would lead to increased
dependency.
Even
under the limited authority of current law, many States have undertaken or are
planning such experiments. To assist them I have established the Interagency
Low Income Opportunity Advisory Board to facilitate ``one-stop shopping'' for
the States as they deal with the Federal government and to advise my Cabinet on
the impact of the State proposals on the Federal welfare system.
Recently
this Board facilitated multi-program waivers of Federal programs to the States
of Wisconsin and