ment. We thanked him and the rest of the Government of Spain and His Majesty for their foresight in hosting that historic Madrid conference that brought factions together, parties together that had never sat down and talked in the same room before. History will remember that as very farsighted on the part of Spain. And so it's been a good visit. I told the Prime Minister coming out here that I just wish we had had more time because, in my view, the relations between Spain and the United States have never been better. And we turn to him for advice on many issues. We turn to him with respect for his leadership on many issues. And so it's been a very friendly visit, an upbeat visit. And I'll let him speak for himself, but I think in terms of the big issues, the big problems facing the world, that President González and I, Spain and the United States, see eye to eye on almost every single question. And so thank you, sir, for coming. And I hope you have a pleasant trip back, and I hope that our paths cross soon again. Note: The President spoke at 1:25 p.m. on the South Lawn at the White House, where the Prime Minister was accorded military honors. The Prime Minister is also President of the Government of Spain. Statement on Antitrust Enforcement Policy April 2, 1992 I am pleased to announce today a unified antitrust enforcement policy for mergers and acquisitions, by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. This new enforcement policy is an important part of the administration's ongoing efforts to improve the competitiveness of American business and to provide jobs for our people. A common policy will provide the business community with greater certainty about the standards to be applied in enforcing the antitrust laws. And where stiff international competition already exists, the new guidelines will make it easier for Amer ican companies to achieve the economic clout to compete effectively in the global marketplace. I commend Attorney General Bill Barr and FTC Chairman Janet Steiger for this important contribution to American competitive ness. Message to the Senate Transmitting To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Partial Revision of the Radio Regulations (Geneva, 1979), signed on behalf of the United States at Geneva on September 15, 1985, and the United States reservation and statements as contained in the Final Protocol. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the 1985 Partial Revision. The 1985 Revision constitutes a partial revision of the Radio Regulations (Geneva, 1979), to which the United States is a party. The primary purpose of the revision is to incorporate into the Radio Regulations the decisions of the Regional Administrative Radio. Conference for the Planning of the Broadcasting-Satellite Service in Region 2 (essentially the Western Hemisphere). The Broadcasting-Satellite Service is a radiocommunication service in which signals transmitted or retransmitted by satellites are intended for direct reception by the general public. The Partial Revision is broadly consistent with the proposals of and positions taken by the United States at the First Session of the World Administrative Radio Conference on the use of the Geostationary-Satellite Orbit and the Planning of Space Services Utilizing It (ORB–85). At the time of signature, the United States submitted a reservation concerning technical matters included in the Revision; a statement in response to statements by Indonesia, Colombia, and Ecuador concerning claims of sovereign rights of segments of the geo stationary-satellite orbit; and a statement in response to Cuba's characterization of Radio Marti as "the use . . . by the Government of the United States, of the radio spectrum as a means of aggression . . ." The specific reservation and statements, with reasons, are given in the report of the Department of State. The 1985 Partial Revision of the Radio Regulations entered into force on October 30, 1986, for governments which, by that date, had notified the Secretary General of the International Telecommunication Union of their approval thereof. I believe the United States should become a party to the Partial Revision, which will facilitate the development of a broadcastingsatellite service in the United States. It is my hope that the Senate will take early action on this matter and give its advice and consent to ratification. To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the 1988 Partial Revision of the Radio Regulations (Geneva, 1979), signed on behalf of the United States at Geneva on October 6, 1988, and the United States statement as contained in the Final Protocol. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the 1988 Partial Revision. The 1988 Revision constitutes a partial revision of the Radio Regulations, to which the United States is a party. The primary purpose of this revision is to update the existing Regulations to guarantee for all countries equitable access to the geostationary-satellite orbit and the frequency bands allocated to space services. The revised Regulations are consistent with the proposals of and positions taken by the United States at the Second Session of the World Administrative Radio Conference on the Use of the Geostationary-Satellite Orbit and the Planning of the Space Services Utilizing It (ORB-88). At the time of signature, the United States joined 20 countries in submitting a statement in response to a statement by Colombia and Ecuador concerning claims of sovereign rights over segments of the geostationary-satellite orbit. The specific statement, with reasons, is given in the report of the Department of State. The 1988 Partial Revision entered into force on March 16, 1990, for governments which, by that date, had notified the Secretary General of the International Telecommunication Union of their approval thereof. I believe the United States should become a party to the 1988 Partial Revision, which provides new means and greater flexibility in securing access to the geostationary-satellite orbit and the frequency spectrum allocated to space services. It is my hope that the Senate will take early action on this matter and give its advice and consent to ratification. The White House, April 2, 1992. George Bush Nomination of Lauralee M. Peters To The President today announced his intention to nominate Lauralee M. Peters, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Sierra Leone. She would succeed Johnny Young. Currently Ms. Peters serves as a member of the Senior Seminar of the Foreign Service Institute in Washington, DC. Prior to this, she served at the U.S. Department of State as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Personnel at the Bureau of Personnel, 1989– 91; Personnel Counselor in the Office of Foreign Service Career Development and Assignments Bureau of Personnel, 1988-89; and Director of the Office of Monetary Affairs in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, 1984-86. From 1986 to 1988, Ms. Peters served as Economic Counselor for the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. Ms. Peters graduated from the University of Kansas (B.A., 1964). She was born January 28, 1943, in Monroe, NC. Ms. Peters is married, has four children, and resides in McLean, VA. Nomination of Joan M. McEntee To Be an Under Secretary of Commerce April 2, 1992 The President today announced his intention to nominate Joan M. McEntee, of New York, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration. She would suc ceed Dennis Edward Kloske. Currently Ms. McEntee serves as Acting Under Secretary of the Bureau of Export Administration at the U.S. Commerce Department. Prior to this, she served as Deputy Under Secretary for Export Administration, 1989-91; and Deputy Under Secretary for Trade Development at the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988-89. Ms. McEntee graduated from Marymount College (B.A., 1969) and the American University (M.A., 1972; J.D., 1981). She was born June 3, 1948, in New York, NY. Ms. McEntee is married, has one child, and resides in Washington, DC. Nomination of Marvin H. Kosters To Be Commissioner of Labor Statistics April 2, 1992 The President today announced his intention to nominate Marvin H. Kosters, of Virginia, to be Commissioner of Labor Statistics at the U.S. Department of Labor, for a term of 4 years. He would succeed Janet L. Norwood. Dr. Kosters has served at the American Enterprise Institute as a resident scholar and director for economic policy studies, 1987 present; director of the Center for the Study of Government Regulation, 1976–86; and a resident scholar, 1974. Prior to this, he served in the Office of the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs at the White House, 1974-75; and as an Associate Director for Economic Policy at the U.S. Cost of Living Council, 1971-1974. Dr. Kosters graduated from Calvin College (B.A., 1960) and the University of Chicago (Ph.D., 1966). He was born August 4, 1933, in Corsica, SD. Dr. Kosters served in the U.S. Army, 1953-1955. He is married, has three children, and resides in Arlington, VA. Remarks to the Federalist Society of 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 citi zens. 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. 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 Washing ton. 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 shortterm 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 policymaking 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. 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 specialinterest 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 mis |