[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 3 (Friday, January 5, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H327-H329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CARE NEEDED IN EDITING SUBMITTED EDITORIALS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hancock] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the staff that is having to 
stay here this late hour. However, I feel that this subject I want to 
talk about is of the utmost importance. It is something that has been 
bothering me for quite some time. In fact, before I came into the 
Congress, I had been in the Congress now about 7 years, I said 7 years 
ago when I first was elected that I believed in the principles of 
limited terms, and I would only serve in the Congress for a maximum of 
four terms, and then I would go back home and live under the laws we 
passed. I am doing that. This is the first time in 7 years that I have 
ever asked for time to make a special order.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in the Bill of Rights. I think that our 
Founding Fathers got some divine guidance when they drafted the 
Constitution of the United States and when they put the Bill of Rights 
in.
  The first amendment talks about the freedom of speech and the freedom 
of the press. I fully support that. I do not think that anybody would 
question that one of the great things about this country is that we are 
able to speak, to exercise our judgment, to possibly be wrong in our 
opinions. But as long as we basically are telling the truth and as long 
as we truly believe in what we are saying, then we have those rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to guess that there are other Members of 
Congress that have had a little difficulty on what they feel possibly 
is misrepresentation, that they were quoted out of context, that there 
were statements made or repeated that can be misleading.
  Where I have got the problem is a few weeks ago, in fact on December 
28, I had requested the Springfield newspaper, Springfield, MO, the 
News Leader, part of USA Today's organization, if in fact they would 
agree to publish an editorial which I wrote entitled ``The truth about 
the GOP plan to balance the budget,'' by U.S. representative Mel 
Hancock.
  This is the truth as I know it. Before I came into Congress, I could 
say, well, it is the truth. Now that I am in the Congress, well, I have 
to say it is the truth as I know it.

  They agreed to publish the editorial. The same editorial was 
submitted to practically all of the weekly papers in my district, and 
those papers reproduced the editorial word for word, no editing. The 
Springfield newspaper edited my editorial without contacting me in any 
way whatsoever. They substantially changed what the editorial had to 
say. I appreciate the fact that they did agree to publish the 
editorial, but I feel that since they did edit it, that they should 
have at least put a disclaimer acknowledging the fact that they edited 
the editorial. I am sure that there are other Members of Congress that 
have had the same thing happen to them.
  So what I want to do this evening is I am going to go over in detail 
what the editorial said and what they decided to change.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I thank the 
distinguished gentleman from the seventh district of Missouri for 
yielding, and I commend him on the valuable service that he is 
performing here. I think the gentleman is being mild in his approach, 
and I think what you are talking about is something that is of concern 
to all of us. I have had it happen before where things were taken out 
of context, and the ultimate meaning was changed. We all believe in the 
first amendment, but that is just not fair when they do that to you.
  But I want to say this about the gentleman from Missouri. I have 
served here throughout his entire tenure in the House of 
Representatives, and if there is one thing for which the gentleman from 
southwest Missouri is noted, it is his integrity and the fact that he 
endeavors to hit the nail on the head with every act that he commits. 
It is not always popular, but he does try to be accurate and correct 
and proper and appropriate. I do not believe there is anyone in this 
House who would challenge the integrity of the gentleman from Missouri.
  I just want to thank the gentleman for what he is doing here and say 
I think in the political arena, we all from time to time get carried 
away with rhetoric, and sometimes actions are committed that maybe are 
later regretted, and perhaps that happens in the media business. They 
get caught up in the politics of certain situations, and being mortals, 
as people in the media are, sometimes probably get into that political 
syndrome and forget that they have under the Constitution, under the 
first amendment, a very, very high responsibility to fairness.

  So I commend the gentleman for what he is doing.
  Mr. HANCOCK. I thank you very much. I appreciate the kind words. I 
felt like when I was elected to the Congress I came up here with a good 
reputation. I plan on leaving the Congress at the end of this term with 
a good reputation. After all, that is really all you have to leave, is 
a good reputation.
  Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield further, I would venture 
here to say I think the gentleman will leave the Congress with his 
reputation fully intact.
  Mr. HANCOCK. I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate the 
comment.

[[Page H328]]

  Let me go over in detail what happened. The first sentence said, ``It 
is a mixed bag for Republicans in Congress these days.'' The ``in 
Congress'' was edited to where it reads ``It is a mixed bag for 
Republicans these days.''
  Well, it is. Maybe that is minor, but what I was talking about on the 
truth about the GOP plan to balance the budget is that it is a mixed 
bag for Republicans in Congress these days.
  I will go ahead. ``On the one hand, we are thrilled so far with our 
legislative progress on important issues. The Republican House and 
Senate overwhelmingly passed a plan that will balance the Federal 
budget in 7 years, save the Medicare program from certain bankruptcy, 
while actually spending more on benefits to seniors and give $245 
billion in well deserved tax relief to the American people. On the 
other hand, despite this truly historic record of accomplishment.''
  They edited ``despite this truly historic record of accomplishment.'' 
That is my opinion. They evidently did not agree.
  ``Congressional Republicans are taking a beating in the polls and in 
the national news media. President Clinton and his Democrat allies in 
Congress have done an effective job of turning public opinion in their 
favor, thanks in part to the collaboration of their liberal friends in 
the national media.''
  They edited ``thanks in part to the collaboration of their liberal 
friends in the national media.''
  ``In the end, it is our responsibility to make sure that people 
understand what we are doing on their behalf, and to that end I would 
like to clear up some widespread misconceptions.''

  Despite the impression you may have been given, that was edited out.
  ``The Republican plan to balance the budget does not savagely cut 
vital programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and 
student loans. Every one of these programs will actually enjoy a hefty 
spending increase. Spending on Medicare will increase under the 
Republican plan 6.4 percent a year.'' I understand that is actually 
7.2, more than any other Government program and at twice the rate of 
inflation.
  ``The amount we spend on each Medicare recipient will go up by 
$2,300, from $4,800 to $7,100.''
  They edited out ``from $4,800.'' That is probably a minor edit.
  ``There will be no increase in deductibles or copayments, and the 
premiums will increase at the same rate as they have for 30 years. What 
is more, seniors will have more health care choices, which may mean 
lower costs for them on Medicare. And, most importantly, because of our 
reforms, the Medicare program will not go bankrupt in 2002.''
  They edited out ``and most importantly, because of our reforms,'' and 
with their editorial license, made me say, ``the Medicare program will 
not go bankrupt in 2002.'' Well, it will without the reforms.
  ``What about other programs? Under the Republican plan, Medicaid 
spending goes up from $433 billion over the last seven years to $733 
billion over the next seven years, an increase of $330 billion.''
  They took that out.

                              {time}  2230

  Food stamp funding, they took out an increase of $330 billion. Food 
stamp funding goes up from $3.4 billion to $4.2 billion, an increase of 
$800 million. That was out, an increase of $800 million.
  School lunch program funding goes up from $4.5 billion to $5.6 
billion, an increase of $1.1 billion. That increase of $1.1 billion was 
edited out.
  As for student loans, let me stop here just a second. There are, I 
think, six colleges in Springfield, MO: Southwest Missouri State 
University, Drury College, Evangel College, and several bible colleges. 
As for student loans, while our plan does save $10 billion over the 
next 7 years on that program, the only change we have made is to 
require students to make interest payments on their loans during the 6-
month grace period following graduation. Not regular loan payments, 
mind you, just interest payments.
  At the same time, under the GOP plan, 700,000 more students will be 
eligible for aid next year alone. They will still receive the same 
Federal guarantee which makes such loans possible. The taxpayers will 
still subsidize the loans by paying interest while student borrowers 
are in school and the interest rates on the loans are likely to go 
down. That was edited out, they will still receive the same Federal 
guarantee, on down to where interest rates are likely to go down.
  Republicans achieve a balanced budget, but do not cut vital programs. 
We simply hold the line on large spending increases. That sentence, we 
simply hold the line on large spending increases, was edited out. We 
slow the growth of Government spending enough for already growing 
revenues to catch up. Only a handful of boondoggle programs, and here 
again it is judgmental, like the National Endowment for the Arts, the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the AmeriCorps-paid volunteer 
program are actually cut. In truth, we could and should have gone much 
further.
  The other misconception promoted by President Clinton is that the tax 
cuts in the Republican plan only benefit the rich. In fact, the tax 
cuts in the Republican plan will benefit working families, senior 
citizens, farmers and small business owners; practically our entire 
society. Decide for yourself. That was edited out, decide for yourself.

  Consider the following provisions: A $500 per child family tax 
credit, repeal of the 1993 tax hike on Social Security benefits, 
lifting of the Social Security earnings limit on seniors, a $500 elder 
care tax credit to help families take care of elderly parents and 
grandparents, a $5,000 tax credit to help families defray the legal 
expense of an adoption, a doubling of the depreciation allowance for 
growing small businesses, and an allowance for individuals to save up 
to $2,000 a year for education, medical expenses, first-time home 
purchases or retirements.
  One provision cited by liberals as a benefit to the rich is a 50 
percent reduction in the capital gains tax, the tax on the profit from 
the sale of property. However, according to IRS figures, 77 percent of 
those who would benefit make $75,000 a year or less, helping anyone 
with a farm, a small business, real estate, or long-term investment, 
such as a retirement savings.
  The more people know the facts about the Republican plan to balance 
the budget, the more they seem to support it. The problem is very 
little of the truth has made it through the filter of the White House 
spin doctors. That was edited out. The problem is very little of the 
truth has made it through the filter of the White House spin doctors.
  While Republicans in Congress need to do a better job of 
communicating our plans to the American people, they can definitely 
count on us and conservative Democrats to stand firm in our commitment 
to balance the budget in 7 years or less and deliver long overdue tax 
relief to the American people.
  That is the entire editorial. As I mentioned, it was published by a 
lot of the newspapers word for word.
  I wrote a letter dated December 28 in which I said, ``While I am 
grateful the News Leader published my editorial on December 28, `GOP 
Plan Protects Vital Programs', you edited it quite a bit, deleting some 
important points.'' I will say that I hope that this next sentence is 
factual. ``I am certain this was done because of space restrictions and 
not to prevent me from correcting media misrepresentations about the 
Republican plan to balance the budget. Some changes were minor but the 
information on Medicare and capital gains taxes is important.''
  I will go ahead and read the entire letter into the Record. ``The 
published version of my editorial reads the Medicare Program will not 
go bankrupt in 2002. That is not correct. Unless something is done to 
reform Medicare now, the program most certainly will go bankrupt in 
2002, depriving 34 million citizens of tax supported health care.''

  ``What I said in the submitted version of my editorial was, `And most 
importantly because of our reforms, the Medicare program will not go 
bankrupt in 2002.' Because of our reforms. There is an important 
difference. Without Republican reforms, Medicare will go bankrupt. With 
them, it will be saved.''
  ``So far the President has refused to produce an alternative plan 
that will save Medicare. In my submitted editorial I also addressed 
capital gains tax cuts, the linchpin of President Clinton's argument 
that our plan benefits 

[[Page H329]]
only the rich. I wrote: `One provision cited by liberals as a benefit 
to the rich is a 50 percent reduction in the capital gains tax, a tax 
on profits from the sale of property. However, according to IRS 
figures, 77 percent of those that would benefit make $75,000 a year or 
less, helping anyone with a farm, small business, real estate or long-
term investment, such as retirement savings.'
  ``Again, thank you for publishing most of my original editorial and 
allowing me to share these additional points with your readers.''
  I was hoping that they publish this letter. As of to date it has not 
been published.
  Anybody can be wrong in their judgment. They can be wrong in their 
opinion. But I truly believe that any time the fourth estate decides to 
take it upon themselves to edit pieces that they have the option of not 
publishing at all, if they are going to edit, I feel they have the 
obligation to go back to the person that wrote it. If they are not 
going to do that, then I think they should put a notice on the letter 
to the editor, the op ed piece or what have you, that it has been 
edited. I think it is only fair.
  I know I have had lots of people write letters to the editor and send 
me a copy of it. Then when I read it in the paper, it is not even close 
to what they wrote, but yet there is nothing in that paper that says 
that it has been edited.
  I am sure that almost every Member of Congress and a lot of people 
understand exactly what I am talking about, and I would ask the 
editors, the publishers of newspapers, on their own, to make it a 
policy that they never edit on anything that is submitted to them; that 
they never edit without going back to the person that wrote it, give 
them a chance to either correct it or at least, if they do edit it, to 
do like most books will say if a book is edited. It will say on that 
book, edited by some individual.

  I think it is only fair. I think that failure to do that, actually, 
denies, in effect, the citizen's right of the first amendment, which is 
the right of free speech. I feel that the No. 1 thing that makes the 
difference of where we are in this day and age is that we have almost 
instant communication through the television, radio, and daily 
newspaper. Without that, 200 years ago I do not know whether this 
country or any other country could withstand the things that are going 
on now because their citizens would not have been informed that it very 
well could be too late.
  I think we are dependent upon instant communication and communicating 
with our citizens, informing them. Disagree with the opinion, that is 
fine. Do not publish it, but do not edit it. Because, in effect, that 
writer is denied his or her right of free speech.
  Naturally, I guess somebody that wanted to be a little facetious 
could say, well, buy your own newspaper. Well, maybe. I think we have 
an obligation, and I would hope that we could get a voluntary 
commitment, because without a voluntary commitment, I think that even 
though I am one that says we ought to repeal a lot of laws instead of 
passing a lot of laws, I would have to recommend and introduce 
legislation that would require by law what we just talked about; either 
do not publish it, notify the writer that it has been edited and get 
their approval first, or put a disclaimer on it.
  I think that is only fair and I think that supports the first 
amendment rights of individual citizens, and I think that it is 
essential that we are able to communicate and inform the people that 
are counting on the media to tell them the truth. That is all I am 
asking.
  Mr. Speaker, I apologize again to the staff for having to stay while 
I talked about what I think is one of the most serious things that can 
happen. If we cannot count on our media to be accurate, this country 
has got serious troubles.

                          ____________________