[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.
____________________