[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Number 12 (Monday, March 26, 2001)]
[Pages 483-489]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to the National Newspaper Association Government Affairs 
Conference

March 22, 2001

    The President. Thanks for coming, and thanks for having me. Diane, I 
appreciate so very much the invitation. Ken, thank you for escorting me 
up here. And Jerry, thank you

[[Page 484]]

for that kind introduction. I do remember the Fourth of July parade. I 
remember how hot it was. And next time, let's make it a Christmas 
parade. [Laughter] He comes from a great town in a State I love a lot.
    You said you never thought you would be introducing me the last time 
you saw me. But I can assure you, in 1978 when I was running for the 
U.S. Congress and you were running the newspaper in Lamb County, Texas, 
you certainly didn't think you would be introducing me as President--
[laughter]--because you had that funny feeling I wasn't even going to 
win the race for the U.S. Congress, which was true. [Laughter] It's 
amazing how life works.
    One of the interesting things I did learn in that race, we had a lot 
of little bitty counties in far west Texas. And Jerry ran one of the 
newspapers; he worked for a man named James Roberts. Maybe some of you 
all got to know James over time. He's a fine, distinguished Texan. Lord 
rest his soul.
    But he owned a string of little newspapers, in Andrews and Lamb 
County, and I think maybe in Muleshoe, Texas. And I can remember 
knocking on the doors of the newspapers when I was traveling the 
district. It was a magnificent place to learn about what was going on in 
each county. It gave me a chance to get a feel for what the people were 
really all about. I got to hear the gossip, got to maybe spread a little 
good news on my side. But I came away with a deep respect for the small 
newspapers that dominate the landscape of America. There's a real sense 
of community when you walk into those newspapers and sit down with the 
publishers and the editors and the writers. It's really the best of 
America in many ways.
    I sound somewhat nostalgic about those days. I'm loving what I'm 
doing. It's interesting that I'm doing it, in spite of the fact that my 
first race for public office I came in second in a two-man race. 
[Laughter] Life has its interesting twists and turns. Life is 
unpredictable. But it turns out if you aim, work hard, and treat people 
with respect, keep your priorities straight, life can turn out pretty 
good. And it certainly has for me. I'm honored to be your President. I'm 
honored to be here to discuss some issues that are important to our 
country.
    I want to thank my friend Tommy Thompson for having been here. Tommy 
is serving our Nation very well as the important Cabinet position. I got 
to know Tommy as a Governor. You got to know him as a Governor. And he's 
a fine man. He represents the kind of Cabinet I've put together--
distinguished citizens, all of whom are here to serve our country, all 
of whom have put aside their personal comforts to do what's right for 
America.
    I appreciate my friend Roy Blunt. I understand he's coming or has 
been here--a Member of the United States Congress, a fellow I'm working 
closely with to try to get some legislation through the legislative 
process.
    I want to talk about a couple of things, and then I'd like to weave 
issues in, in context of the budget that I presented to the Congress. 
It's important for opinionmakers such as yourself to hear my side of the 
budget.
    See, there's a lot of folks in Washington that would like to send 
out information that might cloud the picture so that they get to keep 
more of the taxpayers' money here in Washington. We're in the midst of a 
big debate, and it's a healthy debate, as to what to do with the 
people's money. That's what the budget is all about. Remember, the 
context I come from, though, is not to do with what to do with the 
Government's money; it's what to do with the people's money. All the 
talk about the surplus as the Government's money misses the point. They 
forget who pay the bills. Those who say that the surplus is the 
Government's money, forget where it comes from. And one of the things 
I'm not going to forget is where it comes from; I'm going to remember 
where it comes from. It comes from hard-working people. It comes from 
entrepreneurs, small-business owners, hardworking folks who pay the 
bills for this Government.
    So we sent up a commonsense budget to the Congress. I say common 
sense because it sets priorities. When you run your businesses, you set 
priorities. That's sometimes the definition of success, is somebody who 
figures out how to set priorities and stay on those priorities. And 
that's what we did; we set some clear priorities. We funded public 
education, increased the funding of public education. It's the biggest 
increase of any Department in my budget.

[[Page 485]]

    Now, lest you forget where I came from, it's one thing to provide 
money at the Federal level, but I can assure you I'm a strong supporter 
of local control of schools. I believe that the best way to run the 
schools is to trust the local people. So we're increasing spending, but 
we're going to also increase power at the local level. One size does not 
fit all when it comes to the education of the children in America. We've 
got to have local control of schools; we've got to align authority and 
responsibility at the local level. And I'm working with Congress to do 
that.
    But one of the cornerstones of reform for education is to hold 
people accountable for results. I'm a strong believer that in return for 
the receipt of taxpayers' money, States and local jurisdictions must 
develop accountability systems to tell us whether or not children can 
read. It's in your best interests, by the way, that we have a literate 
tomorrow. You're irrelevant if people can't read. [Laughter] And we need 
to start figuring out whether they can or cannot, early in a child's 
career. And so, the only way to do that is to measure.
    Now, I'm against a national test because a national test would 
undermine local curriculum and local control of schools. But I am for 
saying, ``In return for money, show us--show us whether or not children 
can read and write and add and subtract.'' Hold people accountable. Use 
the accountability system not as a way to punish but as a way to correct 
problems early, before it's too late.
    And you mark my words, when you have a system based upon the 
principles of high accountability and high--of high standards and strong 
accountability and local control of schools, children will learn. And 
that's what this country needs. They need an education system that's 
responsive, results- oriented, that focuses on each child as a child, 
that challenges the process-oriented system that asks the question, 
``How old are you? Oh, if you're 10, we'll just put you here. And if 
you're 14, you go here. And if you're 16, you go here.'' It's time in 
America we start asking the question, ``What do you know?'' And if you 
don't know what you're supposed to know, we're all going to come 
together to make sure you do, early, before it's too late.
    I'm so confident that we can achieve what we all want, an educated 
tomorrow. And it starts with having systems in place, systems in place 
that encourage reform, based upon accountability.
    Another priority in the budget I sent is more pay for the military. 
I am concerned about morale and the troops. It was a big issue during 
the course of the campaign. I said, if you give me a chance to be the 
President, we'll begin by increasing morale two ways. One is, pay people 
more money. So, in our budget--we've increased the budget that I've 
submitted to Congress for better pay and better housing. And two, to 
have a Commander in Chief, who will clarify the mission of the U.S. 
military. And the mission of the United States military is to have our 
troops well prepared and well trained, to be ready to fight and win war 
and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. The 
mission of the military must be focused, and the job of the Commander in 
Chief is to focus that mission. And that's what I've done.
    There will be a lot of talk on Capitol Hill about increasing 
military budgets, and my answer is, let's make sure we have a strategic 
plan before we do so. Let's have a blueprint of what the future ought to 
look like. Let's make sure--not only make sure morale is high today, but 
as we begin to spend on weapons systems, let's make sure they fit into a 
plan so we can keep the peace as we go down the road. Many of the 
decisions that are made in the Defense Department today will affect how 
the military looks like 20 to 30 years from now. And I want to make sure 
that money is wisely spent and focused on how to keep the peace in the 
long run.
    Another priority is retirement systems of Americans. And so the 
budget I set up says the payroll taxes are only going to be spent on one 
thing, and that's Social Security--that the Congress won't be using the 
payroll taxes for other programs. So--lockbox, I think, is the 
terminology they like to use up here. [Laughter] Rest assured, it's set 
aside only for Social Security.
    And later on in the year, we're going to begin the process of 
debating how to make sure the Social Security System works as we go down 
the road. One of the things that--I went to a senior citizen center 
yesterday

[[Page 486]]

in Orlando, Florida, home of the great Governor Bush. [Laughter] And a 
couple of folks said there, ``Now, you're not going to be messing with 
my Social Security check.'' They didn't quite put it that eloquently. 
[Laughter] But I said, no.
    Every time there's a campaign, there's a lot of noise and ads and 
stuff that try to frighten people into the voting booths. And by setting 
aside all the money that goes into Social Security for only Social 
Security, we can assure folks who rely upon Social Security that they're 
going to get their check.
    But the fundamental question is, what happens to the younger 
workers, younger folks in America? Will there be a system available for 
them? And one of the things that we're going to start thinking about and 
encourage a lot of debate about is this notion about letting younger 
workers take some of their own money, some of their own payroll taxes, 
and invest them in the private markets to get a better rate of return on 
the money than we get now under the Social Security Trust.
    You see, we've got to get a better rate of return on payroll taxes. 
Otherwise, there's not going to be enough people putting money in the 
system, compared to those who are taking it out of the system. I'm 
willing to think differently on the issue and encourage others to do so 
up here, as well.
    Health care is a priority in our budget. We double the number, if we 
put enough money aside, double the number of folks who will be served by 
what's called community health centers. Perhaps you've got a community 
health center in your neighborhood. These are fundamentally important 
health care, delivery systems that enable the indigent, or other folks 
who are struggling with health care, to be able to get primary care. 
These are good programs, and it's an effective part of the delivery of 
health care.
    We double the Medicare budget in the budget I submitted to the 
United States Congress. We've increased funding so we can double the NIH 
budget by 2003, from when that initiative first started. There's a lot 
of programs that we focus on.
    We increase discretionary spending by 4 percent. That's greater than 
the rate of inflation. It's probably greater than the pay raises you 
gave the people working for you. It's a pretty healthy increase. But the 
problem is, they're not used to that kind of fiscal responsibility in 
Washington. The discretionary spending at the end of last year increased 
by 8 percent.
    So you've got a new President who comes to town and says, ``Why 
don't we be fiscally responsible with the people's money? Why don't we, 
instead of increasing spending by 8 percent, be reasonable, take a 
commonsense approach? Not try to be all things to all people at the 
Federal level.'' And that's where the squawking started. That's where 
people started getting nervous, because fiscal-responsible spending is 
something that they're not used to. But it's important. It's important 
to be responsible with the money. My point to you is, we can make 
priorities. Four percent of a budget that we're talking about of 
billions of dollars is a lot of money.
    Now, there's a lot of talk about paying down debt, and we do so. The 
budget I submitted pays down $2 trillion of debt over a 10-year period 
of time. One of the things I want to try to remind Congress to think 
about is, there's not only debt at the national level; there's a lot of 
folks in your communities who have got credit card debt. There's all 
kinds of debt. And we pay down debt at the national level, but it's 
important to also remember, there are people struggling to get ahead, 
particularly with energy bills going up, the economy slowing down. We've 
got personal debt. And with people's money, it seems like, to me, we 
ought to encourage them to be able to manage their own accounts with 
some of their own money back.
    I also am aware that sometimes things don't go as planned. So in the 
budget we submitted, there's one trillion over 10 years for 
contingencies. Now, you're probably saying to yourself, ``He's talking 
about a lot of money,'' and I am. But incredibly enough, after meeting 
priorities and by slowing down discretionary spending to 4 percent and 
paying down debt and putting aside contingency money, there's still 
money left over--about $1.6 trillion. And the fundamental question is, 
what to do with it?
    And the debate is this: Do we increase the baselines of our budgets, 
or do we understand where the money came from and let

[[Page 487]]

the people keep it? I stand squarely on the side of letting the people 
keep it. I think it is so important for a couple of reasons: One, more 
money in people's pockets--more money in people's pockets will help 
provide a second wind for our economy; and, two, I trust people with 
their own money. I trust them more than I trust the Federal Government 
to make decisions on their behalf.
    There is a fundamental, philosophical divide in Washington. It's 
basically, who do you trust? Who do you trust? I used to travel the 
country, and every time I'd go somewhere, there would be tax families at 
a stop. And I would say, well, so-and-so Smith family. And they would 
say, well, they pay, $3,000 of Federal income taxes, and under our plan 
in which everybody who pays taxes gets relief, they're going to save 
$2,000--that would be the example, say. And I would say, who would you 
rather spend the money? Once you meet priorities in Washington, DC, the 
debate is, who would you rather spend their $2,000, the Smith family or 
the Federal Government? And I'm coming down on the side of the family 
every time, and that's what the debate is about.
    We've got pretty good cash flow coming into the Treasury. In spite 
of the fact the economy is slowing down in the first 4 months of the 
year, the cash flow was $40 billion more than anticipated--$40 billion 
more. It sounds like, to me, somebody is getting overcharged. And I'm 
asking Congress for the refund for the people, and that's what the 
debate is.
    And so, the tax plan we submitted is based upon some principles, as 
well. First of all, you will hear a lot of talk up here about targeted 
tax cuts. Basically, what that says is, Congress wants to decide who 
gets a tax cut and who doesn't, obviously. They want to decide who the 
winners are and who is not a winner when it comes to tax relief. That is 
not my view of Government.
    My view of Government is that everybody who pays taxes ought to get 
tax relief, that the United States Congress nor the Federal Government 
should try to say, okay, you pay, but you don't get anything, and you 
pay, and you do. That's not my vision of fairness and fair play when it 
comes to the Federal Government. So everybody who pays gets relief.
    We drop all rates, and we simplify the code. Instead of five rates, 
there's four rates. We drop the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 
percent and increase the child credit from $500 to $1,000 per child. 
That's a very important part of the reform, because the Tax Code we have 
today is incredibly unfair to people who are struggling--what I like to 
call struggling--on the outskirts of poverty, people who are working 
hard to get to the middle class. And under this Tax Code--take the 
example of the single mother making $22,000 a year. The lady is raising 
two children. First of all, she has got the toughest job in America. And 
secondly, under her circumstances, for every additional dollar she 
earns, she pays a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone who 
is successful. She starts to lose earned-income tax credit. She pays the 
15-percent bracket, and she pays payroll tax. The marginal rate on her 
additional dollar is nearly 50 percent. And that is not fair. That's not 
what America is about. America is, the harder you work, the easier the 
middle class ought to become, and the more money you get to keep. And by 
dropping the bottom rate and increasing the child credit, we make the 
code much more fair to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. 
And I think there's universal agreement about that point here in 
Washington.
    I also strongly believe we need to cut all rates, including the top 
rate, from 39.6 to 33 percent. And there's a lot of rhetoric about that. 
I'm sure you've heard it. But it's very important for Congress to 
understand this fact: Most small businesses in America are 
unincorporated, or Subchapter S's. Most small businesses pay at the 39.6 
percent rate. And by dropping the top rate to 33 percent, we stimulate 
small businesses in America; we encourage entrepreneurship.
    One of the things I like to tell people is, the role of Government 
is not to create wealth. The role of Government is to create an 
environment in which the entrepreneur or the small-business owner can 
flourish. That's the role of Government. And dropping the top rate will 
provide more cash flow for small-business owners to be able to invest, 
to buy new printers, to employ more people.
    Now, I've heard the rhetoric, but they're missing the point. The 
point is, how do we

[[Page 488]]

encourage growth, particularly when the economy is beginning to slow 
down. And a good way to do so is to drop that top rate.
    We also have got two other reforms that I want to mention to you. 
One is, we do something about the marriage penalty. Our Tax Code taxes 
marriages. It doesn't--I mean, penalizes marriage. It doesn't make any 
sense; so mitigate what the marriage penalty does. And we also eliminate 
the death tax.
    I want to quote one of your own--publisher from Eufala, Alabama, the 
Tribune--Joel Smith. I hope I'm--if Joel is here, I hope I'm not 
embarrassing you. But sometimes, when we say things, words come back to 
haunt us. [Laughter] Well, not exactly haunt, in this case. [Laughter] 
Here's what he wrote: ``I hope the President and Congress will repeal 
the death tax and help my family keep publishing our 72-year-old, twice-
weekly newspaper.'' That's what he said. He represents the sentiments of 
hundreds of Americans who work hard to build up their asset base, with 
the dream of being able to pass it on to a family member.
    It doesn't matter whether you're a newspaper publisher or a farmer 
or a rancher or a small-business person. Many folks have got the dream 
of working hard as they can to build up an asset base and to have the 
pleasure of knowing a family member is going to run the newspaper or 
manage the farm. And yet, our Tax Code makes it awfully hard for people 
to realize that dream. The death tax is unfair. It is unfair to tax a 
person's assets twice. And it's not fair to prevent people from passing 
their own business, their own property from one generation to the next. 
We've go to get rid of the death tax.
    And so that's the rationale of the budget I submitted. And we're 
making progress, I think. It used to be, ``Well, we're never going to 
have any tax relief.'' And now, the discussion is, how much and how 
soon. And as far as I'm concerned, the sooner, the better. And I look 
forward to working with both Republicans and Democrats to get this done. 
This is the right thing for America. It's the right thing for our 
country to have meaningful, real, fair tax relief.
    There are a lot of other issues that, of course, I'm involved with. 
One of the biggest issues is, changing the tone in our Nation's Capital. 
It's not really an issue like we know it. It's not the kind of thing 
that requires a piece of legislation but does require an attitude, and 
it starts with the President.
    We need more respect in our Nation's Capital. We need people that 
respect other's opinions. I used to remember looking up at Washington 
from Austin, Texas, and thinking about, surely there's a better way to 
have discourse on important issues than without the name calling and 
finger pointing and unnecessary politics on important issues that affect 
the people.
    One of my hopes--and I believe we're making progress--is to convince 
people of both parties to treat each other with respect. And it starts 
with the President being respectful of somebody else's opinion. I hope 
that by changing the tone in Washington, we can change the tone in other 
places around the country, too, where we can prove that there can be 
respectful disagreement.
    I know you and your newspapers try to do that all the time. You put 
out opinions, and you do so in a way that I'm confident is respectful. 
And it's important. It's important for our country to be a nation that 
honors--that respects other people's opinions. That's what democracy 
should be all about.
    We're not all the same. We don't always agree, but we can do so in a 
way that brings honor to the process. And it's important to do that, as 
well, because our system is only as good as those who are willing to 
participate. And I hope--my hope of hopes is, once my stay is through up 
here--and by the way, I'm heading back to Texas once it's over--I hope 
somebody says, ``Well, you know, I think I might try to enter the public 
arena. I'd like to try to serve my country.'' You don't have to try to 
serve your country as the President; you can serve your country as a 
school board member or as a county commissioner. There's all kinds of 
ways to serve our Nation.
    It's important for those of us who have got the high honor and 
responsibility of public service to remember that there's something more 
than personal ambition involved. We have a responsibility to set a tone 
and to call upon the best. And that's my pledge to you. You may not 
agree with my budget or how I'm approaching things, but when it's all 
said

[[Page 489]]

and done, I think you will agree with how I conduct myself in public 
office. It's a big responsibility.
    I think there's a second change taking place up here. On the one 
hand, we've got a culture of respect developing; another is a culture of 
achievement. We're beginning to get some things done. Again, people may 
not agree with some of the things that are happening, but for example, 
the other day I signed a Senate resolution to change the ergonomic 
rules. Both Republicans and Democrats came together. Some people liked 
it; some people didn't like it; but nevertheless, it happened quickly. 
It's a good piece of public policy, as far as I was concerned. It's the 
ability for our Government to analyze regulations and to put a cost-
benefit analysis to them. And the cost in this case looked far to exceed 
the benefits, and therefore, Congress acted.
    I believe we're going to see that happen. I believe people--that 
there's going to be a culture of success and results. My job as your 
President is to share success, is to say to both parties that are 
involved, ``Come together and get some things done.'' And I'll do my 
best to explain to the people that you were involved.
    See, there's a time for politics, and there's a time for policy. And 
the way I view it is, once you get sworn in, that the politics is over. 
In my case, it took a little longer. [Laughter] And now it's time to do 
the people's business. And I believe we're making progress.
    I want to thank both the Republicans and the Democrats who are 
joining in this effort. I hope America's taking notice. It's the right 
thing to do, and it's the right way to conduct the people's business. 
I'm honored you let me come by to visit with you. I'm honored to be your 
President.
    God bless you all.

[At this point, the President was presented with a T-shirt.]

    The President. It will play good in Crawford, Texas. [Laughter]

Note: The President spoke at 10:47 a.m. in the Regency Ballroom at the 
Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill. In his remarks, he referred to 
Diane Everson, president, Kenneth H. Rhoades, vice president, and Jerry 
Tidwell, board member, National Newspaper Association; and Gov. Jeb Bush 
of Florida.