April 14, 2000

Remarks by Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle
to the National Newspaper Association's Annual Government Affairs Conference

Thank you, Brian for those kind words. Now, if you could just repeat them on your editorial page. It's good to see you and Roxann here in Washington.

I'm also happy to see two other friends from home: Dave and Cherie Bordewyk. Dave is the general manager of the South Dakota Newspaper Association.

This past weekend, I was thinking about what I would say today. I decided to look through the latest issue of Publishers' Auxiliary - which was an outstanding issue, by the way.

I was reading the articles all about circulation trends, privacy, and postal rates. Then I got to the classifieds. Right there, in the "papers for sale" section, I read this ad: "FLORIDA KEYS -- Successful weekly with strong advertising base. Rare opportunity to live and work in paradise."

I have to tell you, for a minute, it looked very tempting. Then I thought about how hard it is to run a weekly newspaper -- all the skills it requires, all the time it takes, all the headaches. And I decided, I'm going to keep my day job. Compared to how hard you work, my job is paradise.

I know how much time you give to your jobs, and your communities. You are all very busy people. I want to thank you for taking the time to come to Washington and participate in the political process.

Congress is debating some big questions right now. We're struggling with decisions that will have a profound effect on the newspaper industry, and on our entire nation -- for years to come. We need to hear your thoughts on these questions because -- as I've learned over the years -- if you want to know what Americans really care about, you ask the people who run the local papers.

The great playwright Arthur Miller may have put it best. He said: "A great newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself."

Whenever I visit a town in South Dakota -- almost without fail -- the first place I stop is the local paper. In five minutes of talking with reporters and editors, I know what's happening in town, and how people feel about it.

That's one of the reasons community papers are so important. In an age of globalization and homogenization, when so many towns look increasingly alike, weeklies remind us what is unique about our communities. They help give communities a sense of identity. They help communities exchange ideas, and make decisions. And they help build local economies.

My mother lives in Aberdeen, South Dakota - population 25,000. She's our unofficial family archivist. I think she has every newspaper story I've ever been mentioned in. She also has clip files on my three brothers. Now, none of my brothers has ever run for public office. They're not involved in politics. But they are involved in their communities.

That's another reason weekly papers are important, and why your circulation numbers keep going up while major metropolitan dailies are losing readers -- or folding altogether: Community papers cover people and events that larger papers often don't. They also provide people with important, practical information that larger papers often don't -- everything from local road construction schedules to the weekly lunch menu at the local school.

Community papers help put big stories in context. They help people understand how national and even international events effect their lives.

I am a firm believer in the First Amendment. I believe freedom of the press is an essential part of the genius of America's experiment in democracy, and a huge part of the reason the experiment has succeeded. I think government should stay out of newsrooms. That doesn't mean, however, that government has no interest in the success of newspapers. To the contrary, a democratic government needs strong, independent newspapers in order to survive.

So, I believe Washington has a responsibility -- not to dictate content, but to make sure you are able to compete in a fair market. That's what I'd like to talk about today: What can Congress do to protect your right to compete fairly?

To begin with, we should insist that any postal reform bill that passes this Congress includes an absolute, iron-clad commitment to maintain universal service.

I share your concern about increasing postal rates and the effect they could have on community newspapers. This is a huge concern in South Dakota. We have 141 newspapers in our state; 130 of them are weeklies -- nearly all of which rely on the Postal Service to reach their subscribers. They need postal service that is timely, affordable and absolutely reliable. As you know, a newspaper that costs more to print than it does to buy, or that gets to your house a week late, isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Last year when I spoke with you, we all had concerns about HR 22, the postal reform bill. Today, because of the leadership and flexibility of the National Newspaper Association, a number of longstanding differences on HR 22 have now been resolved.

We now have a bill that will enable the Postal Service to remain competitive for years to come -- without huge rate hikes that would hurt smaller community papers. That's a big deal. It couldn't have happened without the NNA, and I'm here to thank you.

Now we need to pass it. I hope the House will act on HR 22 soon. After they do, we should take it up in the Senate.

If Congress fails to pass H.R. 22 this year, not only will we have to start all over again next year, but Chairman McHugh, who has worked on this issue for years and is the leading advocate for reform, will no longer be chairman of the House Subcommittee on Postal Service. Committee. That could slow momentum.

Too many people have worked too hard for too many years to get us to the point where we are now. We can't squander this opportunity. Now that we've finally got a balanced bill, we need to pass it. This year.

A second issue Congress is looking at, that concerns you, is the whole area of Internet regulation and taxation. This is a hot topic on the Hill these days. It's sort of the "IPO" of politics.

As you know, there are a lot of proposals already, and there will be more soon. Rather than commenting on any specific proposal, let me speak generally.

On the issue of Internet regulation, I think less is better. I believe the First Amendment applies in cyberspace, just as it does in the rest of America.

At the same time, I also believe in the fundamental right of privacy. Some of the reports we've seen already about things like identity theft, and misuse of personal financial and medical information on the Internet, are deeply troubling. We need to find a way to balance and protect both rights: speech and privacy.

Balance is also critical when it comes to Internet taxation. I think we need to be extremely careful. On the one hand, information technology clearly is the engine that's driving our economy, and we shouldn't do anything to jeopardize its growth unnecessarily.

On the other hand, in small towns all across South Dakota, Main Street is dotted with family-run businesses that are barely hanging on as it is. They can't afford one more competitive disadvantage. And there are people like them in every small town in America.

There's also the effect on state and local governments. If there were a permanent ban on Internet taxation, what impact would it have on the ability of local and state governments to deliver basic services? If we did tax Internet sales, can the myriad of local and state tax laws be simplified to make collection manageable?

Congress has a responsibility to look closely at any reasonable proposals anyone makes. But I do not expect Congress is prepared to approve any major Internet legislation this year. Frankly, I think Congress's learning curve on these issues is still pretty steep. I think we would be wise to learn more before we make major decisions.

That's why I appointed a Senate Democratic Privacy Task Force, chaired by Senator Pat Leahy. I've asked the task force to look closely at three areas -- medical, financial and online privacy -- and make recommendations about what, if anything, Congress should do on these areas.

I'd like to hear your thoughts, too. Whatever we do, we need to make sure we do it right.

A third issue that could come before Congress again this year is tax deductibility for advertising.

Let me just say: I agree with you. Advertising is a legitimate and necessary business expense. It should remain tax-deductible. And government should not discriminate on the basis of editorial content. Period.

So, those are three things Washington can do to help community papers: pass a balanced postal reform bill; proceed wisely on issues involving the Internet; and continue to treat advertising as the legitimate business expense it is.

There is one more thing we need to do, one more decision we need to make, that will affect community papers -- possibly more than all three of these issues combined.

That is: What should we do with the federal budget surplus?

After 30 years of running deficits, and trying to figure out how to get rid of deficits, you'd think that deciding what to do with a budget surplus would be easy. It is not. There is a huge difference of opinion on the Hill.

Many of us believe -- as most of the American people do -- that we ought to use the surplus first to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, so we can avoid a Baby Boomer retirement crisis; add a Medicare prescription drug benefit; and pay down our national debt -- so we can stop wasting $600 million a day in interest payments.

We should use part of the surplus for tax cuts.

In 1997, we increased the inheritance tax exemption for family-owned businesses from $600,000 to $1 million. That was the right thing to do. We have a surplus now. We should provide additional inheritance tax-relief for family-owned businesses.

We also support targeted tax cuts for working families - to help them with real needs like child care, college tuition, and caring for an older parent.

Finally, we should invest part of the surplus in America's future - in good schools, medical research and health care, clean air and water, in law enforcement, roads and bridges -- all the things it takes to keep a country strong

Republicans in Congress have a different plan. They've spent this week trying to iron out differences in two slightly different budget plans they passed last week in the House and Senate. Unfortunately, it appears the only progress they've made has been from bad to worse.

We haven't seen their final plan yet. But reports are that it will spend every dime of the non-Social Security surplus on tax cuts.

There would be nothing left in the surplus to extend the solvency or Social Security or Medicare - or add a Medicare prescription drug benefit; and nothing left to invest in education, health care or other critical priorities.

Not only do they not plan to use the surplus to reduce the federal debt -- in order to pay for their tax cut, Republicans would have to increase the debt, or raid Social Security, or make deep cuts in virtually the entire federal budget.

The Republicans' budget does not maintain the fiscal discipline that is at the heart of our current economic expansion. And, it does not reflect the priorities of the American people.

We are committed to working with them to produce a more balanced plan. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We need to seize it. We need to expand this economic recovery, not kill it by spending more than the entire surplus on tax cuts.

The last time our nation made decisions of the magnitude we are debating today was during the depths of the Great Depression. Today, more than 60 years later, no one can deny those decisions still have a profound effect on all of us.

The consequences of the decisions we make now about the surplus are likely to last just as long, and be just as profound -- for better or worse.

In other words, they are exactly the kinds of decisions we need to make as a nation. And that gets back to the unique and indispensable role of newspapers.

More than 200 years ago, then-Vice President John Adams wrote in a letter to his wife, Abigail: "I read my eyes out and can't read half enough ... the more one reads, the more one sees we have to read." That is even more true today.

There is going to be a lot of debate over the next several months about what our choices are when it comes to the surplus, and what the consequences of those choices will be. I hope your papers will sort through the claims and present the choices to your readers in a way that will enable them to make informed decisions.

I am confident that you can spark that discussion. And I am equally confident that when they are given the facts, this generation of Americans, like the generation before us, will choose to invest in the future. We are still a nation whose best days are yet to come.

Thank you all.