Forum 22; Town Meeting with Congressman Al Gore

Forum 22, a WCTETV public affairs presentation dealing with topical issues of interest and concern to residents of the Upper Cumberland region. And now our moderator, Terry Anderson Judd. Good evening and welcome to Forum 22. Tonight we're doing something a little bit different on Forum 22. We're having a town meeting, or shall I say Al Gore, a congressman in the Sixth District is having a town meeting here with us. We will be joined with Al along with Kevin Donaldson, who is editor of the Clay Citizen, Donald Farmer of the Dispatch, and he's also state correspondent, the Tennessean, and Joy Beard, the Herald Citizen. Congressman Gore, I'm glad you could come despite our very bad weather. Well, thank you. I'm glad to be here. What those on in your television audience don't know is that you thought I was going to be late and I just came in literally about 20

seconds ago. Let me say for those listening and watching live that the roads are extremely hazardous. I just came from an open meeting in Watertown, Tennessee, in Wilson County. And there were a large number of people there who wanted to talk to me and I got away a little late and it was slow going on the interstate. But I'm glad to be here and I wish to thank you and the station for this opportunity. Normally when I have an open meeting, I walk in and say anyone who has a personal problem stick around until later and we'll talk about it. But first I want to have an open discussion of the issues and problems facing the country and the Congress. And I'm grateful for this opportunity to carry on that kind of discussion in a slightly different format in a way that will allow your listening audience to participate. And I hope that those who feel that this is a useful way to make representative democracy work better will come to other

open meetings in person at some point in the future. Congressman, let me start the questioning. First you're going to be barraged by those of us who call ourselves journalists. And then we're going to be going into our studio audience. They are going to ask their questions. We're also going to have phone lines open so that our audience may call in and ask their question. So a little bit later in our program, we'll give that number and then you're going to get quite a few questions from your constituents in this area. Let me start with the fact that we are dealing with a 10 .8 % joblessness rate. The fact that that translates into 12 million people unemployed. Would you consider the economic issue and the joblessness rate the greatest problem that you're going to be confronting this year? Yes, that's the biggest problem facing the country. But when you say unemployment is the biggest problem, you shouldn't mislead people into believing that it's not also related to

the larger economic problems of which unemployment is a part. It is the most tragic symptom of the economic decline in this country. And it must be remedied. Now, much of the problem is going to require a longer term remedy. But the pain and anguish caused by unemployment at these levels is so great that we must attack it immediately. We must put people back to work. And you're going to see some initiatives taken by the Congress in this early in this session. Already, the President has seen the handwriting on the wall and is talking in the press about, I noticed in this morning's news media, that he said he might propose, change his mind and propose some programs to put people back to work. I hope that he does, because in the Congress we will not

be able to make a lot of progress unless we can find some common ground and create a compromise approach between the Congress and the President. Simple fact is power is divided in our government between the political parties. And if we're going to make progress in these next two years, we're going to have to find a way to work together. So I'm encouraged by the President's comments yesterday. I'll allow myself one more question and then I'm going to share you. When you say that it is only a minor part of the entire economic problem. I didn't quite say that. No, I think it is the major part. It's the biggest problem that we face. What I tried to say is that it is not a simple problem. Well, jobs program work. Are you going to initiate something? I think it will. What type? Well, I think the best type would be to take those projects that have already been approved by governments around the country. We know they're going to be

done at some point in the future. We know they're worthwhile and need to be done. Let's speed up the timetable and do them now while so many people are out of work. I think that's a useful place to begin. But what I was trying to say a moment ago is that while we pass jobs programs and put people back to work, let's don't lose sight of the fact that issues like the declining industrial base, the declining world trade, the fact that we're not exporting as much as we should, the fact that we're not making the investment we should in new high tech industries, let's don't lose sight of the fact that we need better job training programs and that a lot of jobs are shifting from the older industries into new different kinds of jobs. These are the longer term aspects of the same problem, unemployment, which

is the number one problem. Thank you for clarifying that for me. helps substantially. Ms. Beard, I think we'll start with you if you'd like to ask a question. Congressman Gore, during your six years in Congress, you've taken an active role in many issues and become involved on many fronts. From infant formulas to nuclear waste, from contact lenses solution to big oil profits, what do you think, what do you think have been the most service to the people of your district of Tennessee and of the nation? Well, that's, that's a thoughtful question. I know what I have enjoyed the most and that is creating a means for a constant and continuing dialogue about all of these issues. I have held on average four open meetings every single week for the past six years. And from year to year, the issues have changed somewhat, but because of the willingness of people to come and share their ideas and suggestions, I've been

able to take the people's viewpoint on a broad range of issues. Now, if you wanted me to characterize the, or put into a priorities, the problems that I've worked on, where I think I have done the most good, that would be hard to do as a member of the Economic Task Force in the House of Representatives, and this is something that really hasn't, doesn't get a lot of publicity necessarily. But I have been a part of a small group that has written a comprehensive blueprint for economic recovery that is now going to be adopted by the Democratic Party, the party to which I belong, as a prescription for getting this country out of the economic doldrums. And I guess I have felt that I've gotten more done on that and I'm looking forward to its impact. I would also mention the problem of arms control. This is an issue that people don't really talk about a lot, because it's, well, I think it's

unpleasant to think about, really. But really, when you ask anybody about it, people are concerned about it, and they want to see that problem dealt with responsibly and persistently. And I have devoted a great deal of time and effort to that problem, and I think I've made a contribution there. Thank you. Donald? There's a lot of talk about the need to put Tennesseans to work and create more jobs, but I hear more and more talk about the type of job training that's available in Tennessee, and there seems to be a lot of complaints that there isn't enough of the high technology training in Tennessee that is available in some other states. Do you think that more emphasis should be put in the future on making available in Tennessee's educational institutions, more of this high technology training so Tennesseans can compete for these high tech jobs? I definitely do. I think that, really, it needs to start before the vocational institutes, it needs to start in the school system. I think we need to do a better job across the board with education here in the state of Tennessee. This has been a problem that has gone

unattacked for too long, parents, and I'm a parent of four children myself in public schools, and parents are concerned about this, they have a right to be concerned about it, because the jobs of the future are going to go to those who have these kinds of skills and this kind of training. We have to start in the school system. Then when you get to vocational schools and you get to job training and retraining programs, we've got to do a much better job. I participated in this jobathon in Middle Tennessee not long ago, and gosh, it just struck me as a terrible personal tragedy that people who were on that program wanting to work a good, solid people who had played by the rules and gotten a good education and really wanted to do right and just couldn't find a job. And then right afterwards, you'd

have employers saying, I need somebody with this kind of training or that kind of training. Well, they were getting education. The job market was changing on their noses. That's exactly right. And I think your question points right at a critical issue that we need to do a much better job on. Now, I don't want to just leave the monkey on the state's back. The state's got to do more. Sure, the federal government, I think, has a responsibility here, too. It's always a touchy issue, because whenever you mention the need for that, of course, the thing that goes right along with it's the need for the funding, and then people yell at that, but then they yell if you don't have the technical training so you can't win either way. Well, that's right. state revenues in the future, just like federal revenues in the future, will depend most importantly on how much our economy grows, how much economic activity has been going on, and we've got to make some tough decisions. Kevin Donaldson of the Clay Citizen. Congressman, you've proposed an arms limitation

plan that's met with considerable praise in both, in various circles in both the U .S. and in Russia. Would you care to give us a thumbnail sketch of this plan and its current status? Yes, I'll do it. It's hard to do it briefly, but I will try. The nuclear arms race has up until about 10 years ago. It was based on what we refer to as the balance of terror. One side knew that if the other side launched an attack, then the country that was attacked would fire back and just completely wipe out the other one. That's still the case. But starting about five, 10 years ago, a new kind of missile was deployed. It was much more accurate than the missiles in the past. And all of a sudden, the war planners, the strategic planners, began to worry about a first strike by the Soviet Union using these accurate missiles to hit not our

cities and our population, but our own missile silos depriving us of the means to retaliate, leaving us only with not accurate missiles, but those that could hit cities. So our response has been to develop our own accurate missiles to fire back. So now they talk about the nuclear war fighting as if it was something that could be carried out and something that's realistic. It's not realistic, but the plan that I proposed attacks the root of the problem by saying this. Both countries should try to reach an agreement that makes it impossible for either side to get an advantage by firing first. Currently, with these multiple warhead missiles, actually the side that fires first has an advantage in the aftermath. And that leads to a real fear that they'll be tempted to do that. Now, the big argument is whether it's

realistic or rational to suppose that they would ever do such a thing. But the fear is a political reality, whether it's based on a reasoned military analysis or not. If we can take away that advantage, which comes from the first strike, on either side, then we would once again have a more stable balance where neither side would be tempted to strike first. That's an oversimplification, really. this, many people believe is the most important issue of all. I've tried hard to address it in a responsible way. Appreciate your question. Thank you. Congressman, we're going to jump topics again. In regards to Social Security, the new committee recommendations that have come out that have going to be going before Congress, how do you feel about them? Well, I don't like any of them. But the package taken as a whole is necessary. This is an example of the kind of tough, controversial decisions

that government at all levels is going to have to face up to. We've got to bite the bullet. We've been putting this off for too long. It's a balance. It's a compromise. We've known for some time now that we have to increase the revenues coming into the fund and somehow slow down the increase in the amount to going out. That's unpopular on both sides. But what would be much worse than enacting a package like this is letting Social Security go under. That's unthinkable. It's the most popular program. And it will be kept on a firm foundation. Incidentally, about almost two weeks ago, I had a Social Security issue forum at Lebanon. And Congressman Claude Pepper, two weeks ago, outlined the package that was just announced today. Every single element was exactly the same with one minor exception that, as the one he

outlined two weeks ago, we had 1 ,400 people show up for that issue forum. And when it was over with, I think virtually everyone in the audience felt that some package like this was really necessary. And I will predict that this package with some minor changes will pass the Congress, both the House and the Senate. At that workshop that you spoke of, which was well attended, Congressman Pepper also made the statement that he felt as if the economy itself would be a substantial cure for Social Security problems if it would improve. Do you feel like that's a valid statement? Yes, it is. The amount of money coming into Social Security is directly related to the total amount of wages being earned in our society. If you have a high unemployment rate and people are laid off, well, then the amount of money coming into Social Security falls off. It's directly related. So when we

have this incredibly high unemployment right now, it really hurts Social Security. Reaganomics, then, is hurting Social Security? Well, you said it, yes, I'll say it, too. It is. Now, our economic problems are, again, But yes, I think that's true. And if we can get the president to change his mind, and if we can agree on a better way to head the economy in the right direction instead of what I believe is the wrong direction, that will also help out with the Social Security system. But the Social Security system is so important. We cannot take the risk of this economic game plan continuing. If the president vetoed changes, for example, and we continued to flounder in the economy, we've got to make sure that the Social Security system survives regardless, and we're going to do that. Congressman, we're now going to open up our telephone lines and let people call in and ask their questions.

We're going to continue with the journalists hitting on you at the same time. OK, all right. If you would like to call in and have a question, the people over in the right -hand corner will be answering the phones. They will take your question. They'll take your name and your address. You can call in at 528 -7506. And we would love to hear from you. If you are outside of Putnam County, please feel free to call us, collect. We'll take them one at a time, and we hope we'll be able to get all the questions on this evening. Joy, while the phones start ringing, which they already are, you go ahead and ask them your question. Congressman, to change the subject a little bit from the economic situation, this is something that's been on everyone's mind. Some writers in the media have pitted you against Governor Alexander in the 1984 campaign for the US Senate. And they have called it a dream race. Do you think this would be a dream race? Well, it's a fair question, but

I hope you will forgive me if I continue to say that out of respect for Senator Baker, I would prefer not to comment on a race for his seat until he says what his decision is. There have been newspaper reports, but he himself has not made a statement. And I think courtesy dictates that he ought to have a chance to do that before I and everybody else start speculating on who might run for that seat if he makes such a statement. So I understand your question, but I would prefer to withhold comment. I realize it's not been very long since the death of Soviet Lever Brezhnev. But if you had to give a report card on the performance to date of his successor, Andropov, and how this bodes for future US -Soviet relationships, how would you sum up his work today?

Well, Yuri Andropov is, I don't know the correct pronunciation. I've heard it different ways. That's what I'm going to call him until somebody tells me it's wrong. I do know a lot about him. I serve on the Intelligence Committee in the House. And they have had a rather thorough analysis of him for quite some time. He was head of the KGB. We know a lot about him. He has a ruthless past. He presided over the repression in Hungary. He has presided over the increased repression of the dissidents in the Soviet Union. And he has evidenced a brutal streak. He has also shown himself to be extremely clever. And in the months since he took over as head of the Soviet Union, I think he has already demonstrated

that he is going to pose an enormous challenge to the United States. He is a droid. He's clever. He understands the United States. He speaks English fluently. He has studied our system, our politics, our history. And he will really put us to the test. That's yet another reason why we have to get our act together in this country. The kind of challenge that he's posing, the economic challenge from Japan and West Germany, we really got to get a better cooperative effort here in the United States. But back to your question, I would say his report card from the Soviet point of view, he's really going to pose us a challenge. Incidentally, he breaks a tradition in the Soviet Union because he marks the first time that the party apparatus over there has not kept control

of the government. It's the first time that the KGB and the military have taken over. He succeeded where Berea failed years ago. And I don't think it bodes well for us unless we recognize the strong challenge it poses. Kevin, before you begin, I would like also to say that, Congressman, we have a studio audience with us tonight. They're going to be asking their questions of you. And our reporters are going to continue. We're going to kind of intermingle everybody. A little bit of phone call questions, a little bit of studio audience questions, and a little bit of reporters. And hopefully, you'll be able to take an hour's worth of questions, Congressman. And Joy, he is very diplomatically avoiding all those questions about Senator Baker's intentions. So I've seen him avoid the best. I think we have our first question over here, Congressman. Hi. Congressman Gore, I'm Donna Massa from Cookville. I'm sure your office has received many letters from social security recipients whose disability benefits have been wrongfully terminated. As you know, many of these people go for months before

their benefits are restored. Do you have any proposals to help solve this problem and ensure that the system works more equitably? Yes, I do. In fact, some changes have recently been put into law just earlier this month. The approach taken by the administration has been to cut people off of disability really on a wholesale basis. Now, we all know that there are people receiving disability who don't deserve it. And that has caused a lot of anger and frustration and a determination to get them off the rolls. And I think that's well and good. Just go in and knock so many people off without them ever seeing any kind of doctor or having any kind of examination and then forcing them to go to court and

try to get their benefits back. Now, the proof that it's wrong is in the statistics. Seven out of 10, seven out of 10 of those who have been cut off have been reinstated when they have gone through the long legal challenge. Now, this is, this means that the government has to do a much better job. And believe me, I have seen personally so many cases where it's obvious to anyone who sets eyes on the individual that it's not the kind of person who should be just cut off. I mean, I could give you a long list. So I think that we have to take a different approach. We have to keep our determination to stop payments to those who could do for themselves and don't deserve it. But we can't take the inhumane approach of just pushing people off without regard to whether they're able to do for themselves or not.

Congressman, we do have another question. This one is from our phone and one of our audience at home and Mr. Walter Jones from Double Springs. And his question reads, why not look into administrative end of social security? How much could they save if they cut two people out of each office? That's an excellent question. The administrative cost of social security when compared to private insurance operations is really very small. A lot of people are surprised by that. It's something like 1 .5 % of the total volume. And compared to private insurance operations, that's very, very low. Now, there's a reason for it. Partly it's because they don't have to hire any salesman if since it's mandatory for most working people in the country, that helps keep their overhead low. Now, we ought to ensure

the greatest efficiency in the administration of social security, but it is already such a small percentage of the total program that the savings to be gained there are probably not that large. Mark McKinley of Cookville. Once know what your stand is on the 5 cent gas tax and why you did not vote on this tax issue. I did vote on it. I voted. The gentleman's question. All right, that's fine. That's fine. I voted against the 5 cent gasoline tax. I understand the arguments that were advanced in favor of it, but I voted against it really for two reasons. First of all, because I represent a district that's made up of rural communities and small cities. on the average, the people of the Sixth Congressional District drive much farther to work than those

in large cities. And the impact on rural areas of this tax is going to be much greater than the average. The second reason I voted against it was that I don't think it's fair to continue with the third year of the tax cut aimed at the upper income brackets, mainly, and then try to make up for the lost revenue by coming in with brand new taxes that hit hardest at middle and low middle income people. I just don't think that's the right way to go. Some people have a different view, but I voted against that tax. Kevin, I think we could take another question from you if you like. Okay, I'm getting them from all sides. Yes. How did you arrive at the idea of your open meetings? Well, really, I started them immediately after my first election in 1976, and it came from my feeling about representative

democracy. What's it supposed to be? I'm supposed to be the representative in the House of Representatives for the 500 ,000 people in these counties. Now, if I go up there and just read the newspapers in Washington and talk to the people in Washington, I may, you know, figure out on my own what I think is the right thing to do and maybe do a creditable job that way, but I wouldn't be representing the people in this district. And now in the era of airplane travel, it's possible to come back here on the weekends, so I decided I would come home every weekend and talk with people so that I could take their ideas to Washington and also report back to them about what was going on there. It just seemed to flow from the nature of the job itself, and I've been, I have learned an awful lot from them, and it's really, it has been a source of ideas for me, and

I just couldn't possibly do without it. Is this practice prevalent among your fellow congressmen? Yes and no, among the younger members of Congress, it's becoming more common, but the majority do not do anything like this, and I can say after conducting a survey of my colleagues that no one conducts as many open meetings as I do, and I hope to continue that record. Thank you. Congressman, we have another question for you out here in the studio audience. Sir, do want to stand up? Congressman Gore, I'm Mayor Jim Brown from All Good, and being from a city, I'm interested in city funding, and I would like to ask what is the status of revenue sharing at this time? Also, the ARC and the funding of the finishing of 1 -11 if ARC is going to stay in existence. Well, good questions and questions of a lot of interest to mayors of

cities and towns throughout this area and county officials as well. Revenue sharing is due to expire in September of this year. Before that time, the Congress will make a decision on whether or not to renew it. It has been a popular program. It has been a successful program. Moreover, many of our small counties and communities have come to rely on it very heavily. All Good, for example, has come to rely on it. What percentage of your revenue would come from revenue sharing? I'd say approximately half of it. About half of it. Well, this is an example of what the effect would be if revenue sharing was suddenly cut out. In normal times, it would be renewed almost routinely. Now, however, there is such a large budget deficit that many in the Congress are making the following argument. They're saying, we have a big budget deficit. States and local

governments have a surplus. Why should we borrow more money in order to give it to governments that have a surplus? Well, that's an appealing argument on the surface, but if you look more closely at it, if you cut out revenue sharing, what it would mean is that counties and local communities would have to raise their property taxes, which would have an unfair impact on particular parts of the community and really would work an unfair hardship. So I think the most likely outcome is that revenue sharing will be renewed, but at reduced levels. I think that's probably what's going to happen. Now, you asked a couple of other questions. ARC, is it going to stand existence or are they trying to phase it out? And if so, how it affect our 111? Well, I am fighting for ARC and have been fighting for it. For one reason, it hasn't yet accomplished its mission. It has been a success in many ways. Of course, there have been some problems, but it's been largely a

success and it's aimed right at our part of the country and I'm fighting to save it. It's going to be a hard battle. I do think that we have a chance to save it. Now, 111, I hope and expect, will be completed in any event, even if we were not successful in keeping ARC. It's just a matter of the timetable, how long it's going to take. It's already taken too long in my opinion and this is a good example to use in response to the very first set of questions this evening. What kinds of jobs would be good to pursue in order to put people back to work? Well, here's an example of a project that has been approved. It's in the national interest. It's in our region's interest. We know it's going to be done sooner or later. Let's do it now when so many people are out of work. So this is the kind of program that I'm going to be pushing for in this Congress. Congressman, I'm going to ask you as quickly as you can. We're going to get through some of these. Our calls are

coming in and we're not getting as many questions as we can. Marianne Spivey of Cookville and she would like to know if the school lunch program is in danger and if so, what will poor families do? The school lunch program has already suffered some damage because it's a complicated program to put it very briefly so we can get through some more questions. The changes enacted in the last two years have caused an awful lot of students to drop out of the program and in some school systems that has made it impossible for the schools to continue offering lunches. So it has had a different impact depending on the school system. It's already suffered damage and I think it's a great tragedy. I think that has been a good program. I support it. We will make a renewed fight in this Congress to have the school lunch program enacted, brought back up to the levels that it should be at and get rid of all of this crazy talk about labeling a

ketchup as a vegetable and taking that sort of approach. I think it's a good program back to education. Kids can't learn if they're hungry and it's just not a good place to cook. We're gonna jump again to another topic. Dorothy Roberts from Fairfield Blade, she says in line quote, Congressman Gore is a hard worker. Was the congressional pay raise justified? Two statements together. Her is not mine, Congressman. first of all, I appreciate her comment and the answer to the question in my judgment is no. congressional pay raise was not justified. I voted against it. I felt it was very poorly timed with the country in as bad a condition as it's now in. With so many people unemployed, with people having real difficulty making ends meet, I felt it was a bad time for the Congress to vote to this pay raise and I voted against it. It failed on a tie vote and briefly let me add that

there was probably more pressure from other members of Congress on that vote than any vote of the last two years, but I voted against it. Lucille Quinlan of Cookville, she would like an explanation of why Reaganomics is not working when the economy is proving, such as the interest rates are down. When the economy is what? When she feels as if the economy is proving. other words, she's - Yes, her statement reads as if she's challenging you on the point that Reaganomics doesn't work. Okay. Well, I don't think the economy is improving. People are being laid off in greater numbers every day. There are more bankruptcies and foreclosures than at any time since the Great Depression. It's true that the inflation rate has come down and I think that you have to give credit where credit is due, but the cost that we have paid for that achievement has simply been

too high. We're killing the patient in order to cure the disease and this is not the right way to go about it. And as far as interest rates are concerned, yes, they've come down too, but they are still at very high and unacceptably high levels and if you measure the difference between interest rates and the inflation rate, the so -called real interest rates, they are still at record high levels and they're still depressing economic activity. So I would just reassert my belief that based on the economic indicators, well, again today, the new figures were just released showing unemployment has gone up again. I don't think it is working. And very briefly, the reason it's not working, in my opinion, is that the approach of trying to give more money to those at the top of the economic ladder in hopes that they will invest it and create jobs is the wrong way to

go about it because they're not going to invest if the people who buy the products made by the factories don't have any money to buy them. And look what's happening, inventories are piling up, the warehouses are full, people aren't buying things and the economy is sliding down and down. That's why I think it is not working. I think you've given enough reasons for why you believe that, Congressman. Ernestine Edwards of Cookville, the question in regards to 18 -year -olds who register, I assume this is for the draft, the question is the U .S. moving toward a war stance in your opinion? No, I don't think so. I have supported a draft registration. I feel there are a lot of problems with the volunteer army. I volunteered myself and served in the army and I have seen this situation. I think that registration for the draft is,

I know it's controversial, but I have supported it. I don't think it means or can be interpreted to mean that we are moving toward a war stance as the caller puts it. I know that a lot of the talk coming out of the administration on war fighting and threats and this kind of thing sometimes sounds that way, but we're not that kind of country and I don't think it should be interpreted that way. Okay, we have a question from the audience, ma 'am. Congressman, I'm Kathy Austin from Cookville. We've been reading a lot in the news lately and we know it around here about the large number of foreclosures on family farms and in the sixth district as well, I'm sure. Do you have any proposals to help alleviate that problem? Well, we're gonna have to rework almost the entire farm program. I personally would like to see a moratorium on foreclosures of farmer's home and land bank loans. The situation is just too bleak right now. Gosh, you see on

television the great tragedy of young farm couples, others who are losing their farms. Prices are way too low. We have got to get the farm prices up. We've got to give farmers a breathing spell to get back on their feet and then we've gotta take a hard look at these farm programs because they are not working right. They've got to be changed. Now, I won't go in the interest of time. I won't go into great detail on how they should be worked. Let me just say briefly that so long as we simply have price supports without paying any attention to the production side, I think we're asking for trouble. Now, those who are familiar with these programs know that what I've said is controversial, but I believe that it's in that direction that the answer lies. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. J .B. Smith of Monroe, Tennessee has some questions about tax revenues. Wealthy people are avoiding paying income taxes by

buying revenue bonds. How do you feel about that? Well, interest income is subject to taxation. Oh, I know what the caller is talking about. The tax exempt bonds for government entities. Well, that's an issue that comes up from time to time. And there are two sides to it. Let me say on the front end that I think I disagree with the caller for this reason. Local governments and state governments, for that matter, would have to raise their taxes substantially if they had to put out taxable bonds. It's a trade -off. It's true, but many of these bonds are issued in denominations small enough for lower and middle -income people to participate, and it's not just the wealthy who get the advantages of that. But the real advantage of them is that it allows local governments to get access to the capital markets because

when they're exempt, they get a lower interest rates. If that provision of the law was changed, then local governments would have to pay a much higher interest rate in the capital markets. John McPherson of Monterey, can you explain why Congress has allowed TVA management to set their own pay scale? Well, TVA is not as accountable as it should be, and in the years I've been in the Congress, I have searched very hard for ways to make TVA more accountable. I took the initiative in forming the TVA Congressional Caucus, and we have started to review, for the first time, with a real fine -tooth comb, the programs and policies and proposals of TVA. Now, should we go farther than that? Should we set up another board of citizens, say, to review the actions of TVA? This has been proposed from time to time, and frankly, I have an open mind on it at this

point, but there's a tactical problem with going in that direction. If we open up the TVA Act on the floor of the Congress at a time when the North Central States and others are really chafing at the bit to try to undo the advantage that TVA gives us, and I know some people don't think it gives us any advantage, but really it still does, even though there are rates that been going up, we would run a risk of losing some of the beneficial aspects that still flow from TVA. So I think that we should make TVA more accountable, and I have an open mind on ways to do that. I'm searching for ways to do it. Mike Richardson of Clay County refers to he, I'm assuming he means you, he is a federal employee. He is concerned about the quick fix plan for having new federal employees paying into social security. What will it do to the civil service? In other words, how are you gonna feel about that? Good question. lot of federal employees are concerned about that. They really shouldn't be concerned because there's some misunderstanding about it. The

new federal employees, if this proposal passes, the new federal employees who would be asked to pay into social security, would continue paying into civil service. They would pay into both funds. Just as someone who pays into a private pension program today also pays into social security. So really it would not affect the soundness of the civil service program. Congressman, I think I'll let one of our reporters see if they're gonna heat up on you a little bit now. Donald? Unemployment is an emotional issue that seems to be pointed at both by people who say we should buy American and not drive Japanese cars, but we should buy American makes. On the other hand, people who have Japanese auto plants and the likes say that they are creating jobs and so they're helping the unemployment situation, but then the buy American people say, well, no, your big sales are cutting into our profits and causing layoffs at our plants. Which

of these two sides do you think is closer to reality or do you have your own view? Well, I think we should buy American. I encourage people to buy American. A lot of other countries have that kind of approach and I think it gives us a little advantage. Would if we adopted that proposal, but there's a difference between encouraging people to buy American and doing it on the one hand and having the government enact laws which require people to buy American. If we did that, if we in effect built a wall around this country and said no foreign goods of this kind or the other, then we would be touching off a trade war. Well, look what just happened with the China, for example. We had a problem and we put up a barrier. They immediately said, we're not gonna buy your farm products. That's gonna hurt Tennessee farmers. The same thing would happen if we took that approach with the German automobiles say, we're not

gonna buy anything. Well, they would stop buying products that we ship overseas. Now, this is an emotional issue and the restructuring of the world trading system is one of the major items on the agenda in this decade. Really, it should be done in the next year or two. But my approach is yes, let's buy American, wherever possible. But let's avoid having an official government protectionist stand because in the long run, that would end up hurting us. I really believe that. There's one gentleman that wanted to ask you a question here in the audience, follow -up on the question in regards to federal employees. Sir, would you like to stand and identify yourself? I'm Clarence Richards from here in Cookville. And I'm wondering if the commission recommendations are approved by Congress, what would happen to people who are already retired as far as their annuities are concerned from the federal service? From civil service? Yes. It would have no effect at all on them. If you're already retired, you've paid into it, you're vested,

doesn't have any effect at all. Congressman. Now, let me add just briefly. Go ahead. That there may in the future be some additional controversies about civil service. The size of the contribution by the federal government is far larger than what you have in other programs, like social security. But as far as these changes are concerned, it's not gonna have any effect. I support the civil service program strongly. I believe that people who are participating in it must be treated fairly. Congressman, let me repeat our telephone number again for those who are listening. It's 528 -7506. But Mrs. Henry Matlock from Crossville, Tennessee, called in and she said there are 13 people who are waiting for your answer on this. It's rather detailed. The Federal Reserve System, three states have voted to abolish it. Why doesn't the Federal Reserve pay income taxes other private businesses do? Okay, let me try to sort that out. The

Federal Reserve System is a creature of the Congress. I mean, it's set up under law to regulate the supply of money. The principle way that it regulates the supply of money is by establishing the percentage of reserves that banks must hold when they loan money out. It's kind of an indirect approach, but that's how they do it. Now, they don't pay taxes because, well, they're like the Treasury Department, say, a branch of the federal government. I mean, you wouldn't have it paying it to itself. Just as municipalities. Pardon me? Just like municipalities. No taxation on its own self, a creature government. Yes, that's right. So I guess I have a little trouble understanding the question now. She may be mixing in something else in that some state governments

have pulled out of the social security system. I feel like her question, Congressman, is so detailed that we might be spending more time trying to explain If to contact me after the show or contact my office, I'll be glad to spend as much time as necessary on it. And it's quite possible that we have gotten her question confused in the translation from our phone takers to me and then back and forth. Okay, let me say just briefly, in case the question involves state governments pulling out of social security, the package, the compromise package that will be voted on soon by the Congress will stop state governments from pulling out of social security. That will provoke a constitutional question, but we think it can be resolved. Go ahead. I think we have another question for my audience if I can get over here a moment. want to stand, Austin? Congressman, I wanted to ask you one more question. I think I'm correct that House Speaker O 'Neill designated the Equal Rights Amendment as House Bill Number One recently.

What is your position on this very important issue? Well, I wasn't in the Congress the first time that that was voted on. I have said in the past that I have tended, that I think I would have voted for it, and I still think that, and I'm going to follow the hearings, however, closely. I think that because of the experience the country has been through for the past seven years debating this, that we have an obligation to pay extremely close attention to the debate as it goes forward. And I intend to do that and intend to adopt the position as I've just outlined it. I presently am in favor of it. Congressman, Kathy Stafford of Cookville wants to know if you've considered running for president. Well, you better give equal time to someone who... We're just wanting to find out

about the Senate, Congressman. We'll take our information on the Senate seat, will we? Well, I appreciate the thought behind the question and the answer is that that, for anyone, is such a long shot that it's of no use whatsoever to speculate on that. Something is one in 10 million. I take the following position. I believe that it's best to do the very best job you can with the responsibilities that are entrusted to you and then let all the rest of it, including the future, take care of itself. And that's what I have honestly and sincerely tried to do for six years, and that's what I'm going to keep trying to do. Yes, I've got a question here, Congressman. Congressman Gore -Claddhider, what is your feeling as far as grain in kind in controlling production of farm enterprises? Well, Clyde, you have so many friends and people who look to you for advice on these

matters throughout the upper Cumberland area that I would be interested in what your views on it are. Now, I don't want to, by that evade the question. It's a farm, it's an indirect control of production, but I would like to know your views on it. My feeling is pretty much this through here that we better kind of stick with the program we have had. Now, maybe the other areas, it'll be different. I was looking yesterday at the production in Tennessee this year for corn is 105 bushels per acre. Two years ago, only about 47, 50. But now that is the Tennessee average. But now whenever you begin to give those farmers grain in kind, it's going to involve too much transportation and things of that nature the way I look at it in this particular area. And maybe in the other areas, it might be all right, but I just kind of like to see some of the old agriculture and formulae still stay in there. Yeah,

well, of course, some of the old formulas that used to be in effect have been taken away. The problem with the grain in kind thing is that a lot of farmers have surpluses of their own that they're storing already. Well, now if a farmer has got a surplus in, say, grain bin and is sitting on it, well, here comes the government wanting to give him an even larger surplus to sit on it, it creates some real problems. What they're trying to do, and again, if you don't mind, I'd like to get a comment from you on this. What they're trying to do, it seems to me, is get at production controls through the back door by using this grain in kind. They're avoiding the issue, taking the issue head on. What do you think about the old kind of production controls? Well, I think it

worked rather well through here because whenever you get into that, they're paid to do so much and it's taken out. We're not putting anything back in the bin. That turns that money loose for them to buy something else. Whenever you give them grain, then they've got to feed it or something of that nature, or they still got to sell it. And so I'd rather go back into the other system, especially through this area through here. Yeah, well, I think you've got a good idea there. And I've listened to you carefully in the past on these issues. Another thought briefly, as you know, that program could, we better take a real close look at what that would do to the cattle market because you get all that surplus grain into this area. Well, now that's bound to have a big effect on beef cattle. Congressman, we're going to jump the subject real quickly. Amy Jomson of Cookville, she would like to have your comment on James Watts' program to sell public lands for revenue to pay our public debt. Well, that's not an easy question because there are some

public lands which could very well be sold. Now, my initial reaction was I've disagreed with so much of what James Watts has done that I was inclined to disagree with this. And a lot of this proposal I disagree with. But I took the time to look at the inventory of federal lands that are owned. And there are a lot of parcels on there that could easily be sold to help out with the budget deficit. So the answer really would depend on a careful look at it property by property. Some of it could definitely be sold. How selective would you be and limited would you be? Well, any time I could find a piece of property that was unneeded and could be sold, I think it would be good to help out with the budget deficit. But you also have to look at the market. You

don't want to, you've got a lot of assets. You don't want to sell them at a time when the prices are the lowest they've been in a long time and are likely to be for a long time in the future. So it's a complicated process. You know, right here in Middle Tennessee, we've seen the government purchase some land that it really didn't need to purchase in the past. And some of that could be sold back to people in local communities. Congressman, I wish we had more time to ask you more questions. I have a whole chair left of people that didn't get their questions answered. We'd like to thank you very much for giving us this time with you. And the studio audience here has been very helpful to me to give me questions to ask you back and forth. I want to thank Kevin, Donald, and Joy. And thank you at home for participating with us in Forum 22 tonight in our first attempt for a live town meeting with Al Gore. Good night. Thank

Thank