Forum 22; Town Meeting with Congressman Al Gore

Look at his presentation dealing with issues of interest and concern to the. MODERATOR. Terry Anderson. Good evening and welcome to tonight we're doing something different. We're having a town meeting or shall I say Al Gore a congressman and six district is having a town meeting here with us. We will be joined with Al along with Kevin Donaldson. He was editor of the clay citizen Donald farmer of the dispatch and he's also state CORRESPONDENT The Tennessean enjoy beer and the Herald citizen. Congressman Cong. I'm glad you can come despite our very bad. Well thank you I'm glad to be here. What goes on in your a television audience don't know is that you thought I was going to be late. And then I get mad literally about 20 seconds ago let me

say it 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 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 I wish to thank you in 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. You know 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 so important future. Congressman let me start the questioning. First you're going to be 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 we're going to get quite a few questions from you constituents in this area. Let. Me start with the fact that we are dealing with a ten point eight percent joblessness right. The fact that that translates into 12 million people unemployed. Would you consider the economic issue and the joblessness right. 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 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 changes 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 year we're going to have to find a way to work together. So I'm encouraged by the president's comments yesterday. On allow myself one more question and I'm going to share. 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 what I've tried to say is that it is not a simple problem. We want jobs program that you go Yes I'm thinking willing. I think it will. Oh I'm well I I think the best time 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 that we know they're worthwhile and need to be. 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 passed jobs programs and put people back to work Let's don't lose sight of the fact that. Issues like declining industrial base and 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 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 to 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 that helps substantially. I think we'll start with you if you talk to African-American 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 lens solution to big oil profits. What do you think. What do you think has 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 approach put into a priorities the problems that I've worked on that I thought were 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 has and 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 of 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 they were 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. Thank god there's a lot of talk about the need to put Tennesseans to rock and create more jobs but I hear more and more talk about the type of job training that's available in tennis and you know there seems to be a lot of complaints that there isn't enough of the high technology trying in Tennessee that is available in some other states like that no ramp astray should be good in the future on making available in Tennessee's educational institutions more of this high technology training so Tennessee and skin compete for these high tech jobs.

I definitely do. I think that really needs to start before the vocational institutes need 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 on and attacked it for too long and and parents parent of four children myself in public schools. 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 this these kinds of skills in this kind of training we have to start in the school system. Then when you get to a vocational schools and you get to job training and retraining programs we've got to do a much better job. I participated in this job a thon in middle Tennessee not long ago and gosh it just struck me as a terrible personal tragedy that people who were on that program for wanting to work with 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 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 trying to have 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. 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. That's always a touchy issue because whenever you mention the need for that of course that honor goes right along with the need for the funding and then. But then they are if you don't have the technical training so you can't win either really. Well let's ride in state revenues in the future just like federal revenues in the future will depend. Most importantly home on how much our economy grows how much economic

activity has been going on and we've got to make some tough decisions. Kevin got off on the crisis and Congressman you proposed an Arms Limitation plan that's made with considerable praise and both. In various circles in both the U.S. and Russia. Would you care to give us a summary a sketch of this plan in 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 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 in something that's so realistic it's not realistic but the plan that I've 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 will 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 drive 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. But this many people believe is the most important issue of all I tried hard to to address it in a responsible way appreciate your question. Thank you. Congressman what on jump topics again in regards to the Social Security. The new committee recommendations that have come out that have going

to be calling for Congress. How do you feel about them. Well I don't I don't like any of them. But the package taken as a whole is necessary. This is an example of the kind of top 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 a some time now that we have to increase the revenues coming into the fund that somehow slow down the amount the increase in the amount going out. That's unpopular on both sides. But what would be much worse than acting a package like this is letting Social Security go under that's all thinkable. 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 for me at Lebanon and Congressman Claude Pepper two weeks ago outlined the package that was just announced today. Every single element that was exactly the same with one minor exception that as the one he outlined a few weeks ago we had fourteen hundred people show up for that form. 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. We 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 that is yes the amount of money coming into social security is directly related to the total amount of wages earned in our society. Yes 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 form of right now it really hurts Social Security regen nomics then is hurting Social Security. Well the you said it. Yes I do. Our economic problems are complicated but yet I think that's true and if we can get the president changed and if we can't agree on a better way in the right direction this sort of what I believe wrong direction that will also help out with the Social Security system what the Social Security system is so important. We cannot

take the risk of this economic plan if the president veto changes for example when we continue. We've got to make sure that the Social Security system works 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. If you would like to call in and have a question people over in the right hand corner we'll be answering the phones. They will take your questions. Now take your name and your address. You can call in at 5 2 8 7 5 6. 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 the saving. Jointing on the phone started ringing which they are they are. You go ahead.

Question expect to change the subject a little bit from the economic situation. This is something that's been on everyone's mind some Rogerson the media has pitted you against Governor Governor Alexander in the 1984 campaign for the U.S. Senate. And I have called it a dream right. Do you think this would be a dream right. Well it's a fair question but I hope you will forgive me by continue to say that out of respect for Senator Baker. I would prefer not to comment on a race for his seat until the next day 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 everybody else start speculating on on who might run for that seat if he makes such a statement so I

understand you're not watching but I would prefer to withhold comment. I realize it's been very long since the death of Soviet leader but if you had to give a report card on the performance of his successor on drop off and how this bodes for future US Soviet relationships how would you sum up his work. Well. Yuri Andropov is I don't know the correct pronunciation of how to do this but that's what I'm going to call him until somebody tells me it's wrong. I do know a lot about it. 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 hungry. He has presided over the increased repression of dissidents in the Soviet

Union and he has evidence free. He has also shown himself to be extremely clever and 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 adroit. 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. Kind of challenges he's posing the economic challenge from Japan and West Germany. We've really got to get a better cooperative effort here in the United States. But back to your question I would cite 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. The party apparatus over there has not kept control of the government the military taken over years ago. I don't think it bodes well for us unless we recognize the strong challenge posed 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 a studio audience questions a little bit of reporters and hopefully you'll be able to take an hour's worth of question Congressman joy he is very diplomatically avoiding all those questions about Senator Baker's intentions so I have seen

him avoid the best I think we have our first question ever here Congressman by. Congressman Gore I'm down NSA from Cookeville 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 in a wholesale 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. Not so many people out 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 of 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 is obvious to anyone who 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 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 the Mr. Roger 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 office. That's an excellent question. The administrative costs 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 percent of the total

value and compared to private insurance operations. That's a 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 that the savings to be gained there are probably not not that large. Mark McKinley of Cookeville once know what your stand is on the five cent gas tax and why you did not vote on this tax issue. I did vote on it. I voted for it in this question. Alright fine that's fine. I voted against the five 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 and on the average the people of the six congressional districts 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. 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 on that hit hardest at middle and lower 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. OK I'm getting the raw stats and yeah. How did you arrive at that day of your open meetings. Well yeah. 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 five hundred thousand people in these counties. Now if I go up there and just read the newspapers in Washington and talk to people in Washington I'm a 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 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 congressman. 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 had conduct 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. Sorry congressman go around Mayor Jim Brown from oh good and being from a city I'm interested in city funding. And I would like to

as to what is the status of revenue sharing at this time. Also they are C and the funding of the finishing of one of 11 if they are seen as booms being 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 a what percentage of your revenue would come from revenue sharing. Probably about half of that. Well this is an

example of what the effect would be if 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 sort of boss. 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 the 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 guys what they are going to stay in existence or are they trying to phase it out and I won't want to live in how it affects our women. Well I am fighting for a RC and have been fighting for it for one reason and 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. 1:11 I hope and expect will be completed. In any event even if. We were not successful in keeping a RCA 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 the this is a good example. To use in response of the very first set of questions this evening. What kind of jobs would be good to pursue in order to put people back to work. Why here is

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 if you as quickly as you can get through some of these are calls are coming in and we're not getting as many questions as we can. Marianne Spidy of Cookeville and she would like to know if the school lunch program is in danger and if so what will families do. A 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 in acted 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 launches. 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 inactive brought back up to the levels that it should be at and get rid of all of this crazy talk about labeling a catchup as a vegetable whole thing and taking that sort of approach I think it's a good program back to education kids can learn if they're hungry and it's just not a good idea. It's not a good place to come. We're going to jump again to another topic Dorothy Roberts from Fairfield blade. She says on micro Congressman growers a hard worker was the congressional pay raise justified. Two statements together hers not mine Congressman first of all I appreciate her comment and the answer to the question in my judgment is no the paver the 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 and with so many people unemployed with with people having real difficulty making ends meet. I felt it was bad for the Congress to vote for 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 anybody over the last two years but I voted against Lucio Quinn and the Cookeville. 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 in other words she's proving yes her statement reads as if she's challenging you on the point that doesn't work. OK. 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 were we were killing the patient in order to cure the disease. And this is not the right way to go about it then 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 the 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

once again today the new figures were just released showing unemployment is going 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 a 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 are buying things and the economy is sliding down and down and down. That's why I think it is not working. I think you've given enough reasons for RA you believe Congressman. OK. Ernestine Edwards a cookout. The question regards to 18 year olds who register. I assume

this is for the draft. The question is Is the U.S. moving toward a war stance in your opinion. No I don't think so. I have supported the 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 top coming out of the administration on war fighting and threats of 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.

OK. We have a question from the audience member Congressman Cathy Austin from Google. 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 in the 60s tricked as well I'm sure. Do you have any proposals to help alleviate that problem. Well we're going to have to rework almost the entire farm program. I personally would like to see a moratorium on foreclosures of farmers somen land bank loans. So the situation is just too bleak right now. Guys you see on the television the great tragedy of a young farmer couples others who are losing their farms. The 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 got to 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 into great detail on how they should be working 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 happens that is God or virtual. But I believe that it's in that direction that the answer lies. Thank you Congressman. Mr. J.B. Smith of Montana 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. I want to 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 example they have to pay if they get a lower interest rates if that provision of the law was changed and local governments would have to pay a much higher interest rate in the capital markets. John that fearsome of mana right. 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 our TVA. Now should we go farther than that should we set up another board of citizens say to review the actions of TVA. This is been proposed from time to time and frankly I have an open mind on it at this point. But there is 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 are really chafing at the bit to try to undo the advantage that TVA gives us and I know some people dont think it gives us any advantage but really it still does even though their rights have 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 Clay County. He refers to he says 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. Other words how do you want to think about that question a lot of federal employees are concerned about that. They really should be concerned because there is 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 social 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 that one of our reporters say if they are going to heat up on your debate now

Donald unemployment is an emotional issue that seems to be pointed at both by people who say we should buy America and not drive the Japanese cars but we should know about American mags. On the other hand people who had Japanese auto plants and the like say that they are creating jobs and so they're helping the unemployment situation but then the Buy American paper so I will know you're a big sales are cutting into our profits and causing write offs 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 encourage people to buy American. A lot of other countries have that kind of. Approach. And I think it gives gives us a little advantage would if we adopted that the proposal brought. There's a difference between encouraging people to buy American and doing it on the one hand and having the government and Akhil laws which require people to buy American. If we did that if we in effect built a wall around

this country that 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 going to buy your farm products that's going to hurt Tennessee farmers. The same thing would happen if we took that approach with the German automobile say we're not going to buy it. Well they would stop buying the products that we ship overseas. Now this is an emotional issue and 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. Question here in the audience a follow up on the question in regards to federal employees.

So would you like to stand in a fire. I wish my parents Richard from here and I'm wondering if the commission recommendations are approved by Congress. What would happen to people who are already retired is force there and that is your concern from and from the federal service from civil service yes it would have no effect at all on all of them. If you're already retired you do it your best it doesn't have any effect at all. Now let me add just briefly that there may in the future be some additional controversies a valid civil service the size of the contribution by the federal government far larger than what you have in other programs like Social Security. But as far as these changes are concerned it's not going to have any effect. I support the civil service program. 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 5 2 8 7

5 0 6. But Mrs. Henry Matlock from Crossrail Tennessee called me and she said there are 13 people who are waiting for your answer on this matter to detail the Federal Reserve System. Three states have voted to abolish it. Why doesn't the Fed Reserve pay income taxes other private businesses do. OK 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 principal 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 a kind of an indirect approach but that's how they do it. Now they they don't pay taxes because well they're like the Treasury Department say

a branch of the federal government and you wouldn't have it paying it to itself. It has municipalities part of me just like me to spell it to no taxation on its own sounds the creature government. Yes that's that's that's right. So I guess I have a little trouble understanding the question that she may have. She may be mixing in something else. You know that some state governments have pulled out all of the Social Security system. I feel like a question congressman is so detailed that we might be spending OK you want us. It was not going to attack me after the show or contact my office. I'll be glad to spend as much time as necessary and it's quite possible that we have gotten her question confused in the translation from our phone talkers to me and then back and forth let me say just briefly in case the question involves state governments pulling out of Social Security. The package is a 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. We think it could be resolved. OK. I think we have another question from the audience. If I can get over here a moment and I can't stand myself. Congressman when I asked you one more question I think I'm correct that House Speaker O'Neill designated 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 to that I think I would have voted for it 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 that I

presently am in favor of. Congressman Cathy Stafford of Cook wants to know if you've considered running for president and well you better give equal time to someone who were just trying to run out of a Senate Congressman that you know we're taking information on the Senate. I mean well I appreciate the thought behind the question and the answer is that that for anyone is such a long shot that it's just of no use whatsoever to speculate on that something is one in ten million. If 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.

I got a question here Congressman Congressman Goodlatte hatter. What is your feeling as far as a grain and in control in production of farm enterprise Clyde. You have so many friends and people who look to you for advice on these matters. Throughout the upper Kamel an area that I would be interested in what your views on it are. Now I don't want I don't want to buy that evade the question it's a form it's an indirect control of production but I would like to know your views on my feelings pretty much this through here that we better can I stick with the program we have had you know maybe that other areas would be different. I was looking yesterday at the production in Tennessee this year for corn is one hundred and five bushels per acre. Two years ago only about 47 50 and that is the Tennessee average. But now whenever you begin to give those farmers

growing in kind it's going to involve too much transportation and things of that nature when I look at it in this particular area and maybe in the other areas it might be horrid but I just kind of see some of the cultural forms 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 and canned thing is that a lot of farmers have surpluses of their own that they're storing already will now have a farmer has got a surplus in say a grain bin and is sitting on it. Well here comes the government wanted to give him an even larger surplus to sit on it. It creates some real problems. What they're trying to do and again I'd like to 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

backdoor by using this grain and they're avoiding the issue of taking the issue head on. What do you think about the old kind of production controls and I think it was wrote rather well through here because when you get in that you're paid to do so much and is taken out. We're not putting anything back in a billion that turns that money loose form to buy something else and if you give grain then they've got to feature some of that nature and they still got to sell it and so I really go back in the other system especially through this area through here. You know why. I will. 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 it could we better take a real close look at what that would do the cattle market. You get all that surplus grain into the into this area well now that's bound to have a big effect on all beef

cattle. Congressman we're going to jump the subject real quickly. Amy Jobson of Cook now she would like to have your comment on Jane wants James Ross's program to sell public lands for revenue to pay our public debt. Well that's that's not an easy question because there are some public lands which could very well be sold. Now my initial reaction was you know I don't. I've disagreed with so much of what James Watt has done that I was inclined to disagree with it and a lot of this proposal. I disagree with but I took the time to look at the inventory of federal lands that are that are own 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 you know a careful look at it property by property some of it could definitely be self selected.

Would you be unlimited would you be. While any piece of property 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 get a lot of assets you don't want to sell one at a time when the prices are the lowest for a long time in the future. So it's a complicated process. You know we've seen the government purchase something that it really did purchase in the summer 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. 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 and joy and thank you at

home for participating with us. Inform 22 tonight in our first attempt for a live town meeting with Al Gore. Good night. Oh. Day.