(00:00:02) Thank you very much. Dan Wilson and welcome everyone to this live broadcast of a speech by u.s. Representative William H greater the third from Northrop Auditorium, where here on the East Bank Campus of the University of Minnesota and a reminder that this lie broadcast is made possible by the members of Minnesota Public Radio Congressman Graves speech today is entitled a balanced budget what cost to you and it's part of the Carlson lecture series presented by the Humphrey Institute of public affairs here at the University William Gray is in his fourth term in Congress serving as a Democrat from Pennsylvania second district. He currently chairs the house budget committee and that explains the topic of his talk to us here today down. The hall is still filling up. We understand that classes here at the University are still in session or perhaps just getting out changing and so a lot of students may still be making their way across campus campus to this beach and mr. Gray is not expected to start speaking for a few minutes. That's Enough time for me to introduce my guest here at the broadcast table in the orchestra pit at Northrop Auditorium Arthur naphthalene is with me this morning professor of public affairs at the Humphrey Institute of public affairs. And he is also a former mayor of Minneapolis serving in that job from 1961 to 69 currently in addition to working at the Humphrey Institute. He also hosts a program entitled Minnesota issues which appears each noon on Sunday on Twin Cities public television station. Ktc. A thanks for being with me this morning. Well, thank you Rich. I'm delighted to be with you the business of balancing the budget is one that has been wrestled with by our members of Congress and policymakers now for some time but it really does seem to be coming to some kind of nub here with gramm-rudman passing recently than a portion of it being set aside by a court in Washington DC Reagan's new budget President. Reagan's budget being put forth the whole question of balancing a budget and and the concerns raised by that by Who are going to lose money? Is there more pain in your opinion and balancing the federal budget than is worth worth it. Well, that's a rather complicated question. There's a lot of pain that's for sure. But the necessity to begin the long road towards a balanced budget is clear. We have I think the whole very turbulent situation whether we can achieve a balanced budget without some fairly substantial adjustment in the revenue system by that meaning some form of tax increase I think is a highly doubtful matter. Clearly. The turbulence is producing the prospect of enormous dislocation and suffering we're seeing so clearly the reduction that seems to be inevitable with respect to so many federal programs and it's going to bring in its wake enormous hardship. I don't know that that is going to be worth the price of a balanced budget in the way that It's being approached speaking as a former mayor of Minneapolis from what you know of the proposed Cuts in the budget. What's that likely to do to urban areas, not only the Twin Cities but elsewhere around our region, you know, it's a it's the intensifies a familiar story. And that is that the hard-pressed to Central cities like Minneapolis and st. Paul will fill the fuel the burden even harder than the other municipalities and that's because they have a concentration of the problems whether we're dealing with the question of environment the whole matter of Urban Development questions of welfare health education jobs family disorganization illiteracy, everything is all tied up as part of one very large problem. And these problems are expressed as the largely in the cities the cities do carry the brunt of the reductions. Well, we're coming up on just a minute before noon and we want to talk more about the effects of balancing a budget and what Will do to our region also talk a little bit about William Gray the third from whom will here in just a couple of minutes. But right now we're going to return to the studio for just a second and Dan Wilson. Thank you very much. Dan Wilson. We are here in the orchestra pit at Northrop Auditorium and in just a couple of minutes the another in a series of the Carlson lectures, which are presented by the Humphrey Institute of public affairs at the University will be delivered. And the speaker. Today is William H gray the third who is a congressman from the second district of Pennsylvania. He chairs the house budget committee and he will be talking today about a balanced budget and what it will cost us with me. Here is Arthur naphthalene a former mayor of Minneapolis and also a professor at the Humphrey Institute. Tell me a little bit. Will you art about this William Gray? Where is he from what you were telling me that he's made a rather quick rise to power and position in the House of Representatives over the past few years. Yes. Well William great comes from a North Philadelphia comes out of the heart of the ghetto area of that City elected to congress in 1978. I believe this mean he's completing his fourth term. He's a member of the of the House Appropriations Committee and has had a very spectacular rise to recognition as a result of his work on that committee. The house budget committee is a rather special position, which is created for the purpose of giving the house its own expression on the budget as proposed by the president. And in that capacity. He has the commanded a great deal of public attention. I think it's fair to say that he has emerged as one of the leading members of the house as so much. So in fact that there's talk at the moment of it on the part of the people of Philadelphia getting him to come back to the city to stand as a mirror as a candidate for mayor after the very serious problems at the Philadelphia's had Philadelphia now has a black mayor Wilson good who is encountered a lot of trouble because of the bombing the police bombing of the of the homes. The so-called move movement, then he case gray has been Richard grey Bill Gray has received a lot of recognition for being a superior Congressman with great grasp of the budgetary situation one who is intellectually strong and is a capable of dealing with these very complex questions currently Congress is as I understand it waiting to hear in a lot of other people too are waiting to hear probably this summer what the Supreme Court of the land will do with gramm-rudman and whether or not it will let it stand or portions of IT stand or not. If there isn't that deadline if there isn't that deadline of 1991 to balance the federal budget, is it going to get done? Well, I suppose in over the long pull of history. There will be some movement towards a balanced budget. We can see some kind of success in that direction in time. The questions will be at what price I would think that the court will in time rule as you suggested but I think that probably the most constructive outcome of the gramm-rudman move will have been to compel Congress and the president to come to some more realistic approach to the entire problem what that approach will be. I don't know but I think there will be some effort to back up and in a sense sort of start over again because the Draconian cuts which are demanded and made him made absolutely essential. I think cannot really could be confronted with any kind of equanimity on the part of the country as so I think they ought to be some giving and in time some kind of Revenue adjustment tax increase that will added needed to mention to the total picture and much of that discussion will likely take place. Assume at least in representative Gray's committee, or at least behind the scenes with some of those committee members in terms of working out a new plan of gramm-rudman doesn't stand I think there's little question but his house budget committee will be a central point of action. No doubt about that. Well, it's five minutes now five and a half minutes past 12:00 noon and so far no speakers have come out to take their chairs their seats here in a short time. We expect they will and among them will be former Minnesota Governor Wendell Anderson who is currently a regent at the University of Minnesota and he will be giving the welcoming remarks and he'll be followed by the introducer today was Harlan Cleveland and he is the dean of the Humphrey Institute of public affairs. He will actually introduce Congressman gray the hall here Northrop Auditorium which seats several thousand or at least 2,500 by my somewhat shaky memory is filling up slowly about half full right now and our speaker has come out and as you can hear by the Flies in the background and very shortly. We expect that we'll go to the podium and begin to hear the remarks of our speaker and here is former Minnesota Governor Wendell Anderson Regent at the University to welcome listeners today on behalf of the University of Minnesota. And it's Hubert Humphrey Institute. I want to welcome you to this special presentation and the Carlson lecture series. I also want to acknowledge the generosity of Curt Carlson a longtime friend of both the Hubert Humphrey and the University of Minnesota. It's customary for president Ken Keller to welcome everybody to these very significant lecture series. Unfortunately president Keller cannot be here today. He's on a critical mission that could well determine the success or failure of his administration and it will most surely provide the basis upon which a great many people will judge our school of medicine engineering Music agriculture philosophy on all the rest even though president kaler's assignment is secret. I'm sure all of you can sense that. He's out recruiting for our football and basketball program. In 1977 and Washington DC. I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to attend the first public organizational and fundraising meeting for the Hubert Humphrey Institute. Senator. Humphrey was extremely ill at the time, but his hope his enthusiasm his faith and the concept of a Humphrey Institute and what it could offer was very evident and very contagious you be very pleased with this lecture series, and with the selection of today's distinguished speaker. We share so many of Hubert's goals and his commitment to public service on behalf of the University. I'm pleased to welcome Congressman Bill Gray and all of you here today, and I'll call on Harlan Cleveland director of the Humphrey Institute to introduce our special guest Thank you very much, Wendy. we're on a split second schedule today because Congressman gray has to get back for a five o'clock meeting in, Washington. Which means that he's going to leave here just a little before 1 o'clock. Two quick announcements. We will have time for a few sharp questions after Congressman Graves talk concentrate your minds and make that your questions brief and to the point whatever your point maybe Hand your card to an usher and it will be handed up to me to deliver to our guests. Let me also say that audio tapes and video tapes of our guests speech are available from the Humphrey Institute external Affairs office. The phone number is 3769783. the sudden prominence of the Reverend Congressman William Gray the Democrat who represents Pennsylvania's Second District Has produced a rash of journalistic superlatives. Which I'm sure that Bill Gray is taking in his impressively long stride. He knows that in politics the flowery compliments. Come only shortly before the brick bats. The columnist David Broder who was our guest at the Humphrey Institute a few weeks ago. Called him intellectually quick politically Deft a coalition Builder. He grabs facts and ideas quickly says a recent article about him and he's persuasive in convincing his colleagues to support his goals. After only three and a half terms in the House of Representatives has already been nominated by journalistic admirers for Speaker of the House vice president and perhaps in time president of the United States bill Grace as one of them may be the first black Congressman whose success truly transcends race. Little gray is really a minister of the Gospel. Was the Glorious opportunity to act out the gospel in the arena of political complexity? The Book of Ecclesiastes and joins him in deed and joins all of us to be humble. But that's especially hard to do when all about you are talking about the chairman of the powerful house budget committee. He's also on the powerful Appropriations Committee. In the world of political hype any committee you're on is by definition powerful. But if power is measured by being in the middle. sitting astride our destiny working on Destiny decisions that affect us all the house budget committee really is powerful. This remarkable man who doubles as senior minister of the bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia where he grew up is sitting just now in the dead center of the liveliest issue in American politics. A conservative government representing a political party which has been scorning budget deficits ever since I can remember now presents Bill Gray's Democrats with the opportunity and the Dilemma of a lifetime how to be fiscally responsible yet not offend the many parts of that New Deal coalition that was built during half a century by the astute deployment of the United States Treasury. Congressman gray has to leave. On an airplane at 1:30 as I mentioned. But in the few minutes we have with him. We look forward to learning how to think about topic a in American politics and government this year and probably next year and the year after that too. Congressman William H gray the Third (00:17:06) Thank you very much to Dean Cleveland and to all of those who are associated with the Hubert Humphrey Institute here at this great University. And also in this great state. I am delighted to come and join you I'm honored to be a part of this lecture series because so many of the challenges and battles we face in Washington are the same challenges and battles to which our beloved Hubert Humphrey dedicated his life Hubert Humphrey taught us that government can play a positive productive role in improving the quality of life. So for so many Americans, he taught us also that compassion and concern need not be sacrificed because of tough difficult decision. We must make to restore fiscal sanity to our budget process. And that is the Legacy that he left for us and it is a legacy that challenges us today. As we Face difficult decisions. You've asked me to talk to you today about reducing the deficit and its cost to you. Let me say at the outset cutting the federal budget will not be easy. It will involve individual pain and sacrifice. But in my view the benefits to our economy and our society now and in the future far outweigh the immediate cause I see this because it is clear that we cannot go on as we have for the past five years. Yes, the last five years the facts are clear. We did not inherit these deficits. Nor the doubled national debt in 1980. The total debt of America was nine hundred and fourteen billion dollars from George Washington to Jimmy Carter today as I speak to you that debt is over 2 trillion dollars in 1980. We were debating deficits of 40 to 50 billion dollars today. We are facing for the second year in a row deficits that will exceed 200 billion dollars. How did we get here? We got here through a set of fiscal and revenue policies that led to a philosophy of spend spend spend Baro Baro Baro at present the public receives a dollars worth of federal benefits and services for every 80 cents. It pays in taxes. We borrow the other 20 cents obviously for some this can Be politically popular something for nothing is always popular. Unfortunately. It is not a sustainable policy for the federal government any more than it would be a sustainable policy in your own family household borrowing has its place for families as four nations, but we must always remember it isn't free eventually the piper must be paid. The policy of the last three years of running Federal deficits near 200 billion dollars or more is not acceptable because it is increasingly clear that these deficits are costly to the economy and to the present and future generations. For example, the record trade deficits that we continue to run are closely associated with the budget deficit the upward pressure on the interest rates helps to cause an appreciation of the dollar and a rapid deterioration in our trade balance jobs have been lost and many communities across the country have suffered especially the farm belt and Industrial regions other parts of the economy have also been hurt by the high interest rates that the budget deficits in gender. Growth slowed in housing and other credit sensitive sectors and although gross investment has been strong investment less replacement costs net investment has been subpar in the current recovery because it is increased net investment that enhances productivity it is no wonder that productivity has been so weak recently. This bodes ill for our International competitiveness and future living standards moreover. The deficit affects the economy's future prospects by spending more than we take in we have accumulated a massive federal debt of some two trillion dollars the resulting interest burden for each man woman and child in this country has more than doubled. Since 1980 to reach five hundred and forty two dollars per citizen last year. If we continue to run such large deficits the debt and the interest payments on it will claim an increasing share of our gross national product future. Generations will face higher taxes or inflation to pay for today's budget policies. Similarly the trade deficits that we have been running mean that as a nation. We have been living beyond our means amassing a debt to foreigners to pay for current spending last year. We became a net debtor Nation for the first time since World War 1 the last century. We were importing capital and using it productively to fine. And the nation's infrastructure, its waterways railroads and westward expansion in contrast foreign Capital today is financing consumption particularly public consumption. That is the budget deficit by the end of this year. We will be the world's largest debtor Nation owing the rest of the world some 200 billion dollars. We have benefited from these Capital inflows that have supplemented our low levels of domestic savings keeping interest rates lower than they otherwise would have been and allowing more spending. However, the problem is that as the debt increases so will the cost of its servicing which now exceeds a hundred and fifty billion dollars a year. This will Require a transfer of real income from the United States to foreigners implying a lower level of living standards in the future for the Next Generation. We can also see another benefit associated with the prospect of deficit reduction lower mortgage rates because last year the Congress moved forward to reduce the deficits by over 50 billion dollars by partisan Lee and because also the Congress in its haste I might add to control deficits past the gramm-rudman budget Bill we have seen that these actions have had a favorable impact upon interest rates the budget deficits upward pressure on interest rates kept mortgage rates. Well into the double digits, Despite the sharp fall in inflation for several years today the combination of falling oil prices and a more optimistic outlook on the budget has reduced rates to their lowest level since early 1979 as we reduce the deficit over the years ahead the pool of national savings will grow reducing our dependence on foreign capital and leading to an increase in productive investment that will raise the living standards of our citizens these then are some of the reasons why we must put in place budget policies that cut the deficit and reduce the ever increasing national debt. There are however different ways to do this. The president's budget is one way it cuts domestic spending sharply while eliminating over 41 programs. And at the same time it increases Pentagon spending by 12 percent or thirty four billion dollars and it has two interesting features one a feature called privatization where approximately nine to ten billion dollars worth of revenues will be generated from the sale of assets of the federal government like the federal housing Administration or the Bonneville power plants out in the Great Northwest. There are some questions that must be raised about privatization first who's standing in line to buy these government assets to are we getting a fair market price for them? And thirdly there's a more fundamental question of deficit reduction procedure. And that is aren't we really selling the garage in order to raise money to pay the mortgage for the first of March and even if we are able to do that. What happens when April Rose around what do we sell the living room the dining room or the bathroom next in order to solve the problem. There are also located in the president's budget in his proposal six billion dollars of taxes for fiscal year 1987. I know that comes as a surprise because he said that there were no taxes, but they are called Revenue enhancers and user fees. However, where I come from a tax is a tax is a tax thus we have before the American people one proposal the president's proposal that has been submitted and just last week the Republican controlled Senate voted it down in committee. The president's priorities however have dismayed many in the house as well when we conducted our field hearings as well. As our hearings in Washington. We heard many Americans say we want strong deficit reduction. We agree with the president and reducing the deficit but we don't agree with the choices. We don't believe that the way to reduce the deficit is by cutting large amounts of Child Nutrition monies, particularly, when one out of every five children in America is at risk presently in our society. We heard people say I'm for reducing the deficit. However, I don't want to cut Health Care programs for the poor and the elderly in order to do it. We heard people say we want a strong National Defense. However, we A defense that is going to be paid for not by Massive transfers from domestic programs. In fact, as we looked closely at the president's budget, we found that the president's budget did not reach the target of gramm-rudman of 144 million dollars but indeed there was an underestimation of defense spending of fifteen billion dollars. And now the Congressional budget office has re-estimated. The president's proposal and has pointed out that the total deficit for 1987 is not that of 144 as claimed by the administration, but it is well over one hundred and fifty seven billion dollars. I believe we can achieve a more balanced approach to deficit reduction if we are Guided by what I call principles. Of good government first we should set priorities among programs with a view toward efficiency. It is Pennywise and pound-foolish policy to cut back sharply programs that can improve future economic prospects and competitiveness. Secondly, we must maintain a safety net for those of our citizens who are in need finally having set our spending priorities. We must be willing to pay for the cost of government now rather than later as we have been doing that may mean in my view that once we have reduced spending as far as possible that we must be prepared to look at one of the fundamental causes for the deficit and the increasing Reading we must remember that three things were said to us five years ago one we will strengthen our National Defense to we will reduce our revenues through Cuts in taxes. And finally, we will balance the budget. I will repeat that. We will increase our National Defense we will cut taxes and we will balance the budget now, you don't need a PhD from the Wharton School of economics and my congressional district to understand that there's a problem regardless of how you may feel about all three of those policy goals of strong defense tax reduction and a balanced budget for unless you're prepared to get your f-16s from Goodwill Industries and your 600 ship Navy from the Salvation Army. You've got to pay for it. And at the same time you are going to reduce revenues that give you the ability to pay for that strong defense and then you're going to claim that you're going to balance the budget. Well in 1980 George Bush had a descriptive term for such policies, which I remind you of voodoo economics. And now even David Stockman the one who was the budget director for the Administration has pointed out that there is no way to cut your way out of the deep sea of reading that there is a need for revenues there appears to be a substantial bipartisan majority in congress ready to cut spending ready to do whatever is necessary to reduce the deficits and move toward a balanced the only missing element and The crucial element is presidential leadership. In the need not simply to talk about balanced budgets not simply to talk about Constitutional Amendments and line-item vetoes, but finally to work bipartisanly with the Congress and producing a balanced budget not in 1991 but to do it in the next three or four years and in order for us to have that creative presidential leadership, it means that our president must Hoster the 44 magnum make my day Vito gun and join members of his own party like Senator DeMint itchy Senator Dole who are beginning to say that we've got to have equity in deficit reduction and it cannot be done simply by Cuts alone. However, for those whose those of you who may say, why doesn't Congress charged forward, you must remember what TS Eliot said long Go about a shadow falling between the ideal and the reality and even though the Constitution says that Revenue start in the Congress the fact is that no Congress has ever passed a revenue increase over the opposition of the president and it would be Folly to try. So it is my hope that as Congress moves to reduce the deficits through Cuts in spending that the president will come to the table early and bring revenues as Senator DeMint itchy has called for last week. As I said at the outset cutting the deficit will involve sacrifice. It means that some of us are going to see our favorite programs reduced. However, I believe that we can share the burden and emerge with a stronger economic prospects than we otherwise would have had I also believe that We can reduce the deficits make cuts and spending by not closing the door of Educational Opportunity by savaging government student loan programs Pell Grant programs and E to higher education. I don't think that those are the right kinds of choices if I had my way if I have to choose between cutting nutrition programs for Hungry children are cutting trolley cars for urban mass transit. I believe that we ought to cut urban mass transit as opposed to nutrition programs for Hungry children. And that ultimately is what a budget is about a budget is about making choices. It's choosing within the circumstances where you may find yourself what are the values and the priorities of our nation? Yes, what has made this nation great has been its Engine its growth it's free enterprise system. But at the same time what has also made this nation great has been our commitment to equity and to compassion the fact that we've said to people no matter where they came from and how they got here whether they came on an immigrant ship or like my forebears came on a slave ship we have said we will not close the doors of opportunities. We will provide a ladder and if you're willing you can climb up that ladder and find opportunity and that is the ultimate threat of these deficits that they closed the door of opportunity for the next generation and the genius of this nation has been not only its ability to keep the doors open and in each generation to widen those doors, but also the fact that every generation That has come along has believed that it could run a little bit faster climb a little bit higher and reach a little bit further than the last generation and deficits pose a threat to that great. Hope that makes our nation. What it is Hubert Humphrey once said that if we want to find out what a society is, like look at what it does to those in the dawn of Life the children what it does to those in the shadows of Life the sick and the needy and what it does for those in the Twilight the agent I submit to you that there is a better way of deficit reduction and just as we did last year, I believe the House of Representatives will come forward with an alternative plan that will say, yes, we can reduce these deficits and we can do it without Putting it on the backs of those in the dawn the Twilight or the shadows and if we can do that, then we will maintain the greatness of this nation The Genius of the American Spirit. Thank you and God bless you. (00:38:49) Congressman William H gray the third of Pennsylvania addressing this audience at Northrop Auditorium here on the campus of the University of Minnesota in a speech entitled a balanced budget what cost to you or going to take questions now from the audience is relayed by Usher's up to Harlan Cleveland as dean of the Humphrey Institute of ninth grade social science students. And they'd like you to explain briefly how the budget problems today are going to affect them in the next 15 or 20 years when they'll be twice their present age. Roughly. Why should they be aware of all this? (00:39:25) First of all, if we continue to leave this Legacy of great debt, it will have to be paid and financed by someone and therefore it will be paid for and finance probably by the future generation since we are borrowing it right now in order to finance our choices and also the debt secondly it also means a sluggish economy an economy that is not growing and contrary to the rhetoric of America Is Standing Tall the reality is that over the last 37 months. Our economic growth has been just at average the reality. Is that although the president talked about 9 million jobs created. In the first five years of his administration in the five years preceding that we create it 13 million jobs. So we're not creating enough jobs for those nine years ninth grade students. And then finally if we make the wrong choices in deficit reduction, like a 25% cut and government student loan programs a 30% cut in Pell Grant programs elimination of things like work study programs and cutbacks to higher education. Then it means that they won't even have the opportunity to pursue the kinds of choices that past Generations did and thus be able to pay that red ink or that debt when they become adults and that's why it's (00:40:58) important. What an extension of the period in which the budget has to be balanced taking it Beyond 1991 in the gramm-rudman legislation. Would that help the stability of the American economy? (00:41:14) Well, I don't believe that we can wait until pass the 1990s to address the issue essentially gramm-rudman is based upon an optimistic optimistic economic assumption that from 1983 to 1991. There will be continuous economic growth that is just not going to happen and I don't know any prominent economists who think that we will have continuous economic growth and if we don't and I suspect we won't when the economy turns downward you have an increase in the debt and the deficit simply because of a loss of revenues and therefore I don't believe that we can wait until well into the 1990s a sensible policy. See a fiscal restraint Cuts in spending combined with presidential leadership on the revenue issue could lead us to a balanced budget within three to four years and at the same time not having to make Draconian cuts of vital domestic programs like health education opportunity research and scientific growth. (00:42:31) One questioner wants to know whether it is impossible to come out of this year's budget tactics with what he calls a super budget process a bipartisan resolution by the Congress that in effect takes control of the situation. (00:42:45) Well, I wish that we could we've made one step in that direction Senator DeMint itchy, and I we have come to a joint agreement and rejecting the administration's economic assumptions and baselines and thus we will both be working on the same playing field and that is a first and I think we're going to see increased cooperation between the house and the Senate as we make our different policy choices. However, I don't believe at this point that we will move toward a joint meeting of House and Senate budget committees, simply because there's a third leg to the Stool of government and that is the executive branch. And so far the executive branch has not been willing to negotiate or participate in such a process without the executive branch participating candidly creatively, I think it would not be worth the effort for Senator de Medici and Bill Gray bringing the two budget committees together. We would know what to do and we probably could pass it. But we have to have a president who will move out of the Skybox and come down onto the playing (00:44:10) field. Everybody knows that. There's going to be some kind of tax increase. Why is everybody so reluctant to say the first word (00:44:23) well because as I pointed out in my presentation, you cannot have a tax increase in Washington without the support of a president a president must say I am willing to consider Revenue increases and then we get into a debate over what kind of increases and until the president holsters the 44 magnum make my day veto gun. It is highly unlikely that Piet de Medici Bill Gray Bob Dole and Tip O'Neill will hope put on there Daisy BB guns and step out on Pennsylvania Avenue. That is the reality and I would hope that the president would hear the words coming from the members of his own party in the Senate and some in the house saying, mr. President. We cannot creatively effectively deal with this problem. If you won't give us a signal So far the president has not done that and that is why we must have the president to give a signal if we are to move in a revenue Direction. (00:45:29) What priority do you think has to be given to social programs and the defense build-up as the two major pieces of the equation? (00:45:42) Well, first of all, let me just say how delighted I am to be here. And in the presence of General Vesey, the former Chief of Staff Of The Joint Chiefs. My view would be that the president's proposed 12 percent increase is rather unrealistic in light of the debt. Now, I am aware aware of the threat but we also have the dead and in light of that. I think that the more realistic appraisal of Pentagon spending is needed for fiscal year 1987 and light of the fact that over the last five years. We have averaged eight percent real growth in Pentagon. Spending it would seem to me that we have to slow that growth again this year as we did last year in order to deal with the debt crisis an exact percentage. I'm not prepared to predict. There are many members of the Congress who are talking about a freeze. But of course there are different kinds of freezes. There's an inflation freeze. There's a budget Authority fries and there's an outlay fries but many members are talking about some kind of freeze a few are talking about a much lower number of real growth maybe one or two percent. I think it is too early to say where we will come out on the domestic side many of the domestic programs have been held down have been restrained over the last five years. However, I do believe that there are some programs where we can still make some further. News on the domestic side. However, I think you will find a congress very reluctant to make reductions in certain high priority programs such as the safety net such as education such as scientific research such as criminal justice and also a few of the other areas like FAA controllers. (00:47:54) Are you going to support our even proposed the Congressional Black Caucus budget as an alternative to the president's (00:48:02) no, I am the chairman of the house budget committee. I am not chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus even though I happened to be black the Congressional Black Caucus has in the past offered an alternative for the last five years. In fact beginning in 1981. They were the first group to do so and I would imagine that they will offer an alternative again this year. However, that is a decision to be made by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus the budget alternative that will come from the budget Committee of the United States house will be called the Great Amendment and thus I am responsible for supporting the consensus position of the It committee which hopefully as last year will become the position the bipartisan position of the House of Representatives. And eventually I might add became the position of the president of the United States for fiscal year 1986 (00:49:12) shifting from bipartisanship to partisanship what realistic chance does the Democratic party have regaining the US Senate in the November elections with this questioner says the disadvantage of the drop in World oil prices and the profit to the Republicans of a stronger economy. (00:49:34) Well clearly the drop in oil prices have had a very positive impact on continuing economic growth and also with the interest rates without a doubt. I don't think that you need to have a catastrophe economic catastrophe in order for people to make decisions. I think what you will see across this nation in each state and in each congressional district people making individual decisions based on who they think will best represent them. And that means that the focus will be on state issues on local issues as opposed to National issues. I think the Democratic party has clearly demonstrated a sense of fiscal responsibility by last year cutting six billion dollars more than what the president asked for, but doing it in an equitable and more compassionate way. I think we will demonstrate that again and I think people will be able to see the choices of the president the choices of the Senate and then the choices of the house that may play a part in the senatorial races, but I think ultimately people will make their decisions based upon the individual candidates where they stand and what they perceive as happening in their state and how the Policies from Washington are impacting on them. I think that we will be successful and gaining ground the Democratic party in both the Senate and in the house (00:51:09) since you come from Philadelphia, it was inevitable that somebody would want to know what your prediction is about mayor good and his future with the city of Philadelphia given the very critical commission report last week (00:51:21) first. I have not had an opportunity to read the commission's report. In fact, I have not even been able to find the ability to follow it all through the Philadelphia news media or newspapers because we are presently in the middle of the budget process cycle under the new rules of gramm-rudman. And so thus I am not able to comment on the political impact upon mayor Goods future until I have read every line of that report and make an assessment as well as talk to a variety of political. Gold and community and Grassroots leadership. Certainly the commission's report is not a positive impact upon the administration's future. (00:52:06) As we wind down to the time for tournament Congressman. There's a whole lot of people in this audience judging from these cards. We really want to know more about you. Let me just give you an idea you have a much-admired reputation for consensus building and Coalition building. What is your secret? Do you find any time to perform your ministry in Washington not talking about Philadelphia now but in Washington. What is a typical day for you? Are there any am using any underlined amusing incidents in the budget process? (00:52:41) First of all, how do I build coalitions you have a been a preacher of a Baptist Church. If you can survive that you can almost survive anything in a real sense. I think that my training in the ministry and my background of 20 years as being a minister a local Parish Pastor has been helpful. It's been helpful for two reasons one. I think that I bring a preacher ZR2 listening to other people's concerns and also not viewing myself as so self-righteous that I am absolutely right on every issue and that there might be the possibility that I could be wrong and somebody else could be right secondly understanding also that when you talk about budgets, you're not simply talking about zeros commas numbers, but you're talking about people you're talking about Unity's you talking about societies and then I think that I do combine my Ministry or work. I am still the senior preaching minister of the bright Hope Baptist Church and 35 times a year. You will find me in the Pulpit of the bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia. If you come to Philadelphia preaching, it keeps me sane and I also from time to time provide pastoral services such as weddings and also do eulogies at funerals because to me that's getting outside the Beltway and getting back down to the real world to real folks real problems and giving you a unique perspective that helps you to look at public policy in a different light and then finally any interesting stories. Yes, probably the most interesting story is the fact that when we came back from the Must break in the New Year break. We convened a meeting of the members of Congress for the chairman of the budget committee to address them about the impact of gramm-rudman and what it meant and how we were going to have to work together to do a budget. And so I took to the floor and I noticed that there were an unusual number of members there more than ever before and I thought that they did they were there to hear Pearls of Wisdom from me and I was eloquent wonderful brilliant for 10 minutes and then I asked for questions there were none and then the chairman of the caucus said we will now ask congressman annunzio and Congressman phase EO who had up the legislative committees that deal with your clerk higher and your operating expenses to come forward to tell you about the impact of gramm-rudman needless to say they were there for two hours. Why because For the First Time when we passed a law it was not a law to send someone else off to fight a battle. It was not a law to cut someone else but guess what it cut us. And so members of Congress were greatly disturbed because they had to cut $40,000 from their personal clerk higher office expense accounts and Committees of chair, like myself have to cut even larger amounts. So for the first time that I can remember in seven years, we had a consequence for our own action and boy that really got a folks attention. (00:56:22) Thank you very (00:56:23) much. Thank you. Congressman William H gray the (00:56:30) third Democrat from Pennsylvania and chair of the house budget committee speaking here at Northrop Auditorium as part of the Carlson lecture series presented by the Humphrey Institute of public affairs. And while we wrap up this broadcast representative gray will be presented with a plaque from the Carlson companies. We are here at Northrop Auditorium along with about a thousand other people who came to hear representative great today and reminder the technical direction for this broadcast was provided by John Curtis and production assistance from Sarah Mayer special. Thanks to Arthur NAFTA and who is Professor of public affairs at the Humphrey Institute for joining me at the beginning of this broadcast broadcast of this speech was made possible by the members of Minnesota Public Radio Northrop Auditorium on the campus of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. This is Rich demons beginning.