Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. One of my neighbors keeps asking me. He said, ``I hear about all these farm problems.'' He lives in a city. He said, ``I can't understand, if the farmers aren't making money, how come I'm not seeing lower prices in the store?'' They don't understand that. I think the Senator from North Dakota pointed out that consumers aren't seeing it in the store. The fact is that bread has gone up in the last couple years, not down. The large grain companies, the shippers, the monopolies are reaping a windfall. They are buying these products from the farmer, not at wholesale, but at fire sale prices. In listening to the Senator, I could not help but remember what John Kennedy said in Sioux City, IA, when he was running for President in 1960. He made the statement: ``The farmer is the only person who buys retail, sells wholesale, and pays the freight both ways.'' Well, now today farmers aren't even selling wholesale. They are selling at fire sale prices--not only wheat, but corn and soybeans. And pork prices, this year, are probably going to average their lowest since 1974. They are working at extremely low cattle prices. So all across the agricultural sector, we have a terrible crisis. Now, as the Senator pointed out again last night in our conference committee, when we met to try to do something, to answer this crisis and need in rural America, we were told that, no, we would not do it, we can only do a little bit. I liken last night to somebody dying of thirst and you give them a thimbleful of water. That is what those who we were in conference with last night basically did to the farmers. They slapped them in the face and gave them a thimbleful of water when they are dying of thirst. It is a shame. It came down to a straight party-line vote. It is very unfortunate that it had to be on a party-line basis when this issue begs for nonpartisanship and bipartisanship. Yet, it has evolved into a partisan situation. That is a real shame. I think it is a shame that our colleagues voted against any meaningful help. As the Senator pointed out, we had about a $3 billion difference. In other words, for $3 billion, we could have really met the needs of farmers all over this country--not only the farmers in Iowa and North Dakota, but the farmers in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and all over the country. Farmers who are either suffering from the fall in prices, or because they have had a drought, or floods, or disease. All of these things have piled up this year to really put agriculture in dire straits. No, they don't have the money for that, as the Senator pointed out, but they do have money for an $80 billion tax cut. I am sure the Senator would agree with me. I met with farmers in Iowa not too long ago and I talked about this tax cut. I said, ``Who do you think is going to get it? I will give you a hint: It isn't you.'' They are not going to get it; it is going to go to upper-income people. We know that. But for $3 billion we could have really helped pull these farmers out. And we still can if we have the will. I ask the Senator from North Dakota in my closing question--and I thank him again for his strong support for the American farmer, the family farmer, and for always being front and center here on the floor and in our committee meetings, for fighting for those family farmers. Lord knows, we don't have too many people around here fighting for them anymore. But the strength and the passion and courage of the Senator from North Dakota has gone a long way toward at least helping us get this far, getting something through to help our farmers--even though it is not going to be enough to save them, unless we can have some more action on the floor. The Senator has indicated that when that bill comes back, we are going to have more action on this floor. We are not going to go away quietly. I join with the Senator from North Dakota in saying that. We are not going to go away quietly. We are going to be here until the last bell rings of this Congress to do everything we can to help those family farmers. I thank the Senator from North Dakota again for his eloquent remarks and for his steadfastness in standing up for those who really are the backbone of this country, those who have worked hard, produced our food and fiber and the products they have raised in our export channels have been the only thing that has kept our balance of payments and our balance of trade with other countries at least somewhat positive. It has only been agriculture. It hasn't been anything else, just agriculture. And yet to let them go down the drain because of monopoly practices I think is just a shame, and I think it is something we have to address. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for, again, leading the fight.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding for a question. First of all, I thank the Senator for a very eloquent and forceful statement on what is happening out there and, really, the shame of this Congress in not addressing it. As I look at your charts here and see the free-fall in the price of wheat over the last couple of years--since the 1996 so-called Freedom to Farm bill was passed--I look at that and I wonder what happened to the price of bread. Has that come down? What about all the wheat products, like pasta and all the things into which wheat goes? I ask the Senator, what happened? Are the consumers making out on this and getting a cut-rate deal at the grocery store?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first all, I thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island for letting me jump in front of him. I will only take a couple minutes. The chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, was in the Chamber earlier talking about the fact that I had not permitted the energy and water conference report to proceed under a unanimous consent agreement. I objected to that. And the reason I did so not objection to the energy bill; I have none. Rather I objected because I wanted to once again bring the attention of the Senate to the fact that we have a very unfair situation presented to us in terms of the allocation of money for the defense portion of fiscal year 1999 Appropriations and for the nondefense portion. I again ask Senators to look at the July 30 Congressional Record, page S9404, when I spoke, and there was a short colloquy with Senator Specter, myself, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Domenici at that time. Basically, it goes back to a letter that was written on April 2, 1998, by Senator Domenici to Senator Stevens which basically said that by using OMB scoring figures and policy decisions, they had identified $2.2 billion more in outlays for defense by using the OMB policy assumptions rather than CBO policy assumptions. At the end of the letter Senator Domenici writes, ``Pursuant to your amendment, we are also looking at the issue of nondefense outlay scoring and will report back to you shortly.'' That was April 27, and we still don't have a report. Right now, based on informal preliminary meetings being held with the House, it is clear that a considerable increase over the funding in the Senate bill will be required to meet all of the demands and get this bill signed into law. Now, earlier today I spoke to Senator Domenici about this, and Senator Domenici mentioned something to me about $300 million that he had already given. That unfortunately is not my understanding of where we officially stand. We still haven't seen it, and I do not know where it is. If it is $215 million or even $300 million, that still means we are going to have to trim over half a billion dollars from what the preliminary discussions with the House have led us to. So where are we going to trim? Head Start? Are we going to cut IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? Are we going to cut community health centers? Are we going to cut the Ryan White AIDS Program? Drug treatment? How about our vitally important medical research at NIH? Are we going to cut all those? A half a billion dollars we are going to have to cut. Well, I and others have said what is fair is fair, and if you use OMB policy statements for defense scoring, you ought to use them for nondefense also. If that were the case, the Labor, Health, and Human Services Subcommittee would not be getting $215 million; it would, in fact, get $770 million--not $215 million. So the reason I have said that we need this time--and I will not take a lot of time now because I know that Senator Reed has prepared a speech here, and I don't want to interrupt his time. He was kind enough to give me a couple minutes here just to lay this out. But right now we need fair treatment for these domestic programs, and $215 million doesn't do it. But if we have the same kind of scoring as we got for defense, we should get about $770 million. So I just wanted to alert Senators as to why I was taking this course of action. We have been waiting since April 22. We talked about it on July 30. Here we are in the final closing days of the Congress and programs vital to the health, to the education, and the security of the people of this country are going underfunded. I don't know what kind of games are being played. I don't know what all is going on behind the scenes. But we are going to continue to demand fairness until we get it. I am sorry that Senator Specter can't be here. Of course, he is home because of the Jewish holy day. I would just again refer to Senator Specter's comments on July 30 of this year in which he basically echoed what I was saying, and that is that we need to get this correct scoring. I would not want to put words in Senator Specter's mouth without him being here, but I believe he feels the same way I do. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for letting me get ahead of him. I yield the floor. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, and I won't object, but I did want to engage in a brief colloquy here with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee regarding statements I made earlier on the floor that Senator Domenici also made earlier on the floor. I did not want to hold up the energy and water bill at all, but I did want to make a strong case that the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee is having some very, very severe problems in meeting the basic health and education needs of the country and the requirements that other Senators and House Members have imposed on us. We simply don't have the outlays necessary to do the job. I asked the help of the Budget Committee chairman in this regard. At the outset, again, I want to make clear for the record that Senator Domenici has been a strong supporter of our subcommittee. I know he has worked very hard and very diligently to make sure we do have the kind of resources that we need. However, it is clear that we have come up short. I just wanted to ask the Senator from New Mexico if he could, perhaps, enlighten me further as to where we might be on this issue.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for his diligence in looking at this. Believe me, I know it is a tough job. I can only imagine being chairman of the Budget Committee in these times, working under the constraints under which we have to work. I have a lot of sympathy for the Senator's position on this. As I said in my opening remarks, I know from my past experience in dealing with the Senator from New Mexico of his strong support for those programs that we have, whether it is IDEA, whether it is drug treatment, or NIH research or community health centers. I could go down the list. I know the Senator from New Mexico has been a strong supporter of these. I am very grateful for his work in diligently finding this extra money in terms of finding the policy differences. And I appreciate his commitment to continue to review these differences and to make other appropriate adjustments. Hopefully, as we move along, there will be others. I pledge to him that I will work closely with him as we move towards completion of the important work on this bill. Again, I thank the distinguished Senator for his consideration and his efforts in helping us to get to this point. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from North Dakota. I wanted to join him in talking about the agriculture situation, but I appreciate if he would yield the floor, and he can get the floor back when Senator Domenici and I finish.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, few individual pieces of legislation embody the spirit of the American dream as does the Higher Education Act. First passed in 1965, this legislation opened the doors of college and a more prosperous future to millions of students. Without federal college grants and loans, most Americans would not be able to get the postsecondary education that is essential in today's competitive international economy. The pending legislation--the Higher Education Amendments of 1998-- strengthens our nation's commitment to a higher education and I am pleased to support this important piece of legislation. I congratulate Senators Jeffords, Coats, Kennedy, and Dodd for crafting a genuinely bipartisan bill. I appreciate their leadership and commitment to ensuring access to college for millions of Americans. My colleagues have extolled the many fine features of this legislation--lower interest rates for students, improved teacher preparation programs and a modernization of the system for delivering student aid. I am in full agreement on the positive aspects of this legislation. However, as we all know, legislation involves many compromises and I would feel remiss if I did not also express my disappointment about two provisions in the legislation. We are all acutely aware of the soaring debt accumulated by U.S. students. The reduction in the interest rate by nearly eight tenths of a point, will provide critical relief to students. As a result, they will save hundreds of dollars. The bill also allows individuals to refinance outstanding loans at a lower interest rate by extending the current interest rate on direct loans for four more months. Thereafter, the interest rate on consolidation loans will increase to the weighted average of the outstanding loans with a cap of 8.25%. The conferees rejected attempts to provide a longer period for consolidation at the lower interest rate with means that many students will be unable to refinance their loans to get more favorable rates. Modest cuts in the generous subsidies to lenders and guarantee agencies would have enabled us to provide a longer window for consolidation. It is my sincere hope that we will continue to work together to extent this important benefit to make it easier for individuals to pay off their students loans. Secondly, to pay for a lender subsidy for students, the legislation increased the fee that FHA mortgage borrowers will pay to Ginnie Mae in the future from 6 to 9 basis points. If not overturned at a later point, this provision will cost hundreds of extra dollars to modest income homebuyers in order to acquire a mortgage. Clearly, Ginnie Mae which makes insures the mortgages does not need the funding. This is a straightforward tax on modest income homebuyers, often making $25,000 to $40,000 per year inserted into this measure. The conferees may talk about their hope that the 3 basis points will be absorbed by mortgage bankers. But, given that competitive market, most of that cost will be passed on. I will work to overturn this inappropriate source of funds. Even though I have reservations about some provisions in this legislation, I believe it is a strong bill and worthy of our support. The bill strengthens Federal student aid programs for the future, and I urge my colleagues to support the Higher Education Amendments of 1998.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to establish a more independent budget process for the Inspector Generals of each federal Department. Under our current budget process, each federal Department Secretary has the power to determine the budget of its Inspector General or IG. While our Department Secretaries generally do a fine job of overseeing their respective Departments and agencies, I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the head of an executive agency to also determine the funding levels for an office whose main function is investigating that agency. In the interest of proper checks and balances, I would hope that we could establish true independence for the IGs budgets. The IGs are our government watchdogs. Yet, too often, their budgets have been cut back. The United States government is wrestling with streamlining its programs and revamping how it does business. But it has been the IG offices which have largely identified the waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government and allow this body to make significant budget cuts in an effective manner. We need stronger watchdogs, not weaker. The offices of Inspectors General has served this country well in making sure that the taxpayers' dollars are not misspent. This spring, for example, the Department of Defense's IG, Eleanor Hill, testified before the House Oversight Subcommittee. She described over $15 billion in fiscal year 1996 funds that were put to better use as a result of IG efforts. Hill pointed out that, ``At the Department of Defense, since FY 1989, IG audit reports have identified almost $16 billion in agreed upon savings. During the same period, monetary recoveries through investigations by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal investigative arm of my office, have totaled over $4.5 billion. Historically, our criminal investigators alone have returned at least $15 in recoveries and fines for every dollar spent on their operations.'' In her testimony, DOD Inspector General Eleanor Hill concludes with what she feels are the greatest concerns for the future of the Office of Inspector General. She points out examples of crimes on the Internet, the overload of paperwork and false claims. But the biggest problem, according to Ms. Hill, ``has been the continuing difficulties we face in coping with programmed downsizing.'' As we attempt to cut wasteful spending and streamline offices, it is the office of Inspectors General which must not be put on the chopping block. Unfortunately, the support for the IGs has been often reduced more than for other parts of the government. For example, the Department of Energy faced an 11% cut for FY 1996, but a 21% cut in its IG budget. It is my fear that as we continue to cut budgets, the IGs will be first on the chopping blocks at a time when we need them even more to identify wasteful and outdated programs. It should be obvious, Mr. President, that those who could be investigated by the Inspectors General should not be given the responsibility of developing and approving IG budgets. The Securities and Exchange Commission's budget is not decided by Wall Street firms; The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget is not decided by the nation's nuclear power companies. Congress must ensure that no department secretary can take vengeance upon an aggressive IG office. My bill aims to ensure an effective and independent federal Inspector General system and allow each IG, in consultation with its parent Department, to decide the budget of the IG's office. This bill would provide greater autonomy for the office and prevent strong criticism of a Department, or the singling out of wasteful programs, from affecting watchdog funding. We have seen repeatedly how a valuable resource like the Inspector General's office has been able to bring this body's attention, and the American public's attention, to some of the wasteful spending of the federal government. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to establish a more independent budget process for the Inspector Generals of each federal Department. Under our current budget process, each federal Department Secretary has the power to determine the budget of its Inspector General or IG. While our Department Secretaries generally do a fine job of overseeing their respective Departments and agencies, I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the head of an executive agency to also determine the funding levels for an office whose main function is investigating that agency. In the interest of proper checks and balances, I would hope that we could establish true independence for the IGs budgets. The IGs are our government watchdogs. Yet, too often, their budgets have been cut back. The United States government is wrestling with streamlining its programs and revamping how it does business. But it has been the IG offices which have largely identified the waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government and allow this body to make significant budget cuts in an effective manner. We need stronger watchdogs, not weaker. The offices of Inspectors General has served this country well in making sure that the taxpayers' dollars are not misspent. This spring, for example, the Department of Defense's IG, Eleanor Hill, testified before the House Oversight Subcommittee. She described over $15 billion in fiscal year 1996 funds that were put to better use as a result of IG efforts. Hill pointed out that, ``At the Department of Defense, since FY 1989, IG audit reports have identified almost $16 billion in agreed upon savings. During the same period, monetary recoveries through investigations by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal investigative arm of my office, have totaled over $4.5 billion. Historically, our criminal investigators alone have returned at least $15 in recoveries and fines for every dollar spent on their operations.'' In her testimony, DOD Inspector General Eleanor Hill concludes with what she feels are the greatest concerns for the future of the Office of Inspector General. She points out examples of crimes on the Internet, the overload of paperwork and false claims. But the biggest problem, according to Ms. Hill, ``has been the continuing difficulties we face in coping with programmed downsizing.'' As we attempt to cut wasteful spending and streamline offices, it is the office of Inspectors General which must not be put on the chopping block. Unfortunately, the support for the IGs has been often reduced more than for other parts of the government. For example, the Department of Energy faced an 11% cut for FY 1996, but a 21% cut in its IG budget. It is my fear that as we continue to cut budgets, the IGs will be first on the chopping blocks at a time when we need them even more to identify wasteful and outdated programs. It should be obvious, Mr. President, that those who could be investigated by the Inspectors General should not be given the responsibility of developing and approving IG budgets. The Securities and Exchange Commission's budget is not decided by Wall Street firms; The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget is not decided by the nation's nuclear power companies. Congress must ensure that no department secretary can take vengeance upon an aggressive IG office. My bill aims to ensure an effective and independent federal Inspector General system and allow each IG, in consultation with its parent Department, to decide the budget of the IG's office. This bill would provide greater autonomy for the office and prevent strong criticism of a Department, or the singling out of wasteful programs, from affecting watchdog funding. We have seen repeatedly how a valuable resource like the Inspector General's office has been able to bring this body's attention, and the American public's attention, to some of the wasteful spending of the federal government. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Utah. Again, this raises another issue that was not in the sense-of-the- Congress amendment that I sent to the desk on which we just expressed ourselves. I wanted to get back to the point, again, that it is a creature of Congress. I am somewhat disturbed, not so much by the outcome of the vote. I have lost votes around this place before. That is not the point. But the issue is the kind of talk that I heard among Senators after voting on this that, (a) we shouldn't politicize the Fed; (b) we shouldn't tell the Fed what to do; (c) the Fed is a separate entity and we shouldn't have anything to do with them. I just don't understand where this comes from. I don't understand why this is the perception of so many people. I don't know why the Federal Reserve System has become so sacrosanct that we simply cannot deal with it. It is like the ``Holy of Holies.'' I find it strange that, as policymakers, we can't stand up and tell the Fed what we think they should do. That is not politicizing it. To politicize it would be for us to pass a law mandating that interest rates be at a certain level, or a law mandating that the Federal Reserve should vote this way or that. That is politicizing. That is what this Senator would even vote against. But for the Senate to say to the Federal Reserve, a creature of the Congress, we have looked at the landscape, we see what is happening in our economy, we see what is happening worldwide, we don't like what we see. We believe that the time has come to lower interest rates. We believe something should be done. Now, again, I see nothing wrong with this debate. I think that is part not only of our rights, but our responsibility. I want to take a couple more minutes to say why I believe so deeply and so strongly that we should be saying to the Fed that they should lower interest rates. Sometimes you would think this is a liberal proposition. I don't define it in terms of left, right, liberal, conservative. I really don't define it in that way. I define it in terms of whether or not we believe interest rates should be lower or whether we think they shouldn't be lower; whether we think the economy is going into a recession, or whether we think the economy may be verging on inflation. If you think the economy is experiencing an acceleration of inflation, you would not want to cut interest rates; if you think the economy is verging on recession, you would want to lower interest rates. That is where I believe we are. Don't take my word for it. I will point out what the Business Roundtable said on September 16, last week: The President and Congress should encourage the Federal Reserve to lower U.S. interest rates. In addition, the President, Congress and the Federal Reserve should work with our international trading partners to stimulate their domestic economies. . . .. should encourage the Federal Reserve to lower U.S. interest rates. It doesn't say we should ask the Fed to ``consider.'' It doesn't say that. It says they should ``lower'' the rates, not ``consider.'' There is talk that the Senator from New Mexico wants an amendment to say that we would just consider, that we should tell the Fed they should consider lowering interest rates. I don't believe that language is strong enough. Again, it is as if for some reason we almost have to ask the Fed for their permission to tell them what we think they should do.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for this enlightenment. I am responding to what the Senator from Nevada said, that they were not audited.

Mr. HARKIN. Without losing my right to the floor, I yield for a further answer from the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. HARKIN. If I might yield further without losing my right to the floor, I yield to the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. If I might say to my friend from Utah and Nevada, is it proscribed by law that the GAO cannot audit the Federal Reserve? Is that proscribed or is it just that they don't do it until we tell them to do it?

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator from Utah if they do this audit that the Senator says is done what would be wrong with having the GAO do their own separate audit? What is wrong with that?

Mr. HARKIN. It is bigger by a tremendous magnitude. We deal here in budgets in terms of billions of dollars. I know it sounds like a lot of money. But what the Fed does affects the entire $7 trillion economy. The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely right, what the Federal Reserve System does has a more profound effect on the daily lives of our citizens--how they live, how they are able to take care of their families, what kind of jobs they have, and what they have paid--than anything that we ever vote on around here in terms of budget matters. I thank the Senator for his inquiries and enlightenment on this issue. He has been a long-time fighter for the average working families and making sure that working people get a fair deal. I know the Senator from Minnesota understands that if you have lower interest rates, that helps working families. It helps families. The Senator from Minnesota also knows, as most of us know, that in the last couple of years, with this tight money policy, this high interest rate policy at the Federal Reserve, some people have said, ``Well, gee, whatever they have done has been good. Our economy is great. Whatever the Fed has done is good. Look at what is happening in our economy. Look what is happening in our economy. Unemployment is down.'' That is true. But if unemployment is so low, I ask you, why is it that when I went to Sioux City last Friday and visited the food bank, or earlier on when I visited the food bank in Des Moines, I was told by the directors of those two food banks that their demand for commodity foods--that the USDA commodities plus the food they get contributed from businesses, churches, and schools--is skyrocketing higher than ever? I did some checking. It is not only in Iowa, but in almost every State, the demand for food at our food banks has gone up in the last year or so. Why? If everyone is working, unemployment is so low, and the Fed has done such a great job, it is because, as I have been told and as I have found out, many of these people are working--usually single parents, usually single mothers with one or more children. They go to work every day. They work every day. They make a paycheck. They qualify for food stamps. They get food stamps. And then the food stamps run out before the end of the month. The only place they have to go is to the food bank to get free food. Don't take my word for it. Ask your staffs. Go out and ask your food banks. In any State, go out and ask those food banks. Find out what is happening. You will find that it is true. The demand for food from those food banks has gone up and continues to go up, and they are concerned about what is going to happen this winter. What has that to do with the Federal Reserve System? I am just saying, if they have done such a good job in this economy, why are they falling below the safety net? Because the high interest rate policy has ignored what is happening to the working families of America. A lower interest rate policy, everyone agrees, might mean that wages might go up and that businesses might be able to pay more in wages. I don't see anything drastically wrong with that. I think it would be a good thing for this country if wages went up. It would give people a little bit more buying power. Again, what we are seeing happen in our country happened in the 1920s. Fewer and fewer people are making more and more money. More and more people are making less and less and having less of a stake in our economy. It is true. It is happening in the agriculture sector, too. Neil Harroly, the distinguished agricultural economist at Iowa State, said what we are seeing in agriculture is not like the 1980s, it is like the 1920s. I think that is also what we are seeing happening in our country, too. So that is why I make the strong case that we have an obligation. I see my friend from Florida is ready to speak. I am going to wrap up very shortly, but I just want to make a couple of points. The Federal Open Market Committee may or may not be in a mode to lower interest rates. I quote the September 18 issue of the Christian Science Monitor, which noted that some Fed policymakers ``remain in a hawkish anti-inflation mode rather than worrying about the impact of deflation.'' These include William Poole, president of the St. Louis Regional Fed; Fed Governor Edward Gramlich; and an analyst, Jerry Gordon, president of the Cleveland Fed. I don't say that. I am just quoting from the Christian Science Monitor. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from Minnesota that he is absolutely correct.

Mr. HARKIN. I object.

Mr. HARKIN. This Senator is not aware of that specific legislation, no.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, usually when votes are cast, I don't like to revisit them. People have their reasons; we vote and we move on around here. But I heard so much in the well from people voting on this last sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I felt I should take a little bit of time to perhaps clarify a couple of things and to make an additional point. First of all, this was a sense-of-the-Congress amendment. It was nonbinding. Someone said, ``We shouldn't be legislating what the Federal Reserve should do.'' With that I wholeheartedly agree. We were not legislating a law to tell the Federal Reserve what to do, No. 1. That is my first point. This was a nonbinding sense of the Congress--we adopt those all the time around here--basically to say, ``Here is what I, a policymaker, think should be done.'' Secondly, this is not without precedent. This body has in the past voted on sense-of-the Congress amendments and resolutions that have told the Fed what we believe they should do. Third, I heard it said that we should not be politicizing the Fed. With that I wholeheartedly agree. But article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof to the Congress of the United States. It did not give it to the Federal Reserve System. The Congress, in its wisdom, in the past set up the Federal Reserve System to do that. We delegated our powers to the Fed to do that. Over the intervening years, we have amended the Federal Reserve Act. It is not carved in stone. It has been amended and changed several times since 1913. But the Federal Reserve System remains a creature of Congress. It exists only by the laws passed by the Congress. It is not a separate branch of Government. It is not some kind of supreme being, some kind of item of sanctity that we can never touch. I believe it is not only our right but our responsibility as policymakers at certain times, if we feel a certain way, to be able to tell the Federal Reserve System what we believe they should do. So on this past vote I have no quarrel with anyone who believes the Federal Reserve should not lower interest rates. I may debate that point with them, because I believe they should lower interest rates. That is a good debating point. But if someone voted on this and said no, the Federal Reserve should not lower interest rates, that I believe is a valid position that someone might hold, of which I disagree.

Mr. HARKIN. Inflation would not only start but accelerate.

Mr. HARKIN. Let me finish this, and I will. But to say we cannot vote to tell the Fed what to do because it would be politicizing it or we cannot interfere I believe somehow is an abdication of our responsibilities, not only our rights but our responsibilities as policymakers to tell a creature of the Congress what we believe they should do. We do not do it very often in terms of the Fed. In fact, I pointed out the last time we had a Sense of the Congress calling on the Fed to lower interest rates was in 1982. So this is not something we take lightly. But I believe at this point in time, with the world economy being what it is, with the tremendous drop in commodities and commodity prices here and around the world, with the specter of depression and deflation facing us--almost every economist, conservative, liberal, head of the Business Roundtable, head of General Motors, head of the National Association of Manufacturers, all say the Fed should lower interest rates. I offered this amendment, along with others, in good faith, to back them up to say, yes, you should lower interest rates. And that is what this was meant to do, to send that sense of the Congress that that is what we believe they should do. Obviously, we did not prevail. So I can only assume that most people do not believe they should lower interest rates. I would be delighted to yield to my friend from Nevada for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. This Senator was not aware of that. Is the Senator telling me that the Federal Reserve, which I have just stated is a creature of Congress, and exists by law, that the General Accounting Office, our accountant, cannot audit the Federal Reserve?

Mr. HARKIN. I would respond to the Senator by again asking the Senator a question. Have we ever tried to pass something here to have an audit done for the Federal Reserve?

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a question.