Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I am pleased to join Senator Frist, the chair of that subcommittee, in introducing the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] Amendments of 1996. It has been a privilege and a pleasure for me to work with Senator Frist and our respective staffs in developing this reauthorization proposal. I also would like to compliment Pat Morrissey, Senator Frist's staff director for the Subcommittee on Disability Policy for her efforts to enhance the partnership between parents of children with disabilities and the educational community. The amendments we are proposing today provide fine-tuning to powerful education legislation with a long and successful history. Just 3 months ago, on November 29, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the signing of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now known as part B of IDEA. The purpose of this law is simple-- to assist States and local communities to meet their obligations to provide equal educational opportunity to children with disabilities in accordance with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As we look back on that day two decades ago, we know that this law has literally changed the world for millions of children with disabilities. Prior to the enactment of Public Law 94-142, 1 million children with disabilities in the United States were excluded entirely from the public school system, and more than half of all children with disabilities did not receive appropriate educational services. On that day in 1975, we lit a beacon of hope for millions of children with disabilities and their families. We sent a simple, yet powerful message heard around the world that the days of exclusion, segregation, and denial of education for children with disabilities are over in this country. And we sent a powerful message that families count and they must be treated as equal partners Because of IDEA, tremendous progress has been made in addressing the problems that existed in 1975. Today, every State in the Nation has laws in effect assuring the provision of a free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. And over 5,000,000 children with disabilities are now receiving special education and related services. For many parents who have disabled children, IDEA is a lifeline of hope. As one parent recently told me: Thank God for IDEA. IDEA gives us the strength to face the challenges of bringing up a child with a disability. It has kept our family together. Because of IDEA our child is achieving academic success. He is also treated by his nondisabled peers as ``one of the guys.'' I am now confident that he will graduate high school prepared to hold down a job and lead an independent life. In May, Danette Crawford, a senior at Urbandale High School in Des Moines, testified before the Disability Policy Subcommittee. Danette, who has cerebral palsy, testified that: My grade point average stands at 3.8 and I am enrolled in advanced placement courses. The education I am receiving is preparing me for a real future. Without IDEA, I am convinced I would not be receiving the quality education that Urbandale High School provides me. We are now graduating the first generation of students who have had the benefits of the provisions of IDEA. Already, for example, since 1978 the percentage of incoming college freshman with disabilities has more than tripled from 2.4 percent to over 9 percent. We once heard despondency and anger from parents. We now hear enthusiasm and hope, as I have, from a parent from Iowa writing about her 7-year-old daughter with autism. She said, ``I have no doubt that my daughter will live nearly independently as an adult, will work, and will be a very positive contributor to society. That is very much her dream, and it is my dream for her. The IDEA has made this dream capable of becoming a reality.'' Mr. President, these are not isolated statements from a few parents in Iowa. They are reflective of the general feeling about the law across the country. The National Council on Disability [NCD] recently conducted 10 regional meetings throughout the Nation regarding progress made in implementing the IDEA over the past 20 years. In its report, NCD stated that ``in all of the 10 regional hearings * * * there were ringing affirmations in support of IDEA and the positive difference it has made in the lives of children and youth with disabilities and their families.'' The report adds that ``all across the country witnesses told of the tremendous power of IDEA to help children with disabilities fulfill their dreams to learn, to grow, and to mature.'' These comments, as well as testimony presented at the four hearings held by the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, make it clear to me that major changes in IDEA are not needed nor wanted. IDEA is as critical today as it was 20 years ago, particularly the due process protections. These provisions level the playing field so that parents can sit down as equal partners in designing an education for their children. The witnesses at these hearings did make it clear, however, that we need to fine-tune the law--in order to make sure that children with disabilities are not left out of educational reform efforts that are now underway, and to take what we have learned over the past 20 years and use it to update and improve this critical law. Based on 20 years of experience and research in the education of children with disabilities, we have reinforced our thinking and knowledge about what is needed to make this law work, and we have learned many new things that are important if we are to ensure an equal educational opportunity for all children with disabilities. For example, our experience and knowledge over the past 20 years have reaffirmed that the provision of quality education and services to children with disabilities must be based on an individualized assessment of each child's unique needs and abilities; and that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities must be educated with children who are not disabled and children should be removed from the regular educational environment only when the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. We have also learned that students with disabilities achieve at significantly higher levels when schools have high expectations--and establish high goals--for these students, ensure their access to the general curriculum, whenever appropriate, and provide them with the necessary services and supports. And there is general agreement that including children with disabilities in general State and district-wide assessments is an effective accountability mechanism and a critical strategy for improving educational results for these children. Our experience over the past 20 years has underscored the fact that parent participation is a crucial component in the education of children with disabilities, and parents should have meaningful opportunities, through appropriate training and other supports, to participate as partners with teachers and other school staff in assisting their children to achieve to high standards. There is general agreement today at all levels of government that State and local educational agencies must be responsive to the increasing racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity that prevails in the nation's public schools today. Steps must be taken to ensure that the procedures used for referring and evaluating children with disabilities include appropriate safeguards to prevent the over or under-identification of minority students requiring special education. Services, supports, and other assistance must be provided in a culturally competent manner. And greater efforts must be made to improve post-school results among minority students with disabilities. The progress that has been made over the past 20 years in the education of children with disabilities has been impressive. However, it is clear that significant challenges remain. We must ensure that this crucial law not only remains intact as the centerpiece for ensuring equal educational opportunity for all children with disabilities, but also that it is strengthened and updated to keep current with the changing times. The basic purposes of Public Law 94-142 must be retained under the proposed reauthorization of IDEA: To assist States and local communities in meeting their obligation to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services that are designed to meet the unique needs of these children and enable them to lead productive independent adult lives; to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; and to assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. We also need to expand those purposes to promote the improvement of educational services and results for children with disabilities and early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities--by assisting the systems change initiatives of State educational agencies in partnerships with other interested parties, and by assisting and supporting coordinated research and personnel preparation, and coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and evaluation, as well as technology development and media services. Mr. President, this bipartisan bill we are presenting here today provides the fine-tuning that is needed to up-date current law along the lines I have described. These amendments will help ensure that children with disabilities have equal educational opportunities along with their nondisabled peers to leave school with the skills necessary for them to be included and integrated in the economic and social fabric of society and to live full, independent productive lives as adults. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to quote Ms. Melanie Seivert of Sibley, IA, who is the parent of Susan, a child with Downs syndrome. She states: Our ultimate goal for Susan is to be educated academically, vocationally, [and] in life-skills and community living so as an adult she can get a job and live her life with a minimum of management from outside help. Through the things IDEA provides . . . we will be able to reach our goals. Does it not make sense to give all children the best education possible? Our children need IDEA for a future. Mr. President, IDEA is the shining light of educational opportunity. And we, in the Congress, must make sure that the light continues to burn bright. We still have promises to keep. I urge my colleagues to support the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1996.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I am pleased to join Senator Frist, the chair of that subcommittee, in introducing the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] Amendments of 1996. It has been a privilege and a pleasure for me to work with Senator Frist and our respective staffs in developing this reauthorization proposal. I also would like to compliment Pat Morrissey, Senator Frist's staff director for the Subcommittee on Disability Policy for her efforts to enhance the partnership between parents of children with disabilities and the educational community. The amendments we are proposing today provide fine-tuning to powerful education legislation with a long and successful history. Just 3 months ago, on November 29, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the signing of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now known as part B of IDEA. The purpose of this law is simple-- to assist States and local communities to meet their obligations to provide equal educational opportunity to children with disabilities in accordance with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As we look back on that day two decades ago, we know that this law has literally changed the world for millions of children with disabilities. Prior to the enactment of Public Law 94-142, 1 million children with disabilities in the United States were excluded entirely from the public school system, and more than half of all children with disabilities did not receive appropriate educational services. On that day in 1975, we lit a beacon of hope for millions of children with disabilities and their families. We sent a simple, yet powerful message heard around the world that the days of exclusion, segregation, and denial of education for children with disabilities are over in this country. And we sent a powerful message that families count and they must be treated as equal partners Because of IDEA, tremendous progress has been made in addressing the problems that existed in 1975. Today, every State in the Nation has laws in effect assuring the provision of a free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. And over 5,000,000 children with disabilities are now receiving special education and related services. For many parents who have disabled children, IDEA is a lifeline of hope. As one parent recently told me: Thank God for IDEA. IDEA gives us the strength to face the challenges of bringing up a child with a disability. It has kept our family together. Because of IDEA our child is achieving academic success. He is also treated by his nondisabled peers as ``one of the guys.'' I am now confident that he will graduate high school prepared to hold down a job and lead an independent life. In May, Danette Crawford, a senior at Urbandale High School in Des Moines, testified before the Disability Policy Subcommittee. Danette, who has cerebral palsy, testified that: My grade point average stands at 3.8 and I am enrolled in advanced placement courses. The education I am receiving is preparing me for a real future. Without IDEA, I am convinced I would not be receiving the quality education that Urbandale High School provides me. We are now graduating the first generation of students who have had the benefits of the provisions of IDEA. Already, for example, since 1978 the percentage of incoming college freshman with disabilities has more than tripled from 2.4 percent to over 9 percent. We once heard despondency and anger from parents. We now hear enthusiasm and hope, as I have, from a parent from Iowa writing about her 7-year-old daughter with autism. She said, ``I have no doubt that my daughter will live nearly independently as an adult, will work, and will be a very positive contributor to society. That is very much her dream, and it is my dream for her. The IDEA has made this dream capable of becoming a reality.'' Mr. President, these are not isolated statements from a few parents in Iowa. They are reflective of the general feeling about the law across the country. The National Council on Disability [NCD] recently conducted 10 regional meetings throughout the Nation regarding progress made in implementing the IDEA over the past 20 years. In its report, NCD stated that ``in all of the 10 regional hearings * * * there were ringing affirmations in support of IDEA and the positive difference it has made in the lives of children and youth with disabilities and their families.'' The report adds that ``all across the country witnesses told of the tremendous power of IDEA to help children with disabilities fulfill their dreams to learn, to grow, and to mature.'' These comments, as well as testimony presented at the four hearings held by the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, make it clear to me that major changes in IDEA are not needed nor wanted. IDEA is as critical today as it was 20 years ago, particularly the due process protections. These provisions level the playing field so that parents can sit down as equal partners in designing an education for their children. The witnesses at these hearings did make it clear, however, that we need to fine-tune the law--in order to make sure that children with disabilities are not left out of educational reform efforts that are now underway, and to take what we have learned over the past 20 years and use it to update and improve this critical law. Based on 20 years of experience and research in the education of children with disabilities, we have reinforced our thinking and knowledge about what is needed to make this law work, and we have learned many new things that are important if we are to ensure an equal educational opportunity for all children with disabilities. For example, our experience and knowledge over the past 20 years have reaffirmed that the provision of quality education and services to children with disabilities must be based on an individualized assessment of each child's unique needs and abilities; and that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities must be educated with children who are not disabled and children should be removed from the regular educational environment only when the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. We have also learned that students with disabilities achieve at significantly higher levels when schools have high expectations--and establish high goals--for these students, ensure their access to the general curriculum, whenever appropriate, and provide them with the necessary services and supports. And there is general agreement that including children with disabilities in general State and district-wide assessments is an effective accountability mechanism and a critical strategy for improving educational results for these children. Our experience over the past 20 years has underscored the fact that parent participation is a crucial component in the education of children with disabilities, and parents should have meaningful opportunities, through appropriate training and other supports, to participate as partners with teachers and other school staff in assisting their children to achieve to high standards. There is general agreement today at all levels of government that State and local educational agencies must be responsive to the increasing racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity that prevails in the nation's public schools today. Steps must be taken to ensure that the procedures used for referring and evaluating children with disabilities include appropriate safeguards to prevent the over or under-identification of minority students requiring special education. Services, supports, and other assistance must be provided in a culturally competent manner. And greater efforts must be made to improve post-school results among minority students with disabilities. The progress that has been made over the past 20 years in the education of children with disabilities has been impressive. However, it is clear that significant challenges remain. We must ensure that this crucial law not only remains intact as the centerpiece for ensuring equal educational opportunity for all children with disabilities, but also that it is strengthened and updated to keep current with the changing times. The basic purposes of Public Law 94-142 must be retained under the proposed reauthorization of IDEA: To assist States and local communities in meeting their obligation to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services that are designed to meet the unique needs of these children and enable them to lead productive independent adult lives; to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; and to assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. We also need to expand those purposes to promote the improvement of educational services and results for children with disabilities and early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities--by assisting the systems change initiatives of State educational agencies in partnerships with other interested parties, and by assisting and supporting coordinated research and personnel preparation, and coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and evaluation, as well as technology development and media services. Mr. President, this bipartisan bill we are presenting here today provides the fine-tuning that is needed to up-date current law along the lines I have described. These amendments will help ensure that children with disabilities have equal educational opportunities along with their nondisabled peers to leave school with the skills necessary for them to be included and integrated in the economic and social fabric of society and to live full, independent productive lives as adults. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to quote Ms. Melanie Seivert of Sibley, IA, who is the parent of Susan, a child with Downs syndrome. She states: Our ultimate goal for Susan is to be educated academically, vocationally, [and] in life-skills and community living so as an adult she can get a job and live her life with a minimum of management from outside help. Through the things IDEA provides . . . we will be able to reach our goals. Does it not make sense to give all children the best education possible? Our children need IDEA for a future. Mr. President, IDEA is the shining light of educational opportunity. And we, in the Congress, must make sure that the light continues to burn bright. We still have promises to keep. I urge my colleagues to support the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1996.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we face another period of high risk for the economy to plunge into recession. Do we want Alan Greenspan, whose main focus has always been on inflation, to be in charge of Federal Reserve policy? I think the answer is clearly no. There are two vacancies on the Federal Reserve Board. As I said earlier, the President wanted to appoint Felix Rohaytn to one of those positions, making him Vice Chairman of the Board. Mr. Rohaytn is a man with an extremely distinguished career. Most notably, he is credited as the guiding hand that led New York City from the edge of default and economic ruin back to health. I remember that debate. I was in the House of Representatives at the time. I represented a very rural district from Iowa. I listened to Mr. Rohaytn at the time as he made his case for the New York City bailout, as it was called, and for the Federal Government and for the Congress to assist in that process. It was not in my best interests, representing a rural district, to vote for New York City. In fact, I took some pretty bad political hits for doing so. But I believed it was the right thing to do. Congress passed it. New York City was able to pay its bills and avoid default. It solved many of its problems with a growth policy initiated by Felix Rohaytn. He believes in growth. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to oppose his nomination. This is particularly true when the discussion was to have him as a counterweight to Alan Greenspan's orientation to focus on inflation; to have, as I understand it, with the present one, to have a debate about the policy of the Fed. But opposition from some on the other side of the aisle has, frankly, killed the nomination of Felix Rohaytn. President Clinton said last Friday that we need a debate within the Federal Reserve to see if the economy can grow faster than the conventional wisdom of a 2.5 percent average, without triggering inflation. We need that debate. That debate will not take place under Alan Greenspan. The question of taking the Federal Reserve's heavy hand of high interest rates off the throttle of our economy is crucial to the long- term growth of our Nation. But to not even allow an appointment to move forward, of Mr. Rohaytn, so we can engender that debate, start that debate, is absolutely wrong. As I said in my remarks last week, Mr. Greenspan's feet are firmly planted in the past. Mr. Greenspan's focus is not on average, hard- working Americans. It is not on our families in the middle-income brackets of America. It is not on the manufacturing sector that has to invest and create the kind of climate that will employ people and let wages go up. No, Mr. Greenspan's focus is not there. His focus is some phantom inflation out there, and as long as inflation can be kept at the lowest possible position all is right with the world in Mr. Greenspan's view. But as we have said in the past, Mr. President, it is not just inflation that we have to be concerned about. We have to be concerned about unemployment and economic growth. And Mr. Greenspan is not concerned about either one of those. So, again, Mr. President, I call upon President Clinton to pick someone else to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, someone who has a concept of growth and what growth will mean to our economy and the incomes of average Americans. We can have a debate this year. I think we will have it. I hope it will happen in the Presidential races. I hope that we have it in all of the Senate and House races which are up this year--about what the proper rate of growth ought to be in this country. Should it be 2.5 percent? Should it be 2 percent, or can we reasonably expect to grow at a faster rate? I happen to come down on the side of progrowth. I believe our economy has all of the underpinnings to grow at least 3.5 percent a year. I might even make the argument that it can grow faster than that without triggering inflation. We are truly in a global economy. Markets abroad can send in goods to this country, and even services, to keep any kind of inflation under control and under check. Rising wages will not push up inflation because the rising wages will just barely keep up with the rising productivity of American workers. Our American workers are more productive than ever before. Yet, their wages are not keeping up with their productivity. If we let wages go up a little bit, it will kind of keep up with productivity. That means people have a little bit more money to go out and buy some goods. That means that our economy will grow. We are not having that debate. We can have that debate. As I said, I hope we do have it in the Presidential races, and I hope we have it in all of our races this year. But if we have an individual in charge of the Federal Reserve who believes that growth cannot be above 2 or 2.5 percent, you can have all of the debates in the world, because the Federal Reserve is independent and they are under Mr. Greenspan's control to throttle down on that economy. We will see a no-growth policy from the Federal Reserve regardless of what we might say in our individual campaigns, or what we in the Senate or the House might want to do in the future. So, Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate that the debate about the policies of the Fed and about the leadership of the Fed is not undergoing more scrutiny than it is in our news media today. We are all wrapped up, I know, in the New Hampshire primary, and before that in the Iowa caucuses--who is ahead? Who is behind? --and a flat tax, and all the other stuff. Yet, the single most powerful position in America that has to do with our economy, what our future is going to be like, what our kids' future is going to be like, what our incomes and wages and job possibilities are going to be like, no one is talking about it. Thank God that Mortimer Zuckerman at least wrote an editorial in U.S. News & World Report. You see little about it in the Washington Post and newspapers around the country. Everyone just assumes that Mr. Greenspan is going to be renominated and take the position. I do not make that assumption. And if Mr. Greenspan is in fact renominated by the President, he will come here for hearings. I intend, if that is the case in the coming weeks, to delve more into Mr. Greenspan's background and his philosophy and what he has done in the past, and why his past actions should warrant a no vote on the Senate floor for his reconfirmation, if in fact the President renominates him. So I say--not a warning, simply as a statement of fact--that this is one Senator who is not going to allow Mr. Greenspan, if he is renominated, to sail through here without any debate. I intend to make it an issue, and I intend to talk about it and talk about his stewardship and to talk about his no-growth policies, because I think it is that important for our economy and for our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as Mr. Zuckerman has said, we need to stop chasing the ghost of inflation. We need to appoint a respected individual who will take a balanced view about the needs of our economy and not place a choke hold on our Nation each time it strives to move forward with any real speed. Since Alan Greenspan became Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the economy has grown by a dismal 2.1 percent, compared to 3.4 percent from 1959 through 1987. Again, the cost is in the mega-billions of dollars, that it has cost our economy because of Mr. Greenspan's position. Many economists are now looking at growth for 1996 at around 2 percent with the current Federal Reserve policies. Mr. President, there is another meeting of the Open Market Committee on March 26. In reading the popular press, there is some indication that Mr. Greenspan has kind of leaked out that there could possibly be another cut in interest rates. What, a quarter of a percent? As Mr. Zuckerman says, the last quarter of a percent actually was not a cut at all. It needed to go down by a full percentage point. So, even if Mr. Greenspan reduces interest rates by another quarter of a percent, which he is probably going to do, it does not mean that much. One last thing. We should also be concerned about Mr. Greenspan's seeming inability to see upcoming recessions, even when he is right in the middle of them. Again, what does the record show? Alan Greenspan was the Chairman of Gerald Ford's Council of Economic Advisers. I understand that he is the author of the famous WIN button. Those of us who started our political careers about that time remember the button: WIN, Whip Inflation Now. Everybody wore those. President Ford heeded Alan Greenspan's advice as he derailed job-creation measures and our Nation plunged into a recession. We need to focus on Mr. Greenspan's time as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in 1974 and 1975. It was clearly a time of high inflation, mainly caused by the first oil shock. But it was also a time of sharp recession. As the Nation was moving into recession, Alan Greenspan was, reportedly favorable to tax increases as a means to fight inflation. He urged President Ford to kill legislation designed to create jobs and stimulate the economy. A few months later, when the recession was fully in bloom, he changed his mind and wanted tax cuts. But that was too late for many families, as unemployment exploded from 5.4 percent in the summer of 1974, passing 8 percent by June of 1975. I am not saying Alan Greenspan caused the recession of 1974. What I am saying is he was so focused on inflation he could not see it coming, and he proposed just the opposite remedy, and that is what President Ford followed. More recently, in 1990 and 1991, as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan was very slow in reducing interest rates. Last month the Wall Street Journal reported on the just-released Fed transcripts of 1990. Mr. President, the transcripts of Federal Reserve Board meetings are kept secret for 5 years, and then they are released. We just got the transcripts of the meetings back in 1990. On January 24, 1996, the Wall Street Journal had an article by David Wessel, talking about those transcripts. Here is what the article said. Newly released transcripts of closed-door deliberations at the Fed show that Mr. Greenspan didn't see a recession unfolding until very late that year. ``There are forecasts of thunderstorms and everyone is saying, `Well, the thunder has occurred and the lightning has occurred and it's raining.' But nobody has stuck his hand out the window,'' Mr. Greenspan told fellow Fed policymakers on Oct. 2, 1990. ``And at the moment,'' he added, ``it isn't raining. . . . The economy has not yet slipped into a recession.'' The recession, the official arbiters at the National Bureau of Economic Research determined much later, began in July 1990, a month before Iraq invaded Kuwait. And yet, by October, Mr. Greenspan still could not see that we were in a recession. There is more in the Wall Street Journal article I would like to read, Mr. President, but I see others on the floor who would like to speak. It talks about the meetings that were held in 1990 and 1991, when we were clearly in a recession. Yet, Mr. Greenspan could not see it. ``By December 18,'' almost 6 months after the recession started, ``Mr. Greenspan finally had enough data to conclude that a recession-- then nearly 5 months old--had begun.'' Again, quotes from his minutes. ``We have severe recessionary pressures,'' he told the Open Market Committee,'' but recessions always end. ``At some point,'' he said confidently, ``we're going to come out of this.'' He was right, the recession officially ended in March 1991. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this entire January 24, 1996 Wall Street Journal article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a little time this morning to speak about an issue that has simply not received the kind of scrutiny and attention that it deserves. That is the renomination, or possible renomination of Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Arguably, perhaps, the second most powerful person in America today with regards to our economy and unemployment and interest rates and how fast our economy will grow or how slow it will grow is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Some have said the most important person is the President, but I guess to my way of thinking I think perhaps the Federal Reserve Board Chairman is the single most important and most powerful person in America today regarding decisions about what our economic life is going to be like in the months and few years ahead. I say that not to denigrate the office of the President, but simply to point out that because of the downsizing of Government, because of budget cuts, because of shifting more power from the Federal Government to the States, because of the diminishing role of the Federal Government in the economic life of our country--I do not mean to get into a debate of whether that is good or bad. We have those debates all the time around here. The fact is it is happening. Thus, it devolves to the Federal Reserve Board in their deliberations about interest rates and discount rates and Federal fund rates to decide just what is going to happen in the economy. That has more of an impact on the economic life of America today than anything the President can do and arguably more important than anything we can do here in the Congress of the United States. Yet, this position of so much power and so much authority is kind of kept in the dark corners. We have not shown much sunlight on the Federal Reserve, or the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve and on who should be the Chairman. Mr. Greenspan is finishing a 4-year term as Chairman. His time is up, I believe, in just a few days. It will be up to the President, under the law, to either reappoint Mr. Greenspan or to choose someone else to send to the Senate for confirmation as the new Chair of the Federal Reserve Board. I make the argument today, as I did over a week ago, Mr. President, on the floor of the Senate, that Mr. Greenspan's time has come and gone, that his feet are firmly planted in the past and that his policies are no- growth policies. They are policies of high interest rates, no growth that is going to throttle our economy. Mr. Greenspan's policy has been--and I think a close scrutiny of his comments and his tenure both at the Federal Reserve and years ago on the Council of Economic Advisers will show--that here is an individual that has little concern for unemployment or what is happening to average Americans. Like a laser beam, his sight is only on inflation and the bond market and nothing else. I believe, Mr. President, that has worked to the detriment of our country. Mr. President, it was 50 years ago today that President Truman signed the Employment Act of 1946 into law--50 years ago this day. That is why I feel my words today are so important. That measure that signed into law 50 years ago today said that we should make it a matter of national policy to help create and maintain conditions to promote maximum employment, maximum production and purchasing power in our country. Note that it said ``maximum employment,'' to promote it as a national policy. Mr. President, there is a lot of rhetoric about the need to promote strong families, but when one talks about strong families, having a decent job is a crucial component of whether or not you have a strong family. To further the goals of the Employment Act of 1946, Congress passed the Humphrey-Hawkins Act in 1978, which by law set out a requirement that the Federal Reserve have a goal to maximize full employment along with stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. In other words, what we were saying is, you do not just take one; they all have to be kept in balance: full employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. Mr. President, we ought to be reaffirming those goals, but unfortunately some now say we should limit them instead. They want to prescribe low or no inflation as the sole criterion, as the sole cure for all of our economic ills. Well, you can have zero inflation and you can have it with very high unemployment. I do not think that is what our country wants. My colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, has a bill to provide that the single goal of the Federal Reserve should be long-term price stability with only a secondary concern for the effects of employment. The bill says the single goal of the Federal Reserve should be long- term price stability. In other words, Senator Mack's bill basically takes that part of the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978 that says that we should have a goal to maximize full employment and takes that out of appropriate consideration. Imagine that, that we should not be concerned about unemployment. I tell you I find that mind-boggling, that someone would even suggest that we should not properly consider unemployment, we should only consider long-term price stability. I might understand that a Senator or Congressman or more than one might prefer that option as a matter of policy, propose it at least for debate. I must admit I have not spoken personally to my friend Senator Mack--and he is my friend, the great Senator from Florida--I have not spoken with him personally about it. Maybe he only wants this open for debate. I do not know. But the disturbing part is not that Senator Mack introduced this bill, the disturbing point is that Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has endorsed that legislation. Now, lest anyone think I am making this up, I have the hearing transcript where Mr. Greenspan basically, in open hearings, said he endorsed that legislation. Mr. President, here is the hearing record. This is a verbatim transcript from September 22, 1995, before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. I will just read the portion about Mr. Greenspan. It says: Your bill [referring to Senator Mack] which we fully support-- The rest does not make much sense. The most important, he said, ``Your bill, which we fully support.'' Mr. Greenspan has come out in support of taking out of consideration, in setting their policies, any concern for unemployment. We will look now at the history. Between February 1994 and February 1995, 1 year, he raised interest rates by 3 full percentage points. Why? Well, in the fear that inflation might happen. But when asked, Mr. Greenspan himself said there was no inflation. Yet he raised interest rates 3 percentage points. I might point out, Mr. President, that Mr. Greenspan raised those interest rates five times before the election of 1994--five times he raised interest rates. The economy came to a grinding halt. Wages were depressed. People were not hiring. Business could not invest. The economy became more stagnant in 1994. I might also point out there has been some talk lately that the Fed is loosening up and starting to reduce interest rates. I can imagine Mr. Greenspan wanting to get reappointed as Fed Chairman and wanting to look good so he brought interest rates down a little bit. In 1 year, February 1994 to February 1995, Mr. Greenspan raised interest rates 3 percentage points. From February 1995 to this February, they have only gone down three-quarters of 1 point--three-quarters of 1 point. I think that says it all. Again, he raised interest rates, no inflation in sight. But because of Mr. Greenspan's narrow vision, he damaged our economy and limited the opportunity of millions of Americans to secure employment. Rather than viewing rising incomes of average Americans as a good thing, Alan Greenspan used it as a threat of future inflation. Mr. President, inflation today is at its lowest point in 30 years, with only 1 year being an exception. Unemployment is now at 5.7 percent and has been below 6 percent for 17 months. I might point out that the law stipulates as a goal 4 percent unemployment, not 6 percent. Mr. President, unemployment is high, just below 6 percent while Inflation is down. All is not well in our economy. Real incomes of average families have been falling. This past Sunday's Washington Post had a chart which showed the family incomes from 1979 to 1993. The top 20th of our Nation had their incomes rise by 29 percent, better than 2 percent per year for the top 5 percent of our country. However, those in the middle saw their standard of living drop by 2.6 percent. The top 5 percent had their incomes rise by 29 percent; the middle had a drop of 2.6 percent. Those families in the bottom 40 percent of our population saw their incomes actually fall during that period of time-- not go up, but actually fall. For the bottom 20 percent, they fell by more than 1 percent a year; the top 5 percent in income in our country increased their incomes by better than 2 percent a year. The bottom 20 percent saw their incomes fall by 1 percent a year over that same period of time. It has not always been that way. From 1966 to 1979 all groups saw rising incomes of more than 1 percent a year--all groups. Each one- fifth of the population saw real, genuine gains above 1 percent per year in sharing in America's growth. Not anymore. A few at the top are making more and more and the people in the middle are either staying stagnant or they are going down. Now, there are probably a lot of reasons for this change. One of the reasons we are seeing this lack of income growth across the board is a purposeful, deliberate, slow-growth policy pushed by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Always fearful of inflation, even when little threat exists, he has used his position to maximize interest rates relative to inflation, smothering any hint of substantial growth. Mr. President, Mr. Greenspan cannot have it both ways. He cannot raise interest rates by 3 percent, say that there is some threat of inflation out there but he cannot put his finger on it, and then turn right around as he is raising those interest rates and suggest that the Consumer Price Index possibly overstates inflation by as much as 1 to 1.5 percent. How can he say that inflation is threatening and then turn around and say that the Consumer Price Index overstates it by 1 to 1.5 percent when inflation is only about 2.5 percent per year right now. Yet Mr. Greenspan has tried to have it both ways. The President and the CBO are looking at the economy right now growing at about 2.5 percent over the long term. We had a big debate here last year, Mr. President, about what the economy is going to do in the future, what our budget ought to be and everything. If the economy can grow by an extra point, say 3.5 percent, the impact on Americans' standard of living over a period of time would be huge. How much? Trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars in additional income for America, thousands of dollars for the average family a year, if we had a progrowth policy at the Federal Reserve Board. Even if we cannot get to 3.5 percent, if we could get it to 3 percent, we could wipe out our deficit, balance our budget, provide better wages for Americans, more job opportunities and probably reduce unemployment. But it is going to take a different person at the helm of the Federal Reserve to make this happen. Now, I had in the past called upon the President to nominate a different person, someone with a more progrowth policy to head the Federal Reserve. I am pleased that the President has suggested we need a debate about the ability of the economy to perform at a higher growth rate over the long term. As I understand it, from reading the newspapers last week, the President wanted to appoint Felix Rohatyn to be Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I do not know this, but I assume the President felt that with Mr. Rohatyn, who is a progrowth individual, there would be good debate at the Federal Reserve about the need for progrowth policies. But there was solid opposition from some on the other side of the aisle here in the Senate on the Banking Committee, and they said no way would they permit Felix Rohatyn to be approved and to go through for confirmation. I find that very disturbing, Mr. President, that a person of the caliber of Felix Rohatyn is turned down before we even have one hearing, turned down by people on the other side of the aisle, I think, because they did not want this debate to take place. That is a shame. I think it is a great loss. If America is to achieve greatness, we have to allow the economy to grow faster. Now, bond traders on Wall Street will always be pushing for a tighter monetary policy. I understand that. But the President and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board need to look more broadly at the needs of the whole economy and the welfare of American families who need an improved standard of living and not just the welfare of the bonds traders on Wall Street. Mr. President, so I do not seem like a voice crying in the wilderness, I will read parts of an article by the editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report, Mortimer Zuckerman, February 12, 1996, entitled ``Chairman Greenspan, Retired.'' I want to read a couple parts of this, from the February 12, 1996, U.S. News & World Report: The Federal Reserve Board cut the federal funds rate last week, right? Wrong! Yes, nominal rates went down a minuscule one quarter of 1 percent. Mr. Greenspan looked good saying he is cutting interest rates. Mr. Zuckerman is pointing out they really did not go down. But real rates, adjusted for inflation, actually have increased because the inflation rate has fallen faster over the past several months than has the Federal funds rate. Running scared from a phantom inflation, Alan Greenspan's ``dear money" leadership has caused the Fed to exert a monetary choke hold on one of the weakest economic recoveries since World War II, at the cost of billions of dollars in lost output and tens of thousands of uncreated jobs. Mr. Zuckerman has it right. He goes on: Just to keep real rates where they were, the federal funds rate would have had to have gone down by as much as a full percentage point. Instead, we have a fed funds rate that is still nearly 3 points above the most recent quarterly inflation rate, much higher than normal by historical standards. What's more, this is not only the wrong battle, it is the wrong target. Higher interest rates hurt manufacturing more than services, yet manufacturing inflation has not been a problem. In fact, we are experiencing the worst manufacturing slow down since 1991, and the indicators suggest even more weakness ahead. Just last month, for example, nonfarm employment fell by 201,000 jobs. No wonder more and more businesspeople, from the National Association of Manufacturers to Main Street and Wall Street, are so unhappy with Federal Reserve policy. Mr. Zuckerman goes on, in another part of his article, to say this: The jobless recovery of the early 1990s has become the wageless expansion of the mid-1990s. We have no wage pressure on prices. We also have no import inflation because of a stronger dollar. At the consumer level, spending is very weak, reflecting stagnant personal income and real wages. Retail sales growth, which averaged 7.8 percent during 1994, declined to less than 5 percent in 1995. In the final quarter of the year, consumer spending was growing at an annual rate of 1 percent or so; adjusted for inflation, that's an actual decline. As a result, so-called demand-pull inflation--when hot consumer spending pulls up prices--is nonexistent. What we do have is a buildup in inventories, especially of durable goods, that is bound to slow the economy even more. Last, Mr. Zuckerman closes his article by saying the following: We must do better. The fear of inflation has proved to be a chimera. Short rates have come down too little and too late to boost a weakening economy. The country does not have to endure the effects of the Fed's misjudgments in 1995 being extended into 1996. Alan Greenspan's term as Fed chairman would not survive a Democratic Congress. It ought not survive a Republican one either. Congressional Republicans should recognize that none of their programs to cut back government will survive a slow- growing economy that fails to provide Americans with good jobs and a sense of optimism about the future. The inflationary obsession of the Fed is not healthy; it is reactionary. It is cramping out todays and sacrificing our tomorrows. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Mr. Zuckerman's article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. I would just respond, it will be about 60 seconds.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I understand we are now on amendment No. 3184, proposed by Mr. Leahy, as modified by the amendment just sent to the desk by Mr. Craig?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Hatch. It is a commonsense amendment that is based on legislation we introduced last year along with our distinguished chairman of the Nutrition Subcommittee, Senator McConnell. Today food stamps can be used to buy Twinkies, but not vitamin C. That does not make sense. Poor children and women and elderly often have significant vitamin and mineral deficiencies. For examples, studies have shown that 40 percent of poor children have iron deficiencies and 33 percent have vitamin E deficiencies. Our amendment is supported by a broad coalition of groups and nutrition experts. For example, it is backed by the Alliance for Aging Research, the Spina Bifida Association of America, the National Osteoporosis Foundation and the National Nutritional Foods Association. It is also supported by nutrition experts and various scientists and heads of departments, including Dr. Paul Lachance, chairman of the Department of Food Science at Rutgers University; Dr. Jeffrey Blumberg of Tufts University; Dr. Charles Butterworth, Director of Human Nutrition at the University of Alabama Birmingham; and Dr. Dennis Heldman, chairman of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at the University of Missouri. Mr. President, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that people will forego important food purchases to buy vitamins. In fact, you can buy a month's worth of multivitamins for about the price of one can of soda. So I do not think we have to worry that somehow food stamp recipients will be wasting money. Quite the contrary, if the amendment goes through--they can buy vitamins and minerals. This simply allows the food stamp recipients the right to improve their intake of key vitamins and minerals. I make a plea on behalf of pregnant women, especially poor pregnant women who are on food stamps. We know the evidence is clear that many lower income women are more likely to have inadequate intake of key nutrients. Women with incomes 130 percent or less of the poverty level have higher rates of deficiencies in vitamins A, D, C, B-6 and B-12, as well as iron and niacin. They need these nutrients to have a healthy baby. And we know the great benefits of this. Mr. President, the amendment that I've joined the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch in offering is a commonsense amendment allowing low- income people greater access to nutritional supplements. It is bottom- line common sense. Why should we not allow them to buy vitamin A or vitamin C, iron and mineral supplements, but allow them to buy Twinkies or Cheese Whiz?. I say it is time to say to the people on food stamps, they can have access to vitamin and mineral supplements to improve their health.

Mr. HARKIN. If I might have the attention of the distinguished majority leader, I think having hearings would be a good thing to have to look at this proposal. It is something that both Senator Hatch and I--and Senator McConnell has a bill in that we are cosponsoring to do just this. Hearings are fine. We welcome the hearings. Again, could we have some vehicle on which we might be able to move this at some point later, either for up or down after the hearings? If we could have some type of an agreement to move the bill, the McConnell-Hatch-Harkin bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand this is open for debate at this time?

Mr. HARKIN. I understand each amendment is supposed to have half an hour, 15 minutes on a side. I have not heard of this amendment. Like Senator Byrd, I do not know what this is. I heard an expenditure of $35 million. Earlier today, amendments were offered and we were told because they cost additional money, they could not be accepted. All of a sudden we have an amendment which no one is going to debate or know what it is and it is going to cost.

Mr. HARKIN. I will be glad to yield for a response. I want to know what it costs.

Mr. HARKIN. I would not mind supporting conservation. I have been a strong proponent of conservation. We do not know what it is. There has been no explanation. How many millions of dollars is it going to cost?

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield a couple minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator have some time to yield?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. This is just plain old common sense. Why should we be giving huge payments to people who may be sitting on Miami Beach. I have an example here, I tell my friend from North Dakota, of a fairly large wheat farmer in Kansas. He has 1,800 acres of wheat and 600 acres of grain sorghum. Just take this year, wheat prices being what they are, sorghum prices being what they are, and let us see what happens to this individual this year under the present prices. What is he going to get this year? This farmer is going to net about $235,000. That is a profit. Part of his profit is a Government check for $39,768. That is on top of $195,000 in profit already. Now, unless we adopt the Dorgan amendment, he can get that payment if he did not plant anything at all. He could get that $39,000 if he did not even want to do anything. The Senator from North Dakota is right. If we are going to be sending out checks from the Government, at least we ought to expect people to work for it and not be able just to sit back and do nothing.

Mr. HARKIN. Last year, Senator Lugar and Senator Leahy introduced S. 854 to provide for incentive payments, cost-sharing, technical assistance, et cetera, to livestock producers to meet certain environmental standards. In that bill, for example, there is a limit relating to the number of livestock above which you could not get cost share payments, you could not get Government money. For example, in the original bill eligibility was limited to 1,000 beef cattle and 2,500 head of hogs. In the bill before us, the limits were raised to 10,000 beef cattle and 15,000 head of hogs. We have a limited pool of money, $700 million over 7 years for the livestock environmental assistance. This money ought to go to the family-size farmers who need this help. The bigger operations have a lot of capital. They can take care of their own environmental problems. It is the small family farmers with the smaller herds that need this type of help. My amendment takes this limited pot of money we have and sets limits basically back to where the initial bill was last year at 1,000 head of cattle and 2,500 head of swine, which corresponds with the regulations that have been promulgated under the Clean Water Act.

Mr. HARKIN. Then those supplies of grain are available, so we avoid severe shortages and extremely high prices. Mr. President, there is an estimate by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute that, in connection with the 1988 drought, that the substantial stocks of grain on hand, including in the farmer-owned reserve, prevented some $40 billion in extra food costs to consumers because we had that reserve owned by the farmers. So this amendment just basically continues that program of enabling farmers to store their own grain for a period as a reserve and allow them to market in a more orderly way. This is both a profarmer and a proconsumer amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment reinstates the farmer-owned reserve which is suspended for the 7 years of this bill. In the 1970's we heard a hue and cry across the country that the grain companies and processors had a hold over the grain markets because they could buy up grain from the farmers at low prices and the farmers could not market their grain when they wanted to market it. So we put in something called the farmer-owned reserve, which is, first, a marketing tool for farmers that allows them to be able to market their grain when they want to at higher prices. Second, it is also a tool for consumers, because in periods of drought, when we have short supplies----

Mr. HARKIN. For Senators who did not hear the debate earlier, for almost 60 years we have allowed the farmers to borrow from the Commodity Credit Corporation using grain and commodities as collateral at interest rates based on Treasury rates. This bill raises the interest rate 1 full percentage point. There is no good reason for that. There are those who argue farmers ought to be like other people out there, borrowing at commercial rates. Large grain companies, and the large producers can go get the prime rate. My family farmers in Iowa have to go to the local bank and pay prime plus 3. There is no reason to raise these CCC interest rates 1 percent. It is a $260 million tax on farmers. Mr. President, $260 million more that farmers will have to pay into the Treasury over the next 7 years that is not needed, and it will hurt our family farmers.

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Is this the first amendment I offered which would strike the section of the bill that raises interest rates for Commodity Credit Corporation loans?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I take the floor to speak on a matter of great importance to this country, to me personally and to, I know, every Senator here. A matter of great importance to all the working men and women of America and to our future, for our children. This is the first time I am going to speak about it, but I am going to speak about it on several occasions in the coming days and weeks. I wanted to begin the process of talking about one of the most important decisions that President Clinton will be facing during his first term in office. That decision is pending right now. That decision has to do with who will be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve System. Will the President renominate Alan Greenspan? Or will the President, consistent with his view that things must change and we must change the way we do things in this country, begin the process of looking for new leadership at the Federal Reserve System? Mr. President, I believe President Clinton should begin to look for new leadership to head the Federal Reserve System. Raising the living standards and the real wages of ordinary Americans is our primary economic challenge. But the policy of the Federal Reserve under Chairman Alan Greenspan, I regret to say, stands in the way. Mr. President, he should not be renominated. Under the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, the Federal Reserve is obligated to conduct monetary policies so as to reconcile reasonable price stability with full employment and strong, stable economic growth. That is the law. But under the Greenspan Fed, job growth and the living standards of average Americans have been sacrificed in the blind pursuit of inflation control and the interests of the bond market. The Fed has raised interest rates not when inflation was knocking at the door, but when inflation did not even threaten. In 1994, in the midst of 7 straight rate increases, Chairman Greenspan himself acknowledged that there was no evidence of inflation. It is time for the Federal Reserve to pursue a more balanced policy, based on raising economic growth and increasing jobs, alongside continued vigilance against inflation. Outgoing Vice Chairman Alan Blinder argued for just such a course. With the downsizing of Government spending and its more limited ability to stimulate the economy, the significance of the Federal Reserve interest rate policies has grown even larger. Chairman Greenspan is guided by a concept called the ``natural rate of unemployment''--the principle that there is some definite rate of unemployment below which workers' incomes will rise, leading to rising inflation. And, obviously, Mr. Greenspan accepts statistical estimates by some economists that tell him the rate is now at, or near, 6 percent unemployment. In other words, if we fall below 6 percent unemployment, inflation is going to, boom, go up. But unemployment has been just below 6 percent for over a year, and inflation continues to fall. Unfortunately, the Greenspan policy of slow growth and high interest rates rests on one enduring doctrine--that high unemployment is good for the economy. Today, unemployment stands at 5.8 percent. That is far too high. And 7.7 million unemployed Americans is far too many. But according to Greenspan Federal Reserve Board dogma, there just may not be enough out-of-work Americans. Now, by contrast, Federal law sets a goal of unemployment at 4 percent, a goal of 4 percent unemployment. Of course, I do not think anyone has all the answers, but it is time we started using some plain common sense for some positive changes. The first step to getting back on the right track is to set our sights on a higher rate of economic growth and a lower rate of unemployment. And the key to this is to lower interest rates and keep them as low as reasonably possible. Under new leadership, we could look forward to more growth, to lower unemployment. But I daresay not under Alan Greenspan. His feet are planted firmly in the past. What about the fear of inflation? Well, we cannot perfectly predict the future or rule out a rise in inflation sometime in the future, so we have to continue to be vigilant and well-prepared. But most forecasts are for continued low inflation. Our economy is much more global and open to worldwide competition. We have a new culture of mass discounting in retailing, cost efficiency in manufacturing, some pretty ruthless economies in almost every branch of trade. We have rapid technological changes, especially in computers, which are playing a role, allowing for lower cost replacements for goods whose costs rise. Oil supplies are high, relative to current demand. Well, what all of this really means is that we can now have fuller employment without inflation--allowing our workers to fully benefit from their higher productivity with higher incomes--that is, if we push for fuller employment through our monetary policy. That is where it has to come from. Real growth to strengthen our economy is essential. Over the last 20 years, our economic growth has fallen by about one-third over what it was previously. That huge drop in our economic growth has cost our economy in the neighborhood of $14 trillion. What that means is stagnant incomes for average families, higher unemployment, and a lower quality of life in America. Mr. President, I have an article that appeared last year, but I thought it summed it up pretty well. Patrick Gaughan, Director of the New Jersey Economic Research Center said: We blame Alan Greenspan. Seven interest rate increases are taking their toll. Greenspan's statistics represent picking up effects that are apparent in day-to-day living. People listed as employed are working part-time jobs without benefits. If you lost a six-figure job and got one back at $30,000, you are treated the same in unemployment rates. He goes on to say that he thinks the Fed is preoccupied with inflation: Whether inflation goes up 1 or 2 percent is far more important in the eyes of Greenspan than whether a person has a full-time versus a part-time job. The average person cares more about having a full-time job than he does about paying a nickel more for a loaf of bread. The Federal Reserve has gotten so insulated it doesn't realize these things. Let me say that last sentence again: ``The Federal Reserve has gotten so insulated it doesn't realize these things.'' He is not the only one that has been critical. Jerry Jasinowski, head of the National Association of Manufacturers said: The Fed is fundamentally misreading the American economy. They ought to get out from behind their desks and see what is really happening in plants and on factory floors. So it seems, Mr. President, that serious questions are not being raised and being asked about the leadership of the Fed under Alan Greenspan. I am not here to say that Mr. Greenspan is not a good and decent man, and I am sure he wants what is best for his country. I am just saying that his economic theories and his approach are out of date. Maybe some time in the past, but not for today's economy. Not for the rapid changes that are taking place in the world, for American workers whose incomes are stagnant and who need to have their incomes raised, because they can have higher productivity. We can have greater growth in this country than 1 percent or 2 percent, and we can have this growth without the fear of inflation. As I said, Mr. President, I will repeat, over the last 20 years, our rate of economic growth has fallen by a third over what it was previously. That has cost us $14 trillion. That has an impact on average families on unemployment, lower jobs, lower quality of jobs, lower income. The chairmanship of the Federal Reserve is up soon, next month, I believe. Mr. President, it is time for a change. President Clinton has the opportunity to bring about positive change by bringing in new vision and new leadership to this position. America needs a forward- looking Fed Chairman who recognizes the importance of expanding opportunities for our economy and our people in today's global market. We need strong leadership, committed to higher growth and higher incomes, fuller employment, and lower, more stable interest rates, to improve the quality of life for average Americans. Mr. President, Alan Greenspan's time has passed. It is time for new leadership at the Fed. Mr. President, I have an article here that appeared in the International Economy in November-December 1995, by William Greider. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. As I said, Mr. President, I will be discussing this issue at greater length in the days and weeks to come. I guess we are on recess now. I guess the Senate will be in again later this week and I guess next week. I do not know when. But I hope to take some more time on the Senate floor to discuss the Federal Reserve System and why what they are doing and the course of action they are taking is not consistent with the real world. It is what is happening in the global economy, with what is happening to real competition, with what is happening to the need, and not only the need, but the possibility of real economic growth in this country. The growth rate that seems to be acceptable to Mr. Greenspan I do not believe is acceptable to the rest of this country. From February 1994 to February 1995 under Chairman Greenspan interest rates were raised seven times--seven times in 1 year, three percentage points. It went from 3 percent to 6 percent in the year that ended in February 1995. Now, we do have to be vigilant about keeping inflation in check. But even Mr. Greenspan said there was no inflation. Inflation has not been threatening, certainly not in the last year, Mr. President. But you would think if that is the case, interest rates would come down. But since February of last year, the Fed has lowered interest rates only three-quarters of a point. So he can raise interest rates 3 percent in 1 year, but in the next year he can only lower them three-quarters of a point. The recent small reductions may make people feel a little good. But they are still not down to where they were in February 1994. I find it more than passing strange that interest rates can go up 3 percent in a year but they can only come down three-quarters of a point in the following year when there is no inflation threatening at all. I think it is very important to talk about this because of the significant impact it has on our economy and the income of average Americans. I know there are other Senators who feel as I do. I know that Senator Dorgan also wants to take the floor to speak about this issue and about the need for a new policy, for new policy directions at the Federal Reserve System. Mr. President, I wanted to take the floor to alert my colleagues that I will be putting more information in the Record and I will be discussing this at length in the days and weeks to come. As I said, I certainly hope that President Clinton will see the necessity for new leadership, and through guidance at the Federal Reserve System, appoint someone with a new vision, someone with new vigor and energy who understands the real world as it is out there and who is not just locked into outdated, outmoded and time-worn economic philosophies that have no bearing or no real relationship to the real world as we see it today. I am publicly calling on President Clinton to bring new leadership to the Federal Reserve System next month. I yield the floor.