[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today the Federal Reserve Board will meet,
as always, in secret. These folks, I am sure well dressed, will go into
their room, close the door, shut out the light, shut out the public,
and make a decision that will affect every single American. Their
decision is how high will interest rates go. Some predict today they
will increase interest rates once again. If they do, it will be another
wrongheaded mistake by the Federal Reserve Board.
I have here today a letter I received 2 days ago from the Chairman of
the Federal Reserve Board, Mr. Alan Greenspan. In this lengthy,
fascinating letter, Mr. Greenspan explains to me, as a result of my
complaints, why the Federal Reserve Board has chosen to put the brakes
on the American economy; why they have decided to increase interest
rates in order to fight what is some perceived inflation threat.
I do not intend to share this letter with my colleagues at this
point. But sufficient to say, I will come to the floor later today to,
I hope, applaud the restraint of the Federal Reserve Board if they meet
and decide not to increase interest rates today. But, if not, to
severely criticize the Federal Reserve Board for making yet another
mistake in trying to apply the brakes on the American economy, exactly
when the American economy needs more propellant, more opportunity, more
growth to create more jobs.
There is not over the horizon the threat of inflation. The Producer
Price Index last week showed a 0.1 percent decrease, not an increase;
the Consumer Price Index showed a 0.1 percent increase--very modest--
indices of producer and consumer prices. There is simply not the threat
that the Federal Reserve Board describes.
I hope today when the Federal Reserve Board meets it will consider
the interests of the producers in this country, the people who woke up
this morning to go to a business they started and they created, a
business where they risk their money to open the doors, a business
where they have invested their everything to try to make a living and
they find they confront a monetary policy that is wrongheaded. This
monetary policy, plain and simple, is a monetary policy that
accommodates the financial money center banks, the financial interests
in this country, but in my judgment is a monetary policy that injures
the economic interests of producers in this country--it injures them at
exactly the wrong time.
So I hope when I come to the floor later today it is to compliment
the Fed rather than criticize them, but I am fully prepared, if the
Federal Reserve Board increases interest rates once again this
afternoon, to come to the floor to describe why I think the Federal
Reserve Board is wrong and why I think their actions hurt this country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The presence of a quorum having been
questioned, the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Was the leaders' time reserved, Mr. President?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has been reserved.
NPR's Death Row Commentaries
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 2 years ago, when Congress passed
legislation reauthorizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we
passed a reform amendment strengthening the longstanding requirement
that taxpayer-subsidized public broadcasting offer objectivity and
balance in its programming. Events during the past several days,
despite a positive outcome, raise questions about public broadcasting's
commitment.
Yesterday, taxpayer-supported National Public Radio was scheduled to
start running commentaries by a convicted killer on death row. The
commentator was to be Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of the cold-blooded
murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.
Taxpayer-subsidized NPR was to pay Abu-Jamal, the founder and former
information minister of the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panthers,
$150 per commentary.
NPR argued that the Abu-Jamal commentaries would bring a ``unique
perspective'' to public radio's coverage of crime and punishment. That
one-sided ``unique perspective'' argument offered little comfort to the
law enforcement community, the victims of crime, or the American
taxpayer pumping money into the public broadcasting system.
Officer Michael Lutz, President of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order
of Police, argued:
I was under the impression he was supposed to be punished.
This man is a cold-blooded killer whose appeals went to the
highest court in the land, and he's getting a radio show out
of the deal. It's not fair to the family of the slain officer
* * *.
Philip Jenkins, a professor of history and criminal justice at Penn
State University, added that Abu-Jamal is
Somebody with a heavily political motive. Somebody like
this will attract the more emotional, intellectual following,
and with someone on death row, the chances of getting some
kind of pardon are higher.
I am all for diversity on the airwaves, but these commentaries would
have sent the wrong message at the wrong time. The last time I checked,
we were trying to fight crime, not promote the fortunes of convicted
murderers through taxpayer-supported public broadcasting.
After the justifiable public uproar about NPR's unique commentary
plan, the taxpayer-subsidized radio network did the right thing, and
Sunday canceled the death row commentaries. In announcing the about-
face, NPR Managing Editor Bruce Drake conceded ``serious misgivings''
about the appropriateness of the commentaries, admitting ``We had not
arranged for other commentaries or coverage on the subject of crime,
violence, and punishment that provided context or contrasting points of
view.''
I applaud NPR's candor in admitting its mistake. However, it is
disturbing that NPR had apparently forgotten until the last minute the
need to provide the balance and objectivity required in its
programming, and did not wake up until Abu-Jamal had reportedly
recorded at least 10 commentaries and the public got wind of the
venture.
We all know that this is sort of bizarre. I cannot believe it
happened, but it did happen, using taxpayers' money to subsidize
National Public Radio. I think it is time that we take a look at it
again, and again, and again, because who knows what is happening.
Mr. President, this episode raises sobering questions, not only for
NPR, but for the taxpayer-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
which has oversight authority over NPR and provides much of its
funding.
When it comes to public broadcasting, American taxpayers should get
the balance and objectivity they are paying for. In this case, the
public uproar helped pull the plug just in time. How can we be certain
similar mistakes will be averted in the future? One way we can make
certain is to have closer oversight by the Congress. We are giving
hundreds of millions of dollars so they can go out and subsidize
programs. Some are very good, some are good, some are mixed, and some
are terrible. I attempted to raise this question a couple of years ago
and was roundly criticized by most everyone in public broadcasting.
It seems to me that Congress has a great deal of responsibility when
it comes to taking taxpayers' money from the State of Kansas, from the
State of West Virginia, or from anywhere else, and even thinking about
putting it into some program where somebody on death row, a convicted
cop killer, would be profiting from his commentary. I did not believe
it when I first read it, but I confirmed that it was true.
I am pleased that the program is canceled. But I think we need to be
on the alert because those who probably thought up this idea will
probably be thinking up some others that could be just as harmful and
just as bad.
____________________